Floor Statements

I want to thank my friend from Washington for yielding.

You know, I am going to try to hurriedly plot these dots so you can connect them. But I want to go back because what I would call this Congress is the smoke and mirrors Congress. We have heard denials from the gentleman about what the real intent of this designation was and that the picture that we have here does not speak for what it is.

I think, Mr. Speaker, most people can look at this photo, and you can call it wild and scenic if you want. It looks fairly wild; but scenic, I don't know. I haven't been there either. Let me say this. I think we need to get this into perspective as to the smoke and mirrors that has been going on in this Congress.

I want to read a quote. Mr. Kanjorski was being interviewed by a paper in the town of Ashley. Mr. Kanjorski in his remarks said Democrats had overpromised during the 2006 congressional elections by implying they could end the war if they controlled Congress.

Mr. Speaker, here is the result. It says, ``Now, anybody who is a good student of government would know that was not true.'' Mr. Kanjorski said that in an Ashley town hall meeting in August. ``But you know the temptation to want to win back Congress--we sort of stretched the facts, and the people ate it up.''

I think we are seeing a continuation of that. We are stretching the facts that this is wild and scenic. Now, I think you go back, and this could go back to May of 2007 when we passed the Udall amendment in this House which prohibited the mining of shale oil out west. At that point in time, even by the majority charts, the price of crude oil went sky high with speculation because finally the speculators realized that we were not going to do anything to meet our own energy needs.

Just since President Bush lifted the executive ban and since he had the press conference yesterday about drilling, just the very mention about lifting the ban, starting to drill and starting to look at our own production and our own resources, the price of a barrel of oil has dropped over $10 a barrel.

Now we can do something here, but this is just another nail in the coffin for us that people are going to see that we don't want to increase energy production. Let me tell you something, the people up north had better understand that the price of natural gas and home heating oil is double what it was last year. So now if you get cold in your home in the winter, you are not even going to be able to afford to drive somewhere warm.

So this, I think, if you look at it and if you look at the overall connection of the dots----

I thank my friend from Washington for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is almost comical. It is almost comical to have the gentleman on the other side of the aisle talking about the credibility that the Bush administration brings to this project. I have heard the gentleman give Bush no credit for anything. For anything.

I hear him giving the Navy and the Coast Guard credit, the administration's Secretary of the Interior, whatever it is, credit. He has never given the Bush administration credit for anything.

We had WHINSEC, which is in my district, talking about giving the military credit and the ability to put forth good judgment. He said, no, we're going to expose all the people that are attending this college, this facility, to help bring about peaceful negotiations and peace in Central America.

This is almost comical. And I will tell the gentleman that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. We are exposing what this project is about, and they are grasping at straws to use the argument that they are saying and giving the credibility to the Bush administration when they have never given him credit for anything.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

I think I know the answer to this, but if this motion to recommit did pass and the bill was sent back to the committee from which it came, could the bill not be reported back to this House on the next legislative day?

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, isn't it true that the majority leader and the Speaker of this House could call a vote at any time on increasing U.S. oil production to lower the gas prices for Americans?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if this motion did pass, it could be recommitted back to the--and I doubt it will--it could be recommitted back to the committee from which it came and brought forth on the next legislative day.

Mr. Speaker, it's good to be here tonight. And we're going to talk a little bit about what is on most people in this country's mind, and that's the price of gas, and the price of energy in general.

We're going to be talking about gas tonight and the expense that it takes for American families to go on vacation, just go to work, even go to the store, Mr. Speaker. And so I know that's at the forefront of most Americans' minds today.

Let me just start out by saying that what we want to do tonight, Mr. Speaker, is just point out a few things that may be not consistent with what's coming out of the majority's side about what we're doing about gas prices and what can be done about the price of gasoline now. And we've heard everything from, well, it will take 22 years to get any oil that's in the ground now, that's in our Outer Continental Shelf or in our national lands to the market. And that's not true. And so we're going to talk a little bit about that tonight. And I'm joined by friends of mine, the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from Illinois, and we're going to share some of those things.

But first of all, Mr. Speaker, let me explain that about, I guess, a month ago I was approached by constituents in my district, and they were talking to me about petitions, and petitions that were on the Internet, calling and asking me if I had signed petitions. Some of them were ``increase domestic oil drilling,'' which American Solutions had, some are ``gas tax holiday'' that presidential candidate Senator McCain had, ``develop alternative energy sources,'' which is Energypetition.com.

And then there were petitions against drilling in ANWR. Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer from California had one, and Mr. Speaker, the Sierra Club, Green Peace. There were different petitions. There was actually a ``cap oil company profits by new government regulations.'' There are some people in the majority that believe that we can actually regulate our way out of this energy crisis, so one of those was Moveon.org.

After talking to my constituents about all these different petitions--and they were calling me and asking me if I had signed, they were going to these web pages and either signing or voicing their protest--I was at a service station at home and there was another petition there and it said, ``sign this petition if you want to lower gas prices.'' And I'm assuming that the proprietor of that station was doing that to give people something to do when they were paying for their gas rather than fuss at him. But what it brought to mind is we, in this body, Mr. Speaker, are beginning to see how our constituents feel about this.

I know today we were at a press conference where American Solutions presented the minority leader in the House and in the Senate with a petition. And I think later on--I don't know whether it's this week or next week--they're going to present this same petition to the majority leader in both the House and the Senate, it may be even Mr. Reid in the Senate and Speaker Pelosi here in the House.

But what I decided to do was to come up with a petition so our constituents would know how the Members in this body--the 435 Members that are elected to be voting Members, the seven delegates from the American territories here--I decided that, you know, it would be good for those constituents to be able to see how their representative felt about increasing our oil production to lower the gas prices because that's one of the things that is going to help us. And it's more of an ``all of the above,'' but one of the key ingredients is just voting or having a vote that we could increase our oil productions, whether that's shale oil, oil coming from biomass--which is a new technology that's coming out today--whether it's drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, drilling on Federal lands, drilling in ANWR, whatever the case may be. So I came up with a simple petition, and it says, ``American energy solutions for lower gas prices: Bring onshore oil online, bring deepwater oil online, and bring new refineries online.''

And, Mr. Speaker, a lot of people may not realize that we have not built a refinery in about 30 years in this country. And even some of the refineries that are online today produce diesel that has to be exported because it does not meet the new sulfur limits that we have put on some of the diesel fuel that's used in this country. And so I came up with this, and then I made a simple petition, Mr. Speaker.

And I think this petition is probably just too simple for some of the people in this body because it's not a piece of legislation, it is simply a statement, Mr. Speaker, to the people that they represent to let those people know how they feel about increasing U.S. oil production. And it simply says, ``I will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower gas prices for Americans.'' And that's about as simple as you can get because I think that's what the American people, Mr. Speaker, want to see is that we're doing something, that we're taking some action.

You know, we have voted on several bills in probably the last 2 weeks, ``use it or lose it,'' which a lot of my colleagues from the majority side went home and told their constituents that this was a pro-drilling bill. Well, I disagree with that, it was not a pro- drilling bill; and it was actually very misleading in the fact of use it or lose it, and we'll go into that in just a minute.

But so far, Mr. Speaker, we've had 191 Members sign this. We've had eight Democrats, 183 Republicans that have signed it. Of course it takes 218 to do anything in this body.

But this is not a discharge petition. This is just a simple pledge, or not really a pledge. It's just a petition that people can sign to let their constituents know.

And what we have done to make it easy, Mr. Speaker, for people to realize or to understand if their representative has signed this is we set up a little Web page. It's www.house.gov/westmoreland. And on there we have people that have signed it, we have people that have refused to sign it, and then those that we have not talked to yet that have not signed. So, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage you, if you wanted to know how different Members in your delegation either signed or not signed and just for people would know that they could go to this Web site, www.house.gov/westmoreland, to find out.

And it's interesting because of some of the articles and press releases that I have been reading, I guess, for the last week or so, what we have got is we have got people going home saying one thing and then coming back to Washington and doing something else or not doing what they said they were going to do for the people that vote them into office. So I would hope that we could finally make people match their walk to their talk. So I think this is just an interesting tool that people can use to find out if their Congress person is matching the talk.

I yield to my friend from Illinois.

I want to thank my friend from Illinois, and I want to just comment on a couple of things he said.

Those things that you proposed would create American jobs, good- paying jobs. Most of those refineries are union jobs, and these are jobs that are going out of the country right now because there's not enough work here. And building these pipelines, building the refineries, the oil rigs, the things to convert the coal to liquid, I mean these are American jobs and American money that are going overseas and out of this country. And we hear the majority complain all the time about our sending jobs out of the country. This is what we are doing. And not only that, for people who talk about our trade deficit, and I know my friend from Texas can talk about that, but these are all things that we need to take into account. And like my friend from Illinois said, this is an all of the above.

