Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, a famous American, Will Rogers once said, ``The only thing I know about American politics is what I read in the newspaper.''

Madam Speaker, what I read in the newspaper this morning are these headlines: ``A shadow over recess. Impasse on energy obscures victories as Dems head home.''

Another headline: ``Energy shadow falls over the August recess.''

Reading further, I thought we had a little ray of light and encouragement in a press conference that the Speaker gave yesterday. ``And, asked if she could envision a scenario where there could be a vote on new offshore drilling, she said, `Of course.'

``But shortly thereafter, Pelosi's office issued a written `clarification' stating that Pelosi was not changing her position.''

And the quote now, ``She has no plans to bring to the floor a bill to allow drilling in protected areas.'''

Unconscionable, Madam Speaker. I don't know what the plan is. Maybe it's in one of the chapters of a new book that she's spent the last 3 months writing while she should have been doing something, Madam Speaker, about these high gasoline prices that are crippling this Nation. Unconscionable.

Let's stay here. Let's not adjourn. Let's pass meaningful legislation.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to offer an amendment to H.R. 6599, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2009, and to ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

A little over a month ago, property rights advocates across the country spoke out on the third anniversary of the now infamous Kelo decision by the Supreme Court.

I, along with Representative Maxine Waters of California, Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, mark the date

by introducing a resolution that expresses congressional support for the private property rights protections guaranteed by the fifth amendment to the Constitution.

Today, we in the Congress have an opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to the preservation of these rights. My amendment would ensure that none of the Federal funds appropriated by this act can be used in the taking of private property without just compensation.

Ideally, Mr. Chairman, eminent domain should never have to be used, but even the Constitution provides for its application in instances involving public use, such as construction of a road or a public school. Public use also includes the common defense, which is a central focus of the Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs Appropriations bill. Accordingly, from time to time the needs of our military may require the use of eminent domain. However, even when the Federal Government exercises the power of eminent domain on behalf of the military, private property owners must always receive just compensation.

The taking of private property is among the toughest decisions a government should ever have to make. A government should only make that decision when it is absolutely necessary and only after working with property owners to try to reach a mutual agreement.

The sanctity of private property rights and the security they afford are among the greatest blessings this country offers its citizens. Individual liberty and freedom are at the very root of our property rights and therefore we must ensure that these rights are never abused and they are always protected.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, it seems the protections of the fifth amendment do not apply to the wallets of hardworking Americans who are now struggling at the gas pump. The inaction of this Congress to address in a real way these historically high gas prices, I believe, also constitutes unjustified taking, but it seems that this Congress has little interest in justly compensating the American consumer by increasing domestic energy production, creating new American jobs, and lowering the price of gasoline. In fact, it seems to me the fear of even a vote on domestic energy production has led the Democratic majority to essentially shut down the appropriations process, the process with which we fund the entirety of our Federal Government, from the Pentagon to the schoolhouses across the country.

With only 17 legislative days left until the next fiscal year, seven of the 12 appropriations bills have not even been considered by the full Appropriations Committee, and this is the first appropriations bill considered on the House floor. So while Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership continue to refuse pleas for at least a vote on increasing domestic supply and lowering the price of gasoline, House Republicans will continue to fight to open up American energy and to prevent the unjust taking occurring every day at the gas pump.

From wallets to homesteads to family businesses, this Congress has an obligation to protect the property rights of all Americans. So I again call upon my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Madam Speaker, in accordance with House Republican Conference standards, and clause 9 of rule XXI, I submit the following member request for the Record. Funding for this request was contained in the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009.

Requesting Member: Congressman Phil Gingrey.

Bill Number: H.R. 6599.

Account: Army National Guard.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Georgia National Guard.

Address of Requesting Entity: Georgia Department of Defense, P.O. Box 1970, Marietta, GA 30061.

Description of Request: This request is in support of President Bush's FY '09 budget submission and provides $45,000,000 for a National Guard Joint Forces Headquarters and Readiness Center to be constructed at Naval Air Station (NAS) Atlanta. This project is contained in the Army National Guard's Future Years Defense Program, and funding for it is critical to ensure a smooth transition for the Georgia National Guard to NAS Atlanta by 2011.

This facility is required to house all elements of the Headquarters, Headquarters Detachment, and the 118th Personnel Service Detachment of the Georgia Army National Guard. It will also house the headquarters of the Georgia Air National Guard and the multiple departments of the Georgia Department of Defense. The readiness center will provide the necessary administrative, training, and storage areas required to achieve proficiency in required training tasks.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3957-- the Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Research Act. I commend my colleague from the Science Committee--Mr. Matheson of Utah--for crafting this thoughtful legislation that was reported to the House on a broad bipartisan basis.

Over the past year, my home State of Georgia--and specifically my district--has experienced significant and historic drought conditions that have brought to the forefront what the future may hold for our local water supply.

In addition to the drought conditions in my district, a number of other States are facing similar challenges. Over the next 5 years, more than half of the States in our country anticipate some sort of water shortage that will wreak havoc on our environment, as well as our economy.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3957 addresses ways in which the Environmental Protection Agency can use its Office of Research and Development to promote technologies that increase water efficiency and conservation via collection, treatment and reuse of rainwater and greywater, and research on water storage.

I am encouraged that this legislation will promote the adoption of emerging technologies to help us make better use of one of our most precious resources--water. I am also very pleased that the Science Committee adopted an amendment that I offered directing the EPA to ensure that the research and development efforts resulting from this legislation complement all other EPA research and development endeavors. Proper implementation of a strategic research plan will ultimately make this program successful.

Madam Speaker, at a time when water shortages are becoming more commonplace in our Nation, I applaud the bipartisan work of the Science Committee under the leadership of Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall on this important legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 3957.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the goals and ideals of National Campus Safety Awareness Month: As a cosponsor of this thoughtful resolution, I would like to commend my colleague from the House Armed Services Committee--Admiral Sestak of Pennsylvania--for his leadership on this important issue.

National Campus Safety Awareness Month--first established in September 2005--works to both heighten awareness and to improve the overall safety on our college and university campuses. H. Res. 1288 supports the goals of this initiative and encourages all institutions of higher learning to participate in this very worthy endeavor.

