Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from California for his leadership, for what he's doing on this bill. He's a remarkable talent, and we're well served by Mr. Campbell.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill that's before this body. Given the current instability in our credit markets and, Madam Speaker, given the pressing need for this United States Congress to focus on the financial services bailout that is now before us, this bill is simply not what the United States Congress should be debating today. In fact, this bill is just another example of how this Congress far too often charges ahead without full contemplation of the consequences of its actions.

In today's global marketplace, Madam Speaker, consumers are paying for products and services more and more with credit and debit cards, rather than with cash payments. It's a completely different way today that we have of doing business. In fact, electronic payments now account for more than half of all consumer purchases here in the United States.

With the increasing role that credit cards play in the everyday lives of most Americans, it's both timely, and appropriate that we update and improve standards to protect those American consumers from unfair and deceptive credit card practices.

I also believe, Madam Speaker, that it's imperative that we improve access to useful, understandable and complete disclosure about the terms and conditions that govern credit card use here in our country.

The Federal Reserve Board has made a proposal. They proposed a rule known as Regulation Z which prescribes uniform methods for computing the cost of credit for disclosing credit terms and for resolving errors on certain types of credit accounts. This proposed rule is virtually identical to H.R. 5244, the Credit Card Holder's Bill of Rights Act of 2008.

While both Regulation Z and this bill are offered with the best of intentions, both could have very serious unintended consequences, and they could pose potentially significant, unnecessary costs on consumers and the United States economy. Goodness knows we don't need that right now.

Madam Speaker, Congress should absolutely allow the Federal Reserve Board's rulemaking process to play out before we rush to codify this proposed rule into law. The public comment periods, the public notice both serve a very important role that I think we all agree that will ensure that this government carefully considers every angle before we jump to regulatory change.

I'm very actually sorry to see the House Financial Service Committee hastily move to implement H.R. 5244 before the rulemaking process even had time to play out. It seems like that's the game now in Washington, DC: rush to judgment. Quick, hasty moves before the public even has time to weigh in. That's not democracy at its best, Madam Speaker, because this action shut out the comments of consumers. It shut out nonprofit organizations. It shut out industry representatives. It's certainly not in the best interests of credit card holders.

We all know that when Congress moves too quickly and bypasses important parts of the process, that it often does more harm than good. Take a look at this week. Take a look at what we're about to do: put the American consumer on the hook for almost another trillion dollars in bad debt.

This Congress has a responsibility to the people that we serve and to businesses to analyze this proposal's overall effectiveness and the effect on the cost of credit and market liquidity. Let's remember, the underlying, underpinning of this current crisis is the lack of liquidity. In other words, money into the marketplace. And that's very true today.

Ironically, the premise of this new $700 billion bailout is to restore that form of liquidity.

Why would Congress dismiss outside input from the experts? Are we so smart that we don't need that outside input? I think experience proves otherwise, Madam Speaker. Should we not hear from those who are impacted most from these stressful times? We are imprudent, to say the least, if we do not allow for that comment.

I could not support this bill, Madam Speaker, when it moved out of committee because it was imprudent to jump ahead; and given this new instability that's broke out in the last 2 weeks, I absolutely in good conscience cannot support this measure now. Congress should exercise prudence--wouldn't that be a novel idea?--and allow the Federal Reserve Board to finalize this proposal before we codify it with a vote of Congress.

I want to thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to thank the gentleman for his absolutely supreme work that he's doing on this bill.

Thank you to Congressman Bob Latta. Thank you so much for your leadership on this issue and also for the fact that you've been willing to take on interest group after interest group on this issue, because one thing that I have learned, being a freshman Member of Congress, is that there are interest groups who are speaking loud and clear, and they aren't speaking on behalf of the American people who need to get gas prices back down to $2 a gallon or less, what they were just months ago. It wasn't that long ago that gas prices were $2.32 cents a gallon. And I'm sure that our colleague from Georgia, Mr. Gingrey, remembers. When we took office in January of 2007, gas prices were $2.32 a gallon. What are we being told now? That'll never happen again. We can never get gas prices back down to that level.

Well, we can't if the special interests that are now running this town stay in charge. They're exactly right. We never

can get it down. But we can get it down to $2.32 a gallon if we do what the American people called us to do when we came here, because as Congressman Latta knows, this is a congressionally created problem. This is not a problem of lack of energy resources in this country. This is not a problem of lack of technology for accessing these resources.

The problem is the United States Congress that has made it virtually illegal to access the answer to our problem that's contained right here underground, whether it's 27 percent of all the world's coal supplies, as I heard Congressman Gingrey state in his remarks, or whether it's the fact that we are the ``Saudi Arabia of Oil'' with three States, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, that have more oil than all of Saudi Arabia contained in shale oil. Or whether the answer is in natural gas, which we have over 420 trillion cubic square feet in the Gulf Coast region, or whether it's wind or solar or conservation. We've got it all. And again, the United States Congress is the problem.

What's that led to?

That's led to the largest wealth transfer in American history. Over $700 billion has gone out of our pockets directly overseas to people who don't like us to purchase energy. $700 billion.

Isn't it interesting that what we are hearing right now in this financial crisis is that the American people are being asked to pony up $700 billion to bail out private companies out of a financial mess that they've gotten themselves into. So just think about that for a moment.

Had we been drilling here in our own country, rather than going overseas to purchase foreign sources of energy, we would have had $700 billion worth of American dollars staying here within our own borders.

Now, Congressman Latta, I'm sure that you would agree with me that we would far prefer to see $700 billion worth of investment stay in the United States, because that would mean $700 billion worth of jobs that could have been created in the United States.

If the gentleman would yield?

What that means is $700 billion translates to one- sixth of the American economy. Eighteen percent of the American economy was transferred from your pocket at the pump overseas to people who don't like us very much. Now those countries are enriched with $700 billion worth of American money that could have stayed here.

You mentioned that you had the largest washing machine plant in the United States. I have the largest window manufacturer in my district. Well, we all know what's happened with the mortgage industry and with the housing industry. Imagine the impact that that's made on this company in my district for manufacturing windows. This is tremendously important. This is real. This is real pain that the American people are feeling, and it is fueling this crisis that we're seeing, both on Main Street and on Wall Street.

I don't know about you, but I've gotten an earful when I'm home talking to my constituents, and they want to know that, they are incredulous that the Democrat-controlled Congress, because, again, Republicans have not controlled Congress for almost 2 years. The Democrats have controlled Congress.

And under Democrat control, in 2 years we have seen gas prices escalate 76 percent. That's right. Gas prices have escalated 76 percent, and we have seen the largest wealth transfer in American history go out of your pocket over to countries that don't like us very much.

How can we reverse that?

Congressman Latta, what would be the solution that we can reverse that so that we could keep American money right here in the economy and start buying those American-made washing machines that are in your district and American-made windows that are in my district?

And if the gentleman would yield on that point, I just wanted to mention regarding jobs once more. Both yourself and I, together with eight of our colleagues, went up to Alaska 2 months ago. And while we were up in Alaska looking at the ANWR region, which, by the way is the most perfect place on the planet to drill for oil, absolutely perfect place. It's perfectly sited. Without any environmental degradation, we could increase American energy supplies by over 50 percent if we would bring on line just oil production in ANWR alone.

But one thing we heard when we were up there from the people who were giving us tours, the Mineral Management Service, the Bureau of Land Management told us that just bringing on line oil production in Colorado and Alaska would add over 750,000 jobs.

Over 750,000, three-quarters of a million American jobs, and the jobs in Alaska, we were told, start out with an astounding starting-level salary of $100,000 a year. Now, imagine that. How many Americans wouldn't be willing to go and work where they could be making $100,000 a year? Rather than being one of the largest importers of energy, America could turn around our economy by being one of the largest exporters of energy and one of the largest job creators of energy.

One thing I wanted to add, if I could just take a moment to a talk a little bit about the current economy and the current meltdown in the financial markets.

I have the privilege of sitting on the Financial Services Committee. And one thing that's important to remember, just as this energy crisis was created by the United States Congress because Congress made it illegal to access American energy and has put into law a Prohibition- era mentality on American-made energy production, so, too, Congress created this financial services mess. You ask how. Let me just briefly explain and just in a nutshell how this occurred.

