Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the Rome Area Heritage Foundation, which in 2003 commissioned Georgia artist Suzanne Royal to paint two reproductions of a portrait of First Lady, Ellen Axson Wilson. Mrs. Wilson spent her youth in Rome, Georgia where she met, courted and later married President Woodrow Wilson. Today, she is buried in the town she always considered her home--at historic Myrtle Hill Cemetery in Rome, Georgia, in the heart of the 11th District.

The original portrait of the First Lady was a gift from Miss Martha Berry to the citizens of Rome and Floyd County to be permanently displayed in the Carnegie Library, forerunner of today's Rome Floyd County Library. One of the reproductions was donated in 2005 to the State of Georgia to hang in Georgia's Capitol.

The second reproduction was donated this week by the Rome Area Heritage Foundation to the Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library at the University of Georgia, to become a centerpiece of their permanent collection. As a Georgian who holds such a prominent place in history, it is only right that Mrs. Wilson's portrait hang in the library of our state's flagship public university and I am proud of the efforts of the Rome Area Heritage Foundation to ensure this portrait is preserved and accessible to generations of Georgians to come.

This project was researched for the Foundation under the direction of Reverend Warren Jones of Rome, Georgia, and I commend the Foundation, Reverend Jones and the community of Rome for preserving the memory of one of Northwest Georgia's most distinguished citizens--and the only First Lady from Georgia's 11th District.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I rise today at a crucial time in our Nation's history, to address one of the most critical decisions Congress has ever made.

Without question, these are challenging times for our country. Citizens everywhere recognize that our economy is in peril. Yet Americans are divided over the solution, and rightfully so. What we do here will have a lasting impact on our Nation now and for future generations, so we have an obligation, not just to get this done quickly, but to get it done right.

Honestly, Madam Speaker, I have struggled with and reflected upon this decision more than any other I have made as a Member of Congress. But today, I will be casting a ``no'' vote on this bill. I do so after long, thoughtful, prayerful consideration, and after hearing from constituents on both sides of the issue, those who vehemently oppose this bill, and those who resolutely fear the consequences of inaction.

I do believe this legislation will pass today because fortunately, Congress has resolved to do something in a bipartisan way to address this looming financial crisis that has hit Wall Street and will soon, if not already, hit Main Street. While this bill aims to be an answer to the problem, I'm not convinced that it is the best answer.

To those who support passage of this bill, I agree with you that something must be done. Inaction is not an option. But I also fear that this bill treats the symptoms without curing the disease that plagues our economy.

Conservative Republicans, led by Senator McCain, have fought every step of the way for a meaningful solution that addresses the root of the problem and preserves our free-market principles. Because of their efforts, the economic rescue portion of this bill has been markedly improved since Secretary Paulson first made his request. But it does virtually nothing to assure that this will never occur again on our watch.

Madam Speaker, I hope and pray that what may be accomplished here today will ultimately work. But let's not lose sight of the fact that, no matter the outcome today, our work is not finished. Republicans and Democrats must come together and address the underlying causes of this economic turmoil. Wall Street and Washington, as well as individuals, must take responsibility for their actions. The American people demand accountability, and they deserve nothing less from us.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 654 on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 1503, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 655 on H. Res. 1503, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 656 on H.R. 4120, the Effective Child Pornography Prosecution Act, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

On rollcall No. 657 on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 1507, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 658 on H. Res. 1507, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 659 on S. 1046, the Senior Professional Performance Act, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I risk in strong support of S. 2606, the United States Fire Administration Reauthorization Act of 2008.

This legislation reauthorizes the United States Fire Administration (USFA) for fiscal years 2009 through 2012 for the agency's activities in training, fire education and awareness, data collection, research, and standards development and promotion. S. 2606 provides $291 million in federal funds over this 5-year period, which is consistent with previously authorized levels and allows only for a modest growth in funding, capped at 3 percent in any of the fiscal years covered by this bill.

The mission of USFA is to limit economic and life loss ``due to fire and related emergencies, through leadership, advocacy, coordination and support.'' This organization provides vital assistance in the areas of training, fire education and awareness, and awards grants to a number of local fire departments across the country. Since its inception in 1974, USFA has trained over 1 million firefighters through local delivery courses as well as through the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland. USFA has provided support critical to reducing deaths and injuries in the U.S. from fire by 25 percent between 1996 and 2006.

S. 2606 is the Senate companion bill to H.R. 4847, which the House passed on April 3rd of this year by a vote of 412-0. The Senate bill includes the same authorization amounts and makes minor modifications to the House-passed version that only further improve the legislation. I am proud to say that this legislation has been crafted in both a bipartisan and bicameral way--with community stakeholders--to ensure that it meets the needs of our firefighting community. I commend my colleagues on the Science Committee in particular Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall and Mr. Mitchell of Arizona, who is the lead sponsor of the House-passed bill--for their diligence in bringing this important legislation to the House floor today.

Mr. Speaker, S. 2606 authorizes USFA to continue its current operations and expand training and research in a fiscally responsible manner. The bill will provide firefighter training to over 80,000 firefighters per year and facilitate the delivery of education and training programs to firefighters through local training efforts. S. 2606 also aids research into techniques, systems, and equipment to improve fire prevention and control in sparsely developed communities that have been particularly hard hit by fire in the past few years. This legislation also specifically addresses the issue of fighting fires in an urban-wildland interface--like the wildfires we saw last year in Southern California--by implementing methods to better respond and prepare for fires that move from wildlands to suburban and urban areas.

As a physician, I am particularly pleased that S. 2606 includes language I offered in the Science Committee to improve emergency medical care by facilitating USFA's coordination with other groups as well as its ability to disseminate information on best-practices for EMS operations and management.

Firefighters are called upon to extract victims from car crashes, building fires or collapses, and all other emergencies. It is critical that patients receive consistent care under medical direction. While I do not expect USFA to pursue studies into the medical care EMS patients should receive, I believe that this language in S. 2606 will give the Administrator the authority and flexibility to conduct studies into training, system design, and on-scene patient management. This will allow the Administrator to work with appropriate federal agencies and existing medical services in these local communities.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a great honor to work with the men and women of our Nation's fire services--including the Congressional Fire Services Institute, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the National Volunteer Fire Council--on this important legislation. The United States Fire Administration is a vital link to these first responders and this agency has made substantial contributions to improving fire services throughout the country. S. 2606 will ensure that USFA remains vibrant and productive in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support and thoughtful contributions to this bill. I urge passage of S. 2606 that will enable the USFA to continue its record of achievement as well as prepare firefighters for the challenges they will face in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is such a strong voice on energy policy that we think this country ought to be pursuing.

I didn't hear the first few minutes of the hour, Mr. Speaker, but clearly we on this side of the aisle were most disappointed last week. We, as you know, spent a lot of time during the August recess, I think 134 of us, some several days, some one or two days, but came back from our break, if you will, to try to address the people who were here during August visiting the Nation's Capitol, the people's House. It was a most enjoyable time.

We talked to the American people. They came down and sat in these chairs that we occupy. They got to see where we voted. They weren't just up in the gallery. Because we were Members and we were not in session, we were permitted to bring, to escort people into the Chamber. And on many days the Chamber was almost full. It was almost like a day of voting on an important issue for us. I think they enjoyed it. Many of these people were Republicans, many were Democrats, some

probably Independents. We weren't overly political. We just tried to make the point that to solve this problem, we really do need a comprehensive approach.