Mr. Speaker, despite the work that has been accomplished to increase campus safety at colleges and universities across the country, college students are still very susceptible to criminal acts. Between 2004 and 2006 alone, colleges and universities reported 37 homicides, 8,114 forcible-sex offenses, 8,923 aggravated assaults, and 3,071 cases of arson.

I applaud the work being done by organizations like Security On Campus (SOC) that are dedicated to using educational programming to teach students how to handle the potential dangers of their surroundings.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 1288.

Will the gentleman from Illinois yield on that point for a second? It is my understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, that in this country there are known resources, veins of coal in the amount of 1.5 trillion tons, and it is suspected that there may be that much more that is not for sure. But 1.5 trillion tons of coal. And I think we utilize about 22 billion tons a year in this electricity generation. So I just want to make the point that there is so much more of this resource, whether it is in West Virginia or Kentucky or in Illinois, and to not utilize it, as the gentleman says, makes no sense at all.

This really gives me an opportunity to segue into what the gentleman from Illinois was just talking about in regard to the American Energy Act and, of course, he started his discussion about coal liquefaction and some of the many things we can do as part of that bill, a comprehensive approach.

But in concluding his remarks, he talked about the fact that we have this resource of natural gas and petroleum off the coast of our country, both east and west coast, Outer Continental Shelf, eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico, that 10 billion barrels of fuel is estimated in ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.

I took an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, today to write a letter, an e- mail, to my constituents in the 11th District of Georgia, northwest Georgia, both the Republicans and Democrats. Now, I won my last election with about 71 percent of the votes. So it's a highly Republican district. But listen to what I said to them and the response that they gave.

``For months now I have spoken on the House floor almost daily in a concerted effort to convince the Democratic leadership to bring forward legislation that would allow us to drill here and drill now so that we could all pay less at the pump. Last week, I joined my House Republican colleagues to introduce the American Energy Act, a comprehensive bill which would increase our domestic energy supply while also harnessing renewable and alternative energy technologies and improving conservation and efficiency. However, as Congress prepares to adjourn for a 5-week recess, Speaker Pelosi continues to prevent a vote on increasing the amount of domestic oil produced in this country from reaching the House floor.

``As I work to represent your interest in Washington, it is vital that I know your feelings on this issue. Would you take a moment to quickly answer the survey question on the right of this page so that I can take your opinions to Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership and let them know how you feel about this crucial issue.

``Sincerely, Phil Gingrey.''

Here is the question: Do you think Congress should adjourn for a 5- week recess even if no vote is taken to allow offshore drilling on our Outer Continental Shelf for oil and natural gas?

Mr. Speaker, so far, with several hundred responses already in, the results are overwhelming: 94 percent do not support Congress adjourning for recess without legislation that would allow increased drilling. 94 percent.

Now, as I say, I won my last election with 71 percent. This tells you that a lot of good, red-blooded, conservative, hardworking Democrats in my district feel the exact same way we do tonight, Mr. Speaker, as we do this hour in this colloquy. And I know that there are a lot of my colleagues on this floor, Mr. Speaker--and you do, too, I would imagine, who, given the opportunity to have a bill to vote to increase our domestic source and end our dependency on these foreign countries that hate us, would gladly vote. And maybe they will stay here with us come Thursday or come Friday, a sit-in, and say, ``We are not going home until we have a bill to vote on.''

With that, I yield back to my colleague from Texas who is managing the time.

Offered By: Mr. Gingrey

Amendment No. 20: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following new section:

Sec. 408. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made

available in this Act may be used to take private property

for public use without just compensation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I won't take all of my time.

I just want to say that I am tremendously opposed to this resolution. When we passed Medicare Modernization and the Prescription Drug Act back in November of 2003, I was a freshman Member of the House, a physician Member of the House, and I felt very strongly that we needed to give our seniors a prescription drug benefit. They had been asking for it for years. The Democrats were in the majority most of those years. And yet in 2003, most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted ``no.'' I think it was their feeling, most of them, that the prescription drug benefit didn't go far enough.

On our side of the aisle, though, Mr. Speaker, there was great concern of cost, and I truly believe that the prescription drug part D and Medicare modernization would not have passed this body had not section 803 been in there, that trigger to say when we have spent so much, the President would have to come back and offer a solution to try to control the cost and no better way than the medical liability reform to cut down on all of the defensive medicine that doctors practice. It's not the premiums that they pay for malpractice, it is the defensive medicine. All of these tests that are unnecessary.

And then, of course, to means-test part D, just as it would have mean-tested part B for these so many years, if we were not means- testing part B, the monthly premium would still be $15 a month instead of $96.

Defeat this resolution. Bring fiscal responsibility to this body.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I thank my colleagues on the Republican side and our leadership for giving me the opportunity to be on the floor tonight to talk to all of our colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, about one of the most pressing issues facing this country in a long, long time. And of course the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) just spent her 5-minute discussion talking about the very same thing. But we are blessed to have an hour worth of time tonight, as we have done on several nights for the last I would say 3 or 4 weeks talking about this one huge problem, Mr. Speaker.

And I have a number of my colleagues who have joined me tonight to help in this discussion of this energy crisis which is so important that the Nation is now facing. We have a Member who I will yield to subsequently who wants to talk about something very unique, a new bill, something that he has thought of that I think is very, very interesting, intriguing, and I want my colleagues to hear about that.

But let me start the hour, Mr. Speaker, by giving our colleagues a little quiz. This is not a pop quiz. Well, maybe in a way it is, but it is not a difficult pop quiz. In fact, it is the easiest type question, the kind I always enjoyed when in school, it is multiple choice. It is a multiple-choice question. So I want to ask the cameras to sort of hone in on this first slide that I have to my left. This is the question. It is simple. It is straightforward.

How do we bring down the price of oil?

Now I have listed about six possible answers. I could have listed eight or ten. Let's start with A, open up oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf.

