Floor Statements

I thank my friend from California for yielding.

As he mentioned, it is interesting that we are setting aside land for wilderness area to be managed by the Federal Government. It came out of the Committee on Natural Resources, but we are not using all our natural resources right now. We are not using some of the oil reserves that we have in ANWR. We are not using the oil that is on the Outer Continental Shelf. We are not using the shale coal that we have that we can convert to oil. We are not using the clean-burning coal to the best of our ability. We are not drilling for natural gas.

So we have natural resources in all parts of our country that we are not taking advantage of, and the reason that we are not taking advantage of it is because the new majority in the 110th Congress is being controlled or partly controlled by the radical environmentalists that don't want us to drive a Suburban or an extended cab pickup. They don't really care if gas goes to $10 a gallon.

So I would like for this House to concentrate on the majority of Americans who are tired of paying $4 a gallon for gas. They understood that when the new majority was elected, and you go back to April of 2006 and then minority leader, now Speaker Nancy Pelosi, made the statement, that the Democrats had a commonsense plan for bringing down the skyrocketing price of gas.

Now, I think at the time, Mr. Speaker, gas was about $2.20 a gallon. I never thought we would lament or say, man, can you remember back when gas was $2 a gallon? But that is what it was when the Democrat majority said they had this new commonsense approach for bringing down the skyrocketing gas price.

Since that time, gas has almost doubled. It has almost doubled. So where is that commonsense plan? Where is it that we are using some of our natural resources to increase the supply of production that we have in this country, rather than being so dependent on foreign oil?

Now, the problem is that the majority passed in January of 2007 an energy bill, and that energy bill, which many on our side of the aisle called the ``no-energy bill,'' went into effect. So we thought that that was the secret plan. Mr. Speaker, we thought that was this commonsense approach.

Once we looked at the bill, we saw that gasoline was mentioned about five or six times, that crude oil was mentioned about maybe 12 times, and that nothing was mentioned about domestic drilling, nothing was mentioned about increasing the production or using our natural resources to make us less dependent on foreign oil. But what we saw were words like ``swimming pool'' was used 47 times, ``lamp'' or ``light bulb'' was used 350 times, ``renewable energy'' was used a number of times, ``greenhouse gases'' was used a number of times, but nothing was really in that ``no-energy bill'' that helps us today.

I think we see evidence of that today with gas being over $4 a gallon. There was nothing in there to help us bring down the price of gas, number one, and that was where the commonsense approach was to be, was to bring down the skyrocketing price of gasoline. Not only did we not bring it down, it has doubled.

So where is this commonsense approach? I think the American people are ready to see it. I know my constituents are. When I go home, just like we have been home during the Memorial Day break, I had people ask me, what are we doing about increasing our domestic production? What are we doing about having the ability to become less dependent on foreign oil?

I have to explain to them the ``no-energy bill'' that was passed by this Congress and the things that it mentioned and the things that were there, and really and truly, Mr. Speaker, they think I am lying to them or kidding them, that that is the commonsense plan that the majority had, because it wasn't a plan at all. It was some type of smoke and mirrors that was sold to the American people. Now that gas is more than twice what it was, what are we to tell them? Because I have not seen anything come out of the Democratic side.

Now we have come up with an energy proposal that makes sense. It allows us to use some of our natural resources. What the other part that my constituents don't believe is that we as a government will not allow drilling off the coast of Florida, and yet China is fixing to start drilling 45 miles off our coast.

They can use the slant drilling technology and probably get deeper into our oil reserves. Now, what are we to tell people? What am I to tell my constituents that this Congress is doing about that? They are doing nothing about it, not one single thing.

We are naming post offices, we are coming up with wilderness areas and many more days of honoring somebody or recognizing a week or recognizing a month, but we are not doing anything on this House floor, nor have we done anything on this House floor, to really bring down the price of gas, crude oil or come up with a commonsense plan for that American worker out there that's going to the pump, costing him $100 to fill up with gas.

Now, I don't know the answer to it, but I would suspect that if we pass some type of legislation that said we were going to start drilling, whether it be in ANWR, Outer Continental Shelf, wherever it is, that the oil speculators, that the bottom would fall out of that because people would say, you know what? They are finally doing something to become less dependent on somebody else's oil production.