Some may, and I have heard some on the Democrat side of the aisle say that we are Johnny one note. All we can talk about is drill, drill, drill. Drill, baby, drill. Drill here, drill now, and low prices. While that has been the cornerstone of the American Energy Act, the All-of- the-Above Act, it certainly isn't the only thing in that act. There are so many provisions, not the least of which is conservation, and to foster and pay for research and development for fuels, alternative energy sources such as the sun and the wind, to continue research and development on taking this abundant supply of coal that we have in this country, and everybody knows what coal looks like. When you mine it, it is in a solid form. I think, Mr. Speaker, that I read recently that in the United States of America there are 1.4 trillion tons of known coal resources and maybe twice that much. But if it is limited to 1.4 trillion tons, I think we burn, generating electricity mainly in this country, about 20 billion tons a year. So we may well have 150 years worth of coal to produce electricity.

So this research and development to take that coal, that rock that we all know, to convert it into gas, gasification, just methane gas, natural gas, or to liquefy it and basically turn it into petroleum and diesel fuel. So we have the capability of doing that.

We have something like 1.5 trillion barrels or at least 900 billion, but I think the closer estimate is 1.5 trillion barrels of petroleum that is embedded in a rock, not coal, but in a way you can think of it as coal, in the Rocky Mountain States. There are three or four States, Colorado being one of them, and this rock can be mined just like coal or anything else, copper ore, anything that we mine, and we can extract that petroleum from this rock. You can almost think of a sponge that was fully soaked, saturated with water, and you just kind of squeeze out the water.

It is a little more complicated than that and it is going to take some more research and development, but the Democratic majority in their Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 put a provision in the bill that said you couldn't use that. That no agency of the Federal Government, including the Department of Defense and the Department of the Air Force which uses all of that jet fuel, they couldn't enter into a contract because the mining or production, burning of that alternative fuel would result in one little scintilla increase in carbon dioxide emission.

We hear, and I will yield back to my colleague in just a second, but I want to make this point. When this 110th Congress convened in January of 2007, the first witness we had in the Science Committee, and this was kind of unprecedented, was none other than the Speaker of the House. We were thrilled. That was an honor. The Speaker of the House was going to be the one witness at the Science Committee talking about global warming.

And several weeks later our second witness was former Vice President Al Gore who had just gotten an Oscar for the documentary film ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' I think was the name of it, again in regard to global warming.

Well, the price of gasoline at the pump at that time was maybe $2.50 a gallon or a little less than that, $2.33 a gallon. And it was clear that Madam Speaker's passion, and she said it later, and she said it recently, her passion was to save the Earth in regard to global warming and carbon capture and all of that. And of course Vice President Gore, the same thing. And I could understand their passion.

I didn't necessarily agree with all of the scientists, the U.N. committee that had those five different reports on global warming and what we should do about it, capping trade and whether or not these were just sort of natural cycles and phases of the sun. And you have little ice ages and warm ages and that sort of thing.

But even giving them the benefit of the doubt, and we are talking about some very bright scientists, that that is a priority maybe when gasoline is $2, $2.25 a gallon. But when it's $4 a gallon, and crude oil, light sweet crude is $140 a barrel, that cannot be the number one priority of this country, when we're on the verge of going bankrupt.

We literally, I really say, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if my colleagues would agree with me, but I truly believe that what we're facing now in the financial markets, it all started with this dependency on foreign sources and being at the--they almost have a gun at our head in regard to this.

So the number one priority, at least from this side of the aisle, is to have a comprehensive energy plan, lower these prices and become totally independent. It doesn't mean that we will not continue to buy fossil fuel from foreign sources, but at least we wouldn't have to. And so that's why we're here tonight, to talk about that.

I want to thank my colleagues for letting me speak maybe a little longer than they had anticipated I would. But the gentlewoman from Minnesota is here tonight, Mrs. Bachmann, and she's been here so much over the last 2 months talking about this issue, as has Congressman Latta from Ohio. So at this point I yield back to my colleagues, and I thank you for letting me participate.

I thank the Speaker for his recognition, and I thank the minority leader for yielding the time for me to speak on such an important issue this evening.

Of course, that is the ongoing problem with the crisis as to our price of energy, as to the price of gasoline at the pump, as to the price of heating oil, particularly as we get into the winter months approaching in the northeast, and people are continuing to struggle.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's important in any discussion about energy to let the American people know this through the Members of this great body on both sides of the aisle, at the end of this 45 minutes to 1- hour period of discussion on the issue, who hopefully will be able to go back home and in a very frank, honest way discuss with their constituents what exactly we've been doing up here in the people's House over the last couple of months. I'll tell you, from my perspective--and I think it would be hard for anybody to disagree--the answer is not very much, not very much, indeed.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, in the first week in August, we left Washington for that traditional August recess, which actually was more than a month. It was actually 5 weeks when you included the Labor Day weekend. So we were going to be out of here for 5 weeks. At the time, people were paying $4, more in some places, a little less in some places, but on average, it was $4 a gallon for regular gasoline; for diesel fuel, it was even higher than that. People certainly couldn't afford to take a vacation.

We didn't see nearly as many people here in the Nation's Capital during month of August because of this.

The Republican minority party had introduced a bill actually a month before that, and it was called, as you recall, Mr. Speaker, the American Energy Act, or the all-of-the-above act, which included certainly as a cornerstone drilling, and a lot of people picked up different mottos like ``drill, baby, drill,'' ``drill here, drill now,'' ``save money.''

The point of all that was to try to emphasize the fact that we do, even though we have this tremendous dependency for our fossil fuel needs, particularly petroleum and natural gas from other countries, 60 percent of what we use, our daily utilization is being imported from other countries, and they don't all like us very much, unfortunately, and that gives them sort of a stranglehold on our economy.

So this bill does have a strong component of going after our own natural resources, be they natural gas or petroleum products, or converting other things, unconventional things like shale rock or coal- to-liquid petroleum or to natural gas.

We kept asking and saying to the leadership, the Democratic leadership, look, let's don't go home on August 1st. This August recess is a 5-week period of time. Members certainly want to get back in their districts, and all of us really are up for reelection. Some have tough reelects, both Democrats and Republicans, and we all understand the need to get back and be in the community. But if we are not doing their work, if we are not solving their problems, if we are not making sure that when the school doors open the day after Labor Day, or in fact mid-August in most places, that the kids are going to be able to go to school five days a week and not four, that they are going to be able to ride the school buses and they are not going to be shut down at the school barn because there is no gasoline or diesel fuel to put in them, so let's stay here another week if it takes it, three days, whatever, we are smart people, and let's get this done. Then we can go home.

It is kind of like you don't want to leave campus until you have passed your last exam. How can you go home for, say, Thanksgiving or Christmas and relax, knowing that when you get back you have still got your work to do? It just made no sense. But, anyway, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority made the decision and moved for adjournment basically that day, that Thursday or Friday afternoon, cut off all debate.

So what the Republican minority decided to do, it was kind of a spontaneous thing, really, it wasn't planned ahead, we said, well, we are not going home. We are not going to take recess until we have done our homework.

So there were, I don't know, 40 or 50 Members just kind of mulling around. And, lo and behold, the lights got turned off, the microphones got turned off, the C-SPAN cameras weren't showing no video. But these brave men and women, all on the Republican side, but we kept asking for our colleagues on the Democratic side, Mr. Speaker, to join us, because we know, we know full well that there is like-mindedness on this issue on both sides of the aisle, but for the stranglehold that they have with their leadership.

