Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. Samuel E. Lanza of Warren, Ohio and Ms. Elva M. Pounders of Akron, Ohio. In recognition of their honorable service to our nation and selfless dedication to their communities, Mr. Lanza and Ms. Pounders have been inducted into the Ohio Veterans Hall of Fame as members of the Class of 2008.

The Ohio Veterans Hall of Fame was founded in 1992 in an effort to honor and to raise awareness of the outstanding military service and post-military accomplishments of Ohio veterans. Each year, an executive committee reviews scores of applications received from across the Nation and recommends 20 inductees to the Governor. These inductees represent each branch of the military and have served in armed conflicts spanning from World War II to Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield. Since its inception, the OVHOF has inducted nearly 900 veterans who, like Mr. Lanza and Ms. Pounders, have demonstrated a lifelong devotion to country and to community.

Mr. Samuel Lanza served in the United States Marine Corps in World War II and, after his discharge, continued his civil service by advocating and assisting his fellow veterans. He joined the Disabled American Veterans in 1948 and eventually served in every elected position at the DAV including State Commander. Mr. Lanza is a Life Member of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Marine Corps League, and the American Legion. Additionally, Mr. Lanza participates as a member of the National Association for Uniformed Services and the past President of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association. For more than 45 years, Mr. Lanza has taken an active role in Memorial Day parades and decorated the graves of deceased veterans. For more than 27 years, he has transported his fellow veterans to VA hospitals and other medical appointments. In 1997, Mr. Lanza was appointed to the Trumbull County Veterans Service Commission.

Ms. Elva Pounders served in the United States Marine Corps during the Vietnam Era. Upon her retirement from the Corps after 20 years of active duty which she achieved Marine first sergeant rank, Elva made a commitment to assisting the veterans of her community. Concerned with veterans' healthcare, Ms. Pounders worked part-time at a pharmacy and delivered medicine and supplies to shut-in veterans. She volunteered in VA clinics and medical facilities in Akron and Brecksville, and in 2006, the Brecksville VA Medical Center awarded Ms. Pounders the 500 Hour Award. Ms. Pounders is a Life Member of the Marine Corps League, American Legion, North Coast WAVES 21, and the Retired Enlisted Association and the Fleet Reserve Association. She is the vice chairwoman of the Governor's Advisory Committee on Women Veterans and she has served as a committee member with Summit County Stand Down for Homeless Veterans.

Ms. Pounders serves as the Vice Chairperson for the Ohio Department of Veterans Services Advisory Committee on Women Veterans. In 2007, in acknowledgement of her exceptional commitment to local veterans, the Summit County Veterans Service Commission recognized Ms. Pounders as ``Summit County Veteran of the Year.''

I would like to commend Mr. Lanza and Ms. Pounders for their extraordinary service and commitment, both in the military and in their communities.

Madam Speaker, Youngstown and Akron, and nearby cities like Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and Detroit, suffered severe job and population losses over the past 25 to 30 years. This has led to the loss of thousands of housing units to abandonment and decay. The subprime mortgage crisis has only worsened the problem in these cities, ravaging entire neighborhoods in its wake, leaving thousands of vacant and abandoned houses that attract criminal activity and trash, and are safety hazards to the families who remain. The abandoned properties also lower the property values of those who remain, and frustrate neighborhood improvement efforts.

Although the Housing and Economic Recovery Act we passed in July will provide some assistance to cities to demolish vacant and abandoned properties, a more comprehensive, regional, approach is needed to address this problem in the so-called ``shrinking cities'' and their metropolitan areas.

Youngstown, under the leadership of Mayor Jay Williams, has already taken a big step in this direction by adopting the Youngstown 2010 Plan, which envisions Youngstown, which once had a population of 170,000, becoming a smaller, but more vibrant city of about 80,000, with revitalized neighborhoods, and abundant green open space that will be used for parks, urban agriculture, and future economic development. Some of its land might actually be reforested. Youngstown is also working with other local governments to develop a regional strategy to address vacant and abandoned properties, which are becoming more and more commonplace in suburban areas around Youngstown.

We need to unleash the creative energies present in Youngstown, and other cities and metropolitan areas, by assisting them to develop and implement plans to eliminate the blighting influences of abandoned properties, gain some control of the vacant land in their residential areas, and reposition themselves for the challenges of the 21st century as vibrant, livable communities.

To this end, Madam Speaker, I am working with my good friend, Congressman Brian Higgins of Buffalo, to develop legislation that would establish a new demonstration program within HUD, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The program would be competitive. In order to successfully compete for assistance under it, a local government would need to partner with other jurisdictions within its metropolitan area. For example, a county government might be an ideal partner for its central city.

The partners would need to develop a plan that takes into account their population losses, and sets forth strategies to make better use of land and other resources within their boundaries. Grants awarded under the program could be used for, among other things, demolition, removal of old, antiquated infrastructure, the creation of parks and open space, code enforcement improvements, the development of real property information systems, and the creation and expansion of urban and regional land banks, which are widely recognized to be a key tool in efforts to promote investment and revitalization efforts in areas with very weak real estate markets.

Applicants would also have to submit detailed implementation plans, and would have to meet stringent accountability standards in carrying them out.

I would also like to mention that Mr. Stephen Cerny, who is currently serving in my office as a Brookings Institution Legislative Fellow, has provided me with tremendous help on this issue. Steve is an attorney at HUD and a former planner in Cleveland, and I am very grateful for the extensive professional experience he provides on this issue.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with you and the Committee to bring this program to fruition.

I thank the gentleman for the opportunity.

I am proud to have joined as the lead Democratic cosponsor with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) on the House version of this legislation. I would like to thank Mr. Sensenbrenner, Senator Brownback, and Senator Kennedy for their leadership in moving this bill.

Last year, Congresswoman DeLauro and I introduced legislation called Reducing the Need for Abortions and Supporting Parents Act which contains a provision similar to what is in this bill before us now.

What this bill does is make a commitment to new and expectant mothers whose child receives a diagnosis for Down syndrome or other prenatally or postnatally diagnosed conditions. Society will be there, and it tells them that society will be there to support you. We will bring every resource to bear to ensure that you are able to raise a beautiful baby.

Never should a pregnant woman feel that her options are limited by a lack of public support for the types of social services that could help her, her family, and her baby.

The sad reality, Madam Speaker, is that over 90 percent of pregnancies with a diagnosis of Down Syndrome are aborted. This should not and need not be the case. We have not done enough to help these women and their families. We must do more to get them the support they need, the support they deserve, and this bill is a crucial step in that direction.

Lastly, I would like to thank Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader Boehner and my friends on the other side of the aisle for working together to get this common ground legislation passed.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

Unless U Have Walked In Our Shoes

(By Brock DeAngelo)

My name is Brock, I am 13 years old. I will make a

difference in a world that refuses to hear our voices. We

deserve a voice. And that voice should be our own. We live in

a nation that offers ``Freedom of Speech.'' Not only should

we be heard but we should be offered respect. Please join me

in a mission that is all about U. Contact me at

unlessuwalked@aol.com.

My name is Brock, Brock DeAngelo. For years I would have

loved any last name but mine. Then one day I realized, it's

not the name that makes a person; it's the person that makes

the name.

I then decided I will change the vicious cycle behind my

last name. The mental and physical abuse, the evilness and

malicious lies stop with me.

I will show my brother and one day my children; that a man

with great pride and integrity stands in front of the

``DeAngelo'' name. And it began with me, Brock!

The courts cursed me with a Guardian ad Litem. I can

honestly say she never listened to a word I said. She was too

busy trying to twist my situation around to suit her views.

It was a little hard for her to accomplish since everytime we

met the stories on my behalf were always the same. Funny

thing about ``the truth'', it's consistent.

She was the first of many disappointments. Children's

Services made me a promise that they never followed through

with (no thanks to my ad Litem).

In the end, the person that does not deserve a title to

fatherhood, saved his own reputation. He agreed to leave me

alone. Unfortunately not every one is as lucky.

I am asking U to join me on my quest, to become a voice and

to make what U have to say important.

I have discussed this matter with my attorney, met with a

Special Assistant to Tim Ryan and discussed this matter with

Sandra Harwood, State Representative, 65th House District.

My goal is for Congress to not only hear us but to act upon

our intelligence. In order for U to be recognized, we must

fight together. U are old enough to know right from wrong.

The courts need to listen. U are the future.

Children's Bill of Rights

Declaration I

Congress shall allow no law that endangers a child's

physical, emotional or physiological well-being.

Declaration II

Congress shall encourage all states to provide standardized

legal representation of children and their specific issues in

legal domestic disputes, regardless of state jurisdiction or

residence.

Declaration III

A child shall be guaranteed an equal voice in determining

court-ordered visitations with parents or guardians as well

as the continuation of those visits.

Declaration IV

No child shall be forced to endure ongoing physical,

emotional, or verbal harm by a parent, guardian or other

individual.

Declaration V

No child shall be forced to return to the care of a parent

or legal guardian who has been convicted of certain civil

crimes or any felony, unless they themselves desire it.

Declaration VI

Accusations by a child concerning ongoing parental

misconduct shall be investigated within twenty-four hours and

taken seriously until otherwise proven false.

Declaration VII

The child physical, emotional and physiological well-being

shall be of the utmost concern when determining their

possible court testimony against a parent, guardian or other

adult.

Declaration VIII

A child shall have a voice in determining the need for

restraining orders against a parent, guardian or other adult.

Declaration IX

Reports from doctors, physiologists, social workers and

other professionals and paraprofessionals shall be given the

highest priority when determining parental rights,

visitations, and other issues concerning the emotional and

physiological well-being of the child.

Declaration X

The rights of all other citizens shall be applied with

equal conviction to all children.

I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate you coming down here and anchoring the 30-Something hour.

I think it is important as we are talking about the financial issues just over the last couple of days, and I think you laid it out pretty well, a 500-point drop and then a 100 or so increase, and then a 450- point drop today, these are markets that are so destabilized that we are losing companies that were established since before the Great Depression. The only financial house that seems to be left is the Department of the Treasury. And this has been because of the lack of regulation on the markets, period, dot.

It may be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to say we need to deregulate. You need law and order in order to build a capitalistic system. The capitalistic system doesn't come first. The magic with capitalism was that we had courts in place and regulatory bodies in place to make sure that contracts could be enforced, to make sure that investments were sound, not necessarily the decision that each person in the country would make would be sound decisions, not that every loan that they would take out would be sound, but there were precautions in place to make sure that this whole operation was stabilized and regulated.

And you look at what happened to the savings and loan industry in the 1980s, and you look at what is happening now; it is because there wasn't the proper watchdog in place.

I think putting the Republicans--as you stated earlier, there may be a difference between some of our friends on the other side of the aisle a few years back and the ones today--it is like putting a drunk in charge of the liquor cabinet, putting the Republicans in charge of Wall Street. I mean, let's be honest. Total deregulation.

The whole answer was, well, we will deregulate everything, and we will have competition. In Ohio, it was deregulate energy, and it led to an increase in prices. That's what has happened.

So we have this destabilized market here in the United States now, not knowing what is going to happen from one day to the next, losing businesses that were around since before the Great Depression. A long history of stability has been destabilized by the Republican agenda.

Now, look at all of the different things that have happened. I think this is the issue, the point. In 2000 the Republicans controlled the House, the Republicans controlled the Senate, the Republicans controlled the White House, and look at what has happened. Look at what has transpired in the past 8 years with President Bush.

The only sign of any movement in another direction is when the Democrats took over the Congress a year and a half ago, with issues getting vetoed by President Bush. But look at what has happened over those years.

My point is, before I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, is that we don't have to think about what America would look like with a neoconservative Republican agenda. We know. It has been implemented. And for all of our friends on the other side of the aisle to somehow erase history like you can erase your computer memory and think that the American people don't remember that they were in charge for all of these years and implemented their health-care policy, their energy policy, their education policy, their foreign policy, and where we are today on all of those issues, you don't have to believe me, you don't have to believe Nancy Pelosi, Mr. Speaker, you don't have to believe Jason Altmire, these are two diametrically opposed philosophies on how to govern.

As you stated, in the 1990s with the Democrats in charge of the Congress and the Presidency, it passed a budget that led to the greatest economic expansion in the history of the country, 20 million new jobs. And you look at what President Bush did with the Republican Congress: Took us right off the cliff.

We were talking about in the Clinton years what we were going to do with the surplus. One of the debates that President Clinton pushed forward was save Social Security first. So he was going to take this money and put it into the Social Security fund so we didn't have all of these IOUs for all of these years.

