[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 141 (Monday, September 8, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H7844-H7849]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 ENERGY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank you.
  We're going to spend our hour tonight on behalf of the minority party 
talking about energy, once again. This is the most pressing concern, I 
think, of our Nation right now in these tough economic times.
  But before I get started, I want to join with my colleagues, my 
Democratic colleagues, and pay tribute, Mr. Speaker, to Stephanie Tubbs 
Jones, the gentlewoman from Ohio. I guess you can say that everything's 
been said that needs to be said, but not everybody has had an 
opportunity to say it. I can't improve upon the kind words that we've 
heard here over the last hour in regard to her life and what a great 
person she was.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention one thing that I thought about a 
lot after hearing of her untimely and sad passing. She is the second 
member, Mr. Speaker, of the Ohio delegation to die in office during 
this 110th Congress. The first was a member on our side of the aisle--
again, very loved and respected--Paul Gillmor. Just like Ms. Jones, 
like Representative Jones, as bipartisan whenever he could be, as she 
was.
  And I went to his funeral in Columbus, Ohio, the great capital of 
Ohio. And the eulogies that were offered on behalf of Representative 
Gillmor, the very first one, Mr. Speaker, was offered by Representative 
Stephanie Tubbs Jones. And it was very touching, very loving. You know, 
it's a sad thing, of course, her passing. But God has His plan, and we 
have our plans, but His plan takes precedent over everything we do.
  But she was a great Member of this body, and I join my colleagues in 
expressing my sincere sympathy to the family.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here finally back in session after a long 5-week 
absence, the so-called August recess. And, Mr. Speaker, I think you and 
all of my colleagues know that many Republican Members--we asked our 
Democratic colleagues to join us on this floor during the recess--in 
fact I think some 134 Republican Members--that's not 100 percent on our 
side, but it's getting darn close to 80, 85 percent--Members came back, 
some several days, took a break away from their families, from their 
constituents in this traditional August recess to come back here and 
say, you know, we really should not be at home. We should not be in our 
districts no matter how important the work there is. It's very 
important. Certainly, there is some politicking going on during 
election season.
  But I think, Mr. Speaker, most of my constituents told me, and I'm 
sure every Member of this body, that you need to get back up there and 
do the people's work. We're suffering, we're struggling with these high 
gas prices; our kids are going to be going back to school in a couple 
of weeks and the school bus is probably not going to be running, and 
it's a safety issue. And some school districts across the country are 
talking about cutting back to a 4-day school week. It's one thing for a 
4-day work week, but a 4-day school week for our youngsters . . .
  So we were talking about that every day. Every day we had anywhere 
from 5 to 15 Republican Members in this Chamber.
  Now, the lights were dim, the air-conditioning was either too cold or 
it was too hot, the C-SPAN cameras were not running. These 
microphones--I'm hoarse today Mr. Speaker, because of straining my 
voice during that time. But it was an absolute wonderful experience.
  All of the people that were visiting the Nation's Capitol, their 
Capitol, the people's House, during that time, during those 5 weeks, we 
asked them if they wanted to come and have a unique opportunity to sit 
in our seats right here in this Chamber. Rarely do they get the chance 
to do that. It's not like sitting in the gallery. To actually come down 
and sit in the seats where the Members sit and debate and vote.
  And this Chamber was virtually full many of those days, a lot of 
times three-fourths full, half full. But untold numbers of American 
citizens had an opportunity. And they were not just Republicans, Mr. 
Speaker. They were Democrats, they were independents, they were voters. 
They were people that enjoyed listening to this discussion about the 
crisis that we're in and what, at least on our side of the aisle, we 
felt need to be done.
  We talked at length about the American Energy Act, the bill that was 
introduced by minority leader John Boehner of the great State of Ohio. 
Leader Boehner introduced the American Energy Act probably 2\1/2\ 
months ago, in fact. And it languished wherever it went to, probably 
the Energy and Commerce Committee, and never saw the light of day. And 
that bill, Mr. Speaker, is the all-of-the-above Energy Act. Yes, the 
cornerstone of the bill is to drill, to drill here in the United States 
or off of its Outer Continental Shelf, to drill now so that we lower 
these gas prices and get some relief to the great people of this 
country who are struggling so much right now economically. And yet the 
bill never had an opportunity to see the light of day.
  I have got a number of posters, Mr. Speaker, that I want to refer to, 
and I'm going to put that on the easel here for a minute so my 
colleagues can join with me in understanding some of the issues.

