Floor Statements

Well, Mr. Speaker, let me say ``welcome'' to my Democrat colleagues. ``Welcome back to the House.'' You all left here without a vote on the American Energy Act, and as I look at this week's schedule, it looks like we're going to take another week of vacation because there is not much on the schedule.

While you all were out, I and my Republican colleagues were here each and every day with the lights dimmed, with the microphones off, with no one in the chair, and with the cameras off. We were talking to the visitors who were coming through the Capitol about our plan to produce all of the above.

You know, the American people are tired of high gas prices. Small businesses are having a difficult time with high energy prices. We've got school districts around America that are trying to figure out how they're going to operate their buses this fall with the prices of gasoline and of diesel where they are. Yet Congress has failed to act. What we've been proposing for the last 3 months is the buildup of do all of the above. We need to have more conservation in America, and we need to have the incentives to produce more conservation. We need renewables.

To my colleague from Washington who was just here, I'm in full support of all of these renewables, but many of them are not going to be ready next year or the year after or, for that matter, some of them not for 10 or 20 years.

So, in the meantime, we've got to find a way to produce more energy now, and that means using coal in a clean way whether it's coal to gas or coal to liquid. We can use coal, and we're the Saudi Arabia of the world when it comes to coal, and there is no reason for us not to use it in an environmentally sensitive way. We also need nuclear energy, the cleanest form of energy. Today, it's a 15-year process to get a nuclear permit and to go through all of the steps. It costs billions of dollars, and maybe at the end of 15 years you will get a permit to actually operate.

Even if we do all of that, we've not done all we can do to maximize our energy security and to maximize the amount of energy we can produce to take a big step toward energy independence. That's why producing more American-made oil and gas in an environmentally sensitive way has to be part of this bill.

Now, this bill has been out there. It does all of the above, and I think the American people are demanding that we do all of the above, but the Speaker, before she became the Speaker, promised this would be the most open and accountable Congress in history. In that light, I respectfully ask the Speaker: When will you give the American people a vote on the American Energy Act (H.R. 6566), our plan to do all of the above? Will it be on the floor this week?

There are rumors floating around that we could have an energy bill this

week. Nobody has seen one yet. It hasn't been scheduled, but these rumors are out there. If we're going to have a vote on a little bit of the above or on some of the above that the majority might produce, why not give a large group of Members in this House who want to do all of the above just a chance to have a debate and to vote on our competing proposal?

That's what we're looking for. We want a fair and open debate. We want a chance to have a vote. Anything less than that, frankly, is unacceptable, and the Republicans in this House will continue to force the Democrat majority to allow a vote on doing all of the above because it is what the American people want. It is what they sent us here to do, and we are not going to leave until it gets done.

Let me thank my colleague from Ohio for her words.

We all loved Stephanie. Here is a lady who gave her entire career to public service, and she did so in a way that was gregarious, that was outspoken, loud, if you will.

All of you know Stephanie. Her office was next to mine over in the Longworth Building, and we always knew when Stephanie was coming back to her office because she would be walking down the hall talking to somebody. But she and I were friends and we were smoking buddies. Now, I know that might offend some of you, but you just never know how well you get to know someone over a cocktail. But here was a lady who blazed a lot of trails, who dedicated her life to public service, and someone that we will dearly miss in this Chamber.

Let me thank my colleague for yielding.

Listen, America's families and small businesses are suffering under the high cost of energy and the high cost of gasoline. High gasoline prices are crushing American families, they are hurting our schools, they are hurting seniors, and they are destroying jobs in America; and the American people expect us to do something about it. And over these last 10 weeks, what have we done? Nothing.

The gentleman's amendment offers the American Energy Plan, which is a comprehensive plan to encourage more conservation, more biofuels, alternative sources of energy, and, yes, more American-grown oil and gas. And all we're asking of the majority Democrats in this chamber is to allow us to vote. That's all we're asking. We're not asking you to vote for it. All we're doing is, allow us a vote. Let the American people decide.

Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged resolution at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrat majority here in Congress just voted a few minutes ago to adjourn for the August district work period without bringing a real bill to the floor that will open up American energy for development. Instead, they have brought this sham bill up here, trying to blame speculators for the problems that we have with the lack of energy in America.