So we came back. We would fly, go home, go work a couple of days, jump on a plane, come back up there, stand right here. We would bring people in from the gallery. Not just this gallery, but out in Statuary Hall. People were taking tours through the Capitol. They marched in here in droves and sat in our seats and listened to us. And Members would speak 10 minutes, 15 minutes, a tag-team approach, trying not to be partisan, but just say, look, we have a job to do and we are not doing it. And when you go back home, particularly if you are a Democrat from the Midwest or the Northeast or you are a Republican from the Southeast or the Far West, or just an independent voter, let your Congressmen and Congresswomen know, let your Senators know that you want something done about this, that you are suffering, your grocery prices are through the roof.

So this is how it all got started. We kept thinking, I kept thinking that any day people would ask, how long are you Republicans going to keep this up now? How long can you go? Is it going to be 5 weeks? I said, well, I sure hope not. I hope that Ms. Pelosi is listening, Mr. Hoyer is listening. They are intelligent people, no question about it. They wouldn't be in these positions of leadership if they are not.

I thought, well, the force of public opinion, these polls taken all across this country, Mr. Speaker, are saying that 85-88 percent of the American people want us to do this. They don't want us to be dependent on Venezuela and Iran and Russia. They don't mind us importing a little oil from Canada and a little oil from Mexico, but they fully agree that if we have got this product, this natural resource right here in River City, why wouldn't we use our own? So if you believe in the law of supply and demand, you increase that supply from anywhere in the world, in fact, and you will help balance some of that demand and bring down prices. But even better, if you increase your own domestic supply, then you are a player. Then you are a player. So that is what we were all about.

Well, as we came to the end of the August recess, we began to hear little tidbits of sound bites from Ms. Pelosi, and it sounded like maybe that she finally was getting the message, either from the Republicans in Washington or maybe some individual late-night phone calls from her own conference, particularly the Blue Dog Members who I felt may have wanted to come up here and join us and speak. So Ms. Pelosi said, well, we will maybe look at drilling when we get back.

Lo and behold, we get back now, we had three weeks, three weeks, we thought 15 days, but as it turns out it is only going to be at the most 13, because they cut us short Friday of last week, they are cutting us short Friday of this week, and maybe we will go 5 days next week. But 13 days working out of five months, from August 1st. There are no plans that I know of for any kind of session after we end here next Friday. We won't come back to this body, Mr. Speaker, until after the new President, the new administrative team is sworn in.

So to think we are working full time for the taxpayer, and that by definition is what we do and we are not really permitted to go back home and have another job, and here we are working 13 days in five months, there is something wrong with that math, something very wrong with that math.

So I cannot tell you in strong enough terms, Mr. Speaker, how disappointed I was when I got back and looked at this bill, this none- of-the-above energy bill, not all-of-the-above, but none-of-the-above, that none-of-the-above, the acronym is NOTA, NOTA energy bill that was presented to us on this floor that we voted on this week, and it does very, very little in regard to drilling.

I tell you, I feel blessed tonight to have with me one of my colleagues from Tennessee, a Member that has been here probably twice as long as have. He is twice as young as I am. He

is not nearly as good looking. But he is a very good member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and he knows this subject inside out and backwards.

I am happy at this point to yield to my friend from Tennessee, Zach Wamp. Then we will kind of do a colloquy and further discuss this issue.

Zach, take it away.

I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

You know, Representative Wamp made one statement, there are actually people, I know this is hard to believe, I know it is, in these trying economic times, that want the price of gasoline to be high, that want to make it so high that we eliminate all fossil fuel. Look at this quote from Carl Pope, the executive director of the Sierra Club, a strong environmental club. ``We're better off without cheap gas.''

I mean, it's not just him. Ms. Pelosi herself has said many times that any bill that includes drilling is a hoax, and that she is more concerned with saving the planet. That is a direct quote on the national news network, my passion is to save the planet.

Then Harry Reid, the majority leader of the Senate says, and this is almost a verbatim quote, fossil fuel is poison. Fossil fuel is poison, and it needs to be eliminated completely by the year 2020. That's the kind of thing that Representative Wamp was talking about, and the nonsense that we are hearing from the other side.

Before I yield to one of my other colleagues, I just want to make this comment. When the 110th Congress began in January of 2007, I happened to sit on the Science Committee as well as the Armed Services Committee. But our first Science Committee hearing of the year, our witness was--and this is pretty unusual, I have been up here 6 years, I have never seen this happen before, that the Speaker of the House would be a witness, or the sole witness before a standing committee--Ms. Pelosi.

It was all about global warming, and it was all about her plan to save the planet from carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases. She told us about the fact that she was going to create a commission of Congress, a bipartisan commission, I think. Ultimately she did, and Mr. Markey assumed chairmanship of that committee, even over the objection of the most venerable, distinguished long-serving member of this body, John Dingell from Michigan, who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee.

But that was the kind of focus that Madam Speaker had at the time, when, of course, the price of gasoline was about $2.33 a gallon.

A couple of weeks later, our second hearing in the Science Committee, who did we have again, a single witness. Guess who it was, former Vice President Al Gore just after he had gotten his Oscar award for that documentary film, ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' about global warming. That's all they wanted to talk about was Kyoto Protocol and cap and trade and how we were going to eliminate the carbon footprint from this country.

It's a little hard, I mean, as we sit here tonight, talking, we are expelling, we are breathing out carbon dioxide. There are greenhouse gases all over the environment that are not necessarily created by what human beings do.

But, again, I think that certain people had drank all of the Kool-Aid in regard to global warming. Maybe when gasoline prices are low and $2 a gallon, you can afford to do that. Do you remember the old expression, I can't be worrying about draining the swamp when I am up to my elbows in alligators?

Well, I think that's kind of the analogy of where we are right now. They are still worrying about draining the swamp, and we are up to our elbows in alligators with these prices that are literally killing the American people. They can certainly starve to death a whole lot quicker than they can choke to death from greenhouse gases over the next 100 years. I think it's important that we put that into perspective.

At this time, I see I have been joined by a couple more of my colleagues that do such a great job on the floor, one of our newest Members, but you would never know it by hearing him speak and the level of participation that he engages in, and that's my good friend from Ohio. I yield to Bob Latta, Congressman Bob Latta.

I thank my friend from Ohio. As Representative Latta described, he and a number of Members did go up to Alaska in August and had an opportunity to meet the governor of Alaska, Governor Palin, and see what she had done in regard to getting that natural gas pipeline and that natural gas flowing down to the lower 48.

I feel refreshed and energized, not to use a pun, to think that Senator McCain and Governor Palin understand this issue very well and have the wisdom and the strength of character and the force of leadership to deal with big oil, to deal with the environmentalists and to help us solve this problem as we go forward. So my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that hope is on the way.

Before I turn to my good friend and colleague from Louisiana, I want to say one other thing about this bill that Speaker Pelosi finally brought to us when we got back from this August recess, and certainly not by the regular process, not by going through the Energy and Commerce Committee and listening to the wisdom of John Dingell and Joe Barton and others who have worked so well in a bipartisan manner to come up with a bill that we could all be satisfied with and that was good for nobodies' politics, or maybe everybody's politics, but more importantly, good for the American people.

It wasn't done that way. Unfortunately, the bill was drawn strictly by the Democratic leadership behind closed doors. If any of my colleagues can remember the song ``The Green Door,'' behind the green door, and it was a 290-page bill and no Republican had any input. Indeed, no committee of jurisdiction.

But the ironic thing about that was that Ms. Pelosi, when she was trying to lead her troops to the majority, to the promised land back in the fall of 2006, she made some rather outstanding quotes, very attractive quotes like ``bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority,'' that would be us Republicans, we Republicans, ``the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.'' This is Speaker Pelosi, a new direction for America.

