Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, our Nation is confronted by a serious financial crisis. The President and Congress were right to act with all deliberate speed, and I am confident every Member of this body is motivated by the best interests of this country.

It should be said that Republican leaders and my colleagues worked hard to improve this bill. They removed outrageous subsidies, and today the bank deposits of Americans are safer and the balance sheet of their local bank is more secure because of Republican leadership.

But even with these important improvements, this legislation remains the largest corporate bailout in American history. It forever changes the relationship between government and the financial sector and passes the cost along to the American people.

The sad part is, Madam Speaker, there are no easy answers, but there were alternatives. House Republicans offered an insurance program that would have required Wall Street, not Main Street, to pay for the cost of this recovery, and fast-acting tax relief to strengthen our economy from within.

Teddy Roosevelt said, ``An American must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs.''

With this bill, we place upon the American public a responsibility which is not theirs, bailing out financial institutions after they made irresponsible decisions. This we should not do.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act and urge my colleagues respectfully to oppose it.

Our Nation has been confronted by a crisis in our financial markets. The President and this Congress are right to act with all deliberate speed in addressing this crisis. We now have a bill that promises to bring near-term stability to our financial turmoil, but at what price?

Benjamin Franklin in 1759 said, ``They that can give up liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.''

Economic freedom means the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. The decision to give the Federal Government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupts this basic truth of our free market economy.

It must be said that Republicans in this Congress improved this bill. But it remains, in my judgment, the largest corporate bailout in American history, forever changes the relationship between government and the financial sector, and passes the cost along to the American people. And I cannot support it.

There are no easy answers, but the American people deserve to know there are alternatives to massive Federal spending. The Bush administration and this Congress have acted quickly, but ignored free market solutions to this crisis. The House Republican plan, as a solid alternative, would have set up an FDIC-style mandatory insurance program in which Wall Street firms would have paid to insure their mortgage-backed securities. Doing so would have made Wall Street pay the cost of this rescue instead of Main Street. And while there is an option for an insurance plan in this bill, it falls far short of the substitute that Republicans desired.

The House Republican plan would have injected liquidity into our markets through fast-acting tax strategies, releasing the economic power inherent in the American economy. Temporarily reducing the repatriation tax, as we did in 2005, would have brought hundreds of millions of dollars back into this economy. And there were other business deductions that would help the financial sector get back on its feet. There were alternatives.

So I say to my colleagues: before you vote, ask yourselves why you came here, and vote with courage and integrity to those principles. If, like me, you came here because you believe in limited government and the freedom of the American marketplace, I urge you vote in accordance with your convictions.

Duty is ours; outcomes belong to God. The American people and our posterity deserve to know that there were men and women in this Congress who opposed the leviathan state in this hour. If you do this, I promise you, I will stand with you. And I believe with all my heart, the American people will stand with you as well. Stand up for limited government and economic freedom. Stand up for the American taxpayer. Reject this bailout and vote

``no'' on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.

Mr. Speaker, our financial markets are in turmoil. The administration was right to call for decisive action to prevent further harm to our economy, but nationalizing every bad mortgage in America is not the answer.

This administration's request of this Congress amounts to the largest corporate bailout in American history. I believe Congress should act, but we should act in a way that protects the integrity of our free market and protects the American taxpayer from more debt and higher taxes.

The strength of America resides in our faith in God and our faith in freedom, including our economic freedom. To have the freedom to succeed, we must also have the freedom to fail, and any solution to the present crisis must preserve that essential economic liberty.

The next Congress should also consider all available options to put our Nation's economy back on its feet. There are no easy answers, but there are alternatives that this Congress can consider. Indexing capital gains to inflation, passing a real energy bill, even regulating the credit default market, as the chief of the SEC requested yesterday, these and other alternatives to a massive Federal bailout must be fully considered and debated before Congress acts.

We must address this crisis with forethought and creativity rather than massive Federal resources.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Let me say I rise in support of H.R. 6229, honoring the life and the work and memory of Mayor William ``Bill'' Sandberg of St. Paul, Minnesota. I believe, given the tenure of his career and the durability of his reputation, we can assume in both parties that Mayor Sandberg was a man at the local level that attended himself to what people were really dealing with and he provided leadership.

And it is about just that focus that I also wanted to rise, Mr. Speaker, today. Because I rise this afternoon, I think with millions of Americans, simply to express my frustration, that after only one day of debate, late in the night last night, this Congress again failed to pass a bipartisan bill that would set us on a course for energy independence in the 21st century.

I must tell you that it was equally frustrating today to awaken and see headlines around the country that say ``Congress eases restrictions on drilling.'' But I don't want to be critical of my friends in the Fourth Estate. This bill was revealed to the world 24 hours before it was voted. It was written in the back rooms here in the Capitol, not considered by committees, but brought to the floor abruptly the night before last and just as abruptly voted without amendment or without serious consideration in the Congress. So I won't fault members of the media, who didn't understand that the drill-nothing Democrat Congress actually only moved to a position that was the drill-almost-nothing Democrat Congress.