                              {time}  2145

  Well, the first poster says, ``Nancy Pelosi, we're here and where are 
you?'' Well guess what, my colleagues. She's back. She's back. But it 
took 5 weeks to get her back, and during the time that we were begging 
her to come back and call this Congress into a special session, she had 
the power to do that.
  Madam Speaker was out, among other things, promoting her new book, 
``Know Your Power.'' I'm sure Madam Speaker was referring to the power 
of a woman, and I think that's a good thing. I have three daughters and 
four grand-daughters, and I hope one day that they will have an 
opportunity to achieve what Madam Speaker's achieved. They obviously 
won't be the first female Speaker in the history of this country 
because she has that title now, but know her power, the power to 
convene the Congress and pass legislation. She, and only she, could do 
that, and yet she refused to come back even for a few days, even maybe 
for a week. She would still, as would the rest of us, have 4 weeks to 
work in our districts or go on vacation or whatever during that August 
recess.
  The ironic thing, Mr. Speaker, about this is Ms. Pelosi said in the 
elections of 2006--gee, it's been almost 2 years ago when the 
Democratic Party was the minority party. She said that, you know, this 
do-nothing Congress, these do-nothing Republicans, we need to replace 
them, and among other things, of course, she said that bills should 
generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full 
and fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the 
minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute. 
Now, that is a direct quote by Speaker Pelosi back in 2006.
  Well, she has already pretty much said that any energy bill, Mr. 
Speaker, that comes to the floor is going to be basically with a closed 
rule. We, in the minority, are not going to have an opportunity to 
amend, and it's not going to look anything like the American Energy 
Act, the All-of-the-Above Act, which allows not just drilling here, 
drilling now, but it includes so many other things that we'll speak 
about during this hour.
  But before I go on, I wanted to take the opportunity--two of my 
colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and I hope maybe some others will join us 
later in the hour, but the first colleague is the gentleman from 
Florida, and he should know a lot, a lot indeed, about the Outer 
Continental Shelf and what is being done and what's not being done. I 
yield at this time to my colleague from Florida, the honorable Ric 
Keller.

[[Page H7845]]

  Mr. KELLER of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from a 4-day trip to Alaska. I went 
there on a fact-finding trip to learn more about what is becoming one 
of the central issues of our time, and that is, whether or not we 
should drill in the portion of Alaska known as ANWR, particularly the 
section called 10-02.
  Before venturing off on this trip, I listened to folks on both sides. 
Those who were for the drilling said that there's a large amount of oil 
there, that exploration can take place in an environmentally friendly 
way, and that the Alaskan people themselves want it.
  Those who were against drilling there said there's only a trivial 
amount of oil there, this will hurt the pristine wilderness, and it 
will endanger wildlife, particularly caribou and polar bears.
  Well, after spending 4 days on a fact-finding mission, I'm prepared 
to relay to you what I saw in response to these three key issues. 
First, what is the amount of oil there? Second, will it hurt the 
pristine wilderness? And third, will it hurt the wildlife?
  I can tell you from my trip to ANWR and the Northern Slope and 
talking with experts in and out of the government that there is 
approximately 10.4 billion barrels of oil in ANWR, according to the 
U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Geological Survey. How much is 
10.4 billion barrels of oil? It is enough oil to provide all of my home 
State of Florida's needs for 29 years. 10.4 billion barrels of oil is 
enough to provide 1 million barrels a day every day for the next 30 
years. It is the single largest source of untapped oil of any location 
in the entire United States.
  If I can show you a chart, Mr. Speaker, to give you an analogy of why 
we have some comfort that that's true, you see this is the State of 
Alaska, ANWR in the upper left. It's about the size of South Carolina, 
about 19 million acres. Drilling would be limited to a real tiny area 
up here--this is called the 10-02 ANWR coastal plain area--to a section 
of only 2,000 acres, just about the size of the red dot here. So 
literally 99.99 percent of ANWR would not have drilling, and I told you 
there's roughly 10.4 billion barrels in this 2,000-acre area.
  Next door to it you will see a sign says Prudhoe Bay Oil Field. This 
is the single largest oil field in the United States. It has 15 billion 
barrels of oil. They have already extracted 12 billion, and there are 3 
billion remaining. Now, when you go up there like I did and you compare 
the two areas, they look roughly the same.
  Why is there drilling at Prudhoe Bay and not in ANWR? It's simple. 
This area is owned by the State of Alaska. They want the drilling and 
they allow it. This area is owned by the Federal Government. It has not 
yet been allowed.
  What's significant also is you see a line here, it says TAPS. That's 
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. What's so key about extracting this large 
quantity of oil is you have an 800-mile pipeline that takes the oil all 
the way down to the southern tip of Alaska to a city called Valdez. 
There it is picked up by tankers and taken to refineries in the lower 
48 States and from the refineries turned into gasoline and shipped to 
your local retail gasoline dealer where you purchase the gasoline.
  So we have a huge amount of oil. We have a pipeline infrastructure 
ready to move it. The only question is whether we will.
  That brings us to the next issue. Will it hurt the wilderness? As I 
already said, 99.99 percent of the wilderness will be off limits, if 
you call it wilderness. But I happened to go to all of these areas, but 
this little town right here, Kaktovik, is the only village in ANWR, and 
I stood there at the edge of Kaktovik looking through this 10-02 
coastal plain area with the leader from that small Eskimo tribe, a man 
named Felton Rexford.

