Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize two World War II veterans, 1st Class Machinist Mate Royce David and Signalman Third Class Jack Goodwin, for their distinguished service in the U.S. Navy.

On the morning of April 16, 1945, Japanese suicide pilots in the South Pacific attacked the USS Laffey and nearby sister ship USS LCS 51. The heavy strikes began at 8:27 a.m. when two planes headed for the bow and two other planes headed for the stern of USS Laffey. With the assistance of USS LCS 51, all four planes were shot down. In fact, it would take six more kamikazes to finally penetrate the ships. The USS Laffey caught fire when the seventh plane crashed. While most ships would sink after just one plane hit, Laffey withstood eight more plane crashes and bombs.

All total, twenty-two planes attempted to attack the USS Laffey, nine of which were shot down. Laffey survived the attacks, despite heavy damage to the ship, including a complete loss of electrical power, and pulled into port the following day.

On board these two ships were two men from North Texas. Mr. David, of Mesquite, Texas, was serving in the engine room of USS Laffey. Meanwhile, Mr. Goodwin, of Garland, Texas, was aboard the USS 51, which picked up several of Laffey's overboard crewmembers, fought fires, and helped shoot down suicide bombers.

Mr. Goodwin, along with the rest of USS LCS 51 crew, earned the Presidential Unit Citation for his action and assistance on April 16, 1945. A year later, Mr. Goodwin received an honorable discharge from the U.S. Navy Reserves as a Signalman Third Class and returned to Texas to work as a structural ironworker and in the freight industry as a truck driver.

Mr. David served in the U.S. Navy for two more years and then returned to Texas to work for the U.S. Post Office. Sixty-three years later, these two gentlemen are finally receiving their long overdue medals. I am honored to recognize Mr. David for earning the Navy Good Conduct Medal, World War II Victory Medal, American Campaign Medal, Asiatic Pacific Campaign Medal, European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign with one bronze star, the Combat Action Ribbon, a Honorable Service Lapel Pin (Ruptured Duck), and a Discharge Button.

I also want to recognize Mr. Goodwin for earning the Combat Action Ribbon, the Honorable Service Lapel Pin (Ruptured Duck), and the Navy Discharge Button.

Today, these gentlemen live in neighboring cities in North Texas, attend the same church, and have formed a deep friendship.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am humbled and privileged to recognize Mr. Royce David and Mr. Jack Goodwin. As Calvin Coolidge once said, ``The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten.'' I for one am committed to ensuring this nation never forgets.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize an outstanding citizen and public servant, J.R. Ronny Brownlow, in honor of his retirement from law enforcement after serving the public for 44 years.

In 1964, Sheriff Brownlow began his life of public service at the Mesquite Police Department. Three years later, Sheriff Brownlow moved to the Texas Department of Public Safety where he served for 27 years as a Highway Patrolman and a Texas Ranger.

Since then, Sheriff Brownlow has worked as the Anderson County Chief Deputy Sheriff, spent 1 year with the U.S. Marshals Service, and worked 3 years as the Henderson County Chief Deputy Sheriff. In 2000, he was elected Henderson County Sheriff and has worked tirelessly since then.

Sheriff Brownlow's work has not gone unnoticed. In addition to receiving the Peace Officer Award for Excellence, Sheriff Brownlow secured a spot in the Texas Ranger Hall of Fame and in 2004 won the Chairman's Award from the Texas Ranger Association Foundation. This year, Sheriff Brownlow was named the 2008 Law Enforcement Officer of the Year.

Sheriff Brownlow accomplished all this while raising three sons and a daughter. Currently, he is a proud grandfather of four and husband to wife Theresa.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to recognize Sheriff J.R. Ronny Brownlow for his courage in protecting and serving citizens all across the Fifth District of Texas.

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is a simple one. Earlier this year, in one of the occasionally non-energy energy bills that we see in the House, we had a section 526 added to something called the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. In part, this section of the bill says that no Federal agencies shall enter into a contract for procurement of an alternative fuel if the ``life cycle greenhouse gas emissions,'' a phrase that has yet to be legally defined, that they must be less or equal to such emissions from an equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources.

Mr. Chairman, that is very problematic language to our Defense Department. It is very problematic language to our veterans. And in specific, the author of that provision, the distinguished gentleman from California, who is the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told us what his purpose was by putting this section into the bill. And I have in my hand, Mr. Chairman, correspondence dated March 17 from the distinguished gentleman from California to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

It reads, in part, ``It was developed,'' it, referring to section 526, ``it was included in the legislation in response to proposals under consideration by the Air Force to develop coal-to-liquid fuels.''

That was the purpose of this section. And so, Mr. Chairman, what we have is a portion of a bill that makes it more difficult for our Defense Department to become more energy independent, to rely more on North American and specifically, American fuels than Middle Eastern fuels. This is very problematic for our Defense Department.

I also, Mr. Chairman, have in my hand correspondence dated July 9 from the Defense Department, written to the Honorable James Inhofe, ranking member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

In part, the letter reads, ``it,'' referring to 526, ``creates uncertainty about what fuels DOD can procure and will discourage the development of new sources, particularly reliable domestic sources of energy supplies for the Armed Forces.''

This is the Pentagon, Mr. Chairman.

It also goes on to say, ``As written, section 526 could apply to alternative and synthetic fuels, including E85, fuel that is 85 percent ethanol, and B20, diesel fuel that contains 20 percent bio fuels, that the department is encouraged or required to use under other statutes.''