So we don't have to hold them hostage anymore, and those prices would come down, just at the fact that we passed the legislation--not that we put the first drill bit in the ground--but just that these oil speculators and the American people saw that their elected officials were wanting to do something to take a positive step that we can meet our own energy needs.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask, what's wrong with that? I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I think that the people that elect us deserve to know what our plan is. The Republican side has come out with a plan. They say, look, we are going to take advantage of our natural resources. We are going to take advantage of the things that we were God given in this land. We are going to take advantage of our oil reserves, of our natural gas, of our abundance of coal.

We are going to take advantage of those things, and we are going to use the technology that we have been so good about coming up with. We are going to take and convert this shale to oil, which Hitler did in the late 1920s--in the late 1920s--and we don't think that we can do that today?

There is a problem, and we need the courage, the political courage and the political guts to stand up and say we are going to--or at least I hope the majority party will go--we are going to go against those people that we owe so much to for being in the majority, and say we are going to do what's good for the American people. We are going to use our own natural resources. We are going to do what the people that elected us expect us to do, and that's what's the best for them, not the best for special interest groups.

I just hope that during this next conversation that we have on these upcoming bills that we will be on this floor discussing this issue, because we have not really had a debate on it. I wish that the majority party would bring a bill to this floor and have an open rule so we could vote on some of these things that are so important.

The truth of it is that our constituency doesn't really know how we believe on some of these issues, because the majority has never given us the ability to vote on it. Let's vote on drilling on ANWR, just a straight up or down vote, not anything else tied to it. Let's drill on our natural gas. Let's vote on our natural gas drilling, not anything else tied, just an up or down. Let's drill on the converting of coal- to-liquid oil. Let's vote on that, just an up or down, rather than tie so many things that's so confusing to the American people.

That's what I hope we will do.

Thank you for yielding.

To my other friend from California over there, I know that the gentleman is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, and I think that subcommittee has jurisdiction over the drilling in ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf. Right now only 3 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf is leased for oil and natural gas, and only 6 percent of the Bureau of Land Management public lands are leased.

So I think that it would be a good opportunity for the gentleman, for just my suggestion, that we look at that. I know that it has been looked at many times before.

The gentleman mentioned about the Republicans being in control for 12 years, I was only here for 2 of those years, so I was quite disappointed too that we never passed a comprehensive energy plan. You know, I am very concerned about that, and I hate that.

What I am proud of is that right now that we have come up with an energy plan that would help with our dependence on foreign oil, and maybe it took 12 years for us to wake up. I certainly hope that the majority party that's in

control now, that it doesn't take them 12 years to wake up to understand that we need an energy policy.

Now, if it's going to take them 12 years to wake up, we will be paying $12 a gallon like they are paying in the Netherlands or $9 a gallon like they are paying in Germany. I know that would make some of their base awfully happy if we were paying those gas prices, but your average American family, the man and the woman out there trying to make a living and trying to provide for their family, does not like paying $4 a gallon for gasoline when we are not doing anything, anything to reduce our dependence on that foreign oil.

I agree with Mr. Nunes from California in the fact that we need to bring some bills to the floor. We are doing 20 suspension bills on this floor today. The U.S. Congress is addressing 20 bills on this floor today, that most of them will be passed by a voice vote, and most Americans won't even know what we did.

Some of these pieces of legislation should be going through a regular rule, a regular order of process, where we can come in and make some amendments on some of these. There may be in these wilderness areas, there may be some spots where we have the potential for natural gas or oil, where we have potential for solar, where we have potential for wind power. Those are being restricted on just about every one of these pieces of legislation that we are doing today.

So let's have an open, honest--that's another promise that the majority made to the American people, that this was going to be the most open, honest Congress in history. I hate to say this, and I was only here for 2 years when we were in control, but that's not true. That's another falsehood and whether they did it purposefully or not, that this is not the most open, honest Congress that this country has ever seen, and it does not or has not or not yet come up with a commonsense approach to bring down the skyrocketing cost of gasoline when it was $2.20 a gallon, and now it's over $4 a gallon.

I thank my friend for yielding.