We have had a number of these bills over the last 4 or 5 weeks, use it or lose it. We have already had a speculators bill on the floor once that passed, and a number of other ideas that are nothing more than a way to try to divert attention from the fact that they refuse to have a bill on the floor that is supported by a bipartisan majority of this Congress that would allow energy development in America.

The American Energy Act that we introduced last week is our plan to do all of the above. It would ask us to do more in terms of conservation, more in terms of bio fuels, more in terms of incentives for the development of alternative sources of energy. It would streamline the application process and permitting process for nuclear energy. And yes, it would allow us to drill in America for more oil and gas in an environmentally sensitive way. But that bill is not on the floor, nor will it be on the floor because the Speaker has refused to allow a bill to come.

And so what do we have? We have another excuse. Kind of reminds me of the old political adage. ``Don't blame me; don't blame thee; let's blame the man behind the tree.''

This is no substitute for a real bill on drilling, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Let me thank my colleague for yielding and say to my colleagues that we don't have time to have a vote this week on our All- American Energy Plan that would actually bring down gas prices in America, but we've got time to regulate tobacco.

Now this bill has been hanging around here for 15 years. For 15 years, we've been trying to move this piece of legislation. We're going to charge the tobacco companies about $5 billion over the next few years to pay for a bureaucracy here in Washington so we can regulate tobacco.

Now, listen. Most of my colleagues know that I smoke. I know that smoking is probably not good for my health. Most people who smoke in America know that smoking is probably not good for their health. Do we need the Federal Government to tell us? Do we need to spend $5 billion of smokers' money for the government to tell us that smoking is not good for us? I don't think so. This bill has not been through the legislative process as everything was promised that it should be. Frankly, the whole idea that the Federal Government ought to regulate more and more and more of our lives just gets under my skin.

I have great respect for my colleague from Michigan. He is a great Member of Congress, and we've worked together on a lot of issues, but this is a boneheaded idea. I mean, how much is enough? How much government do we need? More and more and more. There is not a smoker in America who doesn't understand that smoking isn't good for you, but now we're going to have the Federal Government, a big agency, set up under this bill where the FDA is going to be required to have this whole bureaucracy. It will have all of these new buildings. It will hire all of these people to issue all of these regulations that the tobacco companies are going to have to comply with and that smokers will pay for so that we can, out of all of this, understand that smoking is not good for you.

We've already got labels on cigarettes. You've got some companies that might as well put a billboard on a pack of cigarettes so that you know that it's bad for you. I can imagine what will happen after we get more government regulations on this issue. I would just ask my colleagues: How much is enough? How much regulation and how much government and how much bureaucracy do we need before we finally say, Enough is enough? Let's stop. Let's vote against this bill.

Would the gentleman be kind enough to yield?

Offered By: Mr. Boehner

Amendment No. 24: Before title I, insert the following:

I thank my colleague for yielding, and let me say to my colleagues, this is a joke. This is this week's answer to America's energy crisis. We are going to take 70 million barrels of one type of oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and we are going to replace it with another. It doesn't bring us any more supply. And as I said, this is just the latest excuse for not having a real energy bill on the floor.

We have got this bill this week. Last week we had Use It Or Lose It, another farce because it is already the law. We had another bill up that said, well, let's try to encourage the President to speed up the pipeline in Alaska. And let's make sure that we drill in the National Petroleum Reserve, which is already allowed. Nothing that is going to bring more supply. And it has been one excuse after another excuse when we actually could have a vote on a real energy bill that does all of the above.

I and my colleagues yesterday introduced the American Energy Plan that says we ought to have more conservation, we ought to have more biofuels, more incentives for alternative sources of energy. We ought to have nuclear energy; and yes, we ought to have more American-made energy. And whether that oil and gas comes from the continental shelf of Alaska or the Outer Continental Shelf, or from the oil shale that we have in Intermountain West, why can't we produce more American energy to bring down gas prices for the American people.

I'll tell you why, because they've done everything humanly possible to prevent a vote in this Chamber. The Speaker has gone through every hi-jinks, every legislative trick known to man to avoid allowing us to offer an amendment. That is why this bill is being considered under a suspension of the rules. We are not allowed to offer an amendment. That is why we have no appropriations, because my goodness, someone might offer an energy amendment on the floor of the House and it might pass. What does the Speaker have to fear in allowing this House to work its will?