  I looked out and I'll show you what I saw. I saw a flat, frozen, 
barren tundra. As the camera looks at that picture, folks may look at 
it and say, well, what am I looking at? I don't see any trees. I can't 
see any wilderness. That's exactly what I saw as I stood there, and I 
said to the elected leader from the Eskimo tribe: Where are the trees 
in the area that we're talking about drilling? And he said, 
Congressman, there's not a tree within 100 miles. Not a tree within 100 
miles.
  So much for the beautiful wilderness that we hear about in so many of 
the photos that are seen. I can tell you those photos aren't the area 
that we're talking about drilling.
  Well, the next issue becomes: What about the wildlife? We don't want 
to hurt the caribou and the polar bears that live in Alaska. I saw both 
on my trip to Alaska. Alaska has 800,000 caribou, the most numerous 
large animals anywhere in Alaska, and 5,000 polar bears. I can tell 
you, in the last three decades, every single year the population of 
polar bears has increased. Every single year the population of caribou 
has increased.
  In fact, I mentioned to you that the biggest oil field is called 
Prudhoe Bay next to the ANWR area, and I toured Prudhoe Bay. And as I 
toured there--here we are--I saw some caribou right there among the oil 
fields. And I talked to the wildlife experts who were with us. I said, 
Is that unusual? They said, Not at all. Back in the 1970s when oil was 
discovered here in Prudhoe Bay and they started drilling, there were 
3,000 caribou in that area. Today, there are over 30,000. The caribou 
population has increased tenfold.
  And so to wrap up, Mr. Speaker, what I learned in summary is that 
there is a significant amount of oil there, 10.4 billion barrels. I 
learned that the Alaskans want it: 70 percent of the Alaskans 
statewide, 90 percent of those who live in the ANWR area. I learned 
that we can do this without having any harm to the wilderness or to the 
wildlife and that we can have it all done with responsible, 
environmentally friendly drilling that reduces our dependence on 
foreign oil.
  I have great respect for all four of the individuals running for 
President on the national tickets, Republicans and Democrats, but 
having been to Alaska and spent 4 days with the world leading experts 
on this issue, I can tell you that in my humble opinion Governor Sarah 
Palin knows more about this issue than all three men combined. I'm 
excited with the energy she brings to this debate and the knowledge she 
has about drilling because she knows these issues cold. And I hope in 
this Presidential election, whether you're a Republican or Democrat, 
listen to what this lady says because she's been saying what I learned 
over the past 4 days. There's very few of us that get to see it in 
person.
  So, with that, let me thank the gentleman from Georgia so much for 
yielding his time to me.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the gentleman from 
Florida being with us tonight, and I thank him for that very 
intelligent discussion of ANWR and some of the statistics that he 
presented to us.
  Mr. Speaker, the 1.5 million barrels a day that Representative Keller 
was talking about is not an insignificant amount of oil, and if you add 
that to 2.5 million barrels a day that we could be getting from the 
Outer Continental Shelf and another 2.5 million barrels a day that we 
could be extracting from the shale out in the Midwest, those five Rocky 
Mountain States, you would have a doubling of the amount of domestic 
production of oil. We would go from 7 million barrels a day to about 14 
million barrels a day, and of course, you know, right now we're 
importing 60 percent of what we use. So his discussion is very 
pertinent and very timely.
  Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I was talking about what our current 
Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, some of the quotes that she made back in 2006, and 
I want to share in this poster a few more with you. She said then, This 
leadership team will create the most honest, most open and most ethical 
Congress in history. Now, Speaker  Nancy Pelosi said that November 16, 
2006.
  This is now, a recent quote. When we asked for an opportunity to have 
regular order on an energy bill coming through the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, a bill that was marked up by both Democrats and Republicans, 
majority and minority, and that would go through the amendment process 
and that maybe even some amendments submitted to the Rules Committee 
would be made in order so that we could have a fair and open 
discussion, when she was questioned about that, when reference to a 
quote back in 2006, Ms. Pelosi said, and this is a quote, I'm not 
giving the gavel to them. They will have to use their imagination as to