It was mentioned a while ago about all of the different land that was available for oil companies to drill in, that they weren't taking advantage of, and I would like to quote some figures, Mr. Speaker, for you and for the American

people to hear because one of the things, I guess, that is part of this secret plan for our energy is to tax oil companies. Somehow the majority has got in their mind by taxing companies, the price of their product is going to come down. I don't understand that, and I know that most of the people in the Third Congressional District of Georgia do not understand that, and I am sure there are probably people all over the world that don't understand that. But that seems to be their answer to everything, is to raise taxes.

When you talk about, Mr. Speaker, domestic oil and gas production, in 2006 the top 27 U.S. energy producing companies paid $81.5 billion in corporate Federal income taxes. That is $81.5 billion in corporate taxes, an 81 percent increase over 2004. In addition, they paid $3.1 billion in State and local government taxes. Those 27 companies paid 21 percent of the total corporate income taxes collected by this Federal Government in 2006. These 27 companies paid 21 percent of all the corporate taxes paid into the Federal Government.

Yet these 27 companies make up one one-thousandth of the domestic corporate filers. And yet they paid 21 percent of all the total corporate Federal taxes paid into our treasury.

Total non-income taxes paid in 2006 by the big 27 was $8.2 billion, and that was a 46 percent increase over 2004. Excise taxes collected by these same 27 companies on behalf of the Federal, State and local governments total $48.1 billion in 2006.

In 2006, these 27 companies were responsible for 44 percent of the total U.S. crude oil and natural gas production, and 81 percent of the domestic refining capacity.

For fiscal year 2006, $10.48 billion was collected in the form of bonus bids, rent and royalties from oil and gas companies operating on Federal lands.

The OCS, the Outer Continental Shelf, covers 1.7 billion acres of which 85 percent is off-limits to drilling. However, the Minerals Management Service broke records for bonus bids in several recent OCS lease sales. Last summer in the western gulf off the shore of Texas they received more than $289.9 million for tracts totaling 18 million acres. In February 2008 they received $2.6 billion for leases covering approximately 2.7 million acres in the Chukchi Sea. And in March, they received $3.7 billion in bonus bids in the central and eastern Gulf of Mexico.

The CRS estimates that ANWR production would deliver $191.1 billion in corporate income tax and royalty to the Federal treasury at today's prices.

So while they may not be drilling, you can see that 85 percent of the Federal land is off-limits. Maybe the land that they have to drill on doesn't have any oil reserves under it, any natural gas under it, any coal under it. That would be something, Mr. Speaker, for the chairman of the subcommittee to tell us, if there are any oil reserves or natural gas reserves or coal reserves under this 85 percent of Federal lands that does not have the ability to be drilled under. And then if it does have reserves for oil or natural gas or coal, maybe he could tell us, Mr. Speaker, why we can't drill there, why it is off-limits, what technology are we missing to be able to drill in an environmentally friendly way.

So yes, some of these companies do have land that they may be able to drill on. But as we see that this is a profitable thing for the Federal Government, to allow those companies to drill domestically, we can see the amount of money that it brings in. And goodness knows, the way the majority party loves to spend money, they passed a thing called PAYGO, the American people pay and we will go spend it. Now this is a great opportunity to get more revenue coming into our treasury by allowing us to take advantage of our own resources that we have in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to bring up some more points about the Federal lands since that's one of the main things that we're talking about here today is Federal land. Coming from the Committee on Natural Resources and, Mr. Speaker, being privileged enough to be on the floor today with the subcommittee chairman that has authority over this, we have a problem in the fact that the majority, the Democratic majority keeps making what I think are false arguments about oil companies having the ability to drill on Federal lands right now.

The problem is that, and this is the reality, that 97 percent of the Federal offshore areas and 94 percent of Federal onshore areas are not leased by the government. 97 percent of offshore, 94 percent of onshore. The government is stockpiling these leases, not the oil companies.

And I'm not being a big defender of the oil companies. I just know that the truth is the truth. It's many things to many people. But at the end of the day, it's the truth. And the truth is that they are not stockpiling these leases.

The truth is that raising taxes on them is not going to bring down the price of gas. Oil companies are, indeed, drilling on these leases, which have oil in them, and when there's a pipeline close that they can ship this oil. You know, we haven't built a refinery in this country since the late 1970s. So that would be, Mr. Speaker, a perfect bill to bring to the floor where we can refine more oil.