Back in the 1930s, Congress created private companies to back mortgages. So when you go to buy a house from your bank, the bank doesn't keep that mortgage. The bank sells it to an organization called Freddie or Fannie. They're private companies. But the problem is, government implied, with a wink and a nod, that government would back up those mortgages from Freddie and Fannie. So these are private companies, but they can take any bloomin' risk they want because Uncle Sam said you're going to foot the bill in case those mortgages went sour.

Well, fast forward to the late 1970s. In 1977, the Credit Reinvestment Act was passed, and in the early 1990s, there were amendments made to the Credit Reinvestment Act. What did that do? It suspended, for the first time in American history, 200 years' worth of sound financial loan making.

So before when you and your wife, Congressman Latta, if you went to get a loan to buy a house or my husband and I got a loan to buy a house, we had to show that we were credit-worthy risks. Under the Community Reinvestment Act, the banks were ordered under penalty of fine and lawsuit, ``You don't make loans anymore to people who are creditworthy. Now you're forced to make loans to people who are not creditworthy.'' It turned the world upside down.

So the world of banking became like ``Alice in Wonderland'' where banking rules were turned topsy-turvy on their heads and banks were fined or threatened with lawsuits if they did not make loans, a certain quota of loans to people who weren't creditworthy. Guess what? That's when a new product called subprime loans started to be made. And unfortunately, now we all know what subprime loans are. They were made to people who weren't creditworthy, who, in other words, had no means to pay those loans back.

So what is happening today? Today the markets have melted down, and now the American taxpayer is being told, you, Mr. Speaker, and the American people, are being told that they have to pay for what private companies agreed to in contracts. So the beleaguered taxpayer is the forgotten man in this equation.

The American taxpayer didn't ask to be a part of these subprime contracts. They didn't receive any of the benefits. They didn't receive any of the profits when profits were being made. But now that losses are on the horizon, now the American taxpayer is being asked--not asked, forced to pony up at minimum $700 billion of new taxes; which, ironically, $700 billion is the exact amount of money that you, in essence, Mr. Speaker, the American people, have been taxed by these artificially high prices of gasoline.

There is no reason why gas prices would be $4 right now, no reason, if we would legalize American energy production. So had we been legalizing American energy production and we had prices low for the American people to pay, whether it's through heating oil or whether it's through natural gas that they pay or through electricity or at the pump, we wouldn't have been enriching all of these foreign countries. We would have had that much more money in our economy, and we may not have seen the meltdown because people would have had the wherewithal to pay their mortgages, to have high-paying jobs, and we may not have seen the subprime mess.

It's a crisis, and if the gentleman would yield.

It seems that our energy policy right now is being determined by bureaucracy and by socialistic tendencies, not by the free market. It's imperative that people have the ability to choose the energy needs that they have.

Here in the State of Minnesota, the people that I represent, they're all very soon going to be turning their thermostats up. Some homes are heated by natural gas, some by fuel oil. And we're going to be looking potentially at dramatic spikes in costs for people on their fuel oil and home energy heating.

People in Minnesota don't have a choice. They have to turn on their fuel.

As the gentleman had stated, people right now are making choices about whether or not they could even afford to go to work if they're travelling 50 miles to be able to get to work.

I represent people in the great city of Saint Cloud, Minnesota. I toured a nursing home recently. One thing I was told by the administrators was a lot of the people that they have doing some of the basic work in the nursing homes are making not a high level of income and they don't see also that it's worth it for them to go to work. This is not a good situation that they're being put in. And again, this is artificial because we don't need to be in this situation.

Again, it's because, unfortunately, the Democrat-controlled Congress has maintained a prohibition-era mentality with American energy production. They're just saying, ``No way, no how.'' I don't understand that, Representative Latta. I absolutely don't understand the mindset that says when you're sitting on your own solution, why in the world wouldn't you legalize and open the door to American energy production so we can create jobs and people can pay a lower cost, and so we aren't sending $700 billion overseas.

Here is something I'm very concerned about, Representative Latta. It is Sharia Law, because many of the Islamic nations are now wanting to do business under Sharia Law, Islamic law. This is happening now in the United Kingdom, and this is very concerning. All of the equity, all of the liquidity, the dollars that are available to do business now are in the hands of the people of the Middle East. It makes sense. We just sent them $700 billion of American money----

In one year at the gas pump.

So just think about this now: $700 billion has left American pockets, has gone overseas to the Middle East, to OPEC nations that don't like us very much, they're sitting on $700 billion worth of capital. Guess what Americans are starved for right now? Capital. Money. We have to go somewhere. Our banks right now are starved for money. We're in a credit crunch right now. But Middle Eastern nations are saying, ``Hey, you want to do business with us? You need to come under Sharia, Islamic law.''

So now think of that. American companies would have to come under-- not under American law, but under Sharia Law if they conduct business transactions, let alone the Chinese nation that is in the process of buying up United States' securities.

These are very sobering times for us in the United States Congress. We may make the most important decision and cast the most important vote of the 110th Congress this week. And that vote will be on how we handle this financial crisis. And would that the Democrat Congress last week had passed a real energy freedom bill so we could unlock American energy resources and create wealth here in the United States rather than taxing the American people yet one more time so we can continue to send more money over to OPEC and tax more money from people to put in Washington, D.C.

You don't want to send more money to the United States Congress that has proved themselves completely incapable of handling the American people's money. The Democrat-led Congress has proved itself completely incompetent in handling the American people's money.

If the gentleman will yield, it was 2,000 acres out of the 19 million.

If the gentleman would yield, unfortunately, that's exactly what happened last week by the Democrat-controlled Congress. They kicked the can down the road to the next Congress, because the bill that they passed won't produce one new drop of oil or one new watt of electricity.

What was that whole exercise for? Did they not realize that for 21 months that gas prices have gone up 76 percent? This is shocking. This is the only thing my constituents have been talking about is the dramatic escalation in the price of energy. Everyone else seems to get it, but unfortunately, the Democrat-controlled Congress sat on its hands for 21 months, and just as the clock is striking midnight now on the 110th Congress, they pass a cruel hoax of a bill last week that won't go anywhere. It's dead on arrival in the Senate. The President will veto it. And here we are, looking at this huge crisis. And what do the American people have to look forward to? A reduction in energy prices? Not on your life.

Today, there was a dramatic increase in the price of oil. Why? Because international investors in oil commodities see, hey, the Democrat-controlled Congress, they're not going to do anything about bringing down the price of oil, and guess what, the clock is timing out now on the 110th Congress; I guess we can go ahead and increase the price of oil. That's speculators.

What speculators do is set a pricing function, and they do it based upon information. And the information that this Democrat-controlled Congress has sent out to the world markets is don't worry, we're not going to do anything to increase American energy production; we're going to keep it exactly as it is. And what that does is guarantee

that the poor, beleaguered American taxpayer, the forgotten man in all of this, is doomed to pay even higher prices of energy.

This is not good news, not good news at all.

You're dead on when you talk about the hurricane, dealing with Hurricane Ike recently, and the devastation that ensued in the gulf coast region, and then also we look on the international front what's happening.

Russia invaded Georgia not too long ago, and of course, we know that a big part of that invasion had to do with controlling oil. I mean, it was only a few months ago that we saw newspaper accounts. It almost seemed humorous because there was a Russian-made submarine that traveled under the arctic region and planted a Russian flag at the bottom of the Arctic Sea and said, We take this Arctic Sea for Russia.

Well, as if the Americans hadn't been there years prior and had made claims, but it makes sense because just several weeks later the U.S. Geological Survey released a report that stated there's an estimated 90 billion, 90 billion barrels of oil that are under the Arctic Sea. There are tremendous international pressures right now and particularly with Russia making very aggressive incursions in the Arctic and also in Georgia. This makes the United States even more vulnerable.

But again, great news is on the horizon. We have the answer right here in our border. The problem has been the Democrat-controlled Congress has said ``no'' to American energy production.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the House is considering two important bills today--H.R. 5840, the Insurance Information Act of 2008, and H.R. 5611, the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers Reform Act of 2008. Both these bills will streamline aspects of the insurance industry to help ensure more consistency for agents, brokers, and consumers alike.

