Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up with my colleague from Texas since we are talking about e-mails, and I, in essence, concur with him. The number one message we are getting back from our constituents is high energy prices. And when the historians go back to reclaim our files to write some analysis on what this Congress did at its hour of need and we make sure they can pull our e-mails, they are going to find us inundated with ``energy prices are too high,'' and then they're going to look at the record and ask, well, how did Congress respond? And for the first 18 months of this Congress, and we only have about half a year left, we have done nothing.

This is the problem: $23 a barrel when Bush came into office, $58 a barrel when the Democrats assumed the majority. I didn't check the market today yet. As of yesterday, it was $140 a barrel. What we are saying here is the trend line is bad, and what we are saying is the trend line is not sustainable

if we want a middle class in this country, if we want people in rural America to live in rural America.

In rural America I represent parts of 30 counties of Southern Illinois. We have to drive many miles to get to health care. We have to drive many miles to get to our primary schools, our secondary schools. We have to drive big trucks because we're hauling seed, we're hauling feed, we're hauling livestock. They're working trucks. They can't operate on an electric engine, a plug-in type of vehicle. Now, that may be good for some parts of the country. It's not good for rural Southern Illinois.

So here we are on the floor just back from a week at home, the 4th of July break, thinking that it's time to roll up our sleeves and work to help address the concerns because we know they are going to take a while to fix. It's not like we can snap our finger. A lot of times we get asked, what can we do immediately? What can we do immediately? One of the answers is to lower the Federal gas tax. That's something we can do immediately. What is another thing we can do immediately? Well, the public has to conserve. The individual has to do something immediately, and they're doing it. We are driving fewer miles today but we're paying more. Does that make sense? Drive less, pay more? That's as bad as drive small cars and wait for the wind. The other policy is drive less, pay more. That's not a good energy policy.

So we're ready to come back. We're ready to be open. We are ready to be accessible. Compromise on this floor. Bring some supply to the debate. Bring some efficiency. Bring some renewables. Let's strike an agreement.

There is a great example of that, Mr. Speaker. My friend Peter Roskam from Chicago, he has a bill called the Vision Act, which uses the royalties of the Outer Continental Shelf, uses the Federal money and then plows it into renewables--solar, wind, electric--because it's all going to cost money.

So here's the problem. Here's the solution: The Outer Continental Shelf, coal to liquid, solar, wind, renewable fuels. All the above, that's our policy. American-made energy translates into American-made jobs, which lowers prices for everyone. And the point should be made. It's the middle class, the lower middle class who are exponentially harmed by higher energy prices. They can't afford the new technology. They can't afford the new cars. They have to buy the used car off the lot that gets poor gas mileage because they are trying to make ends meet.

We are on the right side of this issue.

I thank my colleague.

Today, Mr. Speaker, another great opportunity, and I will mention it in 1 minute. The United States has the largest reserve of recoverable coal in the world. Why not take that coal, create United Mine Worker jobs recovering the coal, build a coal-to-liquid refinery, turn that into jet fuel, gasoline, diesel fuel, build it in the central part of the country where the coal fields are so it's not disrupted by the storms in the gulf coast, pump it to our airports so that they have a competitive product versus crude oil jet fuel so that we don't lose our budget airlines.

Four budget airlines have got bankrupt. Four budget airlines. That means ticket takers, stewardesses, pilots, baggage handlers now without a job. Why? High energy costs. And we come to the floor with a national historic trail and protecting e-mails and 15 suspension bills.

Would the gentleman yield?

Would the gentleman yield for debate on these lease issues?

So you don't want to debate the lease issue.

Would the gentleman yield to debate? You are talking about debate.

So you don't want to debate the lease issue.

Would the gentleman debate the oil profits issue? Will you debate me on the energy debate?

I thank my colleague from North Carolina for the time.

I want to commend my colleague, Congressman Costello, for bringing this forward, and of course my colleague from Chicago, Chairman Davis, for helping get this bill on the floor.

In Southern Illinois everyone knows Ken Gray. In this environment it's always hard to figure out with past Congresses, but he is admired and adored and lovingly called the ``Prince of Pork'' for a couple of reasons, probably a lot more than I even know since I'm a youngster to this institution, but for helping President Eisenhower pass the Federal highway transportation bill, which brought the interstate highway system, and then lobbying diligently to make sure that those routes came through Southern Illinois.

