Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we're talking about preserving America, but we need to preserve the economic viability of America, and as long as we're paying $4.10 a gallon, we're not going to be an economically viable Nation. It's going higher and higher.

In the last bill's debate, we talked about monkey bites, shark bites, and there was an accusation of the energy production companies are biting people. But what's biting people in their pocketbooks and their wallets is this high cost of gasoline, high cost of energy.

Until we start dealing with this issue, we're going to continue to have problems in this country. We're going to continue to have economic problems, and it's absolutely critical that we deal with what's on America's mind, and that is energy costs.

As we head into the fall and winter, not too far off, people are going to have a hard time heating their homes. Poor people and retirees are going to have a hard time buying the heating oil.

The problem is the shortage of energy supplies here in America, and until we start making energy supplies more available to the American public, we're going to continue to have higher and higher costs.

We can't just talk about conservation. We can't just talk about solar and wind. We've got to talk about those things certainly, but that's only a minute part of the answer. We've got to develop nuclear energy.

Just below my district, Plant Vogel in Georgia is having a hard time getting permitting for two nuclear reactors. They're being blocked by the radical environmentalists and through the inane permitting process that's going on today. We need to get those reactors online. We need to get oil, coal, gas, propane, all more available so that people can have an economic future that makes sense.

So, as we talk about preserving things, let's preserve our families. Let's preserve our pocketbooks. Let's have money to spend to create a stronger economy. Not focus on these other things, as important as some feel that they may be. But the most important thing to America today is energy and the high cost of energy.

We need to do something about that. We shouldn't go home until we solve the energy problem of America, and we're not doing the American public justice when we continue talking about all these other things except energy. We need to focus on energy. Let's drill for oil. Let's drill now.

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

Madam Speaker, today the Supreme Court made a strong move in support of individual gun rights in their decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Since 1975, the residents of Washington, D.C., have had their second amendment rights to bear arms stolen from them by the D.C. government. The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares that: ``A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.''

Our Founding Fathers knew that without the second amendment, an oppressive government would eventually try to tear away our rights. They could not trust the government to always protect our rights, and so they wrote the second amendment. As James Madison later wrote: ``Who are the best keepers of the people's liberties? The people themselves. The sacred trust can be nowhere so safe as in the hands most interested in preserving it.''

The second amendment protects the fundamental, individual right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms for any lawful purpose. Further, any law infringing on this freedom, including a ban on self-defense and handgun ownership, is blatantly unconstitutional. Every study has shown that gun control is not effective in curbing crime. Rather, these types of restrictions only leave law-abiding citizens more susceptible to criminal attack. Other than law enforcement, only criminals have had handguns in the District of Columbia.

The Supreme Court took a strong step forward today to protect the individual gun rights of Americans, and I applaud them for doing so. As Justice Scalia stated, ``The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.''

Though the Supreme Court's decision does champion the individual right to bear arms, it also allows restrictions based on type, manner of carrying, purpose, sensitive location, and commercial sale of handguns.

Most alarmingly, the Court irrationally envisioned that their holding may completely detach the second amendment right from its purpose. Regarding the purpose of the right, United States General George Washington Stated, ``A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.''

Recognizing an evolving standard that limits the right to weapons to only those ``in common use at the time'' and accepting prohibitions of ``dangerous and unusual'' weapons, the Court gives short shrift to the fact that modern laws, of the very sort it strikes down today, have prevented the common use of ``sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government,'' as George Washington envisioned.

The ruling outrageously claims that, ``the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the purpose and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.'' The truth is that our second amendment right must fit the purpose, and this Court has separated the two. This Court wrongly leaves loopholes for prohibition of weapons that would be necessary for today's militia duty. Militia, at the time of our findings, included every male 18 years of age or older.

I am an avid hunter and outdoorsman and proud owner of numerous firearms. The National Rifle Association, Safari Club International, and Gun Owners of America are just some of the numerous sporting associations that I am a life Member of. A full-body-mounted African lion and Kodiak grizzly bear are just a few of my prized trophies that visitors see when they come to my D.C. office.

I strongly support the Constitution's second amendment right to bear arms and will defend the rights of law-abiding citizens to purchase, use, carry,

and keep firearms. I vigorously oppose all attempts to restrict the second amendment.

I believe that any law, whether at the local, State, or Federal level, which restricts or infringes upon law-abiding citizens' ability to own a firearm is unconstitutional and should be repealed.