The other thing that that brings up is we know that the three energy bills that were brought to the floor were under suspension. Now, Mr. Speaker, you know what ``under suspension'' means. And just to explain a little bit, ``under suspension'' means that you have about 20 minutes of debate on each side, a total of 40 minutes, no amendments, and typically there hasn't been a hearing, a committee hearing. So while we are passing these bills, and, in my opinion, it's been putting lipstick on a pig because some of these things that we have passed are already the law, just not being enforced, and other things I don't really believe are helping, they are just political correctness that we are trying to do, but there has been no input from

the minority. A side that represents about 50 percent of the people in this country have no input into the process. So I know you would have some great input into the process if we could just be allowed to have an amendment on the floor. But for some reason, the majority is afraid to allow us to have a vote.

I want to read one thing that Speaker Pelosi said yesterday about using suspensions. She said, ``We are trying to get our job done around here, and we work very hard to build consensus. And when we get it, we like to just move forward with it, as we did on the Medicare bill,'' which is one of the largest expenditures we have had probably this year in this Congress that was done under suspension, ``as we did with the SPR bill, and the list goes on and on. But it is not about a tool. It's about the legislative process and how we get a job done.''

That legislative process that's being done in this House today is broken. And when the legislative process is broken, the product is flawed. And I think that's what we have seen because if you look at when Republicans took Congress, gas was $1.44 a gallon. When the Democrats took control, it was $2.10 a gallon. And now it's $4.11 a gallon. This is what you get from working with a broken process and doing political correctness over the people and using power and politics over doing what is right. So this is what you end up with.

And this is what the American people, Mr. Speaker, are complaining about and rightfully so. Because we have the ability to provide our own energy resources. But because of politics, we are being voted from even having discussions on this floor or taking a vote on anything that we believe would be both a short-term and a long-term.

I would like to recognize my colleague from Texas, Mr. Conaway.

If I could reclaim my time for 1 minute, could you comment on I believe it's the Atlantis platform and how many years it took and how many barrels a day it's now producing?

But they started the process in 1985.

And they are doing it in an environmentally safe way? There's been no spill or leakage or anything?

Just reclaiming my time 1 minute. I would like you to explain just very briefly about the Dallas-Fort Worth airport, DFW, and the fact that this was State-owned property versus Federal property and how quickly that oil was produced out of that site. If you could just touch on that very briefly.

So 2 years on State property versus 12 years on Federal land.

But there is still a permitting process that I want to talk about. And the very fact when we hear the other side say that it will take 22 years to get anything out of these wells, you are talking about 2 years to get natural gas.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that natural gas was about $6.60 a thousand cubic feet last year, and it is about $12 this year. So while we have a lot of Americans feeling the pain at the pump this winter, they are certainly going to feel the pain at home.

I want to point out that this chart takes in the leasing process. And this purple area right here is the preleasing process. The orange is the leasing process, and then the blue is the notice of staking and the green is the application to drill. This is on Federal on shore oil and gas leasing and permitting process. Every time you see one of these red dots here, this is a point of entry for legal action.

And so you can see that this process is a lengthy process. When the majority talks about 68 million acres in the use or lose it, last night as we had an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to go back and forth for 2 hours with the majority, I think that they admitted that that 68 million acres that they are claiming, and we don't know, Mr. Speaker, where that 68 million figure came from because that was done not by the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service but by a committee report from the majority in the Resources Committee. So we don't even know how they came up with the 68 million acres.

But the point is that 68 million acres is somewhere in this process. It is somewhere in this process. So the use it or lose it is a very, very misleading statement.

I would like to recognize my friend from Texas.

I want to thank the gentleman from Texas.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

I thank my friend from New Jersey, and he is the only member of the New Jersey delegation who has signed a petition that says ``I want to lower gas prices for Americans.''

It is now my honor to let my colleague from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, have some time.

I want thank my colleague from Georgia. Now I want to recognize my other colleague from Georgia, another doctor, seems like we have a lot of doctors in our delegation, but my friend from Georgia, Dr. Price.

Just reclaiming my time for a minute, it's a shame that that 73 percent of the American people that my friend from Georgia commented on will never get to see a vote on this House floor, never get to see a vote on this House floor if the process remains the same.

We heard from Speaker Pelosi yesterday, and her intention is to keep the process the same, closed rules and suspension bills.

So that 73 percent that is saying, hey, drill here, drill now, drill in my backyard, wherever you got to drill, we need to bring down the price of gas, they will never get to know how their Congressman feels about that, because we will never have an opportunity.

I yield back to my friend from Georgia.

I want to thank my friend for that.

You are right. What the Republican message has been is all of the above. You know, we believe in conservation. We believe in renewable energy. We believe in wind and solar, but we also believe in the new technology that's environmentally safe that we can use to drill in these deep-water areas of the Outer Continental Shelf that we can use to get shale oil out of the ground in the western States, which this Congress, in May of 2007--and I don't have the chart up here with me tonight--but in May of 2007 is when the speculation market shot sky high on the price of oil because they saw that night in May when Mr. Udall's amendment was passed that said we could no longer drill or mine for the shale oil in the western States where there are 2 trillion, 2 trillion with a T, barrels of oil.

It is off limits, and I want to say that H.R. 6, which was passed by this body, under a closed rule, which means there was no amendments, no amendments allowed whatsoever from the minority, that they passed it. We called it the no-energy bill. At the time it was passed, gas was about $2.25 a gallon.

I want to read one comment that was made, this is on January 18 of 2007, H.R. 6. ``It is sad to see the Republicans come to this. Now they are laughably saying that this will lead to higher prices.'' That was Mr. DeFazio from Oregon, and this was on the Democrat energy bill.

We said then that it will lead to higher gas prices, and we were right. What we are saying now is let's look at all the measures, all the measures. We heard my friend from Texas say, in a 2-year period they were getting natural gas out of the wells at the Dallas airport. This can happen, but in order to happen, we have to get out of the fetal position. We have to get out of that political correctness mode and do what's right.

In order to do what's right, we need to have an open-rule bill come to this floor so all 435 Members of this body can have some input and all Americans can be represented in this body and it not just be a closed place. Let me say this, when the process is broken, the product is flawed.

This process is broken. We ask the majority--we ask the American people to help us create an open process so all views can be put out. Then all of the above that uses all the tools in our tool chest can be used to lower the price of gas and energy for the American people.

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

I want to thank Mr. Barton from Texas for doing that, and I will have to give Mr. Altmire the credit for persuading Speaker Pelosi for allowing us to do that, and I want to thank the gentleman for his willingness that we can do this and have a good discussion.

And while we're doing this, I would like to ask Mr. Rahall one question: Can you identify any lands which are leased and are not being developed and currently who is not developing lands that they had leased?

I guess I may not have posed my question just exactly right, but my question would be to you, this is a 10-year process. This is a 10-year process, and I'm assuming that each acre of land that has been leased, by whoever leased it, is in some part of this process of obtaining production or getting permits in order to produce. And my question is, do you know of any of the 68 million acres that are not in some process?

Okay.

I understand that they are not producing, but is there any----

Yes.

So I guess my question to the gentleman is that this 68 million that we keep hearing use-it-or-lose-it is actually in some stage, and I have a chart here that shows the different processes.

A very complicated chart, and I'm not going to attempt to explain it all, but I will say that the purple is the pre- leasing process. Your orange is the leasing process. The blue is the notice of staking process, and then the green is the application for permit to drill. And if you will notice these little red blotches on here, these are points of entry for people who want to start litigation during this process.

In 1992, the Democratic majority extended the leasing process from, I believe it was either 3 or 5 years to 10 years. And so I think a Democrat majority realized that this was a very burdensome process and could not be done in the time period that these oil companies have been given and extended it to 10 years.

So, you know, I just think that when we talk about 68 million acres, out of the 2.5 billion acres that are available that we could be drilling in, that it's not fair to say that, you know, use-it-or-lose- it, when the people that have leased it are somewhere on this chart trying to make this land that they have leased be productive for U.S. oil production.

I understand.

But I do think if you do say the 68 million acres out there, that they need to either use it or lose it, and the reality is that they're trying to use it. They're just in some part of this process, and you know, even if it's the Corps of Engineers, I know there're several sites where the Corps is actually being sued, and these companies have to wait on the Corps to work through their lawsuit before they can get back into the permitting process. And then there's other stumbling blocks that they have to go through.