Now the question in Washington and in Youngstown, Ohio, and in Georgia and in western Pennsylvania, here is the question: What if the Republican Party had their way when they wanted to privatize Social Security? Imagine, with everything that is going on in the market today, if President Bush and Senator McCain and all of the House Republicans who were down here on the floor fighting for a Republican privatization scheme for Social Security, imagine if that last base security system that you have in place here, the American people have in place, was all in the stock market today? Just think about what a radical idea that is.

The point I want to add to what you're talking about is, what if this would have happened?

It seems like we always have people in Washington, if something major happens, like a major insurance company or a major investment company or a major bank, it's like Washington, D.C. will step all over each other as to who's going to help them first, who's going to bail them out, who's going to give them something to make everything all right. And I don't want this to sound like we don't understand the ripple effect of what could happen if some of these entities aren't helped. We understand that.

But when it was the average person who made a mistake with their housing loan, hey, you're on your own. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

Well, Lehman Brothers, you pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Merrill Lynch, you pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

I'm not saying you don't need to take responsibility for your actions because you certainly do. But when we needed to help 10 million kids get health care through the State Children's Health Insurance Program, President Bush says we don't have the money. $35 billion over 5 years. We spend $10 billion a month in Iraq, but the President and a small group of radical Republicans in the House said we don't have the money for this. It's too much. It would be 3\1/2\ months in Iraq.

But if something like this happens where we have all this, a big major financial company, something happens, well, here we are, all of a sudden we've got more money.

Think about what the Republican Congress and Republican President did to our financial situation, not just how they destabilized the markets. I don't know if you got into this, Mr. Altmire, before I got here or not. But think about what they did. They raised the debt limit five times. Maybe six. I may be missing one. Five times. They borrowed $3 trillion from China, Japan and OPEC countries.

Now you want to talk about putting the next generation behind the eight-ball, go borrow $3 trillion from our biggest competitor in China and watch them wipe out manufacturing in Pennsylvania, in Ohio and all over the industrial Midwest.

Don't regulate the markets. Don't invest in education. Make tuition costs go up 8, 9, 10 percent a year all over the country. The Pell Grant was almost meaningless. Student loans were 6.8 percent last year.

All of these issues add up to saying they weren't paying attention. Their philosophy of government just doesn't work. That's what this whole thing says.

We're joined by the gentleman from Colorado, the host of the Democratic National Convention. I yield to Mr. Perlmutter.

Can I add one point?

Dick Cheney said debt doesn't matter when he first got into office; debt doesn't matter.

A lot of us were saying in the 2004 elections that if you re-elect President Bush, you will not recognize this country in 4 years. And sad to say, here we stand, here we sit in America thinking, you know, the stock market is under 10,000, unemployment is up again. We borrowed $3 trillion. President Bush and the Republican Congress have borrowed more than any previous administration in Congress, combined. Still $10 billion a month in Iraq, and no end in sight with what's going on. It's getting to the point where we can't recognize what we're doing, and it's critical what's happening to this country. It's sad what they have done.

I just love how our friends say, oh, this is going to be socialism. You try to provide health care for 10 million kids. It's going to be socialism. We can't do that.

Or if you try to provide any kind of preventative health care for women, it's going to be socialism. Don't you dare do it.

But then we're taking over major investment groups, financial groups, just taking them over. Here's billions of taxpayer dollars. We're now investors in all these things.

But we want to invest in the 10 million kids, Mr. Altmire, and we don't have the money to do that.

I would be happy to yield.

And how many times do you hear our friends on the

other side say, ``Government shouldn't pick winners and losers,'' ``Government shouldn't pick favorites,'' you know, ``Government has no business picking out this kid should succeed and this kid's not going to have the same opportunity,'' ``Government has no role there''? Unless it's Wall Street.

Now, who do we need to help to keep things rolling? And as we've said, I'm not saying that this is necessarily right or wrong. What I am saying is this is a pretty complicated mess that we are in. And we're not saying that you shouldn't get the buckets and go down to the river and fill them up with water and throw water on the house that's burning. That's not what we're saying. What we're saying is you're supposed to have a fire code, and you're supposed to have fire trucks, and you're supposed to have, you know, gas in the fire truck and equipment for the firemen.

And the best firefighters you can have.

They had the opportunity to do it. They were in charge of everything.

Just to highlight how radical of an agenda our friends on the other side have, the one thing--deregulation or lack of regulation, whatever the case may be, and then ignore the warning signs, as Mr. Altmire stated, with Freddie and Fannie, ignore the warning signs about the mortgage crisis that's coming, and to then also to have as a part of your philosophy, deregulation, ignore the warnings, let's put Social Security in the stock market too. That is the Republican agenda.

We, with the 30-Something Working Group, started to fight President Bush's Social Security privatization scam. The first time I walked on this floor to speak was 4 years ago or 5 years ago when President Bush wanted to start the Social Security privatization, and then-Minority Leader Pelosi asked Kendrick Meek and I to come here and to combat it.

Now, can you imagine if they had won that battle down here, that monumental battle? Your parents' and grandparents' Social Security would now be sitting in Wall Street in a deregulated market that looks like the Wild West with a Starbucks, is what it looks like.

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the opportunity to be here.

Tonight we rise to honor one of the great Members of Congress that has ever stepped foot into this Chamber, and that has ever served in the United States Congress, and that's John Seiberling. Mr. Seiberling passed away a

few weeks ago. We rise today, I am joined by my colleague, and I join my colleague, Congresswoman Betty Sutton. We split the Congressman's old district in Akron and Kent, her particular district goes up to Lorraine, but Ms. Sutton has to leave us, because she is going to go into the Rules Committee room and actually put forth some comprehensive energy legislation that we just heard so much that we weren't doing, that's going to be here on floor of this week addressing all of the issues that the American people want us to address.

With that, Ms. Sutton, I will yield to you.

Good luck up in rules. I know we are going to do the right thing. I know Congressman Seiberling would be proud of the efforts we have been making on behalf of the environment, on behalf of alternative energy.

I just had the opportunity to kind of peruse through some of my old staff, was his old staff, had an opportunity to peruse, as you were talking the Plain Dealer Magazine from 1986 when Congressman Seiberling retired, and they did a full spread. Just looking through here, I had prepared remarks, but this is a heck of a lot better than what I was going to say.

As you go through, and you talk, as Congresswoman Sutton was talking about the Cuyahoga Valley and the park, which basically, for those who don't know the area, Cleveland and Akron would have just grown together, and they would have just been this huge, you know, megacity.

Because of the vision of John Seiberling and Ralph Regula, who is just retiring from Congress now, there is this huge Cuyahoga Valley National Park that is one of the beautiful landscapes in Ohio, has separated Akron and Cleveland and provided this gorgeous scenic area. But that's the kind of vision that Congressman Seiberling had.

I am trying to find the quote here from Mr. Regula, if I can find it, the newspaper is sticking together because it's 22 years old, but there is a great quote in here from Mr. Regula, just talking about how this is John Seiberling's legacy, is that the Cuyahoga Valley National Park.

To have the vision and the foresight that Congressman John Seiberling had is something that I think all of us who serve in Congress aspire to, because it's not about dealing with, necessarily, the problems that we have today, but as we deal with those problems, figure out how we put the country in a good position 10, 15, 20 years from now. When this gentleman was talking about the Cuyahoga Valley National Park 30 years ago, almost 40 years ago, and when he was talking about preserving the wilderness and the natural landscape of our country, not just historic buildings, but historic landscape, and the natural landscape that we have in this country, he was a man ahead of his time.

I also had an opportunity to look through one of his old pieces of campaign literature. As we hear the rhetoric, and I know Congressman Seiberling wouldn't in the least bit mind me incorporating some of what the Democrats are doing today into his kind of memorial here, he wouldn't mind that in the least bit, I was looking through his campaign literature.

I just want to share with everyone some of the things he was saying in his election in 1970, 38 years ago, when the Vietnam War was going on, issues on the economy, I will give you an example here. On the economy, ``I oppose the economic policies of the Nixon administration. Instead of ending the war and massive military space spending, Nixon has chosen to squeeze the little guy with high prices and unemployment.''

On pollution, ``Facing the greatest environmental crisis of our history, we must move as fast as possible to end the major causes of pollution. I favor a system of fees to be charged against polluters in proportion to the amount of pollution they create.''

This is a guy who was in northeast Ohio and not too far from coal country, standing up saying this is what I believe in. This is what I believe, and this is where I think the country needs to go.

On cities, ``Our Nation's priorities are out of whack. The urban crisis is the result. We must cut spending for extravagant military projects and start spending more on health care, crime control, education, housing, recreation areas, public transportation, and other pressing human needs.''

He was extremely involved in the impeachment of Richard Nixon because he sat on the Judiciary Committee. He was obviously involved in interior projects and in making sure that the natural beauty of the United States was preserved. I believe that, as Ms. Sutton stated earlier, he partnered with Congressman Mo Udall and led the way to adding more than 100 million acres to our national parks--wildlife refuges, wild rivers, wilderness areas. He successfully moved to enact the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980, protecting 56 million acres in Alaska's parks, wilderness areas and forests and, as I mentioned earlier, with Congressman Regula, 34,000 acres of the Cuyahoga Valley National Park, which is now one of the Nation's most visited.

This is just a great guy, I mean just a class act. His lineage comes from the Goodyear Tire Company, which his grandfather started. He just goes back from that kind of stock--Harvard, Columbia stock--that kind of ivy league stock, but he never, ever lost that common touch.

We were talking about Stephanie Tubbs Jones earlier and how you can be on stages with Presidents and can be passing key pieces of legislation, but when you run into them at the grocery store, they're the same people that you always knew. John Seiberling was just like that.

Mr. Speaker, we've been joined by the dean of the Ohio delegation, the gentlewoman from Toledo (Ms. Kaptur).

I don't know. Did you have an opportunity to serve with Mr. Seiberling for a few years?

Of course.

I appreciate the gentlelady's coming. We thank you for your personal recollections. Those of us who came a few years after had to hear the stories, but you were here for a lot of that and for a lot of those fights.

You know, even until the last few weeks of his life, until the last few months of his life, at any time I talked to him, he wanted to talk about what was going on in the country. He wanted to talk about what the President was doing and how he was doing it wrong. He wanted to talk about alternative energy. I mean, as you said, his mind was always working on how we can fix the country, on how the country can do better and on how we can move in a new direction.

I want to share an article. Tom Diemer from the Plain Dealer wrote this article and did a great job, which he always does, about Mr. Seiberling's reflecting on his accomplishments with the Cuyahoga Valley National Park. He is quoting Mr. Regula as saying:

`` `Without John Seiberling, there would never, never have been a Cuyahoga Valley National Park.' The Canton area lawmaker and an original cosponsor of the parks bill said, `Not a chance. This is going to be a lasting monument to John Seiberling.' ''

Against strong odds and Gerald Ford in '74 to try to get this greenbelt together, Mr. Seiberling said, ``That is one I am most satisfied with. Saving the beautiful valley was a real joy. I get letters every week from people who say, `I just drove through the Cuyahoga Valley, and I'm just so grateful to you for taking action to preserve this beautiful area, and it means a lot to me and my children.' ''

``When I get letters like that,'' Mr. Seiberling went on to say, ``it brings tears to my eyes because I realize that those people have the same feelings that I do.''

And that was him right there. I mean, that's him in a nutshell, that he understood what the people wanted, and he knew that he was down here to execute those values and those ideas, and he did it. And just a wonderful guy.

So I would also like to extend my condolences to Betty and the three sons and the big family on behalf of me and all the constituents from the 17th district, how great it is when we walk around and talk to Mark Udall and he talks about his dad's relationship with Mr. Seiberling and all the battles that they had.

In closing here, I would like to just share and ask, Mr. Speaker, that this article be submitted for the Record. And I'll make a copy. And this is John Seiberling's political philosophy and legislative philosophy summed up in this article by Mr. Diemer. ``What we are trying to do is maintain a livable world.'' Think how appropriate this is for today. ``What we are trying to do is maintain a livable world free of nuclear disaster, a world that we have not polluted to the point where we can't breathe, and where we preserve some natural beauty so that we can have the solace and the experiences of being out in God's world. I feel basically it is all part of the same effort to preserve part of our heritage for our children.''

Peace, a clean environment, pristine national parks and wildlife areas, and how urban sprawl has eaten a lot of it up in our time. And I think for those of us who fill his shoes here, it's now our obligation to go in and talk about urban redevelopment, to talk about preserving these natural spaces.