The plain language of the Second Amendment clearly indicates that it was written to protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms. I believe, as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, and other founding fathers believed, that the individual right to bear arms is a representation of freedom and independence and I will always defend that right from abusive regulations and licensing.

I thank my good friend for yielding, and I appreciate what you're doing tonight.

Energy is the lifeblood of the American economy. Our economic prosperity is closely tied to the availability of reliable and affordable supplies of energy. Unfortunately, U.S. energy production has grown only 13 percent while energy consumption has increased 30 percent since 1973.

According to AAA, the average American is paying over $4.07 per gallon for gasoline today. Instead of traveling to spend time with loved ones, record gas prices will keep many Americans home this 4th of July weekend.

Skyrocketing gas prices and a risky dependence upon fuel supply by volatile foreign nations highlight our need for an American energy policy that emphasizes production and decreases our reliance upon foreign oil.

Many here in Congress bemoan America's addiction to foreign oil, yet they refuse to allow access to American oil and gas supplies necessary to cure this addiction. America has been blessed with abundant natural resources, and we should not be hesitant to tap into them, especially at a time when energy cost is so high.

We've heard time and time again about how drilling off the coast in the Outer Continental Shelf will harm the environment. This is pure hogwash. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed or damaged literally hundreds of drilling rigs without causing the spill of a single drop. Yet congressional Democrats continue to pander to the far left environmental whackos instead of mending the pains of hardworking Americans.

We cannot even drill for oil or gas 200 miles off our own shore. Meanwhile, communist China and Fidel Castro's communist Cuba are moving forward with plans for drilling for oil and gas only 45 miles off of the shores of Key West. Liberal Democrats have also prevented any access to the billions of barrels of oil located in ANWR.

The entire area of ANWR is larger than the combined areas of five States--Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware--yet the proposed drilling area is equal to one-sixth the size of Dulles Airport here in Washington, D.C.

Development of American oil and gas on these lands will help bring the price down and help break the stranglehold on energy that hostile countries in the Middle East enjoy. And this can be done in an environmentally sound manner and should be immediately implemented.

The environmental groups haven't allowed a new oil refinery to be built in the United States for decades, about 30 years. It does little good to increase our use of domestic supplies of oil when we do not have the refinery capacity to quickly convert it into a useable form, gasoline. Members on both sides of the aisle need to stand up to these fringe groups and implement policies that encourage the construction of new refineries in the United States.

Liberals also suggest mandating ethanol and renewable fuel production and selling it as the answer to America's energy needs. The 2007 ``non- energy'' energy bill, or ``lack of energy'' bill has already proven that the Democratic solution is wrong, dead wrong. Mandating the production of renewable fuels has only led to an increase in world food prices. It is, at best, disingenuous, and at worst, an outright lie to say that renewable fuels can meet America's needs in the near future.

As a good southerner, I love my cornbread and grits. It makes no sense to me to put corn in the tank of my pickup truck.

Energy prices are soaring, and the financial pain that families are feeling at the pump is forcing them to decide what they can and cannot spend. Congressional Democrats act as if they have been living under a rock by continuing to ignore the demands of the American people and refusing to do anything to lower these burdensome prices. Skyrocketing gas prices and a risky dependence on fuel supplied by volatile foreign nations highlight our need for an American energy policy that emphasizes production and decreases our reliance upon Middle Eastern oil.

The United States is the only nation on Earth that forbids development of its own natural resources. Listen to me. Right now America is drilling for ice on Mars; yet we cannot drill for oil in America. That makes no sense. It's idiotic. It's stupid. We must drill on our own lands and we must do it now. We must streamline our oil refinery processes, and we must end our dependence upon Middle Eastern oil.

Our energy prices were not created overnight and will not be solved overnight. Congress must act swiftly to address this growing energy crisis. America's energy policy must make us stronger and less reliant on countries that are hostile to freedom. Passing any so-called energy bill that fails to produce even a single kilowatt of new energy or produce a gallon of gas is not a solution. We must pass legislation that will allow for responsible use of our known American supplies of energy, that reduce excessive and burdensome environmental policies, and that encourage the development of alternative forms of energy. We need to increase nuclear power. It's the only thing that has proven to be incredibly safe. It's a successful source of energy, and it's the only thing that makes sense economically.

