Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I come in support of this legislation, and have come to learn that this nanotechnology has great opportunities to help us in the whole energy debate. I think nanotechnology can help in the solar powered cells. I understand that nanotechnology might be able to help taking light energy and turning it into hydrogen, which is important. It can be very important in addressing the long-lasting battery issue debate which will move us to plug-in hybrids sometime in the future, which we all realize is an important aspect of what we need to do to get to energy independence. And, green nanoenergy, which is important in this whole climate debate.

I also hope that nanotechnology can address some of the other pressing scientific needs: The issue of maybe reprocessing nuclear spent fuel. Maybe taking the carbon dioxide and splitting the carbon from the oxygen and addressing the climate change so we can use fossil fuels in a process that is going to be helpful.

But we are still in the Buck Rogers era. We need to move in that direction. The question is, what are we going to do now? The question is, at this time, in this debate, what are we really going to do to immediately affect the high cost of energy on our constituents? I have been on this floor quite a bit, as we all know, debating this. I have heard my colleagues on the other side, and I am softening my rhetoric out of respect for my friends and I have actually changed some of my charts to address issues raised in the debate.

So what is the primary problem that we have today? The problem we have is the escalation of crude oil prices in this country, from $23 when this administration came into the office, to $58 when the new majority came into the House, to $123 today.

Now I am not trying to be partisan, I am just trying to be factual. That is what has happened to the barrel of crude oil prices and what has happened to the cost of gasoline. Well, it has gone up similarly in this response. So the question is, how do we address this problem if we believe in economics 101 and supply and demand?

One way we could do it is opening the Outer Continental Shelf to oil and gas exploration. We have legislatively put off-limits through the appropriation process a prohibition, in some areas not to even do research to see if there is any natural gas or oil there, but we have said ``no'' to all these areas in red, that we are telling our public we do not want to look for oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf deep sea floor exploration 50 miles off the coast. We are saying ``no.''

Our debate is pretty simple. At a time of high costs of a barrel of crude oil, $123.85 a barrel, how can we not? How can we not go and look for our own resources? What we want, what we are asking for is American-made energy, American-made energy to decrease our reliance on imported crude oil in places that are not stable, in the Middle East, in Venezuela, that are holding us captive. We know there are resources there.

Let me talk about another great opportunity that we have. In Illinois, the Illinois coal basin is basically the whole geography of the State of Illinois, and of course the chairman knows a lot and is very supportive of coal use in America. It also is Western Kentucky and the southwestern part of Indiana. We have as much coal in energy output as Saudi Arabia has oil just in the Illinois coal basin. So the question is, why aren't we using it to decrease our reliance on imported crude oil? Why aren't we using coal in turning it into liquid fuel? Look at the benefits we have of coal fields: American made energy. A coal field in America, American jobs mining that coal, American jobs to build the coal to liquid refinery.

I thank the gentleman.

American jobs to build the pipeline. American jobs to operate our aviation industry. In fact, this plane here is a fighter plane, because the United States Air Force is the number one purchaser of aviation fuel in the world.

For every dollar increase in a barrel of crude oil, you know what it costs our Air Force? $60 million. That's $60 million that doesn't go to training. That's $60 million that doesn't go to equipping. That's $60 million that doesn't help in meeting the budgetary demands.

Let me just finish on this point. Let's assume we access these and we have oil and gas. Or let's assume we're in ANWR and we're getting the oil and gas and we're getting the royalties. At today's prices, do you know how much money would come to the Federal Treasury at today's prices from ANWR? $192 billion. Do you think that would help the nanotechnology budget? I think it would help extremely. Move us from a decrease in our reliance on imported crude oil, American-made energy, new science and technology, green power; and that's kind of what this debate is all about.

I would be happy to yield to my friend from Oregon.

Reclaiming my time. But all those issues that you addressed, if we had American-made energy, if we weren't relying on imported crude oil, you know, why does the cheap dollar affect our price? Because we're buying crude oil overseas. If we were producing our own crude oil in our country, the dollar wouldn't matter.

The speculators, you know the speculators. What are they betting? I love this debate. They are betting that we're going to do nothing.

You want to go after the speculators? Bring on more supply. They're betting that this barrel is going to go up, not go down.

I would be happy to.

Let me reclaim my time, and just go over, since 1994 and talk about this debate.

In ANWR, which Clinton vetoed in 1995, we would have that oil today. House Republicans support ANWR 91 percent of the time on votes. House Democrats 86 oppose. Clear difference.

I want to thank the chairman for the time. With a minute left, I may not be able to yield to you, David. I would be happy to most times.

This is the problem. $23 to $58 to $123. You only address that by bringing on more supply. We have oil and gas in the Outer Continental Shelf, and we need to be there.

I've got margin oil wells. I've got oil all over the State of Illinois. Do you know why we don't drill on every acre? Because you're not going to find oil on every acre.

Why are leases not put out? Because there may not be oil there. In fact, on the Outer Continental Shelf on the Atlantic coast we won't even inventory it. Last Congress we said no to inventory what we might have on the Eastern Seaboard.

All I want to do is bring down crude oil prices. The only way you do it is bringing on more supply. It's clear from the votes over the past 12 years, Republicans want to bring on more supply. Democrats, the vast majority of them, do not. All we're asking is that we have some that want to do that.

I apologize to my friend from New Jersey because, if we are not talking about the number one issue in America on the floor of the House, then what are we here for? Science and technology is critical to decrease our reliance on imported crude oil. Science and technology will bring us to a new era where we don't have to rely on the energy supplies of the past. So I concur, and I support this resolution, and I'm glad people are debating it.

But you know what the people in America are debating. You know it. Everybody was home during the last 10 days. They're talking about this, and this is what we ought to be doing. You mentioned in your discussion that we don't have the funds. Well, if we went into ANWR, which is the size of the State of South Carolina and had a drilling path that formed the size of Dulles Airport or a football field and put a postage stamp on that, we've got the revenues. Just with the royalties from ANWR we could fund science and technology. In fact, we're going to have a resources bill on the floor that's going to address at least the pay- for, which was a method to address Mr. DeFazio's issue on leases.

Yes, I will.

So we're willing to talk about this, but golly, if we're not talking about energy and the price of gasoline at the pump, then what are we doing?

I would be happy to yield.