But more importantly, as the debate on energy has heated up over the past few weeks and few months, for us to present a comprehensive energy policy here, and to fund the investments in alternative energy.

He would be all over this. He would be at the cutting edge of biodiesel and solar and wind, and I think in some ways we're honoring his legacy as we move into the alternative energy areas.

And just think what he would be thinking today, as Merrill Lynch is getting bought out, Lehman Brothers is going bankrupt. When you think of all the problems in the housing market, because the government failed to regulate the markets properly, he would be at the forefront of every single one of these fights.

So you and I and Betty and those of us who need to honor him by coming down here and making sure that this standard that he set for us gets met every day here.

And in closing, I would just like to say, from one of his old, a couple of his older pieces of campaign literature, he had the tag line, ``The Guts To Do What's Right.'' And that was John Seiberling.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend, mentor, and a true pioneer. Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones was taken from us at far too young an age when she passed away on August 20th. On August 30th, during a memorial ceremony held at the Cleveland Public Hall, I addressed the hundreds of friends and family in attendance to pay tribute to Stephanie and I would like to share those remarks here as well:

There was a famous song a few years back called, ``I Hope You Dance.'' And it's a song that passes along some advice to all of us, and the refrain of the song says, ``If you have the choice to sit it out or dance, I hope you dance.'' And we all know that Stephanie didn't sit it out; she danced. She danced through this life with a style all her own, and she now gets to dance once again with her favorite partner, Mervin. Whether literally dancing on the dance floor or dancing through life, she possessed the key quality of any great dancer--she was fearless. She wasn't real concerned with criticism because she got her instructions from the inside. And as Connie Shultz pointed out last week in her wonderful column, ``When the rough and tumble side of Cleveland politics reared its head and threatened Stephanie, she simply said, `I don't have time for fear.' ''

Gandhi said, ``My life is my message.'' And so it is with Stephanie. Her life instructs us that if we live a life without fear, we allow God's light to pour through us, like His light poured through Stephanie. We saw this light in her bright smile and her catchy laugh; her high-fives she always liked to give when she made a witty comment; and the nicknames she gave us, as Congressman Meek said, I was the ``white son.'' We felt this light in her passion for justice and her warmth for humanity. Her life teaches us that if we live with courage and allow God's light to shine, we can travel farther and higher than we ever dreamed; that we can achieve the seemingly unachievable; and that we can break glass ceilings and overcome barriers with grace and joy. Whether it's Mervin, or Barbara, or her staff, or Members of Congress, or Senators, or presidential candidates, Stephanie's death gives us what she gave us so many times in life--our marching orders: To live a fearless life. To let our light shine. To bring joy and hope. To lift people. To dance. The daughter of Cleveland's life mission. And the credo she asks us to live by is reflected in the short poem called, ``I Am One.''

I am only one,

But I am one.

I cannot do everything,

But I can do something.

And that which I can do,

I ought to do.

And that which I ought to do,

By the grace of God, I shall do.

We love you, Stephanie.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the winners and all the participants in the 71st annual All-American Soap Box Derby World Championship at Derby Downs in Akron, Ohio, on July 26, 2008.

A record 609 contestants from forty three states and three foreign countries competed at the legendary Derby Downs for the title of Champion. This race is held annually at Derby Downs, which was created in 1936 by the Works Progress Administration (WPA) after Akron city leaders realized that a permanent track for the race was necessary. The racers, all between the ages of eight and seventeen, compete in six different divisions. All of the cars are powered only by gravity and built by the racers. The racers can reach speeds of thirty miles an hour and the races usually last less than thirty seconds and are decided by mere hundredths of seconds.

I am pleased to note that Elizabeth Underwood, 17, of Barberton, placed 3rd in the Masters division, Joe Puntal, 14, of Youngstown placed 3rd in the Super Stock division, and Johanna Barnowski, 11, of Cuyahoga Falls placed 1st in the Stock division.

Other Akron area racers who participated were Katie Atchison, Brett Chrisman, Dustin Chrisman, Emily Harmon, Tyler Shoff, Sarah Smith, Dennis VanFossen Jr., Cheyenne Wilt and Mary-Kate Wilt. Racers from the Youngstown area included Zachary Krohn of Austintown, Johanna Kuebler of Berlin Center, Julia Castner of Hubbard, Jenn Rodway of Boardman, and Jamie Berndt of Canfield.

I congratulate all the winners on their extraordinary success and commend all those who had a part of this great event.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay respect and tribute to Attorney Don L. ``Bull Moose'' Hanni, Jr., who passed away July 16 at the age of 82.

A lifelong resident of the Mahoning Valley, Don Hanni was born August 25, 1925 on the East Side of Youngstown. A graduate of East High School, he received his bachelor's degree in social studies and history and his law degree from Youngstown College. Hanni was a U.S. Army veteran of World War II, having served in the Normandy invasion.

A prominent figure in the community, Hanni was known for his career in law as a defense trial lawyer, also serving as a municipal judge and as an assistant city prosecutor. A member of the Mahoning County Bar Association, Hanni was a powerful political force, serving as Chairman of the Mahoning County Democratic Party for 16 years.

A much respected and admired man, Hanni dedicated his life to the devotion and service of others and will long be remembered.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that an article from The Vindicator of July 17, 2008 be included in the Record.

Recalling Skill, Wit of Hanni

(By William K. Alcorn)

Youngstown.--Attorney Don L. Hanni Jr., who defined some of

the best and worst in Youngstown law and politics during a

career that spanned more than a half-century, died at his

Coitsville home Wednesday morning.

As a lawyer, Hanni had a reputation as an accomplished

student of the law and as a courtroom brawler who was faster

on his feet than almost any opponent. As a politician, his

own success at the ballot box was mixed, but as a Democratic

Party chairman he made and broke more political careers than

any chairman before him--or likely any that will follow him.

Friends and adversaries, sometimes one person being both,

depending on the circumstances, talked about Hanni, 82, the

lawyer, the politician and the man.

He was nicknamed ``Bullmoose'' by Julaine Gilmartin, the

wife of his good friend Atty. Vincent Gilmartin. Mrs.

Gilmartin said Hanni reminded her of a character, ``General

Bullmoose, in the ``Li'l Abner'' cartoon, who was always

telling everybody what to do, she said with a laugh.

``He always had the greatest stories. We're losing all the

curmudgeons. It's the end of an era,'' she said.

``We were very dear friends,'' said Gilmartin, who had an

office in the same building as Hanni at 219 W. Boardman St.,

after his 16-year stint as county prosecutor.

``He was a very honorable sort of person, very

straightforward, very alert and kind-hearted,'' he added.

Gilmartin said he and Hanni faced each other numerous times

as prosecutor and defense attorney. ``I found him to be very

well-prepared, always knowledgeable about what we were doing,

and aware of what the law required. He was a very good

attorney,'' Gilmartin said.

One of Hanni's fiercest political foes over the years was

William Binning, who was chairman of the Mahoning County

Republican Party at the same time Hanni was head of the

county Democratic Party.

Binning said sometimes their relationship was friendly, but

they often were bitter enemies and had nasty fights.

``It depended on the issue of the day,'' said Binning,

professor emeritus at Youngstown State University and former

chairman of the school's political science department.

``One thing I would say, his word was always good with me.

I had great respect for him because of that. He was one of

the great colorful figures of the Mahoning Valley, and his

passing is a great loss to the Valley,'' Binning said.

Another political foe with whom Hanni locked horns was

Attorney Michael Morley, who replaced Hanni as county

Democratic Party chairman in 1994.

``While Don and I had our political differences, we

maintained a civil and cordial relationship over the years. I

offer my condolences to his family. I visited him in the

nursing home a couple of weeks ago and wished him well.

``We would see each other at events and he would call me

chairman and I would call him chairman, and occasionally we

would share a story,'' Morley said.

``Don Hanni and I were close friends. We used to have lunch

on Fridays together and have a drink or two together,'' said

R. Scott Krichbaum, a Mahoning County Common Pleas Court

judge and a former defense lawyer.

``But he and I battled, too. We were great adversaries at

one point. He was Democratic Party chairman and I was the

Republican candidate for judge. We had to send the sheriff up

to secure the ballots once the voting was done. It was a very

close race,'' Judge Krichbaum said.

On the other hand, however, the judge said Hanni was

``probably as good a trial lawyer as this area ever produced.

He was absolutely brilliant in cross-examination. He was much

more concerned with the facts than with the law. His method

was very effective. He could pretty much take any case and

give the defendant the best defense available.

``We respected each other as trial lawyers. It causes me a

great deal of sorrow that I've lost him as a friend and as a

colleague. His death is a tremendous loss to his family and

the community,'' Judge Krichbaum said.

Former Senator Harry Meshel's relationship with Hanni went

back to pre-college days when they used to frequent the Ritz

Bar on Wilson Avenue on the East Side. They were both World

War II veterans--Hanni in Europe and Meshel in the Pacific.

``We used to argue about who won the war,'' Meshel said

with a laugh.

They were at Youngstown College and on its student council

at the same time. Despite that relationship, they quarreled

about politics from time to time. ``He never hesitated to

argue, even with his friends, and even ruled against them in

court,'' Meshel said.

``The last time I visited him, not too many days ago, he

was screaming about politics. He said, `You got to run for

mayor.' I said, `I will if you'll be my law director,' ''

Meshel said.

``I think people would remember him for his sense of humor

and sense of purpose, and his skill as a lawyer. He was

highly respected in the legal profession. The judges will

tell you he was prepared and clients got their money's

worth,'' Meshel said.

``He was one of a kind. People don't know the things he

did,'' said Joyce Kale Pesta, deputy director of Mahoning

County Board of Elections and a longtime Hanni associate.

When he found out people who lived in the old Pick Ohio

Hotel had no place to eat in downtown Youngstown, he fed them

out of his office on Boardman Street. ``Sometimes he would

cook and sometimes I would cook,'' Pesta said.

``He always said `Don't kick anybody when they're down,

because you never know when you'll be down.' Even his worst

enemies he'd stick up for when they were down. That's how

[former county sheriff and U.S. Representative James]

Traficant and he became friends after being enemies for many

years,'' she said. He served in the Army during World War II

and was with the Allied Forces who landed on Normandy beach

on D-Day on June 6, 1944. He said it was horrific, but he

never talked about it much, Pesta said.

The Rev. Lonnie Simon, pastor emeritus of New Bethel

Baptist Church on Hillman Street, said Hanni was ``Mr.

Democrat in Youngstown as far as I was concerned.''

``He was very well-liked in the black community, and I got

along with him well,'' said the Rev. Mr. Simon, who, when he

came to Youngstown in 1946, registered as a Republican.

Hanni was a mentor for Attorney Alan R. Kretzer in his

early days and a client in a high-profile case when Hanni ran

his car into the post office building in downtown Youngstown

in 1985. Hanni was charged with driving under the influence;

however, it was dismissed because of lack of evidence, but a

charge of reckless operation was allowed to stand.

Kretzer said Hanni took that case and all cases seriously,

but always had a sense of humor.

When they were considering how the case might go, Kretzer

said Hanni told him that if he had to spend a few days in

jail, at least he wouldn't have to listen to his telephone

ring all day long.

Other local lawyers and government officials remembered

Hanni as a widely respected giant in local legal and

political circles.

Kathi McNabb Welsh, chief deputy Mahoning County clerk of

courts, remembered well her days as an assistant county

prosecutor in the 1990 murder trial of Christopher W.

Magourias, who was defended by Hanni and Attorney J. Gerald

Ingram and acquitted in the stabbing death of Kenmore Drake.

``It was quite a legal education for me to watch his

mastery of the rules of evidence and his control of the

courtroom,'' she said of Hanni.

``He will best be remembered as a great lawyer, a very

zealous litigator, a person who really went out of his way to

advocate his client's position and did a wonderful job of

that,'' said Attorney Vincent Wloch, a magistrate in Mahoning

County Probate Court.

``There was nobody better here locally with regard to

cross-examination. He thought quick on his feet,'' said

Wloch, who shared an office with Hanni from 1979 to 1985.

Wloch said he learned a great deal from his experience as

co-counsel with Hanni in the defense of Steven T. Masters,

whose 1980 murder trial lasted 10 weeks. Masters was

convicted of killing his wife, Jodi, in what was then the

longest criminal trial in Mahoning County history.

``He was just a Democratic giant in our field of

politics,'' said Lisa Antonini, Mahoning County treasurer and

Democratic Party chairwoman. Hanni's humor and ability to

``get a message out on Democratic Party politics'' will be

missed, she said.