I stand ready to fight for this, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Latta, I appreciate your working tonight to bring this issue forward. It's absolutely critical for the American public that we stop this dependence upon Middle Eastern oil. These countries want to destroy us. They hate our freedom. They hate our market system. They hate everything that we stand for. They even hate women. They want to use them as tools. And yet we are funding these countries that want to destroy us. It makes no sense. We have got to develop an energy policy that makes sense economically, environmentally, and makes us not dependent upon these countries that want to destroy us.

I highly commend your effort tonight. I am glad to have joined you tonight, and I look forward to working with you and the rest of the Members.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, I just love you and I appreciate your passion and your fervor in fighting for change in our policy. It's absolutely critical. So I applaud your efforts. I know last week I saw you fighting down here on the floor again for the same issues, and I am at awe of your fervor towards this. But we must end our dependence on foreign oil, and I appreciate both of you as well as Congressman Whitman's participation tonight in this Special Order. Thank you so much, and I just praise God for you and your efforts tonight.

Will the gentleman yield?

I have got a comment and a question. Last week, we heard members of the other party come to this floor and talk over and over again about the oil companies have thousands of acres that they already have leased and that they are not drilling in them. It's my understanding that a lot of this is land that the oil companies just leased up so that they would have the prerogative to be able to do so in the future.

I think this is correct, is that not so?

That is the point that I was just wanting you to bring up, is that all this land that the oil companies have leased over the years, they have temporary leases, that when those leases expire, the land turn back. In fact, I have got a friend, the Dudleys in Athens, Georgia, who lease some land in Alabama to an oil company to drill for gas. They had that lease for a number of years. The oil company never drilled. That lease has expired. So those friends of mine, Randy and Mary Dudley, in Athens, Georgia, today, don't have the lease money coming in as they did. The oil company never drilled there.

That is true all over this country, from what I understand. We just hear from the Democrats over and over again that the oil companies have all this land, but it's land where there's no oil. They just lease it in case that they may be able to find oil or gas. But we know there's oil, we know there's gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. In fact, it's my understanding that only about 15 percent of the land in the Outer Continental Shelf is actually leased, that we could tap into. Is that correct?

Well, in fact we know that there is oil and gas out there; in fact, trillions of cubic feet of gas. Gas, when we burn it, is a very clean fuel. Those who adhere to this global warming hysteria, which I think is a hysteria and not fact; in fact, I am a medical doctor and scientifically I have looked at this issue, and there are many scientists on both sides, a lot that say that global warming that we are experiencing is due to natural causes and not due to an increase in carbon output by man's use. But we have got propane that is produced from the refinery of oil. We could produce that. There are a lot of cars and buses that run on propane.

We have natural gas that, in my home in Watkinsville, Georgia, I have a natural gas hot water heater, natural gas stove that I cook my wild game on when I get home and have the opportunity to cook my game and fish that I love to hunt and fish. But all these are clean sources of energy, and we are just not tapping into those.

I thank you for bringing these things up. We have got so many sources of clean fuels, even if global warming is caused by human causes, which I am one that I don't think there's enough scientific data to prove that fact. There are a lot of scientists that do say that. But certainly tapping into our own gas and oil resources can make us less dependent upon foreign oil, make us less dependent upon those who want to destroy us as a Nation. It's a national security interest for us to tap into those resources that we have here.

As I said a few minutes ago, America is the only Nation in the world that won't tap into and develop its own natural resources. It makes absolutely no sense. It's stunningly stupid, stunningly stupid that we don't do that. Right now, we are drilling for ice on mars, yet we cannot drill for oil in America. I just cannot understand that. It makes no sense.

We are being blocked over and over again by the people on the other side who are pandering to the radical environmentalists. I am a conservationist. I started my political activity coming up here as a volunteer, working on conservation issues. I think it's critical that we develop those oil sources.

I congratulate you on bringing this forward tonight.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the topics of tonight's Special Order speeches.

The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that, ``No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.''

June 23, 2005, marks a very sad day in our Nation's history. Exactly 3 years ago today, five unelected members of the U.S. Supreme Court made one of the most despised rulings in our Nation's history, one of the most egregious, unconstitutional rulings in our Nation's history in its ruling of Kelo v. City of New London.

The courts allowed a small Connecticut town to seize a private home to make way for a riverfront development. This activist decision was an attack on middle-class citizens for the benefit of the rich. There have been no worse interpretations of the intent of the fifth amendment than when the Supreme Court seized a private home for the profit of a private company. Yes, a private company.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, with whom I have disagreed on many of her decisions, was spot on in her dissent when we stated, ``the specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, or any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.''