If the gentleman would yield.

Yes, you may. I'm just going to debate.

If we had the resources from the royalties on oil and gas exploration in the outer continental shelf or if we had the resources from the royalties from ANWR, we would have the money to be able to segue into a national debate on solar, on wind, on biotechnology, on the nanotechnology. There is a whole pot of money out there. A lot of people in America think that we have no fossil fuels, no energy resources left in this country. So this is the problem. I mean you kind of identified it, but when a barrel of crude oil is $23 in January 2001 and in January 2006 it goes up double and now it's up double again, that's the problem.

We have to have a long-term and a short-term strategy. Our debate is the science and technology. That's a long-term debate. But what do we do about easing the cost of the high food prices, which is in direct correlation to energy costs? We're talking about schools. What is the number one problem in schools today? Diesel prices for school buses has doubled. Energy costs for heating and cooling are doubling. That goes to the local taxpayer. So we ought to be talking about this.

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, we want to talk about the future, but what our constituents are talking about is the present. There has been more than $1.68 increase in gasoline prices. How can we even send our kids to the university if energy costs have doubled? We should have both debates, and we should not be afraid to talk about how to get out of this problem.

I would be happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time, you all want to do no exploration, no gas, no coal, no nuclear, which brings costs up. We're saying let's bring on more supply. Let's mitigate the cost. Let's plan for the future. We are talking about now. We are not talking about 30, 40 years from now. We need to talk about that debate. Your committee is a great committee to talk about the future, but we have got $123 a barrel of crude oil today. No nanotechnology, no recognizing science and education is going to bring that cost down.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

Requesting Member: Rep. John M. Shimkus (IL-19).

Bill Number: HR 5658.

Account: US Air Force Unfunded Requirements List C-40D Procurement Line 58.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: US Air Force, 932nd Airlift Wing.

Address of Requesting Entity: Scott Air Force Base, IL 62225.

Description of Request: The $88 million is included in the bill to procure new C40D aircraft stationed at Scott AFB, Illinois. This new aircraft will allow US Air Force to be able to support cargo, passenger, humanitarian, Homeland Defense, and emergency relief requirements of the 932nd Airlift Wing.

Matching funds: This is a full federally funded project for the US Air Force.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Madam Speaker, this short-term extension is important. It's just too bad that we couldn't extend the low cost of energy that we had 18 months ago. Eighteen months ago the price of a barrel of crude oil was $58.31. Today it's $128 a barrel, a $70 increase.

What's important to small businesses is the cost of doing business. And the increase in energy cost, the increase in liquid fuel cost, the increase in electricity cost, bears a disproportionate share of the cost today, more so than 18 months ago.

I would be honored to yield to my friend from Oregon.

It was $27 a barrel when this administration came in.

Do you know what it was?

I will debate this issue. This issue is about supply. I don't care who's responsible. This issue is about bringing more supply into the market. When a barrel costs $128 versus $58, this is what you get: You get gas prices that were at $2.33 when this Congress got sworn in to prices today that are $3.80 because we will not expand our supply.

Now, if you add climate change, my friend from Oregon is a good friend of mine, and I know he's concerned about climate change and global warming and a cap-and-trade system, conservatively, that's going to add 50 cents to a gallon of gas to comply with climate change. So today the average price $3.80, plus 50 cents, $4.30.

Now, I think yesterday in Chicago without the climate change gas tax increase, it was $4.50 a gallon.

So the debate is when are we going to say that it's okay to do these things? When is it okay that we can take coal and turn it into liquid fuel? When is it okay to go off the Outer Continental Shelf and harvest those billions of barrels of oil, those trillions of cubic feet of natural gas? When is it going to be okay to say let's continue to move aggressively in cellulosic and biofuels, coal-to-liquid, OCS, wind, and solar?

In 20 years, we're going to increase our electricity demand by 50 percent. We have to bring on more supply. We have to bring on more baseload supply because in rural America, which I represent, in over 30 counties it takes 2\1/2\ hours to drive from one part of my district to another. We don't have mass transit. We don't have light rail. In fact, it's an agricultural economy. It runs on big diesel trucks to haul the cattle, to haul the horses, to haul the hay. Diesel prices have doubled.

And so because of that, what we're trying to say is it is time that we start addressing and bring this to the floor. The chairwoman herself said in her opening statement, We have brought policies here, this Congress, to lower the cost for small business. That's kind of like the Speaker's promise in 2006, We've got a plan to lower gas prices. It didn't happen. It went up.

I would be honored to yield.

It's a failure.

When your party will come to the floor and debate bringing more supply to the market, we can negotiate. But when you say, We're going to solve our 50-percent increase in demand on energy with solar and wind, it just doesn't pass the laugh test. We just can't get there.

We've got to expand nuclear power. We've got to expand coal-fired power. We've got to turn coal into liquid fuels. We've got to bring on more supply. Yes, we can do it. I've got it here. In fact, Illinois is going to be a great wind power State.

I would be happy to yield.

Do you know how big the Arctic Wildlife Refuge is?

No. Do you know how big it is?

It is the size of the State of South Carolina.

Do you know what the drilling platform is?

We're debating back and forth.

Do you know how big the drilling platform would be?

No, it would not be a substantial size. It would be the size of Dulles Airport. It would be like putting on a football field a postage stamp. That's the perspective. That's what gets lost in this debate. We can do it.

You know what? If you look at the OCS here, we do drill in the western gulf. Remember when Katrina went rolling up the gulf and we saw that big picture, tell me the environmental disaster that occurred with those derricks in the western gulf with Katrina rolling over the top of them. Can you name one? There wasn't one.

I would be happy to yield.

I'm not going to argue. It's my time. I will debate, but I won't argue. It's my time.

And because I'm enjoying this type of debate, I will concede the dollar price.

But let me tell you why, if we had our own resources, if we were drilling our own oil, isn't it criminal that we're relying on imported crude oil to fund our energy needs? Wouldn't it be better to use American dollars to drill on American soil in American land on American OCS? Then we wouldn't have to worry about the dollar, because an American dollar is an American dollar is an American dollar. And we wouldn't have to worry about our trade imbalances because we import all of this crude oil.