How quickly we forget.

Another quote from Madam Speaker, ``Members should have at least 24 hours

to examine a bill and a conference report text prior to floor consideration. Rules governing floor debate must be reported before 10 p.m. for a bill to be considered the following day.'' A quote from Ms. Pelosi back in 2006.

We have far more important things to talk about than process, so I yield to a physician colleague of mine from the great State of Louisiana. And if anybody knows about energy and refineries and what goes on in hurricane alley, Congressman Charles Boustany does. And he probably spent a lot of time in his home in St. Charles after Ida and Gustav and the destruction and probably working in one of the Red Cross shelters trying to help victims of the hurricanes. But he did not lose sight of the ball in regard to energy. It only strengthened his resolve, and I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Dr. Boustany, please address the issue in regard to the refineries and the run up in prices just because of the recent hurricanes, and what a problem it is to have all of those refineries located in one area.

So the refined products?

That is exactly right. I think you used the key word, and that is ``transition.'' We are talking about transition. It is just that some people want to transition just a little too quickly.

I wish you would speak a little bit and reference this slide that I am showing right now in regard to the revenue-sharing issue. This goes back to the Energy Security Act of 2006 regarding the gulf coast States and the energy sharing. And I know that you have talked with me and other Members of the conference about what Louisiana does with that revenue sharing and how important it is to the State.

As I close out, I will talk about this ``NOTA'' energy bill. I like to call it a ``nota,'' none-of-the-above act that we passed this week, and one of the key problems was the lack of any revenue sharing for the States on the east and west coast. If you don't mind addressing that, I appreciate it.

Reclaiming my time for a second, that's what I've depicted on this slide on the bottom, this new bill that we just passed this week. Everyone else, nada, again, zero, nothing, no revenue sharing. So where is the incentive for one of these States, Georgia, we've got 130 miles of shore line on the Atlantic Ocean. California, I mean, there's just not going to be the incentive to do it.

Well, I'll reclaim just for a second. Let me make sure I understand this now. You're saying that currently, under this Energy Security Act of 2006, as I point to this slide, again, GOMESA, that Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, you've said you fought hard for it many years, Texas, you get 37 percent revenue sharing, 37.5 percent.

But are you telling me now that in that area in the Gulf of Mexico, when the oil companies go out and build new rigs and purchase new leases, then, according to this no energy bill that was passed this week, you wouldn't get any revenue on those new sites?

Well, that's what I'm thinking too. And I'm not glad to hear you say that, but I think you're right. I think that's absolutely right.

Well, I just want to thank my colleague. And of course, we're both physicians, Dr. Boustany, a cardiothoracic surgeon, myself, an OB/GYN doctor for many years before we had the distinct honor of getting elected to the Congress and working in the people's House and representing the folks we represent.

And I, again, Charles, I think about this a lot of times, when I started the hour talking about how our leadership, Ms. Pelosi, Speaker Pelosi, Representative, I mean Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader Harry Reid, former Vice President Al Gore and others were so focused on saving the planet and global warming and climate change. And I understand there's some concerns there, and I'm not oblivious, although all scientists don't agree with that. But, you know, it does really become a matter of priority. And you and I, as physicians understand that people literally without a job, without a home, without a warm set of clothing, they can starve to death. They can die a lot quicker from that than they can over maybe a 75- to 100-year period time from inhaling a little bit of an environment that's not healthy for their lungs.

So we care about it. We care about childhood asthma. We care about chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema and lung cancer and all those things.

But it becomes, really, a matter for leadership of the Congress to make these decisions and place priorities on things. We don't want the planet to increase 1\1/2\ degrees Fahrenheit over the next 75 years because there may be a scintilla rise in the level of the water and some remote island may get flooded and 50 people lose their lives.

Now, I understand all that science. But right now what I really understand, and I think you do too, is the job loss, the unemployment rate, the economy, these wild gyrations that are occurring in the stock market, the food prices, the oil prices. This is the crisis of the day, the crisis du jour, and I think real leadership should recognize that, don't you, Dr. Boustany?

Well, I think, and I want to thank you for your contribution tonight because I think you said the key word when you said transition. And we are going to transition. And I think that, you know, 50, 75, 100 years from now we may not be burning much fossil fuel. But you can't do that overnight. You can't, all of a sudden say we're going to, by 2020 we're not going to burn any fossil fuel. Coal is fossil fuel. Petroleum products, diesel fuel, gasoline. We would have no transportation and we have no electricity. We'd be back using kerosene lanterns and bicycles and skateboards, I guess, to get around in this country.

Well, Dr. Boustany, thank you so much. I had a few more remarks to make as we concluded. I think we have, Mr. Speaker, do we have about 10 minutes left?

Six minutes. Well, I would rather yield to my friend from Texas than to use any concluding remarks, because I'll tell you, this gentleman from east Texas, again, knows of what he talks about. The Strategic

Petroleum Reserve is located in Congressman Boustany's State of Louisiana and Congressman Gohmert's State of Texas. So he's been working very hard on this issue. And I want to yield at least 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

I'll reclaim my time, Representative Gohmert, just for a second and yield right back to you, because what the gentleman from Texas is talking about, of course, is this, the bill that was passed by the Democratic majority. And I have a little poster up here comparing the Republican bill, the American Energy Act, to the bill that was actually passed. And I just want to quickly run through this before I yield back to my two colleagues.

In the American Energy Act, real offshore exploration, yes. Democratic energy plan, no. Renewables, without tax hikes, our bill, yes. Their bill, no. Real oil shale exploration. I won't get into details of that, but our bill, yes. Their bill, no. Arctic coastal plain, the ANWR. Our bill, go after that petroleum. Their bill, nada. Emission-free nuclear, our bill, yes, their bill, no, no, no, can't have nuclear. Clean coal technology, coal-to-liquid or coal-to-gas. Yes in our bill. No in their bill. New refinery capacity, Dr. Boustany and I talked about that. Our bill, yes. Their bill, no. No energy tax hikes, yes for Republicans, no for Democrats. No electricity price spikes. Yes for Republicans, no for Democrats. Lawsuit reform, yes in the Republican bill. No in the Democratic bill.

So what Representative Gohmert and Representative Boustany are probably going to talk about now is when we had one, we had no amendments. We had a motion to recommit with instructions with a bill. And they've just referred to it, the Abercrombie, Democrat from Hawaii, Peterson, Republican from Pennsylvania that had 39 Democrats cosponsoring the bill. And when we offered that as a substitute, which we felt that each one of them, they had already signed on to the bill, surely they were going to vote for it. And I'd like for my colleagues to tell the rest of us what happened.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

And it indeed is scary. And with that, Mr. Speaker, we'll yield back. We don't have any time to yield back. We'll just shut up. Thank you very much, and we'll say good night from this side.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding, and I do rise in support of H.R. 2608. But I wanted to take the opportunity, Madam Speaker, to talk about energy.

Obviously this is the main issue I think on the minds of most Americans today, and it has led, these high energy prices and dependency on foreign oil that we have been burdened by for lo these many years, since back when we knew this back in the seventies when we had a similar crisis and failed to do anything about it, and it has caused this economy, it is almost like a domino effect in my opinion, Madam Speaker, when you look at the high price of everything, the unemployment rate going up, what has happened on Wall Street, the meltdown in the subprime market.

So we felt and I think most of my colleagues would agree on both sides of the aisle that the energy crisis is our number one concern as we move into the fall elections and congressional elections. Obviously this is a Presidential year.

