Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today I rise along with the city of Savannah in congratulating the Armstrong Atlantic State University's men's and women's tennis teams. Both squads were named National Champions in the 2008 NCAA Division II Tennis Tournament held on May 17th in Houston, Texas.

It is rare for one university to obtain two national titles in the same season much less the same sport, but the Pirates managed to accomplish this feat. Brigham Young University was the last school to achieve such success in 2003.

The Lady Pirates beat Lynn University of Boca Raton, Florida, to achieve their fourth National Championship. The undefeated Men's team swept Barry University of Miami Shores, Florida, earning the University its first ever NCAA title in Men's athletics.

Both teams are coached by Simon Earnshaw.

I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Armstrong Atlantic State University's Men and Women's Tennis Teams for their remarkable accomplishments, and Go Pirates!

Women's 2007-2008 Roster:

Martina Beckmann, Sophomore, Bonn, Germany; Johanna Dahlback, Senior, Hasselby, Sweden; Sofia Haggstrom, Senior, Taby, Sweden; Alisa Kagukina, Sophomore, Nikolayev, Ukraine; Gabriella Kovacs, Sophomore, Szazhalombatta, Hungary; Alida Mueller-Wehlau, Freshman, Flensburg, Germany; Iuliia Stupak, Senior, Kiev, Ukraine.

Assistant Coach--David Secker, Volunteer Assistant Coach--Zsofia Golopencza.

Men's 2007-2008 Roster:

Rafael Array, Freshman, Las Palmas de Gran Canakia, Spain; Christian Bergh, Sophomore, Oslo, Norway; Paul Bishop, Junior, Whitwell, England; Robert Jendelund, Senior, Huddinge, Sweden; Tim Johannsen, Freshmen, Hohenlockstedt, Germany; Kevin Sijmons, Junior, Beligneux, France; Davor Zink, Senior, Santiago, Chile.

Assistant Coach--David Secker.

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.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to hear the Democrats flail around for reasons that they won't put energy issues on the floor. I agree with the preceding speaker. Let's talk about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Let's talk about offshore drilling. We haven't moved a single appropriation bill because of the fear that we may have an amendment on offshore drilling.

Now the President has lifted his ban, and what we hear from the Democrats is it will take 10 years, it will take 20 years. It means two things: number one, they agree there's oil out there; number two, there's a discussion about how long it will take.

But my question to them is where are your electric cars? Where are your hybrids that suddenly are going to save us? Those are also going to be 10 years down the road.

We need to put it all on the table. We need to look at conservation, we need to look at alternative energy, and we need to drill. It is that simple. You have got to have a three-legged stool to answer the energy situation. And I don't know why the Speaker of the House is afraid to put it on the floor. That is right. There will not be a debate on it because the Democrats are afraid to put it on the floor.

I say let's have an up-or-down vote on all of these issues.

Mr. Speaker, you know one thing that this Congress is not doing is sitting down and really trying to figure out where the Democrats and the Republicans agree on this energy challenge. Eliot Engel and I 2 years ago sat down and wrote a bill called the DRIVE Act. We left off drilling and we left off cafe standards; and we asked, what is it that builds the most consensus?

That bill takes us off of Mid East oil by the year 2025. It is something that should come to the floor. It makes sense. It has a lot of commonsense things, like ending the tariff on imported Brazilian surplus ethanol.

Think about that for a minute. Brazil has surplus ethanol that they are ready to sell to us right now, and we have a tariff on it. It is absurd. That is just one component of the DRIVE Act that makes sense. And I request that we bring this bill to the floor of the House for a good bipartisan debate and hopefully a good bipartisan passage.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Conner Hall, The University of Georgia's College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences administrative building, on its 100th anniversary. Initially comprised of a single professor and only a few students, the college was a joint venture, cultivated by the University of Georgia and the Georgia legislature. Recognizing the need for agricultural education, the college became reality under UGA Chancellor Walter B. Hill and Legislator James J. Conner. Today the college has over 1,800 students enrolled in 10 departments with campuses located in Athens, Griffin, and Tifton.

This 100tth Anniversary was marked by a Centennial Celebration on April 11, 2008, on the front lawn of Conner Hall in Athens, Georgia. Alumni, friends, and special guests of the University of Georgia's College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences gathered to rededicate the building which was erected in 1908.