The letter from the Pentagon continues to say, ``The provision opens the Department up to court or administrative challenges to every fuel purchase it makes.'' And this is a very important provision of this letter, Mr. Chairman.

``It could cause significant harm to the readiness of the Armed Forces because these fuels may be widely used and particularly important in certain geographic areas.''

Now, Mr. Chairman, we have got an opportunity in this legislation, and my amendment is a very simple one. It simply says that none of the funds provided in this act that we are debating tonight, shall be available to enforce section 526, this problematic language that the Pentagon says can have an adverse effect on the readiness of our Armed Forces.

So, I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that we would pay very careful attention when we are dealing with a bill dealing with our Army, our veterans, our Nation's veterans, with military construction. I would hope that we would pay very, very careful attention and do everything we can to get rid of this section of this law that is hampering our national defense at this time.

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform,

Washington, DC, March 17, 2008.

Hon. Jeff Bingaman,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Bingaman: I am writing regarding questions

that have arisen with respect to the interpretation of

section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of

2007. Section 526 addresses government contracts to purchase

alternative fuels. As the author of this provision and

Chairman of the committee of jurisdiction in the House, I

would like to share my views as to how the language should be

interpreted.

Section 526 provides:

``No Federal agency shall enter into a contract for

procurement of an alternative or synthetic fuel, including a

fuel produced from nonconventional petroleum sources, for any

mobility-related use, other than for research or testing,

unless the contract specifies that the lifecycle greenhouse

gas emissions associated with the production and combustion

of the fuel supplied under the contract must, on an ongoing

basis, be less than or equal to such emissions from the

equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional

petroleum sources.''

This provision ensures that Federal agencies are not

spending taxpayer dollars on new fuel sources that will

exacerbate global warming. It was included in the legislation

in response to proposals under consideration by the Air Force

to develop coal-to-liquid fuels. As you may know, coal-to-

liquid fuels are estimated to produce almost double the

greenhouse gas emissions of the comparable conventional fuel.

The provision is also applicable to fuels derived from tar

sands, which produce significantly higher greenhouse gas

emissions than are produced by comparable fuel from

conventional petroleum sources.

The development and expanded use of these fuels could

significantly exacerbate global warming, with highly

dangerous effects. Thus, it is important to ensure that the

Federal government does not subsidize or otherwise support

the expanded use of these fuels through government purchasing

decisions.

Section 526 applies specifically to contracts to purchase

fuels, and it must be interpreted in a manner that makes

sense in light of Federal contracting practices. The purpose

of the provision is to bar federal agencies from spending

taxpayer dollars to support the development and expansion of

alternative fuels and fuels from unconventional sources, if

those fuels have higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions

than the comparable conventional fuels. It was not intended

to bar federal agencies from entering into contracts to

purchase fuels that are generally available in the market,

such as diesel or jet fuel, that may contain incidental

amounts of fuel produced from nonconventional petroleum

sources.

Thus, section 526 would clearly apply to a contract that

specifically requires the contractor to provide an

alternative fuel, such as coal-to-liquids fuel, or a fuel

produced from a nonconventional petroleum source, such as

fuel from tar sands. The provision also would apply to such a

contract where the purpose of the contract is to obtain such

an alternative fuel or fuel from a nonconventional petroleum

source, even if the source of the fuel is not explicitly

identified in the contract. Similarly, a contract that

supports or provides incentives for a refinery upgrade or

expansion to allow a refinery to use or increase its use of

tar sands oils would also be subject to section 526. This

provision would not apply to contracts to purchase a

generally available fuel, such as a specific diesel or jet

fuel blend, if that fuel is not an alternative fuel or

predominantly produced from an unconventional fuel source.

Questions have also been raised as to whether the

implementation of this provision must await the development

of specific lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions profiles for

each fuel type. The language of section 526 requires only a

determination of whether a fuel has higher lifecycle

greenhouse gas emissions than the comparable conventional

fuel, not a precise estimate of each fuel's specific

greenhouse gas emissions. While there is a range of numeric

estimates of the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of coal-

to-liquids fuels produced without carbon capture and

sequestration and fuels derived from tar sands, there is no

debate over the fact that both of these fuels have

substantially higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than

the comparable conventional fuels. There is no barrier to the

immediate implementation of section 526 with respect to these

fuels.

I hope this clarification of my understanding of section

526 is helpful as your Committee oversees federal agencies'

implementation of the Energy Independence and Security Act of

2007.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman,

Chairman.

I thank the chairman for agreeing to the amendment. I know how to take yes for an answer.

I am happy to yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully to all the speakers on both sides of the aisle, and I have no doubt that those who may still be viewing this at 12:30 a.m. east coast time may be a little bit confused.

We have heard a couple of speakers say that bureaucrats have no monopoly on wisdom and that we as Members ought to be exercising our prerogatives, and, certainly, Mr. Chairman, we have that right.

But at the same time, we have heard other speakers say, well, Members of that same bureaucracy are actually requesting these particular earmarks. So I could see how some might be confused. On the one hand, if they're requesting it, I am kind of curious why it wasn't in their budget in the first place.

So I am not really sure who has the monopoly on wisdom. My assumption is that each and every one of these earmarks is probably a very good expenditure of the taxpayers' money. I don't necessarily know if it's the best expenditure of the taxpayers' money. But I know the Members who serve. They're very serious. They're very diligent. I have no doubt that they have done very good work.