[[Page H7846]]

how they can get a vote. Speaker Pelosi said that on August 3, 2008. I 
guess kind of like she's using her imagination to lower energy prices.
  And I think my next colleague who is going to speak will talk a 
little bit about the imagination and what her plan happens to be, but 
I'll show a couple of more slides before I yield to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) who has been such a strong advocate on 
this issue.
  This is another quote from Ms. Pelosi. This call for drilling in 
areas that are protected--in other words, the Outer Continental Shelf 
and ANWR that the gentleman from Florida was just talking about--this 
call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax. It is an 
absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this administration.
  Another quote from Speaker Pelosi, If you don't agree with that, my 
colleagues, just call (202) 224-3121 and voice your concern about a 
quote like that.

                              {time}  2200

  But listen to this. Look at this quote that Ms. Pelosi, our 
distinguished Speaker, gave on one of the national news networks a week 
or so ago when she was asked: ``Why not drill? Why not open up these 
areas?'' After all, the United States owns this source of fossil fuel, 
both natural gas and petroleum. Her quote then was: ``I'm trying to 
save the planet.'' I think she actually banged the table and repeated 
it. ``I'm trying to save the planet.''
  Well, so is this guy Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra 
Club. His quote was: ``We're better off without cheap oil. We're better 
off without cheap gas.''
  So what they want to do is save the planet, but I fear, Mr. Speaker, 
that in the process they'll be destroying this country.
  With that, I am going to yield to my distinguished colleague from 
North Carolina, a champion who has been back on this floor for most of 
the August recess, not just for a day or two. In fact, she led the 
Republicans on several occasions, and she does such a great job. At 
this time, I'm honored to yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, 
Virginia Foxx.
  Ms. FOXX. Well, thank you, Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Congressman 
Gingrey, for your leadership on this hour tonight as well as for your 
help earlier this year in August for what we were doing in calling to 
the attention of the American people those who are creating this 
problem with the high gas prices. I want to add some comments to my 
colleague from Florida's comments about drilling in ANWR.
  I had the great opportunity to go to Alaska in 2005. I'd been there 
once before just purely as a tourist, but I went as a Member of 
Congress in 2005. I also saw Prudhoe Bay. I also saw Valdez. I also 
flew over ANWR. I want to add my comments and support to the things 
that he has said.
  When the ANWR was set aside, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--I 
think it was in the early 70s--it was specific in the bill that some of 
that land would be set aside for oil drilling because people knew then 
that there was oil there and that it should be drilled for, but since 
that time, the Democrats have time and time and time again stopped us 
from drilling there. A bill passed in 1995--it passed both Houses--to 
allow drilling in ANWR, and President Clinton vetoed it. Since then, 
many, many times we have brought up votes, and the Democrats have 
consistently voted against drilling there.
  He is absolutely right. The ANWR area is nothing but a frozen desert. 
Where we would be drilling is a frozen desert. It looks gray like that 
picture he showed. We saw it from the air. It looks exactly like that. 
It is akin to the deserts of Saudi Arabia, but it happens to be a 
frozen desert.
  You know, the Lord gave us all of the resources, I believe, in this 
world that we need, but they just don't always look like they're the 
resources that we need, and sometimes they're tied up in unusual 
places, but the way I've described it to my colleagues and to my 
constituents is the way that I have heard it described as to the area 
that we would drill in ANWR, the 2000 acres: A postage stamp is to a 
football field as those 2000 acres are to the State of Alaska. It's a 
minuscule part of the State of Alaska, and it would do no harm.