Construction on Conner Hall broke ground in the same year that Henry Ford introduced the Model-T. Soon afterwards, the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences released several of its own innovations. Scientists developed new equipment, including the peanut combine and the onion harvester as well as created new crop varieties, many of which have become synonymous with the State of Georgia. The college developed Georgia's green peanuts and new varieties of cotton and Bermuda grass. Indeed, one could hardly pass through the State without seeing the boiled peanut stands that line many of Georgia's two lane roads. However, the college has yielded more than just agricultural innovations. In 1918, the college was the first at the University of Georgia to accept women.

In 1941, World War II called Conner Hall, along with one-half of the college's faculty and staff into service. When the men and women of the college were serving their country, Conner Hall was home to the Navy Pre-Flight School. The building has also served as a creamery, cafeteria, a library, and radio station.

In 2003, the college accomplished a superior achievement, successfully cloning its first calf, named KC. In early 2005, KC gave birth to her second calf, named Moonshine, and the college continues to serve the State in the area of biotechnology innovation as well as food safety. I look forward to the next generation of accomplishments as I continue working with the school as it continues down its innovative path.

Advances in agricultural science have overcome the changing demographics since the early 19th century. Consider that in 1935, 6.8 million farms provided sustenance for America's 127 million citizens. Today, less than 1 million farms produce food for more than 303 million Americans. In other words, 15 percent of farms that existed in 1935 provide food for 238 percent more Americans. Such a feat could only be possible through advances in agricultural science and the many lessons studied at the University of Georgia's College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats like foreign energy. I don't know why they like foreign energy because if we are dependent on foreign energy, since we import 60 percent of it now, it is a national security risk.

You have to ask what area of land have the Democrats agreed to explore. You have to ask that question. When 62 percent of our domestic onshore energy supplies are locked up because of Democrat regulation, and 85 percent of our offshore energy supplies are locked up because of Democrat regulation, you have to ask yourself what can we do.

You know, if you started drilling in ANWR, and remember, President Clinton vetoed that 10 years ago. That would have reduced your gas prices now probably 10 to 15 cents; nobody actually knows. But what would ANWR be. Put it this way, if ANWR was a basketball court, because it is the size of South Carolina, but just to give a word picture, if it were the size of a basketball court, the drilling area would be a business card. Fanatical extremists have locked that up.

If you announced right now that we are going to start drilling in ANWR, you could get oil out of there within 3 years, according to Don Young, but the announcement alone would send a message to the foreign markets that America wants to wean itself from foreign gasoline. And, therefore, the price of energy would go down because that is how business works. When there is a little competition, your price comes down.

ANWR is the size of a business card on a basketball court.

Madam Speaker, I was privileged enough to go with a number of Congressmen two weeks ago to the Middle East and went to Saudi Arabia. We had some great meetings over there. We met with the Minister of Petroleum and many of the other people who are directly involved with the oil situation, and here is their response to us as we complained to them about the high price of gasoline. Now, keep in mind America imports 60 percent of its oil. This is what these guys said to us: ``You have the nerve and the audacity to come here, all the way to Saudi Arabia, to complain about your oil prices when you won't even drill yourself, when you won't even build refineries.''

President Bush was there a month earlier, and they increased the capacity to 300 million barrels a day. And we can't even buy it because we don't have the refineries. We've got to get our head out of the sand.

China right now, with Cuba, is drilling 45 miles off the coast of Florida. We've got to wake up and drill and use our own resources.

Will the gentleman yield?

You mean to tell me that the American middle class is continuing to suffer with record high gas prices, prices that have nearly doubled since the Democrat regime took over Congress, and we are still not dealing with it today? Is that what I am hearing from the gentleman?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and wanted to point out that yesterday we passed Soap Box Derby Appreciation Day. And I guess that's fitting because that must be the Democrat idea to conserve oil and look for alternatives, because at the rate gas prices are going, we will all be driving soap box cars that are powered by feet.

Look at the gas prices. When the Pelosi regime took over the House of Representatives, gas prices were $2.33 a gallon. Now, they promised to reduce those prices; yet a funny thing happened on the way to the pump. It is now about $4 a gallon. Well, I guess if that's indicative of the promises that the Democrats keep and the way they deliver it, maybe it's right that yet again today we are ignoring any serious legislation that would address gas prices.