``What a historian. We'll miss him for that. He always

taught me that you have to understand your history to move

forward into the future. He never shied away from calling me

when he thought I needed a history lesson,'' she recalled.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come down once again with my good friend from western PA, just over the border, Mr. Altmire from Pennsylvania, to just kind of clear up the record here a little bit and talk a little bit about what we have been doing here over the past year-and-a-half in Congress, to talk a little bit about the hole our country is in and how it has led to a lot of the stress that most American families are feeling now, most small businesses are feeling now.

But I'm going to take some liberties here, Mr. Speaker, and congratulate my brother and my sister-in-law. A few days ago, Andrea Maria was born to my brother and sister-in-law, and now my godchild, Nicolas, and the second-in-command, Dominick, now have a little baby sister. So I wanted to congratulate my mom and Joe and Shari Burkey, the grandparents, and my brother and sister-in-law for having another one, three for three. So, if the gentleman has a few kids of his own, he knows they're not getting much sleep, but the baby is healthy.

Also, I want to talk about, I think with that in mind, is what kind of legacy we're leaving to this next generation of Americans. And our friends today who spoke before us and spoke on the floor a little bit earlier today, you know, were talking about the importance of getting oil into the market and how if we would get oil into the market that it would reduce the cost of a gallon of gas.

And what the Democratic leadership has done--and just today we voted on taking 70 million barrels of oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is what we have as a country, 700 million barrels of oil, just in case, if there's some kind of catastrophe, if there's some kind of crisis, that we can go to this oil and use it for whatever purposes we deem necessary.

So, a few months ago, as we put oil into this reserve every day and every month, we said, as Democrats, that starting I think on June 30 that this oil would not go into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve every day; instead, we would divert it out of the reserve and into the market. And analysts were telling us that that would have some short- term effect in bringing the cost down.

We have seen the cost of a gallon of gas go down in the past few days, not significantly enough, but we feel like that strategic move that we made is having some effect.

So, today, we wanted to take that to the next step and say that we're going to take 10 percent of this reserve, 70 million barrels of oil, and pump it right into the market, and it would affect all the speculation that's going on through the Enron loophole, and it would inject oil into the market.

And today, we had a vote. And a lot of our friends, who were down on this floor, Mr. Speaker, just minutes and hours ago and have been railing on how we need to get oil into the market, voted against this oil going directly into the market. And you can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. You can't say you want more supply of oil into the market, and then when we bring up a bill and just cause the Democrats bring the bill up and say take 70 million barrels of oil and put it into the market to

drive down costs immediately, our friends all voted against it. You can't have it both ways. Either you want oil into the market, you want more supply, or you don't. And just because the Democrats say use the reserve and put it in to stop the speculation and drive the price down, our friends voted against it.

I yield to my friend.

Thank you.

And that's the thing. We get a card, you've got a vote, the board lights up, your name's up there, you either hit the green button for ``yes'' and the red button for ``no.'' And the same people that said, you know, we've got to get oil, we've got to put it on the market, voted against it. And as you said 157 Republicans.

Now, we're big on third party validators here with our 30 Something because we know you may not necessarily believe everything that we are saying so we make sure that we back some of this up.

Now, here is the statistics, and I will share also some quotes. This is what's happened in the past when we've taken out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve this oil that's just sitting there and we've put it into the market.

In 1991, this was done by the first President Bush, and prices went down by 33 percent. In 2000, it was done again, 18.7 percent prices went down, and it was done in 2005, which is 9 percent. So any of these examples in which we took directly out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and put it into the market has driven costs down and in 1991 to the tune of 33 percent, but even if it was 10 percent, you're talking about immediately knocking 40 cents a gallon off of a gallon of gas.

And that's what we tried to pass today, and 157 Republicans prevented that from happening. That's the bottom line. And so you can't say one thing and then do the other.

So you know Mr. Altmire is saying this. I'm saying this. Speaker Pelosi is saying this. But that's not it. We're not the only ones saying it. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich says, First thing is dump about half the Strategic Petroleum Reserve into the world market. You can pump about 2 million barrels a day. The marginal effect of that will bring down the price of oil very substantially.

Yeah.

Right. So we had an opportunity today to do this, and the Republicans have prevented it. You can surmise why maybe they wanted to do that, but we have experts who we try to listen to when it's coming to these major economic decisions that are going to reduce the price at the pump, and we had the opportunity to do that today and it was prevented. So it wasn't just Speaker Gingrich.

Absolutely. So just a few days ago, our good friend from Tennessee, Representative

Wamp--who I sit on the Energy and Water Subcommittee of Appropriations with--Rodney Alexander, a Republican from Louisiana, Johnny Isakson, Republican from Georgia, there are some Republicans who are saying, ``put this into the market,'' but not enough to actually have the kind of impact to actually get this done, not as many as we need.

And when you look at the American Trucking Association, when you look at the National Farmers Union, when you look at the Air Transportation Association, all of these groups wanted us to do this today. We did it, and it was prevented from happening: 70 million barrels of oil going into the market today.

But part of it--and I know the gentleman wants to talk a little bit about this as well--is what is happening with the dollar and how the dollar has been, because of its weakness at this point, the dollar has increased the cost of a lot of these commodities.

And I'd like to yield to my friend.

Well, let's think about it. When the second President Bush got in in 2000, two oilmen in the White House, and Vice President Cheney has this secret meeting--that nobody was allowed to know about--to begin to implement the energy policy of this administration, Republican House, Republican Senate, Republican White House, and here we go, here comes the energy policy.

Now, an energy policy that we agree on today doesn't necessarily have an effect today. Moving barrels out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a unique example of something having an immediate effect. But with energy policies, today's decisions have an effect years later. And so in 2000, when the Bush administration came, Mr. Speaker, and implemented this policy, headed up by the Vice President, we are now feeling the effects of it.

There was no massive move towards alternative energy. There was no expansion of nuclear. There was no expansion of biodiesel. There was no significant investment into alternative energies so that we can become independent. And when you look at the fact that we import--nearly 70 percent of the oil that we use in this country is imported from other sources, completely dependent on the Middle East and other countries in South America.

So they have implemented their energy policy, and today we have $4 a gallon gas. And the comments saying somehow that it's not their fault, it's not their responsibility, when their policies have been implemented, is ridiculous.

Right.

And if you think about what, in my estimation, great leaders would have done after 9/11, and you think about what the Lincolns and the Roosevelts and the Kennedys would have done in that particular situation, we had so much political clout in the world after 9/11. President Bush's approval ratings were off the charts. He failed to seize that opportunity to call up the oil companies, sit them down in the Cabinet room and say, boys, the party's over. We're all getting together, it's going to be a public/private partnership, and we're going in the alternative energy realm together as a country, public and private. He didn't do that. He asked everyone to go shopping; that was the big, creative challenge to the country. And that was a missed opportunity that few Presidents ever get, and he got it.

And when you think about that, and we had T. Boone Pickens in our caucus this week, he was on the Hill talking to both Democrats and Republicans--many people may have seen his commercials about his plan for transferring energy from being oil-based into some of these alternative energy fields, including wind, primarily, for him--but here's a geologist from Oklahoma University who is worth $4 billion in the oil industry, kind of understands what's going on, telling us ``You can't drill your way out of this.''

But his main point was, not only that we're importing 70 percent of our oil, but there's a $700 billion transfer of wealth from the United States into these other countries. And what we're saying is that $700 billion, that should be put to work here in the United States of America building windmills, building nuclear facilities, moving forward with a lot of these other alternative energy sources that are clean and renewable.

And you add to that what we're spending on the war in Iraq, $10 to $12 billion a month in Iraq. This is going to be a trillion dollar war, at the end of the day it's going to cost us $3 trillion when you factor in the cost of dealing with a lot of the veterans who have come back, who we have an obligation to take care of in order to honor their service. If that money was spent focusing on investments in alternative energy here in the United States 7 years ago, we would be so far down the path. We would have a green country. We would have green energy. We would have control of the lithium batteries that are being made. You would have plug-in cars. This all could have happened in the last 5 or 6 years.

And so we need to get out of this mentality that somehow we're stuck. And I think for public officials to tell us that somehow, when you only have 4 percent of the world's oil reserves, you can somehow drill your way out of this problem is misleading. And Boone Pickens said that, ``They mislead the public.'' This is what he said the other day when he was here, July 23, ``They mislead the public.'' The public thinks we can go and drill and they mislead it, and that we're going to get $2 a gallon in gas.

Let's have an honest conversation about how we can prevent us from getting into the same situation a decade from now, where you and I-- maybe here, maybe not here--that we're not having the same conversation.

And we have an opportunity to do that now. Speaker Pelosi, we've put hundreds of millions of dollars into research and development for these alternative energy sources, and some are starting to come online. But this should have been done 30 years ago, but especially 7 years ago.

And when you look at--and you mentioned it earlier--when you look at a lot of the situations that we have to deal with, that hopefully we can fix in time that my nieces and nephews don't have to deal with, but the debt, just in the last few years, $3 trillion increase in the debt ceiling here to $10 trillion. So we're borrowing this money because of the irresponsible tax cuts that the Bush administration passed when they got in, giving tax cuts primarily to the wealthiest people in the country who are making billions of dollars a year, benefiting from the system we have, and increasing the pressure with health care and energy costs on the middle class at the same time. And so these increases and the money that we're borrowing is coming from China, is coming from Japan, is coming from OPEC countries.

So when you think about the situation we're in now and you're paying $4 at the pump because the Bush energy plan, the Bush/Cheney energy plan has been implemented, you're paying $4 at the pump, and then you realize that your country is borrowing money for the war and the debt and the tax cuts that are going primarily to the top 1 percent, and that money that you're borrowing is coming from China and oil-producing countries--so they're loaning you the money, and they're getting interest, you're paying them interest on it just like you would do to the bank--and the oil-producing countries are producing moringe oil and shipping more over here, so we have a $700 billion transfer of payments over to these oil producing countries. When you think about borrowing money from China, paying them interest on the money, and they take the interest that they make off the money you're borrowing and they invest that into basically state-run operations over there, whether it's steel, or any other kind of manufacturer that they lure over with the money that they get from the Americans to build industrial parks, to build roads and bridges so that companies will move over there, to build Navy ships so that they can have a strong fleet in the Pacific, we're funding all this because of the irresponsible practices.

So we're trying to dig ourselves out of this hole, and we're still getting resistance. Even to the tune of trying to put 70 million barrels of oil on the market, we have trouble getting that passed because our Republican friends, Mr. Speaker, continue to prevent us from doing that.

I yield to my friend.

And from my perspective, I certainly don't want to put the philosophy that got us into the problem that we are in and reaffirm it and continue to go down that road. We only have 4 percent of the world's oil reserves. What don't you get about that picture, Mr. Speaker?

And we use 25 percent. So we only have 4 percent and we use 25 percent, and we're shipping $700 billion a year to those countries that are sending their oil over here, and we can't drill enough. Even if we open everything up, we still can't get enough oil to solve the problem. It is simple math and it's disingenuous, Mr. Speaker, to somehow mislead the American public, in the words of T. Boone Pickens, who is an oilman from Texas who is saying the same thing. It is misleading to say that we can drill our way out of this.

There are 68 million acres that the oil companies now have, up to 90 million. They've done the research as to where they wanted to purchase the lease. They think there is oil there. They know there's oil there. Go and drill it and stop the political games of trying to say that somehow some of the American people are against it. Go ahead and drill. But that is not going to solve the problem.

And I know in your district and I know the people that vote for me in my district want me to come down here to solve problems, not to mislead them and score political points.

When I am eating at Vernon's Restaurant about two blocks from me, the best Italian restaurant on the planet, Mr. Speaker, people want to know exactly what we are going to do to solve the problem. And if you explain to them that we don't have enough oil reserves to keep this train going, they're smart enough to realize that they know how the movie ends, and it's not pretty because now we're 10 years from where we are today, gas is at $8 a gallon, and we are more dependent on oil from the Middle East, and we have done nothing with wind and nuclear and biodiesel; so we are in a worse spot than we are today.

Now, I would love to go to my friends who are at Vernon's Restaurant and say, ``If we just keep drilling, we're going to be okay.'' But that's not the reality. Those aren't the facts. And the facts have got to dictate what public policy is or we are not doing our job for the American people.

I agree. But it's important for us to realize too that we are moving on the energy issues. We are trying to fix it, short term and long term. Short term by releasing the barrels of oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, have a short-term impact, reduce the cost; and then long term, invest in these alternative energy sources with different kinds of cars and incentives and tax credits for renewables and all of these different policies that will help stimulate a lot of the renewable energy fields long term.