But I just find it interesting that the Democrat majority in 1992 was the one that extended this to 10 years because they understand that the trouble and the amount of paperwork and filings and permitting process that you have to go through, and then the same party would come back and say, well, there's 68 million acres out there that they're not using and so, therefore, they need to lose it when they are actually within the law, within that 10-year period, and as far as I know, each and every one of them that have obtained the lease are in some part of this process.

I disagree with that because I feel that what the American people want us to do is to increase our oil production. I think that they want to see something like the gentleman from Texas talked about in 2005, that this government could come together and we could streamline. I mean, we've got enough smart people in our government that could streamline this process some to bring it about, and I know that the gentleman's in favor of that, and I look forward to working with you and Mr. Barton to be able to streamline this so we can get production on the ground quicker.

Now, let me say that, you know, being from an agriculture State in Georgia, there's certain areas of the State that we grow apples. There's certain areas of the State that we grow cotton. There's areas of this country that produce more corn than other areas, and you wouldn't plant corn, let's say, in the north Georgia mountains because you wouldn't get near as good a yield as you would maybe in Nebraska or somewhere else.

At the same time, out of 2.5 billion acres of land, and knowing the area that's in the ANWR, and knowing the 2 trillion barrels of shale that are out West that we know are there, why wouldn't we open those up and give companies an opportunity to go out there? And it would not take 22 years to increase our oil production in some of these areas, and later on, we'll be showing a map of how much quicker I think we could get this oil into our refineries, which brings up another point, and then I will sit down because the gentleman from Texas has been so kind to yield.

But the other thing we need to talk about tonight I think is the increased refinery capability and the fact that, in our country, we've not built a refinery in 30 years. And we are right now importing almost 7 billion barrels of refined gas into this country and about the same amount of refined diesel. So, with that, I will sit down.

You do realize that we changed the EPA or the clean air requirements for diesel. This diesel that we are exporting to Central American countries, our government will not let us burn in this country.

Well, we need to get with those folks and see if we both can't get the same answer because the answer we're getting is these refineries are only set up to refine this diesel to a certain point, and because of the new standards implemented on diesel fuel for this country, that these fuels were exported to countries that can use that.

Well, there are new standards, of course.

Would the gentleman from Texas just yield for one minute?

I just want to point out to my friend that this cause is not, you know, the spike that we usually see is not some type of temporary disruption, but it's a demand from all over the world, not just this country, our demand has gone down some. It's not just this country. But if you look at China and Asia and India, their demand for this oil is going up every day. And if you look at where the world's supply of these imports that come into this country, if you look at Nigeria, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and then if you look at our ability and all the different types of untapped domestic resources that we have, we could get over and help ourselves by producing this.

And so, just like you said, it's not just the supply and demand, it's the fact that we have to import all of this when we have these untapped domestic resources at our hand right here for us to use. And I think that's the reason 73 percent of the American people are saying, hey, look, use some of this stuff.

And with that, I yield back.

If I could use these last few minutes to kind of straighten out a few points, at least my opinion.

Mr. Rahall mentioned that the ``use it or lose it'' legislation was pro-drilling. And I had the chart up, and I thought we were in complete agreement that the 68 million acres that are leased are in some process of permitting. So that is not a pro-drilling bill. If it was a pro- drilling bill, then what we have done would have been to reduce the regulations to allow this to speed up.

And let me say this. We have not exported any Alaskan oil in 8 years. And what this brings to highlight, and I hope the gentlemen from Michigan and Pennsylvania will take note of this and the fact that we have had so many conflicting facts here. This is a good reason that we need to have committee hearings, subcommittee hearings, committee hearings, and open debate on this floor. The energy bills that we have passed so far have come under suspension. So there have not been any committee hearings on it.

Speaker Pelosi said, ``We are trying to get the job done around here.'' This is her defending the use of suspensions. ``And we work very hard to build consensus, and when we get it, we like to just move forward with it, as we did on the Medicare bill,'' which was a suspension bill we don't even need to talk about. But this is not about a tool; it's about the legislative process and how we get a job done.

We have seen tonight and, Mr. Speaker, I think the American people have seen tonight that there are so many conflicting reports that we need to have committee hearings. We need to go through regular process so we can debate these bills on the floor.

The last comment I will make, in 1995 President Clinton vetoed drilling in ANWR. By today's projections from Energy, they said that we would be getting 1 million barrels of oil a day today. That was 13 years ago. We would be getting 1 million barrels of oil. And quoting Senator Schumer, from the other side of the aisle, he said an additional 1 million barrels of oil a day produced in this country would lower gas 50 cents a gallon.

So the gentleman from Texas sees these things, that we need to go through regular order and let your Committee on Resources have some input.

I just wanted to ask the gentleman from New York one question. When he was talking about the profits for these oil companies, are they making 50 percent profit or are they making 30 percent profit or are they making 25 percent profit? What percentage of their sales is that profit? I am just curious to understand.

I don't think anybody has any sympathy for oil companies, and I'm not trying to say that they do. I'm trying to ask, do you know if they are making 50 percent profit, 30 percent profit, 20 percent profit, 10 percent profit? What percent profit are they making that relates to these high numbers? Is there a percentage of profit on there that they are making? And what percent of profit is too much?

If the gentleman would yield, and I don't know if you have a list or what, but it is a simple question. Do you know what percent of profit the chart represents?

Well, I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his participation and for his willingness to come here tonight and to lead it with the expertise that he has had as former chairman of Energy and Commerce and that he has now as the ranking member.

I also want to thank Mr. Altmire for his willingness to participate, and I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan.

While we don't necessarily agree on a lot of the facts, I think it has been a good example of why we need to have committee hearings. I was glad to hear that the gentleman from Michigan's bill is going to actually have a markup in the Energy and Commerce Committee, so I think that's a positive step in that we're finally, hopefully, having the majority ask for the minority's input.

It does concern me a little bit as to what Speaker Pelosi said today in her quote, that she is going to continue to do these things under suspension. Mr. Speaker, I believe that that is out of fear that we will come back with a motion to recommit.

Let me say this: While we're talking about gas today, we cannot regulate ourselves out of this crisis. While we came down today to discuss, I thought, some U.S. oil production and drilling, it's good that we got into some of the other things that the majority is saying are causing these gas prices to go so high, but even from listening to them about this not affecting it immediately, we need to look to the future for our children and for our grandchildren. So I hope we'll continue this discussion.

Again, I want to thank all of the parties who participated.

Mr. Altmire, I will yield back to you.

I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) would like to say something.

Madam Speaker, I also want to address what the gentleman from Michigan on the other side just got through saying about they are for drilling. Well, if they are for drilling, why is it that they pulled the appropriations bill when there was just a mention of having an amendment to allow drilling?

Let me just go back to April 2006 when then-minority leader Nancy Pelosi, now Speaker, said the Democrats have a commonsense plan to lower the skyrocketing price of gas. Where is that plan? Well, the plan was supposed to be, I guess, H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act of

2007 which came forth. I am assuming this was the commonsense plan that the Democrats had.

Well, you know what? If they want bipartisan for it, if they wanted to vote on drilling, if they want to vote on getting to the Outer Continental Shelf, or if they wanted to be serious about tar sands, alternative fuels, coal-to-liquid, shale oil, then why did we have a closed rule? Why did we shut out half of the American people in this country that have representation in this body that didn't have a voice about an amendment on the floor that did not have an amendment in the Rules Committee?

If we're so bipartisan now that this issue has come up and that the majority has not been able to address it, why are we wanting to be bipartisan now? Why weren't we bipartisan when we passed H.R. 6? And let me tell you this: In that bill of over 300 pages, crude oil's mentioned five times, gasoline is mentioned one; exploratory drilling is mentioned two; offshore drilling, zero; domestic drilling, zero; domestic oil, zero; domestic gas, zero; domestic fuel, zero; domestic petroleum, zero; gas prices, zero. Commonsense, goose egg.

Greenhouse, 103; green building, 101; ecosystem, 24; climate change, 18; regulation, 98; environmental, 160; geothermal, 94; renewable, 333; swimming pool, 47. And yes, don't forget the popular CFL light bulb, 350 times.

Madam Speaker, we cannot regulate our way to energy independence. We cannot tax our way to prosperity. When is the majority party going to understand that we have got to do some of these things that we hear them talking about?

It's time to show the American people, Madam Speaker, that we mean business about lowering the price of gas at the pump. I want to quote this, and I think this is a representation of what the Democratic Party did to the American people in 2006.

This is a quote from Mr. Kanjorski from a newspaper:

``Now, anybody who is a good student of government would know that wasn't true,'' Mr. Kanjorski said at an Ashley town hall meeting in August. And he was talking about ending the war.