H.R. 5840, the Insurance Information Act of 2008, creates a new Office of Insurance Information (OII) under the U.S. Treasury to advise the President and Congress on insurance issues. Currently, all 50 states regulate insurance in their own unique manner. The OII will serve as a hub for data collection and will help guide policymakers working to alleviate undue burdens throughout the insurance regulatory regime.

As the new agency responsible for investigating and reporting on insurance issues, the OII will also coordinate Federal policy on international insurance matters. In today's global marketplace, this will help American insurance companies obtain better access to foreign markets and strengthen their positions as leaders in offering insurance products both here and overseas.

Additionally, H.R. 5611, the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers Reform Act of 2008, creates the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers, NARAB. Established as a nonprofit corporation to facilitate the nationwide licensing of insurance agents and brokers, NARAB will supervise and discipline individuals who wish to practice in multiple states.

This new, voluntary tool, which gives agents and brokers the opportunity to be licensed by individual states under the current system, injects much-needed uniformity for those agents and brokers whose businesses stretch from state to state. Consumers will obtain better services and financial products for lower costs while agents and brokers will avoid many of the headaches they currently face due to the myriad of state licensing standards with which they must currently comply.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these measures.

Mr. Chairman, today, the House will consider H.R. 3036, the No Child Left Inside Act. I rise in strong opposition to this legislation.

First of all, H.R. 3036 continues our Nation down the ill-fated road of shifting control of school curricula away from the parents and teachers and local school boards who best know what their children need into the hands of Federal Government and its one-size-fits-all approach. To best serve our children's educational needs, local school boards need flexibility to target resources where they are needed most--from school construction and class size reduction efforts to higher teacher salaries and technology in the classroom. The needs of individual school districts are dynamic and complex. They are not homogenous and are most certainly not best understood by bureaucrats in Washington.

I fervently believe that parents and teachers and local school boards know best how to educate our children, and it is time for Congress to stop removing them further and further from the equation. Congress must move back down the path to control, accountability, and authority at a local level for education. H.R. 3036 leads us away from this crucial goal.

Furthermore, while I agree it is important to promote conservation and environmental literacy, especially as America faces a crippling energy crisis, I do not agree that public school is the place to do it. H.R. 3036 would simply add another layer of bureaucracy and Federal mandates to our Nation's already overburdened schools, displacing important educational building blocks with questionable environmental education programs. At a time when American test scores continue to lag behind our global counterparts, can we honestly say that we need less time for the fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic? Church groups, scouting, extracurricular organizations, and the family promote conservation, love of and respect for the outdoors, and environmental messages daily. Let the teachers teach; let parents instill values.

Finally, let us not forget that Congress has already allotted funds for environmental literacy through an Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, grant program. Since 1992, that program has allocated over $40 million, or roughly $2.5 million per year. H.R. 3036 would spend an additional $14 million to create an additional grant program administered by a whole new executive branch agency, the Department of Education. Can there be any question that this represents an expansion of the Federal bureaucracy, a duplication of efforts, and a wholly irresponsible distribution of taxpayer dollars?

The No Child Left Inside Act represents a step in the wrong direction, adding the weight of increased Federal bureaucracy to an already sinking educational outlook. Forcing local school districts to direct scarce resources away from core curricula to serve a political agenda will only further suppress the academic performance of America's next generation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, today I was unexpectedly detained and unable to vote on the Childers Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 6842, the National Capital Security and Safety Act (Roll No. 600.) Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, the American people are not only frustrated; they are absolutely outraged this morning when they wake up to discover that not only has the Speaker of the House decided there won't be any new energy production this year, in 2008, no relief is on the way, she has also decided political speech is not going to be allowed on the floor of this House.

This morning, Republicans were so outraged when they heard what the Democrat Congress had done, that 150 of our Members planned to be on the floor to talk about the outrage of this bill. When the Speaker heard that, she decided to limit us to 30 people being able to speak this morning.

Well, Mr. Speaker, one thing that will not be put under a bushel will be the outrage of the American people over this perceived and actual hoax of a bill, this charade we are going to vote on today.

I have in my hand amendments that I had hoped to offer to give Americans some real energy production. Not only will they not be allowed, but the voices of the American people will not be heard on this floor this morning, because the Speaker of the House has decided it will not be.

I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that Speaker Pelosi has vastly underrated the American people. They will not be squelched. They will be heard. Our voices will be heard on this issue. We will not be silenced.

For 21 months the Democrat-controlled Congress watched as gas prices increased over 76 percent on the American people. For 21 months they sat in idleness as the American people became 70 percent dependent on foreign oil. They knew the American people paid an effective tax of $700 billion to foreign countries.

For 21 months the Democrats presided while watching one-sixth of our economy, money and jobs going overseas. For 21 months the solution was obvious to anyone who was looking to win the energy battle for the American people, and it was this: Legalize American energy production, all of it, legalize it and have Congress get out of the way. Whether it's clean coal, natural gas, oil production, nuclear, alternative, conservation, the Democrats could have done every bit of this 21 months ago and been the heroes of the American people. They could have because they have been in charge. But they willingly, intentionally, with eyes wide open, chose not to.

The Democrats defied the will of the American people, and now as the clock strikes midnight on the 110th Congress, with this sad chameleon they call an energy bill, the Democrats continue to defy the American people. But the truth is clear, this bill won't reduce the price of gasoline at the pump. The American people will suffer, as they have suffered under Democrat inaction.

But let's throw the American people a lifeline. We can, because in November Americans can have their say, finally, and under Republicans and John McCain, they will be able to choose $2 a gallon or less for gasoline, or they can choose Senator Obama and the no-drill Democrats, and they can see gas climb to the heights of 5 or $6 gallon or more.

The choice couldn't be more clear.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding, and I hear the frustration that is in your voice, because you are echoing the frustration that the American people are feeling all over this country. Right now, they are taking their pencils and breaking them, they are taking their shoe and throwing it across the room, because they can't believe that for the 21 months that the Democrats have held the gavel in this Chamber, they have only now tonight, for the first time in 21 months, had the guts to put on this floor their ``commonsense energy plan.''

From what we know of this bill so far, this ``commonsense energy plan'' doesn't have a lot of energy in it. If you take about 80 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf and make it illegal, permanently off limits to energy production, how can you with a straight face before the American people say that you want to get serious about solving this problem?

This isn't a bill. As our colleague Representative Shadegg said, this is a charade purported upon the American people. So what we are saying is, whose side are you on? Whose side are you on? Do you want a pro- American energy bill? That is what we want. We want to be truly energy independent.

I want to piggyback back on what Representative Shadegg said. He talked about the lawsuits that have been filed. Every single lease that has come up for sale has had a lawsuit filed.

I just want you to know, in my district we have the longest-running unfinished bridge project in the history of the United States of America. Why? Because we have lawsuits filed by the Sierra Club. We still don't have a bridge coming on line, because the Sierra Club now has run up the tab so that people in my district will be paying over $400 million to build a bridge because we have lawsuits filed against this bridge.

Why do we even allow lawsuits at all? If the United States Government certifies that land is available for leasing, shouldn't the United States Government certify that this land should be truly available for leasing? We don't need these outside groups to come in and file these lawsuits, because, after all, if there is a problem with the environment, if there is a problem with laws being violated, don't we have the Minerals Management Service that could issue a fine, that could issue a temporary restraining order, that could prohibit that company from drilling at all and pull that lease back? Certainly they could.

Why do we allow these leases at all? We are in a serious situation in this country. We just saw financial firms, Bear Stearns has had a problem. They have needed a government bailout. We have seen Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. They needed the Federal government to come in and take them over. Just this week, Lehman Brothers is filing bankruptcy. We are seeing Morgan Stanley being bought out by Bank of America.

What are the American people worried about tonight, Mr. Speaker? They are worried about if they are going to have a job tomorrow morning. They are worried if they will have enough money in their bank account to put gas in the tank so they can go to their job. This is serious, Mr. Speaker. This is no joke. That is why I think this is an insult to the American people.

This is 290-some pages, as the gentleman from Indiana said. But this is a joke on the American people. If this won't produce one drop of oil, then why are we wasting our time?

Let's face it: We have got now nine days before adjournment, nine days before the end of the year. Nine days. So we are going to, what, dance around a little bit and have a charade a little bit? We don't even know if we can file an amendment on this bill. We don't even know what we will be allowed to do.