She added that under the Court's decision in Kelo, ``any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party,'' and ``the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has a license to transfer their property from those with fewer resources, to those with more.

The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.''

So detested was the Supreme Court's 2005 ruling that the small home that became the center of the New London land grab has been moved and restored near the center of town as a constant reminder of the town's injustice. That small, pink home once represented a private home, but now it is a symbol of the evils of an activist court that disregards our constitutional rights.

Our Founding Fathers knew that our liberties were only as secure as our property rights. Property rights are a central institution of Western civilization, yet too often our Nation has violated the basic principles of our Founding Fathers. Federal, State and local governments continue to ignore, neglect, disparage and even fail to understand the importance of property rights.

Today I am pleased to introduce a resolution defending private property rights. This resolution in a very clear manner reflects the intent of our Founding Fathers when they listed private property rights as untouchable by government power. By placing property rights in the fifth amendment to the Constitution, the Founders made the protection of private property a primary aim of the American government. There is no provision in Article I, Section 8, or anywhere else in the Constitution, that allows the unnecessary, predatory seizure of private land.

On this, the third anniversary of one of the Supreme Court's most infamous decisions, I am proud to join property rights advocates all over America in renewing our protest against judicial activism. I applaud the many States that have passed legislation to limit their power to eminent domain and the supreme courts of many States that have barred the practice under their State constitution. I applaud the courage of Susette Kelo and other victims of eminent domain abuse who have stood up to their government and fought for their constitutional rights.

As John Dickinson, signer of the Constitution stated: ``Let these truths be indelibly impressed on our minds: (1) that we cannot be happy without being free; (2) that we cannot be free without being secure in our property; and (3) that we cannot be secure in our property if, without our consent, others may as by right take it away.''

Private property rights are critical for freedom, and we need to fight for private property rights.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 47 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, June 24, 2008, at 9 a.m., for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a re-vote on the Davis of Virginia amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, our Founding Fathers did not establish Congress to level society or to endlessly take money out of the pockets of people, and they were very clear on that point. According to Thomas Jefferson, ``Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.''

James Madison went even further. He wrote, ``I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.''

Heavy taxation is bad representation. As a rule, I use a four-part test for every piece of legislation that crosses my desk. My test asks these four simple questions: Is it moral? Is it constitutional according to the original intent of the Constitution? Is it needed? And can we afford it? Most of the time, the legislation fails at least one of those tests and I stand against it.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have stood against new taxes time and time again because the current tax system is not moral, is not constitutional, is not needed, and we cannot afford it. This government of takers has imposed an immoral death tax, an anti-growth capital gains tax, an unfair dividend tax, and job-killing business taxes, all with supposed social benefits.

We need to stand up for the overburdened taxpayer by taking away the financial yoke of big government. It is absolutely immoral for Congress to allow death taxes to stand. The government has no business inflicting more stress on those in our society that are already mourning the loss of their loved one. I don't believe that a person should be forced to visit the IRS and the undertaker on the same day.

How can the people trust a government so controlled by greed? Congress must understand that every time a new tax is passed, there will be unintended consequences and unfair results. The people do not want these taxes. Truly limited government does not need them. The people want to be treated fairly, and our Constitution requires us to comply.

Not only are some taxes immoral, but many are unconstitutional as well. For example, extra taxes that target successful businesses are harmful, unfair and anti-capitalistic. Harmful because the more the government taxes businesses, the less they produce and the less they compete; unfair, because consumers are denied the benefit of a wide variety of low-cost products produced by a competitive market; and anti-capitalistic because it is not the government's place to redistribute wealth.

As the great Winston Churchill once said, ``for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle.''

These corporate taxes will always be unwise, and in the American economy there is only one social responsibility of business, and that is to make as much money for their investors as possible, within the rules, of course. As an ardent capitalist, I believe that the marketplace, unencumbered by government regulation and taxes, is the best way to control quality, quantity and the cost of all goods and services, no matter what it might be, whether it is health care, my business, or selling anything that might be available to the public.

Cutting taxes and reining in the Federal Government is fundamental to returning power to the U.S. citizens and promoting economic growth. We should support our free market by eliminating unfair corporate taxes and promoting economic growth. Along with promoting economic growth, we should also promote economic consistency and stability. We can only do that by eliminating, not just reducing, but eliminating capital gains taxes.