  Also, there is one thing that my colleague Mr. Keller didn't mention. 
He did show a wonderful map of how close the pipeline is now to that 
area. We're told that, in 18 months, we could have oil flowing from 
ANWR into the Alaska pipeline. In fact, it's going to be necessary to 
keep oil flowing into that pipeline or the pipeline is going to have to 
be shut down. So the Democrats continue to say it's going to take 10 
years. It will only take 10 years if they and their trial lawyer 
friends and their radical environmentalist friends continue to bring 
lawsuits. What takes so long for us to create the energy that we need 
in this country are the lawsuits that keep getting filed. We could do 
this. We could be getting gas from the Outer Continental Shelf, I 
understand, in 3 years if we don't have to continually fight lawsuits 
to get this energy.
  During the period of time when we were debating this in August--when 
the cameras were turned off, when the lights were turned off, when the 
mikes were turned off--I said that we have a choice to make here in the 
Congress. We are either going to be pro-American energy or anti-
American energy. The Republicans in this Congress are pro-American 
energy. There is no reason why this country cannot be completely energy 
independent. Now, today, we've emphasized drilling.
  By the way, let me make one other comment about the drilling in 
Alaska that nobody has made. I saw this again when I was there. You 
know, when you see the pictures of ANWR again, you see caribou grazing 
in a meadow with daisies blooming. That's, again, not the area that we 
would be drilling in. There are no caribou. There are living things 
there, I'm sure, in that frozen wasteland but not anything that you can 
see.
  The other things that you see are these oil rigs like you see in 
Texas, these things that go up and down, and they're not very 
attractive armaments or implements, but when we saw the oil wells in 
Alaska, for the life of me, you couldn't have known that those were oil 
wells. They are simple boxes, maybe a little bit taller than I am, and 
they have valves on them. They look sort of like oxygen tanks with some 
valves on them, but they're not unattractive at all. They're in little 
boxes that sort of look like cabanas. We saw a whole row of about, I'd 
say, 100 or 150 of them. You would have no idea. They might be 
refrigerators for all one knows, but they're not unattractive at all.
  Again, the radical environmentalists want us to think that we're 
going to be assaulted visually and that the environment is going to be 
assaulted by our drilling in ANWR. They want us to do nothing. I think 
the comment by the gentleman from the Sierra Club is very typical of 
what they feel. They don't want us to have cheap gas because they don't 
want us to use the good resources that the Lord gave us.
  Mr. GINGREY. Would the gentlelady yield for just one comment on that 
before you continue?
  Ms. FOXX. Sure.
  Mr. GINGREY. Representative Foxx, you requoted what the gentleman 
from the Sierra Club said. Again, he said, ``We're better off without 
cheap gas.''
  Also, I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the leader of the 
Senate, the Senate majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, said 
fossil fuel is poison, that fossil fuel is poison and that we need to 
completely rid ourselves of that by, I think, the year 2012. So I just 
wanted to point that out.
  I yield back to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. FOXX. Well, I thank my colleague from Georgia for mentioning that 
because I wanted to also mention that Republicans have consistently 
said we're for all of the above. We're not just for drilling in ANWR, 
just for drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. We want all of the 
alternatives. We want to be energy independent. We certainly believe in 
advancing solar, wind, hydro, and whatever other sources there are out 
there. Most of us believe that, in a short period of time, we'll be 
completely independent of many fossil fuels. We have coal that we could 
be using, clean-burning coal. We're the Saudi Arabia of coal.
  The interesting thing about the fact that the Democrats don't want us 
to drill is that they say they want alternatives, but they don't fund 
alternatives. Our bill that would allow for