And although Southern Illinois continues to struggle along the interstate routes that are part of my district and part of Congressman Costello's district where there are jobs and economic activity, they are around the hubs of the interstate highway system. So he does get great credit for that. Also, a major lake, Rend Lake, is there that provides water for much of the communities of Southern Illinois. And that was all part of his due diligence and his activity.

I also like the story, being a veteran, of Ken Gray lying about his age, going into the war, and then serving honorably in World War II and being awarded three Bronze Stars for his service.

He is quite the character. People who know him and have served with him can tell you some quite colorful stories. He has welcomed me in the institution as a colleague. I look to him for advice and counsel when I get into the deep part of Southern Illinois.

I think this is a fitting tribute. I thank my colleague, Congressman Costello, for bringing it forward. I implore and ask my colleagues to support the naming of this post office.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and honor Mr. Dick Deitz of McLeansboro, Illinois.

Mr. Deitz is to be inducted into the 2008 National High School Hall of Fame, the highest honor that an individual associated with high school sports can receive. This Hall of Fame honors athletes, coaches, officials, and administrators for their extraordinary achievements in high school sports.

Mr. Deitz has been working as a football, basketball, and baseball official in Illinois since 1958 and has been the state's rules interpreter in basketball and baseball since 1976.

He is the head official for the Illinois High School Association (IHSA) football playoffs, and he is an IHSA clinician in both football and basketball.

Mr. Deitz officiated state tournaments in boys basketball and state finals in football; making him one of a select few in the State to work finals in both major sports. He was inducted into the Illinois Basketball Coaches Association Hall of Fame in 1998, and since 1993, he has been mayor of McLeansboro, Illinois.

I extend my congratulations to Dick Deitz and his family for his impressive accomplishments and his induction into the National High School Hall of Fame.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, it's great to be on the floor tonight, coming back from a week's break, and I'm sure everybody is coming back with the number one issue on their mind, which is high energy prices. If they are not, they were traveling overseas and they were looking at the gas prices overseas. I mean if they were home, I don't think you could find anyone who wasn't talked to about high energy prices.

I learned a couple of things. I did a couple of radio shows. One, I just think because many of us have been talking about this issue for so long, we have to be careful that we don't become a little energy arrogant and continue to help educate the public on the basic economic principles of the law of supply and demand. That is what we are basically addressing tonight, and it's really difficult to understand how what students are taught in a basic economics course at the college level is not understood here on the floor of the House of Representatives.

The other thing I learned on a radio show yesterday, a person called in and said, When are you guys going to talk about drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf? I wanted to reach through the wires and grab that caller and say, What do you think we have been doing for 10 weeks straight on the floor of the House?

I want to encourage my colleagues to not give up, not lose hope. We have got to continue to talk about this. So I appreciate you grabbing the time, allowing us to come down on the floor.

I was going to ask how many folks have signed. You said 191 have signed the petition. I know we have some Democrats who have signed it. I saw one before the break. We know that we would like more. We know the challenges that they are under not to do that. But I think come election time, as we get closer, we have a production majority here on the floor of the House. I know it. I know who they are. If we can get a bill to the floor.

I wish my colleague, Mr. Roskam was here. I was up in Chicago with him today. He talked about the gas price in Wheaton, which is his hometown, his home area. But we had to drive to the airport. We drove past gas stations, $4.47 in the Chicago area. That is not including climate change, which would add another 50 cents. So you're already over $5 a gallon. That is what we are looking at. Because here's the basic problem. I have tried to be a little less rancorous in my debate.

When the Democrats took over, $58. Today, it's $140. When President Bush came in, it was $23 a barrel. All I am saying when I hold this chart up is the trend line is bad. It doesn't matter where you go, whether you go when Bush got sworn in or whether you go here when the Democrats took control or whether you look at the price today, that trend line is not positive, and it disproportionately hurts middle class, the lower middle class, rural, small town citizens of our country, which I represent.

I represent 30 counties in southern Illinois. We have to drive long distances to get to health care, we have to drive long distances to get to our schools. We have to drive long distances to get to our work. You know what? The poor can't afford the Priuses of the world right now. The poor are purchasing used cars off the lots because that is the only thing they can afford. So if that is the problem, the question is: What is the solution?

