Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, H.R. 3293.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank D. Lucas

Bill Number: H.R. 3293

Account: Elementary & Secondary Education (includes FIE)

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Southwestern Oklahoma State University

Address of Requesting Entity: 100 Campus Drive, Weatherford, Oklahoma 73096, USA

Description of Request: I received $350,000 for Southwestern Oklahoma State College. The funding for this project will be used to purchase equipment for the Industrial and Engineering Technology Department at Southwestern Oklahoma State College. This equipment will ensure that the program is technologically current and maintains a high quality of education. In addition, it enables the program to continue to strengthen Oklahoma's industrial and engineering technology workforce.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank D. Lucas

Bill Number: H.R. 3293

Account: Elementary & Secondary Education (includes FIE)

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Western Oklahoma State College

Address of Requesting Entity: 2801 N Main St., Altus, Oklahoma 73521,

Mr. Speaker, an uneven playing field already exists between large financial institutions and smaller community banks. Rather than working to close that gap, however, President Obama has decided to further our community bankers' burdens with his Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

Under this new agency, community banks that have continued to provide a reliable source of credit to their customers will be saddled with additional costs and regulations that could potentially drive many out of business. In addition, these increased costs will be passed along to consumers in the form of higher bank fees and less availability of credit. So, exactly how is this supposed to help our current financial crisis?

It appears as though, once again, this administration plans to force Main Street to pay for the mistakes made on Wall Street as they continue to follow their financial policy of ``too big to fail, too small to matter.''

Reform is needed within our financial system, but that reform cannot sacrifice the health of our small financial institutions.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, H.R. 3288.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank D. Lucas

Bill Number: HR 3288

Account: Federal Highway Administration, Transportation & Community & System Preservation

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Clinton

Address of Requesting Entity: 415 Gary Blvd., Clinton, Oklahoma 73601

Description of Request: I received $400,000 for the City of Clinton to reconstruct Chapman Road. The location of this project is between sections 22 and 27 of T12N, R17W Custer County Oklahoma and west of Neptune Dr. and east of 28th St. in Clinton, OK. This funding will be used to improve Chapman Road to modern day standards so that is can better serve the citizens that use the road daily as well as provide a safer roadway to visitors. The improvements needed include the acquisition of seven feet of right-of-way, clearing ditch and channel drainage runoff areas, reconstructing a portion of the roadway adversely affected by storm water runoff, resurfacing the remaining portion to meet both current and future traffic demands, installing roadway lighting, and installing traffic control and directional signs.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank D. Lucas

Bill Number: HR 3288

Account: Federal Highway Administration, Transportation & Community & System Preservation

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Oklahoma Department of Transportation

Address of Requesting Entity: 200 NE 21st Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

Description of Request: I received $400,000 for the Oklahoma Department of Transportation to widen US 60 between Bartlesville and Pawhuska in Osage County, Oklahoma. The project will reconstruct the existing two lane US 60 to an adequate two lane facility with shoulders, adequate bridge load-bearing capacity, and corrected substandard geometric features (hills and curves) from the US/SH99 intersection north of Pawhuska eastward approximately 16 miles. Increased safety will result with the addition of adequate lane widths, shoulders, bridges and improved sight distances.

Madam Speaker pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of

H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank D. Lucas

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Account: Construction

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Oklahoma Water Resources Board

Address of Requesting Entity: 3800 North Classen Boulevard, Oklahoma City, OK 73118

Description of Request: I have received $800,000 for the Red River Basin Chloride Control project. This improvement project is designed to control natural chloride brine emissions at three major source areas to improve water quality for municipal, industrial, and agricultural use. Improvements include construction of low flow dams, pump stations, and diversion pipelines to a brine reservoir. The state of Oklahoma expressed a renewed interest in the Area VI element of the project and supports the Area VI reevaluation efforts underway. Area VI is located on the Elm Fork of the North Fork of the Red River in Greer County, Oklahoma.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank D. Lucas

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Account: EERE

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Oklahoma State University

Address of Requesting Entity: 101 Whitehurst, Stillwater, Oklahoma,

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2997, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank D. Lucas

Bill Number: H.R. 2997

Account: Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service, Research and Education

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Oklahoma State University

Address of Requesting Entity: 101 Whitehurst, Stillwater, Oklahoma,

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Waxman-Markey bill promises to destroy our standard of living and the quality of life with higher energy costs, higher food prices, and lost jobs. The bill is the single largest economic threat to our farmers and ranchers in decades. We have more than 115 agricultural and food groups who publicly oppose this bill as of today, and I ask that the list be entered in the Record.