And I think the American Energy Plan is something that the American people support. I think the votes are in this Chamber to pass that bill, but we are not allowed to vote. I thought that is what the American people sent us here to do, to represent their will; and the Speaker is standing in front of the will of the American people by refusing to allow us to vote.

Let's not vote for another excuse, another excuse to delay the actual vote for a real bill, a real bill that will bring down gas prices; and that is all this bill is, another excuse. It doesn't deserve our support.

I thank my colleague from California for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, just as the Democrat leadership of this Congress is sticking its collective head in the sand when it comes to energy legislation, it is doing the same with the entitlement crisis that we face.

My colleagues, ignoring this crisis won't make it go away. But this is just what the measure before us will do, allow us to ignore this big problem for just a little while longer.

Earlier this year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services warned that if Congress doesn't act, government health care spending will grow to over $2 trillion by 2017. Medicare alone will account for almost one-quarter of this total. We can't afford that, our children can't afford that, and most certainly our grandchildren can't afford it.

But today, the majority is saying, well, we are just going to wait for the next generation of lawmakers to deal with this problem instead of doing what we should do now. The majority is also saying something else. They are saying thank you to their trial lawyer allies. This is something that they have said quite often during the last 2 years, as we all know. By not addressing the Medicare funding crisis in a comprehensive way, we are dodging fundamental liability reform that the entire health care system needs so sorely. Who gains? Trial lawyers. Who loses? Patients, doctors and taxpayers.

The majority leader said several months ago that he believed Medicare reform would be one of the most important issues for the next Congress and the next administration. Well, with the bill before us, it is clear that the majority leader meant what he said. But I think it is regrettable. It is irresponsible, and it is unfair to our children and theirs, not to mention the seniors who rely on this program today. They are going to bear the consequences of our refusal to step up and do the right thing.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this. Let's have the courage to do what the American people sent us here to do: to solve this entitlement crisis in a fair and bipartisan way.

Let me thank my colleague from Alabama for yielding, and let me say to my colleagues that I'm disappointed in the bill that we have before us. And I'm disappointed in the fact that the White House has indicated that they will sign the bill that we have before us. Everybody in this Chamber knows that we need to take responsible steps to restore the financial condition of our credit markets and our institutions.

Clearly, the housing market needs some stability. But the bill, I believe, that is before us falls well short of that goal by placing taxpayers on the hook for billions and billions of dollars. And how do we do this? We do this by creating a new tax--of course they will

call it a fee--on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a new tax on them of about $1 billion a year, so that we can use that money to give to the FHA to bail out scam artists, speculators and banks who made bad loans.

Listen. There is nobody in this Chamber that isn't there to help innocent victims of this housing crisis. But as the gentleman knows, and I think everybody in this Chamber knows, there is no way to help the innocent victims without, at the same time, helping the scam artists and speculators and the financial institutions who provided the loans to them. And what will happen is that the worst loans held by these financial institutions are going to be taken in by FHA. And who is going to pay the bill? The American taxpayers. I don't think they can afford it.

Secondly, as I said, we're going to charge Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac some 800, 900, almost $1 billion a year in new taxes that are going to be used to help fund all of this over the next 3 years. After that, what is going to happen to that money? It's going to go to local housing groups. Now, I can tell you that there has been more money wasted in these groups than about any kind of money that we have ever spent. But the idea of charging two institutions that we are trying to save, we are going to charge them a tax of about $800, $900 million a year on one end, and then on the other end, we're going to provide a possible taxpayer bailout. It makes no sense to me.

And then we get to the issue of GSE reform. The GSE reform, the new regulator in this bill I think is of good prospect, and is a good piece of work. I think the FHA modernization in this bill is good work. But when you look at the GSE part of this, we're going to have a new regulator. They're going to require more capital. They're going to hold Fannie's and Freddie's and the others' feet to the fire for a while. But to what end? What do we do 4 or 5 years from now when these institutions are supposedly healthy? We're in the same box that we're in today. We have a private company with a product with a Federal guarantee. It used to be that this was an implicit guarantee that the Federal government would back up these loans. But now it's clearly an explicit guarantee because the Treasury Secretary has made it clear that we're going to stand behind these two institutions.