I also heard my friend the gentleman from Texas say that this particular amendment would harm our troops or military readiness, harm our veterans, families, and a very long laundry list of others who might be harmed. The underlying assumption is that I believe that this money would somehow disappear. Well, I find that interesting because usually when we debate somebody on the point of earmarks, they tell us don't you realize you're not saving any money? That money stays in the bill, and it's going to get used for some other purpose. So, again, I could see, Mr. Chairman, how people who are watching this debate might be a little bit confused. Which is it? Does the money disappear or does the money stay and maybe fund other readiness centers, other barracks, other military projects? Which is it? We seemingly hear speakers on both sides or several sides on that issue.

But if the money does disappear, I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle you had an opportunity to support the Republican budget on which, last I looked, had a billion extra dollars more to help our veterans than the Democrat budget did. I know that in the Budget Committee there were amendments to strike earmarks and add to the veterans funding. So if you spent less money, maybe the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle harmed our veterans or their families or their military readiness.

I think at some point, Mr. Chairman, you have to lead by example. And although I have no doubt, again, that these earmarks are good expenditures of the taxpayers' funds, the system is broken. It's not just that there are a few bad apples in the barrel. The barrel is full of rotten apples. And all too often--and maybe not in this bill, and I certainly accept the passion with which the gentleman from Tennessee spoke, and I know his sincerity in wanting to reform this process, and I regret the fact that under the Democrat majority this appears to be the only bill that we can debate earmarks. But what I know about the system and what the American people know about

the system is that it's broken and that all too often it represents the triumph of secrecy over transparency. All too often it represents a triumph of the special interests over the national interests. All too often it represents the triumph of seniority and privilege over merit.

Mr. Chairman, when my party was in the majority, there were a lot of abuses in earmarks. But when the Democrats took over, they said they would do it different. They said they would cut the earmarks in half, and yet last year we had the second highest number of earmarks we've ever had. They claimed there would be no more secrecy in the process, but if we look to the New York Times recently, if I can quote from an August, 2007, news clip: ``Despite promises by Congress to end the secrecy of earmarks and other pet projects, the House of Representatives has quietly funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to specific hospitals and health care providers.''

The Democrats said that there would be across-the-board reform, and yet we had bills initially come to the floor that we were expected to vote on and the earmarks were to come later. The Speaker of the House said she would just as soon do without them, and yet she is on the top 20 list of those who request them.

The American people want something different. It is time to join the Republican proposal that the gentleman from Tennessee spoke about and have a moratorium on earmarks, reform this process, start it tonight.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we come here tonight to talk about an issue that is clearly the number one issue challenging families all across America, and that is the high cost of energy at the gas pump. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I was just ending what we call a tele-town hall meeting talking with the good folks of the Fifth Congressional District of Texas that I have the privilege of representing in the House of Representatives, and I would say out of, oh, I don't know, 15 or 20 questions that I was able to take, I would say probably three-quarters of them had to do with what is Congress going to do to help bring down the cost of gasoline at the pump.

All across America, Mr. Speaker, families are going to their local convenience stores and they are having to decide, do I buy a gallon of gas, or do I buy an a gallon of milk? I can't an afford to do both. At roughly $4 a gallon, working families in America cannot make ends meet.

You would think on something of this national import that this institution, that this great deliberative body, that the people's House would act. You would think maybe we would act in concert, Mr. Speaker, but at least we would act. Instead, we don't see it, Mr. Speaker. We don't see it. What we see is the Democrat majority saying, well, maybe we can somehow sue our way into lower gas prices. Let's sue OPEC. I don't know what we are going to do, Mr. Speaker. Are we going to send a legion of trial lawyers to the Middle East to sue OPEC? Is that somehow going to solve our problems with the price of gas at the pump?

Well, that didn't work, so they came up with the idea, the Democrats, let's tax the oil companies. Nobody likes them. Well, that is something that was tried in the seventies, and guess what? When you tax something, they will put it in the price and it raises the price to you. What we found in the seventies is that we became even more dependent upon foreign oil when we did that.

Now their latest idea, Mr. Speaker, is let's somehow say we are going to try to outlaw investment. They call it ``speculation.'' I thought in a capitalistic economy investment was a pretty good thing.

But the reason the price is going up is when we see that demand increases and there is no commitment to supply in the U.S., Congress, try as they may, cannot repeal the laws of supply and demand, Mr. Speaker. It can't be done, anymore than we can say that the sun no longer rises in the east.

So Republicans have a different plan. Actually, Republicans have a plan, the American Energy Act. And what we want to do is do all of the above. We want to support renewable energy.

Prior to coming to Congress, I worked for a renewable electricity company. I was very proud of the work that was done in the area of solar energy, in the area of wind power, in the area of biomass. It was an important part of my passion and my professional life, and Republicans support renewables.

We want to do more work in alternative energy, particularly in, for example, coal-to-liquids. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal, Mr. Speaker, but somehow the Democrats won't let us use it. They won't allow the Federal Government, for example, to enter into long-term supply contracts for these alternative fuels, oil shale, tar sands, coal-to- liquids.

Conservation is a very important part of the mix as well. But, Mr. Speaker, so is producing our oil and gas resources that we have in America. Why can't we produce American energy in America for Americans? And that is what the American Energy Act, supported by Republicans in the House, is all about.

All we ask for, Mr. Speaker, is in the people's House, can't we have a vote? But Speaker Pelosi will not allow a vote. She simply says, no, we are not even going to vote on it. The people don't even have a choice.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, recently the Washington Post, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought, said, ``Why not have a vote on offshore drilling?'' They recognize that Speaker Pelosi won't even allow a simple up-or-down vote. Let me continue to quote from their op- ed of July 25th: ``When they took the majority, House Democrats proclaimed that bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives.''