So my disappointment yesterday, when Speaker Pelosi, returning from the August recess, we, as you know, many on the Republican side, we invited our Democratic colleagues to join us, came back to Washington on a number of days. I think a total of 134 participated, some of us several times.

We had lots of folks down here sitting in the seats because a Member could bring people on the floor, even though the C-SPAN cameras were off, microphones were off, the lights were dim, and we had some in the gallery as well, and talked about this issue. We just couldn't wait for the rest of our colleagues to get back so we could do something.

This motion to recommit with instructions last night, the Abercrombie-

Peterson bill, I think, had 39 Democratic cosponsors, many, many, Republicans, and I think it was a very, very good piece of legislation that did not include ANWR. It carved out ANWR, realizing that was something we agreed to disagree on, and leave that out of the legislation.

But the most important part of the Peterson-Abercrombie bill that differed from what the majority party, as you know, brought to us for a final vote that did pass, it has no incentive whatsoever for the States to allow drilling off of their shores for the billions of gallons of petroleum and millions of cubic feet of natural gas, because they are sitting there thinking, well, gosh, on the gulf coast, Alabama, Texas and Louisiana are getting those royalties and putting them to good use, and we need that.

My State of Georgia, right now, we have 135 miles of shoreline, the great State of Georgia, and we are $1.5 billion short in this revenue year, this fiscal year. I am sure Georgia would be one of the very first to get in line if we had that included. I am disappointed.

I don't know what is going to happen in the Senate today or tomorrow, but hopefully we can get a bill passed through the Senate that has more, more in it than the draft language that wasn't actually in bill form that came out in the Senate 5 or 6 weeks ago with a group of 10, now up to a group of 20.

It's still not too late for this Congress, House and Senate, to do something for the American people. I urge us to do that in a bipartisan way.

Look, let's do the right thing, and I think the election outcomes will take care of themselves. The good people that need to be here will come back, and the ones that don't, won't. Let's just do the right thing for the American people.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding.

As a proud member of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1432. This important resolution recognizes the goals and ideals of National Adoption Day and National Adoption Month by promoting and raising national awareness of adoption and children in foster care, as my colleague from Nevada was just explaining. I commend him, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), for working in a bipartisan matter to bring this important resolution to the floor, a resolution that celebrates the children and the families involved in adoption, as well as the current programs and efforts designed to promote adoption.

As was said by my colleague in Illinois, I was an OB/GYN physician for nearly 30 years before coming to the Congress back in 2003, and I am especially passionate, Madam Speaker, about protecting children and their right to life by encouraging adoption.

Madam Speaker, adoption brings joy to many loving families who cannot have children of their own or who simply wish to welcome even more children into their homes and into their hearts. Both National Adoption Day and National Adoption Month, which will be recognized on November 15 and, indeed, throughout the entire month of November, raise awareness nationally for the more than 129,000 children who are currently in foster care and looking, almost begging, for those permanent homes.

I wholeheartedly believe that raising awareness for adoption, as this resolution does so well, will help place more children in those loving homes. However, I believe that we should spend more than just 1 day, or even 1 month, during the year raising awareness on this issue. Both children and parents greatly benefit from adoption, and I want to applaud all individuals in my home State of Georgia and across this country who work so tirelessly to bring joy to these families who sometimes have very little joy.

Madam Speaker, I want to urge all my colleagues, and I'm sure they will, to support H. Res. 1432.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank the gentleman for yielding.

As I spoke earlier in regard to this bill in support of adoption and adoption week, certainly it's a great resolution that our colleague, Representative Porter from Nevada, brings forward.

But I, too, wanted to take the opportunity in my few minutes to talk a little bit more about this energy situation.

I think that the problem is that a lot of people in this country--and certainly it would appear that the leadership of this House, Ms. Pelosi, the Speaker, and the leadership of the Senate, the Majority Leader, Mr. Reid of Nevada--are completely convinced that fossil fuel is a bad thing and it needs to be stamped out, eliminated; kill that sucker dead as soon as possible.

The quotes that I have heard, I think Senator Reid said, ``Fossil fuel,'' which includes, of course, coal and petroleum and natural gas, ``Fossil fuel is poison, and we need to get rid of all fossil fuel in the good old U.S.A. by the year 2020.''

Madam Speaker, when I asked during the August recess about whether or not she would come back and allow some drilling to obtain our own domestic sources of fossil fuel, she said, ``I want to save the planet.'' She hit her fist on the table and said again, for emphasis, ``I want to save the planet.''

A spokesperson for the Sierra Club, maybe it was the president of the Sierra Club, Madam Speaker, said it's a good thing that American people are now having to pay these astronomical prices for petroleum.

In other words, the idea is this is such a horrible thing, this burning of coal, which, by the way, generates 65 percent of our electricity, this driving cars and trucks and using gasoline and diesel fuel in our trains. Literally, our transportation system couldn't function without fossil fuels.

Now there may come a day, and hopefully there will come a day, when we will be able to wean ourselves off of fossil fuel and come up with some other alternatives, alternatives like wind and solar and bio- products and ethanol that absolutely give us great efficiency for our needs, electricity and transportation, and cause us absolutely no harm and that we have a tremendous abundance of all of these alternatives and renewables so that we're not dependent on anybody. That is kind of a euphoria, and hopefully it will one day occur. But we don't know for sure that it might not be opening up Pandora's box, Madam Speaker. We don't know that.

While it's true that greenhouse gases probably do cause a little bit of global warming--

I mean, these things might cause some harm, but how do we know that eventually we might create a country of alcoholics by burning all of this ethanol in our automobiles? People today are starving to death because they don't have jobs, and I think that's the first priority.

Let's get this economy back on track, and let's get a decent energy bill and do it right now.

Mr. Speaker, for the last 2 months we have been telling the Speaker and the Democratic majority that we need an all-of-the- above American Energy Act, and the Speaker has responded by saying any bill that includes drilling is a hoax.

Well, Mr. Speaker, she has presented at 10 o'clock last night a 290- page hoax in regard to the drilling provision. It is absolutely a hoax. It gives absolutely no revenues to the States for any drilling between 50 and 100 miles. We already allow that off the coasts of Texas and Louisiana, and you are going to expect these east coast States or California to let us drill with no revenue sharing? It ain't going to happen, and she knows it.

Now, in regard to the energy proposals that we have made in the American Energy Act, we have 10 up here, and none of these are included in the Pelosi no energy bill. None of the above. NOTA. Think of the acronym, N-O-T-A, not an energy bill.

If she would give us four of these; real offshore exploration, emission-free nuclear, new refinery capacity, who could say we don't need that, and lawsuit reform, so the extreme environmentalists don't destroy every opportunity.

This is not an energy bill. NOTA, N-O-T-A.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Basically, what the problem here is the leadership on the Democratic side of the aisle are so focused on saving the planet that they are not going to save the United States of America when we are in this crisis over these oil prices and dependency on foreign countries.

Nancy Pelosi herself, the Speaker of the House, said, ``I want to save the planet.'' ``I want to save the planet.'' The majority leader of the Senate said, ``All fossil fuel is poison and we need to get rid of it.'' The gentleman from the Sierra Club, Carl Pope, the executive director, said, ``We are better off without cheap oil, without cheap gas.''

We are better off without cheap gas? Tell that to the people in the 11th Congressional District back in Georgia

when they are paying $4 and $5 a gallon.

The bottom line, my colleagues, is what the Democrats have done is come in here with a farce, a hoax of an energy bill, and say, okay, we know the American people, 85 percent of them want an energy bill and they want to be able to drill.

I thank the gentleman.

They want this, and they want it now.