We keep putting these boutique fuels on the market, and I forget, but I think there's probably 16 or 18 of those boutique fuels now, three different grades. We don't have the ability to refine even the crude that we have. So a novel idea is, why don't we build some refineries where some of these leases are, or where we know there are some oil reserves?

You see, if these leases and this available land that's out there does not have oil on it, why would somebody want to drill in a dry hole?

And so, if the government is only leasing this land that they know is a

dry hole, how can they expect the oil companies to get oil out of it?

Well, that's a pretty novel idea. And the fact that we have the leadership in this House, the Democrat leadership, the Speaker of the House sending President Bush a letter demanding that he ask OPEC to do more production, to do more drilling, when we're sitting here in this country, with 97 percent of our Federal offshore areas and 94 percent of our Federal onshore areas with no ability to drill on it. They must have felt that was kind of interesting.

We cannot produce, and I say we, this country cannot produce its own energy dependence by asking the companies that have the leases here to drill on land that does not have the oil.

Now, with more than 2 billion acres of Federal lands not leased, how can these oil companies find the oil?

We know the oil is under there. But if you're not going to lease the land, you've only leased the land that doesn't have the oil, and then you're saying that the oil companies aren't drilling on the land they have, when the land they have does not have the oil. I'd like to hear the answer to that one, Mr. Speaker.

We have got to open up these lands for us to be able to become dependent on our natural resources and not the resources of others. I think it's a great question, Mr. Speaker, that all the American people would ask is, is there oil under this Federal land?

Is there environmentally safe ways to drill it?

Is there natural gas there?

Is there shale coal there?

Is there coal that can be converted to oil there?

If it's there, let's go get it. ANWR, today, I think it was released, 10.4 billion, that's billion with a B, barrels of oil. 10.4 billion.

Mr. Speaker, we could use that natural resource that this country has to bring down the price of gas for the hardworking men and women of this country. And, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the American people will get an answer from the Democratic leadership about this commonsense plan, because surely the bill that was passed in January of 2007 was not that commonsense plan. Surely they are holding this commonsense plan for some reason.

And so I'm asking, the people of the Third District of Georgia are asking, and, Mr. Speaker, I think the American people are asking, where is this commonsense plan?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend Mr. Kuhl for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, National Safety Month is an important month. We all strive for safety, so it is important that we name a month, a week, a day, an hour for our safety. But right now, it is a shame that we can't have National Independence from Foreign Oil Hour, right now that the price of gasoline and price of crude oil is affecting every hardworking man and woman in this country. So I would hope that the majority, while recognizing these important days and weeks and months, would just have an hour where we could come into this House and discuss our energy policies.

In January of 2007, the majority passed an energy bill. At the time gas was probably $2.25 a gallon. It is now up to over $4 a gallon. So while we are going to pass 20 suspensions on this floor today, where most of them, the majority of them, won't even require a roll call vote, we don't have any time that we can discuss our energy policy, at a time where we are so dependent on foreign oil.

On May 13, Senator Schumer in the Senate asked the President, who was heading at the time to Saudi Arabia, to ask for an increase in their oil production, knowing that an increase in their oil production would probably cause a decrease in the price of crude oil. Yet with over 97 percent of our Outer Continental Shelf not being drilled on and about 94 percent of the Federal lands inside this country be not being drilled on, surely he and the rest of the Democratic Party, and especially this House leadership, would understand that drilling domestically would bring down the price of crude oil, which in turn would bring down the price of gasoline.

As I have said before on this floor, if we could have a 1-hour debate, and I would like for it to be longer than that, we could all debate and talk about all the different ways that we could help curb the price of our gas, whether it be converting coal to oil, whether it be exploring for natural gas, talking about nuclear energy, or the many other things that we could do right now ourselves. We can control our own destiny as far as what crude oil prices are and what the price of gasoline is by not being willing to do our own exploration, our own drilling in our own country, where we have many, many, many natural resources we could use for fuel.

So while he is combating or at least trying to combat the President on going to OPEC asking them to do more oil production, they must think it kind of comical that we are not willing to do our own drilling, our own exploration, and depend on our own natural resources to lower our price of gas, while China is fixing to drill 45 miles off the coast of this country for oil exploration, because China is a country that understands the importance of not being dependent on foreign oil. As they have gone across this globe dealing with other countries as far as using their natural resources to provide for their energy needs, we are sitting here on trillions of barrels of oil and coal that we are refusing to use ourselves.