Why not on drilling, the Washington Post says? Why not on drilling?

But again, as people are suffering in the small businesses, in the homes, in the coffee shops of East Texas that I represent, maybe they are not suffering in the salons of San Francisco represented by Speaker Pelosi and maybe that is why she doesn't necessarily understand the pain that people are feeling. And that is why it is so critical, Mr. Speaker, so critical that we get an up or down vote in producing some supply.

For all intents and purposes, Mr. Speaker, 85 percent of our offshore resources are illegal to develop. For all intents and purposes, Mr. Speaker, 75 percent of our onshore resources of oil and gas are illegal to develop.

Recently Brazil found a huge offshore find of energy, and the whole Nation celebrated. It seems like, in America, when we find energy it is some kind of point of shame and we want to cover it up and we want to make sure that nobody knows about it and nobody develops it. We appear to be the only industrialized nation in the world that won't develop its own energy. Again, Mr. Speaker, it is all of the above. We have got to do it all to bring down the price of gas at the pump.

So Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that I have been joined by some other colleagues who are real leaders in this institution in trying to create more American energy for Americans, in America, and help those families who are having to commute to work every day, who are trying to help take an elderly parent to the doctor, who are trying in just a couple of weeks taking their kids to school.

I just had a person tell me this weekend that they now are spending 1\1/2\ days a week just to pay to commute to work. Out of a five-day work week, they are spending 1\1/2\ days just paying to commute so they can get the 3\1/2\ days of pay. That is just not right, Mr. Speaker. It is just not right.

And so again, I am glad I am joined by a couple of my colleagues here. And at this time I would be very happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) to get some of his comments.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership in this institution, particularly on the piece of legislation that we are working together on in trying to repeal something known as section 526, that disallows the Federal Government from entering into long-term supply contracts for alternative fuels to help jump-start that needed industry.

The gentleman from Texas brought up a number of good points in his comments. And, again, you would think this would not be particularly controversial.

Just last week, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve stated: A one percent increase in supply could lower prices by 10 percent. Now, that is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Supply matters. And yet, our friends from the other side of the aisle, the Democrat majority, refuses; not only do they refuse to produce any more American-made oil and gas, not only do they refuse to do that, Mr. Speaker, they won't even let us have a vote.

So, Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that the American people could do tonight that would help bring down the cost of energy at the pump is go to their computers, go to their telephones, contact their Members of Congress and say, at least let's have a vote. Let's have a vote on the American Energy Act.

Survey after survey after survey shows that three-quarters, 80 percent of Americans want more supply and they want it now. We have to start today, Mr. Speaker. And it is just absolutely ludicrous when families are suffering, like the Gardner family of Dallas, Texas, that I have the pleasure of representing who wrote to me that, ``In order to afford to send our youngest to camp, we have had to cancel the family vacation due to the increased cost of fuel.''

Family vacations all across America are getting cancelled because the Democrat majority will not allow more American energy to be produced in America. Since they have taken over, the energy policy in this Nation 18 months ago, the cost of gas has gone from roughly $2.50 a gallon to roughly $4 a gallon. Now, I am not saying it is all their fault, but they are moving this country in the complete wrong direction.

And now, Mr. Speaker, again I am very pleased that I have been joined by a number of my colleagues who have a lot of expertise on this issue of energy, and one of the great leaders we have on this side of the aisle is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). I yield to him at this time.

Would the gentleman yield on that point?

We know that America has an incredible amount of coal reserves. And the solution, the partial solution the gentleman is suggesting makes imminent sense. What is it that is preventing people in America from doing this now? I will yield to the gentleman.

If the gentleman would yield again, isn't it true that we have several hundred years' worth of coal in our country today? Is that correct? I yield back to the gentleman.

And if the gentleman would yield again, I had asked the question earlier, what is preventing us from taking advantage of American resources on American soil?

Isn't it also true that recently the Democrat majority passed legislation known as Section 526, that prevents the Federal Government from entering into long-term energy contracts, something I believe the United States Air Force wanted to do to wean itself away from foreign oil and develop coal to liquids on American soil; but yet our friends on the other side of the aisle, I believe, have prevented our Pentagon or our United States Air Force from doing that. Is that correct?

I thank the gentleman from Illinois. Clearly he is one of the great leaders in this institution in allowing the people to know that American energy developed in America for Americans can make a huge difference.

Now I would like to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for his comments on that.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership on this issue, his leadership on health care issues, his contribution to the Republican Study Committee which is sponsoring this special order, Mr. Speaker.

Again, this is the number one issue, Mr. Speaker, that our constituents write about, call about. They're concerned about. I hear from them every day.

I just recently, Mr. Speaker, heard from the Forist family in Mesquite, Texas, that I have the honor of representing in Congress. And they have a small business. They wrote in.

``My husband is an owner operator and the cost of fuel is $1600 a WEEK. We're not making a profit. We can't

continue to operate this way. We have now cancelled our life insurance policies, cancelled our cable, scaled down our automobile insurance, and buy the necessities at the grocery store.''

Mr. Speaker, I'm getting letters like this every single day, and yet the Democrat majority will not support legislation to produce more American energy in America for Americans.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we agree with the Democrats on many things. We believe that there should be more conservation, and most Republicans have supported the various tax provisions that do that. Mr. Speaker, we agree on renewable energy. I was an officer in a renewable energy company prior to coming to Congress. There are very exciting technologies, and most Republicans have supported those programs.