We are also trying to do other things along public policy areas that will have an effect for families who are getting hurt today and getting squeezed because of energy and because of health care and because of tuition.

One of the things I would like to talk about that we have been doing, families want their kids to have a better life than they had, and they want their kids to move further on in life than they have. And the key in 2008 for that is an education. And what has happened just a week or so ago, one of the policies that we have implemented is reducing the cost of student loans. The cost of a student loan used to be 6.8 percent, or the interest rate on a student loan used to be about 6.8 percent last year. As of just a few days ago, this went down to 6 percent. And this is going to continue to go down over the course of the next few years to about 3.4 percent for a student loan because when we got in, when the Democrats got in, and Speaker Pelosi has a major priority and a major emphasis on education, this is where we put our resources. This is where we made the investment.

So for my friends, Mr. Speaker, who don't seem to think there is a difference between the two parties, when you go to get a student loan and its .8 percent less this year than it was last year, that's because the Democrats are in and it was a priority for us to reduce the interest rate on a student loan. And when you go next year and it's even lower and when you go the following year and I think by 2010 it's down to 3.4 percent, the average student loan is going to be reduced by about $4,400. So when you take the $4,400, you take the increase in the

minimum wage, you look at all of these different little policies that we have, they add up to where families and kids can have a better, more prosperous future than their parents had. But those are the kinds of investments that we're making. And just today the minimum wage went up again because of what the Democrats have done.

There's a clear focus and a clear philosophy of what we are trying to implement here, and that's for middle class families to have success and for them to move forward and have their kids have more opportunity than they had. Whether it's energy or health care or education, that's where we are moving towards to make sure that we can advance that cause.

And that's the best thing from our vantage point: Prove to the American people as to what your beliefs are and how it's going to affect their lives. And if you have a couple of jobs and you're making the minimum wage, you got a pay raise twice already in the last year, just over the last year. If you're going to school, there is more grant money available for you to go get an education. There is a lower interest rate on the loan that you're going to take out or your parents may take out to send you to school.

Those are significant investments that Democrats have made into the future of our country so that middle-class people can be successful and take advantage of these tools. We can't do it for anybody. But these are tools that average families will use and implement to move forward.

Two of the things that we can't forget, we have also passed the GI Bill out of the House which will say that if you served this country in Iraq or Afghanistan over the past 3 or 4 years that you will have all expenses paid to go to college. In Ohio, there is a policy now that the Governor has implemented that you can come to Ohio, any veteran around the country, can come to Ohio and have in-State tuition rates if you're a veteran.

And look at what we've done for veterans' health care. The largest investment in the 77-year history of the VA was made by the Democratic Congress when we got in here. A lot of us weren't for the war. And I will be the first to say I wasn't for it. But what we all are for is honoring the service of the veterans who go over there and make the great sacrifice and the sacrifices that their family makes. So we have made that investment into the VA program so that the vets have the benefits that they need. And we're honoring their service by making that investment.

And if you look to the previous 7 years or 6 years, what the President made, Mr. Speaker, and what the Republican Congress made, it was $14 billion in corporate welfare to the oil companies. It was tax cuts to people who make millions and millions of dollars a year. It was an energy policy that got us $4 a gallon gas. It was a health care policy that gets 15 or 20 percent increase on your health care. A dramatic difference. And I'm proud to stand up here and talk a little bit about what we've done and what we're going to continue to do, because I feel like we're just getting started. And we have an election coming up now in November. And I think there is an opportunity for us to really move forward.

So, I'm honored again to be with the gentleman from Pennsylvania. And Mr. Speaker, we're going to wrap up. Again, congratulations to my brother and sister-in-law, they're grandparents to Andrea. And we will yield back the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay respect and tribute to Mr. John P. Shaffer, who passed away July 21 at the age of 84.

Mr. Shaffer was born April 25, 1924 in Youngstown, the son of John H. and Genevieve Perry Shaffer. A U.S. Army veteran of World War II, Mr. Shaffer proudly served his country with honor. Following the war, he returned home to Niles and soon married Ann M. Bancroft, his wife of 62 years.

Mr. Shaffer retired in 1984 after working 31 years as a supervisor at National Gypsum Co. A lifelong public servant in the city of Niles, he was a city councilman at large for 12 years, and safety director for the city from 1976 to 1980. In 1984 he was elected mayor, a position he held until 1988.

Mr. Shaffer's tenure as mayor is best remembered for aiding the city in its time of need. In 1985, his second year in office, a devastating tornado swept through the city leaving a path of destruction in its wake. Mr. Shaffer's strong leadership helped the city rise from the rubble, providing hope in the face of devastation.

A patriotic American family man, Mr. Shaffer cherished time spent with his daughters, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. An avid fisherman and outdoorsman, he enjoyed his retirement to the fullest extent, often retreating to the Florida sunshine during harsh Midwestern winters.

He was a member of the Niles Men's Democratic Club, Loyal Order of Moose, and the Niles American Legion. A man of faith, Mr. Shaffer was a member of St. Stephen Church in Niles, often devoting time to those less fortunate. For much of his life, he was a Eucharistic minister for homebound parishioners.

A man of the highest character, Mr. Shaffer's legacy in the Mahoning Valley will live on through his work, public contributions, and family. John P. Shaffer touched many lives in his lifetime, and he will be greatly missed. I am honored to have represented him.

I appreciate that. And it is time to wrap it up. And I think as we were home over the July 4th break and as we were meeting with our constituents and going to parades and getting out and about and reconnecting with our district, one of the issues we heard, obviously, is gas but also just the squeeze that families are feeling now. And one of the reasons we need to get Iraq wrapped up and get our troops back home is because it is costing us $12 billion a month in Iraq. And if we continue to go down this road with supplementals of $180 billion and continuing to go down that road, those are investments that we can't make here in the United States.

And I think a lot of people would say, Mr. Meek, that we have got to make investments back here in the United States of America so that we can build roads and bridges here in the United States as opposed to roads and bridges in Iraq. And that's one of the key issues here.

I know the gentleman from Connecticut wants to say a few words. But I think it's important for us to realize there is a direct connection between what we are doing in Iraq and what we are unable to do because of the budget.

One of the issues that we're talking about too is what has happened to our budget here in the United States. And just a few short years ago in 2000, January of 2001, we had a $5.6 trillion surplus, and after President Bush got sworn in up until today, we have a $3.2 trillion deficit. That's an $8.8 trillion swing, and that is part of the reason we have a weak dollar, and that is part of the reason that oil is so expensive. So we've got to get our house in order here.

So we talk about the war in Iraq and about how we need to finish it and honor our troops and support our veterans and make sure we have health care and whatnot, but we have got to balance the budget here in the United States and make those investments here, put people to work here in the United States building roads, bridges, infrastructure, water lines, sewer lines, septic tanks, broadband.

I yield to my friend from Connecticut.

If the gentleman would yield, if you think about the amount of money that we have spent in Iraq, that we are going to go and fix the Middle East and make it different and the money that it costs, almost $1 trillion that we have spent there already and the projection of $3 trillion when you start talking about taking care of all the vets that are going to come back with traumatic brain injury, amputees. When you factor that cost in, Joe Stiglitz, the Nobel winning economist, says $3 trillion it's going to cost.

And I think it's important for the American people to realize that if we had made different decisions early on in this decade that those billions and billions and billions of dollars could have been invested into alternative energy sources, could have been invested into loan guarantees for nuclear plants, could have been invested in coal to liquid or whatever. Pick your issue.

I yield to my friend.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to make the point that I was there with you, talking to the chairman of the Transportation Committee, and the point is it's not just airline fares, it's not just reducing from $4 a gallon down because of the millions of gallons that we could just take out of the oil reserve that is just sitting here in our country, and there are several of them. Just take the oil out.

Everyone's talking about drilling. Take the oil out of where it is right now. Just turn the spigot on. Just turn that spigot on and let that oil flow.

My point is that when you do this, it's going to have an effect because the airline companies are laying people off, just today in Toledo, and all over the country.

So this is about making sure that we have jobs in the country. Airline pilots, machinists. The whole nine yards. So I wanted to put a little texture into that argument, a little context in that argument, support it even more to talk about jobs here in American.

I yield back.

I think it is important. Here is the history. Not just the short-term history, kind of what the gentleman from Connecticut Mr. Murphy just went over, but that long history. We have been since we got in trying to push legislation on every single issue that is going to help middle-class families in the United States of America.

We raised the minimum wage for the first time since 1997. The new increase will go here in just a few more weeks. On July 24th there will be another minimum wage increase for those people earning the minimum wage. Some people have two minimum wage jobs, who will get another $28 a week, which isn't a lot, but with high gas prices it is a lot more than what would have happened if the Democrats were not here.

If you look at the investments we made in biofuels already through the farm bill and the alternative energy that Mr. Murphy already mentioned, some economists are saying this is keeping gas down 50 cents a gallon more now because of the biofuel blends that are coming in.

If you look at what just happened last week when you would take your kid or a student was going to try to take out a loan to go to school, and the interest rate was 6 percent instead of 6.8 percent, that is because the Democrats are in Congress and pushed that bill. That did not happen when the Republicans were in charge here.

Madam Speaker, we did that. Democrats did that. So when you are talking about who is on the side of the person going to the pump at $4 gas, it is the Democrats. We are against the oil companies. We are against President Bush. And if you look at the last 8 years, who would you rather have fixing the problem? President Bush and Dick Cheney and the oil companies, or the Democrats, who increased the minimum wage, invested in alternative energy, and made the kind of commitments on student loans and education that we have made. There is a clear difference here.

And here is all the land that the oil companies have to drill on: 102 percent of Colorado, 130 percent of Kansas, twice the size of Illinois, 2\1/2\ times the State of Ohio. Go drill. Go drill now. You have the leases. You have picked out the land yourself. Go and drill it. But, no, you want to go up to ANWR and drill, a small little piece. All we are saying is you have the leases. We are talking about 20 years down the

line. Even if you started drilling here in ANWR or anywhere else, 20 years. Speaker Pelosi is saying, take it out of the oil reserve that we have right now, and the President is saying no.

So do you want to get oil into the market now, Madam Speaker, or not? It is pretty clear. There are people in our communities that are hurting, and we have a short-term plan and a medium plan and a long- range plan that is being fought tooth and nail by the oil companies.

And save 5 cents a gallon. This is about people that sent us down here to make mature, responsible decisions, not the issue de jour, what is going to rattle will public. We have got a responsibility.

We only have a couple of percent of the whole reserves in the world, and we consume 25 percent of the daily energy in the world. And for us to come here and say if we just drill, which we are saying, go ahead and drill. That is fine. Drill now. Here is all the places, 6 million acres you have. Go ahead and do what you have to do and make your money. But we are going in another direction, because we are not going to rely on imported oil from the Middle East to solve this problem. We are going to rely on the Midwest and the ingenuity in the country.

One of the provisions for taking this right out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and pumping it into the market is it stays in the United States market. What they are drilling now, wherever they are drilling, doesn't necessarily mean the oil they are taking out is staying here in the United States, all of it. So there are a lot of issues here that we need to deal with.

But, Mr. Meek, I just want to get nostalgic for 30 seconds with you, if I could, before we close up. I remember four or five years ago when the whole 30-Something Group started and we started on the issue of Social Security privatization accounts. Congressman Meek and I started coming down here on that issue. Then-Minority Leader Pelosi asked us to come down here, and we got into the nuts and bolts of the privatization accounts. And it was 60-40 people in our generation were for it, until we got into the nuts and bolts.

We began to explain night in and night out on this floor, and throughout the country Members would go home and started to talk about Social Security privatization, putting this social insurance program in jeopardy, and we ended up killing the President's privatization account scheme that he was going to set up.

What I am saying to Members here is if we just continue to get the facts out on this, that there is oil, 80 percent of the known reserves, the oil companies have the permits to drill it, we passed legislation that says use the permit or lose it so we can get people in there who want to drill, and we just keep talking about that, and what we are going to do with taking the oil that is already there in the reserve and put it into the market, there is no doubt that our plan in the short-term is better and we have already made the investments in the long term that I know will be better.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 2008 Congressional Award recipients, honoring our Nation's young people who have achieved personal goals in the areas of volunteer public service, personal development, physical fitness, and exploration/ development.

As public service volunteers, this year's recipients shared their time and talents for the benefit of others. Through selfless acts, they have demonstrated their devotion to community, displaying dedication, perseverance, and compassion.

In the area of personal development, recipient of the Congressional Award have gained life skills and knowledge as they developed a particular interest. While striving to achieve a personal goal of improvement, recipients exhibited immense personal growth.