So while I think that this very important designation of National Safety Month is important, I would hope that the majority here and the leadership in this body would devote at least an hour of our time in this House in front of the American people, Mr. Speaker, to let the American people see what effect this ``commonsense plan'' that has been touted by the Democratic majority is having to bring down the skyrocketing price of gas, and that was back in April of 2006 when this was being promoted.

I am sure that the American people, Mr. Speaker, would enjoy just a 1-hour conversation on that so we could unveil this plan, because certainly the

plan that was passed in January of 2007, of this year, was either not the real plan or it is a failed plan and we need to be talking about a new plan.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, isn't it true that if this motion did pass, that this bill could be referred back to the committee or committees of authority and be reported back the next business day?

Thank you.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, isn't it true if this motion were to pass, that this House could put the bill back into the committee from which it came and it could be brought out the next legislative day?

Madam Speaker, as the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces protect our freedom and liberty, it is my belief that the rest of us have a responsibility to show our support for their sacrifices in spirit and in deed. With this in mind, I acknowledge and thank Stork Medical and Community Blood Services in Columbus, GA, for their generous gift to our military.

Attempting to make cord blood stem cell storage affordable to all of our soldiers is praiseworthy. I share their hope, prayer and expectation that the cord blood stem cells saved from a soldier's newborn will one day serve to repair the wounds a soldier has sustained in battle. I know that these stem cells will immediately add a layer of protection for a soldier's family given their proven ability to fight leukemia, cancer and many other diseases. It is indeed ironic that a soldier's helpless newborn may offer the ultimate protection of a soldier's family. This innovative and selfless program designed by Stork Medical and enthusiastically supported by Community Blood Services is a wonderful example of private enterprise sharing the burden of our troops and not spending a single tax dollar.

This innovative program offers our wounded heroes the hope of future medical miracles that may one day restore what was taken from them by bullets and bombs. It also offers peace of mind for young families that an added layer of protection is now available. Stork Medical's program in Georgia's third Congressional District is a shinning example of how soldier and civilian alike can stand shoulder to shoulder in defense of our country.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate SSG Michael Broussard and SSG Shayne Cherry, winners of the 2008 Best Ranger Competition, a rigorous contest at Fort Benning, GA, between elite two-man teams.

Broussard and Cherry won a home-court victory, as they hail from Benning's 75th Ranger Regiment.

The Best Ranger Competition started out as a contest between the best two-man teams at Fort Benning in the early 1980s but quickly expanded Army-wide. It easily rates as one of the toughest, most physically demanding competitions in the world. Contestants endure extreme demands of their physical, mental and technical abilities as Rangers, and they must deliver at levels that far exceed the expectations of average soldiers.

Today, the competition pits the best of the best against each other. It's an honor to simply win a spot in the contest, making Broussard and Cherry's accomplishment all the more extraordinary. The event lasts 3 days and teams face elimination unless they complete all events, which include marksmanship, climbing a 60-foot rope and long, wet hikes. It's easy to see why of the 28 teams that entered only 16 finished all courses.

The pair took an early lead on the first day and never trailed again. Army Chief of Staff George Casey was on hand at Fort Benning to congratulate the winners.

Casey had high praise for all involved: ``The men that have been through this competition . . . are a fitting example of what this Army stands for--about discipline, about mental and physical agility, about strength and about the warrior ethos.''

Both SSG Broussard and SSG Cherry have been awarded many medals, including the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Valorous Unit Award and many others.

Broussard, from Brentwood, CA, joined the service after high school in 2001. He has served two tours in Afghanistan and two tours in Iraq. He is working on his master's degree and plans to become a physician assistant after his military career. Broussard had competed in the Best Ranger Competition twice before.

Cherry, from Monroe, NE, has served since 2001 and has deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan seven times. He and his wife Amanda have two children.

``We said to each other . . . we're doing this to win. Period,'' Broussard told the Army Times. ``Everything just sort of clicked for us.''

Sergeant Broussard and Sergeant Cherry have dedicated their lives to the service of this Nation and have dedicated years of their lives to fighting on the front lines of the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq. With a combination of hard work, dedication and talent, they have proven on the field of battle and on the field of competition that they rank amongst the best soldiers in the U.S. Army--the greatest fighting force in the history of the world.