So we have a private company that has a product with a Federal guarantee. I just have to ask my colleagues, we have an opportunity here to make real reform and to make real decisions about the future of these institutions.

We leave the question hanging. I am not quite sure what the answer really is. But to have this public-private quasi-partnership, and it is a private company with a board of directors, they make decisions and pay themselves salaries, and have a product, though with an explicit guarantee by the Federal Government, is a recipe for disaster, as we have found.

There are other problems with this bill. We have $4 billion in here for cities and States to buy up foreclosed properties, which I think will only increase the number of foreclosures in those jurisdictions that get the money.

It is a bill that I wish I could support. It is a bill where clearly the market needs support, but this is not a bill that I can support. I am disappointed that we couldn't do better. I am even more disappointed that the White House will sign this product. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Let me thank my colleague from Texas for yielding.

I think all of us understand that American families are struggling with the high costs of food, health care, and yes, the high cost of gasoline. Small businesses are struggling. And what Americans are about to see in the coming months is that the cost of fuel is in virtually everything that we buy and everything that we use. And when we begin to see these giant price increases in the coming months, the squeeze on American families and small businesses is going to get a lot worse.

That's why I and my Republican colleagues have been supporting a plan that says, Let's do all of the above. If we're serious about energy independence, we're serious about wanting to help our economy, help families, and help small businesses. We know we need to conserve more fuel, more energy in America. That's why many of us voted to increase CAFE standards to get higher fuel mileage for American cars. We also need to continue to promote biofuels, and whether it's cellulosic ethanol, whether it's regular ethanol, biodiesel, there's still room to grow in the biodiesel area.

We also need to have alternative sources of energy, whether it be wind, whether it be solar, geothermal, hydroelectric. All of these alternatives are out there. But we ought to make sure that the incentives that we have are sufficient to help bring these alternatives to market as soon as we can.

But we also need to be serious about nuclear energy. France produces almost 80 percent of its electric from nuclear energy. In America, we've put such a stranglehold on the ability to construct a nuclear plant that it takes over 15 years and billions of dollars to maybe, maybe get one sited, much less build it and to operate it. We can meet all of the safety concerns of nuclear energy in a much more efficient way that would allow people to bring these plants on and save the oil, gas, and coal that is used today.

But even if we did all of these, we haven't done enough. We haven't done enough to take the step toward truly helping Americans be energy independent. And that's where we need to drill. We need more American- made oil and gas. And we can do this. But a lot of people on the other side continue to say no.

1989, when the ANWR bill was on this floor, George Miller, my colleague and friend from California, said, We shouldn't pass this. Because even if we passed it, we wouldn't see any oil or gas out of ANWR for 10 or 12 years. Well, let's see. I'm not the greatest mathematician, but that was somewhere around the year 2000 we would have started to see a million to a million and a half barrels of oil a day coming out of ANWR.

The House has passed ANWR drilling legislation 10 or 12 times. It's the Senate that continues to block it. But in 1995, the Senate actually came along. We passed an ANWR drilling bill. We sent it to President Bill Clinton. And he said when he was vetoing the bill that well, even if this were to become law, we wouldn't see any oil or natural gas out of ANWR for 10 years. Well, let's see. That's 2005. So for the last 3 years we would have been getting a million to a million and a half barrels of oil a day.

Now, my colleagues on the other side want to make all kinds of excuses. They want to blame the speculators, they want to blame the oil companies, they want to blame everybody other than who they should blame. Get the mirror out. Look in the mirror, because it's my colleagues on the other side over the last 20 years who, over 85 percent of the time, have voted to block more American-made energy. Every single time.

Now, we've been having this debate the last several months about having a pro-energy vote here on the floor of the House. Right here. Right here in the people's House. Why can't we vote? Why can't we have a debate? Why can't we let the American people see where their Congress is, where their Members are? What do we have to fear? Oh. We have to stop the appropriation process because oh my goodness, somebody might offer an amendment that would lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. We can't expose our Members to a vote like that. They might vote the wrong way.

Why can't we have a vote right here on the floor of the House on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a 19-million acre plot of ground and where we would use about 2,000 acres to actually do the drilling? Now, if you want to look at that, that's the size of a postage stamp on a football field. That's how much of ANWR would be affected by oil production up there.

Why not have a vote? Why not let the Members make a decision. Offshore oil drilling. How about oil shale in the Intermountain West? Why can't we have a vote here to have more energy production?