Do you know why? The greatest threat to our agricultural producers is ignored. Under H.R. 2454, input costs will escalate as a direct result of the energy tax. Meanwhile, the markets for their crops will shrink because of foreign competitors whose governments will not place burdens on their farmers. They will be able to undersell us.

And what about the billions of dollars annually that farmers are supposed to garner selling offset credits? Many farmers will not be able to participate. Soil sequestration of carbon was going to be the way for farmers to generate credits, but if the producer started soil tillage practices before 2001, they will be ineligible to participate.

The amendment does not exempt agriculture from performance standards in the bill, which means the EPA could tell our producers how to manage their farms.

This bill will tax you. This bill will destroy the livelihoods of those who live and work in rural America, those who work every day to consistently provide our Nation and the world with a safe, affordable, abundant food and fiber supply. Agriculture sits squarely in the crosshairs of this bill because it is energy intensive. Whether it is the fuel for the tractor, the fertilizer for the crops, or the delivery of food to the grocery store, agriculture uses a great deal of energy throughout production and processing.

Although USDA hasn't devoted any time or resources to complete an economic analysis of how this bill will impact farmers, the Heritage Foundation has. A recent study from the Heritage Foundation revealed that by the year 2035, the average net income for farms will be decreased by 57 percent. And also by 2035, gasoline and diesel costs are expected to be 58 percent higher and electric rates 90 percent higher. For example, residents in Oklahoma can expect their electric rates to increase by $300 million.

So why are we doing this bill? So the U.S. can lead on climate change in the world? We can lead when China and India have refused to participate? We can lead when Europe is willing to do half of what this bill calls for? We can lead when the rest of the developing world is unable to do anything at all about climate change?

Some of my idealistic colleagues will say we have to set a standard for the rest of the world. But I say I will not make any constituents poor--poorer--so that others can get richer at our expense. My friends, this is the wrong bill at the wrong time for the wrong reason.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for 2 minutes.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Madam Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) for 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I wish to recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) for 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Madam Speaker, once again I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

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

Madam Speaker, my fellow Members, let me rise to conclude the House Agriculture Republican portion of this discussion this evening and remind my colleagues one more time that this bill has a tremendous effect on rural America and production agriculture. When 115 farm groups send in letters, and food groups, expressing their opposition to the bill, that says something, 115 groups.

Madam Speaker, I submit a list of these groups for the Record.