Madam Speaker, I call on the U.S. House of Representatives to join me and the people of Georgia's 3rd Congressional District in honoring the service and applauding the stellar achievements of Sergeant Michael Broussard and Sergeant Shayne Cherry. They are a tribute to Fort Benning, the U.S. Army Rangers, and the United States.

I want to thank Ranking Member Hunter. And I certainly agree with what he said about the military being some of our greatest ambassadors that we have for this country.

I also want to agree with the distinguished chairman of the committee about the great work that WHINSEC does.

I also want to emphasize what Congressman Gingrey said about, that this is no more than a back door attempt to shut down this school. It does great work. I have visited there. This school is open to the public 7 days a week. You can go in, you can sit in the classes, you can talk to the military personnel. It's as open as you could possibly get.

The times in this country and times in this world have changed. And to put these men and women at risk in their own country and their families at risk is not fair.

The DOD has released these names. They've publicized it. They're for anybody in this body that wants to go read them to try to find out who has been there. I don't know what more we can ask for.

If we're going to have transparency in everything we do, why don't we release all the information about our families and where we're from and maybe even our intelligence community.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Davey Hunt, the 2008 Heard County High School STAR student.

In Georgia, Madam Speaker, the Student Teacher Achievement Recognition program honors the top senior in each of the State's 400 high schools and a teacher chosen by that student.

For Davey, the STAR student award squeezes in one more line to a resume already teeming with superlatives.

``Davey is simply the most brilliant student I have ever had the honor to teach,'' said Paul Mixon, the Heard County High educator whom Davey named as STAR Teacher. ``His academic performance and mastery of complex material highlights an intellect that is both creative and constantly expanding. Davey demands that his teachers go beyond the basic concept of each course, as he quickly becomes an expert in each subject. Unlike so many of his generation, Davey is excited about learning.''

Academic excellence and intellectual curiosity came early to Davey. After fifth grade, he attended Junior University summer camp where he had to build a bridge out of toothpicks. In what appears to be one of his few life lessons in disappointment, Davey's bridge didn't win the competition for holding the most weight without breaking. Nevertheless, a long-held fascination with design and construction took root.

Davey graduated over the years from toothpick engineering to aeronautical engineering, which he will study at the Nation's preeminent engineering school, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In addition to winning the STAR student award, Davey will reign as the valedictorian of Heard County's Class of 2008 and he received the Georgia Certificate of Merit, which goes to the State's best and brightest high school students.

Davey's record of academic excellence could stand alone, but his record shows him to be much more than a one-dimensional whiz kid. He served as editor of his school newspaper, The Warcry, won the 2007 Most Valuable Player Award for the track team, and made the 2007 All-Region Football Team and the 2007 All-State Academic Football Team.

Of course, a good high school experience isn't all work. He earned the friendship of his peers not with his good grades and athletic prowess, but with what his teacher Paul Mixon called his ``warmth and wit.'' Those qualities led his classmates to tap him for homecoming king and Mr. Heard High.

Madam Speaker, the future of our Nation rests on the shoulders of today's young leaders. I'm proud that one of those young leaders, Davey Hunt, hails from Georgia's 3rd Congressional District. I pay tribute today to his outstanding record of achievements and wish him continued success as he begins the next phase of his life.

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, in light of the conversation that the majority leader and the minority leader had last night as far as leaving votes open, and I believe the majority leader said the vote would be for 15 minutes, and then a 2-minute courtesy period, could you tell me the tally of

the vote at the end of the 15 minutes and the 2-minute courtesy period?

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order under clause 2(a) of rule XX that the vote just ended was held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome.

Mr. Chairman, with that I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, isn't it true that if this motion passed, that it would be referred back to the committee from whence it came, and that it could be reported back the next legislative day?

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, isn't it true if you have 218 votes you can do just about anything you want to in this House?

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to come down here and to listen to the majority party, the Democrats, talk about a new change in direction for our energy policy or something new to do about our troops.

News flash: Y'all are in charge. You've got 230-plus votes. You're in charge. You can pass anything you want to.

Mr. Speaker, we need to stop the whining. Since they took over in 2007, with a new energy policy, H.R. 6, our gasoline has gone up about $1.50 a gallon.