But this legislation, despite the headlines, is a story worth telling. For the past 20 months, until last week, the Democrat majority in Congress made one thing more clear than anything else; there would never be a vote on more domestic drilling in America. Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeated her personal and historic opposition to drilling and said that she would never permit a vote. And they adjourned on August 1, turned off the cameras and turned off the lights.

But Republicans refused to leave. We held this floor during the entirety of the August recess, and during that time the Democrat majority changed their position. In a very real sense, millions of Americans contacted their Members of Congress and said we want more access to American oil. We want Congress to come together and compromise on conservation, fuel efficiency, solar, wind, nuclear, an all-of-the-above strategy. But we want a bill that allows us to drill into our domestic resources. And, to their credit, the Democratic majority relented in their historic opposition to drilling.

But the bill that came to the floor abruptly and was just as abruptly passed last night failed in many counts. Not only did it bring with it an enormous tax increase, not only did it bring with it no opportunity for new refineries, no opportunity for nuclear energy development and other powerful alternatives, but also this bill truly brought with it very little, if any, opportunity to drill into our own domestic reserves.

The bill seems to allow drilling, but not within 50 miles of shore. Most experts say that 88 percent of our domestic reserves are within 50 miles of the shoreline of the east coast and the west coast and the eastern Gulf. Beyond that, the Democrat bill that passed last night would allow drilling, but only if States vote by referendum or in their legislature to permit the drilling.

That sounds reasonable enough. But what is not reasonable is the Democratic bill, unlike current law for Gulf States that allow drilling, the Democratic bill offered States no revenue whatsoever. So people in South Carolina, people in California, would presumably have to decide for themselves or their elected representatives decide to allow drilling off of their shore if it meant nothing financially to their State coffers.

Also there was a failure to provide any streamlined judicial review or litigation reform, leaving any drilling that would be allowed beyond the 50 mile limit to be tied up immediately in court, as hundreds and hundreds of leases are tied up today.

So that is why I say, and I attempt to be intellectually honest about this, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority did move on their energy policy about drilling. They went from a drill-nothing Democrat Congress to a drill-almost-nothing Democratic Congress.

And last night, most sadly, they passed on an opportunity that some 40 Democrats had been working tirelessly to develop, legislation coauthored by Congressman Abercrombie and Congressman Peterson that is a truly bipartisan solution. I was a cosponsor of the bill myself. Dozens upon dozens of Republicans joined us in the bill, as well as I believe 40 Democrat Members of Congress.

When it came time for the Republicans to offer their alternative, quite frankly, we could have played some sort of a game, but we think that the American people are struggling under the weight of record gasoline prices. Families are hurting, seniors are hurting, and this was not time for political posturing or games. So we brought the bipartisan bill to the floor as our alternative.

Strangely, unless I can be corrected, only 13 of the Democrats out of the some 40 who cosponsored the bill voted for it. It was a true bipartisan bill that had been fashioned through tough bipartisan negotiation over months of time, and it was rejected by many of the same Democrats who had worked to build the legislation.

We missed an opportunity last night, Mr. Speaker, to truly do something for the American people, to do something, as Daniel Webster says on words on these walls, to do something worthy to be remembered.

So I rise today to pay sincere tribute to Mayor William ``Bill'' Sandberg. I am confident that this tribute on this Post Office is altogether fitting.

But I also rise to just simply express my frustration that, at a time when we hear about one bailout after another, this Democrat majority passed an energy bill last night that Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu even said was ``dead on arrival in the Senate.'' We accomplished nothing to set this Nation on a course of energy independence.

So our message is very simple: We are not going away. We are going to fight on this floor in every moment that we have left, in the waning days of this Congress and in the weeks preceding our national election, to demand that this Congress roll our sleeves up and seek that bipartisan consensus that does exist.

Let me say from my heart, I truly believe that there is a bipartisan majority in this Congress that would say yes to conservation, yes to fuel efficiency, yes to solar, wind and nuclear, and would say yes to a substantial increase in domestic drilling that was real and significant and would lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

So Republicans are going to stay in this fight. Bailouts for corporate America, but no relief for our citizens struggling under the record weight of gasoline prices is not acceptable to Republicans in this Congress. We will stay on this floor. We will continue in this fight. We are not going away until the American people have a bipartisan strategy that sets us on a short-term course to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and on a long-term course for energy independence in the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are hurting. They are struggling under the weight of record gasoline prices, and in that cause Republicans have been fighting for a comprehensive energy bill that includes more drilling. Three-quarters of Americans agree with us.

Just last week, the drill-nothing Democrat Congress announced they are going to bring an energy bill to the floor that includes more drilling. And now they say Republicans have to take ``yes'' for an answer.

Well, I would suggest to my countrymen, Mr. Speaker, that they look at the fine print. The drill-nothing Congress has brought a bill that actually includes basically drill-nothing provisions. They say ``yes'' to drilling, but not in Alaska, not in the eastern gulf, and not within 50 miles.