But the one thing I guarantee, Mr. Speaker, is we will not remain silent. For the next nine days, the Republicans in the House on this floor will not remain silent before the American people, because we are going to tell the truth. We are going to tell the truth that under the last 21 months of Democrat-controlled Congress, we have seen post offices renamed. We have seen Federal buildings renamed. In fact, we have seen monkeys saved from being transported across State lines. We have even seen $25 million of American taxpayer money go to foreign countries in the form of foreign aid to pay for foreign cats and foreign dogs. We have seen this come off of the floor of this body.

But only tonight, at a quarter to 10, did we see an energy bill come before this body, which we believe will not produce one drop of energy, while the American people tonight are paying $4 a gallon for gasoline. If we don't get serious and really produce energy, come this November, the American people are going to have a choice: Do they want to pay $2 a gallon for gasoline under a commonsense Republican plan, or do they want to pay $6 or $8 or $10 a gallon for gasoline? That will be the reality, because under a President Obama, we won't have drilling, and under a Democrat-controlled Congress, we know we won't have drilling. That is the choice before the American people, Mr. Speaker: $2 a gallon for gasoline, or $6 or $8 or $10.

That is why I am so grateful to the gentleman from Indiana tonight, because he has pegged it. He has pegged it. He has said that this bill is nothing more than an insult to the American people. And that is why we are here tonight, as the precursor for the debate that will occur tomorrow.

Thank you, Ms. Foxx. I appreciate that.

Minneapolis/St. Paul is a very nice area. Minnesota is the ``Land of Minnesota Nice,'' and we really do love

people. So y'all come back, if we can borrow that from you. Y'all come back.

My name is Michelle Bachmann. I do represent Minnesota's Sixth Congressional District, and I tell you what I am so pleased about is the fact that the United States, we have the answer to our energy problem.

We have, as Representative Dent of Pennsylvania said, we have an abundance of coal. We're the leader in the world. Twenty-seven percent of the world's supply of coal lies here in the United States of America.

We're the Saudi Arabia of oil in three States alone: Utah, Colorado, Wisconsin. We have more oil than all of Saudi Arabia contained in shale oil.

We have an abundance of natural gas. We have over 420 trillion cubic square feet of natural gas, and that's just in the Gulf of Mexico.

We have so much oil and we haven't even begun to tap what we have in terms of nuclear power, what we can do with wind, what we can do with solar, with all of the inventions that are yet to come out of brilliant young entrepreneurs. All we need to do is unleash it.

But right now, you're looking, Mr. Speaker, at the problem for this, for the energy crisis. It isn't lack of resources. It certainly isn't lack of technology. What it is is lack of will on the part of the United States Congress. Mr. Speaker, the Democrat-controlled United States Congress is the problem for America's energy crisis. Look no further. The Democrat-controlled Congress, under their leadership, their auspicious leadership, has led to an increase of 76 percent in the price of gasoline at the pump.

Seventy-six percent increase. I've only been here 20 months, and we've seen gas prices go up 76 percent under Democrat-controlled leadership.

Minority leader John Boehner made a decision late in the month of July. He decided to lead 10 Republicans to go up to Alaska to visit the ANWR region that has been so vilified, that we've been told that we absolutely cannot drill up in ANWR, that somehow the world will come to an end if we drill in ANWR. Well, John Boehner, with his leadership, took 10 Republicans--and I was blessed enough to be one of those Republicans to go not only to Colorado to visit the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, but also up to Alaska to ANWR.

And there is one little story that I want to tell the American people before I hand this over to my colleagues to continue, and it's this: While we were up in Alaska visiting our oil-rich region where we were able to go to the North Slope--here is the North Slope of Alaska. Thirty-one years ago, the North Slope of Alaska was the largest producing oil field in the United States. Sadly, 31 years later, this is still the largest producing oil region. Why? Because we have a Prohibition-era mentality when it comes to production of American energy legislation. Because this Congress has made a decision: No more energy production here; if we're going to have energy, we've got to buy it offshore. Well, that is ridiculous; it's why we're in the situation we're in.

But here in the North Slope 31 years ago, when we began building this energy lifeline which is our North Slope Trans-Alaska Pipeline which extends 800 miles from Prudhoe Bay down to Valdez, when we built that 31 years ago we were producing 2.1 million barrels of oil a day. Do you know where we're at now? Seven hundred thousand barrels a day. Within 10 years we will be down to $300,000 barrels a day. You know what happens, Mr. Speaker, when we get down to 300,000 barrels a day? When we get to that point, this energy lifeline that feeds the lower 48, it's going to shut down. And, I mean, when it shuts down, you can't add another oil field and bring it back up into production. And do you know, Mr. Speaker, what it costs us to replace this energy lifeline? Fifteen billion dollars. And it isn't just the $15 billion, it would take several years to rebuild this because this pipeline is made out of stainless steel, and stainless steel doesn't come cheap anymore.

We are in trouble. Because if, as the Democrat nominee, Barack Obama, has said, he doesn't plan to do any more drilling, and Speaker Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat-controlled House, has said she really doesn't plan any more drilling, or as Harry Reid has told us, he really doesn't believe in more drilling, if the Democrats have their way, there won't be more drilling. And so we will have this energy pipeline that has served our interests for over 31 years, it's going to shut down within 10 years time. Shut down. So if we thought $4 a gallon was a lot to pay for energy, we're going to think that's a cheap date because it's going to be $6, $8, $10 a gallon because the Democrat- controlled Congress has said, no how, no way, not on their watch are we ever going to start drilling. It's not going to happen. And it's not going to happen under Barack Obama.

There is a very real choice that the voters have to make come this November, and it's this: Do you want to pay $2 a gallon for gas under a President McCain and a Vice President Palin--who will drill, by the way, for new energy--or do you want to pay $6, $8 or $10 a gallon for gasoline very soon under a Barack Obama and a Democrat-controlled Congress who said no way, no how, never under their watch will they begin the drilling process? It's that simple: $2 a gallon, or $6, $8 or $10 a gallon? That's what the American people will be asking themselves.

And I'll tell you one thing, under a Republican-controlled Congress, if we can get there this fall, this November, there will be a change. There will be drilling in ANWR. There will be drilling in the oil shale region. There will be drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. There will be expansion of clean coal technology. There will be building of 45 new nuclear power plants. Instead of being the world's greatest dependent on foreign energy importation, we will become the world's leading exporter of energy.

Can you imagine? Millions of jobs, high-paying jobs. And I will end with this. As a matter of fact, up in Alaska, what I was told is that entry-level jobs on the North Slope pay over $100,000 a year plus benefits. There's a lot of people from the great State of Minnesota that would go up to take those jobs.

We have the answer. We have got the ticket. We don't have to be mired under $4 a gallon gas or $6 or $8 or $10. Under a Republican-controlled Congress, Mr. Speaker, the American people will get back to paying $2 a gallon or less. This is real, and it can happen very quickly. And that's why I'm so grateful to the gentlelady from North Carolina for bringing this important discussion and reminding the American people that under a Democrat-controlled Congress we've seen gasoline prices increase 76 percent. And that can take a nosedive if we see real change at the ballot box this November.

Mr. Speaker, as part of our action plan for energy, Republicans in the United States House of Representatives are asking that we push forward with an all-of-the-above energy plan to utilize every source of American energy to release us from our dependence on foreign oil.

That's why today I'm introducing, Mr. Speaker, the Promoting New American Energy Act which accelerates tax depreciation to 3 years for investments in newer, cleaner, more efficient technologies, including wind, solar, and geothermal, as well as others.

According to the nonprofit American Council for Capital Formation, American energy investments have less favorable tax depreciation rules in the United States compared to many other countries. This does not put America in a good position for alternatives.

My bill will bring America's tax depreciation schedule in line with those of our major trading partners overseas, which will put America on a better foot globally, and that means more jobs in the United States.

This will take us one step closer, Mr. Speaker, to increasing domestic energy production and making it more efficient.

As a member of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I ask my colleagues to promote newer, cleaner, more efficient energy solutions.

Thank you, Congressman Latta. I appreciate your yielding to me for some comments.