As balanced individuals, recipients of the Congressional Award also strive for personal improvement in physical fitness as an effort to improve their quality of life, understanding the need to lead a healthy lifestyle.

The process of exploration/development presented recipients with the opportunity to gain a sense of independence as they became engaged in the world around, whether

that experience occurred through an immersion in nature or through exposure to an unfamiliar culture.

Recipients of the 2008 Congressional Award have time and again shown their dedication to community, having learned the value of making a difference for the greater good. They are dedicated to all they do, striving for improvement while setting goals for personal achievement. I commend them as individuals of inspiration, a group worthy of the highest praise.

I would like to make special recognition of Caroline McMullen from Chesterland, Ohio. Caroline is a driven individual, having the conviction to reach out and achieve her goals. Her profound dedication to public service is integral to the betterment of her community; her actions are exemplary. As a fellow Ohioan, I am extremely proud of Caroline's accomplishments.

The following are honored recipients of the 2008 Congressional Award:

Mary-Lynn Piper, Chelsea Green, Sabrina Ilich, Zachary Somers, Katherine Connett, Erica Tong, Joseph Hall, Norman Hall, Cody Christie, Evan Hess, Ryan Krebs, Joslyn Wood, Greg Woodburn, Shaheen Lakhan, Gohar Minassian, Jairek Robbins, James Broadhead, Kyle Fitle, Katherine Tse, Kathleen O'Brien, Tammy Lang, Mackenzie Martin, Sarah Choi, Lauren Penticuff, Sarah Wagner, Christine Chady, and Julie Vernon.

Phillip Vernon, Lindsey Wilber, Emily Cortright, Diana Roycroft, James Martin, Ashley Persico, Timothy Medeiros, Michael DiTerilizzi, Philip Doumar, Andrew Gorodetsky, Daniel Harvey, Audrey Hill, Taylor Hilo, Bianca Kahlenberg, Leighton Norvell, Brett Pere, Veronica Richter, Melissa Roos, Bryan Spurgeon, Addison Craig, Angela Boyd, and Gregory Kraus.

Elizabeth Lott, Christopher Puchferran, Jacob Schattie, Shetty Shohan, Stephanie Martinez, Chelsea Jarrell, Katherine McClellan, Breona Jenkins, Bernard Underwood, John Langdon, Amanda McGehee, Anna Sali, Robyn Watson, Maryanne Barrott, Rebecca Goodwin, McKay Nield, Grayson Stone, Mara Truslow, Brittany Ward, Dana Wright, Michael Noh, Andrew Sze, Erin Stein, Carolyn Bartley, and Austin Stuart Hamner, Jr.

Patrick Ketchum, Joseph Bricker, Karen Bricker, Sydney Ayers, Benjamin Thomas Connell, Christopher Connell, Nicholas Adam Connell, Laura Webb, Megan Lecompte, Margaret Downing, Reeve Fidler, Anthony Serrano, Richard Prevatt, Kimberly Shupe, Liam Swords, Jesyka Palmer, Stephanie De Young, Brandon Spratt, Lauren Boldon, Ashlee Kephart, John Rasmussen, Elizabeth Doyle, Grace Minton, Andrew Robinson, and Victoria Willingham.

Scott Florence, Mollie Frazier, Michelle Gourley, Laura Owen, Brittany Simpson, Iver Vandiver, Nolan Webb, Jonathon Whitlock, Brad Young, Lynice Higgins, Thomas Kazery, Tiffany Holder, Amanda Layton, Holly Webb, Kaylee Keith, Michael Atkins, Rachel Goodrich, Jimmy Van Eerden, Charlotte Lindemanis, Bridget Castor, Kimberly Baker, David Michael Bales, Erin Murowany, Bryan Quay, Rebecca Winterbum, and Rosalyn Wodlinger.

Tina Sankhla, Matthew Pierson, Katelyn Benedit, Ronald Dukes, Sydney Keller, Brian Kelly, Brittany O'Hare, Adam Sferlazzo, Lisa Washakowski, Amoha Bajaj, Mark DeGaetano, Margaret DeOliveira, Maria DeOliveira, Shabnum Gulati, Lydia McGinnis, Brittany Waser, Kevin Williams, Sean Kennedy, Kyle Campanile, Emily Morgan Farber, Alexa Kretsch, Aditya Madhusudhan, Shefali Madhusudhan, Lindsay Steiner, and Stephanie Tietz.

Sheren Tsai, Jill Coulson, Alexei Brandt, Alexander Long, Kevin McAllister, Tristin Turner, Sheel Tyle, Karoline McMullen, Kelly McLaughlin, Minh Lac, Sambath Luong, My Sy, Pisey Hour, Pisith Hour, Xinpei Jiang, Kunvatha Theth, Dieu Truong, Ky Truong, Carol Lin, Miguel Leon, Ben Calhoun, Katelyn Fenerty, Katherine Suyo, Jonathan Webster, and Conor Dolan.

Benjamin Dunphey, Bonnie McDevitt, Jacob Zimmerman, Chao Long, Aydan Ortiz, Jose Romero, Thais Ridgeway, Donald Groves, Jeffrey Yeh, Audra Piotti, Caroline Mailloux, Eric Shim, Lillianne Harris, Rebecca McMenemy, Andrew Fryml, Stefan Zollinger, Jacquelyn Cox, Keome Rowe, Mary Day, Ana Lopez-Cordell, Kiely McGuire, Alexandra Faulk, Rebecca Nock, Evan Purcell, Katharine Folger, and Jamie Drillette.

Vinson Valdez, Paul Zwicker, John Corbett, Jonathon Hillis, Carly Stevens, Drury Evans, Christina Marmol, Evan Levine, Ian Painter, Allante Nelson, Emily Rinker, Olivia Shuck, Alexander Smith, Ian Gibson, Samuel Keltner, Sean Warren, Kathleen Burch, Ashley Tate, Daniel Adams, Michael Heyer, and Bethany Klicka.

Maggie Marshall, Elizabeth Sharkey, Carlyn Stuart, John Caridad, Megan Freeman, Crystal Marshall, Keren Stewert, Daniel Courtemanch, Jory Lehman, Katie Beckmann, Nicholas Porter, Ellis Calvetti, Jenna Farrester, Valerie Watters, and Shana Marie Wolff.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity. I want to immediately yield to my friend. There were a lot of facts thrown out here, and the folks who are paying attention here in the Chamber may want to hear the response.

I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania.

And one of the issues that was brought up today by the President that we want to discuss--and I very much appreciate you making the presentation as to the other side of the debate that our friends made over the last hour. But a couple of the points that were made on the other side is that, well, if we go offshore, you go into the Outer Continental Shelf region, it's deep water, it's going to cost $2 billion just to maybe get into the well. Well, when you look into the profits from 2007 for the oil companies, $123 billion in profits last year. So the reason they give that they have to increase the price is because it is expensive to get into some of this deep water; no one is disputing that fact.

Sure.

Much of this money has already been spent in the surveying and the geological work. So now you have, last year, $123 billion in profits. That's what you get the money for because you say it's expensive to get in there. So you're making all the profits and not necessarily going in to get the oil.

And then another comment earlier was made, well, it may take 7 years. Well, if you go to ANWR, you're not going to get a drop out for 10 years. And in 20 years--and I love how this ANWR has just become the silver bullet. If you go into ANWR today, or

even if you did go into ANWR in 1995, Madam Speaker, that will only save you, after 20 years of, when ANWR gets to peak production, it will save 1.8 cents per gallon of gas, period, at peak production.

ANWR is not a silver bullet. And if ANWR were the silver bullet, the gentleman from Pennsylvania and I would be standing on top of this Capitol waving the ANWR flag saying, this is all we need to do in America is to go to ANWR and pull out this oil that's there. And so I think it's misleading, Madam Speaker, for the President to come before the American people and say that this ANWR is a major component of us reducing our dependency on foreign oil.

And we're not getting this information, unlike has been proposed in some places that this is all coming from the Sierra Club, that all this information is coming from the League of Conservation Voters or some left-wing, liberal political group that doesn't care about energy and wants us all to move to a commune and then we'll all be fine. This is coming from the Department of Energy. These ANWR statistics are coming from the Department of Energy. And the Department of Energy is the executive branch, which is run by George W. Bush. These are the President's own people telling us from the Energy Information Administration of what exactly the numbers are. We are not making this up.

So on one side he comes out and says, ``We need to drill in ANWR. That is a major component of our energy policy.'' And his own energy people are saying, ``In 20 years it will save you 2 cents a gallon.'' Now many of our colleagues here have said, ``We are Americans. This is America.'' Well, the America that I know doesn't say, ``We are going to really do it and save 2 cents a gallon in gas 20 years from now.'' That is not America. That is not America. America is saying, ``We are going to be energy independent.''

The problem with our friends and the disagreement that we have with the President and with our friends in the Republican Party is the basic idea that we can drill our way out of this problem. Because we can't. We have 1.6 percent of the known oil reserves in the world in the United States. And we consume 25 percent of daily oil consumption, my friend, and that means that no matter how much we drill, if we just keep drilling and drilling and drilling, we will still have to import oil. We will still be dependent on the Middle East. We will still be caught up in these political games that we are in right now in the Middle East. And we will still be in this tenuous web of dictatorships and who's got the oil and what are the supply lines and how do we keep it safe and how do we get to the market. We will still be involved in all of that.

But what the Democrats are trying to do is to take this money and invest it into alternative energy research and development. This should have been done years ago. And some of our friends on the other side and the President comes out today, it was like the President hasn't been around for the last 7 years. You control the House. You control the Senate. You control the White House. Republicans were controlling the whole capital in Washington, D.C. when I first got down here in 2002. The President got here 2 years before. Why aren't we drilling in ANWR? They said Clinton vetoed it in 1995. Why didn't the President pass it through? Why didn't the President move us forward with the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate with Trent Lott and Tom DeLay and all the other leaders that were down here?

That is failed leadership. We are here to clean up the mess. And now look where we are, at over $4 per gallon for gas.

And if the President wanted to have short-term impact on the cost, we have got to deal with the speculation in the commodities market. Period. Now economists are saying anywhere from 10 percent to 100 percent of the increase is from this speculation, so put that all together, and it is 40 or 50 percent of the increase. But if we take care of the speculation and the President would show Presidential leadership and come to Congress and say let's do something with the commodity prices and the futures speculation and Congress passed something on this so we can have short term, I would say, ``You know what--there's some leadership.'' Let's get that done. Let's get it through Congress. Get it through the Senate. Let's have him sign it. And let's try to reduce this cost by 40 or 50 percent. That would get us under $100 a barrel if we

could reduce the increase that has happened because of the speculation.

But he did not do that because a lot of what comes out of the executive branch today, Madam Speaker, is political. And you go back to the war, and you remember ``greeted as liberators,'' you remember that ``we're going to use the oil for reconstruction,'' you remember all the promises that were made. That is what this administration has said. And then it came to the economy: ``Well, you know, as long as we cut taxes for the top 1 percent of the people, the domestic economy is going to take off. It's going to be a stimulant. We're going to take off. It will be good for the middle class.'' That hasn't worked.

And then you look at the fiscal policy where he said, the administration said, ``Trust me.'' And we have raised the debt limit in this country. All of us. And the Republicans were leading the House, the Senate and the White House at the time, but this is America's money. They raised the debt limit five times and borrowed $3 trillion, $1 trillion of it from foreign interests including OPEC and China.

The President said, ``Trust me.'' Now he comes out today and says, ``If we only drill more in the United States, then we will solve this problem.'' But we have got to keep drilling and drilling and drilling. And you and I are here saying, ``Fine. Go ahead and drill.'' There are 68 million acres. There are 8,000 leases. There is 80 percent of the oil that we know that we have in the United States on those 68 million acres. Drill and go get it. But when you only have 1.6 percent of the world's oil, and you consume 25 percent, you can drill until the cows come home. We're not going to drill our way to energy independence. That is just not going to happen.

So as leaders in this Chamber and as leaders in the Congress, we have got to come up with a better solution. And that is what we have done. We took the $14 billion that was going for subsidies to the oil companies and moved that into alternative energy research so that we truly can be energy independent.

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I don't feel bad for the oil companies. They want to go drill here and we won't let them. There is a reason. Why wouldn't we want to let them go to ANWR if it were going to be this big major solution?

Here are the facts of the matter. The green are areas of land that are open for leasing for oil offshore. Open for leasing is the green. What is closed is the red. They have all of this to go ahead and drill in. Go ahead. Drill. Drill to your heart's content. It's already open, the EPA permitting, you're ready, set, go. Go and do it.