``But you know the temptation to want to win back Congress--we sort of stretched the facts, and the American people ate it up.''

Well, I've got something to say to Mr. Kanjorski and the majority party. The people are paying the price for that meal that they had of lies and untruths and half-truths. They're paying the price for it at the pump.

It's time we took action. It's time we make it where the American people didn't have to make the choice of visiting a sick relative in the hospital or going to work.

Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, if this motion to recommit did pass, could the bill not be sent back to the committee from which it came and brought back on the next legislative day?

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I come to you today to help with some statistics that I thought you might be interested in. The fact is that we have a new majority. We have had a new majority now for about 18 months or so in this body. I wanted to give you some statistics about what has happened since the new majority has taken over.

A gallon of gas has gone from $2.35 to $4.11, an increase of $1.76. A loaf of bread has gone from $1.14 to $1.37, a 23-cent increase. A gallon of milk has gone from $3 to $3.76 a gallon. Dow Jones has gone from 12,463 to 11,812, losing 651 points.

Mr. Speaker, the American people I think were misled with the new majority. But I think business and Wall Street and the price to consumers is now telling the tale of exactly what high taxes and the threat of high taxes and the willingness to be energy dependent is costing the American people.

Thank you.

And while I stand to ask the Members to also support this legislation that the gentlelady from Guam has introduced, I think it's interesting, though, that we're here today talking about the carcasses of sharks, Mr. Speaker. We debated the other day on the floor monkey bites, and we have had some quite interesting conversations on the floor about legislation that's important and important to the American people.

But I find that the one subject that we're not talking about on the floor of the House, or at least not being able to debate on the floor of the House and have had any legislation come forward on the floor of the House that we could really debate and get into a debate and talk about statistics and reality is the fact of drilling and becoming more energy independent. That is something, I think, that is concerning most houses and most families right now.

And the fact that, Mr. Speaker, the price of a gallon of gas is $4.11, $4.11, that's a sticker shock that we can't seem to get our head around and get

our hands on is that a gallon of gas today is costing $4.11. And the reason it's costing $4.11 is because we are still completely dependent on foreign oil.

Now, while I know that there are a lot of people at home sitting around considering what their chances of getting bitten by a monkey might be or their care and real concern about a shark carcass, I think they're more concerned about a gallon of gas, the price of that.

So Mr. Speaker, I would encourage you to encourage the rest of the members of the majority party, those that are in control, to have a good discussion, a good debate on a piece of legislation that would allow drilling on our Outer Continental Shelf in the areas of the West that have shale oil, off the coast of Alaska, and ANWR where we know that there are billions of gallons of gas. And not only that, but we're fixing to be in a natural gas crisis.

Natural gas is about twice what it was, I believe, last year, and if that's the case, people are not going be able to heat their homes. And so while we think that driving is expensive now with gas at $4.11 a gallon, imagine having home heating oil or natural gas to heat your house for your family and your bill is going to be twice as high as it was. Well, Mr. Speaker, you won't even be able to drive to a warm place.

And so these are some concerns that we need to be talking about now. Not only are we into the immediate crisis of high prices of gas, but we're in the crisis to come of our home heating oil and natural gas.

So I hope that while we take these things serious about the carcasses of these sharks, chances of getting bit by a monkey, that we would consider our dependence on foreign oil and what we can do to become self-dependent. It's all of the above. It's going to take some conservation, but we cannot conserve our way out of this. It's going to take looking at new technologies for wind and for solar. But we cannot build enough solar panels nor enough windmills to supply this country with its energy needs.

We don't need to be doing away with our coal-fired plants because 85 percent of the power of this country, Mr. Speaker, comes from those coal-fired plants. We need to be looking at new exploration, new ways to increase the oil production of this country so that we might be more energy independent and not so dependent on the people around this world who are mainly and most of the time not our friends, Mr. Speaker.

So I hope you will take that message back--and I know you will--to the majority and hopefully we can bring forth some legislation that we can discuss and see if we can't get gas prices down for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Guam and her comments about bipartisan and working together and coming up with a common solution.

Mr. Speaker, I am all for that, but what we've come up with in the past is very limited debate. We've had bills come to the floor with no amendments. We've had bills come to this floor that had no committee hearings. Now, that, to me, is not working together or with bipartisan support.

So, if we want to have this bipartisan discussion, let's have it on the floor. Let's have an open rule on an energy bill, an open rule energy bill. What a great way to preserve what this body was meant to be, a place where representatives of the people came to debate and discuss and to talk about things that were affecting their constituents.

But half the people in America who are represented by Republicans in this body have not had an opportunity to even offer an amendment to some of these energy bills. We've not even had an opportunity to come down and speak on this floor because of the limited debate.

If we want to work out a solution, if we want to hear all the ideas from all 435 Members of this, so all the people in this country can have some input into this process, let's have an open energy bill that went through regular order and went through the subcommittee and the committee process, had a rule that was written where we could all have some input.

I'm for that kind of bipartisan support, and I know you are too because you are a very sweet lady.

Now, let me go on to say one thing: There was a poll that came out today I thought was very interesting. The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen reporting tracking history.

This month, just 9 percent say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to form a committee to go find that 9 percent of the people to find out where they've been because we are not doing a good job, we are not doing an excellent job. We are doing a very poor job of addressing the needs of the American people and what's affecting their pocketbook and the ability for their family to survive today.

We've got gasoline that is up $1.76 a gallon since the end of 2006. A loaf of bread is up 23 cents, or about 23 percent, than what it was at the end of 2006. A gallon of milk is up almost 30 percent, Mr. Speaker, since the new majority came in. The Dow Jones has lost about 20 percent. The stock market is down $53 billion in the wealth of the stock market. Real net worth is down $2.51 trillion. The real per capita gross domestic product is down. Inflation rate is up. Unemployment rate is up. The real average wage is down, Mr. Speaker. We are not doing a good job.

Part of the reason that bread is high, that milk is high, that the stock market is going down, that inflation is up is because of the oil crisis that we're in right now because we are totally dependent on foreign oil. And I would like to close with this, as a quote from the Department of Minerals Management Service that's in the Interior Department. The director says, ``The agency estimates that offshore drilling could produce 1.8 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.'' And we're going to need that natural gas, Mr. Speaker, when these home heating oil and natural gas bills come due for people trying to stay warm this winter. The director would not say how much more oil and gas he thinks the lands could produce, but he said that experience has shown that once companies begin drilling on land, they often find more than expected.

Mr. Speaker, we have about 2.5 billion acres of Federal land and offshore that we could be drilling on; 68 million of that has leases that oil companies have leased. And we certainly--and I say we, I'm talking about the minority--do not think that Big Oil does not play some part in this. But the reality of it is we cannot expect Big Oil to go out and drill on leased land that has no oil or no gas. You do not go grocery shopping at a hardware store.

We need to open up this land that is available, that the Department of Interior, that the Minerals and Management Service says that there is gas and oil there. We need to open up this land to let people drill on, to let people get our natural resources out of the ground rather than us being dependent on going to foreign countries on bended knee with hat in hand asking them to sell us their natural resources when we refuse to use our own.

So Mr. Speaker, I will close with this, that we do want to work. We want a bipartisan solution. Because we think the answer is all of the above, it's more conservation, it's more use of wind and solar, but it's also drilling. It's also using our own natural resources. It's using clean coal. It's using an environmentally sensitive way to get this natural resource out of the ground. And we welcome an open rule bill that comes to the floor that all 435 people and the seven delegates that represent people in our territories and our States in this great country that we live in, to come have an open, honest debate about what we can do to solve our energy policy, to come together, to work together. That's the kind of change that the American people want, not the radical kind of change that has been offered so far in this Congress.

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

I thank my friend for yielding again.

Mr. Speaker, I got the whip report today and was looking over some of the bills that we're going to be going over today and this week. And I felt like, Mr. Speaker, it might be good just to remind our colleagues maybe of what all we're going to be doing this week so they can get their staffs down and start looking at this real hard.

I was hoping that we might be talking about some ways to improve our energy management because what has happened so far on this House floor by the majority has simply not worked. We voted, I guess, almost 6 weeks ago now, to stop sending oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and so thus far I believe, today is July 8; so at 70,000 barrels of oil a day, that's over half a million barrels of oil that we have kept from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and yet gas is at a new record of $4.11 a gallon. So that's not working.

The energy bill that the majority passed in January of 2007, which we called the ``No Energy Policy,'' has actually turned out to be a no energy policy because gas has gone from $2.35 a gallon to $4.11 a gallon. And light bulbs, or the CFLs, was mentioned over 350 times in that bill, and we have now learned that you can't dispose of those things because of the mercury in them, and they are only produced in China.