We had a thrill to go on this trip this past weekend. It was the American energy tour. Leader John Boehner led that tour. We were so grateful that we were extended an invitation to join him. Representative Latta was there, and I was there representing the people from the Sixth District. So here we are, knowing we have very little time left before Congress takes a break in August when we are back in our districts, and we will be there for 5 weeks through Labor Day, we are here right now with a chance to talk to the American people. But more importantly, we have a chance to be here on the floor tonight and solve this energy issue.

One thing that we learned on this energy tour is that the problem is not a lack of natural resources that are available here in the United States, it isn't a lack of energy in the United States. The lack of energy is the inertia in the United States Congress, the Democrat- controlled United States Congress. That's where we lack energy.

The one thing that we found on this tour is that the problem is Congress. The problem isn't lack of resources. The problem isn't degradation to our environment. The problem is the fact that Congress has literally locked up and made illegal access to American energy.

Congressman Latta referenced the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge area up in Alaska. I would like to speak about that, but before that, I would like to talk about the areas that are off-limits. I mentioned that Congress is the problem, and Congress can be the answer. Congress has made it virtually illegal to access American energy. Where? Well, the first place is up in Alaska where Congressman Latta and I were, with fellow freshmen, and that is where there are over 10 billion barrels of oil.

I spoke with somebody who just read the recently released geological study which stated that there are over 90 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic region, and over 10 billion of which are in ANWR. This is a big story.

Let me go back now to the ANWR map. As Congressman Latta said, ANWR is all of 19 million acres and is the size of South Carolina. The size of the area that would be drilled upon is 2,000 acres of that 19 million acres. In other words, if you think of a football field, think of putting a little postage stamp on a football field. That is the size of the area that would be drilled upon.

Here is the Brooks Range up in northern Alaska. Here is the Arctic Ocean. You can't get any farther north than this. The area that we were in, the 1002 area where we are looking at drilling, and also President Carter set aside this area specifically for the purpose of drilling, this area is in direct proximity to the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System. This is one of the modern marvels of human engineering. It really should be one of the seven wonders of the world. It is over 800 miles of pipeline. This is America's energy lifeline.

Do you know that the largest energy field in the United States is the Prudhoe Bay oil field that was discovered? We have had a living laboratory over the last 31 years. We have had a demonstration project for 31 years in Prudhoe Bay showing you in an environmentally safe and clean way, you can not only drill for oil but also transport oil and get it down to the lower 48.

One thing that Congressman Latta and I learned when we were there is that 31 years ago when drilling began, the flow was 2.1 million barrels a day that traveled through this pipeline. Today that oil flow is down to 700,000 barrels a day. And the reason for that is because no more oil fields have been opened for exploration.

Well, what happens when we get down to 300,000 barrels a day flowing through this pipeline? The pipeline stops. It doesn't work any more, and we are not able to get it back up online. It hurts that pipeline and we can't use it.

This wonderful gift of a pipeline will be actually gone. You want to talk about use it or lose it, that's the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. We have to use it.

Here is the great story, and here is the great answer, Mr. Speaker. The fact is in the 1002 area, the 2,000 acres in ANWR where we believe there is over 10 billion barrels of oil, this is just 74 miles away from the pipeline. It's the exact same terrain, completely frozen ground. Nine months of the year it is under snow and ice, 3 months of the year complete darkness. All we do is we build 74 miles of pipeline, and we have access to over 10 billion barrels of oil. Overnight we increase American reserves by over 50 percent. That's an answer, Congressman Latta.

That is what is absolutely amazing that we saw, is that no roads are built to get into ANWR to do the drilling. The roads that do go to put in the oil rig are ice roads. Those roads go in the dark of winter when it is freezing. Bulldozers build ice roads out to where the rig is going to be set. The oil rig is set, and as Congressman Latta said, what formerly used to take 20 acres of a pad site to put a drill down, now because of technological advances has been reduced down to 6 acres of land. But if you look at underneath the earth with the directional drilling that is able to be accomplished now, literally we can go out 8 miles.

It is absolutely phenomenal what we are able to accomplish now, what the oil industry is able to accomplish now, to be able to give us American energy independence. Let's not forget what we are talking about, American energy independence.

We are looking at $4 a gallon gasoline right now.

This is incredible. This Chamber should be filled with Members of Congress. Unfortunately, and I don't know what the camera shows, but the Chamber is completely empty. Except for you and I, Congressman Latta, we are

the only Members of Congress, as well as the Speaker. No offense extended to the Speaker. There is no more important issue right now for the American people.

When we are at $4 a gallon gas, and when we have the capability of being at $2 a gallon gas, it is criminal to not allow the American people to be there.

How do I know it is possible? We know from the seismic studies that have been done that there are over 10.5 billion barrels in the ANWR region in very close proximity to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.

Also, I sit on the Committee on Financial Services. Last week Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman said to us regarding gas prices, he said that a 1 percent increase in supply could lower prices by as much as 10 percent.

Now what was the figure that we were told when drilling first started out in Prudhoe Bay, it was 2.1 million barrels per day. We are down to 700,000 barrels a day. We are able to increase another 1.4 million barrels a day. That's the capacity that we could increase, well over a 1 percent increase.

So instead of seeing prices fall by as much as 10 percent, we could be looking at a price fall by as much as 20 percent. Perhaps, Congressman Latta, what we should do is talk about the timeline. There have been a lot of fallacies stated, false information stating that there are 68 million acres of land that is being leased that is idle that the oil companies are currently not using under use-it-or-lose-it policies. That is a fact that we found out on this fact-finding mission, the fact that that is a completely false statement. It is an urban legend.

There is not one acre of land, Mr. Speaker, that has been leased that is currently not in the production or exploration stage because Congress again is at fault here. It is not companies, it is not consumers that are consuming too much oil, it is Congress. Congress created 10 years of an artificial delay period in the permitting, and they created in that 10-year period 11 different points of entries when nuisance lawsuits can be filed to stop the production of oil.

Do you remember the length of time that one lawsuit languished in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?

That's right.

Also the native Alaskans as well, the native Alaskans that live up in the little villages. There is one little village up in ANWR that has less than 300 people. The native Alaskans that live in that village that are subsistence people. They live off of whale, they eat the caribou that they hunt, they want the drilling to start as well.

Why? Because they want to become greedy and wealthy? No, because they have seen, to their neighbors just to the immediate west of them in the Prudhoe Bay region, that this drilling that has occurred has been done in an environmentally safe and sensitive way. In fact, so much so, remember when we were going along up in Prudhoe Bay, we saw trucks, and we asked, what is that little plastic, it looks like a little plastic Barbie doll swimming pool that's underneath the trucks.

And we were told so strict are the environmental regulations in Alaska, the strictest environmental regulations in the entire country, they are so strict, that if a truck travels from point A to point B, as soon as the truck stops, the driver has to get out and take what's called a duck pond or a diaper. He slips this underneath the truck so in case even 1 drop of oil comes out of a crank case, they are so careful, that they don't want even one drop of oil to touch the tundra. That's how careful they are.

You don't see industrial waste. You don't see pools of oil. You don't see refuse lying about. You don't see excessive humans walking around with the pipelines. You see a very tiny footprint, and that's in the old area of oil drilling. With a new area of oil drilling, it is very difficult to even spot from the air a new pipeline, because a rig comes up out of the ground and a green house is literally, a little tiny casing, is put over that pipeline. There is very, very little impact on that region.

As Congressman Latta stated accurately, we did not see wildlife. We were 2 hours in the air flying over the National Petroleum Reserve, flying over Prudhoe Bay and then flying over the ANWR region. In that 2-hour time span, we did not see wildlife over in the ANWR area. We were straining to find Dall sheep, straining to see musk ox, straining to see caribou, looking for wildlife. Where did we see the wildlife? Just as Congressman Latta said, we saw it at mile marker zero, where the most activity was.

You know, it's interesting, caribou must be a lot like people. They like to be where the action is. We like to be where the action is. The caribou wanted to be where the action was. It was a great story.

The polar bear. We were told polar bears like to be around the buildings. For one thing they like to eat people. They are very aggressive creatures. We were told they had spotted a polar bear that had gone underneath the buildings, because the buildings don't have a regular foundation the way that houses do in the lower 48, because, again, it's all permafrost. It is consistently frozen land up there.