This is not Sierra Club. This is the Minerals Management Service within the Department of the Interior. This is not us making this up. The 30 Somethings, we're big on the third-party validators.

Now here, does drilling lower gas prices? Okay. So the red here are drilling permits that have been issued from 1994. The blue are the wells that have been drilled. So you see that the permits have increased, especially in the last few years. The red are the permits. The blue are the wells that have been drilled and the wells that have not been drilled as to the permitting. So with all of this going on, the price of gas has skyrocketed, commodities issues and a lot of other things going on here. But what we are saying is, you have all of these permits to drill where the executive branch, President Bush's executive branch, is telling us that this is where the oil is, and the oil companies have found the oil there and got the permits and did the studies as you have pointed out earlier. And they have all this room here to dig, to drill, to pull the rigs up and to do everything that they have to do. And this is where you could pull out where these leases are, 4.8 million barrels of oil a day. In ANWR, it is how many barrels of oil a day?

And that would save you 2 cents.

It would be very little impact. I tell my constituents this all the time when we are chatting, if there is a politician that has one silver bullet, if we just do this, that all of these problems are going to go away, be very, very, very skeptical.

We grow up learning, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The oil companies are spending a lot of money, I'm sure, through Internet traffic, through advertising and TV about how they're going green. So ExxonMobil, Mr. Speaker, has spent--the industry totally--$52 million on advertising about how they're going green and everything else. ExxonMobil, of their $40 billion in profits, has spent $10 million on alternative energy research and development. That is not the direction. So, when we say that it is important for us to shoot the Moon like we did in the 1960s and get into the alternative energy, that's why. That's what we have to do.

I yield to my friend.

So that's what we're saying, and that's what the whole new direction of Congress has been about, which is, when you're making these decisions, you have to base your public policy decisions on the facts. When the facts say this, that no matter how much you're drilling and you're not keeping up for whatever reason and you only have not even 2 percent of the total oil in the world that is in the United States, 1.6 percent, and you're consuming 25 percent, any businessperson who is sitting in our seat here, looking at these facts, would say we've got a problem. We can't keep drilling.

You know, maybe we need to drill now and do what we can in the short term, but this is no long-term solution. This is clearly a problem that we have for our country. So, nuclear, biodiesel, wind, coal to liquid, whatever the case may be, those are the directions in which we need to move.

Now, a lot of folks are talking about refining capacity, so I think it's important to realize that our refineries are currently running at 88 percent. We are not at full capacity with our refineries. Everyone keeps saying, ``Build more refineries. Build more refineries.'' In 2005, there was a 50 percent tax credit for any company that wanted to build a new refinery, and they have not. All of the big dogs over the last 20 or 30 years have said we have no interest in building a new refinery. They're making $130 billion in profits a year. Now, all of a sudden, we feel bad for the oil companies?

The President basically came out today and said I know we're running down a dead end, but let's run faster. Let's put the juices on. Put on your new tennis shoes. You know, put on two pairs of socks so you don't get any blisters, and keep running down the wrong road until you just smack your head right into the wall.

What we're saying is we know how that movie ends. We know. We don't have enough oil to drill our way out of this thing. That's how that ends.

So let's, please, go in another direction, Mr. Speaker.

Well, we have other illustrative charts here. This is the Outer Continental Shelf: The acres that have been leased and the acres producing. So this is in the Outer Continental Shelf already, 44 million acres, and only 10.5 million acres are being utilized. That's in the Outer Continental Shelf. It just helps. You read it, but it helps. These are statistics that are coming from the Energy Department. These aren't things that we're making up.

I'm sure the oil companies spent a good deal of money to identify the area. They hired a lot of geologists whom, I'm sure, they have working for them. They spent a lot of money and used a lot of technology to identify this.

But this is the area that is underdeveloped, and the President comes out and says ignore all of this, and go to ANWR or do this, which is not even being done now, and then go to ANWR. There are 4.8 million barrels of oil that would come out of this per day at maximum production and, in ANWR, 800,000. This is the Outer Continental Shelf and this is onshore. It's the same kind of situation: 47 million. Only 13.2 acres that are actually in production right now. Again, there is the number of permits.

It's interesting because we kind of went through this a few years back. You'd hear testimony from executives, and you'd hear about supply and demand. Then with the situation dealing with Enron, all of a sudden, it was not supply and demand. All of a sudden, it was all this manipulation that was going on.

Our job here is to oversee what is going on in the markets and figure out how we can make sure that everything is above board, that everything is legal.

Now, a few weeks ago on a Friday, the increase in the cost of a barrel of oil was more than a whole barrel of oil cost 10 years prior to. Something funny is going on here, and I think we need to move with the commodities issue. We've already done the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We've already passed out of the House that which deals with the cartels. These are steps that we are taking, but if we don't move into the

alternative energy category, we're going to be sitting here 10 years from now, dealing with the same, exact issue that we're dealing with today.

I think it's important that we realize that this is not going to be some kind of very narrow solution to the problems that the country is in now. The point is that when President Bush came into office, there was a pretty good economic forecast, a lot of things were stable, it was time to make some key investments. That did not happen, and the situation got dramatically worse.

The middle class has continued to get squeezed, whether it was energy costs, health care costs, tuition costs, everything in the 6 years in which the President was pushing all of his agendas. I've said this more than one time on this House floor. There is no need to wonder about what the neoconservative Republican agenda would look like, because we are living in it today.

All you have to do is go to the gas pump, get your health care bill, pay your kids' college tuition, deal with the global environment, look at the foreign policy of this country, the destabilization of the Middle East, unable to deal with China. We deal with a lot of trade issues, with China, with Wheatland Tube that has a facility in my district, a facility in your district, in imports coming in from China.

It's tough for us to advocate the administration to be hard on China, to take a firm stance on China, because the administration at the same time is borrowing money from China to finance the $12 billion a month for the war in Iraq.

So the foreign policy of the United States has destabilized the region where a lot of the oil is, and that has not helped the situation. Our domestic problems continue to exist because we are living under the President's current economic policies. The debt burden that has been placed on our children and grandchildren over the next generation was put in place, the $3 trillion borrowed, this is the conservative Republican agenda currently implemented.

We are trying now to take the Congress in a new direction and to move into alternative energy so we don't have this dependency which would relieve the pressure for a lot of the foreign policy issues that we are dealing with, to use PAYGO to pay for what we are spending here in Washington D.C., to try to repair this debt and eventually pare down the debt so that we can have a firm negotiating stance with China, these all fit together. We can't continue to go down this same road. At every instance, the New Direction Congress has changed course from the current administration.

But that did not stop the President from coming before the American people today and asking the American people to continue to go down a road that is a dead end, and that's drilling.

It's amazing to me, whether we are dealing with the supplemental, or dealing with the regular order of business here in Congress, when we try to push an agenda of helping the soldiers, for example, we are trying to get the GI Bill, which would pay for 4 years of college for our soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, for free. They have served this country. We need an economic recovery, we need brain power. These young men and young women should have 3, 4 years of college.

But the President says, we don't have the money and turns around and asks for $140 billion in the supplemental to continue the war at $12 billion a month.

Now, I don't think anyone is saying tomorrow, we are going to be able to pull out of Iraq. I think everyone knows that this would be a process. But what we are saying is why do we always have money for war, and then when our soldiers come back and we want to put them through college and reward the effort, all of a sudden the President says we don't have the money when he has just got done borrowing $3 trillion.

I yield to my friend.

Would the gentleman yield?

I just want to share, because this is third-party validation.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask to have this submitted for the Record, all these quotes in order.

Vice President Dick Cheney:

``Oil is being drilled right now 60 miles off the coast of Florida. We're not doing it. The Chinese are in cooperation with the Cuban government.'' That was June 12.

Minority Leader Boehner:

``Right at this moment, some 60 miles or less off the coast of Key West, Florida, China has the green light to drill for oil in order to lower energy costs in that country. Do Congressional Democrats really trust the Chinese that much more than Americans?'' That was from June 11 of this year.

Minority Whip Roy Blunt:

``Even China recognizes that oil and natural gas is readily available off our shores; thanks to Fidel Castro, they've been given a permit to drill for oil 45 miles from the Florida Keys. U.S. energy producers can't go there, and that's because our Congress won't let them.'' That was also on June 11.

But then, as you stated earlier, Congressional Research Service says, facts, third-party validator, nonpartisan Congressional Research Service:

``While there has been some concern about China's potential involvement in offshore deepwater oil projects, to date its involvement in Cuba's oil sector has been focused on onshore extraction in Pinar del Rio province through its state-run China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation (Sinopec).''

From the Miami Herald, they had a quote from Jorge Pinon, an energy expert at the University of Miami:

``China is not drilling in Cuba's Gulf of Mexico waters, period.'' This gentleman, from Miami's Center for Hemispheric Policy, who supports oil and gas exploration, said he met with several congressional offices Wednesday about the China-Cuba connection. He said he told them: ``If you guys want to use this as a scare tactic to lift the moratorium on drilling off the west coast of Florida, at least be factual, be correct. They didn't do their homework.''

June 12, 2008

Republicans Use Scare Tactics To Promote Failed ``Drill & Veto'' Energy

Policies of the Past; GOP Claims China Is Drilling for Oil Off

Florida's Coast Proven False

American families and businesses are struggling to keep up

with skyrocketing gas prices--now averaging a record high of

$4.06 per gallon across the country. Instead of working with

Democrats to pass legislation addressing high energy costs

and moving America to energy independence, Congressional

Republicans are spreading scare tactics and proven falsehoods

to push their failed ``drill and veto'' energy policies of

the past.

Republican leaders--including Vice President Cheney--have

recently claimed that China is drilling for oil off the coast

of Cuba ``60 miles off the coast of Florida.'' But the facts

show China does not have a deepwater drilling contract in

Cuba.

From the Congressional Research Service:

``While there has been some concern about China's potential

involvement in offshore deepwater oil projects, to date its

involvement in Cuba's oil sector has been focused on onshore

oil extraction in Pinar del Rio province through its state-

run China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation. (Sinopec)''

[CRS, 2/29/08]

From today's Miami Herald:

``China is not drilling in Cuba's Gulf of Mexico waters,

period. . . .,'' said Jorge Pinon, an energy expert at the

University of Miami's Center for Hemispheric Policy. . . .

``Pinon, who supports oil and gas exploration, said he met

with several congressional offices Wednesday about the China-

Cuba connection. He said he told them: `If you guys want to

use this as a scare tactic to lift the moratorium on drilling

off the west coast of Florida, at least be factual, be

correct.' They didn't do their homework.'' [6/12/08]

The New Direction Congress is committed to bringing real

relief to those feeling the pinch from high gas and diesel

prices and ensuring the needs of families and businesses are

put before the interests of Big Oil. The American people

deserve the truth and a cleaner, greener, more energy

efficient future.

Republican Scare Quotes:

Vice President Dick Cheney:

``[O]il is being drilled right now 60 miles off the coast

of Florida. We're not doing it. The Chinese are in

cooperation with the Cuban government.'' [6/12/08]

Minority Leader John Boehner:

``Right at this moment, some 60 miles or less off the coast

of Key West, Florida, China has the green light to drill for

oil in order to lower energy costs in that country . . . Do

congressional Democrats really trust the Chinese that much

more than Americans?'' [6/11/08]

Minority Whip Roy Blunt:

``Even China recognizes that oil and natural gas is readily

available off our shores; thanks to Fidel Castro, they've

been given a permit to drill for oil 45 miles from the

Florida Keys. U.S. energy producers can't go there, and

that's because our Congress won't let them.'' [6/11/08]

Rep. George Radanovich (R-California):

``Florida, for example, has objected to U.S. oil

exploration off its coast. But China, thanks to a lease

issued by Cuba, is drilling for oil just 50 miles off

Florida's coast. America's offshore drilling policy amounts

to a government handout of U.S. natural resources to foreign

countries in the name of environmental protection.'' [6/10/

08]

That's exactly correct. That lets the facts speak for themselves. That's why we always have third-party validators and, as we stated earlier, go back to the war. Now you

have the President's former press secretary talking about what really happened:

``We're going to be able to use the oil for reconstruction.''

``We're going to be greeted as liberators.''

``We had nothing to do with outing a CIA agent.''

``If we just keep cutting taxes for rich people, the middle class will at some point benefit, and we will stimulate the whole economy.''

``The tax cuts lead to more revenue.''

Is that why we borrowed $3 trillion over the last 3 years?