Now, to point two, the speculators. Do you know why they're bidding the price up? Because we won't open supply. They're taking a position that I am going to bid this up, and you know what? Those dummies in Congress, they're not going to open up more supply. So what I hold is going to cost more in the future. It's a futures market. It's risk management. They're betting about our inability to go here. Billions of barrels of oil, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. We won't go there. They're betting against us going there.

I'm from Southern Illinois. It's the Saudi Arabia of coal, 250 years worth. Fifty percent of our electricity that we generate today is by coal. We could also use that coal as the South Africans have done for 40 years. The Germans did it in World War II. Take that coal and turn it into liquid fuel.

We have had four budget airlines go broke. Why did they go broke? They couldn't afford the price of aviation fuel. How did South African airlines fuel their jets? Coal-to-liquid technology. Taking South African coal, turning it into aviation jet fuel. That's what our competitive advantage is. Our advantage is using our natural resources. Not assuming that our natural resources are an environmental hazard.

That's our policy. Don't go after our natural resources. It's an environmental hazard. Most countries say go after your natural resources; it makes you stronger. It makes you more competitive. It lowers the cost of doing business. It creates jobs. Look at the jobs that would be created here in southern Illinois. Build a coal mine, that creates jobs. Operate the coal mines, that creates jobs. Build a coal-to-liquid refinery, jobs. Operate the coal-to-liquid refinery, jobs. Build a pipeline, American jobs. Low-cost fuel, American jobs.

For every dollar a barrel increase on aviation fuel, do you know how much it costs us taxpayers? $60 million just to fund the Air Force.

So this policy of no supply hurts the taxpayers. And we have to pay for it. We had the authorization bill of the Coast Guard. For every dollar increase in diesel fuel, do you know what it cost the Coast Guard to operate and make sure our shores are protected? $24 million for every dollar increase.

Would the gentlelady yield?

You're referring to me. I would be happy to debate if you're going to bring my votes to the floor.

Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleague in a little colloquy.

I understand you're going to offer a previous question on this rule?

And I would assume a way in which we would do that would be to bring in more supply?

I want to thank my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, one of the best things we can do for the family farmer in this economy is to lower energy costs. And that's why I'm coming to the floor because I am excited about my colleague's previous question to bring on more supply.

Now, I was pleased to see that my friends on the other side have accepted the supply debate, and we did that yesterday with great acclamation, saying that bringing in 70,000 barrels of crude oil onto the market would lower gasoline prices, your quote, not mine, between 5 cents to 25 cents.

Well, just imagine if we brought a million barrels of crude oil onto our market, a million barrels from U.S. territory. And I think that's what my colleague is going to bring in the previous question, because 1\1/2\ years ago, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $58. Today the price of a barrel of crude oil is $125.09. I'm telling you the public is starting to wake up. I'm hearing it from soccer moms. I'm hearing it from labor individuals. They understand that the cost of energy is too high. The price of diesel has doubled.

In an agricultural country, my farmers are trying to get their corn in. It's been really wet. And it's diesel fuel. Diesel fuel has doubled. We've got small local truckers going on strike because they can't afford to fill up the tractor-trailers because diesel costs are too high. Why are diesel costs too high? Because we won't open up any supply.

I think the previous question will be an opportunity to open up supply on U.S. soil, and maybe we will get a chance to talk about opening up supply on the Outer Continental Shelf.

You all agreed to it. Supply will lower prices, based upon our vote yesterday. But that was 70,000 barrels. Our challenge is to bring a million barrels, locally produced crude oil and natural gas. Because we can't sustain these high prices. We can't sustain them in the family farm.

And that's why I'm excited to be here today to continue to raise this debate on the price of a barrel of crude oil.

Another thing we could do is take our locally produced coal----

I want to thank my colleague for yielding.

Because we want to highlight the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a coastal plain the size of South Carolina, a drilling platform the size of Dulles Airport. We want to address the Outer Continental Shelf, both on the east coast and the western seaboard and the eastern gulf. We want to address coal-to-liquid technology, where we take coal underneath the soil or on our upper plain, build a refinery, U.S. jobs; operate a coal mine, U.S. jobs; build a pipeline, U.S. jobs; and lower the cost for jet fuel so that we can have U.S. jobs.

I always love following my friend from Massachusetts.

You know, most countries view their resources as a strategic advantage. But we in this country in the majority view our resources as an environmental hazard. This motion to instruct is critical. If we can get a million barrels out of ANWR at today's prices, do you know how much money goes into the Federal Treasury? $192 billion. Go tell that to your Blue Dogs who are holding up emergency supplemental bills because of PAYGO.

That's just ANWR. Let's talk about the other resources that we have.

Here is the reality. It wasn't President Bush that promised in 2006 that the Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices. That was Speaker Pelosi. In fact, she made the same mistake today. She claimed numerous times that the ag bill would lower prices, gas prices.

Now, I voted for it. I'm an ethanol guy. I'm a cellulosic guy. But if we don't bring more supply into the market, we're not going to lower prices. The demand from China and the demand from India and the demand from Europe just overwhelms us and is overwhelming the market. It was $58 when this majority came into power, $125 today.

I haven't used this for a while, but the Pelosi Premium, $2.33 when you came into the majority, Speaker Pelosi said, We're going to lower gas prices. $3.77 today. Chairman Dingell is here. He's pulled this bill off the table, but climate change would add 50 cents a gallon. $4.20 is what we would be paying under climate change and current gas prices.

What's the solution? The great Outer Continental Shelf. Billions of barrels of oil, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. There are. You can't deny it. The eastern gulf, off-limits by appropriation bill. Not resources bill. It's an appropriation bill that puts this off-limits. It's the OCS off the western coast. Billions of barrels of oil, trillions of cubic feet; we can't have it.

What would we do with the $192 billion from ANWR royalties? Let's go and take American coal, United Mine Worker jobs, let's build coal-to- liquid refineries, operating engineer, building-trade jobs. Let's build pipelines. Major organized labor jobs. And let's use it to lower the cost of jet fuel so we don't have the aviation industry going bankrupt. $192 billion would go a long way to do the solar, to do the wind power, to do everything we want to do.

We want more supply, not less. Environmental resources is a national advantage for our country, but we won't take use of it.

Battling charge, that's what I like. Finally we get to talk about supply.

Mr. Speaker, for 18 months I have been coming to the floor to talk about the importance of bringing more supply to our economy so that prices would go down.