Agriculture Groups Oppose to Waxman-Markey--as of June 26,

2009

1. Agribusiness Association of Iowa

2. Agricultural Retailers Association

3. Agrium Inc.

4. Alabama Farmers Federation

5. American Agri-Women

6. American Farm Bureau Association

7. American Farmers & Ranchers

8. American Feed Industry Association

9. American Frozen Food Institute

10. American Meat Institute

11. American Plant Food Corporation

12. AmeriFlax

13. Associated Industries of Florida

14. Beck' Superior Hybrids

15. Brandt Consolidated

16. CF Industries

17. Chemical Industry Council of Illinois

18. CHS Inc.

19. Corn Producers Association of Texas

20. D.B. Western, Inc.

21. Far West Agribusiness Association

22. Florida Chamber of Commerce

23. Florida Farm Bureau Federation

24. Florida Fertilizer & Agrichemical Association

25. Florida Strawberry Growers Association

26. Food Industry Environmental Council

27. GROWMARK

28. Hardee County Farm Bureau (FL)

29. Hillsborough County Farm Bureau (FL)

30. Illinois Farm Bureau

31. Illinois Fertilizer & Chemical Association

32. Indiana Beef Cattle Association

33. Indiana Farm Bureau

34. Indiana Grain & Feed Association

35. Indiana Office of Energy Development

36. Indiana Plant Food & Ag Chemicals Association

37. Indiana Pork Producers Association

38. Indiana Professional Dairy Producers

39. Indiana State Department of Agriculture

40. Indiana State Poultry Association

41. Institute for Shortening and Edible Oils

42. International Raw Materials, Ltd.

43. J.R. Simplot Company

44. Kansas Agribusiness Retailers Association

45. Kansas Grain and Feed Association

46. Minnesota Agri-Growth Council

47. Minnesota Corn Growers Association

48. Minnesota Crop Production Retailers

49. Missouri Agribusiness Association

50. Missouri Farm Bureau

51. Montana Agricultural Business Association

52. National Cattlemen's Beef Association

53. National Chicken Council

54. National Grain and Feed Association

55. National Grange

56. National Meat Association

57. National Oilseed Processors Association

58. National Pork Producers Council

59. National Turkey Federation

60. Nebraska Farm Bureau

61. NCRA

62. Nebraska Agri-Business Association

63. New Mexico Peanut Growers Association

64. North American Millers Association

65. North Carolina Peanut Growers Association

66. North Dakota Agricultural Association

67. North Dakota Barley Council

68. North Dakota Farm Bureau

69. North Dakota Grain Dealers Association

70. North Dakota Grain Growers Association

71. North Dakota Soybean Growers Association

72. North Dakota Stockmen's Association

73. North Dakota Wheat Commission

74. Northern Canola Growers Association

75. Northern Pulse Growers Association

76. Ohio Corn Growers Association

77. Ohio Farm Bureau

78. Ohio Poultry Association

79. Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives, Inc.

80. Ohio Wheat Growers Association

81. Oklahoma Ag Retailers Association

82. Oklahoma Grain & Feed Association

83. Oklahoma Peanut Commission

84. Oklahoma Seed Trade Association

85. Oklahoma Wheat Growers Association

86. Panhandle Peanut Growers Association

87. Peace River Valley Citrus Growers Association

88. Peanut Growers Cooperative Marketing Association

89. Polk County Farm Bureau (FL)

90. PotashCorp

91. Rocky Mountain Agribusiness Association

92. Sarasota County Farm Bureau (FL)

93. Society of American Florists

94. South Carolina Fertilizer & Agrichemicals Association

95. South Carolina Peanut Growers Association

96. South Dakota Agri-Business Association

97. South Dakota Farm Bureau

98. South Dakota Grain & Feed Association

99. Southern Crop Production Association

100. Southwest Council of Agribusiness

101. Terra Industries Inc.

102. Texas Agricultural Cooperative Council

103. Texas Cattle Feeders Association

104. Texas Farm Bureau

105. Texas Grain & Feed Association

106. Texas Peanut Producers Board

107. Texas Sheep & Goat Raisers Association

108. Texas Wheat Producers Association

109. The Andersons, Inc.

110. The Fertilizer Institute

111. The McGregor Company

112. Todd Staples, Commissioner, Texas Department of

Agriculture

113. Tom Farms (Kip Tom, CEO)

114. United Egg Producers

115. USA Rice Federation

116. Virginia Peanut Growers Association

117. W.B. Johnston Grain Co.

118. Western Peanut Growers Association

119. Western Plant Health Association

120. Wyoming Stock Growers Association

Madam Speaker, I would also be remiss if I didn't express my appreciation and the appreciation of my colleagues on the Republican side of the Agriculture Committee to Chairman Peterson. He made, we believe, good-faith efforts with Chairman Waxman to try to correct the worst features of this bill. Unfortunately, good faith in the legislative process doesn't always cure every problem.

The fundamental underlying issue still is this bill will raise the cost of energy for production agriculture, an energy-intensive business. It will reduce our competitiveness with our competitors around the world, South America, Asia, Europe. But look at the way the so-called grand compromise on agriculture was put together. ``Compromise'' is a phrase used in one of the electronic publications this morning.

Indirect land use, where an agency of the Federal Government can determine how your corn farm or your wheat farm affects farms on other continents and tell you to change the way you do your business? Now, I know the bill says that can't happen for 5 years, and we will have a study and a moratorium for another year. But 6 years from now, 6 years from now, it comes at us like a brick bat.