But I'm going to say it one more time. We need to do all of the above if we're serious. And we can drill in an environmentally sound way, and that's what we should be doing.

Madam Speaker, I support the gentleman's motion to instruct, and I would tell my colleagues on the other side we're not going to leave here for the August recess until we get a vote on having more American- made energy.

And I see my friend, the majority leader, coming down. Maybe he can promise us that we will get a vote over the next 3 weeks on having more energy produced right here in America.

Let me thank my colleague for yielding and tell my colleagues that in 1992 I voted for this bill. In 1992, the chairman of the committee voted for the bill. In 1992, Mr. Hoyer, the majority leader, and Ms. Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, voted for the same bill. This is already the current law.

All this is is another excuse put up by the majority to not go after more American energy. That is all this is. And we have had more excuses. We going to blame it on speculators, we are going to blame it on the oil companies, we are going to blame it on OPEC, when there is only one group, only one group in this Chamber we ought to blame, and that is all the liberals in this House who have voted on for no energy each and every time over the last 18 years that I have been here.

Forty-six votes. Forty-six votes have been brought to this floor over the last 18 years that I have been here to produce more American-made energy. I voted yes 46 times out of 46. Ms. Pelosi, as an example, voted yes twice. Just twice. And how many times did the gentleman from West Virginia vote to bring more American-made energy to the market?

We are giving $600 billion a year to people in the Middle East, money that could be spent here in America if we were willing to bring more oil out of our ground in an environmentally safe way.

Republicans have put forward an all-of-the-above strategy. We need to conserve more of our energy, we need to develop biofuels, we need to develop alternative fuels, we need to have nuclear energy, and, yes, we need to produce more oil and gas here in America in an environmentally safe way. But all we get from the other side each and every time are excuses. ``Let's blame somebody else.''

We are about to go home for our Independence Day district work period. We should not leave here until we take steps that will help us move our country toward more energy independence. Not more excuses, not more posing for ``holy pictures,'' as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee would say. We need to bring bills to the floor that will actually put Members on record whether they are for more American-made energy or not.

I am willing to show my constituents how I will vote. Let's let all of America

see how our colleagues will vote, for more American made energy, which is what we need to do to bring gas prices down in America.

Let me thank my colleague from Texas for yielding.

Let me just take a moment to congratulate both Mr. Smith, ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, and Mr. Hoekstra, the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, and all of their staff, who have worked closely with our Democrat colleagues, both in the House and Senate, to craft a bill that will help protect the American people.

Madam Speaker, America cannot afford to have a pre-9/11 mentality when it comes to national security. I think that's why this bill is so critical and why Members and staff have been working so hard to craft it. I recognize the serious threat that we face, and it keeps our Nation on offense when it comes to protecting the American people.

Our intelligence officials must have the ability to monitor terrorists suspected of plotting to kill Americans. This measure ensures that the tools that they need will be there to help keep America safe. They have retroactive liability protections for firms that have aided the government and have worked with our government at our request to help detect and prevent attacks. We should protect those companies.

I think it also protects the civil liberties of all Americans. This is an important piece of legislation. It has taken an awful lot of time to get there.

But just like yesterday, when Members on both sides of the aisle work together, we can come to an agreement. We can come to a compromise that's in the best interest of our country.

Two days in a row we have had two great examples of how we can craft very good bills by working in a bipartisan manner. I want to congratulate all the Members on both sides of the aisle and their staffs who have worked so hard to bring this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague for yielding, and let me thank him for his work, the majority leader Mr. Hoyer, and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel

It's not often that on a major bill that with as much controversy as we've had with this bill that we can come together and work as a Congress on both sides of the aisle and come to a compromise. The gentleman from Wisconsin outlined the provisions of the bill. I might have described them a little differently than he did. But a compromise is that. It's a compromise. You know, there are 435 of us. Any one of us could write this bill in a way that fit our own interests.

But at the end of the day, I think there was cooperation on both sides to come to this agreement. And I believe that at the end of the day, it's a victory for our troops, it's a victory for American families, it's a victory for our veterans, and for those in need who are unemployed.