And now it's if we just drill more, we're going to reduce the cost of gas, which is not the case. Or if we just drill in ANWR, we're going to significantly reduce the cost of gas. Then it was in the last week or two, China's right off the coast of Cuba stealing it from us. We should be there. Not true.

All of these have not been true, and now the same gentlemen who provided all of those arguments and used the bully pulpit to provide all those arguments are now saying, let's just keep going down the wrong road.

I yield to my friend.

Absolutely. One of the issues is we have in this country only 300 million people. We are now competing in a globalized economy with China and India and a variety of other rising economic countries. So we have to make a point that all of our 300 million citizens, a major disadvantage in human capital, are educated.

You've probably had a similar experience as I have had dealing with interns and staff members and people you have met back in the district. The benefits that a soldier brings to your organization, because of the discipline, the focus and the organizational skills, the ability to deal with situations that are very challenging, and you add to that a college degree or a master's degree or a Ph.D. or a law degree, you are talking about someone who is prepared to really contribute value to whatever organization they are joining, whether it is government or business. There can't be a better investment to make.

And why is it that we have enough wherewithal to borrow the money for the $12 billion a month, but when these soldiers come back, the President says I'm going to veto that bill. We don't have the money for that bill.

I think of all of the issues that you mentioned earlier, it is important for us to recognize that last year under a Democratic Congress, led by Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid, we made the largest increase for veterans' benefits in the 77-year history of the VA because as Democrats, we are committed to the soldiers. Whether you are on one side of the war issue or another, we all say we are behind the soldier. And when the soldier comes home, you will have the health care and the benefits you deserve. And we want to add onto that this GI bill. So we have made that commitment and will continue to push for that commitment for this GI bill so we can reward the soldiers. It is important for us to deal with this issue.

All of these posters with all of the information can be found on the Speaker's Website, the 30-Something Website that we have. You will be able to find, you will be able to get all of these. All of these are available for Members to look at and analyze and to get a visual of what we have been talking about over the last few minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be on the floor of the House of Representatives here in the United States of America to talk about issues that are pressing, representing the 30- Something Working Group. I will be joined shortly by my friend, Congressman Meek of Florida, who will join us through this discussion.

I want to talk about a couple of issues that are pertinent to what has been going on in our country. I think the most pressing issue that we've been dealing with in this Congress and that, I think, most of our constituents are dealing with every single day is what is going on with our energy policy here in the United States of America.

We have heard, as Democrats have come into office with Speaker Pelosi's leading this House of Representatives, is that one of the key issues that we're trying to deal with is to make sure that our country is energy-independent and to reduce our dependency not only on oil but especially on foreign oil and to move off of oil in general, into renewable energy, into biodiesel, into solar, into wind, into nuclear, into a lot of these other areas that will allow us to be energy- independent, that will provide for renewable energy and that will provide a stable supply of energy here in the United States.

One of the issues that keeps coming up is: Why don't we keep drilling? Why don't we drill in ANWR? That will solve our problem. I'm sure, in the next special order, the folks who are paying attention to this debate will get the other side of this. But from our perspective and from what the analysts are telling us, if you begin drilling in ANWR and if you start the process today, it will be 10 years from now before you get one drop of oil out of ANWR. If you continue, in 10 years, you will get 40,000 barrels of oil a day in a market that has 80 million barrels of oil. In 20 years, you will get yourself up to about 800,000 barrels of oil a day, and you will reduce the cost of a gallon of gas by 1.8 cents per gallon. Now, that is 20 years from now. So, if we start today, in 20 years, we will have a savings of 1.8 cents per gallon of gas. From our perspective, that is not a long-term strategy.

One of the reasons that it is not a long-term strategy is that we have now currently 68 million acres of land on the continental shelf, onshore, that is eligible to be drilled upon. There are 8,000 leases for drilling on these acres of land, 8,000. Of these 8,000 leases, there are only about a quarter of them that are actually being used or that are being pursued.

What we are saying is, if you have 68 million acres of land and if you have 8,000 leases already to drill on those acres of land, why do we need to go somewhere else up in ANWR--up in Alaska--when we're not even drilling in the areas that we have now in which the oil companies have permission to go and drill? That is the question.

So we have this available to us now, and if we got into the 68 million acres of land, that would produce 4.8 million barrels a day.

I'd be happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time.

I have a great deal of respect for my friend from Indiana. I wanted to give him an opportunity to speak his peace.

It's not up to us, and that is the point I was going to make. This is already available. It's the oil companies that are not pursuing this. They have the leases. They have the space. They have the okay, but they're the ones that aren't doing the drilling, and that's the point.

One of the reasons is that there is a difference between the certifications. When you have to mine for coal and you get one of these permits and you get the ability to lease, there's a 20-year lease for coal companies, but you have to show that you're diligently developing your mining with coal. Under oil and gas, it's only a 10-year lease that is renewable, but you don't have to show that you're diligently developing the leases and that you're diligently developing the mining in trying to get the oil and the gas out.

So the oil companies have the leases--they have the ability to do it--but the law does not require them to show a diligent developing of a particular resource. That is the problem. So they're holding the leases and are, in our minds, driving up the cost. Now, I think there are some other things going on, too, with commodity markets and whatnot, but this is the gist.

There is a bill that is coming out of Mr. Rahall's office from the Natural Resources Committee, the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act of 2008. I will be happy to share with my colleague and have my staff get to your staff the proper information here because there is no reason why they're not developing it, and that's the problem that we have here.

So look at what is going on in the commodities market. We have passed a bill out of this House of Representatives to try to address that problem. If we soon pass Mr. Rahall's bill that will deal with the lease issue and the oil companies' being able to hold onto these leases, I think then we can force these folks to either get rid of the leases and get them in the hands of somebody who will actually do the drilling or they will have to drill it themselves, but you have to show diligence in developing that particular resource that you're going after.

So that's really the main issue here, and I appreciate the opportunity to bring that up and to further expound on that point because it puts the ball right back in the court of the oil companies'.

So, on all of these prongs, whether it's futures or whether it's the leases or whether it's the $14 billion in subsidies that the taxpayers have given the oil companies, on each of these issues, we're trying to change the policy, and we want to join with the Republicans to help us to do that because a lot of this oil and gas is available to be developed, to be explored, to be used here in the United States of America.

Not only that, there is a bill that we passed, I think, in 2005 that would allow a 50 percent tax credit to build refineries. That is one of the other points that has been made, which is of the refineries. Why aren't there more refineries? Refineries now are only working at 85 percent capacity.

I would be happy to yield. I'm going to yield to you because you're my friend, but I'm going to have to leave, so I'm not going to get a chance to rebut you guys, but go ahead, because Mr. Westmoreland and I are going to be on Fox later, so we'll be glad to take that up over there.

Reclaiming my time.

I'd like to chat with you about it. I think it would be important to have Mr. Rahall involved in that conversation.

Our argument on this side, and I think it is not a prima facie case here, these are the facts that have been explored. They have the leases, they have the land, there is nothing preventing them from doing it. You have a 50 percent tax cut on refineries. They still haven't done that. And we are giving them $14 billion to help develop this stuff. I mean, how much more do you need? And you are the most profitable industry in the country.

So it leaves folks like us to say, you know, you are obviously not doing things properly, because the price of oil is going up.

And I agree, obviously China and India are a major component of this. No one is saying it will be $20 a barrel if we implement this stuff. But if you talk about it, most people are saying anything between a 10 and 100 percent increase because of the commodity trading, which probably puts it somewhere in the middle at 40 percent, which would be 40 or 50 bucks a barrel. That alone would reduce it to about 90 bucks a barrel.

Now, drilling has increased by 66 percent since 2000, so there is more drilling going on to try to keep pace with that. But the prices have increased. Last Friday a barrel of oil increased more in one day than it cost 10 years ago. That is a significant increase, and you can't say there are some shenanigans going on here.

All we are asking is, I think if we pass something like the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Relief Act of 2008, if we say that you have to diligently develop those leases that you have, I think that would be a piece of this argument, to say you got the lease, you are not allowed to sit on it. Either develop it or give it to someone else.

No one here is saying we are going to be off oil tomorrow. What we are saying is we don't want to be in the same situation a decade from now or two decades from now because we opened up ANWR and saved 2 cents a gallon. That is not going to get us where we want to be. And the sooner we take the brain power here in the United States of America and put it to work to develop some of these alternative energies, the better off we are going to be.

So, 68 million acres, 4.8 million barrels a day, 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas, this is the direction we need to be going in. This is the direction that I think Americans want us to go in, Mr. Speaker. This is the direction that the Speaker and the Democrats want to lead this country in.

We are happy to. You guys are going to have more time on my Special Order than I am.

Well, regardless of how we develop it, I think this is what we have done. We put billions of dollars into research and development, and we will continue to put more into research and development, maybe even over the protests of some of the folks on your side of the aisle.

But you could talk about oil shale and you could talk about all of these the other issues. We have 68 million acres right now, there are 8,000 leases, and you folks keep talking, Mr. Speaker, the other side keeps talking about going up to ANWR, when we have 68 million acres already to be tapped, 8,000 leases ready to develop this. They are only using a quarter of them. Go ahead and drill. But why do we have to go up to ANWR, when we already have the ability to do it now? That is all we are saying.

So, yeah, we should use technology to figure out other ways to develop oil and the coal-to-liquid. As long as you are sequestering the CO2, speaking on behalf of myself now, I don't have any problem with it. You have nuclear plants that are going on and permits and leases for moving that process forward.

So this is going to be a comprehensive bill and a comprehensive approach to all this. But when you have the oil companies getting $14 billion, you have the commodities problem that you have, and you have them buying leases and holding them because they don't have to diligently develop, like they have to do for coal, you get skyrocketing gas costs, and that is what we are trying to fix here.

The oil companies have more incentives than they could ever possibly need. They have been getting $14 billion in basically corporate welfare. They get a 50 percent tax credit to develop a refinery, and they still haven't done that. So these issues are hanging around here, and we are trying to change it and the rhetoric from the other side is we got to go to ANWR, when we already have the ability to address these problems here.

So I think we have a comeprehensive approach on how to fix this problem. It is much different. And, again, to just say, you know, Mr. Speaker, it was the other side. They were in charge for 6 years, had the House, had the Senate, had the White House, and we are currently living under their energy policy and the Bush economy.

I will be happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time, you are exactly right. We could sit here, Mr. Speaker, and blame each other about whose fault it is. I say that as a point of clarification, because one is now you have solutions that you didn't implement while you were in, they didn't implement while they were in, Mr. Speaker. So I think that is an important point to make.

But the discussion here today is look at what the Democrats have done. We are trying to repeal the $14 billion in corporate welfare. We are trying to crack down on the commodities futures trading. We are trying to make sure that oil companies can't just hold leases and not develop them, and not develop them and diligently pursue the natural resources that are there. That is what we are saying. The other side is saying, go to ANWR. Now, that is not a solution.

So the discussion that we are having here is that your side is saying, go to ANWR and drill, and we are saying there is 68 million acres, 8,000 leases, and they are only using a quarter of them. The oil companies are holding them. They could get 4.2 billion barrels a day, and they are not doing it. That only leaves one conclusion.

I guess we are kind of blaming each other. But if you put up drilling in ANWR or drill in what we have now and focus billions of dollars on an alternative energy policy and strip the $14 billion from the oil companies and make sure that if they get leases they got to use them and make sure that there is not all kinds of monkey business going on in the commodities market, that is our solution, which your side votes against.

We are going to have an election. You guys are going to say drill in ANWR, we are going to say alternative energy, and the people are going to decide. So we can blame each other all we want, but the people are going to hear our position, they are going to hear your position, and they are going to hear the presidential candidates' positions, and they are going to decide who they want to vote for.

I believe and our caucus believes that when we get the message out that there are already 68 million acres to be developed, there are 8,000 leases being held by the oil companies, that they are only using a quarter of them, that it will look like our friends on the other side are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the oil companies. And we are going to have a vote at some point on Mr. Rahall's bill that will allow and force the oil companies that if they have leases to use them, that you may fall on the one side of that and we may fall on the other, and then the people will have that vote to decide on.

I am getting a bit redundant, but we want to make sure our friends who are just kind of passing through the debate catch both sides.

The gentleman from Indiana, I know he is a busy man, but if you have time tonight, me and your partner in crime there will be on Fox TV, on Hannity & Colmes, to further this discussion, and I very much look forward to it.

I think my partner in crime, Mr. Meek, is not here, will not be here, and I will take your thank-you's later, because you had more of my special order than I had.

Well, you are going to get the next hour.

I yield back the balance of my time. I will wait and listen to you.