[[Page H7847]]

drilling would take the money that the Federal Government would get 
from those leases, and it would use that money to develop alternatives. 
While they've authorized programs for alternatives, they haven't funded 
them. So they're being very disingenuous when they say they want 
alternatives, because they are not allowing us to have alternatives 
because they're not funding them. It's a program that, I think, 
deserves the emperor's new clothes' award.
  Mr. GINGREY. In reclaiming my time just for a second before yielding 
back to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, what she is talking about, 
Mr. Speaker, is an energy trust fund that could be, as she pointed out, 
obtained from royalties that the Federal Government gets from the oil 
companies--Big Oil, the Democrats use that pejorative constantly--but 
they would have to pay significant royalties to the Federal Government, 
which, as Ms. Foxx pointed out, would be put in a trust fund to have 
grants for research and development for alternative sources such as 
wind and solar and other things.
  I'll continue to yield to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. FOXX. Well, again, I appreciate that help with what I was saying 
because it reminds me of another point that I want to make, and that 
is, by not allowing this new exploration, we are ensuring that Big Oil 
will stay in control of the issues. When new areas are opened up, it 
opens up the opportunities for smaller oil companies and for new 
entrepreneurs to get involved in the business.
  So the best thing that could happen to the ``big oil companies,'' 
those people who the Democrats demonize constantly, is for us not to 
open up new areas for drilling, because they have such a lock on the 
existing areas, and so they are helping, unwittingly perhaps, the 
existing oil companies to stay big by decreasing the competition for 
them.
  Now let's talk a little bit about what is the Democrats' plan. They 
say no, no, no, no, no to all of the things which we have proposed 
which we believe the American people want. We know that from the 
surveys. Our hope in coming back here for this session is that the 
American people will have put a lot of pressure on our Democratic 
colleagues in saying to them: ``You must tell the Speaker that she 
needs to bring up a bill for a vote, and that's all we're asking for. 
We want a clean up or down vote.''
  Now, I had said this many of the times that I was here during August. 
One day in July, before we went on recess and when the Republicans were 
talking about this--we'd been talking about this all of this year that 
we needed to do something to increase the supply and bring down the 
price of gasoline--somebody asked one of Speaker Pelosi's aides: 
``Well, what is your plan for bringing down the price of gasoline?'' 
The answer was: ``Drive small cars and wait for the wind.''
  Well, this is how somebody has characterized this. This is the 
Democrats' energy plan: drive small cars and wait for the wind. Well, 
most people in this country can't trade their big cars for small cars. 
They need their big cars. They have families, and they need to 
transport them or they have so much invested in those cars already, and 
they're not wealthy people like our Speaker is. They are people who are 
working hard for a living, and they can't do that.
  Well, I have likened this to when the French people told the Queen of 
France that the people had no bread. She said, ``Let them eat cake.'' 
Well, that's, I think, what the Democrats are saying to the American 
people. Let them eat cake. Whereas, the Republicans are saying we have 
alternatives. Let's vote on those alternatives. Yes, I think this deals 
with some of the quotes that Mr. Gingrey was talking about, that 
Congressman Gingrey from Georgia was talking about a few minutes ago.
  We did get promises. In fact, the Speaker promised in 2006 that the 
Democrats had a commonsense plan for bringing down the price of 
gasoline. That was when the price of gasoline was around $2. Now it's 
almost $4. They've done nothing about it. This is what one of their 
Members said: ``We sort of stretched the truth, and people ate it up.'' 
This was stated by Representative Paul Kanjorski, a Democrat from 
Pennsylvania, on the Democrats' campaign promises. They made those 
promises.
  Now, what have Republicans done? Thirty-five times the Democrats have 
voted down Rules Committee Republican-offered solutions to lower your 
gas prices and to address America's urgent energy needs. The Speaker 
said we'll have to use our imagination for ways that we can get a vote. 
Well, ladies and gentlemen, we have used every opportunity presented to 
us in this Congress to force a vote on providing American-made energy.