But where we go in different directions, Mr. Speaker, is that the Democrats want to make illegal the production of energy in 85 percent of our offshore resources and, effectively, 75 percent. They don't believe that producing more oil and natural gas has anything to do with the cost of price at the pump. They're trying to repeal the laws of economics.

Well, in fact, Mr. Speaker, what the Speaker of the House has said recently, ``This call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax. It's an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this administration.'' Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Well, Mr. Speaker, for those who are listening to this special order, they may have a different opinion. Public opinion policy shows that 85 percent of Americans want to produce more American energy in America for Americans. Maybe they may want to call 202-224-3121 and register their opinion with the Speaker of the House.

Now, again, I don't know how they feel about the high cost of energy in the salons of San Francisco, but I can tell you in the small businesses and the farms and ranches of the Fifth District of Texas, those people are hurting.

And now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield time to another great Member of this institution who has been a leader on the issue as well, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for helping remind this body--and I think everybody in this body agrees--that we need more conservation. Everybody in this body believes that we should have more renewable energy and that it's the key to our children's future. Where we depart with the Democrat majority, Mr. Speaker, is we believe that, when 50 percent of our proven resources--petroleum resources--in Alaska are illegal to develop, there's a problem, that when 85 percent of our offshore resources are illegal to develop, there's a problem.

We have decades and decades and decades of American energy laying untapped that we could bring to the market to help bring down the cost of energy. Yet the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has said, as this quote shows, that she believes that it's all a hoax. The American people, I believe, Mr. Speaker, disagree, and perhaps they might be interested in calling (202) 224-3121 and in just saying, ``Speaker Pelosi, at least allow a vote. As, supposedly, the most Democratic institution in the history of mankind, at least allow the voices of the people to be heard, and let there be a vote.''

In speaking of voices to be heard, Mr. Speaker, as one of the great voices in this institution, I want to yield now to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

I thank the gentleman from Texas. I appreciate his leadership. I look forward to voting on his amendment.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it's a very simple matter. If you believe in more American energy in America for Americans, you will tell Speaker Pelosi: Allow there to be a vote on the American Energy Act.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank my fellow colleagues from the Republican Study Committee for participating in this Special Order.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 5: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following new section:

Sec. 408. None of the funds provided by this Act shall be

available to enforce section 526 of the Energy Independence

and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140; 42 U.S.C.

17142).

Mr. Speaker, before the Democrats became the majority party in this institution, they waxed eloquent about fiscal responsibility. The now-Speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, the gentlelady said, ``It is just absolutely immoral, immoral for us to heap those deficits on our children. No new deficit spending.''

And before he became the majority leader, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland said, ``There is no more single burden of responsibility more crucial to bear than tackling the deficit honestly and head on.''

Mr. Speaker, that is what they said before they became the majority party. We have discovered, Mr. Speaker, their words were cheap. Their deeds are very expensive.

Since becoming the majority party 18 months ago, we have seen, under their watch, the Federal deficit double.

Mr. Speaker, under the Democrats' watch we have seen the single largest 1-year increase in the Federal debt.

Mr. Speaker, under the Democrats' watch we have seen the Federal Government's unfunded obligations go to the largest number ever, $57.3 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, under the Democrats' watch we have seen the largest Federal budget ever.

Mr. Speaker, under the Democrats' watch, just yesterday, just yesterday a blank check was given to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that ultimately could cost the taxpayer $5 trillion.

And not to be outdone, Mr. Speaker, today the Democrat majority turn off, turn off the Medicare trigger designed to save the program for the next generation. Again, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats' words were cheap. Their deeds are very, very expensive.

The trigger means that we begin the reform process in Medicare, and it also means that we will spend $178 billion, almost a 7 percent increase, over the next 5 years. And how do we reform it?

Mr. Speaker, we ask that this body put patients and doctors before personal injury trial attorneys. That is what we do. And we ask that maybe the upper income of our Nation be able to pay a little bit more for their prescription drugs.

Now, what happens, Mr. Speaker, when the Democrats do nothing?

Well, according to the General Accountability Office, ``The rising cost of government entitlements are a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, join with us, put the next generation above the next election. Work with us to ensure that we can get better healthcare at a more reasonable cost. Do not get rid of this Medicare trigger that so many of us worked so hard to place in this valuable program.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, who indicated that part of the package before us was a request of the Bush administration.

It may be a request of the Bush administration, but it was necessitated by that gentleman and by others who for years have forestalled any type of reform of Fannie and Freddie, neither man nor beast, half private, half public. You can go back, Mr. Speaker, and look at the record.

Before I arrived here almost 6 years ago, the debate has been ensuing how can you have these entities that essentially are able to privatize their profits but socialize their losses and not put the taxpayers at risk?

Now we were told, well, there is no taxpayer guarantee here. There's nothing to worry about. I've got a press release here dated '01 from the chairman of the Capital Market Subcommittee who says that the new GSE bill is a solution in search of a problem; that OFHEO has developed and implemented a robust and comprehensive and continuous examination program that works.

Well, many of us have said, no, that is wrong. I have got language from, again, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts who says, dating back to a hearing in 2003, ``I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists.''

Well, I think what we discovered today is perhaps there is a lot of unsafety. Perhaps there is a lot of unsoundness that has to be addressed.