You know, it's interesting. It's been over 10 years since President Clinton vetoed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. Now, I want to put this in perspective for you. Remember, Alaska is twice as big as Texas. The reserve area is the size of South Carolina. The potential exploration area is about 2,000 acres.

Now, a word picture would be that if the Arctic wildlife reserve was a basketball court, the proposed exploration area is a business card. And yet, the radical extremists in the liberal community are afraid to drill there.

I just got back from a bipartisan trip to the Middle East. We met with oil ministries from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. And you know what they said?

How dare you Americans come to the Middle East and demand that we reduce oil and gas prices when you won't even drill on your own lands.

You have the audacity to come to us and tell us to drill more and yet you won't even unlock your own lands. What kind of hypocrisy is that? Instead, you know what the Democrats do? They make it easier to sue OPEC. Well, that sounds good, but the reality is what they told us is, Hey, the higher the cost of doing business in America is the less willing we are to do business there. And guess what? China and India are willing to buy our product as is. You increase the price of doing business in America, China and India will step in that void. Keep that in mind.

One more day the Democrats are ignoring high gas prices.

I just returned from the Middle East. I went with a bipartisan group to Saudi Arabia, to the United Arab Emirates and to Kazakhstan and talked to the folks who have oil about what we can do internationally to bring the price down, bring the supply up, do whatever it takes to give middle class Americans some relief at the gas pump. It was interesting the response that I got.

Number one, I can tell you without question the Middle East is happy with the current gas prices. We all know that they are enjoying the wealth which we are transferring over there. But the thing that they said to us, How dare you come to Saudi Arabia, how dare you come to the United Arab Emirates, how dare you come to Kazakhstan and ask us to reduce our prices when you won't even drill for oil yourself. You won't even build refineries. Yet you want us to do something. You can do it for yourself.

Think about this, ladies and gentlemen. ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, is the size of South Carolina. The proposed drilling area is 2,000 acres. That is smaller than the average airport. Yet, for some reason, we are afraid to drill there. That is absurd. We need to drill now.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

Requesting Member: Congressman Jack Kingston (1-GA)

Bill Number: H.R. 5658

Account: MILCON, Navy

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay

Address of Requesting Entity: NSB Kings Bay, Kings Bay, GA, USA

Description of Request: Provide $6.37 million to construct a 5,000 square feet Communication Addition to the Limited Area Reaction Force Facility in support of the National Weapons Security Program. This high security facility will serve as a command and control center, exercise and recreation spaces, and extended housing for United States Marines and Navy personnel while on duty. This project will provide required ballistic protection for security forces and vehicles as well as the monitoring of perimeter sensors.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill that we're debating today. In fact, it's a bill that has been kind of in the hopper, if you will, for months, and maybe even a year's time right now. This is a bill that the troops very badly need. And that's why it's odd to me that there are so many unrelated amendments to it.

I understand that when the Democrats took over, their promise to the MoveOn.org fringe of their party was that we are going to get the troops out of Iraq. They have not delivered on that. And so what we have here is a little fig leaf debate on getting out of Iraq so that their Get Out of Iraq Caucus can have a political cover story so that when they go home over the Memorial Day recess, they can tell people, yeah, I voted to get out Iraq. But the truth is, there is no delivery here.

That debate alone should be something that we do all day long. It should be at least a week's worth of our time, if not more, the debate on getting out of Iraq and imperiling troops in the way. But no, the Democrat Party will not give that to their group that wants the Get Out of Iraq Caucus. What they want is a little fig leaf amendment to a bill, which they know is going to pass and they're hoping that this is going to cover their politics. That is a sham, and that is a shame. I respect somebody who wants to get out of Iraq now, but they should have a debate on that on a freestanding bill. It should not be an amendment.

Secondly, I want to point out the stuff which Mr. Culberson referred to as pork. Mr. Obey took exception to that. And I'd say this stuff isn't pork, but it isn't an emergency. It isn't stuff you put on the backs of our troops in the field.

I don't know how much money we spent in New Orleans, I would like to know. I think we, as Republicans, spent too much. I think you guys, as Democrats, are spending too much. I understand there is $5.8 billion for levees in New Orleans. Now, Mr. Speaker, as I recall, that did not happen recently.