My colleague from Georgia did a great job. All of the above. Let's open up the Outer Continental Shelf, let's use fuel from coal, let's go wind and solar, let's do the renewal fuels. The great thing about our position is, and I got asked numerous times, Well, what about solar? I said, Great. What about wind? I am going to have a big wind generation field in my district. I'm happy about it, excited about it, and pledged to do all I can to help.

So I say, Bring it on. Any idea we have to help decrease our lives of imported crude oil by bringing on more supply, decreasing--we talked about conservation. Our citizens are conserving now. They are forced to conserve because of the high cost. So we are driving less miles this year than we were last year. Driving less miles and we are paying more. That is kind of the Democrat energy policy, drive less, pay more. I don't like that.

I'd be happy to.

Well, you know the best way for a bill to get passed and signed into law, especially with a Republican President, is to work through the committee process. A lot of this would start in my subcommittee, the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, chaired by a good friend of mine. In fact he is a cosponsor of the Boucher-Shimkus bill.

If allowed, we could move an energy security bill that would really address what Americans want, which is to decrease our reliance on imported crude oil from those countries that are enemies of our state or unstable; focus on North American energy, that means the deployment of all our energy resources; continues our great relationship with Canada and Mexico; do the renewables, do the efficiency standards, and move.

So the answer is no. All the bills have come to the floor without any committee hearings. The only thing we have been able to do is offer motions to recommit. We have done that numerous times on alternative fuel standards, which would bring in coal-to-liquid. We have done that on other generation issues. Of course, they are more of a party-line vote, and they all fail.

But historically, in votes that have been cast on this floor since 1994, the facts just speak for themselves: 90 percent of all Republicans support more supply; 90 percent of all Democrats do not support more supply. They vote against more supply, they vote against refineries. But there is 10 percent. The Speaker pro tempore is a friend of the fossil fuel area, I understand. They are there. We just need to help them help us help the country.

One of the reasons why we are not in the Outer Continental Shelf is an oil spill I think that happened in 1969. I was 11 years old. I have changed a lot, maybe some good, maybe some bad. I was 11 years old. That is 39 years ago. Technology has improved greatly. Katrina is a perfect example. When Katrina came up the Western Gulf, tell me the major environmental disaster that occurred on the deep drilling, 5 miles deep, because of that massive hurricane? The answer is none.

No. No.

Just let me address one thing. Of course, Speaker Pelosi made an announcement that she wants to now empty the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a very foolish proposal. One is because that is there for our national security in case the sea lanes get closed. Since we don't have enough production on our own, like the farmers would say, it is like eating the seed corn. If you eat the seed corn, you have no seed to plant for the next year. Foolish. Foolhardy. A scary proposal. Versus moving in the discharge petition we will talk about coal-to- liquid technologies.

Better than to pump out the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, let's develop gas from our own coalfields. There is 250 years worth of supply in Southern Illinois. There are American jobs mining it, American jobs building the refinery, American jobs operating the refinery, American jobs building the pipeline to American jobs, wherever that goes. Whether it is diesel fuel, gasoline, or whether it is aviation fuel, we can do it.

Don't do something silly, which is take the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, pump all that oil out of there, and then you are done. You have no reserves.

I want to thank you for the time. I know I have another colleague that would like some. I just think it is very telling. I know my good fossil fuel Democrats are starting to fight I think the good fight. But here is what a Democrat staffer said today: ``Right now, our strategy on gas prices is drive small cars and wait for the wind.''

My constituents will not put up with that. First of all, we drive big trucks to haul feed, to haul livestock, to move farm equipment around, and we can can't operate with a four cylinder electric engine on a major pickup truck.

I thank you for the time. I appreciate it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor 15-year-old Derrick Gregg from Highland, Illinois. For his Eagle Scout badge project, Derrick chose to raise funds for building a helipad in Highland.

The $88,000 helipad that Derrick has raised the money to build is fully heated. Additionally, it also has radio controlled lighting. As the nearest trauma center to Highland is about 40 miles away, this landing pad will be used when critical patients need to be transported by helicopter.