Now that oil and natural gas has been closed to us, has been locked up since the mid-seventies when a moratorium was placed. Thank goodness President Bush just recently, in the last 2 weeks, lifted the executive order and now Congress certainly could pass a law and allow us to do that.

So, A, I am sure for many of our colleagues in this body on both sides of the aisle, A, would be their choice as the best answer.

The second answer, B, build new oil refineries. Well, you mean we haven't? No. No, my colleagues, we have not built a new oil refinery in this country probably in 25 years. We have expanded a bit along the gulf coast where most of the refineries currently exist. And, of course, they are right in hurricane alley, and we know what happened during Hurricane Katrina when a lot of refineries were shut down and we had a real crisis because of that.

So darn right, B would be a good answer, build new oil refineries.

And C, commercially develop renewable energy resources. What do we mean by renewable energy resources? Well, I think the main two that come right to mind are wind and solar. Wind and solar. Wind and sun.

There are some parts of the energy where there is a lot of energy produced by wind and sun. The North Sea, the northern part of Germany, Hamburg; in the Netherlands. I have been to both of those countries and seen these huge turbines, wind farms, and some are out in the ocean. You can't see them, they are a long way from shore, but this constant wind source in the North Sea is a good source of renewable energy.

Solar panels, I would say, work real good in the equator in the temperate zones, but they may not work so well in certain parts of our country. But without question, C is a good response to how do we bring down the price of oil, commercially develop renewable energy resources. We are doing that. In fact, we have tax credits to incentivize that. I have recently supported a bill by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), to renew those tax credits for renewable to stimulate that industry. These tax credits expire, I think, in about a month, so it is very important that we do renew that.

Right now only 1 to 2 percent of the energy, the electricity in this country is generated from these renewable sources. It ought to be 6 to 8, maybe 10 percent; and hopefully eventually it will. So C is a pretty darn good answer.

The fourth choice, D, commission new nuclear power plants. Well, you know, some of our colleagues may say you mean we haven't? We don't? We have got over 100 nuclear power plants in this country, some in the southeast. The gentleman from Tennessee is with us tonight, and there are some in Tennessee. And there certainly are some in my home State of Georgia. I worked at a nuclear power plant in South Carolina when I was a co-op student at Georgia Tech. But we have not licensed, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not licensed a nuclear plant in about 30 years.

The Three Mile Island scare, there was no loss of life, maybe that had something to do with it. But nuclear power today is safe. It is efficient. It is clean; and yes, it is expensive. And maybe that is part of the reason why we haven't gone nuclear in a more meaningful way. Right now I think probably 12 percent of our power in this country is generated by nuclear power.

But when you are paying $140 a barrel for oil, petroleum products, all of a sudden nuclear power would be a bargain. And we have a couple of power plants in the State of Georgia. Plant Vogtle has two and is asking to bring online two more. We need to streamline that.

There are countries, France in particular, 85 percent of their electric power, their electricity, is generated by nuclear power. In fact, they even have to sell some of that to their

neighbor Germany who doesn't allow nuclear power.

The Scandinavian countries, Sweden, they have nuclear power generation almost exclusively, and they have a good way of getting rid of the nuclear waste, of burying it deep in bedrock. We have the same capability right here in the United States out in Nevada where we have spent billions of dollars developing Yucca Mountain, but yet politicians, very powerful politicians from the State of Nevada, I won't mention names, but they are blocking that.

So without question, D, commission new nuclear power plants, would be a darn good answer.

The next choice is E, promote conservation.

Now look, who could disagree with that answer? There are 85 million barrels of oil, petroleum, produced in this world every day; 85 million barrels. The United States of America utilizes 22 million barrels a day. We are about 5 percent of the world's population, and we are utilizing about 25 percent of the world production of crude oil. So there is something wrong with that math, no question about it. That calculus just doesn't add up. So we certainly need to conserve. We need to ride in high-occupancy vehicle lanes on our interstates. We need to probably, slowly but surely, go to smaller automobiles that are more fuel efficient.

We need to go to these fluorescent-type light bulbs. I mean there are so many things that we can do. Yes, we need to tighten our belt; so that answer is not a bad answer.

And I said that we could have put some other things in there. ``Sue OPEC,'' I don't think that would be a very good answer, but I have heard people say that. ``Sue OPEC and Venezuela'' I have heard. And the Democratic majority, Mr. Speaker, has legislation and they want to say, well, we need to stop all the speculating and the hedging and unless you are actually taking possession of the oil, that contract, and you really are buying it for the oil company or for the airlines or for the Air Force, you shouldn't play in that market. I don't know if that's a problem. It may be a little small part of the problem. I could have added that as a possible answer.

But the last choice is choice F, and that choice is ``all of the above.'' And I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I think F is the right answer. And I believe that the 5,000 or so people that were chatting with me last night from Harris, Polk, and Carroll Counties of the 11th Congressional District in Georgia told me very clearly that that's the choice that they would take. And I believe that a fifth grade geography class would make the choice, that they would say just what the Republican minority has been saying to our brothers and sisters across the aisle for the last month or 6 weeks, that we need to do all of these things. There is not one silver bullet. You can't solve this problem with the snap of your fingers and sue Big Oil and windfall profit taxes and releasing a few million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. You might affect the price for a few days, but it would go right back up. No, we need to look at this not only in the short term but in the long term. If we had done this back in the 1970s, we wouldn't be in this crisis that we are in today. But we went back to sleep is what we did. Shame on us for that, and doubly shame on us if we do it today.

People are suffering, Mr. Speaker. People are suffering severely. And we are about to leave this body. Ms. Foxx was talking about 9 days. Well, really we're talking about 4 or 5 legislative days and we are out of here for recess or vacation or whatever you want to call it. Every August, that's traditional. But in a situation like this, I tell you what, I would be proud to sit right here on this floor Friday and Saturday and Sunday waiting for this body to act and not adjourn until we get something done. Because if we are away from here for a month and nothing is done, when we come back, the kids are back in school, and you know how they're going to get there? They're going to walk or they're going to be riding their bicycles out on these busy highways because those yellow buses are not going to be on the road because these school systems are not going to be able to afford the diesel fuel to put in those buses.