Just as businesses should not be penalized for being successful, investors should not be penalized for making good decisions and for supporting good companies. If we continue to try to tax people into making a perfect world, we will create a bureaucratic monster. In fact, Congress has been doing just that.

Congress has always been able to raise new taxes when it can sell a new program to one group of citizens while sending the bill to another. The American people should always remember that whatever the government gives, it first must take it from somebody else. Congress should always remember that the less money it takes from people, the more freedom people have.

Madam Speaker, today America is drilling for ice on Mars, yet we cannot drill for oil in America. We have billions of gallons of crude oil in America that we can't even tap into because of a failed policy by the majority. We can't drill for oil. Just yesterday, I filled up my car and paid $3.99.9 a gallon.

It is crazy that we can't drill for oil. We have to have responsible energy policy that gives us more supply. It is not about wind or electricity or taxing oil. The Democrats want to put a 50 cents a gallon tax on every gallon of diesel and gasoline in America. That is inane. That is not energy policy.

We have to drill for oil now. We have to streamline the permitting process for refineries. We have to supply more gas to people. It is a national security policy, it is an economic policy that we cannot continue that the majority has given us today. We need a responsible energy policy.

I thank my colleague.

According to AAA, the average American is paying over $4.04 per gallon of gasoline today. Meanwhile, Communist China and Fidel Castro's Communist Cuba are moving forward with drilling for oil and gas just 45 miles off of the coast of Florida and Key West.

We cannot even drill for oil or gas 200 miles off our own shores; yet congressional Democrats continue to refuse to allow access to American gas and oil supplies. The average price of gasoline has gone up $1.71 per gallon since Speaker Pelosi's promise, promise, to lower energy prices at the beginning of the 110th Congress, this Congress.

What have the Democrats done to try to help hardworking Americans? They're simply seeking political gain from America's pain. Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama said he wants to impose more taxes on U.S. oil companies. Is that really a smart solution? This will only drive up prices on Americans, not just for gasoline but for every product or service purchased. Even worse is that foreign oil companies will not be subject to this joke of a solution.

The liberals propose raising the Federal tax on gasoline and diesel by 50 cents per gallon. This is on top of the already existing Federal tax of 18.4 cents per gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel. Under this proposal, you will be paying at today's prices $4.54 a gallon for gas.

Liberals also suggest mandating ethanol and renewable fuel production and selling it as the answer to America's energy needs. The 2007 lack of energy bill has already proven that the Democratic solution is wrong. Mandating the production of renewable fuels has only led to an increase in world food prices.

It is, at best, disingenuous, and at worst, an outright lie to say that renewable fuels can meet America's needs in the near future. As a good southerner, I love my corn bread and grits. It makes no sense to put corn in the tank of my truck.

The Department of the Interior estimates that there are 112 billion particles of recoverable oil beneath U.S. Federal lands and coastal waters, enough oil to fuel 60 million cars for 60 years. The United States is the only nation in the world that forbids any production on its Outer Continental Shelf. Despite a decades-long record of environmentally responsible offshore production, over 80 percent of America's oil and natural gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf are completely off limits to exploration and production.

The OCS, Outer Continental Shelf, is estimated to hold at least 419 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas resources and 86 billion barrels of oil. To put it in simple terms, this is enough natural gas to heat 100 million homes for 60 years, and enough oil to drive 85 million cars for 35 years, and enough oil to completely replace current Middle Eastern oil imports for 59 years.

We've heard time and time again about how drilling off the OCS will harm the environment. This is hogwash. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed or damaged hundreds of drilling rigs without causing a single drop to be spilled, yet congressional Democrats continue to pander to far left environmentalists instead of mending the pains of hardworking Americans.

Liberals also prevent any access to billions of barrels of oil located in ANWR. The entire area of ANWR is larger than the combined areas of five States--Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware--yet the proposed drilling area is equal to one-sixth the size of Dulles Airport here in Washington, D.C.

Energy prices are soaring. And the financial pain that families are feeling at the pump is forcing them to decide what they can and cannot spend. Congressional Democrats act as if they have been living under a rock by continuing to ignore the demands of the American people and refusing to do anything to lower these burdensome prices.

Skyrocketing gas prices and a risky dependence on fuel supply by volatile foreign nations highlight our need for an American energy policy that emphasizes production and decreases our reliance on Middle Eastern oil.