So we have got a long way to go on correcting our energy situation in this Congress, and for some reason the majority just keeps turning its head.

But I just felt like for some of our colleagues that are listening today they might know that we have already heard today that we amended High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act. We're going to get a chance to vote today to authorize the Preserve America Program and Save America's Treasures. We are now authorizing the Secretary of Interior to lease a portion of the visitor center to be constructed outside the boundary of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore in Porter County, Indiana. I know that's a big one. You all need to be looking at that, Mr. Speaker.

Number four, to amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 to add sites to the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Park, and I know that's an important piece of legislation. We're also going to do the Maritime Pollution Prevention Act. And we're going to name three post offices today.

Now, tomorrow we are going to get into the real meat of some of this stuff. We've got 12 more suspensions, which are bills that really just come to the floor with about 20 minutes of debate, I believe, on either side, no amendments, not structured to any rule. We are going to look at the Pension Protection Technical Corrections Act, and I know, Mr. Speaker, these people at home will be glad to know that we're doing that. And then we have got to

honor the goal of the International Year of Astronomy; celebrating the 25th anniversary of the first American woman in space, Dr. Sally Ride; the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act; commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Space Foundation; commemorating the 50th anniversary of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Homes For Heroes Act; America's Beautiful National Parks Quarter Dollar Coin Act; Community Building Code Amendment Grant Act; Lead-Safe Housing for Kids; and Money Services Business Act.

And then we have got one real bill that's going to be subject to a rule, Mr. Speaker: the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail Designation Act. So any Members listening to this might want to get their amendments ready for that, and I don't know if we can amend that to talk about energy.

But, Mr. Speaker, I just thought it was important that we discuss here among ourselves what we are doing in this Congress this week. People are paying $4.11 a gallon for gas at the pump. People are having to make decisions about whether they can go to work or go visit a loved one in a hospital. We need to be discussing our energy crisis because this is not something that just happened.

And, look, we are not innocent in this. We had 12 years. We could have led the charge. But I remember back in April of 2006, then minority leader, now Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said, ``Elect us. The Democrats have a commonsense plan for lowering the skyrocketing price of gasoline.''

Please bring out that plan, Mr. Speaker. Bring out that commonsense plan so that we can see what can lower the skyrocketing prices because since that plan has not been revealed, gas has gone from $2.35 to $4.11.

So while we are talking about all these important things today, and I know the American people are sitting on the edge of their seat to see if these things pass or not because of the effect it's going to have on their lives, I think if they could honestly have a good, bipartisan debate with an open rule, a good energy bill that all the people could come that represent the people all over this country to come in and discuss what we can do to give them relief at the pump.

I want to thank my colleague for yielding to me.

Just to my good friend from Guam, I don't have a problem with what you said because it sounds like we have had a bite of the apple, the new majority has had a bite of the apple. People have seen their gas prices continue to go up. So why not come up with a bill that we could put on the floor, to have an open rule, because there is nothing more important in this country right now, not just because the price of gasoline is $4.11 a gallon. This is a national security issue. We are writing Hugo Chavez a check to the Venezuelans for $170 million a day. This is a national security issue. This is an economic issue that we are talking about. This is affecting our stock market. This is affecting our gross national product. This is affecting a loaf of bread. This is affecting a gallon of milk. This is something we need to be talking about.

So I'm glad to hear that you've taken notice that our plan of 2005 has not been totally successful because it has not been totally implemented yet. But I am more than willing to have a discussion on this floor, open rule, energy package. Let's write one. Let's let it go through regular order. Let's let it have amendments. Let's let it have discussion. And I think if we could do that, then we maybe could come up with something that could succeed.

Madam Speaker, Lord, I don't even know where to start. I've sat here for the last 45 minutes and listened to the Blue Dogs. And I appreciate them very much because there's about 40 or so of them, I think, and they could do a lot to help us, Madam Speaker, with the energy problem. I just hope that they will stand fast.

I listened to my colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Ross). And I'm on his bill because it brings about more energy independence for this country, Madam Speaker. And it's interesting that the Blue Dogs talked a lot about all the things that we have done thus far, at least that the Democrats have done thus far, the majority, Madam Speaker. And I don't even know how to start to unravel some of the facts that have been laid out here tonight. There were some facts that I agree with, but there are some facts that are very, very misunderstood, and hopefully during this hour sometime, Madam Speaker, we can put some truth into it.

It's interesting that I heard some of the Blue Dogs talking about increasing oil production. And I know that in May of 2007 there was an amendment that we passed that prohibits us from drilling shale oil, where there's two trillion barrels of oil. Two of the speakers here tonight voted for that amendment to keep us locked out of that acreage out west where the shale oil is.

And Madam Speaker, if people could see this chart, May of 2007 is when the biggest spike in the oil prices happened. And I think that's a time when the speculators saw that this Congress was not going to do anything about our own oil production. We refused to do it. And I think the speculators took great advantage of this and said this is a country that's not going to look to their own resources, they're going to be totally dependent on foreign oil, so we'll do with them as we wish.

What has happened over the past, I guess, 3 or 4 weeks is people have been calling our office and calling me, Madam Speaker, and asking me if I had signed a petition; there have been several of them on the web page about ``drill here, drill now, lower prices.'' There's petitions on there from the Sierra Club and other environmental groups about not allowing people to drill. And as I got these petitions, and especially when I was at home, Madam Speaker, one day and I saw a petition on the counter of a gas station, and I guess the owner of the station had it there to give people something to do rather than talk bad to him about the price of gas, but it was a petition that said, ``Sign here if you want to lower gas prices.'' And so I came up with an idea that what I would do is start a petition, Madam Speaker, in this House where the American people could know how their Congress person felt about increasing the oil production in this country to lower their price that they were paying for gas at the pump. And so we came up with this very simple thing. In fact, there is no legislation attached to this, there is no discharge petition, there is just a simple statement where Members of Congress can make a statement to their constituents, Madam Speaker, much like our constituents have been making their thoughts known to us by signing these petitions online and at local convenience stores. This simply says, ``American energy solutions for lower gas prices. Bring onshore oil online. Bring deep water oil online. And bring new refineries online.''

And I put everybody's district, all 435 and the seven delegates that we have that represent territories of the United States. It gave people the opportunity to sign. And it simply says, ``I will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower gas prices for Americans.'' And I don't care if it's the production of biodiesel fuel, biomass, oil, whatever it is, to make us less dependent on foreign oil.

And we've listened to a lot of the Blue Dogs tonight, but none of those Blue Dogs have signed this petition. And Madam Speaker, I have often learned in life that your walk has to match your talk. And some people say, well, this is just a political statement. It's not a political statement at all. We've had some Republicans sign it, we've had some not sign it. We've had some Democrats sign it, we've had some Democrats not sign it.

If you want to know if your Member has signed it, you can go to House.gov/westmoreland. And on that page we have those that have signed it and those that have refused to sign it. If you don't see their name in either spot, then we're going to take it that they did want to sign it, we've just not had a chance to talk to them personally, Madam Speaker.

But we believe that your walk should match your talk. And so we do have some Democrats on there, some people--Neil Abercrombie from Hawaii, a great leader, we have Mr. Cazayoux from Louisiana, Mr. Melancon from Louisiana, some from Texas--that are on here because they believe that we need to increase our oil production to lower the gas prices, and we do. That's just a fact. We heard about all these biodiesel plants, and those are great. But you know what? Until we start using our own natural resources--we see what the speculators did when we voted not to.

Now, oil came down $4 a barrel. It came down, and I understand one of the reasons it came down is because Ms. Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, Madam Speaker, sent a letter to the President saying we need to get into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a reserve of our petroleum that we have, millions of barrels of oil that we would have in an emergency, in a crisis, in a disaster. She wants to release that, which means to me, Madam Speaker, that she realizes that we need more oil, we need more production. But because of the radical environmentalists that have controlled the majority, or at least influenced the majority greatly, they cannot afford to do what we need to do politically; it's not politically correct for them.

I think that the American people, Madam Speaker, are tired of us in this body being politically correct. They just simply want us to do what's right, the things that we swore, took an oath that we would do, and that is to protect the American people.

And as the Blue Dogs said tonight, this is not just an economic policy, this is a national security interest that we have. And we've got to own up to our responsibility and make sure that we live up to the challenges that our constituents have given us by electing us to this body. We have got to act. We've got to get out of the fetal position, and we've got to act and do some things that will bring about some relief at the pump.

A lot of them in the past 45 minutes or the last hour or so have talked about all the great things we've done. Well, with all the bills that have been passed, I haven't noticed the price of gas coming down one dime. It's almost like putting lipstick on a pig. You can make it look good, but it's only going to be a pig. So we can make things look good, we can make things look like we're doing something, but all we're doing is just making a nice window for people to view at. It's time that we got down to some hard decisions. And there are some hard decisions that have got to be made.