Finally we have it, and I want to thank you for making the point. If you want to lower the cost, you've got to bring on supply.

It was $58 a barrel when your majority came into power, $58. What is it today? It's $126.

What has it done? I'm glad my friend talked about gas prices. It wasn't George Bush who promised to lower gas prices. It was Speaker Pelosi in 2006, Steny Hoyer in 2006, Jim Clyburn in 2006, who said, ``We have a plan to lower gas prices.'' That's their quote. I have said it here 20 times here on this floor. ``We have a plan.''

They've got a plan all right. It's not to lower gas prices; it's to raise gas prices.

What has happened to a gallon of gas? It was $2.33 when this majority came in. What is it today? It is $3.77. Now my colleague from Massachusetts brings on climate change for a 50 cent additional tax per gallon of gas, per the chairman of the Commerce Committee. We would be paying $4.27 for a gallon of gas. That's not the type of change we need. We need to bring on supply.

I thank you for finally coming to the floor and recognizing that if we bring on just some barrels more supply, you guys say we're going to lower prices 5 cents to 25 cents. Well, let's multiply that by bringing on a million barrels of crude oil into our supply. Where do we get that? We can get billions of barrels of crude oil from coal-to-liquid technologies right in the heartland, right in Southern Illinois, Fischer-Tropsch Technology, established in the World War II generation, currently developed by a South African oil company.

And one of my personal favorites is the Outer Continental Shelf. Billions of barrels of oil on the eastern seaboard, on the western seaboard, on the eastern gulf coast. Trillions of cubic feet of natural gas.

What's your policy? Let's don't go there. Oh, yes, let's settle for a little bit of oil out of the SPR and claim great victory for lowering prices when we could have billions of barrels of oil, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas if we just went to the Outer Continental Shelf, if we just went to the eastern gulf, if we just used coal-to- liquid technologies, a bipartisan bill Congressman Boucher and I would like to take.

We are the number one coal country in the world. So let's don't settle for a half step. This is good. We can do much better.

Madam Speaker, we just took an interesting vote on the floor a few minutes ago, and that was to stop filling the SPR and make sure there's 70,000 barrels on the market. The projections by my friends on the other side is that this will affect the cost from 5 cents to 25 cents per gallon.

Just think what putting a million barrels of crude oil into the market--and we can do that by bringing on more supply.

I've been on the floor numerous times to talk about coal to liquid technologies. We have 250 years worth of coal in the Illinois coal basin alone. Turning that into liquid fuel.

Of as great importance is the Outer Continental Shelf, billions of barrels of oil, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, off-limits based upon policies enacted here in this House. And if 70,000 barrels will do 5 to 25 cents a gallon, just think what a million barrels of crude oil.

We have one problem. We haven't built a refinery in 32 years.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Madam Speaker, as many people who have observed the House floor over the past month, I have continuously come down to address the high cost of energy and the importance of bringing the supply issue to this debate.

One of the things that we have been successful with, which is now under attack, it was once a success story, was E-85, ethanol and the entire debate of bringing more supply to this debate.

This motion to instruct highlights the importance of E-85 fueling stations and developing that. For example, in my home State of Illinois, I am very fortunate. We have 171 E-85 fueling stations. In my congressional district, I can go all throughout my 30 counties and fuel up with my flex-fuel vehicle E-85.

There are States in the Union that cannot. An example, Maine, we couldn't get any information on. Rhode Island has zero, Vermont has zero, Delaware has one, where other States, like Minnesota, has 346.

One of the issues of more supply is also more supply locations. When we move to new fuels, as other people talk about, if we move to a hydrogen economy, we are going to need hydrogen-fueling stations, and that's all part of the importance.

This motion to instruct says let's do what the Senate did on the farm bill, and let's talk about developing an E-85 infrastructure around this country so we can help decrease our reliance on imported crude oil. Why? Because everything we talk about on this floor revolves around energy and the high cost of energy, especially for the producers of our food.

For example, manufacturer inputs have increased 14 percent in 2008 on top of a 12 percent increase last year. That's inputs to grow our food. Corn fertilizer costs $140 per acre for 2008, compared to $115 price in 2007, contrasted to $63 per acre from 2001-2005.

What is driving up high farmers' input costs? No additional supply. A lot of fertilizers are affected, all buy natural gas. As we continue to restrict our ability to go after more supply, we push up the input costs, which drives up the price for food and this whole debate.

I can go through all the huge increases that our farmers have had to do. DAP, prices rose from $252 per ton in January, 2007, to $752 gulf price. Urea rose from $272 to $415, muriate of potash rose from $173 to $252. We can just go on. It's a huge, huge increase.

Now we don't want to come down to the floor without bringing alternatives and solutions. What's the solution? The solution is more supply.

Look at what's happened. It's not disputable. Under this majority, crude oil has gone from $58 a barrel to $123. I come down almost every day. This price has not gone down. This price continues to go up.

We have had promises made by Democrat leadership. In 2006, I quoted them before, Speaker Pelosi saying, ``We have a plan to drive down energy costs.'' Majority Leader Hoyer who just spoke: ``We have a plan to bring down energy costs.'' Jim Clyburn: ``We have a plan to drive down energy costs.''

The reality is, energy costs have gone up, not down, $58 a barrel to $123. What has that done for us at the pump? When the Democrat majority took over, the price for a gallon of gasoline was $2.33 on average. What is it today, on average, $3.66.

Put in climate change tax, 50 cents, $4.16 is what we would be paying today with climate change. That's not a plan. In fact, it's a plan to fail. If you don't have a plan, you plan to fail, and that's the difficulty of our farmers getting into the field. Diesel costs have doubled, rising the price. Ethanol gets blamed. Ethanol gets blamed because energy costs to get the corn out of the fields has gone up. You want corn prices down? We have got to lower this.

We have got to get back to the day of $58 a barrel crude oil. We can't get there with no plan. We can't get there by every week saying we have got a plan, and there is no plan.

There is a plan. We have brought them onto the floor numerous times. What can we do? One is use our great natural resources on coal in this country, 250 years worth of coal to be used using coal-to-liquid technology. Get coal from our underground, build a coal-to-liquid refinery, pipe it, in this case, to an Air Force base, pipe it to a commercial airline. We have lost all these airline jobs because of high costs. This is what we do.