The section of the bill talking about farms being able to be rewarded for good stewardship, carbon sequestration and those kinds of matters, the bill

says the amendment adopted, the practices can only be rewarded if they began after 2001. You heard my friend from Iowa talk about the percentage of corn farmers who adopted those good practices before 2001.

How do you explain to the folks back home that the good farmers, the good stewards, don't get anything, but the bad farmers who waited until they were shamed or embarrassed into adopting the best practices get rewarded?

Renewable fuel. Yes, we protect facilities that were under construction or have been completed or in production in 2007 and before, but that doesn't apply to everything since then. If you have got a mature ethanol plant, you are in good shape. But does that mean no one else can build an ethanol plant?

We, on the minority side of the Ag Committee, view ourselves as the conscience of the body. We have a responsibility to defend rural America and production agriculture. We thank Chairman Peterson for what he tried to accomplish, but we believe it is not enough to protect the future of farming and ranching and the folks out in rural America. That's why we have to be united in our opposition against this bill.

I am a farmer by trade. I may not always be a Member of this body, but I am going home to Oklahoma. I can't vote for this and go home to Oklahoma.

The Waxman-Markey bill is one of the most monumental bills that this Congress will consider. It has the potential to permanently damage the standard of living for every man, woman, and child for decades to come. Yet Speaker Pelosi and the administration want to force this bill through Congress.

This bill will tax you. It creates a massive national energy tax that will be devastating to those who live and work in rural America. It promises higher energy costs, lost jobs and higher food prices. This bill will affect all of us. If you like being warm in the winter, if you like being cool in the summer, if you own a farm or a small business, if you like to eat, if you like to go anywhere, this bill will affect you.

Agriculture is squarely in the crosshairs of this bill because it is energy intensive. That is why 40 agricultural groups, including the American Farm Bureau, have expressed opposition to it. No large farm group has endorsed it.

A 1,000-page bill of this magnitude deserves thoughtful consideration and debate. Instead, Speaker Pelosi is rushing it through Congress to the detriment of all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I am appalled at the blatant disregard for the public policy process. What kind of trick is being played out on the American people when half of H.R. 1256--the half that pays for FDA legislation--comes on suspension of the rules and the other half, the part that burdens American companies with more taxes and regulation, comes under a closed rule?

This bill gives FDA broad statutory authority to regulate the manufacturing, distribution, advertising, promotion, sale, and use of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. And, it will ultimately result in FDA being on the farm micromanaging our farmers.

FDA has clearly proven it is severely overburdened with its current authority. Just look to the recent examples of salmonella found in peanut and pistachio products. Why would we give a huge new expansion of authority to an agency that has proven it can't handle the load it has? Can you honestly tell the American people to have confidence in the FDA to protect them?

How will this new authority be paid for? New taxes, of course. The bill taxes companies and importers to pay for the cost of regulation. The bill sets the amount of the assessments each year, which will increase to $712 million per year.

Also, this bill calls for using funds from the Thrift Savings Plan. Do we really want to use the savings portion of the bill to pay for more Washington bureaucracy?

Tobacco producers, small convenience stores, and tobacco warehouseman, which are the backbones of commerce across poor and rural districts, will be put out of business under this bill.

And, farmers--beware--FDA will come directly on your farm and tell you how to operate. Producers will bear the brunt of this legislation. FDA will tell producers what type of seeds they can plant, the methods in which they cultivate those seeds, the records they must keep and on and on and on.

I ask for a ``no'' vote on this classic tax and regulate bill.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to this legislation.

Many of my colleagues today have made excellent points about the real effect of this legislation. This legislation will most certainly not help those who it is designed to help. It will drive up the cost of loans, limit the number of loans that can be made, raise interest rates, and increase opportunities for abuse in the bankruptcy system.

I want to focus the House today on another important problem that has not been discussed: how the bankruptcy laws and the accounting rules and treatments combine to do potentially substantial and lasting damage to the financial system.