And there are things that we are doing. We have put up discharge petitions--and I say ``we,'' I'm talking about the minority party--but they're there for everybody to sign. The week of June 9, we put a discharge petition, ``No More Excuse Energy Act of 2007.'' What that would do is it would reduce the price of gasoline by opening new American oil refineries, investing in clean energy sources such as wind, nuclear, capturing carbon dioxide, and making available more home-grown energy through environmentally sensitive exploration of the Arctic Energy Slope and America's deep-sea energy reserves. Now, what that takes is 218 Members to sign that discharge petition. We hear a lot of talk, but we don't see a walk.

The week of June 16, H.R. 2279, Madam Speaker, Expand American Refining Capability of Closed Military Installations. It would reduce the price of gasoline by streamlining the refinery application process--which in 2005 was passed by a Republican Congress and later stripped out by the new majority--and by requiring the President to open at least three closed military installations for the purpose of siting new and reliable American refineries. A lot of people, Madam Speaker, might not realize that we import refined gasoline of almost seven billion gallons a year, almost the same amount of diesel fuel, Madam Speaker, that we bring into this country because we do not have the refining capabilities. Not a refinery has been built since 1978.

The week of June 23 it was H.R. 5656, the Repeal of the Ban on Acquiring Alternative Fuels; reduce the price of gasoline by allowing the Federal Government to procure advanced alternative fuels derived from diverse sources like shale oil, tar sands, and coal-to-liquid technology.

Do you realize in the energy bill, Madam Speaker, that was passed by this majority, that Federal agencies cannot use these alternative fuels? We heard a lot tonight from the Blue Dogs about using alternative fuels, increasing alternative fuels, but yet we will not let our agencies use it.

The week of July 7, this week, H.R. 2208, Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Act, which, Madam Speaker, happens to be authored by a Democrat, reduces the price of gasoline by encouraging the use of clean coal-to-liquid technology, authorizing the Secretary of Energy to enter into loan agreements with coal-to-liquid projects that produce innovative transportation fuel.

There shouldn't be one Member of this body not on that discharge petition to say let our oil go.

The week of July 14, we are going to have H.R. 2493, Fuel Mandate Reduction Act of 2007. It will reduce the price of gasoline by removing fuel blend requirements and onerous government mandates if they contribute to unfavorable gas prices. Right now part of the problem that we have with the high gas prices in areas in California and other cities that don't meet the attainment is the boutique fuels that we have.

The week of July 21 brings H.R. 6107, the American Energy Independence and Price Reduction Act. It will reduce the price of gasoline by opening the Arctic energy slope to environmentally sensitive American energy exploration. The development footprint will be limited to 1/100 of 1 percent of the refuge, and revenue received from the new leases would be invested in a long-term alternative energy trust fund.

The week of July 28, right before we go on the August recess, H.R. 6108, Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2008, reduces the price of gasoline by enabling the United States to responsibly explore its own deep ocean to produce American energy. The bill would grant coastal States the authority to keep exploration 100 miles from their coastlines, and it would also allow States to share in the revenues received. As Mr. Cazayoux said today, it helps Louisiana protect their vital coastline and all the great natural resources that they have there.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield to my friend Mr. Roskam to hear his comments.

I thank you for your comments. And just a couple of points that you made about the amount of money that we give to some of the people who are not friendly to us, even in our own hemisphere, we give Hugo Chavez $170 million a day.

I hear the other side complain about what Big Oil makes, and I don't know.

Big Oil, according to the records and stuff I read, make about a 10 percent profit, and I am not saying if that's good or bad for their business. But what do they think Mr. Chavez is making off of $170 million of U.S. dollars every day? And, listen, he is not our friend.

And the other thing that the gentleman has brought up is a great point, and we heard it today and I heard it on the floor earlier today that we need to all work together. Well, I agree we do need to all work together. But when the majority party brings the energy bills to the floor, some under suspension, when there's only 20 percent of debate on each side, no amendments, no committee hearings, no subcommittee hearing, no regular process, how are we all working together, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, you know if we are going to all work together, if we're going to all be part of the process, if all the people in this country--this is a republic. It is a representative form of government. And if I don't have an opportunity to amend or give input into the process, my people are shut out of the process. If there are no amendments, nobody on this side of the aisle and many people on this side of the aisle, the people they represent are shut out of the process.

So let's do all come together. Let's have an energy bill on the floor that can work, this open rule. We can have 435 plus the 7 delegates offer changes, offer solutions, as Mr. Roskam just did, about the people that have come up with solutions in his district; as Mr. Scott did previously about the biofuel in his district. We all have good ideas, but when we are shut out of the system, you can't work together. And I don't know what part of that the majority doesn't understand.

I would like to now yield to my colleague from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

I want to thank my colleague from Georgia. That was a great test. I think anybody, anybody in the United States should be able to pass that test, Dr. Gingrey. I am glad you put it up, because that simplified it.

This is something, this little simple petition, I will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower gas prices for Americans; 435 lines. So far, we have 191 signatures. This is just telling the American people we are ready to do all of the above. If you want to find out if your Member has signed this simple petition, much like the petitions that many of these people have signed, Mr. Speaker, that are listening to us, have gone on the Internet and signed petitions saying, Hey, drill here, drill now, lower our prices, and bring the U.S. back to being dependent--back from being dependent on foreign oil, go to House.gov/westmoreland and you will find out if your Member has signed, refused to sign, or is in the category of not making a decision because, Mr. Speaker, I feel like the American people are going to have to make the majority party understand that they want some change.

See, in April of 2006, then minority leader, now Speaker Pelosi made a statement that the Democrats had a plan. They had a commonsense solution to the skyrocketing price of gas. Of course, gas was about $2.05 then. So we are still waiting on that solution. We are still waiting on that commonsense plan. It hasn't been unveiled yet.

Although, in January of 2007, H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act, Dr. Gingrey, was passed in this House. The Republicans called it the ``no energy'' policy. I will read you some of the key words. This was a 300-something page bill. Crude oil was mentioned five times in that bill. Mr. Speaker, gasoline was mentioned 12 times. Exploratory drilling was mentioned twice in a 316-page bill about energy independence.

Offshore drilling was mentioned zero; domestic drilling, zero; domestic oil, zero; domestic gas, zero; domestic fuel, zero; domestic petroleum, zero. Gas price or gas prices, zero. Common sense, zero.

Now what was mentioned was greenhouse, 103 times. Green building was mentioned 101 times; ecosystem, 24 times; climate change, 18 times; regulation, 98 times; environmental, 160 times; geothermal, 94 times; renewable, 333 times; swimming pool, 47 times, because there was a swimming pool safety bill in the Energy Independence and Security Act.

Lamp, CFL, the new fluorescent lamps, 350 times. Three-hundred fifty times. Contains mercury. Only produced in China. We can't even dispose of it. If you drop one, you need to put on a mask, evacuate the house, let it air out until you can clean up a broken light bulb.

This was the commonsense plan, I hope not, that then Speaker Pelosi, then Minority Leader Pelosi was talking about bringing up, because gas has almost doubled, or more; maybe doubled when this commonsense plan came out.

But I want to read you one thing before I yield to my friend from Illinois. This was a statement made on January 18, 2007, the day, Mr. Speaker, this bill was passed. It says, ``It is sad to see the Republicans come to this. Now, they laughably say that this will lead to higher prices.'' That was Mr. Peter DeFazio from Oregon on how the Democrat's 2007 energy bill would affect gas prices. ``It is sad to see the Republicans come to this. Now, they laughably say this will lead to higher prices.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd hate to say this, and I hate to say this, but we were right. It has led to higher prices. It has led to oil going out the roof because now the speculators in this world know that we, as a country, are not going to become energy independent as long as the leadership continues the course that they are on right now.

I'd like to yield to my friend from Illinois, a great leader in the energy battle and somebody that I think has made some real movement in the policy here, and that's Mr. Shimkus.

If you would yield for just a minute.

When these energy bills have come to the floor, have you been able to offer an amendment for some of your ideas that you have had here to present it to see if your constituency and your ideas could possibly be heard on this floor?

So what I hear you saying is we need to take the politics out of this, and we need to put people in front of power, and we need to put process in front of politics and do something that will move this country toward energy independence, rather than just staying in the fetal position, so-to-speak, that we have been in, and being held hostage by radical environmentalists who the majority may feel is a big part of their base. I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Right now, one of the reasons we are not being held hostage by our enemies, the people that supply us with our oil, is because we have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. If it was zero, trust me, we would have a bad time getting any oil.