So this is serious stuff, Mr. Speaker, and I think my colleagues understand that. I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand it. And what they don't understand and what my constituents don't understand is why the leadership, the people that bring the bills to the floor, those that have the control that say which bills are voted on and when, why they can't understand it.

Well, in this hour we will get into all of that, but I have got a couple of my colleagues on the floor with me, and I want to give them an opportunity because they have got some very interesting things to say. But I have got one more chart, Mr. Speaker, that I want to show before I yield to my colleagues.

This chart, and of course I have already given the answer away, the answer F, ``all of the above.'' And, of course, it shows this big huge oil rig way out, 150 miles in the Gulf of Mexico. We ought to be doing that off the East Coast and off the West Coast, of course with the States' consent and with their ability to share in the revenue. And the Federal part of that revenue could be used to continue to push and promote alternative energy sources like that wind and solar we were talking about earlier, coal liquefaction, mining shale, doing a lot of things that will make us energy independent and will increase our domestic production.

And, of course, there are some other pictures on this slide as I refer back to it. These are some of the wind farms. That's exactly what they look like in the Netherlands and in other places that I've seen them. This, of course, is a nuclear power plant.

The drilling in ANWR, I put that there just to point out what a small area it is, Mr. Speaker. The light green on the darker green is 2,000 acres in an area of 19 million, and 2,000 acres in an area of 19 million is like a postage stamp on a football field. And it's Coastal Plain, tundra, frozen most of the year. It's 70 miles from the Alaskan pipeline. It's 10 billion barrels of oil, and if you're pumping it, it's probably 1.5 million barrels a day. That increases our domestic production 15 to 20 percent, just that one site. So, obviously, we need to do all of these things if we are going to solve the problem.

And before I go any further, though, as I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, one of our Members had a very interesting thought. He wants to spend a little time discussing it and making sure our colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand it. He's a long-term Member. He knows about oil. He knows about energy. He's a great Texan. He is the ranking member of the Science Committee. I am proud at this time to yield to my good friend and colleague from Texas, the Honorable Ralph Hall.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas. He did not disappoint. I think that his explanation was exactly what I anticipated.

And I want to, before I yield to my good friend and colleague from Tennessee, I wanted to point out, reference back to Representative Hall's poster in regard to the map. And he pointed out, of course, that this whole area, the refuge area, 9 million acres, refuge area, no development allowed. That is this orange area.

And then also, in the yellow area, wilderness area, another 8 million acres, no development allowed.

And then this Coastal Plain area on the very top, the north slope, that area was reserved by our own President Jimmy Carter, from my State of Georgia, who fully intended that, eventually, that oil exploration could be allowed in that area that Representative Hall was talking about, and not the whole area, but this small, I mean, it is about 1.5 million acres and we are talking about 2,000 acres. So clearly that was the intent, as he pointed out, back in 1980.

So I love this slide and I love his idea. I think it is intriguing.

And with that I want to yield now to my good friend from Chattanooga, the Honorable Zach Wamp.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. He is always very, very thoughtful, and his presentation is so clear. Hopefully, all of my colleagues can understand the message that we are presenting tonight. That is, really, as we go back, thinking about the initial little quiz, the little pop quiz, multiple choice, it's all of the above. It's all of the above. That is what Representative Zach Wamp from Chattanooga, who is a member of the Appropriations Committee and who understands this issue, is explaining to our colleagues and to anybody else who might be listening tonight. This is important stuff, and it is critical. It is critical that we do something about it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand--and this is awfully small, but

maybe the camera can focus in on it. This just shows you a number of bills that have been introduced by the Republican minority starting the week of June the 9th:

H.R. 3089, the No More Excuses Energy Act of 2007: No action on that bill. We have a discharge petition. Almost every Republican has signed that discharge petition, but we need 218 of our colleagues. That means some of our Democrat colleagues need to sign these bills as well.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, thank you. Of course.

The next bill, H.R. 2279, was introduced the week of June the 16th. This bill, the title of it, is Expand American Refining Capacity on Closed Military Installations. Mr. Speaker, as you know, there has been no action on that bill. Right over here to my right, at the desk, is a discharge petition. We've got Republican votes. We're awfully close, Mr. Speaker. We need 218, but so far, no action.

Basically, this bill just says in the BRAC process, where we have a number of closed military installations, we have that government land, and if that community wants to have a refinery placed there, then we can do it. It's a very simple bill. As I said at the outset, we desperately need to expand existing refineries and bring more online.

Now, in the week of June the 23rd, H.R. 5656: Repeal the Ban on Acquiring Alternative Fuels. It reduces the price of gasoline by allowing the Federal Government to procure advanced alternative fuels derived from diverse sources like oil shale, tar sands and coal-to- liquid technology.

I want to spend an extra amount of time, my colleagues and Mr. Speaker, discussing that particular bill because that was a provision-- section 526, I believe--in the Democrats' energy bill of 2007. The energy bill, I think, is called the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Now, this section 526 basically says that no agency of the Federal Government can enter into a contract to purchase any nontraditional fuel if the result of processing that fuel or of burning that fuel is an increase of one scintilla--a scintilla, my colleagues, is a very small amount, indeed, a nanogram, an infinitesimal increase--in the carbon dioxide footprint.

So that means that domestic sources that are not traditional bubble- up petroleum that are easily obtained cannot be utilized, and that is a tragedy. That is a tragedy for this country when the Department of Defense, one agency of the Federal Government, is spending in the year 2008 an extra $9 billion on fuel. Now, this is not the total amount they're spending. This is just the delta because of $145 a barrel on petroleum and what it costs eventually to produce jet fuel.

Yet we have in this country, in the Rocky Mountain States, in three or four States out in the Rocky Mountain area, a product called shale. It's a rock, and it's embedded with petroleum, and it can be mined on the surface. People get concerned, I guess, sometimes about the environmental effects of mining, but if we didn't mine in this world, there would be no highways; there would be no aggregate to produce concrete and asphalt. Indeed, there would be no diamonds, no copper.