They say ``yes'' to drilling, but States can decide, even though they get absolutely no revenues for choosing to drill. I guess States are going to just allow drilling out of the goodness of their hearts.

They say ``yes'' to drilling, but litigation rules will allow environmental lawyers to tie up all leases from the very day they are filed.

I say to my House Democrat colleagues from my heart, on behalf of our constituents who are struggling under record gasoline prices, end this charade. Stop playing politics with America's energy independence. Bring us a full and fair debate to this floor and you will see a bipartisan result.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that every Member who has not spoken be allowed to address the House for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas for his leadership and for yielding this time.

And I rise to oppose this rule. I support the Childers amendment in the form of a substitute. I am left to wonder, as I'm sure any of our countrymen looking in are wondering why, after only learning of the Democrat's energy bill last night at 9:45 on the House, we have taken some sort of a timeout from a contentious, and I thought, substantive debate on the Democrat energy bill that will be brought up, I assume, within an hour.

The Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled on this issue. I understand there is some disagreement in the Democrat majority over how it's to be handled from a funding standpoint, but what I don't understand is the timing.

Mr. Speaker, to be honest with you, I look across this aisle, I see men and women that I respect deeply and with whom I have worked on issues, sometimes in nontraditional ways. And so I would not accuse my colleagues that are here on the floor doing their duty of any ill motive. But I have to wonder about a Democrat majority that introduces this discussion about gun control on the one and only day that they are going to permit us to debate their energy bill.

And I think the American people are entitled to know, Mr. Speaker, the Democrat Party in the Congress, after spending the last 20 months telling their constituency and the American people that there would never be a vote allowed on this floor that would permit more domestic drilling, abruptly announced last week that they were going to bring an energy bill to the floor with drilling.

Now for those of us who have been clamoring for a comprehensive energy bill that included more drilling, more conservation, more fuel efficiency, solar, wind, nuclear, this was welcome news. And imagine how anxious we were late last week to wait for the Democrat bill to be filed, assuming we would have the weekend to examine it.

And as we waited throughout the first day of the week yesterday, it wasn't until 9:45 last night that a 290-page bill was filed on this floor. And we found that the drill-nothing Congress has introduced legislation that is essentially a drill-almost-nothing bill; and I want to speak about that in the very limited time that we have.

So while I oppose the rule, I want to speak about what is bearing upon the American people, bearing upon American families and school systems and seniors, and that is the unbridled and unprecedented weight of the cost of energy in America.

As Wall Street reels from another financial crisis, as we hear unemployment numbers that are heartbreaking to real working Americans, most Americans know the high cost of energy is costing American jobs.

And so on the one day that the Democrat majority will allow us to debate their comprehensive strategy for energy independence, I want to speak about what the substance of that bill is.

Now, as I said, the drill-nothing Democrat Congress announced they were going to bring this energy bill to the floor. It includes more drilling, and now many of them have said in many corners of the national media that Republicans have to take ``yes'' for an answer. Well, I would suggest to my countrymen, before you sign a contract, read the fine print.

The fine print of this contract is profoundly disappointing to those of us that were looking to give the bipartisan majority of this Congress that supports a comprehensive energy strategy, that includes a real access to America's domestic reserves, a fair up-or-down vote.

The drill-nothing Democratic Congress is essentially, as I said, a basically drill-almost-nothing. Here's some examples. They say ``yes'' to drilling in their bill but not in Alaska, not in the eastern gulf and not within 50 miles of our country.

They say ``yes'' to drilling in the bill, but they say States can decide on whether we drill off their coasts, but we will give the States no revenues whatsoever for allowing us to drill. The Governor of a coastal State was on the floor of the Congress today. When I said, ``What's the likelihood that your State will permit drilling if we offer your State legislature no revenues from the drilling in your waters?'' And he only laughed out loud.

I assume that the Democrat majority, in saying that unlike the Gulf States that get some 39 percent of the revenues that are drilled in their waters under existing agreements, I assume the Democrat majority believes that States will opt in to drilling out of the goodness of their hearts, out of their patriotism. Maybe not.

They say ``yes'' to drilling, but the lack of litigation reform will allow environmental lawyers to swarm over any new leases, even those that are permitted more than 50 miles out, and they'll be tied up in court for years before a single drop is pumped.

In their legislation, there's a renewable mandate that literally could cause electrical rates between now and 2012 to skyrocket on working Americans. There's no commitment to increasing our refinery capacity. There's huge tax increases on oil companies. As I've asked before to my citizens in Indiana, ``Who among you thinks by raising taxes on oil companies you're going to lower the price of gasoline at the pump?'' That's usually a laugh out loud moment in town hall meetings. That's what passes for the Democrat bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I say to my Democrat colleagues, many of whom I respect deeply and with whom I work on a broad range of issues, on behalf of our constituents that are struggling under the weight of record gasoline prices, don't do this. Don't do it this way. This Congress is better than that.