So here's what I want everybody to do, Mr. Speaker. I want you to go home tonight and I want you to go to Home Depot and I want you to buy some energy saving bulbs because, in their energy bill, light bulbs are mentioned 350 times, where gasoline was mentioned 6, crude oil was mentioned 12. I want you to go home, I want you to take those energy saving light bulbs, I want you to put them in, and then I want you to drive to the gas station and see if gas has come down, because that's the way their plan is supposed to work.

You're in charge. If you're in charge, lead. Mr. Speaker, we need some leadership here. We need to do something to help the American people at the gas pump with these outrageous gasoline prices and crude oil fixing to go to $150-plus a barrel. Do something.

Thank you, Mr. Shimkus, and thank you for doing this. I am glad to hear all of the discussion today. As Mr. McCotter was just talking about, the Democratic plan, I guess, or their policy, was H.R. 6, which was part of their monument pieces of legislation this was going to change the direction of this country. As we see by your chart, they definitely have changed the direction of gas prices in that they are skyrocketing up. We heard so much before they got in charge about the commonsense plan that they had. So H.R. 6 was their energy bill.

If you look at H.R. 6, and, Mr. Shimkus, I did a little word search and found that crude oil was mentioned five times in that bill, which was well over 300 pages. Gasoline was mentioned about 12 times. Domestic drilling was not mentioned. Drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf was not mentioned. But what was curious was that swimming pool was mentioned 47 times because there was a piece of swimming pool legislation that was added to the bill. So swimming pool was mentioned about seven times more or eight times more than gasoline. Then the other interesting thing is 350 times in that bill was lamp or light bulbs.

So I have a hard time explaining. I just spoke to a group of farmers Saturday morning at a breakfast and they were asking me about fuel prices. As you know, the price of diesel is up well over $4 a gallon. When I tried to explain to them the Democratic solution to our energy problems and our dependency on foreign oil, I don't think that they believed me. I read them the bill, I read them the things that were in the bill, and I am having a hard time convincing them that I am telling the truth.

So I am proud that you're here and that these other members are here so I can have somebody to go back and say, Look, I told you I am telling you the truth. This is their policy. It is a nonpolicy. Their commonsense plan that they had to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and to bring down the rising gas prices has done nothing but cause them to go up almost 50 percent.

So I thank you for doing this, and I hope that by me sitting here listening to some of my other colleagues, I can get some ideas about what to go home and tell the people of the Third Congressional District of Georgia.

What really is their plan? Did they really have one? As it turns, it seems if they had one, it has certainly backfired on them and, shamefully, the American people.

Thank you.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people in Georgia's 3rd Congressional District, I rise today to pay tribute to the distinguished service of Dr. Frank Brown, longtime president of Columbus State University.

The longest-serving president in the University System of Georgia will retire this spring after 20 years at the helm. While his time on the job draws short, his legacy at CSU stretches long.

During Dr. Brown's tenure, Columbus State has experienced extraordinary growth and progress. He transitioned the school from a college to a university that now boasts more than 50 undergraduate programs and more than 35 master's or specialist's programs. The school's expansion includes numerous new academic facilities, new housing for more than 1,200 students and a clock tower that has become a symbol of the university and the center of campus life. The school also has developed a downtown campus called RiverPark that houses 350 students and the arts, theater and music departments.

The academic caliber of the university has grown also under Dr. Brown's leadership. The D. Abbott Turner College of Business is now among only about 27 percent of business schools in the country accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business; and the College of Education was recently re-accredited by National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. Additionally, the nursing, art, theater, music and counseling programs have all achieved national accreditation in their disciplines, a mark of clear distinction in academic circles.

The most recent indication of the university's level of respect may be the success of CSU's capital campaign, An Investment in People. When the campaign was first being considered in the late 1990s, many considered the originally proposed goal of about $35 million too ambitious. At its conclusion, the campaign exceeded $100 million, thanks to an unbelievably supportive community, a wide-reaching team of dedicated volunteers and the partnerships established over the years.

The success of CSU under Dr. Brown has benefited the community of Columbus at large, according to Chamber of Commerce President Mike Gaymon. ``Thanks to Frank's leadership, the university has expanded to bring three of its schools downtown to make art, music and theater a major part of UpTown Columbus,'' Gaymon said. ``Dr. Brown has led a renaissance at CSU.''