The United States is the only nation on Earth that forbids development of its own natural resources. Right now, America is drilling for ice on Mars, but we cannot drill for oil in America. This makes no sense. It's crazy. It's idiotic. We must drill on our own lands, and we must drill now. We must streamline the permitting process and the refinery processes to get new refineries online, and we must end our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

Mr. Walberg, I greatly appreciate your doing this tonight; it is absolutely critical. I'm a medical doctor, as you know. I have patients who have to decide whether they can go to the doctor or not because gasoline prices are so high. I have patients who have to decide whether they can put a tank of gas in their car or they can go buy medications. This has to end. And we can do something about it. We can do something about it now if we have a responsible energy policy.

Our conference, as you know, has put forth a plan, a reasonable plan, an economically viable plan, an environmentally sensitive plan, a plan that will end this dependence upon Middle Eastern oil. It's a plan where we can provide the energy sources, not only our oil resources, but provide electric resources by permitting nuclear energy.

We have not built a new refinery in America for 30 years. We have not built a new nuclear reactor in 25 years. This is nuts, it's absolutely crazy. And we've got to end this idiocy of this current policy.

I applaud what you're doing here tonight. I look forward to further discussion from our other colleagues. I know that we have colleagues that want to ask questions and want to engage in a colloquy, if that's agreeable with you.

That's right, it's just nuts.

Anywhere. We've got oil under South Dakota, North Dakota and Montana. Those three States evidently are just floating on a sea of oil. There is supposed to be more oil, from what I understand, than is in the Middle East.

We can end our dependence on these foreign nations that want to destroy us, that want to destroy America. They hate us. And we're fueling the insurgency in Iraq. We're fueling these people who hate us. They hate our freedom, they hate America, they hate everything that we stand for.

Thank you, my friend, Mr. Walberg. I just wanted to ask Mr. Upton something before he left. You were mentioning that it takes some energy to produce this energy. And the people on the other side, the leadership on the other side has been promoting these alternative sources of fuel. Ethanol has been one. And you are on the Energy Committee I think, isn't that correct?

Well tell me if it is true. I understand that to

produce ethanol today, particularly corn-based ethanol, it actually takes more energy to produce that corn-based ethanol than the ethanol itself produces. Is that correct?

I am talking about corn-based ethanol because I am excited about switch grass and other sources of potential, and I believe we need to investigate any source of energy anywhere.

I agree with that totally. The other thing is propane is a byproduct of the refinery process of gasoline as well as natural gas. And we already know that propane is an environmentally protective agent. And we have had, in the past, fleets of cars fueled by propane. I know at my hunting camp down in rural southwest Georgia, I have fueled my house down there in my hunting camp with propane. And I know a lot of people heat their homes with it. And most propane, from what I understand, is produced here in America and sold here in America.

So tapping into our oil sources would give us an additional source of energy that we are not getting today if my understanding is correct, and so we can further protect the environment by having more propane utilized in our own energy, as well as stop the production of carbon in the atmosphere that the environmentalists are so bent that it is causing global warming. And I am not so certain about that. I don't really think that is so.

Madam Speaker, I'm a medical doctor. As a physician, I have been a medical director in a National Health Service Corps community health clinic. I have given away hundreds of thousands of dollars of my services to the poor over my 30-some-odd years' career of practicing medicine in rural southwest Georgia, as well as in northeast Georgia where I currently live.

Health care costs are issues that particularly poor people have a tremendous difficulty dealing with. And it certainly is a very important issue. We've got to solve the crisis we have in health care financing today. We don't have a health care quality problem, we have a health care financing problem. And a lot of this is due to an overregulation on the health care system, on doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other entities.

But an issue that actually affects poor people more than health care today is the tremendous cost of energy. Right now today, we're drilling for ice on the ground in Mars, and we can't even drill for oil in America. It's got to stop. We've got to bring down the cost of gasoline. And we can do that. We can do that by drilling offshore. We can do that by tapping into the oil sources we have throughout the west and in Alaska. And it's absolutely critical.

The cost of gasoline is hurting everyone. It's driving up the cost of groceries in the supermarket. It's driving up the cost of all goods and services, including health care. So if we're going to lower the cost of the health care, if we're going to lower the cost of food in the grocery store, we've got to lower the cost of gasoline by drilling now and streamlining the permitting process to get refineries so that they're producing more gasoline and we can bring the cost down. So I encourage my colleagues to push for drilling for oil now.