Mining shale has the potential in this country of producing 1.5 trillion barrels of petroleum, 1.5 trillion barrels of petroleum, Mr. Speaker. Yes, it's a little more difficult to get it, and possibly, it does yield a scintilla increase in the carbon dioxide footprint, but when we're in a crisis like we are in today in this country and when people are suffering, I'll guarantee you the citizens of the 11th District of Georgia--of northwest Georgia in the nine counties that I represent--and probably my 434 colleagues in this body on both sides of the aisle and their constituents will tell you the same thing:

We're worried about the carbon footprint; we want a clean environment, and we know that that's important to our future, and we're going to work toward that.

Guess what the number one priority is today. That is bringing down the price of gasoline because we can't eat and because we can't get our kids to school. We can't get to work. This is something that you would think, Mr. Speaker, the leadership of this body could clearly see when everybody else in this country can see it.

I could give you some statistics about polling. We all look at polls particularly in this big election year. According to a CNN poll, 73 percent of Americans favor more exploration of deep ocean energy resources far off of American shores. In a Reuters-Zogby poll just this past June, 75 percent of Americans support drilling for oil off the shores of the United States while 59 percent support drilling in ANWR.

We have heard this. This is an undeniable fact. I mean I know people can have their own opinions, but they cannot have their own facts. The fact is we're the only developed country in the world that has not taken advantage of exploring for oil and natural gas off of our Continental Shelf. It makes no sense. In fact, right now, Cuba and China are talking about exploring for oil and natural gas off of the coast of Cuba, 45 miles from our coast, and it's perfectly legal; they can do that. Yet we're sitting on our hands. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Well, I've got a number of other bills, Mr. Speaker, that are sitting over there with those discharge petitions that are just waiting for a few Democratic signatures. I wonder of the conservative members, particularly of the Democratic Conference and of the Blue Dogs, where their signatures are. It's amazing to me that they don't go to their leadership and say, ``You know, you're killing us. We're on the verge of committing political suicide. We've got to do something.''

If I cared only about the politics of it, I probably wouldn't say a word. I would let them continue this folly of their leadership and hope that the political consequences in November would be advantageous to my Republican Party, and we'd regain the majority, and we'd elect President McCain. I hope that happens.

What's more important right now is that we come together in a bipartisan way and that we do the right thing for the American people and then let the politics take care of themselves and let the chips fall where they may, and they will.

As we get toward the close of the hour, in the remaining few minutes, I want to talk about a bill that was introduced just yesterday by the leader of my party, by the minority leader, John Boehner, the gentleman from Ohio. What Mr. Boehner did is he took all of these bills that our colleagues have introduced over the last 6 or 8 weeks, and he put them together into one bill, the American Energy Act.

We had a press conference today on the West steps of the Capitol, and Chairman Boehner, Leader Boehner, and our leadership and a number of Members who actually went up to--Mr. Hall said earlier he had not seen the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and wondered how many Members had. Just this past weekend, Leader Boehner and 10 freshman members of the Republican Conference went, and with their very own eyes, they saw this area.

They also went out to Golden, Colorado, to see where all the research that's being done on renewable fuel and coal-to-liquid. We have something like 1.5 trillion tons of coal in this country, and we use a lot of it, a lot of it to fire our electricity plants. But we could convert so much of that excess coal to petroleum, coal liquefaction, and we could do it in a clean and environmentally friendly way.

So Leader Boehner introduced the American Energy Act, and as I said earlier, remember the multiple choice question, an all-of-the-above approach to energy independence: increase the supply American made energy in environmentally friendly and sound ways; promote alternative and renewable energy technology; improve energy conservation and efficiency. That's the approach that Leader Boehner and the Republican minority is asking our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to get on board with us for the American people.

And under the bullet point of increasing the supply of American-made energy--we talked about it tonight--open the Outer Continental Shelf, provide an additional 3 million barrels of oil per day, as well as 76 trillion--yes, that's with a T--76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas; open the Arctic National

Wildlife Refuge, an additional 1.5 million barrels a day; and reduce bureaucratic red tape to construct new oil refineries; and increase the supply of gas at the pump, increase the supply of American-made energy; promote alternative and renewable energy technologies.

As I said, repeal that idiotic section 526 prohibition on government purchases of alternative energy and promote coal-to-liquid technology, shale mining, tar sand production. A lot of the oil that we get from Canada already comes from tar sand, but yet we can't get it right here in the United States of America. It's insanity.

Establish a renewable energy trust fund using the revenues generated by exploration in the OCS and ANWR. What Mr. Hall and Representative Wamp were both talking about is when these States share in the revenue, if they allow this drilling off of their coast, 25, 50, 100 miles out to sea, then the Federal Government also shares in royalties. That money could be spent on research and development for alternative fuels.

Permanently extend tax credits for alternative energy production: wind, solar, hydrogen, biomass. We talked about that earlier.

And eliminate, of course, barriers to the expansion of nuclear power production, which we also discussed.

And then the final chart, improve energy conservation and efficiency. There are a number of things on this chart. I could talk about them real quickly: provide tax incentives for businesses and families that purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles; provide a monetary prize for being the first to develop an economically feasible superfuel-efficient vehicle--John McCain is for that--provide tax incentives for businesses and homeowners who improve their energy efficiency.

So, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity, as I say to be here tonight, to talk about these issues, has been a privilege. It indeed has been a privilege, and I want to say to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that we Republicans care about the environment. We care about conservation. We want to reduce greenhouse gases for sure. Some of us believe that there's scientific evidence there that suggests that global warming is a real thing and it's caused by too much greenhouse gas production. But we can take care of that problem without breaking this country, if we do it in the right way.

Right now, first and foremost, it is time to lower the price of gasoline at the pump. We can do it by drilling here, drilling now, and saving money for the American people. We're sent here to represent them. We're not doing a very good job of it. No wonder our approval rating is 9 percent. That's shameful.

Let's stay here through the August recess. You know, if it's a week, if it's two weeks, whatever, let's get this job done for the American people.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am proud to be with my colleagues tonight, and I know a lot of people might wonder, Members of this body, why Congressman Westmoreland continues to lead these special orders kind of in the evening, sometimes even later than this hour.