So now we are being asked to take--really this is a historic moment-- we are being asked to take a terribly flawed housing bill that could put the taxpayer on the line for $300 billion to help bail out people on Wall Street who made bad bets, and then couple that with an absolutely breathtaking bailout of Fannie and Freddie that in its worst-case scenario, which admittedly is unlikely, but in its worst- case scenario could add $5 trillion to the national debt at the snap of a finger. That's an increase of 50 percent in the national debt overnight.

That's what would happen, Mr. Speaker, if you have the Federal taxpayer underwrite all the debts of Fannie and Freddie. I mean, this will help establish this particular Congress as having, perhaps, the worst record on fiscal responsibility in our Nation's history. They have had lots of competition.

There are so many different reasons why we should not pass the bill today. Let's look, number one, at the underlying housing bill. You have 95 percent of America that either rents their home, owns their home outright and are current in their mortgage, and they are being asked to bail out the other 5 percent. Now out of that 5 percent, some are very deserving. Some were victims of mortgage fraud, predatory lending. Some had bad reverses in the economy that were beyond their control. But others are not so deserving. Many were speculators. Many engaged in mortgage fraud themselves. There's been an explosion of mortgage fraud in the market.

Finally, some people just didn't exercise personal responsibility. When people are struggling to pay their own mortgages, who acted responsibly, they shouldn't be forced to pay for their neighbors as well, much less bail out Wall Street.

Let's look at the Fannie and Freddie package.

Mr. Speaker, I regrettably admit that today Fannie and Freddie are too big to fail. The repercussions to our economy could be dire.

But we should not pass any legislation that doesn't ensure the taxpayers are never here again. Not only does this legislation not ensure that, it makes it worse.

I mean, even the Washington Post, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought said, ``Strangely, though, both the Senate and House versions of the bill potentially increase the very risks Mr. Paulson's plan is intended to mitigate.''

Don't give these people a blank check. Vote this down.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, Fannie and Freddie have become financial Frankensteins that now threaten to gobble their creators. They're private companies that receive special congressional benefits granted no other companies in America, and with these special benefits, they have learned how to privatize their profits and socialize their losses.

They've taken these special privileges, and their executives have received millions and millions of dollars in bonuses, some of whom received those bonuses through manipulating earnings, cooking the books, by privatizing their profits.

And now we have a bill before us that, taken to its logical conclusion, could cost the taxpayer $5 trillion, increase the national debt 50 percent overnight. They have learned how to socialize their losses.

Mr. Speaker, I will admit that contingency is unlikely, but it is likely enough that we have this package before us, because I will admit, Mr. Speaker, that unfortunately, today, Fannie and Freddie are too big to fail. But shame on us if we allow them to be too big to fail tomorrow, or the next year, and send yet again the taxpayer the bill.

This legislation before us, Mr. Speaker, not only doesn't prevent a future multibillion dollar bailout, it actually increases its risk.

Mr. Speaker, item number one: this bill puts on a mortgage tax on Fannie and Freddie. Now, let's think about that for a second. These are companies that apparently are so poor that we have to bail them out, but apparently, they're so rich that we can impose a new tax on them. It's insanity, Mr. Speaker.

Conforming loan limits. Under this legislation, their conforming loan limits can rise, meaning they can engage in even more risky behavior that has nothing to do with low-income housing.

Their portfolio cap has already been lifted. Under this legislation their portfolio holdings can increase, who two Federal chairmen have cited as a great source of systemic risk throughout our economy.

Their capital standards, already low, they can be lowered even still. I mean, they're a third of what a well-capitalized bank should be. We go from an implicit government backing to explicit government backing.

And, Mr. Speaker, think about the precedent. If you're big enough, if you're interconnected enough, if you spend $170 million on lobbying, you become too big to fail. If you're small, independent, and you don't have a lobbyist, well, guess what, you're too small to help but you can still pay the tab for Fannie and Freddie.

It's time to take away their special privileges. It's time to introduce legislation over a reasonable period of time that privatizes these institutions. Mr. Speaker, I will do just that tomorrow.

We should reject this bill and not send anymore bills to the taxpayer.

Would the gentlelady yield?

I want to thank her for bringing this article in the Wall Street Journal, one of America's largest newspapers, to the attention of this body; and obviously it is fascinating for us to discover that the single largest provider of abortion in the Nation, Planned Parenthood, I believe performing one out of five abortions in America, has now planned, according to the press, a rebranding campaign to appeal to women of means.

I quote from the article, A move that opens new avenues for boosting revenue and they hope political clout.

And as I understand from the gentlelady from Minnesota, as I read through this article, that their political action arm plans to raise $10 million to influence the fall campaign; and as they take the lives of almost 300,000 innocent children, not only is the American taxpayer being asked to subsidize this horrid, this gruesome procedure that so many in America consider to be absolutely immoral, then to top even more indignity on the act they're going to turn around and use money and come back to Congress and ask for even more.

Do I understand that correctly?

And if the gentlelady will yield again, I see in the same article that as the taxpayers have to subsidize all of these abortions, that Planned Parenthood are updating their clinics to, Have a contemporary, fun, and lively look with a new color pallet that includes pink, orange, and teal.

Can the gentlelady enlighten me what is contemporary, fun, and lively about the abortion industry?

Well, I thank the gentlelady from Ohio for yielding back, and I know there are other speakers who wish to speak, so I will try to be brief.

The gentlelady from Minnesota spoke about life-saving centers. On Monday of this week, I went to one. I didn't go as a Member of Congress. I went as a father. And my wife and I have two small children, 6 and 4, and it was time to donate their old baby beds and donate a bunch of maternity clothes. And I had heard about the Dallas Pregnancy Resource Center. A bunch of great ladies in Dallas, Texas, trying to save human life. I had heard of them. I didn't think they knew me, and I showed up on a Monday morning unshowered, unshaven, in a T-shirt to donate two baby beds and a box full of maternity clothes that belonged to my wife. They were very thankful for the gift.