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

Mr. Speaker, the American people are sick and tired of high gas prices, high taxes and unnecessary regulation on our lands. As an ardent capitalist, I believe that the marketplace, unencumbered by government regulation, by high taxes, is the best way to control quality, quantity and cost of all goods and services.

The price of gasoline is not immune to market forces. Cutting taxes and reining in the Federal Government is fundamental to returning power to the U.S. citizens, and to promote economic growth. We should support our free market by eliminating unnecessary regulation, unfair taxes, and promoting the economic growth that we so desperately need. I say, heavy taxation is bad representation.

Speaker Pelosi promised to lower energy prices at the beginning of the 110th Congress. Yet, today the average price of gasoline has gone up $1.65 per gallon, a nearly 71 percent increase. The Pelosi premium is now costing the average American $3.98 per gallon of gasoline. And in my district, the 10th Congressional District in Georgia, it's over $4 a gallon.

Congressional Democrats talk about our addiction to foreign oil, yet they refuse to allow access to American oil and our gas supplies that are necessary to cure this so-called addiction. This is as idiotic as asking Shaquille O'Neal to play basketball on his knees, or Alex Rodriguez hitting a baseball left-handed.

America has been blessed with abundant talent, a tremendous quantity of natural resources. Yet we continue to operate with our knees on the ground and hitting from the wrong side of the plate. Unfortunately, this is not a game that Americans can afford to play.

Developing American oil and gas will help bring prices down and help break the stranglehold on energy that hostile countries in the Middle East enjoy. Yet Congressional Democrats continue to refuse any development whatsoever. We should not be hesitant to tap into our abundant natural resources, especially at a time when energy costs are so high.

Alaska's ANWR is estimated to contain between 5.7 and 16 billion barrels of oil. Yet House Democrats have opposed ANWR exploration 86 percent of the time, while House Republicans have supported responsible and environmentally sound development 91 percent of the time.

The Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, is estimated to contain 19 billion barrels of oil and 84 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Yet House Democrats have opposed developing the OCS 83 percent of the time, while House Republicans have supported responsible and environmentally sound development 81 percent of the time. Today we are drilling for ice on Mars, but we cannot drill for oil in America.

America contains enough oil shale to supply all our needs for over two centuries, estimated at over 2 trillion barrels. Yet House Democrats have opposed oil shale exploration 86 percent of the time, while House Republicans have supported responsible and environmentally sound development 90 percent of the time.

America hasn't built a new oil refinery in decades. It would do little good to increase development of our domestic supplies of oil if we do not have the refinery capability and capacity to quickly convert this fuel into a usable form. Yet House Democrats have opposed increasing refinery capacity 96 percent of the time, while House Republicans have supported responsible and environmentally sound development 97 percent of the time. We need to streamline getting oil refineries on-line.

America is the Saudi Arabia of coal. We must promote this abundant resource by promoting coal-to-liquids technology. Yet House Democrats have opposed the promotion of coal-to-liquids technology 78 percent of the time, while House Republicans have supported responsible and environmentally sound development 97 percent of the time.

What is the opposition's solution to this national emergency? They have passed a so-called energy bill that's a non-energy bill.

Energy is the lifeblood of the American economy. We need to develop our own natural resources and drill for oil now.

What is propaganda? Of course, Americans engage in propaganda. It is a vital part of the mission of the United States to promote democracy and protect our country from harm. The United States spreads propaganda every day in spreading freedom and democracy across the world.

The military uses propaganda to recruit soldiers. TV commercials, air shows and other military events all use what is considered to be propaganda to bring out the patriotic spirit of the American youth and people. Slogans such as ``Be all you can be in the Army'' and ``The Few, the Proud, the Marines'' are all propaganda directed at the American people, and there is no deception or malice in their intent.

During war, propaganda can save American lives. It already has in Afghanistan and Iraq. Wouldn't we rather shoot our enemy or talk him out of fighting? For Americans fighting overseas, it could be described as persuading our enemies to lay down their arms rather than to fight us.

It is better to defeat our enemies with words than with guns. However, we know that commanders have already been hesitant in many cases to use propaganda during this war because they don't want to be accused of propagandizing American contractors overseas. The misconception of what kinds of propaganda are allowed has already caused harm to our soldiers overseas.

This amendment raises significant concerns about our ability to defeat terrorists overseas and protect American lives. This amendment would prohibit funding for propaganda, which is defined as ``any form of communication in support of national objectives designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of the people of the United States.''