As a matter of fact, I am a hardy Minnesotan girl. Even as a hardy Minnesotan, this is the warmest time of the year. I took my down parka with me with Gore-Tex, and I was grateful that I had forgotten my mittens that I stuffed in my parka last winter.

I put my mittens on, I had my woolly parka on. I had my socks on, and I was happy to have it. This was the warmest time of the year.

You couldn't find a more perfect piece of territory to drill upon. To think that we have this gift in a very compact area next to the pipeline that's already built, and we can so quickly, if we would fast track all the permitting process, we could literally, within 3 years, have the oil pumping and in the pipeline down here in the lower 48, and we would increase American energy reserves by 50 percent. That's a deal that I don't know why we would turn it down.

I didn't hear about that. Somebody should have told me about that.

Thank you for clarifying that, Congressman.

Oh, there were no trees up there. I worked for my uncle up in Alaska when I was in college. I was in the Aleutian chain, which is in the southern part of Alaska. There were no trees there.

We were here north of the Arctic circle. We touched other little toes up here actually in the Arctic Ocean. There are no trees up there, the mountain ranges that you see, as Congressman Latta said, the Brooks Range, it is, it was all granite. There were no trees.

But the area we were in was the coastal plain, the perfect area for drilling. So we have the National Petroleum Reserve, Prudhoe Bay, the Arctic refuge, this has been a gift for our country.

Remember, we cannot forget that this is a key to making America energy independent, not dependent upon OPEC for oil, not dependent on Huge Chavez for oil. We don't want to continue to send all of our American dollars and wealth overseas to make dictators happy and rich.

What do we need? What could we do? We could keep that money here.

Do you remember when we talked about jobs? I know your area in Ohio has suffered terribly from job loss. There is job loss in the State of Michigan. Many areas of the country right now are suffering with job loss.

Do you know what we heard up here in Prudhoe Bay where the oil drilling is occurring, that workers make over six figures, over $100,000 a year. No one actually lives in Prudhoe Bay, they come in for 2 weeks at a time, and then they leave and they go home for 2 weeks at a time. They have health care benefits. They make over $100,000 a year. They work 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off.

We were told that if we would open up this ANWR region for drilling, and if we would also be looking at Colorado to open that area up, we would be looking at over 750,000 jobs, American jobs, where the American economy would be stimulated, Americans could be making over $100,000 a year.

Why in the world, why in the world would anyone possibly not want to open up for the American people, not only energy reserves that could bring the price of energy down to less than $2 of a gallon of gas, but also to provide jobs. Wouldn't people in Ohio, in the great State of Ohio, want jobs at over $100,000?

Be 15, they have now taken out 12 billion.

That doesn't include the natural gas. Remember that was the other part of the equation.

Well the Governor of Alaska says let's tap into that natural gas. We have the oil pipeline that's currently under way. But you can't put natural gas into a crude oil pipeline. They need to build a natural-gas pipeline that would run fairly parallel.

Every day, I believe it's well over 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas is extracted from the earth when the oil comes up. The great thing that the companies have been able to do is to take that natural gas and pump it back into the earth. The compression, I believe, from the natural gas, has forced more oil up. That's part of the reason why we have seen so much more yield from the Prudhoe Bay.

Without that advance in technology, we wouldn't have the tremendous abundance that we have had. This is really sobering news. Again, remember, when Prudhoe Bay was first opened up 31 years ago, it was the largest oil field in the United States. Oil fields don't get larger, they only deplete. After 31 years, it is still the largest oil field in the United States.

Knowing that, we have adjacent to this field the Arctic refuge, or the ANWR region 1002 which, again, president Jimmy Carter set aside specifically for the purpose of drilling for this oil and getting it back down for the American people, the American economy, and America's national security. Because whoever controls fuel controls your freedom.

If Hugo Chavez and Middle East dictators and OPEC control America's fuel, then Hugo Chavez and OPEC dictators control America's freedom. I know that you don't want to have dictators controlling America's freedom. I don't. I don't want that for the people of Minnesota.

A much larger footprint over here, a much larger environmental impact. The one thing we do know, the southern part of the petroleum reserve, there is about 2 percent of oil down there. About 2 percent of the area in the Southern part of the National Petroleum Reserve holds oil.

So, again, the lie that we hear from other quarters state that, well, we just have land that's idle, that the oil companies aren't exploring on. Well, would you explore somewhere where there is no oil? I mean, just think of that.

Where do young boys go to look for chicks? They go where the chicks are. You know, you go where you can have your best yield. Oil companies go where they can find their best yield.

A postage stamp on a football field. That's what we are talking about.

The other key point that we don't want to fail to remember is that when we went on our American energy tour, the purpose was to talk to the American people about our all-of-the-above strategy, the fact that we believe in conservation. We need more conservation of energy in this country, and Congressman Latta had talked about the wonderful new designs at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory where buildings can be designed to literally use zero energy.

I know it's hard to believe, but if you reorient the building, and if you use solar panels, there are amazing things that can be done now where buildings can actually get to the point of using zero energy. These are all techniques and great new breakthrough technologies that America can use to become energy independent.

Conservation is real. We can embrace conservation. We can also embrace renewable energy. The breakthroughs right now that are happening with wind energy are overwhelming.

We also saw all of testing that is being done with solar energy. I was particularly intrigued by shingles that are on houses now, shingles that are actually solar collectors.

All of this work is being done at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. So renewables is one of the legs of our three-legged stool. Conservation is one of the legs on our three-legged stool. But we do not, a stool won't stand up without that third leg. Right now the third leg that is the most key that we need to focus on, we have to focus on all three at the same time, an abundance of increase in American energy supply. And we have got it. We have oil in the Outer Continental Shelf, over 88 billion barrels. We have over 10 billion barrels in the ANWR region. We have about 2 trillion barrels worth of oil in the oil shale region, and we have nuclear.

And that really is liquid gold.

And, Congressman Latta, we all know that school is going on come up. Kids don't like to talk about the fact that school is going to come because it is still July. But there was an article last week in Minnesota, I believe it was in the St. Paul Pioneer Press newspaper, and it said this. It said that parents are looking at ratcheting back, not buying backpacks, not buying back to school clothes, not buying new protractors, pencils, because they just feel that they can't afford it, and, in fact, can't afford it.

Now there is something wrong, Mr. Speaker, when the American people feel so squeezed that they don't feel they can buy their child a new backpack. This isn't funny anymore. This is a very serious issue.

And I will tell you what, in the State of Minnesota, you don't have an option not to turn your furnace on come October. You just don't have that option.

When people open up their Excel energy bill--Excel serves both Minnesota and Colorado--when people open up their Excel bill and they see that the price of their electricity or natural gas has doubled or maybe tripled, I cannot imagine the ramifications to the economy.

And that is the new wave. Company after company has been forced to do that.

Why is it, Congressman Latta, we are the only country in the world that has made it illegal to access the answer to our problem, our own U.S. American energy supplies? Every day of the week we hear buy American, buy American. We are here saying buy American, buy American energy reserves. We have got them everywhere. Why aren't we buying American energy reserves?

But you know what really makes me mad? Congressman Latta, when I hear people say that Democrats don't have an energy plan. That makes me mad, because they have an energy plan and it is loud and clear and they stated it themselves just a week ago. Do you remember what it was?

Can you see it, Congressman Latta?

What does it say?

Now, is that going to work in northwestern Ohio?

We have colleges in my State now that are revamping their schedules to cut off one more day of class time for kids. And we have local public schools, K through 12, that have decided they are going to cut off a school day because they need to reduce the energy consumption for school districts. Can you imagine that? The parents that have enough of a burden with their own energy prices that are going up, now they may have little children that will be sitting at home all day. Mom has to go to work, Dad has to go to work.

These kids are going to be sitting home all day. Think of that. Think of the implication when this is a problem that has been created by Congress. And it is all inertia here. Again, lack of energy in the United States Congress because unfortunately, the Democratic-controlled Congress has decided we are all supposed to put wind sails on top of our small cars and somehow that is going to get us to where we need to go for American energy independence.

Not the people of the Sixth District of Minnesota, no way, no how. Because they are smarter than that there. The people in the Sixth District of Minnesota are pretty bright people, and they realize that we are a ``can do'' country, and it is time we do some ``can doing'' around in place and increase American energy reserves.