We have a bipartisan majority in this Congress, including some men and women that I am looking at right now, who, if given the opportunity, would come together in a bipartisan way and pass legislation that said ``yes'' to more real drilling, but also ``yes'' to conservation, ``yes'' to fuel efficiency, ``yes'' to solar and wind and nuclear. But we can't say ``yes'' with a backroom deal brought to the floor of the Congress, given one day of debate, no amendments, and jammed through the American people.

Let's end the charade. Let's stop playing politics with American energy independence. Let this Congress work its will, and we will come together on a strategy that works for all of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Democrat energy bill, the Comprehensive American Energy Act.

I have enormous respect for the gentleman from Maryland. This is a serious issue. The American people are hurting. Gasoline prices in eastern Indiana in 6 hours on Saturday went from $3.79 a gallon to $4.29 a gallon. They expect this Congress to come together. Where I respectfully disagree with my colleague from Maryland is this is a serious issue, but this is not a serious proposal.

A serious proposal is considered in committees. A serious proposal is the subject of hearings. A serious proposal is the subject of more than a half a day of debate on this floor. A serious proposal gives consideration to all the Members of this Congress through the amendment process.

The truth of the matter is this Congress is coming to this point, because after 20 months of the Democrat majority refusing to bring a vote to the floor to allow more domestic drilling, House Republicans took this floor in the month of August, and we held it. We demanded an energy bill, a comprehensive bill that said ``yes'' to fuel efficiency, ``yes'' to conservation, ``yes'' to solar, wind, and nuclear, and, ``yes'' to more domestic drilling.

The Democratic majority, the drill-nothing Congress, cried ``uncle,'' and it brings us to this day. But I would suggest to my countrymen, as you hear again and again, that Republicans are refusing to take yes for an answer. Read the fine print.

Reality is that this is no longer a drill-nothing Congress; it's a drill almost-nothing Congress. They say ``yes'' to drilling in this bill, but not in Alaska, not in the eastern coast and not within 50 miles. They say ``yes'' to drilling, but States can decide whether we do it or not, and they won't get a single penny from revenues for allowing drilling off their shores. I guess we are just going to rely on the goodness of our States' hearts to open up their shorelines to more drilling.

They say ``yes'' to drilling, but litigation rules will allow environmental lawyers to tie up the leases from the very day they are filed. I say to my House Democrat colleagues, from my heart, don't do this.

Daniel Webster said it a century ago, and it's chiseled on the wall. Let us develop the resources of our land and call forth its power, and let us do something worthy to be remembered.

We can do better than this. We can pass a bipartisan comprehensive energy bill, and I urge my colleagues to do that.

Madam Speaker, I was shocked and deeply saddened to learn of the passing of my friend and mentor, J. Patrick Rooney. Pat Rooney was a man who had a head for business and a heart for ``the least of these.'' Pat Rooney was an inspiring leader, a good friend and a great man.

In addition to building one of the most successful business careers in Indiana, Pat Rooney conceived of and tirelessly promoted reform in the areas of education and health care.

He will always be remembered for having launched the first privately funded educational choice program in America, an idea that has been replicated in dozens of cities across America to the benefit of tens of thousands of underprivileged children.

He will also be remembered as the father of the Health Savings Account, the leading free-market reform to the current crisis of the uninsured in America. His unshakeable belief in the ability of the individual to make their own health care choices has shaped the American health care debate for the past decade.

I will miss my friend and mentor Pat Rooney on a very personal level. His ability to challenge and encourage those of us who knew him well was unique among his peers, and I will miss him greatly.

May God bless the life and memory of J. Patrick Rooney.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6503, the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program Reauthorization of 2008, and I would ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of the time on our side to a member of our conference who, while not a member of the Judiciary Committee of the House, Congressman Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania is a man who possesses a Ph.D. in psychology, has a deep personal interest and background in this area and it seems to us to be altogether fitting if he'd carry our support for this important and bipartisan legislation.

So by unanimous consent, I would like to yield the balance of our time to Mr. Murphy to carry that legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I will be joined this evening on the floor by a number of distinguished colleagues, and we're going to take the opportunity on what we believe, Mr. Speaker, is the eve of a historic debate on energy legislation in the House of Representatives, to talk about the issue that is most bearing upon the American family. It is most bearing upon American business. It is most bearing upon our schools and our seniors and our standard of living, and that is, the high cost of fuel and gasoline.

The American people are hurting, and Republicans here on the House floor are delighted that this Congress is back in session, that the lights are back on and the cameras are back on because, all through the month of August, while the House Democrats took a 5-week paid vacation, Republicans stayed here because we simply believe that there's no issue of greater import to working Americans, small business owners or family farmers than the cost of gasoline and the high price of oil.

I will say to you that the disappointing economic news in August, Mr. Speaker, can be explained with one phrase: The high cost of energy is costing American jobs, and the American people know this.

As I traveled the four corners of my eastern Indiana district this past weekend, I did not hear about the bowling scores of Presidential candidates. I didn't even hear about lipstick very much. But I heard one Hoosier after another saying to me, please, get Congress to do something real about lessening our dependence on foreign oil and lowering the price of gasoline at the pump. And that's why we're here tonight, to talk about this issue.