I congratulate Derrick for his efforts which will serve his community well. I wish him the best as he finishes this project and completes his Eagle Scout requirements.

Madam Speaker, it is great to be on the floor today. You know, just because it's said on the floor doesn't mean it's true, and there are a lot of people who've discussed things today and who've discussed things throughout the debate, and so let's start talking about facts.

I've been on the floor numerous times to talk about energy, and I've softened my discussions. I used to talk about the Pelosi premium. I've kind of gone away from that because, really, the problem is a problem of supply. So I go back to the Bush administration, to January 2001, where a barrel of crude oil was $23. You know, I just want to be honest. I want to talk about supply and demand. I want to get away from the partisan wrangle and address what we really need to address--lower gas prices--which is to bring on more supply. As we talk about these bills that are going to come forward this week, they do nothing for supply, and we'll talk about why that is.

Then when this new majority came in and since Bush has come in, the price has doubled to $58 a barrel. Now, I didn't have time to update today's crude oil price, but as of Thursday of last week, it was $136 a barrel, which is over double the $58. The trend line is negative. The trend line is not a positive thing. So the debate is how do we change the trend line. How do we get to a price where we at least stabilize the price of a barrel of crude oil? Then how do we help that effect the lowering of gas prices?

I live in the bi-State area between St. Louis and Illinois where it's $4.17 a gallon. So, even if we're assuming the promise of the Speaker that we drop it by 50 cents on speculation, we're still paying $3.85 or $3.75. I mean it is still way too high for people in rural America to get to work, to go to school, to get in the fields. Diesel prices have doubled. It's way too high. Even if we assume the promise of speculation at 50 cents, which I reject, that's still way too high. We need to bring on more supply. This is a problem.

So, when you have a problem, you need to start really addressing credible solutions, not scapegoating, not trying to find blame. What do we need to do as a country? We've brought this to the floor numerous times. As for the Outer Continental Shelf, I think the public is now there. The national polls are clear. The Outer Continental Shelf is over 50 miles off the coast. You can't see it from the coastline.

What is more hazardous to our beaches and to our tourism are super tankers that are bringing crude oil from around the world, super tankers that are then having a wreck or are having a disaster where that crude oil is then washing to shore. The exploration off the east coast, off the west coast and off the eastern gulf of billions of barrels of oil that are trillions of cubic feet is not debatable anymore. It is accepted, in principle, by the American public. It was put off access by this Congress years ago.

This year, through the appropriations cycle, we can change this. We can say: Let's encourage our business and industry. Let's go into the Outer Continental Shelf. Let's explore for oil and gas, wind and solar. The great thing about the Republican policy is that we want everything, more of everything. We want wind. There's going to be a big wind generation facility built in my district, and I welcome it. We want solar. I want to encourage tax incentives for people to put solar cells on their homes. All of the above is a solution.

If you'll look to the far right, I have a bigger chart of fuel from coal. The Germans did it in World War II with the Fischer-Tropsch technology. We can do it today. In Illinois alone, there are 250 years of BTU ability, the same as Saudi Arabia's. Then there are renewable fuels. In December, this Congress passed an expansion in renewable fuels, hoping cellulosic comes on. Add

that to corn-based ethanol, to biodiesel and to soy diesel. All of the above is our solution and is American made.

The great thing about this: American jobs exploring the OCS, American jobs building the wind and the solar panels, American jobs mining the coal and refining the coal, American jobs in the farm fields across America.

In an era when we are concerned about jobs and the dollar, it makes sense to invest in America, in American energy sources and in American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about being put over a barrel of oil. In 2001, a barrel cost $23. When this majority came in, it was at $58, and now it is over $136. The trend line is bad.

I don't understand why we want to limit our ability to explore all the available energy resources. Why not go after the leases we have. Why not open new leases. Why not go in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Here is the OCS, off-limits by our mandate. We did it. The Congress said we can't go on the west coast. The Congress said we can't go on the east coast, and the Congress said we can't go on the east gulf. That is foolish at today's prices.