And when I was filling out the paperwork, they realized who I was and insisted that I tour the facility. And although I was unshaven and unshowered, I complied with their request, and I'm glad I did.

And it is amazing to me, as I think upon my visit with these ladies on Monday, to think that on the one hand, you have Planned Parenthood getting hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to take the lives of the most innocent among us, the unborn--as pictured next to the gentlelady from Minnesota--hundreds of millions of dollars spent on this abortion factor.

And here is this one little place in Dallas, Texas, called the Dallas Pregnancy Resource Center, and they sit there and they counsel with these low-income, these mostly young teen mothers. And every time that they are able to convince a mother to choose life over death, they put a tiny, tiny set of paper footprints on a bulletin board.

As you might imagine, sometimes they're blue and sometimes they're pink, and they have the date that one human life was saved.

To the best of my knowledge, the Dallas Pregnancy Resource Center receives no Federal money whatsoever to save human lives, and Planned Parenthood takes hundreds of millions of dollars of Federal taxpayer money to take

human life. Something is wrong in America when that takes place.

We need to stop, we need to take note of what is taking place. In my head and in my heart, I can come to no other conclusion but that life begins at conception. I take it as a matter of faith, but if I didn't take it as a matter of faith, how can any human being, how can any American, look at that picture next to the gentlelady from Minnesota and conclude otherwise?

In our Founding documents, the right to life is unalienable. How can this body ever act otherwise?

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, in its current form.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I listened very carefully to this debate, it is clear that the majority of the speakers feel very passionately that this is a debate about economic development for the region, a distressed region of Michigan. It's about economic development for a Native American tribe. Someone would have to be totally out of touch with their constituency not to realize that the number-one challenge to the economic well-being of our citizens is the high cost of energy.

So, Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is very simple. It removes a provision in last year's ``non-energy'' energy bill that would prevent the government from using its purchasing power to spur the growth of American energy resources, such as coal-to-liquids technology, oil shale, and tar sands.

This is especially important since we know that right north of the border, right north of Michigan, that our neighbor to the north, Canada, is rich in these resources. Particularly, so much of their energy and many of their exports come from tar sands.

The real estate that we are talking about in question could be greatly impacted should the section 526 not be repealed. Because as most people know who have studied the issue, Mr. Speaker, the United States Air Force wishes to enter into long-term contracts in order to help develop these promising new alternative energy alternatives. Yet in the Democrat ``non-energy'' energy bill, they would be effectively prevented from doing so. That will clearly have an adverse impact upon the economic growth, the economic well-being of the Native American tribe in question, not to mention the real estate in question as well.

So, again, Mr. Speaker, when we look at energy, energy now has become a health care issue. It has become an education issue. It is certainly a Native American issue. It is an economic growth issue as well. What has happened is we have seen that the Democrat majority simply wants to bring us bills that somehow believe that if we beg OPEC, we can bring down the price of energy at the pump. Maybe if we sue OPEC, we can bring down the price of energy at the pump. Maybe if we somehow berate oil companies, that will cause prices to go down at the pump. Maybe we should tax them. Well, they will take those taxes and put it right back in their price.

But what the Democrat majority hasn't decided to do is to produce American energy in America and bring down the cost of energy that way. Not only have they decided not to do it, Mr. Speaker, they are moving in the complete opposite direction with this section 526, which prevents the Federal Government from contracting in order to spur the growth of these promising alternative fuel sources, like coal-to-liquid technology, like oil shale, like tar sands. They are moving in the complete opposite direction.

Mr. Speaker, not unlike probably yourself and many of my other colleagues on the floor on both sides of the aisle, we hear from our constituents. I have heard from a constituent that says the high cost of energy now is preventing them from having three meals a day. The high cost of energy has caused them to have their adult children to have to move back in with them. Yet our Democrat majority will not bring a bill to the floor that actually produces American energy.

What Republicans want to do on this side of the aisle is, number one, continue to develop our renewable energy resources. Mr. Speaker, before coming to Congress I was an officer in a green energy company. Those technologies are promising. But, Mr. Speaker, until they are technologically and economically viable will be years to come. In the meantime, people have to take their children to school every day. People have to go to work every day. Many have to go and see their physicians.

And so we need to bring down the cost of this energy now. We know that we haven't built a refinery in America in almost 30 years. Our capacity is down. We are having to import not just crude but we are having to import refined gasoline as well. Yet, the Democrat majority does nothing, does nothing to help build more refineries.

We need diversification. We need nuclear energy. We sit here and talk to the American people about the threat of global warming, yet we know nuclear energy has no greenhouse emissions whatsoever.

It's imperative that we pass this motion to recommit and get more American energy today.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how, when you can have speaker after speaker come to the floor and say essentially this is a bill having to do with the economic well-being of a distressed area of Michigan, the economic well-being of a Native American tribe, and not believe that somehow the cost of energy factors into the economic well-being.

We are talking also about a piece of real estate. We are talking about the value of underlying minerals in this piece of real estate that will be greatly impacted on whether or not this section 526 is repealed or not.

I would just simply ask the Speaker, when is it germane to bring a motion to produce American energy in America and bring down the high cost of energy for the American people? If not now, when, Mr. Speaker? When will the Democrat majority allow these motions to be voted on?