It's an issue on the front page of my hometown newspaper, the largest newspaper in my district, I should say, the Muncie Star Press. After Ike hit shore, gasoline prices went to $4.29 a gallon. In parts of my district, they were reported to be well over $5 a gallon in the Midwest.

The headline tells the tale: Hoosiers are helpless. Millions of American people are helpless, Mr. Speaker, as they see a Congress that has over the last two years of this Democrat majority twiddled its thumbs while gasoline prices rose and rose and rose, and then they took their 5-week paid vacation.

But as I said, Republicans never left. As newspapers reported and radio reported all throughout the course of this summer, we stayed on this floor even though the lights were dimmed and the microphones were off, and we kept demanding that Speaker Nancy Pelosi would bring this Congress back into session and would bring a bill to the floor of this House that would give the American people more access to our own domestic reserves through drilling and include all of the other strategies long-term energy independence, more conservation, more fuel efficiency, solar, wind, nuclear.

A lot of people are looking at Congress this week with the word that we're going to be debating an energy bill that newspapers are reporting includes drilling and they're saying,

Mike, what's your problem? It seems to me you were one of those people arguing in the dimmed lights of the House Chamber for the whole month of August, demanding that Congress come back. They came back. Demanding that they bring an energy bill to the floor with drilling. And it looks like they are.

Well, I want to say, Mr. Speaker, to you and anyone looking in, it only looks that way. The energy legislation that will be brought to this floor, according to the best information we have, will do virtually nothing to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. If they have their way and take them at their word, it will still leave more than 80 percent of our domestic reserves forever off limits.

Now, we are going to gather tonight with some of the most distinguished and eloquent voices in the House Republican caucus to talk about this bill, to talk about the Democrat energy bill.

But I want to frame this debate, because as near as we can tell, Mr. Speaker, the Democrat majority's going to file a bill tonight with this 21st century energy crisis underway that sounds like they're going to debate for a whole day, maybe a day and a half, and then we're being told we'll be voting by the middle of the week.

Now, I don't want to get lost in the weeds of boring the American people who are looking on tonight with talking about subcommittees and committees and things we call markups, but the American people deserve to know that this bill, if it's filed tonight, we're being told the Democratic energy bill hasn't been written in any committee by people elected by the people of the United States of America. It hasn't been written in any normal process. It's been written in the back rooms of the Speaker's office.

Ironically, in the middle of August this year, as many of us were clamoring on this House floor with the lights dimmed, calling on the Democrat majority to come back and debate energy, we learned that an environmental group known as the Sierra Club had endorsed their bill. Well, we'd never seen the bill. In fact, we still haven't seen the bill. But it's coming.

And so what we are going to do tonight is we're going to do our level best to use the franchises that we have on this floor to inform the American people about what's going on here, and I'm going to use, Mr. Speaker, the Whip Pack that's put out by the office of the distinguished majority whip, the Honorable James E. Clyburn, and it's about five or six pages of, you know, what people in the political business call talking points about the Democrat legislation.

And let me be clear, I know I and the distinguished legislators on the floor tonight, we would love to be debating the bill but we don't have it. The Democrat majority is about to bring an energy bill that they're calling the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act, and the title of the bill is all I really know at this point. It will likely be hundreds, if not thousands, of pages long, but we'll talk about the talking points tonight.

But I want to make two points before I yield to my colleagues. Number one, the American people deserve to know that the Democrats have made rhetorical progress in this battle. The truth is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a San Francisco liberal Democrat and a distinguished Member of this body, who I respect as a person, has been accurately described in the media as a zealous opponent of offshore drilling since the 1980s.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco has, like many liberals in California, been an ardent opponent of offshore drilling throughout her public career and was an ardent opponent of even taking a vote on offshore drilling until I think last week.

Let me give you the tale of the tape here. As recently as July 11, Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the New York Times, ``This call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax.'' She said, ``It's an absolute hoax.'' This is this last July. Speaker of the House said, and I quote her with respect, ``It's an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this Bush administration.''

In an interview on July 17 on CNN, an interview with Wolf Blitzer, he said, ``So let me get--will you allow the issue, offshore oil drilling, to come up for a vote on the floor of the House?''

Speaker Pelosi, ``We're going to exhaust other remedies in terms of increasing supply in America . . .''

Wolf Blitzer, ``So the answer is no?''

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, ``I have no plans to do so.''

In fact, many of us remember on August 3, a couple of days after that Congress adjourned for a 5-week paid vacation, a memorable and, in my opinion, a workmanlike journalistic job by George Stephanopoulos on ABC's ``This Week'' Sunday morning program where he must have asked Speaker Pelosi five different times whether she would ever allow a vote on drilling. And she said no about as we say south of highway 46, different ways from Sunday, no, no, no, no.

In other settings, Speaker Pelosi, has said, and I quote that she's, quote, trying to save the planet, presuming that allowing the American people to environmentally, responsibly take advantage of our own natural resources on the Outer Continental Shelf in the gulf or in Alaska would endanger the earth.