Let's use America's natural resource of coal. In Illinois alone, we have as much Btu as Saudi Arabia has in oil. Let's encourage coal-to- liquid technologies. Let's use solar and wind, and all of the above energy sources, man-made energy resources with American energy and U.S. jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I got a letter from a constituent from Centralia, Illinois. He calls it Operation Drill Bit. He says, ``Here's the problem. I'm tired of high gas prices. I'm tired of watching you borrow money from the Chinese to buy oil from the Saudis. Here's the solution. It's time to drill for our own supply of oil no matter where it may lie. It is time to mine our own resources no matter where they may lie.'' He attaches a drill bit to the letter.

So I'm signing Lynn Westmoreland's pledge. I will join in the petition that I will continue to vote for more supply. The solution is more supply from the Outer Continental Shelf, coal-to-liquid technology, wind and solar, and renewable fuels. We need American-made energy. We need all of the above so that we can lower gas prices for the whole country at the pump. The poor, rural Americans are disproportionately harmed by high gas prices.

I'd like to thank my colleague from Georgia. And, you know, we're fortunate still, in today's high energy prices, to be able to use aviation. Aviation fuel is up. Budget airlines are broke, four of them so far. Baggage handlers are out of work. Ticket takers are out of work.

And part of the problem that America's facing is the high price of energy. And this is not a new debate that we've had since I've been here. And it's interesting how the votes have come down since 1994. And I think the public would really find them astonishing that on almost every production bill, production means producing something, almost every production bill, whether it's Outer Continental Shelf, whether it's oil shale, whether it's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, whether it's coal-to-liquid technologies, Republicans vote 90 percent of the time in support of production, and my friends on the other side, the Democrats vote 90 percent of time in opposition to production.

So since we've had this fight for many, many years, almost decades now, it was Jimmy Carter who set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas exploration. It was President Bill Clinton who vetoed the ability to explore the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 1995. Had he not done that, that oil would be here in our country today.

So now we find ourselves in a dilemma. It's Economics 101. It's supply and demand. Limited supply, increased demand, higher prices.

Here's the problem. January 2001, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $23, just 7 years ago. When the new majority came in in January of 2006, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $58.31. This was not acceptable. I didn't like this. That's why we passed, in between this time, the 2005 Energy and Policy Act. And on this floor, that bill had the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in it. Of course it went to the Senate and it went there to die. And they pulled ANWR out.

Today the problem has grown by exponential amounts. Today the price of a barrel of crude oil is $136.39. So I'd like to keep this debate simple. This is a problem. So what is a solution?

And we're going to hear a lot, we've heard a lot of solutions from the other side. None of their solutions talk about bringing on more supply.

And we've had some great victories this week. FISA, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, funding of the troops, no restrictions, GI bill expansion, great victories that came about through bipartisan compromise on this floor, bills that will get signed by the President. And we're all pretty pleased with the work we did this week.

We can do that with this. There is a congressional majority that would vote for more supply. There's only one hang up. It's the Speaker of the House will not let these bills on the floor.

So you have done a great job, and I used my 1 minute, Congressman Westmoreland, to sign your petition. And I want to challenge and encourage all my colleagues, in a bipartisan manner, to come down and sign this petition, this pledge. And I hope the constituents from all over the country ask their congressmen have they signed this pledge.

The pledge is pretty simple. I will vote to increase U.S. oil production and lower gas prices for America. And there I am, right there, just signed it.

It doesn't have to be. This is not a difficult process.

Now, since I signed the pledge, the question is how do we do this?

Well, we know how we do it. These red areas on this map is called the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS. You hear it talked about on this floor a lot. These areas, which is the West Coast, all the West Coast, all of the East Coast, and the eastern half of the Gulf of Mexico, are off limits, off limits. We can't research it, we can't investigate it, we definitely can't find and produce oil and gas. And we know there's billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, and we don't have access to it because of our policies in this, on this, in this building on an appropriation bill, not even an authorization bill.

And we're going to get a chance to get appropriation bills on the floor, and we're going to raise this issue when this bill comes to the floor, and we're going to challenge our friends on the other side to say, you know what? It's time. This is too much. We need to open up the OCS, the Outer Continental Shelf.

What's another solution?

Well, I live in the State of Illinois, and geologically, the State of Illinois is, if you go down far enough, it's a big, huge field of coal. It's called the Illinois Coal Basin. We have as much energy, BTU, British Thermal Units of energy as Saudi Arabia has of oil.