I just want to call my colleagues' attention to this Charlie Brown cartoon. This young man is Charlie Republican. This is Lucy Democrat. Lucy Democrat has teed up an energy bill that includes drilling, but when Charlie Brown goes to kick that field goal, she yanks it away. That is what the Democrat majority has done, and it is shameful, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise very forcibly in favor of this bill. I think that it is a good rule and a good underlying bill, and I'm proud to support it.

I agree with my colleague, my former colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Texas, when he says that this is an internal struggle within the Democratic majority, within the Democratic Party over this piece of legislation just as I think, Mr. Speaker, that they're engaged in an internal struggle over the issue of whether or not to allow drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf for both oil and natural gas and to utilize our own resources to bring down the price of energy and the price at the pump to the American people who are suffering so badly.

In that particular legislation, of course, the leadership is in favor of, Mr. Speaker, of saving the planet. The leadership of the Senate is in favor of getting rid of all fossil fuels, which he characterizes as poison; the leader of Sierra Club says it would be a good thing if we had to pay $10 and $12 a gallon for gasoline at the pump. That's the leadership.

But there are many, Mr. Speaker, in the Democratic majority rank and file, if you will, the Blue Dog Coalition, they're struggling. They're struggling very badly with that type of policy. And I think they would feel just as we do on this side of the aisle that in these dire economic times, it's time to save not the planet, but to save the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise, as I say, in strong support of the amendment in the nature of a substitute the Rules Committee has made in order for this legislation. The right of an individual to keep and bear arms is one of the most basic rights provided to all Americans by our Bill of Rights.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that very right for the residents of the Nation's capital in its ruling on the case of the District of Columbia v. Heller. The Court's 5-4 decision rightfully deemed the longstanding ban on handguns in the homes of law-abiding citizens in the District of Columbia to be unconstitutional.

Mr. Speaker, in theory, the result of this ruling should have simply allowed Washington, DC, residents to have the same second amendment rights as the rest of this country. Unfortunately though, the D.C. City Council chose to ignore the will of the Supreme Court by passing an ordinance that continues to infringe upon the rights of individuals constitutionally protected.

The strongly bipartisan amendment in the nature of a substitute for H.R. 6842 properly addresses the underlying issue to enforce the will of the Supreme Court. It does so by repealing the District of Columbia's current ban on semi-automatic pistols, which are the most commonly owned handguns in this country. It also repeals the needless requirement that a lawful firearm in the home must be either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock; these provisions undermining an individual's ability to provide for their own self-defense and the self-defense of their family and their children.

Currently, there are no registered firearms dealers within the District of Columbia, so the amendment made in order will waive Federal law for D.C. residents and simply allow them to lawfully purchase a handgun either in the State of Virginia or in the State of Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, it's imperative that we fully enforce the Supreme Court's rule and restore second amendment rights to residents of our Nation's capital. I strongly support the amendment in the nature of a substitute. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and, if it is adopted, the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Robert Sidney Clotfelter, who is celebrating his 95th birthday this week. Sidney Clotfelter is a life-long Georgian who has spent the majority of his 95 years enriching lives of citizens in the heart of my district-- Marietta, Georgia. Born in Fulton County, Georgia on September 14, 1913, Sidney was one of five children to Charles Thomas and Era Northcutt Clotfelter.

Growing up in Marietta during the Great Depression, Sidney sold vegetables from the back of a Model T Ford to help make ends meet for his family.

Sidney attended Marietta High School and graduated in 1932, where he was voted Best All-Around Senior. After high school, he attended a local business college, and then studied two years at Georgia Tech. During World War II, he served his country as an officer in the Army with the Corps of Engineers.

Sidney has been an active member of the First Presbyterian Church since 1928, where he has served as Deacon and has been on the Property Committee for twenty years.

He has owned and operated a number of businesses, including a contracting company for commercial and industrial construction. He built schools, churches and various commercial buildings around Marietta, and did construction work for Southern Bell and AT&T in every state in the Southeast. For several years he worked for Lockheed Martin in maintenance and construction.

In 1992, he was honored with the Marietta High School Distinguished Alumni Award. Sidney Clotfelter has been a member of the Marietta Rotary Club since 1946 and served as the Club's president from 1962 to 1963.

Sidney Clotfelter has contributed much to the communities of Marietta, Cobb County, and the entire state of Georgia during his 95 years. His donations of time, work and money to a wide variety of organizations and causes have been substantial, continual and selfless--often giving anonymously. He is a dedicated family man who is blessed to have all four of his children living near him on the property where he was raised. Sidney has spent thirty-two wonderful years married to Barbara Porter Clotfelter and, along with his four children, has eight grandchildren and eleven great-grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in wishing Robert Sidney Clotfelter a happy and healthy 95th birthday and thanking him for a lifetime of service to his community.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding.

I, too, want to rise in support of the amendment of Mr. Grijalva and Mr. Bishop in regard to this amendment. But, Mr. Chairman, I want to state rather emphatically that I rise to express concern that this committee, the Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, has jurisdiction over the miles and miles and hundreds if not thousands of miles of Outer Continental Shelf on both coasts of this country and also the Gulf of Mexico, this committee, the Natural Resources Committee chaired by Mr. Rahall, has jurisdiction, and yet here we are, Mr. Chairman, taking up the time of this body to delay the work that we clearly need to do in regard to a sound energy policy. And to think that we have 2 more weeks left before the majority leadership has decided that we are going to leave this place and not come back until the 111th Congress, ladies and gentlemen, that is next January. So starting from August 1 until the end of the year, that means we will have worked, what, 13 days in 5 months. That makes this congressional job, Mr. Chairman, a part-time job. If I had known that, I would go back home and deliver babies for 6 months out of the year.

We ought to be doing an energy bill right now, this week. There is no excuse for it. And there was really no excuse, Mr. Chairman, for us adjourning and going home to our districts for whatever reason for 5 weeks. We could have stayed here and in 3 days, 5 days at the most, done exactly what Mr. Rahall just a few minutes ago on the floor of this Chamber said that you were going to do; you, the majority, were going to introduce a comprehensive bill allowing 99 percent of all United States energy resources to be utilized.

What I have seen, Mr. Chairman, of this proposal, if it looks anything like what has been suggested on the Senate side, doesn't even come close to that. This is certainly not an all-of-the-above energy bill; it is almost none of the above. And, quite honestly, the acronym for that is the NOT-A bill, none-of-the-above act. It is a NOT-A energy act.

But if the chairman is right in what he said, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to see an all-of-the-above energy bill, let's get with it. Let's get with it. There is no reason why the Committee on Energy and Commerce, with Chairman Dingell and Ranking Member Barton who work very well together, very respected members on both sides of the aisle in this Chamber, we could not in a regular order go through the regular process, have an open rule, and give and take on both sides.

Put the politics aside, and let's do what we should have done 6 weeks ago to bring relief to the American people in regard to these high gasoline prices.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you.

We're going to spend our hour tonight on behalf of the minority party talking about energy, once again. This is the most pressing concern, I think, of our Nation right now in these tough economic times.

But before I get started, I want to join with my colleagues, my Democratic colleagues, and pay tribute, Mr. Speaker, to Stephanie Tubbs Jones, the gentlewoman from Ohio. I guess you can say that everything's been said that needs to be said, but not everybody has had an opportunity to say it. I can't improve upon the kind words that we've heard here over the last hour in regard to her life and what a great person she was.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention one thing that I thought about a lot after hearing of her untimely and sad passing. She is the second member, Mr. Speaker, of the Ohio delegation to die in office during this 110th Congress. The first was a member on our side of the aisle-- again, very loved and respected--Paul Gillmor. Just like Ms. Jones, like Representative Jones, as bipartisan whenever he could be, as she was.