Guess what you can make: Diesel fuel. Diesel fuel. What is the farmers' major input? Diesel fuel, because that's what goes in the tractors when you have got to plant the corn. That's what goes in the tractor when you have got to harvest the corn or the beans, and diesel fuel has cost. Truckers are going on strike. Independent truckers are going on strike.

A lot of these independent truckers are hauling the beans, hauling the corn to the elevator. Without a plan to lower cost of energy, you plan to fail. Coal-to-liquid is a solution.

What is another solution? See all this red area? We don't have Alaska on there. Off-limits. Off-limits for natural gas. Off-limits for crude oil. Let's open up these areas. The environmentalists will say, oh, no, we can't do that. One of our major areas for crude oil and natural gas is the gulf.

Guess what happened here? Katrina, big storm, devastated New Orleans. A major oil spill in the gulf? No, no major oil spill.

We can do it cleanly, we can do it efficiently, we can bring more supply to the market. You want to know how to lower prices for the farmers? Lower energy prices.

But what's our policy here? Can we drill in ANWR?

``Forget it.''

What about offshore?

``Are you crazy?''

Clean coal?

``Out of the question.''

Nuclear power?

``You're just joking.''

Well, what are we going to do about the high price of energy? When you have no plan, you plan to fail. My farmers, who are getting accused for high prices, have high prices because we have high energy costs, and we have high energy costs because we won't get to supply.

That's why we want ethanol to succeed. That's the only thing we have done to bring more supply to this debate.

If we don't address the high input cost, what's going to happen is this fuel-food debate is going to go crazy. I was at the hearing. Guess what, there is a call to roll back the ethanol renewable fuel standard.

Now, that really helps our energy independence, doesn't it?

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize my colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for 5 minutes.

Would the gentleman yield since you mentioned Future Gen which is in central Illinois?

I appreciate your yielding.

I was one of the few Members who actually talked to the President registering my disgust, frustration and anger. I will say it is now up to my friends on your side of the aisle, both in the House and on the other side of the Capitol to help move on a strategy to keep Future Gen on track.

We have a strategy. We are working in a bipartisan manner. Coal is critical to our national security, low cost fuel. I am begging the legislative leaders on your side, which they can do by putting Future Gen legislation on must-pass legislation, funding it, and Future Gen can stay alive. But I am not in the majority now. I am glad you mentioned it, and I call upon your side to make it so.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

I yield the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) 10 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I would like to save my time to close, so I would reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Colorado. I'm an aggie. I don't serve on the committee. And the agricultural sector is one of the few sectors that we have increased supply. So I do this with all due respect.

My concern is that when we disincentivize the E85 fuel stations, the cellulosic debate, which is the next bridge to get us to the RFS standard that we passed in December, we can't get there without RFS, without cellulosic. And we're sending a bad signal when we have States without any fueling stations and we have States that do. And so that's what brings me down.

And I'm glad my colleague from New York talked about nuclear power. The former head of Greenpeace now supports nuclear power. The former head of Greenpeace now supports nuclear power.

Coal generating electricity is 50 percent of our electricity generation in this country. 50 percent. Nuclear's 20. Our demand's going to increase 30 percent in the next 20 years.

Texas tried wind power. They had brownouts. Zack Wamp is right. We need more supply. This is what China's doing. China is building 40 nuclear plants in the next 15 years, not one. We haven't done one in 30. China's going to build 40.

China's invested $24 billion in large scale coal liquification technology. China is rapidly expanding its refining capacity. One of the reasons we compete is because we had low cost power. We don't have low cost power anymore. Those days aren't here. Renewable fuels aren't going to fill the gap that we have.

So we have to do, as Zach said, all of the above. In a column, Robert Samuelson said, what to do about oil? The first thing, start drilling. It's the easiest, quickest thing we can do. Unless you want to put up with this. Unless you want more, and, you know, you're a rural farm boy in Colorado.

I try to remind people here that in rural America we like big trucks. We have to have working trucks. We can't haul a horse trailer with an electric engine, with a four-cylinder engine. It won't go anywhere. We need powerful trucks. We need trailers. We need working trucks.

That's fossil fuels. That's diesel. We can't pay these gas prices anymore. And we're going to. Don't get me on climate change. All I want is transparency.

If we're going to tax the American public they need to know they're going to pay 50 cents more a gallon. And my charts are way over.

Why can't we go here? Why? Why can't we access these areas to get natural gas? Anhydrous ammonia, the Number 1 commodity input, natural gas.

And what has your majority done? You put areas off-limits. We've got areas in your State in the last year we put off-limits. We didn't bring on more supply.

Great solution. China's doing it, taking coal, gasifying it. When you gasify it you can burn electricity. You can capture the carbon. It's a clean way to do it. We can't do it.

For every dollar increase in a barrel of crude oil, do you know how much the taxpayers have to pay to fund the Air Force? 60 million additional dollars. Our Air Force is the number one jet fuel user in the world. They're begging for help. It's crazy.

We are relying on imported crude oil. Our national security depends on aviation fuel, and we are constrained by imported crude oil. Don't you think it'd be better to use our known natural resources to help our Air Force to fly our planes?

Coast Guard authorization bill, $1 increase. $1 dollar increase in Coast Guard authorization diesel added $24 million to the cost of the Coast Guard to protect our border.

Yes, sir.

These are input costs. You know the diesel price has doubled. I mean, my farmers, when they plant the corn, they're in a tractor. When they harvest the corn or the beans, they're in a tractor. It's run by diesel fuel.

There's an attack on ethanol today. I was in committee today, I mean, 2 days ago, let's stop the RFS. It's the only thing that we have. And why is it under attack? Because input cost to production of commodity grain has gone up because we can't get low price diesel fuel.

When we harvest the corn we take it to a grain elevator. We do that with a big diesel truck, a big tractor trailer. We have independent truckers striking. They drove around here a couple of weeks ago, big signs. We can't afford the high cost of diesel.

And we know costs get passed on. What's some Democrats' response? Oh, we've got a great idea. Let's tax the energy companies more.

My challenge is, when have we ever raised a tax that's lowered the price to a consumer? And I've challenged people; give me one example where we raised the tax and costs went down. No one's challenged me. And I'm sure people will look at that.