You hear my friends on the other side, they're worried about Iraq; they're worried about the Middle East; they're worried about our reliance on imported crude oil. You know, if we were in the OCS, if we were using our coal and turning it into liquid fuel, we wouldn't have to worry about the Middle East.

But since we are denied the opportunity to go into the Outer Continental Shelf, we have to have energy. It's their own policy that's forcing us to be involved in these international arenas. You know, I'd like to tell those folks, take a hike; we don't need you. And we have our own energy here.

And part of that alternative fuel debate is coal-to- liquid technologies. And this is not just keeping energy costs down. This is a job. This is a job issue.

And people can follow this. You have a coal mine. Good, high-paying jobs. You build a coal-to-liquid refinery. It's not a crude oil refinery. It's its own coal-to-liquid refinery. It was done in World War II by the Germans. It's known technology. U.S. jobs building the refinery, U.S. jobs operating the refinery.

Then you build a pipeline. U.S. jobs. And you ship it to airports and military installations. You know, for every dollar increase in the price of a barrel of crude oil it costs our United States Air Force $60 million because we are the largest consumer of jet fuel in the world?

And that goes directly to our taxpayers because we have to fund our war machines to protect this country and just to train.

So coal-to-liquid technologies is another way for me to support your call for pledges.

Well, we've got another option here. I love talking about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I already mentioned President Jimmy Carter. I already mentioned President Bill Clinton.

And I've got a little park in my hometown of Collinsville, Illinois called Woodland Park. Maybe it's not even a square mile. And I can understand if the folks in my hometown say, well, we don't want you drilling in that little park. I don't want people drilling in that little park either.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the size of the State of South Carolina. The drilling platform would be the size of Dulles Airport.

Put it in perspective. Take a football field and put a postage stamp on that football field. That is what we're talking about as far as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and we know we have billions of barrels of oil there. That's not disputed. And it's just a matter of, if I'm going to support your pledge, I'm going to support more supply.

And again, you know, I know I've got a lot of good friends on the other side. I call them ``fossil fuel Democrats.'' They believe in it. They understand the importance of it for job creation and manufacturing and being competitive. And given the opportunity, we would have their vote. I mean, there's 10 percent of them at least I know. I bet there's about 40. Once we get that on the floor, any of these bills, I bet we can get about 40 Democrats' votes.

And what I like about this debate is what we're talking about is we want American-made energy. And when you have American-made energy, you have American jobs. And when you have American jobs, you have American taxpayers. And when you have American taxpayers, they're funding the local schools, they're funding the local park districts, they're funding the local counties and the States.

When we say no to energy production in the United States, we're saying no to jobs. We're saying no to our tax base. We're saying no to our schools. In fact, when we say no to production, one of the biggest challenges many school districts are going to have is paying for the increase in diesel costs for the bus companies to pick up kids to go to school this fall because diesel prices have doubled. And that's true across the board, in any job, because everything, this building has an energy variable. And as energy prices go up, the costs to keep the lights on go higher. Taxpayers have to pay more.

And the only way that I get frustrated with this is because it doesn't have to be this way. It does not have to be this way. And I would challenge my friends on the environmental left, give us some standards. Give us some, tell us how clean is clean? We will meet those standards.

But it's a moving target. There's no certainty. No one wants to invest. In fact, there's some people who say we're done with false carbon fuel. We're done with coal. We're done with crude oil. We're going to go all wind, we're going to go all solar, and we're going to be able to meet our electricity demand. And those who follow the market and the electricity demands in this country know that that is impossible because most of these people say no to nuclear.

That's why when we started this debate about 18 months ago, ``no'' is not an energy policy. You can't say no and say you have an energy policy, and that is unfortunately what we have on the other side.

And the lights in this building that we enjoy and the air conditioning in this building that we enjoy is produced from a coal-generating plant. Fifty percent of all electricity in this country is produced by coal. And it's not a dirty word. It is the lowest cost fuel. It provides the highest standard of living. And why do you think India and China are rapidly moving, China building a coal-fired power plant every 2 weeks? Because they want their country and their people to move into the middle class, and they're going to do it through the use of fossil fuels. And that's what has made our country great. And that's their target, and they're not going to be concerned about climate as we know they're not.