Now, we could get into the whole issue of Iraq. I'm glad we're there. I wish it had gone better. I wish it had gone quicker. I want our troops to come home as soon as possible. But I want our troops to come home having succeeded in Iraq. The effort, the fight that's going on in Iraq, it's not about tomorrow, it's not about next month or next year. It is about the future for our kids and theirs.

Our soldiers in Iraq have brought more security to that country, the political process is working better, and building a democracy in a part of the world that's never known it, there is no price. There is no price that we can put on what that may mean for the future for our kids and theirs.

I know it's been difficult. It's been difficult for all Americans. And it's certainly been difficult for our troops and especially for those troops that have given their lives in defense of our country. But it's a price for freedom. And I think freedom for our kids and theirs is why a lot of us are here. And so supporting our troops that are in Iraq and Afghanistan is important.

I could criticize the majority that this bill should have happened a long time ago. There's no reason to get into that. But I think we're doing the right thing for our troops in this bill finally. I think the expanded GI benefits in this bill, while they may not be exactly as I would write them, taking care of our veterans should be our highest priority and making sure that they have the kinds of educational benefits that will help not only them but also their families will help us retain more of our soldiers, and help give them the benefits that they and their families deserve.

When it comes to the unemployment benefits that are included in this bill, I think it's a reasonable provision to require 20 weeks of work, which is current law, and to extend 13 additional weeks for all 50 States. I wouldn't have done it that way. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) knows that. We had a discussion about it. But again, a compromise is a compromise.

I want to thank my Democrat colleagues for working with us to get to this point. And I want to thank them for this commitment that this is the bill, this is the bill that will end up on the President's desk.

And so I would ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this. You may not love it, but this is one of those moments when you've worked together, you've worked out a compromise, that Members need to just suck it up and vote ``yes'' because it's the right thing to do for our country.

Let me thank my colleague from Illinois for yielding and make clear once again that Republicans in the House want to pass a responsible extension of unemployment benefits.

We realize that there are people in America who are hurting, who need help. But the bill that we have before us is an irresponsible bill. And it's irresponsible for two reasons; one, it's not targeted to the States that have high unemployment. It says we're going to extend 13 additional weeks of unemployment in all 50 States regardless of what the unemployment rate is. I'll use the example I used yesterday. Oklahoma has a 2.6 percent unemployment rate. Why would we need an additional 13 weeks of unemployment in that State? And so it's not targeted to the States that need the help, and it could be targeted.

The second problem is the fact that we reduce--or basically eliminate--the work requirements. Under the current law, you've got to work 20 weeks in order to be entitled to unemployment benefits. Under this bill, you could work as little as 2 weeks and be entitled to up to a year of unemployment benefits. I just think that that's a poor use of our taxpayer funds.

Why aren't they thinking about the hardworking men and women in America, who go to work every day, they pay taxes, they do tough jobs, they have to give part of their money to us so that we can spend it on behalf of the American people to provide services? We should always remember that it's the hardworking people in America that provide the taxpayer funds that we spend. And our job is to spend those funds in a responsible way, and this is not, in my view, a responsible bill.

Republicans want to work with Democrats to pass a responsible extension of unemployment benefits. And we can do it together if we will just sit down and work it out. But we all know this bill is going nowhere. This bill is dead on arrival, the Senate is not going to take it up, it's going nowhere. And so instead of wasting all of this time having this debate about an irresponsible bill, we actually could have legislation on the floor today that allows us to produce more American energy.

I think the American people want us to achieve energy independence, and the only way we're going to get there is to do what I call, ``all of the above.'' We need to conserve more in America. We need biofuels; we need alternative fuels; we need to get serious about nuclear energy; and we need to produce more oil and gas here in the United States instead of depending on some 70 percent of it coming from foreign sources.

But over the course of the last 18 years that I've been a Member of Congress there have been 46 energy votes on the floor of this House that would allow us to produce more American energy. And guess what? Forty-six times I voted to bring more American energy to the market. The Speaker of the House got to vote over those last 18 years on the same 46 votes. Do you know how many times she voted in favor of American energy? Twice.

When it comes to American energy, it's pretty clear what party is in favor of bringing more American energy to the marketplace. Bringing American energy to the marketplace in an environmentally safe way is possible, and we ought to do it in order to achieve energy independence and bring down the price of energy and gasoline in America. It would be far more productive doing that bill on the floor today than doing the bill that we're doing.