And I went to his funeral in Columbus, Ohio, the great capital of Ohio. And the eulogies that were offered on behalf of Representative Gillmor, the very first one, Mr. Speaker, was offered by Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones. And it was very touching, very loving. You know, it's a sad thing, of course, her passing. But God has His plan, and we have our plans, but His plan takes precedent over everything we do.

But she was a great Member of this body, and I join my colleagues in expressing my sincere sympathy to the family.

Mr. Speaker, we are here finally back in session after a long 5-week absence, the so-called August recess. And, Mr. Speaker, I think you and all of my colleagues know that many Republican Members--we asked our Democratic colleagues to join us on this floor during the recess--in fact I think some 134 Republican Members--that's not 100 percent on our side, but it's getting darn close to 80, 85 percent--Members came back, some several days, took a break away from their families, from their constituents in this traditional August recess to come back here and say, you know, we really should not be at home. We should not be in our districts no matter how important the work there is. It's very important. Certainly, there is some politicking going on during election season.

But I think, Mr. Speaker, most of my constituents told me, and I'm sure every Member of this body, that you need to get back up there and do the people's work. We're suffering, we're struggling with these high gas prices; our kids are going to be going back to school in a couple of weeks and the school bus is probably not going to be running, and it's a safety issue. And some school districts across the country are talking about cutting back to a 4-day school week. It's one thing for a 4-day work week, but a 4-day school week for our youngsters . . .

So we were talking about that every day. Every day we had anywhere from 5 to 15 Republican Members in this Chamber.

Now, the lights were dim, the air-conditioning was either too cold or it was too hot, the C-SPAN cameras were not running. These microphones--I'm hoarse today Mr. Speaker, because of straining my voice during that time. But it was an absolute wonderful experience.

All of the people that were visiting the Nation's Capitol, their Capitol, the people's House, during that time, during those 5 weeks, we asked them if they wanted to come and have a unique opportunity to sit in our seats right here in this Chamber. Rarely do they get the chance to do that. It's not like sitting in the gallery. To actually come down and sit in the seats where the Members sit and debate and vote.

And this Chamber was virtually full many of those days, a lot of times three-fourths full, half full. But untold numbers of American citizens had an opportunity. And they were not just Republicans, Mr. Speaker. They were Democrats, they were independents, they were voters. They were people that enjoyed listening to this discussion about the crisis that we're in and what, at least on our side of the aisle, we felt need to be done.

We talked at length about the American Energy Act, the bill that was introduced by minority leader John Boehner of the great State of Ohio. Leader Boehner introduced the American Energy Act probably 2\1/2\ months ago, in fact. And it languished wherever it went to, probably the Energy and Commerce Committee, and never saw the light of day. And that bill, Mr. Speaker, is the all-of-the-above Energy Act. Yes, the cornerstone of the bill is to drill, to drill here in the United States or off of its Outer Continental Shelf, to drill now so that we lower these gas prices and get some relief to the great people of this country who are struggling so much right now economically. And yet the bill never had an opportunity to see the light of day.

I have got a number of posters, Mr. Speaker, that I want to refer to, and I'm going to put that on the easel here for a minute so my colleagues can join with me in understanding some of the issues.

Well, the first poster says, ``Nancy Pelosi, we're here and where are you?'' Well guess what, my colleagues. She's back. She's back. But it took 5 weeks to get her back, and during the time that we were begging her to come back and call this Congress into a special session, she had the power to do that.

Madam Speaker was out, among other things, promoting her new book, ``Know Your Power.'' I'm sure Madam Speaker was referring to the power of a woman, and I think that's a good thing. I have three daughters and four grand-daughters, and I hope one day that they will have an opportunity to achieve what Madam Speaker's achieved. They obviously won't be the first female Speaker in the history of this country because she has that title now, but know her power, the power to convene the Congress and pass legislation. She, and only she, could do that, and yet she refused to come back even for a few days, even maybe for a week. She would still, as would the rest of us, have 4 weeks to work in our districts or go on vacation or whatever during that August recess.

The ironic thing, Mr. Speaker, about this is Ms. Pelosi said in the elections of 2006--gee, it's been almost 2 years ago when the Democratic Party was the minority party. She said that, you know, this do-nothing Congress, these do-nothing Republicans, we need to replace them, and among other things, of course, she said that bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute. Now, that is a direct quote by Speaker Pelosi back in 2006.

Well, she has already pretty much said that any energy bill, Mr. Speaker, that comes to the floor is going to be basically with a closed rule. We, in the minority, are not going to have an opportunity to amend, and it's not going to look anything like the American Energy Act, the All-of-the-Above Act, which allows not just drilling here, drilling now, but it includes so many other things that we'll speak about during this hour.

But before I go on, I wanted to take the opportunity--two of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and I hope maybe some others will join us later in the hour, but the first colleague is the gentleman from Florida, and he should know a lot, a lot indeed, about the Outer Continental Shelf and what is being done and what's not being done. I yield at this time to my colleague from Florida, the honorable Ric Keller.

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the gentleman from Florida being with us tonight, and I thank him for that very intelligent discussion of ANWR and some of the statistics that he presented to us.

Mr. Speaker, the 1.5 million barrels a day that Representative Keller was talking about is not an insignificant amount of oil, and if you add that to 2.5 million barrels a day that we could be getting from the Outer Continental Shelf and another 2.5 million barrels a day that we could be extracting from the shale out in the Midwest, those five Rocky Mountain States, you would have a doubling of the amount of domestic production of oil. We would go from 7 million barrels a day to about 14 million barrels a day, and of course, you know, right now we're importing 60 percent of what we use. So his discussion is very pertinent and very timely.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I was talking about what our current Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, some of the quotes that she made back in 2006, and I want to share in this poster a few more with you. She said then, This leadership team will create the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history. Now, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that November 16, 2006.

This is now, a recent quote. When we asked for an opportunity to have regular order on an energy bill coming through the Energy and Commerce Committee, a bill that was marked up by both Democrats and Republicans, majority and minority, and that would go through the amendment process and that maybe even some amendments submitted to the Rules Committee would be made in order so that we could have a fair and open discussion, when she was questioned about that, when reference to a quote back in 2006, Ms. Pelosi said, and this is a quote, I'm not giving the gavel to them. They will have to use their imagination as to

how they can get a vote. Speaker Pelosi said that on August 3, 2008. I guess kind of like she's using her imagination to lower energy prices.

And I think my next colleague who is going to speak will talk a little bit about the imagination and what her plan happens to be, but I'll show a couple of more slides before I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) who has been such a strong advocate on this issue.

This is another quote from Ms. Pelosi. This call for drilling in areas that are protected--in other words, the Outer Continental Shelf and ANWR that the gentleman from Florida was just talking about--this call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax. It is an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this administration.

Another quote from Speaker Pelosi, If you don't agree with that, my colleagues, just call (202) 224-3121 and voice your concern about a quote like that.

But listen to this. Look at this quote that Ms. Pelosi, our distinguished Speaker, gave on one of the national news networks a week or so ago when she was asked: ``Why not drill? Why not open up these areas?'' After all, the United States owns this source of fossil fuel, both natural gas and petroleum. Her quote then was: ``I'm trying to save the planet.'' I think she actually banged the table and repeated it. ``I'm trying to save the planet.''

Well, so is this guy Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. His quote was: ``We're better off without cheap oil. We're better off without cheap gas.''