I want to thank my colleague for letting me join him in his special order. I have got to now use the great benefits of technology and travel and fossil fuel use and get on my plane and get back to the great State of Illinois.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of Bob McClellan. Mr. McClellan has, since 1994, served as President and CEO of Hortica Insurance, formerly Florists Mutual, headquartered in Edwardsville, Illinois. He had been employed at Hortica from 1987-1994 in several senior management positions. Prior to his time at Hortica, Bob McClellan served as an adjunct faculty member at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville from 1978-1985 and as Management Information Services Director from 1976-1978. It was at SIUE that Mr. McClellan received a B.S. and M.B.A. in 1974 and 1976, respectively.

Bob McClellan's most admirable achievements come not from his professional life, but his personal life. Mr. McClellan has continually dedicated himself to the betterment of his community and the preservation of educational institutions. Mr. McClellan has been a member of the Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America Trails West Council, for example. In 1996, he worked with Edwardsville High School administrators to develop and implement a technology plan that allowed the school to provide modem instruction to its students. In 2005, Bob worked to bring a Hortica donation to SIUE when he personally carried plants and flowers to a celebration on campus. Clearly, Mr. McClellan gives freely of his time and professional expertise.

Mr. McClellan has received numerous awards in his lifetime, including the Rotary International's Four-Way Test Award for Business Ethics in 2007 and the Business Partnership Award from Ameren and the Illinois Development Council in 2005. I wish to honor him today with my words of appreciation. Men like Mr. McClellan deserve deep gratitude and respect. His unwavering enthusiasm for community development, coupled with his keen business sense, is both unusual and exceptionally commendable. As Bob McClellan retires from his post as President and CEO of

Hortica Insurance, I have no doubt that his commitment to community will continue unabated for years to come. For the past years of service, and for those to come, I offer my utmost thanks to Mr. Bob McClellan of Edwardsville, Illinois. Enjoy your retirement, Bob.

Mr. Speaker, it is really simple: If you want to help rural small town poor individuals in this country, we have to get the price of gas down. Here is the problem: January 2001, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $23. When this majority came in, it was $58. Now it is $134. What does that translate into? From $1.45 to $2.23 to $4.07. Add climate change, 50 cents additional. $4.55, if you calculate climate change.

What is the solution? The solution is all of the above. Outer Continental Shelf exploration and recovery, coal-to-liquid technologies, solar and wind, renewable fuels. We need to do all the above, and you all need to help us.

We need to bring a bill to the floor that brings on more supply. We are willing to work with you. More supply is the only thing that we can do to bring down the cost of fuel which will help middle- and low- income Americans. We ask you to join us.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to an outstanding group of young men from Highland, Illinois, who last week completed an amazing baseball season by winning the state championship.

The Highland Bulldogs defeated Crystal Lake Central in the semifinals, then knocked off Rock Falls 6-2 on Saturday, June 7, to clinch the Class 3A state title at Silver Cross Field in Joliet. It was the first baseball state title for Highland.

My congratulations go to Head Coach Joel Hawkins, Assistant Coaches Sam Weber, Jason Wiegand and Caleb Houchins, Trainer Jamie Wagner, and the members of the 2008 state champion Highland Bulldogs team: Gary Kharibian, Travis Becherer, Brandon Koisher, Randy Knebel, Chris Sudhoff, Luke Potthast, Ben Fieker, Sean Gagen, Gabe Fuehne, Corey Gall, Wes DeGroot, Josh Ammann, Andrew Kimmle, Jake Odorizzi, Justin Huelsmann, Dan Gifford, Brent Kuper and Luke Haberer.

These young men represented themselves, their families and their community in a first-class fashion, and I wish them all the best in their future endeavors, both on and off the field.

Mr. Speaker, it's a curious debate that we have in these 1-minutes. Democrats are bringing to the floor unemployment insurance and they will bring to the floor helping people with heating costs and cooling costs.

The real job creation engine would be American-made energy with a couple of provisions. Since 1994 on votes on the floor of this House, on ANWR exploration, Republicans have supported 91 percent of the time, House Democrats have opposed ANWR exploration 86 percent of the time.

On coal-to-liquid technologies, House Republicans have supported that 97 percent of the time. House Democrats have opposed taking American coal, American energy, turning it into liquid fuel. They have opposed it 78 percent of the time.