Another thing is let's demand that the people we're reliant on, pump more crude oil. Oh, that helps us not become reliant on imported cried oil. Let's demand that the people who are providing us oil pump more. That's why I'm so frustrated with this. I hope you understand. We need to lower prices.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the ranking member a question on what's really going on in Florida.

One of the reasons we are objecting to this is because of the previous question. Can you mention the previous question?

So a ``no'' vote on the previous question allows us to debate lowering energy costs in this country; is that correct?

And that would be in conjunction and probably would meet with the Speaker's promise in 2006 that Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices. She made that quote. That would allow us to bring that plan to the floor, would it not?

Likewise, Jim Clyburn said, ``House Democrats have a plan to help curb rising gas prices.'' That would allow us to find out what that plan is; am I correct?

And when Steny Hoyer said, ``Democrats believe we can do more for the American people who are struggling to deal with high gas prices,'' that would allow us to address the majority leader's plan to help bring down energy prices; is that correct?

And it's tied to this debate, and I know my colleague who just spoke, it would probably be important for her to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that some of her concerns would be aired; would that be correct?

Well, Mr. Speaker, high energy costs really affect this debate because high energy costs are causing people to make tough decisions where they can't meet their bill payments.

Just last year the cost for natural gas for an individual homeowner went up 5.9 percent. Just last year the price for home heating increased 37.2 percent. The cost for propane increased 22.2 percent. The cost for electricity increased 4.3 percent. Why? We have no plan. The Democrat plan to lower energy costs was no plan.

There was a plan. It did this: Crude oil was at $58.31 when the Democrats came into the majority. Today, $121. Yesterday it hit $122. I've been doing this for 4 weeks. It hasn't gone down; it keeps going up.

What has that done at the pump? When Democrats came into control, $2.33. What is it today? On average, $3.60. That's no plan. That's a plan to fail. That's higher costs.

If you want people to be able to meet their mortgage payments, let's lower energy costs. Let's lower the price of a gallon of gasoline.

Now bring in climate change. On average, climate change is going to add 50 cents to a gallon of gas. That would raise the price to $4.16. Nobody wants to pay that.

How can we solve this problem, Mr. Speaker? Let's go after our natural resources in the Outer Continental Shelf. Billions of barrels of oil, billions of cubic feet of natural gas right on the OCS. Democrats keep blocking the ability to get that. Let's do coal-to- liquid technologies. Go after our coal reserves, 250 years' worth in Southern Illinois alone, and turn that into liquid fuel.

Let's lower the cost for homeowners so that we don't have to rely on bailouts, we don't have to rely on government. My individuals want independence from government. They want independence on fuel costs. They want to pay lower costs.

Democrats can bring a bill to the floor. They promised it in 2006. We have yet to see it.

Mr. Speaker, under rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 2419.

The form of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Shimkus moves that the managers on the part of the

House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two

Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2419 (an Act

to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs

through fiscal year 2012) be instructed to recede to the

provisions contained in section 9021 of the Senate amendment

(relating to the E 85 Fuel Program).

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to welcome Rev. Nathan Meador to the Chamber today. Pastor Meador is the pastor of Zion Lutheran Church in Staunton, Illinois. He has served in this capacity since August of 2003. He currently serves as a vicarage supervisor and resident field education adviser to several students from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. Elected in 2006, he is also a member of the Southern Illinois District of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod's Board for Congregational Support.

In Staunton, Rev. Meador is proud to serve as the chaplain for the Staunton Volunteer Fire Department, treasurer of the Staunton Area Clergy Association and chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Staunton Education Foundation.

Born January 29, 1970, in Highland, Illinois, Rev. Meador spent his entire childhood as a resident of Edwardsville, Illinois. He is a 1988 graduate of Metro-East Lutheran High School in Edwardsville, Illinois, and my former student. He continued his education at Concordia University Wisconsin, earning a bachelor of arts with a double major in pre-seminary studies and theological languages. A master of divinity degree was earned from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri, in 1996.

His first call was to serve a dual parish in Sheldon and Gilman, Wisconsin. There he served Trinity and Zion as pastor for 2 years. In 1998 he accepted the call to serve as pastor of Zion Lutheran Church in rural Wausau, Wisconsin. He served in this capacity until August 2003 when he accepted the call to serve in Staunton, Illinois.

Rev. Meador is married to Jill Jaeger and has been married for 15 years. They have three children: Joseph, 11; Beth, 8; and Andrew, 4.

When not being a parish pastor, Rev. Meador enjoys officiating high school and youth athletics and playing golf.

Welcome, Nathan.

Mr. Speaker, it's great to be down on the House floor. It has been a limited schedule this week, so we haven't had a chance to really take time to focus on the number one pressing issue in America today, which is the high price of gasoline and energy in this country. We get a chance to do that tonight.

I am going to initially yield to some of my colleagues who have graciously come down to help, and the first one I would like to yield to is Mr. Sali from Idaho.

I want to thank my colleague, and I appreciate it.

A couple of things I want to highlight. When he talks about supply, we have a 250 years worth supply of coal in this country, 250 years that we can have access to. And according to the Federal Government, there is enough oil in deep waters many miles off our coast and on Federal land to power more than 60 million cars for 60 years. So your point about supply is important and a critical portion of this debate, and really what separates Republicans from the Democrats as we fight about these energy costs.

We believe that when you bring more supply to the public that's demanding it, prices will go low. Speaker Pelosi promised, on April 24, 2006, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down the skyrocketing gas prices.'' Well, they have a plan, but the plan was just the opposite of what she envisioned. Here's a barrel of crude oil, $58.31 when she became Speaker of the House; the price today, $115.92. That, as I stated on this floor numerous times, that is bitter change, that's negative change. Change is not always good. This is bad change. This is change that was promised by the current leadership in the House.

Now, how does that translate into the fuel for the soccer moms in the country? Well, when the Democrat majority came in, the price of gasoline at the pump was $2.33. Today, it stands at, on average, $3.65, a huge increase. Again, negative change based upon what was promised by the then Democrats in the minority. What they said, what happened when they got into the majority, they promised change. This isn't the change that we bargained for.