Under existing accounting rules, any bankruptcy loss may be considered an indication of impairment. The term that is used by accountants is ``other than temporarily impaired'', or ``OTTI''. I want to make sure that the House understands the consequences of this problem in the real world. Even if a company took a small bankruptcy loss on one of the residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) that it owns, the amount of loss that would be recognized in that company's income statement is a full writedown to deeply depressed market values, not just the amount deemed to be a bankruptcy. Any loss of principal, current or future, requires this treatment no matter what term is used to describe the loss. If a judge can adjust principal, then a significant detrimental impact to the company will automatically follow.

The House must clearly understand that the losses which would be recognized by financial institutions in this situation are far greater than the amount of the bankruptcy losses. Any RMBS holder will have to record these losses in the same manner, and so the threat of bankruptcy ``cramdowns'' casts a huge shadow across the entire financial services industry. For example, if a company owns five million dollars ($5,000,000) in RMBS with a current market value of $2,500,000, and there is a bankruptcy loss per the judge of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000 economic loss) to the preferred RMBS tranche, the required financial statement loss under existing accounting rules would be two million five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000). In this example, accounting rules require booking the financial statement loss at fifty times the actual economic loss.

This is a stark, but true, statement of the horrific impact that existing accounting rules are likely to have on the financial services industry in the event this legislation becomes law. It would only take a few of these kinds of losses to destroy the current year operating positions of any company and greatly impact its overall capital position.

This means that the cramdown legislation the House considers today carries with it a virus that threatens to consume significant parts of the financial services industry, particularly any company that is a significant holder of RMBS. The Majority either does not understand, or has chosen not to deal with, this significant and looming problem. Likewise, there is a lack of understanding about the major role that accounting rules and treatments play in it. I earnestly hope that our colleagues in the other body will address this issue squarely, and understand that cramdown without accounting reform and strict limitations on the discretion of bankruptcy judges has the potential to create significant and unanticipated collateral damage to our financial system, as well as loss of credibility with financial services industry customers and widespread negative ratings from all rating agencies.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of FY 2009 Omnibus.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank D. Lucas

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service, Research and Education

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Oklahoma State University

Address of Requesting Entity: 101 Whitehurst, Stillwater, Oklahoma,

Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

Title: Earmark Declaration.

Requesting Member: Congressman Frank Lucas.

Date: September 29, 2008.

Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2638.

Account: Defense-wide, RDT&E.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Oklahoma State University.

Address of Requesting Entity: 101 Whitehurst, Stillwater, Oklahoma,

Mr. Speaker, I come before you today to address the majority's so-called energy package. I find the name odd, considering it contains almost no energy provisions. Instead, it serves as political cover, an empty offering to the American people before the November elections. After all, it contains no language to build new nuclear power plants or oil refineries. And while it claims to allow offshore drilling, it actually keeps 88 percent of offshore oil reserves under lock and key.

The American people want real action and meaningful solutions that include an increase in American-produced energy. The American Energy Act, on the other hand, will open all of our vast natural resources, allowing oil exploration offshore and in ANWR. It assists in the building of new oil refineries and nuclear power plants, and extends the tax credits to encourage more investment and research into wind and solar energy.

This is the all-of-the-above energy solution that the American people have been asking for. I implore my colleagues to listen to the American people. Bring the real energy bill to the floor for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today in support of H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act, an all-of-the-above plan that tackles the current energy crisis we are facing in this country. A well-known Oklahoman has recently alerted us to the fact that we spend $700 billion a year on foreign oil. That is $700 billion. That number is staggering and should be enough for any American to sit up and take notice and know that something has to change.

The American Energy Act paves the way to decrease our reliance on foreign oil by increasing the production of American-made energy. It not only allows for oil exploration both in the Arctic coastal plain and offshore, a move that 73 percent of Americans support, according to the latest CNN poll. It also eliminates the obstacle to the construction of new oil refineries and nuclear power plants.

Now, we all know that increased production of traditional forms of energy, such as oil and natural gas, is only the first step. The American Energy Act also addresses the future of American-made energy by promoting research and development of renewable and alternative energy sources.