Mr. Speaker, as I think most people understand in this body, we in the minority have no other forum. We have no other opportunity. Bills are brought to this floor under suspension, no amendments can be offered. When bills are brought under regular order, we have a closed rule and amendments are blocked.

The gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price, talked about Congress going on vacation for the whole month of August. So we have this week and next week to get something done. As he points out, by the time we come back after that so-called August recess, we are going to have children, we are going to have our school children in our districts across this country, in my district, the 11th Congressional District of Georgia, walking to school because our school districts are not going to be able to afford the gasoline to put in those great yellow buses that are in our neighborhoods year in and year out.

We are going to be putting our children at risk. We have already talked about the price of groceries, and this is killing our economy. There is no question about it. This is absolutely killing our economy.

My colleague, his petition, a simple petition that he just said, you know, how many are willing? How many Members of this body, Republicans and Democrats, are willing to sign this petition saying that we will support increasing domestic supply so we are not dependent on people like Hugo Chavez and other people in the Middle East, Iran, or Ahmadinejad, these people that absolutely hate us, that hate our way of life, hate our success, and want to bring us down. If we don't do something about it, they are going to bring us down.

So I think Mr. Westmoreland mentioned earlier the number of Members that had signed the petition; I believe he said 192. I think he said that most of those were Republicans; I think there were a number of Democrats. How many Democrats, Mr. Westmoreland?

Six. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Democratic majority enjoys a membership of 237, something like that, 237. Out of 237, six of them have signed this petition. Now, I don't know what percentage that is, my math is not that quick, it's pretty low, and you have got 186 Republicans out of about 198. That's a pretty darn high percentage of Republicans. It doesn't really make a lot of sense.

I am going to close my time, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Tonight I did one of these tele-town hall meetings where we call into our district. Both of us have done on both sides of the aisle, very popular, a great way to communicate with our constituents. I talked to people in three of my nine counties in northwest Georgia, Carroll, Haralson and Polk, great counties. In fact, Mr. Westmoreland and I share Carroll County.

Most of the questions were about energy and why in the world Congress was not doing anything. So why are you all not doing anything?

The final question, the lady said, I don't understand, with the poll numbers across the country, and people wanting us to drill now or drill here, and bring down that price of oil to give us some relief, why is Congress refusing to act?

I said to her, you know, from the political perspective, if somebody on the other side is trying to commit political suicide, well, you know, we stand back and let them do it. But in this instance, we can't afford to let them commit political suicide, because the people are suffering. The people are suffering. Republicans, Democrats and independents, and we need to come together in a bipartisan way and get this done.

As Mr. Price said earlier, we have very limited time. I am so thankful to Mr. Westmoreland for doing this, for bringing it to the attention of our colleagues. If anybody else happens to be watching out in the country, God bless them, because you need to call your Members of Congress and let them know how you feel.

I yield back to my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Georgia, underwent a change of command. As a member of the Armed Services Committee whose State is home to Fort Stewart, I rise today to thank Major General Rick Lynch on a job well done as he moves on to Fort Hood, Texas, and to congratulate Major General Tony Cucolo as he takes command of the 3rd ID.

This is a command of monumental importance in the United States Army, Mr. Speaker. The 3rd Infantry Division has one of the most successful combat records of any United States Army division. It was the first conventional U.S. unit to enter Baghdad in 2003 and the first division to actually serve three tours in Iraq.

Major General Lynch commanded the division on this most recent tour in Iraq, during which time we saw undeniable progress. Major General Cucolo has large boots to fill. But I have every confidence that he is the right man for the job.

Having served as brigade commander at Fort Stewart from 1999 to 2001, he is returning to familiar turf. He returns to Fort Stewart from the Pentagon, where he served as the Army's chief of public affairs for the past 2 years.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will join me, and all of our colleagues, in honoring these two fine soldiers for their service to our Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I do rise in strong opposition to this bill, H.R. 415, a bill to designate parts of the lower Taunton River in Massachusetts as part of the National Wild and Scenic River system, especially, Mr. Chairman, in a time when American families are paying $4.11 for a gallon of gasoline.

The gentleman, the author of the bill that just spoke and his colleagues from the Bay State, I will give them the fact that they want to do things for the lower Taunton and the citizens of their district that live on either side of that river. But this really, in my opinion, doesn't quite pass the smell test.

I yield to my friend from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, basically in response to my friend from Massachusetts, it is the same response that my colleague from Utah made in reference to the gentleman from Washington State when this same argument came up during the discussion of the rule.

But as the gentleman from Utah points out, the whole purpose of this act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, was not for redevelopment. And I heard the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) just talk about tearing down a highway, an elevated highway to make this area more scenic. I would like my colleagues to focus in on this poster of the lower Taunton River and see how unscenic it is. It may be wild, but it is certainly not scenic.

This act was never designed for redevelopment and for tearing down bridges and highways. This is not the time to do that. Clearly, this is not a wild and scenic river and doesn't meet that designation.

I would like to continue, Mr. Chairman, and say that when the Natural Resources Committee held hearings on this bill, representatives from the National Park Service testified that this area would be the most industrialized river ever to be given this designation.

Along the shoreline of the Taunton River, you can find a hair salon, a shipyard, a port area, and yes, even a McDonald's. Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't know about you, but I don't see anything that is scenic about this industrialized area.

Furthermore, as a result of this designation, this Congress would prevent future development along the river and would therefore prohibit the proposed use of the Taunton River as a terminal for liquefied natural gas storage and distribution facility.

Again I reference this poster, right here, this is 73 acres of that proposed LNG facility that I am talking about. When brought online, this facility would have the capacity to provide the needed heating oil for up to 35 percent of all New England households. Let me repeat that, the needed heating for up to 35 percent of all New England households.

It seems to me that this majority seems perfectly content to continue with flawed energy policy that prevents a major liquefied natural gas plant from being brought online, inevitably forcing them to later expand the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, to make up for New England's lost home heating ability. At a time when the domestic supply of energy sources is the most important issue in this country, the Democratic majority would rather stymie the growth of supply.