With a sail on the top of it.

I am going to yield now to my classmate that we came in together, my colleague from Texas, where there are thousands of jobs every day where people go to work working in oil fields, and that is my friend Mike Conaway from the great State of Texas.

If you will yield for just a second, every bill that has been passed through here has had Davis-Bacon, which is the union pay scale, attached to everything we have passed through here. So I am sure if they pass something, if they ever did about building a refinery, I am sure Davis-Bacon would be added to it.

I understand, but I am sure it would be part of what they do.

I think it is interesting, you mentioned the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the letter that Speaker Pelosi wrote to the President. It is interesting that oil came down $4 a barrel. Now, if it will come down $4 a barrel on just a letter going to the President asking him to take the crude out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, think of what it would do if we voted in this body to drill without even sticking a drill in the ground. These speculators would run for the hills. And so I think you make a great point. And trust me, if we didn't have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we would not be getting oil from our enemies because they would know that they had us down.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, we have got just a few more minutes here, let me just say this. I think what you have heard tonight is that this is an all-of-the-above solution. It is all of the above. But a very important part of this is this country producing oil, to increase our oil production.

Rahm Emanuel on TV said, yes, increasing oil production is part of the solution. The Speaker has acknowledged that increasing oil production or at least having more oil is part of the solution. But as my colleague from Texas said, we don't need to take that out of our savings account. We need to bring it out of our natural resources, out of the ground.

Senator Schumer in the Senate about 3 weeks ago said that if we could just get Saudi Arabia to increase oil production 1 million barrels a day, it would drop the price of gas 50 cents a gallon. I don't know if that is true or not, but at least on the other side of this building some of the Democratic leadership understands that increasing oil production would bring down the price of gas.

I don't know why it is so hard to get a bill like that to this floor. I think the reason is strictly politics. It is strictly the radical environmental groups that has a grip or their claws into this majority.

And so I think what is happening is we are putting power above people, we are putting politics above process. Because as these gentlemen have talked tonight, with these ideas that they have shared they have not had one opportunity to offer one amendment on the energy bills because they have been brought either under suspension, under a closed rule, no committee hearings, no subcommittee hearings. The process has been broken. And so when the process is broken, the product is flawed.

Let me just close with this: www.house.gov/westmoreland. Mr. Speaker, go there, see if your Member has signed this simple petition that says I will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower the gas prices for Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I just wanted to start out by saying that I know that I can't talk directly to the American people, but I hope that if anyone is out there listening that they would listen to my comments that I make to you.

Madam Speaker, I guess about 2 weeks ago probably I started getting some phone calls about different petitions on the Internet and other places about the prospects of America becoming more energy independent, that we would not be dependent on foreign oil sources, and that we would be able to use our own natural resources to meet our energy needs.

And people began to ask if I had gone and signed them or had seen them. One was on americansolutions.com, which offered to increase domestic oil drilling. There was one about a gas holiday. There were several about developing alternative energy sources. But there were some interesting petitions against drilling by Democratic Senator Ms. Boxer, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace.

As I walked into a service station in my district, there was a petition on the counter, Madam Speaker, that said: Sign here if you want to let your representatives know that you're for lowering gas prices. And I'm assuming that the proprietor of that station had it there to keep people from talking bad to him about the price that was on his pump.

But what I decided after looking at all these different petitions is that I would come up with a petition so the American people could understand where their representative was at. We know where our constituents are. I think on the American Solutions petition they are at like 1.7 million people. So we can kind of understand where the American people are at. They want us to be independent. They want us to increase our U.S. oil production.

So what I decided to do was come up with a petition, and what this petition says is: American energy solutions for lower gas prices. Bring onshore oil online; bring deepwater oil online; and bring new refineries on online. Realize, we have not built a refinery in this country since the late 1970s.

And you may not realize this, because we're always talking about crude oil, but you might not realize that the United States imports 6.2 billion gallons of gas and 4.6 billion gallons of diesel every year. We import these from the United Kingdom, U.S. Virgin Islands, France, Canada, Netherlands, Norway--which, by the way, Norway is now the third largest exporter of crude oil, and back in 1965 they were energy dependent on foreign oil and they decided that they would open up to drilling in the North Sea. They are now the third largest exporter of crude oil. But we import refined gas from them--Germany, Russia, Italy, and of course the OPEC countries, which don't even really have that much refining capacity, Madam Speaker, but yet we buy refined gas from them.

So I got a petition, I've had it over here on the wall, Madam Speaker, for probably about 2 weeks now. There are 435 spaces for the Members, and then there are seven spaces for the delegates from the U.S. territories. And I'm happy to say that we've had 191 signatures. Now, this may be too simple for some people because all it says is, ``I will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower gas prices for Americans.'' And so we need your help, Madam Speaker. We need you to sign. I don't think you're on it, Madam Speaker.

But we've got a Web site, and it's our Web site at house.gov/ westmoreland. And on there we have everybody that has signed, and we have everybody that we've talked to that said they would not sign. So we've got two columns, we've got a signers and a non-signers. And then also, just to let you know, we have notified every office here at least once, we will do it again next week. And some people said have, well, Congressman, they ask me how long have you been working on this? And I say, well, about almost 2 weeks. Well, how come you only have 191 signatures? Well, Madam Speaker, I'd ask people that ask me that question, Sunday, when they're at church, try to talk to 450 people on a Sunday, it's almost hard to do, especially when you get in different conversations with folks. So if you want to understand, house.gov/ westmoreland, Madam Speaker, that's where somebody would go if they wanted to see where their Congressman was at on this simple petition that basically just says, ``I will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower gas prices for Americans.''

I would like to yield some time to my friend from Indiana.

I want to thank my friend from Indiana. And I want to get 300 signatures because I would like for the American people to know that way more than just a simple majority is behind them for making sure that, not necessarily those of us that are our age, but our children and our grandchildren will not have to go through the things that we're going through today. Because in 1995, this Congress passed drilling in ANWR and President Clinton vetoed it. And by all estimates today, 13 years later, we would be getting one million barrels of oil a day.

And as Senator Schumer said over in the Senate about 2 weeks ago, if we could get OPEC to increase oil production by one million barrels a day, it would lower the price of gas 50 cents a gallon just like that.

We don't need to be sending our President over to foreign countries-- and especially those that are not that friendly to us--with hat in hand on bended knee asking them to use more of their natural resources to provide us with oil when we won't use our own natural resources.

In talking about that, because this is the one thing that gets people fired up, Madam Speaker, and really gets those lines hot, that they want to find out if their Congressman has signed this very simple one sentence, is that it says, ``In a recent interview on al Jazeera, Chavez''--now this is Hugo Chavez from Venezuela--``Chavez called for developing nations to unite against U.S. political and economic policies. What can we do regarding the imperialist power of the United States? We have no choice but to unite,'' he said. ``Venezuela's energy alliances with nations such as Cuba, which receives cheap oil, are an example of how we use oil in our war against neoliberalism,'' he said. Then there was another date, on March 15, 2005, in the Washington Post, Mr. Chavez says, ``We have invaded the United States, but with our oil.''

Now, that would make your blood kind of boil, Madam Speaker, but this is what really gets people off is the fact that every day American families and businesses in this country write Hugo Chavez a check for $170 million. That $170 million could be going to our country. It could be going to provide energy independence. It could be going to provide jobs and build an industry, put into infrastructure; $170 million a day to Mr. Chavez.

Now, what we've been doing this week with the Democratic majority-- and let me remind you, Madam Speaker, that it was back in April of 2006 that then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi made a statement, and she said, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to bring down the skyrocketing price of gas.'' And at the time it was about $2.06 a gallon. We are waiting on that commonsense plan to be unveiled. We're waiting on it. And we heard that there were going to be about four energy bills this week. And Madam Speaker, the energy bills that were brought out this week was kind of like putting lipstick on a pig.

H.R. 6377, the speculation bill, this is what it says, ``to direct the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to utilize all its authority.'' In other words, we passed something that's already existing law. That's what we did, we passed something that was already existing law.

I want to read to you what happened in some quotes from H.R. 6. H.R. 6, Madam Speaker, was a bill that the new majority passed in January--I believe it was January 18, 2007--shortly after taking over, after they had promised the American people that they were going to lower gas prices. And I do want to read this one quote before I start reading these others. This is from Paul Kanjorski, and this was about 2 weeks ago. It said, ``A man was trying to question Mr. Kanjorski about his remarks that Democrats had overpromised during the 2006 congressional elections by implying that they could end the war if they controlled Congress.''