Dr. Brown's good works off campus complement his accomplishments on campus. He was the 1994 volunteer of the year for the Lung Association of Georgia and he's also contributed his time to the American Red Cross. He's a member of the Columbus First Baptist Church and the Columbus Rotary Club, and he's been involved with the Greater Columbus Chamber of Commerce, the United Way, the Georgia Council on Economic Education and the Boy Scouts of America.

When announcing his retirement from Columbus State, Dr. Brown said the time was simply right for a new leader to build on the successes of the past 20 years. Admirers of Dr. Brown will no doubt feel a certain pity for the successor who must fill such big shoes.

Over the past generation, our state of Georgia has moved from the backwaters to the forefront of the American higher education systems. It has been the leadership, intelligence, dedication and perseverance of educators such as Dr. Frank Brown that have lifted higher education in Georgia to standards of excellence.

More than the students and alumni at Columbus State University owe Dr. Frank Brown a debt of gratitude. His contributions are felt positively throughout the Greater Columbus area. Upon his retirement, we can look back and pay him the ultimate compliment: He dedicated his career to a worthwhile endeavor, and he left it better off than how he found it. In Frank Brown's case, he left it immeasurably better than he found it. For that, we thank him and we praise him. As he moves on into another phase of life we wish health and happiness to him and his wife Jo Ann.

Madam Speaker, I am glad the gentleman who has just left was talking about the energy prices, because that is what I want to talk about, too, the energy prices.

I was elected to Congress 4 years ago, and I came up here and you really think you are going to be dealing with some smart people. It took all I could muster up just to graduate from high school. I did attend college for 2 years. But I have come up here and I have found out that evidently a lot of people in this body don't understand either business or the economy or economics or something, because I keep hearing about the majority wanting to bring down gas prices, but they want to do it by raising taxes and taxing oil companies.

Now, the gentleman just spoke about getting the President's help. Well, I think he has tried to help. I think he has put together some good proposals, but they don't want to do any drilling.

On April 24, 2006, Speaker Pelosi put out a thing, they were trying to get into the majority, and it said: ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' And at the time, gas was probably $2 a gallon and, as the gentleman stated a while ago, it is about $3.80 now. Oil was probably $60 a barrel, and it is about $120 a barrel now. But you passed H.R. 6. That was one of the first 100 Hours, one of these great proposals, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Well, we did a little research. In that bill, which is over 300 pages, ``crude oil'' is mentioned five times. Over 300 pages, ``crude oil'' is mentioned just five times.

``Gasoline'' is mentioned 12 times in over 300 pages.

``Exploratory drilling'' is mentioned twice.

``Offshore drilling'' is mentioned, none.

``Domestic drilling'' is mentioned, none.

``Domestic oil'' is mentioned, none.

``Domestic gas,'' zero mention.

``Domestic fuel,'' zero mention.

``Domestic petroleum,'' zero.

``Gas price'' or ``gas prices,'' zero.

The word ``commonsense,'' zero.

What is mentioned is ``greenhouse,'' 103 times.

``Green building,'' 101 times.

``Ecosystem,'' 24 times.

``Climate change,'' 18 times.

One of their favorite words ``regulation,'' 98 times.

``Environmental,'' 160 times.

``Geothermal,'' 94 times.

``Renewable,'' 333 times.

The word ``pool'' because, Madam Speaker, there was the Swimming Pool Safety Act attached to the Energy Independence and Security Act. Here is the thing I found interesting. The word ``pool'' was mentioned 47 times; or nine times more than crude oil and four times more than the word ``gasoline.''

``Lamp'' or ``light bulb'' is mentioned 350 times; 350 times they talk about lamps or light bulbs.

So get the picture here. The Democratic plan for lowering gas prices is not drilling, it is not using domestic production, it is becoming more reliant on foreign oil; and it is going to do it through greenhouse, green building, regulation, geothermal, swimming pool safety, and light bulbs.

Now I have a hard time when I go home to the people of the Third Congressional District explaining to them that that's our plan for energy independence. And I don't know if I am the only one that is having the problem of convincing my constituents that this is what Congress is doing to lower gas prices.

Now just another side note here. Tonight we passed Senate bill 2739, Consolidated Natural Resource Act of 2008, but I see my time has expired.