And just because I like to bring in the aspect that energy is the item that affects every aspect of our lives, as I said last week, in the Coast Guard Authorization bill, for every dollar increase in diesel fuel, it costs our Coast Guard $24 million. For every dollar increase in a barrel of crude oil, it costs our United States Air Force $60 million. For the sake of the taxpayers we ought to be demanding more supply.

And Bill, you know the coal-to-liquid opportunities that are up in your neck of the woods, and how the Air Force is pleading with us for energy security, for the ability for them to project their cost, and really for national security. Isn't it crazy that our military is dependent upon foreign sources of energy to run our war machines? Not only is it crazy, it's scary. And I would make the argument that it's negligent on our part to keep our military financially reliant on imported energy and really militarily at risk, where we could, in essence, be blackmailed with the threat of controlling those supplies when we need to move our war machines.

Add to this, I always like to add this on this chart, $3.65 is the price. Guess what happens when we moved to climate change? Chairman Dingell of the Commerce Committee is the only intellectually honest person who started talking about climate change, and he said, ``for us to address climate change, it will require an additional 50 cents per gallon of gas.'' So now if we've got, on average, $3.65 and we add 50 cents for climate change, that means right now, before we get to the summer driving season, people will be paying $4.15 for a gallon of gasoline. That is bitter change. That is change that the public did not agree to when Speaker Pelosi made her promise in 2006.

And this highlights what you were talking about. Here's a comic. And you know when issues start getting into the media and the folks start making fun of public policy in America that you've really got a point that's resonating. ``We demand you energy companies do something about these high prices.'' Isn't that what we're hearing our friends from the other side of the aisle? Okay, energy companies, do something. Can we drill in ANWR? Forget it. How about offshore? Are you crazy? Clean coal? Out of the question. Nuclear power? You're joking, right? Well, don't just sit there, do something.

And what do we hear from the other side of this building? What we hear is, which is laughable, let's add more taxes to the energy companies. Now, where in the history of this country, when you've added more taxes do you get lower prices? I would challenge anybody on the other side of the aisle to show me any time in history where we added more taxes and we lowered the price of a good. You know what? They can't do it. It's ludicrous.

And then they also say, I know what, we're going to force the people who are selling us the oil, we're going to force them to drill and produce more oil when we won't even do that ourselves. How crazy is that?

So as my colleague, Mr. Sali, pointed out, we have options, we have solutions. We mentioned many of them. One is, take our natural resources in coal, over 250 years of coal resources. Now, I would rather have the good midwestern Illinois coal-basing coal that you have to go underground, not stuff you can get off the surface like in some of the western States, but here is a picture of a western State. Grab that, build a refinery, refine that coal into a fuel, stick it in a pipeline, send it to our Air Force bases, or send it to our airports. How many recent budget airlines have just gone bankrupt? At my count, there's four. Think of all the job losses. Think of all the health care now that's no longer accessible to those families. Why did they go bankrupt? High jet fuel costs.

One solution would be this; and the great thing about this is, American jobs in the coal mines, American jobs to build a refinery, American jobs to operate the refinery. These are good-paying jobs with good benefits. American jobs to build a pipeline. And of course, these are American jobs to fly the airplanes and operate the airfields or protect us.

So with that, I would like to yield to my colleague from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis).

If my colleague would yield, they're not going down. Ever since I started this, the numbers are always going up.

Thank you.

And I have a few comments. Immediately after you mentioned Mac Thornberry's bill, I also signed onto the No More Excuses Energy Act.

The school bus folks were in town today, and what I have really gotten an appreciation of over the past year is, as I said earlier, how energy costs affect everything.

Look at the cost to the local school district, who is paying for the school buses to pick up the kids. The prices of diesel fuel are double. It's not planned in the budget. How are they going to meet these costs? Many will have to go back to the voters of the local control school that we have, and they're going to have to raise taxes to pay for it. There's no benefit to that for the kids. I mean they're still driving the same buses. That is a lost opportunity for money to go in a different direction to help educate kids but now has to go to fund the transportation system to get kids to school.

So I appreciate those comments.

And it's silly that we're not going after our own resources and our own supply when Russia is attempting to grab vast chunks of the Arctic to claim its vast potential of oil and gas and mineral wealth to fuel their country's economy. And actually, as we know, and I've got a friend from Michigan who knows this, they use energy to extort and impose their will on the free governments of the former captive nations, and they use it as an extortion tool. And they're going after resources and we don't. It's crazy.

Russia and China have overtaken the United States in dominating the global energy industry. China's building 40 nuclear plants. China opened a new domestic energy reserve in 2004. China is increasing offshore energy production. In fact, China is in league with Cuba to go after Outer Continental Shelf oil 50 miles off Miami, 50 miles. We can't go there, but we're allowing the Communist Chinese access to the gas and oil reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf. And there's much, much more.

It is ludicrous that we are the only industrialized nation in the world that does not go after and use our own resources. How crazy is that? It's time we stopped. And I hope the public is getting significantly angry enough that they are going to demand that this House does something to open up reserves.

Now I'm joined by my good friend and colleague Kevin Brady from Texas.

Welcome.

I thank my colleague.

There is something about the American character. We believe that America is strong because we have this value of rugged individualism, that we believe in self-reliance. And what galls Americans in this debate is that the Democrats are demanding increased oil production everywhere but in America. I mean the Democrats demand increased oil production everywhere around the world but America. And when they do that, they are creating jobs everywhere in the world except in America.

Here's the result of their ``no'' policy: When they came in, $2.33 per gallon of gas. On average today, $3.65. You add to that a 50 cent global warming tax, and we would be paying at the pump today $4.15. The barrel of crude oil, the feedstock, when this Democrat majority came in, $58.31. What is it today? It's $115.92.

There's a 250-year supply. And by far the least expensive fuel we have in coal reserves across this country, the largest coal reserves of any country in the world, is right here in the United States. And according to the Federal Government, there's enough oil in deep waters many miles off our coast, and on Federal land--that's not on the coast, that's just on Federal land--to power more than 60 million cars for 60 years.

Again, the Democrats have decided to demand other countries explore, develop, create jobs in energy, and continue to keep our reserves locked up, never to be used.

I am happy to welcome my colleague and friend from Michigan, Congressman McCotter.

I thank my colleague.