``Now, anybody who is a good student of government would know that that wasn't true,'' Mr. Kanjorski said at an Ashley town hall meeting in August, ``but you know the temptation to want to win Congress back. We sort of stretched the facts, and people ate it up.''

Yep, they ate it up. And right now they're paying a price for it.

I want to read you some quotes. These are from January 18, 2007, when we were debating H.R. 6:

Mr. Peter DeFazio: ``It is sad to see the Republicans come to this. Now they laughingly say that this will lead to higher gas prices.''

Well, gas was $2.23 a gallon on the day Mr. DeFazio made his statement. It's about $4.08 today. So we were probably right. This was no way to lower gas pries.

The same day, January 18, 2007, Mr. Jim McGovern said: ``What we are doing today really is responding to the outcry of the American people who are outraged by the fact that in the midst of being gouged by Big Oil . . . ''

Well, we have had seven investigations into price gouging, and it hasn't lowered the price of gas. In fact, it has gone up almost $2 a gallon since that statement was made.

The same day, John Hall: ``Today we are going to take back the tax giveaways to Big Oil so we can give the American people a break at the pump.''

January 18, floor statement, Kathy Castor: ``Instead of giving away billions of dollars to big oil companies which made multimillion dollar profits last year, the new Congress intends to

chart a course in a new direction by investing in alternatives for the American people. This will help America become energy independent and ultimately lower the utility costs for average Americans.''

I would like to tell the gentlewoman that the price of natural gas is twice what it was.

I yield.

Reclaiming my time, evidently taking these tax breaks away is not lowering the price of oil either.

I thank you for saying that because that's exactly true, and the petition is actually so simple, one line: ``I will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower the price for Americans.'' And you can go to house.gov/westmoreland and see if the Congressman is there.

Madam Speaker, you would really have been intrigued at some of the things that I heard about why they couldn't sign it.

But I want to continue on. These are quotes from the H.R. 6 debate, which was on January 18 of 2007, after the new majority, the Democrats, had overpromised the American people, as admitted, and now they were coming up with something that was satisfying that radical environmentalist base of theirs, whom they felt like they owed their victory to, at least in part. So they were going to take away the tax breaks and other things.

I'm not a big fan of Big Oil. Don't get me wrong. But I had a high school economics teacher, and I didn't pay that much attention in school, but Colonel Wofford at Therrell High School there in Atlanta taught us that taxing manufacturers or producers does not lower the price to consumers. So for whatever that's worth, I will give that to the majority.

Thank you.

January 18, and these are quotes from H.R. 6, which was their mantelpiece legislation. This was their commonsense plan, I guess, for bringing down the skyrocketing gas that at the time was $2.23 a gallon:

Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee said: ``The price per barrel of oil is $50 plus.'' Today I think it's about $140.

She goes on to say: ``And so what is this Congress and this leadership doing? It is doing the right thing.''

January 18, floor statement by Steve Israel: ``This dependence on foreign oil, Mr. Speaker, is a glaring threat to our national security.''

I could not agree with you more. But we are more dependent today than we were when you made that statement.

Mr. John Lewis, my colleague from Georgia: ``More than ever we need to get our priorities straight. We need to stop dancing while Rome burns and reverse the damage we have done to our environment. The American people need relief from energy costs.''

And I couldn't agree with you more, Mr. Lewis, but the problem is that gas has almost doubled since you made that statement.

Rahm Emanuel: ``Mr. Speaker, let's review the score: ``Big Oil, one; taxpayers, zero. Now the score is tied, and we are just getting warmed up.''

Well, I hope you're about as warm as you're going to get, Mr. Emanuel, because I don't know if we can stand any more of this.

January 18, 2007, floor statement from Allyson Schwartz: ``The United States imports 65 percent of the oil we consume. We spend $800 million every day on foreign oil-producing countries. This threatens our economic stability, our environmental security, and our national security, and today we say `enough.'''

Well, I say ``enough'' too, but if we had said ``enough'' then and started producing our own oil and started using our own natural resources, maybe oil wouldn't have almost doubled since then.

The chairman of the Democratic Congressional Committee, Mr. Chris Van Hollen, said this: ``This is the time to change direction, to set a new course on energy policy, to say to the country we're not just talking rhetoric, we mean what we say.''

Mr. John Yarmuth: ``Mr. Speaker, my constituent, like yours, paid over $3 a gallon for gas last year. Isn't that enough?''

Absolutely it's enough. But today we are paying over $4 a gallon, and the reason we are is because we refuse to use our own natural resources for the health of this country and, like so many of these other statements said, for the national security of this country.

Stephanie Tubbs Jones: ``Critics of H.R. 6 argue this measure will place an undue burden on oil companies which will lead to higher gas prices.''

Okay. We must have been right because what happened was after H.R. 6, with gas being $2.23 a gallon, today it is $4.08.

What we are trying to do, before I yield to some of my colleagues, we have that petition that my friend from Indiana and I have been talking about, and what it says is ``I will vote to increase oil production to lower the price of gas.'' And what that means is bringing onshore drilling online, offshore drilling online, deepwater oil online, and bring in more refineries online.

If we bring onshore oil online, it will save anywhere from 70 cents to $1.60 a

gallon. To bring deepwater oil online, the Outer Continental Shelf, 90 cents to $2.50 a gallon. To bring new refineries online, and not one has been built since 1976, would save anywhere from 15 to 45 cents. The gas tax holiday, 18 cents. To halt oil shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a nickel.

Now, I have got some more quotes on that, and, of course, this was passed in the House probably back in May. We stopped those shipments in July, and so we should find out if it's going to bring it down a nickel a gallon. But if you look at what the Democrat plan was, and this is that commonsense plan, I'm assuming, but ``sue OPEC,'' we have had a lot of success with that. ``Launch the seventh investigation to price gougers.'' ``Launch the fourth investigation to speculators.'' Now, we put that lipstick on that pig today with the speculation bill, that we just really passed something that's already on the books.

``Twenty billion dollars in new taxes on oil producers.'' I can hardly wait to see what that does to lower the price of gas. And we've seen that just not even putting the new taxes on them but just taking tax relief away from them has caused gas to almost double.

And then of course they've got ``halt oil shipments,'' which is a nickel.

You can see that if we put our policies in place that gas today would be somewhere around $2.10, and that's using very conservative savings over there. And you can see that if this works, and we don't even know that this is going to work, it would be about $4.03.

So we hope that we will get 300 signatures on this petition to show the American people that we are not going to lie here in a fetal position or just keep doing repetitious things to make you think we are doing something. So if you could just go to the house.gov/westmoreland and look at it. We had 45,000 hits on it, Madam Speaker, last night. And we have had a couple of Members that have come to us and said, We have heard and we want to go from the ``would not sign'' to the ``sign.'' So we can't do it, Madam Speaker, if people aren't going to be involved with us because we don't have that much influence over the majority.

I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, my classmate (Ms. Foxx).

Well, what I wanted to point out, this is what ANWR looks like. It's kind of a frozen tundra. I had some young people up here the other day from a school, and one of them asked me a question, said, Are you for drilling in ANWR? I said, Yes, I am. She kind of frowned. I said, Why? She said, I don't want you to ruin all the beautiful trees up there.

I tried to find a tree. I couldn't find a tree on the place. So there's a lot of

misunderstanding out there about what it is. Then you can look at the size of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and then the ANWR part as compared to the whole State of Alaska. A lot of people don't understand that Alaska--we have got a map of it somewhere--it's bigger than Texas. I know Mr. Conaway is here from Texas. Three times the size of Texas.

In fact, I will let Mr. Conaway talk about Texas and ANWR and other things, if he would like.

Let me say this, that it is a shame that we are having to limit so much of the travel. We need to conserve, but we can't conserve our way out of this. The real shame of this is when winter comes and natural gas is twice what it was. Mr. Peterson from Pennsylvania was down here the other night and really opened my eyes to it. Not only are people not going to be able to leave their home, they are not going to be able to stay warm in their home when the winter comes and the price of natural gas.

To another one of my classmates and colleagues, Mr. Conaway from Texas.

Not only that, reclaiming my time for a minute, did not the Democrat majority in 1992 extend that lease period to 10 years? Was it prior not 5 years or 7 years what it was?

I thank my friend. Now I have got to go catch a plane, but I hope that everybody will go to House.gov/westmoreland, Madam Speaker, to find out who is for drilling and who is for not just drilling, but like the gentleman from Texas said, for producing more of our natural resources to lower the price of gas.

Now I want to yield to my good friend from Nebraska, from the heartland of this country, from one of the corn-producing States, another one of my classmates that came in, and that is Mr. Fortenberry.

Mr. Burton will dialogue with you.