One of the best components of this bill is the permanent extension of the tax credit for alternative energy production. Oklahoma is the ninth largest producer of wind energy, and we look forward to continued growth in that industry. I know that extending the production tax credit on wind energy will send the right message to wind producers that the American government is ready to work with them to expand upon this already successful alternative energy source.

The Speaker recently was quoted as saying that her refusal to bring legislation aimed at increasing American energy to the floor for a vote was an effort to ``save the planet.'' While I appreciate the gentlewoman from California's feelings that she has a moral obligation to promote conservation, what about her obligation to the American people, living here and now, who are forced to choose between driving to work and putting food on the dinner table?

It's irresponsible to adjourn for 5 weeks without passing a meaningful legislation to reduce the skyrocketing gas prices Americans are forced to pay. Now is the time for America to take its place in the forefront of energy development by utilizing the vast natural resources we have in this country.

I ask all of my colleagues today, stand up, demand a vote on the American Energy Act. Do something for our folks back home.

Thank you, Congressman Boren.

Clem McSpadden was a child of the Great Depression. He was a veteran of the Second World War, a 1948 graduate of Oklahoma State University, an 18-year veteran of the State Senate of Oklahoma, and 2 years in this body. The tales, the stories, the insight, the history of all those institutions that he was a part of, he was a walking, living legacy.

Maybe I should put it this way: This Chamber was graced that Clem was a Member of this body for 2 years. We in Oklahoma are graced that Clem was a member of our State for 82 years. He will be missed. He will be missed.

With that I yield back to his successor in the Second District of Oklahoma, Congressman Boren.

Madam Speaker, due to higher fuel costs, the two largest utility companies in Oklahoma recently announced a monthly rate increase of $16 on average, with more increases expected this fall. This is just the latest example of how the pain at the pump is spreading to the other necessities of life. This added expense for fuel in business is being passed along to consumers, who are now being hit with a double dose of soaring prices.

However, when given the opportunity to pass meaningful energy legislation, this majority has chosen to introduce the ``Bus Fares for Bureaucrats'' bill, which will spend $1.7 billion in tax revenues to reduce fares in public transportation systems. While I'm sure this will benefit the bureaucrats in D.C. who write these laws, I'm more concerned about the farmers in western Oklahoma, where there is no public transportation system to speak of.

As of today, my constituents are paying upwards of $4 a gallon for gasoline to fill their cars and $4.66 a gallon for diesel to fill their tractors and trucks. Are we to tell them that they not only have to pay higher prices for gas and electricity but that now they have to subsidize people in big cities with the luxury of access to public transportation?

As long as demand continues to rise, the price for oil will continue to climb without increasing supply. The answer to this problem is clear: We must increase our domestic supply of oil by allowing the exploration of new oil reserves and by increasing the capacity of our refineries.

A recent Los Angeles Times Bloomberg poll stated that 68 percent of registered voters support opening up more land for oil and gas drilling, including off the Nation's coast. It's time for this majority to start listening to the demands of the American people and to open up more land for oil exploration.

It's also necessary to encourage the development of alternative energy, such as wind or nuclear power. Oklahoma is currently the number nine generator of wind power in this country, producing 689 megawatts per year. There are other States that have the potential to produce more wind power than that but that choose not to install wind turbines because they consider them unsightly.

However, I guarantee you that any Oklahoma wheat farmer who earns money from both his crops and the wind turbines on his land will tell you his wind turbines are beautiful.

Right now, America produces 20 percent of its energy needs from nuclear power while France produces 78 percent, 78 percent. That's 78 percent less energy they need to import from other countries. So, not only are they able to produce more than three-quarters of their electricity needs in France, they are able to do so in a clean, efficient manner with minimal harmful emissions.

This leads me to my most important point. If electricity that lights your house or the gas that powers your car is produced in America, new jobs are created, and we are becoming less dependent on foreign oil. It's time for America to get back in the business of energy production. I urge my colleagues to sign the discharge petition on H.R. 5656, ``To Repeal the Ban on Acquiring Alternative Fuels Act,'' so we can bring this essential piece of legislation to the House floor for a vote. The rising cost of gasoline is the single biggest challenge we face in this country, as every American who has been to the pump in the last few months knows, and it's time for Congress to rise to the challenge to come up with real solutions.