There's a great op ed today in the Washington Post by Robert Samuelson. I want to read the first paragraph: ``What to do about oil? First it went from $60 to $80 a barrel, then from $80 to $100 and now to $120. Perhaps we can persuade OPEC to raise production, as some Senators suggest; but this seems unlikely. The truth is that we are almost powerless to influence today's prices. We are because we didn't take sensible actions 10 or 20 years ago. If we persist, we will be even worse off in a decade or two. The first thing to do is start drilling.''

Now I am joined by my colleague from Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland. Welcome.

I thank my colleague for coming. In reality, and I taught high school for a couple of years, and when you don't make a decision, you have made a decision. Even though you don't have a policy, you in fact have a policy.

Our debate is that when the Democrats promised us, when Speaker Pelosi promised us, and I quote, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices''; and when Majority Leader Steny Hoyer promised, ``Democrats believe that we can do more for the American people who are struggling to deal with his gas prices,'' well, they sure did more. They just burdened struggling citizens with higher gas prices. Democrat Whip Jim Clyburn said, ``House Democrats will have a plan to help curb rising gas prices.''

When you don't have a plan, the plan that you have is a plan for failure. This is a planned failure, $58 to $115. Facts are hard things to dispute. Gasoline prices, $2.33, $3.65. That is Speaker Pelosi's plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices. They are skyrocketing gas prices but they are not being brought down. They are continuing to go up.

So Monday we had truckers driving around Washington, D.C. protesting the high cost of diesel fuel. I have got independent truckers going bankrupt. In fact, I brought to the floor in the last couple of weeks a picture of a local strike of independent strikers protesting the high cost of diesel.

My friend, Congressman Brady, highlights the fact that many small town, independent, self-employed people are not making any profit this year because the profit they had planned, it's all going into pay the high cost of gasoline. This is failure.

We would hope our colleagues on the other side would recognize this failure and come to the floor and help us fix this. But their solution is demanding on other countries more drilling when they won't demand drilling in our own country. And then they have this convoluted idea that if you tax people, that is going to lower prices. I challenge them anywhere historically to show me a time when you have raised taxes and prices have come down.

In fact, I have got the perfect colleague to come up here and talk, a CPA and accountant. He has probably seen a lot of small businesses, probably seen a lot of tax burden come onto businesses. I am not sure those tax burdens have ever lowered the cost of that company doing business. But I would like to welcome Congressman Conaway from Texas.

I thank my colleague.

Pro-production, pro-supply, and conservation I think are key items.

I appreciate that. And I have tried to segue a little bit of the climate change debate. We mentioned it here with Chairman Dingell. To be intellectually honest, a carbon tax would be a way to go. He says 50 cents a gallon. So if the average price today is $3.65, you add 50 cents a gallon, Americans will be paying $4.15 a gallon. Now, even in the cap and trade program, really cap and trade equates to 50 cents a gallon. And we just want folks to be intellectually honest and be clear, so the public has to understand.

An issue out today, politicians beware, the issue tied for last, climate change tied for last on a list of domestic priorities for President Bush and Congress in a 2008 survey from the Pew Research Center for the people in the press, lagging behind influence of lobbyists, moral breakdown, et cetera. Last. But California just passed a 20 to 30 percent increase on the electricity bills to deal with climate change. So if we want lower energy prices, we need more supply.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also want to commend the chairman, Mr. Oberstar, who is really interested in transportation issues, a good man of heart, and I applaud your leadership.

Mr. Chairman, this authorization bill brings 1,500 new Coast Guardsmen. We're proud of their service.

My debate, my concern, over the past 2 weeks, obviously, is energy and the increased cost of bringing on the 1,500 new Coast Guardsmen in addition to the burden on the government. It would be better if we had lower energy costs to help meet those needs, but we don't. We have higher costs.

Of course, the Coast Guard uses aviation fuel too, quite a bit of it. So does the United States Air Force. For every $10 over a barrel, it costs our Air Force 600 million more dollars out of the budget. We know the burden on the Coast Guard helicopters. We know the cost to the Coast Guard ships that are diesel run. For every dollar increase in diesel fuel, it costs the Coast Guard $26 million to operate.

And this is the kind of the charts I have been using over the past 3 weeks and will continue to use this ad infinitum until this country, which is the greatest country on the face of this Earth, does what other developing countries do: that we go and explore and use our own resources to meet our own needs.

We know that we are dependent upon imported crude oil. Shame on us. Shame on us when we have the ability to meet our energy needs.

And this is what happens: When this majority took over, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $58.31. Today it dropped a dollar from last week, $116. That's the problem. What's the problem at the pump? From $2.33 to $3.55. Bringing climate change legislation, 50 cents of additional tax on gasoline, we would be paying $4.05.

What's the solution? One, use our abundant natural resources in our country, coal-to-liquid technologies. In Illinois alone we have 250 years' worth of energy just waiting to be brought on line, turned into liquefied fuel, lowering the cost of diesel to our Coast Guard, saving the taxpayers money. But we won't move on any bill that brings on fossil fuels and expansion of fossil fuels on this floor. Shame on us.

What's another solution? The Coast Guard protects our coast. Look at the red area over there: the Outer Continental Shelf, ripe for exploration development, natural gas, crude oil. But, no, it's off- limits. We can't get there.

Think about Katrina. The Coast Guard performed admirably.

You know what we forget? Remember that big cloud that rolled up? Tell me the major ecological damage based upon all those oil platforms in the coast. Can you name one? No. Not a single one because we can do it safely. So we can do it safely in those areas. We should not have to burden the taxpayer with $26 million of cost for allowing crude oil prices to go up. We shouldn't do that. And that's why it's important to lower our prices.

Mr. Speaker, in a press release on April 24, 2006, then Leader Pelosi, now Speaker Pelosi said, Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down the skyrocketing cost of gasoline. In an op-ed penned by my friend from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), he claimed that their success is because Democrats realize the anxiety of stagnating wages, the cost of health care, education, and even gasoline and vowed to address their concerns.

Well, they addressed their concerns. Gas prices are up. When the Democrats took over, gas prices were $2.33. Now they are $3.53. We call this the Pelosi Premium. Add the 50 cent gas tax for climate change, consumers would be paying $4.03. And when gas prices reach $4 this summer, add 50 cents for climate change; we will be paying $4.53 for a gallon of gas.

That's not the type of change that the suburbs in America bargained for when they allowed Democrats to get this Chamber.