And let me say, that's entirely her right to hold that view. It's just not the view of the overwhelming majority of the American people, and it is certainly not the view of the majority of the Members elected to Congress. All the Republicans and many Democrats are prepared today to vote to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling that's been in place for decades.

So I guess that my first point to make today, Mr. Speaker, to you and those looking on is, is first and foremost, let's understand our context here, that throughout the course of this newly minted Democrat majority, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made it crystal clear until very recently that she was categorically opposed to this Congress ever voting on drilling. I think we ought to evaluate the Democratic proposal in the context of her sincerely held views up to a week ago.

And I would say with that, allowing for a belief in the sincerity of all of my colleagues, I think we ought to trust, but verify. I think we ought to look at the detail. Someone who has been, throughout her public career, a vociferous opponent of offshore drilling now allowing what we're being told is a bill that would allow offshore drilling, you know, we probably ought to read the fine print. And that's what we're going to try to do tonight. I can assure my countrymen who may be looking on, we will be trying to do that in the whole day we will be debating this energy proposal. A day.

You know, I worked on legislation that passed the House this year by 398 votes, a bipartisan measure; I have currently been working on it for 4 years. It has been debated through committees, it has been debated through the House, it has been considered in the Senate. And that's pretty typical in legislation. But this bill is going to be introduced tonight, and we may debate it for a day.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Reclaiming my time, and I thank the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from Georgia. And in the few minutes that I'm going to take before I yield to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, if anyone senses a bit of incredulity in our voices, it is borne of profound frustration, the profound frustration that the American people are hurting. And they don't want backroom deals coming to the floor of this Congress; they want a fair and open debate that lets the Congress work its will and develop a bipartisan strategy that achieves energy independence in the 21st century. We cannot do that in 24 hours. We cannot do that with backroom deals that are done in the dead of night with no amendments allowed on the floor, one-size-fits-all. That smacks more of politics than the kind of bipartisan accomplishment that the American people expect from the people's House.

Now let me give a few details about what we know about the bill that has not yet even been filed in the Congress and could be voted on the day after tomorrow.

The Democrat energy bill. Let me just give you 10 ways the Democrat energy bill fails the American people.

The Democrats' energy bill, number one, permanently locks up 80 percent of American oil reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf; 80 percent. If it passes intact, 80 percent of our reserves will be off limits forever.

Number two, the Democrats' ``no energy'' bill, as we know it now, permanently locks up more than a trillion barrels of oil from oil shale in the inner mountain West.

Number three, the Democrats' ``no energy'' bill permanently locks up more than 10 billion barrels of oil on Alaska's remote North Slope, an area where energy production and wildlife have been safely coexisting for decades.

Number four, the Democrats' ``no energy'' bill blocks more nuclear power production, efficient, less costly production than nations like France have been using for decades.

Number five, the Democrats' ``no energy'' bill does nothing to construct new clean coal energy production.

Six, there is an enormous tax increase in the Democrat energy bill, something they've been talking about ever since they took over the Congress, raising taxes on oil companies. Well, after the holocaust that struck with Hurricane Ike and Hurricane Gustav and Katrina a few years hence, the American people know we need more refineries in this country.

Congress passed tax breaks for oil companies to encourage the construction of more refineries, and they want to repeal those breaks and now raise taxes more. I've got to tell you, the biggest laugh line I have in eastern Indiana is when I look at people at town hall meetings and at town squares and I say, who among you thinks that by raising taxes on oil companies you will lessen the price of gasoline at the pump? It's a laugh-out-loud line, but it's what passes for the Democrats' energy policy.

Quickly then. The Democrats' ``no energy'' bill, as we know it, permanently prevents Federal agencies from using alternative sources of fuel. It increases electricity costs on families, seniors and small businesses through new heavy-handed electricity mandates. It includes plans for exactly zero new refineries as I mentioned before. And it ultimately defies the will of the American people who want this Congress to work together, who want this Congress to take an up-or-down vote on lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling, who want this Congress to bring all-of-the-above strategies--wind, solar, nuclear-- and vote them up or down. But instead, we get a backroom deal, brought, soon to be, I assume, in the dead of night with no opportunity or meaningful opportunity for debate or amendment.

With that, I'm pleased to yield to the Policy chairman of the Republican Conference. Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan is a colleague who spent more time on this floor during the August recess than any single Member of Congress. And I yield to him to speak about this legislation and its flaws.

I thank the Policy Committee chairman for his remarks.

I am informed, Mr. Speaker, that I stand corrected; that the legislation that I said had not been filed was filed during my opening remarks. And so anyone looking in should be aware that at 9:45 p.m. Eastern tonight, or thereabouts, the Democrat majority's plan for achieving energy independence in the 21st century was filed. We do not know the contents of the bill; we do not know the length of the bill. We are attempting to receive a copy of it and will attempt to report on that as much as we can before we adjourn tonight.

The Secretary of the Republican Conference, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, John Carter, is recognized for 5 minutes.