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that

a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the Lake Highlands Exchange Club and Rhonda Russell, founder of the Lake Highlands Military Moms. Rhonda formed Military Moms so that mothers could meet once a month to exchange stories, updates, and photographs of their children serving our Nation in uniform overseas.

Recently, these two groups joined together to ensure that our servicemen and women received the local recognition they deserved for their heroic efforts. For example, they created posters for display throughout the Lake Highlands Community featuring photographs of 54 men and women serving our Nation in uniform. Additionally, they ensure that every returning servicemember is publicly honored at the Exchange Club meetings.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I'm honored to be able to recognize the Lake Highlands Exchange Club and Lake Highlands Military Moms for their continued efforts in honoring our heroes in uniform.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I certainly regret I didn't have an opportunity to negotiate a Popsicle with the gentleman from Massachusetts. I am sure that would have been an interesting experience; about as interesting as this experience is in debating a bill which I feel has a lot to do with feel-good politics, a bill that is particularly unworkable, I fear may lead to de facto price controls, and really takes our attention off of the challenge that we face, and that is to increase American production of American energy.

As much as Members of Congress might like to do it, in over 200 years I have yet to see the ability to repeal the laws of supply and demand. And so

again, I am sure the gentleman from Michigan is very sincere, and I know that he has worked on similar legislation for quite some time, but when we talk about price gouging and an emergency situation, what are we doing to bring down the price of gas at the pump today.

Instead, we have a piece of legislation that is going to allow Federal regulators, bureaucrats that according to the gentleman from Massachusetts, appear to be the savior of the Nation, to tell us what is, quote, ``unconscionably excessive,'' and ``taking unfair advantage'' related to ``an energy emergency to increase prices unreasonably.'' So now we are going to have a Federal bureau come in and tell us what are reasonable prices and reasonable situations.

The FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, after Katrina researched this issue. They could find very little evidence of it. We have unconscionably high gas prices in America, but it has everything to do with a Congress that wants to put its head in the sand and produce no energy.

Our friends from the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, since taking over the energy policy of the Nation, since taking over the economic policy of the Nation 18 months ago, have overseen gas prices that are now 75 percent higher. They have attempted to beg their way, beg OPEC to somehow produce more and bring down the cost of energy. Well, if we can't beg them, maybe we should sue them. We have had legislation to sue OPEC. We are going to sue for lower prices at the pump.

Well, if that doesn't work, maybe we can tax. Let's tax oil producers. Well, Mr. Speaker, the only challenge with that is once you tax them, they turn around and put it in the price of the product, and the poor, beleaguered consumer who is going to the convenience store trying to decide do I buy a gallon of milk or do I buy a gallon of gas, he ends up paying for it. I mean, these are policies that are out of the 1970s. President Carter and a Democrat Congress tried them; they failed. We became more dependent using these types of policies on foreign sources of energy.

We have tried these policies. It is deja vu all over again. What our friends on the other side of the aisle won't do is open up ANWR where we know we have half of the Nation's proven reserves. Almost 85 percent of our deep sea energy resources have been put out of bounds.

Listen, we all agree, we need to develop renewables. We need to develop alternative sources of energy, but people have to go to work every day and take the children to school every day. This bill does nothing to help them. We need to produce American energy in America today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that hasn't seemed to work either.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Houston White on the 60th anniversary of his participation in the establishment of the Rotary Club of Rusk, Texas.

If you've ever wondered what made individuals from the ``Greatest Generation'' so exceptional, one must look no further than to Mr. White. Ninety-five years old, Mr. White recalls surviving the Great Depression by spending his days picking cotton in West Texas. During World War II, Mr. White volunteered for the Navy, but that was just the beginning of his volunteerism.

Mr. White, a graduate of Jacksonville High School and Jacksonville Baptist College, helped establish the Rotary Club in Rusk, Texas in 1948. Since then, Mr. White has been an active member and was selected to serve as District Governor for Rotary District 5910, one of the highest offices a Rotarian can achieve.

Mr. White's public service includes countless civic projects, volunteer efforts, and participation in Rusk city government. In addition, Mr. White has served as a deacon and Sunday school teacher at First Baptist Church.

Mr. White is a husband to Freddye Banks Dear, a father to George White, and grandfather to Christopher White.

Abraham Lincoln once said, ``In the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years.'' Well, Mr. White has certainly made the past ninety-five years count.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to recognize Mr. Houston White as a resident in the fifth district of Texas and would like to thank him for his tireless service to Cherokee County, Texas, and this great nation.

Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today to honor those defenders of liberty who do not get the honor, the respect, and the recognition that they are due. Because, Madam Speaker, as hard as we try we can never adequately repay those disabled while fighting for our freedom.

I am often reminded of a quote from President Calvin Coolidge, who was known as ``Silent Cal'' because he said very little. But when he spoke, people listened. One of the things he said was that ``a nation that forgets its defenders will soon itself be forgotten.'' So, one of the things I try to do as a member of Congress is to ensure that we never forget our defenders of freedom and that I find opportunities to celebrate their achievement and to celebrate their sacrifice. That is why we are here today, to defend disabled veterans for their sacrifice.

One quality unique to disabled veterans is the continuous sacrifice they make each and every day. After the war is finished, their battle is not over. These veterans and their families will forever have a reminder of the price they paid for our freedom.

Madam Speaker, I am humbled and privileged to represent these individuals in the U.S. House of Representatives and as long as I am serving in this body, I am committed to ensuring that this nation never forgets these heroes.