So what they want to do is save the planet, but I fear, Mr. Speaker, that in the process they'll be destroying this country.

With that, I am going to yield to my distinguished colleague from North Carolina, a champion who has been back on this floor for most of the August recess, not just for a day or two. In fact, she led the Republicans on several occasions, and she does such a great job. At this time, I'm honored to yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Virginia Foxx.

Would the gentlelady yield for just one comment on that before you continue?

Representative Foxx, you requoted what the gentleman from the Sierra Club said. Again, he said, ``We're better off without cheap gas.''

Also, I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the leader of the Senate, the Senate majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, said fossil fuel is poison, that fossil fuel is poison and that we need to completely rid ourselves of that by, I think, the year 2012. So I just wanted to point that out.

I yield back to the gentlewoman.

In reclaiming my time just for a second before yielding back to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, what she is talking about, Mr. Speaker, is an energy trust fund that could be, as she pointed out, obtained from royalties that the Federal Government gets from the oil companies--Big Oil, the Democrats use that pejorative constantly--but they would have to pay significant royalties to the Federal Government, which, as Ms. Foxx pointed out, would be put in a trust fund to have grants for research and development for alternative sources such as wind and solar and other things.

I'll continue to yield to the gentlewoman.

I want to thank again the gentlewoman from North Carolina, who did a wonderful job, I think, of explaining what has not been going on in this body.

And I think it's important for the American people to understand something. When the Democratic minority back in the 2006 election cycle, Mr. Speaker, when they were campaigning--this is campaign season now; so 2 years ago they were in the minority and talked about the ``do-nothing,'' ``do-nothing'' Republican majority and made statements such as, well, they are only here 3 days a week, only here in Washington doing the people's business, passing laws that need to be passed, these Republicans, these ``lazy'' Republicans was the characterization, Mr. Speaker, of the then Republican majority. They are only up here 3 days a week, not doing anything, not doing the people's work, and when we get the majority, we promise to do the people's work. And indeed, Mr. Speaker, you weren't here at that particular time,

but the statement was we will go to a 5-day work week like everybody else across America, and, indeed, some people work 6 and 7 days a week and they have two jobs, not one. So this idea of coming and doing the people's work, that sounded good to me. I liked that.

Now, keep in mind what has happened since the Democrats have gained the majority. The people gave them that confidence, gave them that trust and said okay, that sounds good to us, and they gained the majority. Well, what have they done? Well, let me just say that we are now back in session here in September, the second week in September. And we are going to be here, including today, and this day is almost gone, it's 10:30 at night--Mr. Speaker, we are going to be here 15 days. Now, we are going to be here 15 days. Maybe it will turn out to be 12 or 10. But the Democratic majority says that we are going to be 15 days, 5 days this week, 5 days next week, and 5 days the following week. Ladies and gentlemen, that's 15 days out of 5 months.

Remember now, the whole month of August and the first week in September, we were on recess, and the Democratic majority, Mr. Speaker, has already emphatically said that we want our Members to go home and be in their districts and campaign for re-election or whatever and we are not coming back until the next Congress, until the 111th Congress in January after the new President is inaugurated. I mean it's just unbelievable.

Now think about it. Mr. Speaker, if the American public were watching our proceedings tonight and they heard what I'm saying to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 15 days in 5 months, that's deplorable. If that's what we are going to do, if that's what we have resorted to in this Congress, then this ought to be a part-time job. This shouldn't be a full-time job. That's fine with me. If you want to make it a part- time job, I will go back home and start delivering babies again 6 months out of the year.

But let me just use a word that I think most of my colleagues understand: This is the height of mendacity. This is the height of hypocrisy to make that kind of promise and then not deliver to the American people. Ms. Foxx talked about it, Representative Foxx, Representative Keller.

And Representative Keller is still with us, and I would be happy to yield to him for further thoughts or comments that he may have on this issue. We only have about 10 minutes left, but let me yield back to my friend from Florida.

I thank my colleague and friend from Florida.

As I was saying, of course, Mr. Speaker, 15 days in the last 5 months, and you look at the schedule for this week, and there is unbelievably nothing, nothing on the agenda that has anything to do with energy.

We are going to have two bills, one I guess on Thursday and one on Friday or maybe Wednesday and Thursday. One of them is the No Child Left Inside Act of 2008 to reauthorize the National Environmental Education Act to help improve the quality of environmental education for primary and secondary school students. And then if you think that one's important, H.R. 3667, the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2008, authorizes $300,000 for a study of a segment of the Missisquoi River in Vermont for potential designation as Wild and Scenic. Not only does H.R. 3667 not create more American energy, but it might actually prevent future energy exploration along the river like the siting of a liquefied natural gas plant as an example.

And the other 2 days we are doing nothing but suspension bills, and those suspension bills are the ones that you have to have a two-thirds vote. There is little opposition to those bills, and yet they are given 20 minutes of debate on each side, 40 minutes on each of these suspension bills to make it look like we're doing something up here.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will say that the Democratic majority has done some things since they took control. In January, 2007, when the price of regular gasoline was $2.22, that date we congratulated the U.S. Santa Barbara soccer team. And then on September 5, when the price of regular had gone to $2.84, that was National Passport Month. February 6, 2008, when the price of regular had gone to $3.03, we were commending the Houston Dynamo soccer team. Then on May 14, 2008, the price of regular $3.77, that was National Train Day. Then on May 20, 2008, regular gasoline $3.84 a gallon, that was Great Cats and Rare Canids Act. Really important. On June 10, 2008, the price of regular $4.09 a gallon, the International Year of Sanitation bill. Really important. And then last but not least, June 17, 2008, when the price of regular had gotten up to $4.14, that was the Monkey Safety Act day. We were doing some things all right. We were really working hard up here.

Well, look, the bottom line is this: We have a bill. The Republicans have a bill. We have a comprehensive bill. Yes, the cornerstone is ``Drill Here, Drill Now.'' But this is the all-of-the-above approach to energy independence, and that's what we have to have, not only for our domestic needs but for the security of this Nation. And I commend our nominee for President, John McCain, and our nominee for Vice President, Sarah Palin, because they understand we need to drill on the Outer Continental Shelf. And we will have a Vice President who is from an energy State and understands the importance of those resources that we own.

So, Mr. Speaker, we want to do things in a bipartisan way. And in closing, I know we are getting very close to that hour, but in closing let me just say this: We can work together. We can work together. I know I spent a lot of time up here railing tonight against Speaker Pelosi, but I respect her. She is the Speaker of this House not just for the Democrats but also for the Republicans. We respect her. We respect the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the distinguished Mr. John Dingell from Michigan.

He knows about this country and its needs. Why can't we get together, Mr. Dingell and Mr. Barton, and let's have a bill that is comprehensive, a little give and take on both sides of the aisle, because it's for the American people, and let's worry more about them than the next election. The next election, Mr. Speaker, will take care of itself. Let the people judge on that.

I am going to tell you, when you go back home I am hearing from my constituents, and I know everybody in this House Chamber is hearing from their

constituents. We can do it. It's time. It's time to do it, and it's time to do it now.

I think it would be unconscionable if we go home 3 weeks from now and we have not done this. I am willing to stay. I am willing to stay, and 134, maybe even 194 Republicans, and hopefully some good, rock solid Democrats will stay with us this time until we get an energy bill done in a comprehensive, bipartisan way.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 32 minutes p.m.), under its previous order and pursuant to House Resolution 1415, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, September 9, 2008, at 10:30 a.m., for morning-hour debate, as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late Honorable Stephanie Tubbs Jones.