On oil-shale exploration, House Republicans have supported it 90 percent of the time. Democrats have opposed 86 percent. OCS, Outer Continental Shelf, House Republicans have supported it 81 percent of the time since 1984. House Democrats have opposed it 83 percent of the time. On refineries, building new refineries, House Republicans have supported 97 percent of the time, House Democrats have opposed 96 percent of the time.

Madam Speaker, I feel sympathy for the folks paying these high gas prices. Here is a problem: On average, $3.98, take in climate change 50 cents and we'll be paying $4.48 a gallon.

Here is the solution: Outer Continental Shelf, which is off-limits by appropriation bills; moving coal-to-liquid technology, which has been blocked here on motions to recommit; expanding renewable fuels, which has been helpful, but still is not the panacea.

The New York Times, which is not one of our best supporters, says the counties were motorists spend the highest percentage of their income on gasoline tend to be poor, rural areas, which is what I represent. That is why I am on the floor monthly now talking about gas reaching $4 a gallon, refinery expansion delayed because of environmental attacks, the clean gas, $4 increase in price of natural gas bills.

Our consuming public cannot stand these high prices any more. Our manufacturing base cannot. We have to bring on more supply.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate Congresswoman Matsui managing the time. We've worked very hard on clean diesel issues and the like, so this is really appropriate to this debate though, because Amtrak uses big diesel engines. And what's happened in the Amtrak debate that we haven't heard yet, hopefully we'll hear it later on is, like, one of the biggest threats to Amtrak is the high cost of diesel fuel. In fact, the fiscal year 2007 budget for fuel was $125 million for Amtrak. The fiscal year 2008 budget for fuel for Amtrak is $215 million.

Now, how are we going to pay for that? I know how they're going to pay for it. They're going to raise prices on these commuters. And there are some commuters who use Amtrak. But again, I'll quote the New York Times article that says ``the counties where motorists spend the highest percentage of their income on gasoline tend to be in poor, rural areas.'' Amtrak doesn't go there. We don't have commuter rails. We have working trucks. We have big trucks. We haul feed. We haul beef. We haul pork. We need working trucks and they drive a large distance.

That's why this energy debate is critical. And here's the problem. All we're trying to do is bring, what's the problem, what's the solution. What's the problem. What's the solution.

Here's the problem. January 2001. $23 a barrel. January 2006, after the Democrats took control and promised to lower fuel prices, that's right here, where are we today? $123 a barrel.

What does that do for gas prices? From $1.45 to $2.33 to over $4 a gallon for gas hurts rural America, hurts my district.

Don't come to the floor without a solution. The Outer Continental Shelf, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, billions of barrels of oil. We have in this Congress and Congresses of the past said ``off- limits.'' We're not going to explore this area. We're not going to recover.

Very similar to our position on ANWR. A position a size of the State of South Carolina. A drilling platform the size of an airport. And we are not going to drill there for billions of barrels of oil. President Clinton vetoed that in 1995. Had he not, that oil would be flowing to our country today. 1995 he vetoed the bill. President Carter put it off-limits for oil and gas exploration. That's why ANWR was originally set aside, but, no, we have that off-limits.

What is another solution? Coal-to-liquid technologies, diesel fuel that could help lower the price for Amtrak can be produced by taking U.S. coal, American energy, and turning it into fuel.

We're going to come to this floor talking about, oh, unemployment compensation.

We're going to come to this floor saying, Oh, we've got to do something because energy heating costs are high; oh, we need to do something because people are losing their jobs.

I will tell you how we can get jobs back into the economy. Let's use American-made emergency. Let's open up the coal fields. Let's get mine workers the jobs. Let's build a coal-to-liquid refinery. Good building trade jobs. Let's have high-paying jobs operating those refineries. Let's build pipelines to get this fuel to the Amtrak station to put in the diesel engines, and let's help our budget airlines not go bankrupt because of the high cost of fuel. Not just our budget airlines. Here is one on Continental: Continental joins cut-back frenzy. Soaring fuel prices.

Why do we have a job problem in this country? Because we have an energy problem. Until we come to this floor to debate on bringing more supply to the American public, our economy is always going to be struggling. We're the only country that looks at energy resources not as an economic advantage but as an environmental disaster.