The Democratic majority would rather stymie the growth of supply through this bill than to allow us to debate meaningful legislation that would help hardworking American families out of this energy crisis.

I urge all of my colleagues to oppose H.R. 415.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow-on to what my colleague from New Jersey just said. The gentleman from New Jersey was just talking about the need in the northeast and how important it is to homeowners, particularly during the winter season, the cold season, in regard to fuel oil. So many homes, as he pointed out, in that part of the country are disproportionately heated by natural gas and fuel oil.

He talked about the fact that these coastal States along the eastern seaboard, not just New Jersey, but Massachusetts as well, have been in opposition to opening up the Outer Continental Shelf because of all of these environmental concerns and the fact that you are going to spoil the view. As our colleague so rightly pointed out, you can't see oil rigs 20, 50 and indeed even 150 miles offshore, as my colleagues from Georgia and Texas pointed out earlier in regard to the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.

But here is the thing that I want to point out to my colleagues, the folly of what the Democratic majority is presenting to this House tomorrow. Tomorrow, under a rule, a regular bill, they are going to bring up this issue of the Taunton River in Fall River, Massachusetts.

They want to designate this river, and I hope my colleagues can see this poster and see how industrialized and busy and developed the shoreline of I think at least 8 miles of this 20-mile river already is, and they want to make this designation of a Wild and Scenic River.

Now they should have done that 50 years ago, maybe 100 years ago when this river may have been wild and scenic. You can look at it today, and it is anything but scenic. It may be wild, but it is certainly not scenic.

But guess what, it allows them with this designation to deny the siting of a liquefied natural gas plant. And so that means that these tankers with liquefied natural gas that the northeast desperately needs to heat those homes in the winter time, to bring relief to those homeowners who are really struggling. What will they do? They will pass this bill. That means there can be no liquefied natural gas terminals along that entire river, and then I guess the Democratic majority will come back and put more money into the LIHEAP program so people can afford to pay their bills. It is absolutely ridiculous.

I have another poster that I want to show because I think what we are talking about here tonight, when you cut right to the chase, is that the Democratic majority are creating all of these paper tigers. And this business about use it or lose it, I'm not going to comment on that because, thank goodness we have Representative Westmoreland and the gentleman from Texas, Mike Conaway, who has been in the oil business, and to have Members with that expertise explain it to us and the folly of that use it or lose it. If they lose it, who in the world is going to come back and be able to afford to drill these expensive oil rigs, especially offshore. I appreciate him pointing that out.

Look at this poster, Mr. Speaker. Just a little cartoon. I think it is cute, but it is well to the point.

Here's the Democratic leadership asking a question of the administration. ``We demand you energy companies do something about these high energy prices.'' It is the voice coming from the United States Capitol.

The response from the energy companies: ``Clean coal?''

And the response back from the Capitol: ``Well, that's out of the question.''

The energy companies say well, ``We can drill in ANWR,'' that 2,000 acres out of 19 million up in the frozen tundra of the north slope of Alaska.

The response from our Congressional House majority and Speaker Pelosi: ``Forget it.''

Well, okay, ``How about nuclear power?''

The response: ``You're joking, right?''

And then finally: ``How about offshore?'' How about this Outer Continental Shelf drilling for oil and natural gas? Millions of cubic feet, billions of barrels of petroleum.

The response: ``Are you crazy?''

So finally you throw up your hands and say, ``Huh?''

And they say, the response: ``Well, don't just sit there, do something.''

Don't just sit there, do something. Well, I am going to tell you, the Republican minority wants to do something. The Republican minority wants to do a lot of things. The Republican minority hopefully soon to be the majority, when we tell the American people and show the American people that we want to do something in a comprehensive way, and we want to get it done before we leave here for any kind of August recess. We are making that pledge, and that's why I am proud to be here tonight with my colleagues. I know that others want to speak, and time is short.

But I hope that people will listen. I hope that our colleagues are listening. I know that there are Democrats who want to vote and support a comprehensive approach to this. There is some give and take. We can do this in a bipartisan way. But this business of use or take a little oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which would--all of that oil, that 750 million barrels that we have in reserve, if the Middle East cuts us off tomorrow, that would be exhausted in 60 days. That's why we don't tap that, just because we want to bring down the price of oil.

I yield back to my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, for literally months now, House Republicans have come to the floor in a concerted effort to convince Democratic leadership to bring legislation to the floor that would allow us to drill here and drill now so we can all pay less at the pump.

But even as we offered practical energy solutions and a willingness to work with the majority, Speaker Pelosi has continually blocked such legislation from coming for a vote here in the House, and we are not the only ones who have noticed it.

Mr. Speaker, here is a headline from today's Roll Call newspaper. Here is what it says: ``Pelosi maneuvers to block drilling votes. Speaker Nancy Pelosi appears intent on preventing votes on opening more areas to offshore drilling, despite the stirrings of a revolt by rank- and-file Democrats after months of concerted efforts by House Republicans.'' This was in Roll Call today, Monday, July 14, 2008.

As this article notes, we are starting to hear some rumblings from Members on the Democratic side of the aisle who are ready to put partisan politics aside and work with Republicans on compromise legislation that will start to decrease our pain at the pump. Increasing numbers of rank-and-file Democrats seem to have grown tired of their leadership's failure to allow votes on legislation that will break our dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. Speaker, I want to show a couple of posters here and some quotes. The first quote, ``Americans need Congress to look at real solutions in addressing our energy needs, especially when we have $4 a gallon gasoline. We need answers and not just slogans. We need to do it all. We have Senators going to Saudi Arabia begging them to increase their production, but we won't increase ours in some of the most, potential, productive areas?'' That was a quote from a floor remark made June 26, 2008, by Mr. Gene Green of Texas.

Here is another one. Another quote, ``Then we better get started, because the longer we delay, the more we're jeopardizing the American economy.'' That quote came from Representative Neil Abercrombie, the gentleman from Hawaii, on Fox News on July 7 of this year, a member, Neil Abercrombie, of the Natural Resources Committee.