Thank you, Congressman Carter.

The gentleman from Texas just made reference to what I have in my hand, which is the bill, Mr. Speaker. It was filed just a few short moments ago. We will be debating it tomorrow because what is known as the Rules Committee is meeting tonight to outline the parameters of debate. And it looks like some of us are going to be up late. It's 290 pages. And for those who might be looking in, you're looking realtime at what passes for legislating in the Democrat majority in Congress. It's 290 pages filed tonight. And we're voting on it tomorrow. And I assume the committee is meeting tonight and can move quickly because there will be apparently no, if any, amendments allowed.

Now let me say before I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona on this issue, when I said earlier that this legislation locks off permanently 80 percent of our domestic oil and natural gas reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf, let me explain that to you because I have confirmed it now in the bill. This bill permits leasing and drilling for oil between 50 and 100 miles if States opt in. Of course it offers absolutely no revenues to the States for opting in the way that current law does with States along the gulf coast and the way that the Republican bill offers States, I think 39 percent of revenues go to States. And 10 percent goes to the Federal Government in the Republican bill, and then 50 percent of the revenue goes into developing new alternative energy strategies. But when I say that it permanently locks it off, there is no drilling here permitted between the current 3-mile threshold and 50 miles. None whatsoever. It's banned permanently.

And to give you an idea of what kind of resources we're talking about, eastern seaboard 3.8 billion barrels estimated, 3.7 billion in the eastern gulf of Mexico, 11 billion barrels in the Pacific coast. And most experts say most of it's between 3 and 50 miles. The Speaker of the House called plans to drill a hoax. And I'm not in the name- calling business, but the American people should know that this so- called energy bill which includes so-called drilling actually bans the American people from the overwhelming majority of our domestic reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf forever.

Let me yield to the gentleman from Arizona, John Shadegg, for 5 minutes.

I would speculate 748.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his extraordinary insight on this issue. It really does beg the question, Mr. Speaker, for anybody looking in. This is the Democrat energy bill. It was filed we think about 30 minutes ago. It is 290 pages long, so I can't speak with authority about what is in it, because I haven't had a chance to read it.

But what we know is not in it is any expedited litigation reform that would prevent environmental organizations or radical, leftist groups from tying up our domestic oil reserves in the courts,

as they are doing in existing leasing areas. Also what is not in it is any revenues at all to drill in that 50 miles out to 100 miles out.

Mr. Speaker, if you think we are suggesting that that is more important than it really is, I would quote to you Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu, who in her hometown newspaper this weekend urged House Democrats to oppose the House Democrat bill. Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu said because the bill offered the States no money to drill off their shores, that it was ``dead on arrival in the Senate.'' She said, ``It most certainly won't see the light of day in the Senate.''

So as I prepare to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota, no one wants to see a bipartisan compromise on comprehensive energy legislation more than me.

I spent a good chunk of my August recess talking in a darkened chamber. I would love to see the Congress come together this week and figure it out and share all the credit. But it has to be a serious effort to say yes to solar, yes to wind, yes to nuclear, yes to conservation, and it has to be a serious effort to say yes to giving the American people more access to American oil. And when one hears the gentleman from Arizona and one hears people like the Democrat Senator from Louisiana, one comes to the conclusion this is not a serious effort to give the American people more access to American oil.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, Michele Bachmann.

I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota, and would recognize the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Virginia Foxx, one of the most passionate, eloquent advocates of American energy independence in the Congress.

I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for her passion and candor.

If I can yield to each of our last two speakers, then we will be able to clear the baffles. I think those that might be looking in, Mr. Speaker, can sense the frustration, not of the opposite political party, not of a frustrated minority, but what you are hearing here is the frustration of public men and women that know the American people are hurting. Seniors, small business owners, family farmers, school systems are struggling under the weight of record gasoline and diesel prices, and we ought not to be on this floor playing politics with this issue. We ought to be compromising. We ought to throw open the windows, open the blinds, have the debate, take the votes and let the cards fall where they may. That is mostly certainly not what is happening this week.

I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Burgess.

I thank the gentleman from Texas very much for those thoughtful insights.

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) is recognized for 1 minute.

I thank the gentleman for Georgia and all my colleagues who are here and those that offered to come here.

I just say from my heart, and I have been passionate on the floor tonight, but it's a passion that is borne of a desire to solve this problem.

But seeing a bill 290 pages long dropped on to the floor of this Congress less than 24 hours before it is to be debated does not represent a serious effort to bring about bipartisan compromise in this Congress. My colleagues of goodwill know this.

The truth is the American people want this Congress to come together in an open, fair debate and take and develop a comprehensive energy strategy that says yes to conservation, yes to solar, yes to wind, yes to nuclear, yes to greater fuel efficiently standards, and takes a bipartisan vote to lift the moratorium and let the American people have access to our vast domestic reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf and in Alaska.