This definition raises serious questions when you apply it in this sense:

Could we produce the propaganda within the United States and use it overseas? Would this amendment restrict U.S. military operations, including propaganda aimed at our enemies that a U.S. contractor working overseas may see?

Would this restrict certain types of military recruitment within the United States?

What about propaganda that is aimed for overseas consumption, that because of the Internet, returns to the United States and influences U.S. citizens; would that violate the prohibition?

Is there any way that this could interfere with the military releasing information to the media in the United States?

Under this amendment, would providing facts and data on successes overseas to the American public be defined as propaganda?

What if the information went to Members of Congress and they were to share it; is that a violation?

Before we vote to tie the hands of our military, we should make absolutely sure that the Hodes-DeFazio-DeLauro amendment will not constrain recruitment or warfighting efforts by not allowing the types of propaganda that we need.

I would hope that as this bill moves to the conference that we can work to ensure that the language is not so broad that the military cannot do its job.

I recommend that people vote ``no'' on this amendment because I think it would be disastrous for our Nation because it is an overly broad amendment and would hamstring and shackle our military and our government.

Energy is the lifeblood of the American economy. Our economic prosperity is closely tied to the availability of reliable and affordable supplies of energy. Unfortunately, U.S. energy production has grown only 13 percent, while energy consumption has grown by 30 percent since 1973.

Instead of traveling to spend time with loved ones, record gas prices will keep many Americans home this Memorial Day. Gas prices are now over $1.46 higher nationally than when Speaker Pelosi took over, and will shortly be over $4 a gallon. These high prices are forcing many to choose between taking a vacation or paying bills.

It should come as no shock to anyone that AAA predicts that the percentage of Americans traveling more than 50 miles from home over this holiday weekend will fall by nearly 1 percent from last year. That one percent represents hundreds of thousands of families.

Skyrocketing gas prices and a risky dependence on fuel supplied by volatile foreign nations highlight our need for an American energy policy that emphasizes production and decreases our reliance upon Middle Eastern oil.

Many here in Congress bemoan America's addiction to foreign oil, yet they refuse to allow access to American oil and gas supplies that are necessary to cure this addiction. America has been blessed with abundant natural resources and we should not be hesitant to tap into them, especially at a time when energy prices are soaring so high and are climbing higher.

The Outer Continental Shelf is estimated to contain 19 billion barrels of oil and 84 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Alaska's ANWR is estimated to contain between 5.7 and 16 billion barrels of oil. What do these two areas share in common? They are both off limits to any development. At the same time, China is fixing to tap into our natural gas resources off the coast of Florida by 45 to 50 miles, and we can't do it ourselves. Not even 100 or 200 miles off shore.

Developing American oil and gas on these lands will help bring the price down and help break the stranglehold on energy that hostile countries in the Middle East enjoy. This can be done in an environmentally sound manner and should be implemented immediately.

What is the opposition's solution to this national emergency? How about raising the Federal tax on gasoline by 50 cents a gallon, on top of an already existing Federal tax of 18.4 cents per gallon and increasing the tax on diesel fuel by 24.4 cents per gallon. Gasoline is not taxed too little. It is taxed too much. With economic disruptions caused by the current high price of gasoline, Congress should vigorously oppose any efforts to increase fuel taxes and instead reduce or eliminate the already existing Federal fuel taxes.

Environmental groups haven't allowed a new oil refinery to be built in the United States in decades. It does little good to increase our use of domestic supplies of oil if we do not have the refinery capacity to quickly convert our crude oil into a usable form. Members on both sides of the aisle need to stand up to these fringe groups and implement policies that encourage construction of new refineries in the United States.

Many Americans are feeling the financial hardship this Memorial weekend of record high gasoline prices and will choose not to travel. Our energy problems were not created overnight, and will not be solved overnight. Congress just act swiftly to address this growing energy crisis. America's energy policy must make us stronger and less reliant on countries hostile to freedom.

Passing any so-called ``energy'' bill that fails to produce even one single kilowatt of new energy, or produce a gallon of gas, is not the solution. We must pass legislation that will allow for responsible use of our known American supplies of energy that reduce excessive and burdensome environmental policies and encourage the development of alternative forms of energy, such as nuclear power, that has proven to be incredibly safe and a successful source of energy.

I stand ready to do so, and encourage my colleagues to do the same.