And what are we supposed to do with the airline industry? Put solar panels on the outside of airplanes and hope for the best, hope that a cloud doesn't come, hope that the sun doesn't go down? We have got to figure out some way to fly airplanes.

I had employees from Northwest Airlines in my office because Northwest has to layoff--it is a great airline in Minnesota. And, Mr. Speaker, these Northwest employees told me 2,500 employees will be laid off, 2,500 employees. Think of what that is going to mean for the economy in the State of Minnesota.

And then look at the airline announcement with United Airlines, with American Airlines, with Delta Airlines. We are, the United States Congress is personally responsible, I believe. Because of the negligent policies that this Congress has made to make it illegal to access American energy, they are responsible for spiking up the cost of energy so much that Congress, the Democrat-controlled Congress is responsible for seeing these airline companies go belly up.

2,500 employees losing their jobs in the State of Minnesota. Where is this going to end?

If we don't increase American energy supply, if we won't build new refineries, if we won't find new natural gas to liquid, where are we going to go to fly our airplanes to keep our economy going?

Pretty soon, Mr. Latta, Members of Congress won't be able to come to Washington, D.C. Maybe that is the only relief the American people are going to get.

Perhaps that has something to do with Congress' 9 percent approval rating.

Can you imagine a hospital, for instance? People that are in hospitals who require that 24-hour round the clock care, hospitals routinely have generators as back ups. But you know, generators have to run on something too. They need usually oil or they need some sort of a product that they run on.

If we can't produce more energy and also, if the electric grid, this is another very serious issue that we have seen brownouts and blackouts that have occurred across the United States.

We are not increasing transmission lines. We have taken--it is almost hard for me to believe how the United States Congress has taken a none of the above strategy. And the one thing that I saw on our American energy tour last weekend, Congressman Latta, is that the House Republicans had embraced an all of the above. We want all energy from wherever it comes from, we want to site new transmission lines, new pipelines, open up American energy production. We want all of the above. And all we have seen out of Congress is none of the above.

Young people are scared. Old people are scared. Young married people are scared. Everybody knows.

Congressman Latta, what was gas when you and I took office? For me it was $2 and change. What has happened? Seventy-six percent increase just in the last year and a half. What happened?

The signal was sent to the American people that absolutely nothing will be done. In fact, unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi said herself she has no intention to allow a vote to drill, no intention. Their intention is pretty clear. They are not going to drill.

That is not what I heard from the Republican conference. I heard the Republican conference say all of the above. Not only do we want to drill, we want wind, we want solar, we want bio fuels, we want renewables, we want to have a conservation. We want it all because America needs it all.

Well, you can't live on it. That is one thing that was clear to us. You can't have a lot of human habitation.

What good is it going to do, Congressman Latta, if people don't have jobs? Because company after company, this is no joke.

Companies are facing very severe complications on their bottom line because they can't afford the energy. They can't do it. And buying a carbon credit isn't going to solve this. We have got to have more real energy to power the real needs America needs to have. We never would have had the American prosperity that we enjoy today without affordable, accessible, reliable energy. Energy is a good thing. Oil, gas, coal, these aren't evils. These have been building blocks that have given us this greater country that the world has ever known. To take away these energy building blocks is to take away freedom and to take away prosperity, to take away the greatness of our Nation.

We need this not just for our generation. We need this for the next generation--for my five kids, for your kids. This is very important. What kind of a country are we going to hand off to our kids? Sorry. We're turning the lights off. You're on your own.

You're right.

You're right.

Well, Congressman Latta, thank you for being the leader here. Thank you for your leadership.

Thank you for standing up for the little guy, Congressman Latta. That is what your voice has been tonight, that of the little guy who wonders: Does anybody hear me? Does anyone see I'm suffering? Congressman Latta, you've done that tonight. Thank you for your leadership.

Mr. Speaker, today we're considering a massive housing bill which saddles the American taxpayer with billions of dollars to bail out both Fannie and Freddie as well as irresponsible lenders, and yes, even some irresponsible borrowers.

But what will the American taxpayer be getting in return for being asked to be put on the hook for a deal that they weren't a part of and now all of the sudden they have to jump in and bail out someone else? Remember, 95 percent of Americans are paying on time their mortgages, their rents. They weren't a part of this very bad equation, but now they're being asked to come in, to have their taxes raised to bail out irresponsible lenders, and yes, even some irresponsible borrowers.

What are they going to get in return? Are they going to be assured that the worst loans that were made won't be dumped into this refinance program? No, not going to happen. Will they be assured that this affordable housing slush fund that will finance millions of dollars for political groups like ACORN, groups that are currently under investigation in States for voter fraud, that they won't be getting more tax money? No. Are they assured that Fannie and Freddie will never again become too big to fail? No. Fannie and Freddie will become even bigger. Are they assured of a clear path out of this explicit Federal backdrop? No. It's not going to happen. In fact, it's the opposite. The banks are going to rid their balance sheets of the worst performing loans--what we used to call ``dogs'' in the industry--and it will encourage them to serve up on a silver platter for hardworking Americans a huge tax increase for them to pay.

The hardworking Americans, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that are financing this bailout are already paying over $4 a gallon for gasoline and prices for groceries they never thought that they would have to pay. They are the forgotten man, Mr. Speaker. The ``forgotten man'' is the hardworking man and the hardworking single woman who is paying their bills, but who now is being asked to front the cost for poor performing loans. It's a bad deal, and we need to reject this rule.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Minnesota's new VFW Commander, Stan Kowalski, who was officially installed last month at a ceremony in Moorhead, Minnesota. As the VFW has itself noted, Stan Kowalski may very well be the last state commander nationwide to emerge from that Greatest Generation, veterans of the Second World War.

Though he numbers in years 82, Stan Kowalski is a vibrant, active, energetic citizen. In fact, he's made no secret of the fact that he entertains the idea of running for National Commander of the VFW in the future.

Kowalski is a strong advocate for those who once and those who now wear the uniform. He has been a frequent visitor to Camp Ripley and the Air Force Reserves' 934th Airlift Wing to see our troops headed off overseas. He's organized VFW post dinners for families of deployed Marines. And, he's served on the VFW's national POW/MIA Council. In fact, he gave the eulogy when PFC Robert Cahow returned home from Germany to Clear Lake, Wisconsin, after 57 years missing.

Kowalski has shown a particularly great deal of compassion for those of his comrades who have fallen on hard times and are experiencing a time of need. He has noted that during his tenure as state commander, he will work closely with the Minnesota Assistance Council for Veterans to help the estimated 700 homeless veterans across Minnesota. He calls those veterans a ``Lost Brigade'' and notes that his mission is ``making sure they get found and get the help they need.''

While his commitment to his fellow veterans runs strong and deep, he has also served his community in other ways. He was a longtime member of the School Board in Spring Lake Park District 16, a Little League coach, an Olympic torch carrier, and a 9/11 memorial organizer. Stan Kowalski, who many know from his 26-year career as a pro-wrestler with 19 major titles, has been a prolific fundraiser for efforts ranging from the Greater Twin Cities United Way to the ROTC to Save Our Sports for the University of Minnesota.

Madam Speaker, I join all of Minnesota in paying tribute to the great energy and good works of Commander Stan Kowalski.

I thank my colleague from Nevada (Mr. Heller) for his leadership on buying American, especially as it relates to American energy sources.

I also thank the Speaker, as well, for this 5 minutes. It is important, Madam Speaker, that we do buy American, especially American energy.

Part of the problem that we have had for the last 31 years is that the United States, specifically the United States Congress, has almost made it a decided decision not to purchase American energy.

How do I say this?

I have a voting record in front of me, Madam Speaker, and it says this: When the votes have come on this floor to purchase American energy, this is how the votes have gone over purchasing oil and exploring for oil up in the ANWR region, where Mr. Heller and myself were this weekend. Republicans voted over 90 percent of the time to buy American, yes, American energy in the ANWR region. Democrats, unfortunately, Madam Speaker, voted ``no'' to buy American 85 percent of the time.

When you look at purchasing American energy, Madam Speaker, through the coal-to-liquid program, Americans voted almost 100 percent of the time to buy American. Democrats voted ``no'' almost 80 percent of the time to buy American on coal-to-liquid fuels.