Many Members on both sides of the aisle understand that there is not one single solution to our current energy crisis, and that we must work in a bipartisan way to develop a comprehensive plan to alleviate the pain that American families face every time they fill their gas pumps.

I want to commend the leadership of Representative John Peterson of Pennsylvania, and, as I said, Representative Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii. They are now heading up a working group to form legislation that incorporates long-term energy solutions while also providing short-term relief for Americans who are now, today, paying $4.11 a gallon of gas.

This bipartisan approach is what we need to find a solution. House Republicans stand ready to find a middle way that not only guarantees an increase in domestic production, but it also addresses concerns about excessive speculation.

While House Republicans are prepared for a comprehensive approach that looks not only at supply but also market factors, Speaker Pelosi must be willing to, at the very least, allow an up or down vote on increasing domestic supply. She must recognize that the American people don't want any option left off the table.

As further indication that we need to increase the domestic supply of oil, President Bush today lifted the 18 year-old executive order that prohibited responsible energy exploration along our Nation's Outer Continental Shelf. Let me show my colleagues that poster. Here is the quote, ``In another push to deal with soaring gas prices, President Bush on Monday will lift an executive ban on offshore drilling that has stood since his father was president. But the move, by itself, will do nothing unless Congress acts as well.'' This was from the Associated Press today.

This decision leaves Congress as the last remaining hurdle to domestically producing billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas for the American people. Allowing our Nation to explore the energy resources available off of our coast would be a great first step toward declaring America's energy independence.

We need to have a comprehensive approach, and I hope Members on both sides of the aisle recognize that, and we need action now.

Unfortunately, sound energy policy is being held hostage by Speaker Nancy Pelosi because she believes that it is more important to pander to out-of-control environmentalists than to enact a ``common-sense plan'' to lower gas prices--as she promised to the American people over 2 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, as American families and small businesses face record prices at the pump, they are counting on their leaders in Congress to work together on reforms to help reduce fuel costs. I call on Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic Leadership to listen to House Republicans, a growing coalition of House Democrats and most importantly the American people--allow a vote on legislation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

I just want to refer back to the statement the gentleman from Michigan just made in regard to the 22 million acres in Alaska that you could now drill on, yet our Democratic colleagues, our friends, are denying the opportunity to drill on 2,000 acres--not 22 million--2,000 acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, and to obtain an equal amount, an equal amount of petroleum from that area without harming the environment. It makes no sense to destroy 22 million acres for the same amount of oil that you could get out of 2,000. But that's another subject, and I look forward as well to later in the hour, when the gentleman is going to talk about hedging and speculation and, in his opinion, what effect that has on the price of petroleum that we're paying.

The gentleman from West Virginia, the distinguished chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, was talking earlier in his opening comments about the fact that drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, which we had been prohibited from doing--thank God the President lifted that Presidential moratorium, and now the only thing that is holding us back from going after those 20 billion barrels of petroleum and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas is inaction on the part of this Congress.

Now, earlier the discussion was about this use it or lose it. The gentleman from West Virginia talked about that a lot and said, well, you know, you've got these 68 million acres leased from the Bureau of Land Management--by the way, that's out of 750 million acres under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. These oil companies, my colleagues, they pay for those leases, they're not free. And so they're kind of betting on the come, they're hoping that their geologists will then tell them that, yes, indeed, there is a certain amount of oil in that area of land that they have leased. And if it's true, then they're going to go after it. If there is no oil there or if there is an insufficient amount of oil there and it's not going to be productive to spend that kind of money for a little amount of oil, then maybe they will sit on those leases. And I would think that they would probably gladly yield it back to the Federal Government--especially if they got a refund on their money, they probably wouldn't.

But these same people that realize that right off the Outer Continental Shelf, whether it's the eastern seaboard or the Atlantic or the Pacific or the eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico where there are trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and billions of barrels of petroleum, that's the leases that they want, that's the leases that they need. And it just is beyond my comprehension to understand why the leader of this House, Speaker Pelosi, would say that is a nonstarter.

Now, we could stand here on the Republican side of the aisle and say to the gentleman from Michigan and others who are concerned about noncommercial speculators and what effect that might have on the price of a barrel of petroleum, we could say, well, you know, for us that's a nonstarter; or you're interfering with the free market. Are you going to do the same thing with pork bellies and wheat and corn and all these other things that are traded on the commodities market and regulated by NYMEX? Are you going to force them offshore by overregulating and interfering with the natural flow of market? So, you know, we have concerns about that.

But I don't think that our side of the aisle has said, my colleagues, that that's a nonstarter, that we won't even discuss that. And yet your leadership, Ms. Pelosi, the majority leader of the Senate, Mr. Reid, has said drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, where we know there are trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and billions of barrels of oil, is a nonstarter. I think that's just totally wrong, that the American people don't want that. They want bipartisanship like we're having here tonight in this discussion, this colloquy between the two sides. And I think we can and should get together.

I would be glad to yield to the distinguished gentleman.

Well, reclaiming my time from the chairman--and I don't disagree with his last statement, it will certainly require a comprehensive approach; there is no doubt about that.

But the gentleman from West Virginia has said repeatedly tonight that opening up these reserves, whether it's the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, where we estimate that 1.5 million barrels a day increased production, increased domestic production--I mentioned the numbers for the Outer Continental Shelf in regard to natural gas and petroleum, and your response, your statement earlier was that, well, if you did that tomorrow, if you started that tomorrow, it would be 2030--I think you used that date--before any production of oil would be seen, and therefore, that's not going to solve the problem. Yet your colleague from Michigan is going to tell us in a little while how important it is to rein in these noncommercial speculators because just the anticipation causes the price of oil to go up or down.

And what I want to say to my colleagues is that it might take 5 years, 10 years, possibly 15 years, depending on where you're going after the source. Certainly, mining shale out in the west, where we could get 1.5 trillion barrels of petroleum, may take a while. But just the fact that we're doing these things in a comprehensive way and we're increasing the domestic supply, I will almost guarantee you that overnight the price of a barrel of crude would drop by 20 percent.

I would be glad to yield.