Wherever those votes fall, let the cards fall where they may. But that's the process the American people want to see happen, and that is the basis upon which we can build a long-term strategy to achieve American energy independence. We have just begun this battle. It will continue tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, almost 6 weeks ago this House adjourned for a 5-week paid vacation. A year and a half had passed, and the Democrat leadership remained, up to that moment, steadfast on one issue and one issue only--there would never be a vote on the House floor that gave the American people more access to American oil through domestic drilling.

House Republicans refused to go quietly. We held this floor for 5 weeks, demanding that, in the wake of this 21st-century energy crisis, Congress come together in a bipartisan way and develop a comprehensive energy bill that said yes to conservation, yes to alternative sources of energy, and yes to more domestic drilling. And now, although we don't have the language yet, there is word that there is a Democrat bill coming to the floor that includes more domestic drilling.

I rise to commend my Republican colleagues who fought for the right of the American people to debate, having access to their own resources, and I say to my colleagues, bring your bill to the floor. We'll bring our bill to the floor. Make it an open debate. Let us cast the votes, and let us lay forward a blueprint for energy independence in the 21st century as the bipartisan accomplishment of this Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise to thank the Rotary Club of Muncie, Indiana for their invaluable service to the residents of my hometown of Columbus, Indiana following catastrophic flooding that city experienced in early June.

``The Power of One,'' by Tom Farris was published in the Muncie Star Press on August 10, 2008. The article outlines the tremendous support provided by the Muncie Rotary Club and the leadership they provided in the early clean-up efforts. Tom Farris writes:

Often when we think of Rotary relief and assistance

programs, we picture people in need halfway around the globe

or the worldwide eradication of polio. However, the

summertime flooding, which has been labeled a once-in-

several-hundred-years disaster, caused hundreds of millions

of dollars in damages in Indiana and proved that those in

need can be as close as several counties away.

Congressman Mike Pence visited the Muncie Rotary Club on

June 17 to provide an update on what had been going on in

Washington. But since he had been back in Indiana visiting

the flood-ravaged areas of his district, he focused on the

extensive damage he had observed in many parts of eastern

Indiana, especially severe in the Columbus area . . .

While the Congressman spoke to us, a banner in the Indiana

Room at Minnetrista proclaimed the theme ``The Power of

One.'' Within 24 hours, ``The Power of One'' was well

underway to connect the Muncie Rotary Club to flood victims

in Columbus, thanks to Muncie Rotarian Gay Nation, the Club's

then incoming chairman for community service. Gay is well-

known for taking a project and putting her mind and heart

into it for dramatic results. She contacted the Columbus

Sunrise and Noon Rotary Clubs to offer help and by the

following Tuesday, four work trips were planned--July 12, 19,

26 and Aug. 2--so Muncie Rotary Club members could volunteer

to assist in Columbus.

Gay learned bottled water was in great demand, so she

clipped coupons from the Sunday edition of The Star Press,

contacted retailers and Rotary began accepting donations to

purchase water and cleaning supplies. Plus Rotarians began

contacting other organizations to make them aware of the

needs and to connect them to the relief efforts.

Members of the Muncie Rotary Club participating in the

Columbus area flood relief efforts included: Doug Bakken,

Marlin Creasy, Roni Johnson, Gay Nation, Jim Needham, Pat

Garofolo, Lois Rockhill, Bob Gortner, Loyal Cutforth, Leslie

Anderson and Ray Montagno, along with Bill Green, a neighbor

of Gay Nation. Tom Kosar from the Muncie Sunrise Rotary Club

collected funds for the purchase of 28 cases of water.

Columbus Sunrise Rotary Club members assisting with the

relief efforts included: Jodi Engelstad (president), Charles

Dewey, Mike Ferree, Paula Ferree, Don Harvey, Cindy Greene,

Owen Hungerford, Lyn Morgan, Kara Steele, Celeste Racette,

Jill Shedd, Mary Tucker, Lacretia Ulery, Bia Carasco (an

exchange student from Brazil) and David ``Mac'' McCorry,

president of the Columbus Noon Rotary Club.

Additional donors to the project include Muncie Sunrise

Rotary Club, which donated 28 cases of water; Lynette Freeman

of Cardinal Greenway, more 111 gallons of water, plus 28

cases of water and soda; Mary Alice Hatten, CVS store

manager, personally donated two large coolers and 10 cases of

water; K-Mart store manager Joetta Roysden donated three

large coolers and allowed Rotary to purchase 10 cases of

water at a great discount, plus Rotarians donated over $750

to a matching fund to provide a new $3,000 camera for

Columbus Regional Hospital. In total, Rotary delivered 2,280

bottles of water.

Never underestimate ``The Power of One'' in getting people

engaged to assist neighbors in need--or people they don't

even know. Although the flood devastation in the Columbus

area didn't receive great media attention, people were

hurting and the need for help was real. I think Rotary's

Flood Relief Efforts provide a perfect illustration of the

Rotary motto ``Service Above Self.''

I commend each of the individuals mentioned in this article, and extend my deepest gratitude to this dedicated group of volunteers who went out of their way to help fellow Hoosiers in need.