There is money in here for the census. And I learned in eighth grade geography we do a census every 10 years. Why should that be put on an emergency bill? We know that the end of the decade comes. That funding should be done on an appropriate freestanding manner.

The Bureau of Prisons? Why are we passing that on the backs of soldiers? Contractor language. And I'm a former member of military construction and I represent four military installations. MILCON is very important to me. But why is it put on the back of a supplemental emergency bill? That is not what we do here. It should go through the regular appropriations process. It should go through a subcommittee. It should through a full committee before it comes to the House floor. It should not be an amendment that is put on a troop's bill.

I think that if we look back in history at the way that we were sticking it to, if you will, the minority party when we were in the majority, I think you guys have a very good case for that. In fact, I respect Mr. Obey. I have a page full of quotes from him.

I'm touched with the bipartisan support of the Democrat Party that suddenly when the Bush administration asks for something, it's like that, they get it. I'm really impressed with that.

Did you get a formal letter from OMB on the census? Because we haven't seen it on the minority side.

Well, we haven't seen it from OMB on our side, so I just want to point that out.

Mr. Speaker, what I would say is that these things may or may not be legitimate expenditures, but if they went through a subcommittee and a full committee and they're on a freestanding piece of legislation, that is the proper process of Congress. And when the Democrat Party was in the minority, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee was one of the biggest proponents of regular order. What we are asking for is regular order. I agree, we did it wrong, but you don't have to repeat that.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the right to object.

I thank the gentleman for recognizing me.

Reserving the right to object and I do possibly plan to object, because we are on the eve of passing the largest supplemental appropriations bill in the history of the United States House of Representatives. The history of supplemental bills actually goes back to the Second Congress, so it is not unusual to have a supplemental appropriation bill. It is just that over the years we have gotten, in recent years, out of the habit of offsetting these pieces of legislation.

Now traditionally they have been used for a war or for a sudden disaster or for a health care crisis or something like that. But now we are on the verge of passing a large supplemental appropriation bill for things that aren't emergencies. This bill is not confined to emergencies.

I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that I strongly believe that one reason that we are in----

Mr. Speaker, I object.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule, because there are so many amendments that could have improved this bill and saved the taxpayers money, but they were ignored by the Rules Committee, not allowed on the floor of the House, which isn't totally unlike the situation we are in with the supplemental appropriation bill.

Here we are about to pass a $200 billion--that's billion with a B-- the largest supplemental appropriation bill in the history of Congress, and supplemental appropriation bills aren't anything new. They go back to the second Congress that ever existed because, so often, when you have a war, there are unanticipated costs associated with it, as there are with disasters and other things that might occur during the course of the year. So supplemental appropriation bills are normal. But what isn't normal is the size of this bill.

And what isn't normal is the Democrat Party who even has on Speaker Pelosi's Web page, as I speak, a promise to the American people that every bill would be vetted properly and passed through proper order.

And we all know from our eighth grade social studies class that proper order is that a bill is introduced; ding. It is sent to subcommittee; ding. The subcommittee has hearings, it has a markup in which amendments are allowed and where endorsements and where statements are made. Then it goes to full committee; ding. And full committee again repeats the process, possibly with hearings, certainly with debate, always with amendments, always with the minority and the majority party putting aside partisan differences on a committee level before the final product goes to the floor. And then again, ding, the bill goes to the floor where again people are allowed to amend a bill. People are allowed to make speeches on it.

But instead, what we have from what can only be called a ruthless, iron-fisted majority, an air-dropped bill. Yes, Mr. Speaker, an air- dropped bill, a bill that has bypassed, leapfrogged over the regular subcommittee and committee process.

May I have another 30 seconds?

Again, Mr. Speaker, this bill is thrust upon Members of the House who will not have read it. In fact, I will take a poll right now.

Is there anybody who has read, there are a lot of Members of Congress on this floor, have any of you read this $200 billion supplemental appropriations bill of which we will be voting on tomorrow? Not one hand goes up. I rest my point. This bill has not been vetted.

It should go through regular order which means subcommittee, full committee and then on the floor. Members should have the opportunity to read a $200 billion bill and they should have the opportunity to amend it.

Madam Speaker, point of order. On that, I object.

On resuming with 5-minute voting, I object.

Reserving my right to object.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.