On oil shale exploration, purchasing American energy through this tremendous resource of oil shale exploration of which America is the Saudi Arabia of the world in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, Republicans voted ``yes'' 90 percent of the time, while Democrats voted ``no'' to buying American 85 percent of the time.

Sounds like we're on a roll. Sounds like we're on a trend.

Well, unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the Outer Continental Shelf exploration, Republicans also voted ``yes'' to buy American oil and American natural gas over 80 percent of the time while our Democratic colleagues across the aisle voted ``no'' 80 percent of the time to buy American energy.

To purchase American energy, Madam Speaker, to increase refinery capacity--this is a crucial issue in our energy capacity--Republicans voted ``yes'' to buy American energy from refineries almost 100 percent of the time while Democrats voted ``no'' on increasing energy capacity with refineries 95 percent of the time.

I know it's hard to believe and hard to understand, but there has really been a very clear divide over energy policy in our country over the last 30 years. And unfortunately, our colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle have made a very clear and distinct decision, and it has been this: No new energy exploration in the United States. They have been very clear about this. They don't want to increase energy exploration in the United States. We need to.

And we aren't choosing just oil, just natural gas, just coal; we want to say ``yes'' to wind, to solar, to biofuels, to nuclear power, to all of the above. We have to say ``yes'' to all of the above or America will find itself at an energy deficit.

I know the people that I serve, Madam Speaker, in the Sixth Congressional District in Minnesota are feeling that squeeze right now. I checked today in Minnesota, the average price of regular unleaded gas is $3.86 a gallon. It's something more than that nationally. But I will tell you the people in Minnesota, especially the people who are living on the margins, are feeling the pain right now of these price increases.

But a wonderful story that Congressman Heller and I learned when we were on the all-of-the-above exploratory tool is that we have great answers here in the United States. The good news, Madam Speaker, is that we do not have an energy deficit in the United States. We do not suffer from a lack of resources. We have 27 percent of all of the world's coal in the United States. We have 2 trillion barrels of oil just in the United States. We have 88 billion barrels, conservatively speaking, in the Outer Continental Shelf, over 10 billion barrels in ANWR, and also 10 billion barrels near my home State in the Bakken Oil Reserve. We have energy in abundance in the United States. The problem is that Congress has said ``no.''

So what is standing between $2 gasoline and the American people, Madam Speaker, especially American-made energy? It's the United States Congress. It isn't the companies that have been bad guys or that the American people have been bad guys for using too much energy; it's the United States Congress, and unfortunately, the Democrat-controlled United States Congress that it's made a clear decision that they don't want to increase American energy. This is nonsense.

Both Congressman Heller and I learned together this weekend that we have the resources, we have them available, which is why we need to buy American energy now.

I thank my colleague, Mr. Heller.

I am so grateful that the majority brought this issue up of use-it- or-lose-it because this is something that the American people have been subjected to now for the last couple of weeks, this canard, that there are 68 million acres, and they somehow want the American people to believe that companies are risking their capital on leases that they're not using.

And what I challenge the majority to do is produce even one lease, even one lease in the U.S. where there is an acre of land that has been leased that is not in some stage of production or exploration. Not one. We haven't seen proof of even one lease where a company has bid for that lease and that lease is not in some stage of either production or exploration.

Again, let's look at Congress and Congress' complicity in this area because Congress has set artificial timelines, delayed timelines, for permitting. The leases are 10 years' long, and there are no less than 11 different stop points in that 10-year lease period where private parties can file lawsuits to stop the drilling. So, if a lawsuit is filed, for instance, by Friends of the Earth, by Sierra Club, by Earth Justice, the oil company, or whatever business it is, has to respond to the lawsuit. The lawsuit will end up in Federal district court. Then it may get kicked up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. There's one case where a decision wasn't rendered for 2 years. Well, who made that scenario? The United States Congress.

The companies have bid on these leases. They've put money down on the barrel head to actually lease the land. They've got a 10-year timeline that Congress has given them, and there are artificial delays built in for the permitting and also 11 different points for private lawsuits to be filed. So those delays, again, are ones that Congress has allowed to occur.

There aren't companies that are sitting or dallying on a lease. I challenge this majority to produce even one, even one lease on even just 1 acre, where a company has a lease and they're not in some stage that Congress created of either producing or exploring on the land. Let alone defying any common sense of any businessman or -woman who puts their money on the line, their capital, they're not going to dissipate capital.

But you will hear the Democrat majority, Madam Speaker, rant and rail that there're somehow dilatory companies out there that are sitting on leases. They haven't produced one, they haven't shown one example that they can parade around this Chamber where a company is not producing on the land. It's just a patently false statement and, in fact, one that shouldn't be used.

I tell you, the real use-it-or-lose-it, Madam Speaker, it's this. When Congressman Heller and I were recently up in ANWR this weekend, we learned a very sobering fact, and the sobering fact is this. Thirty-one years ago, the largest oil field in the United States was up in the North Slope of Alaska, Prudhoe Bay. Today, the largest oil field in the United States remains up in Prudhoe Bay.

This Congress has made a decision not to increase its oil fields. When the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was built in Alaska in the mid seventies, when oil production first began, 2.1 million barrels a day was flowing through that 800 miles of pipeline, 2.1 million barrels a day. Do you know what that is today, Madam Speaker? We are now down to 700,000 barrels a day flowing through that pipeline, 700,000 barrels a day. We have diminished by more than half the amount of oil that we are sending down to the lower 48 from that wonderful energy lifeline in Alaska.

Here's the sobering news, Madam Speaker. We learned this weekend that once we get down to 300,000 barrels a day flowing through that pipeline, the pipeline won't work anymore. This pipeline is a marvel of modern human engineering, a marvel. It's an incredibly valuable asset. I was told this weekend, Madam Speaker, that if we had to rebuild that pipeline today, we could be looking at a $15 billion investment.

What's the window of opportunity that we have? If we don't open up new oil fields, potentially within 10 years' time, that pipeline will be of no use to us because what we were told is, if you don't use it, you lose it.

I thank my colleague for that additional minute.

I just want to conclude by saying this. If you want to talk about a real use-it-or-lose-it, Madam Speaker, you're talking about one of the most valuable resources we have. It is the American energy lifeline that runs through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline that brings the valuable oil down to the lower 48. If we lose this pipeline, and if we lose it on this Democrat-controlled Congress' watch, we will lose our lifeline for any future oil development, which is all the more reason why we need to begin drilling here in the United States so we can buy American energy and buy it now.

If we fast track the permitting, if we pull out all of the unnecessary lawsuits, we could literally within just a few years' time build a 74-mile spur into ANWR, get that oil down to the United States, and increase American energy reserves by 50 percent.

I thank the gentleman for yielding that time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Miss Rachel Finkbeiner, a high school student from Ramsey, Minnesota, who has been recognized as a statewide winner in the Library of Congress' 2008 Letters About Literature competition.

Letters About Literature is a reading and writing program sponsored by the Library of Congress Center for the Book in partnership with Target Stores. It challenges young readers to write a personal letter to an author detailing how that author's work changed the reader's view of the world or view of him or herself. More than 59,000 children in grades 4 through 12 participated this year and only 150 were recognized as leaders on the state or national level.

Rachel wrote to noted American author F. Scott Fitzgerald about her experience in reading The Great Gatsby. A tenth-grader at Elk River High School, Rachel showed a great maturity in her writing. As she says in her letter:

Reading The Great Gatsby opened my eyes on what wealth

really is. Even though rich people might see the scratches on

their Porsche convertibles, and the flaws in their fancy

hotels in Mexico, they seem to miss the real joy of living.

Money was the one thing I wanted in my perfect life. After

reading The Great Gatsby, my view of perfect life has

changed. My dream life would be having a loving family, being

thankful I get to watch a T.V. show on a scratchy black and

white television, being relieved of living right above my

store without the stress of commuting to work and able to

look forward to a sunny day tomorrow so I could dry my

laundry outside. While I may never know what the perfect life

really is, I'd like to thank you Mr. Fitzgerald for showing

me that in my perfect life--money should come last.

Rachel is one of Elk River's star volleyball players and clearly has a strong academic career ahead of her as well. We in Minnesota's Sixth District are proud of her accomplishments and look forward to many great things from Rachel in years to come.