                              {time}  2215

  And every time the Democrats have stifled that.
  We're not asking for a lot. We are asking for an up-or-down vote. 
Now, we have it broken down. We are not asking you to take our word for 
it. We have it broken down. Eleven times they voted ``no'' to consider 
amendments that would lower the average price of regular unleaded 
gasoline; four times to lower the price of gasoline and diesel by 
increasing our domestic fuel supply; six times they voted ``no'' to 
address alternative fuels; and fourteen times to address additional 
energy solutions provided by the American Energy Act, No More Excuses 
Energy Act, Coal-Liquid Fuel Act, Deep Ocean Resources Energy Act, 
Boutique Fuel Reduction Act, and the American Energy Independence and 
Price Reduction Act.
  Republicans continue to try, and we are going to continue to bring up 
these issues every day that the Congress is in session and when we go 
out of session. But we do need the American people to help on this. 
We're going to bring it up. But if you live in the district of a 
Democrat who has not yet said he or she will vote ``yes'' for 
additional energy, then you need to be calling the House of 
Representatives and you need to be calling the Speaker's office to let 
them know. But it's better to call your Member of Congress and ask that 
Member to tell them.
  Now, here's the other energy plan presented by their nominee for 
President. Our nominee for President, Senator McCain, has said he wants 
to increase American-made energy. Senator Obama's plan is check your 
tires and get them inflated properly and that's the solution to the 
American energy needs. That's just not going to cut it, Senator Obama. 
I'm sorry. We have got to increase supply.
  Americans have been doing a wonderful job of conserving. And, again, 
I want to make it very clear Republicans believe in all of the above. 
We support conservation, but we support alternatives such as solar, 
wind, hydro, every other alternative that there is out there. We are 
willing to do that. But we know we cannot do this without increasing 
supply. And I simply think that we need to ask the Democrats are you 
pro-American energy or are you anti-American energy? If you're not 
interested in increasing the supply that we have within our borders, 
then you're anti-American energy. That is being anti-American people 
because it's the average working person, the retired people, young 
people who are being hurt by the high price of gasoline. And I think 
that that approach is the approach of people who are totally out of 
touch with the real world, and I am very disappointed in that.
  I am going to yield back to my colleague now, Mr. Gingrey, from the 
great State of Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY. I want to thank again the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina, who did a wonderful job, I think, of explaining what has not 
been going on in this body.
  And I think it's important for the American people to understand 
something. When the Democratic minority back in the 2006 election 
cycle, Mr. Speaker, when they were campaigning--this is campaign season 
now; so 2 years ago they were in the minority and talked about the 
``do-nothing,'' ``do-nothing'' Republican majority and made statements 
such as, well, they are only here 3 days a week, only here in 
Washington doing the people's business, passing laws that need to be 
passed, these Republicans, these ``lazy'' Republicans was the 
characterization, Mr. Speaker, of the then Republican majority. They 
are only up here 3 days a week, not doing anything, not doing the 
people's work, and when we get the majority, we promise to do the 
people's work. And indeed, Mr. Speaker, you weren't here at that 
particular time,

[[Page H7848]]

but the statement was we will go to a 5-day work week like everybody 
else across America, and, indeed, some people work 6 and 7 days a week 
and they have two jobs, not one. So this idea of coming and doing the 
people's work, that sounded good to me. I liked that.
  Now, keep in mind what has happened since the Democrats have gained 
the majority. The people gave them that confidence, gave them that 
trust and said okay, that sounds good to us, and they gained the 
majority. Well, what have they done? Well, let me just say that we are 
now back in session here in September, the second week in September. 
And we are going to be here, including today, and this day is almost 
gone, it's 10:30 at night--Mr. Speaker, we are going to be here 15 
days. Now, we are going to be here 15 days. Maybe it will turn out to 
be 12 or 10. But the Democratic majority says that we are going to be 
15 days, 5 days this week, 5 days next week, and 5 days the following 
week. Ladies and gentlemen, that's 15 days out of 5 months.
  Remember now, the whole month of August and the first week in 
September, we were on recess, and the Democratic majority, Mr. Speaker, 
has already emphatically said that we want our Members to go home and 
be in their districts and campaign for re-election or whatever and we 
are not coming back until the next Congress, until the 111th Congress 
in January after the new President is inaugurated. I mean it's just 
unbelievable.
  Now think about it. Mr. Speaker, if the American public were watching 
our proceedings tonight and they heard what I'm saying to my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle, 15 days in 5 months, that's deplorable. If 
that's what we are going to do, if that's what we have resorted to in 
this Congress, then this ought to be a part-time job. This shouldn't be 
a full-time job. That's fine with me. If you want to make it a part-
time job, I will go back home and start delivering babies again 6 
months out of the year.
  But let me just use a word that I think most of my colleagues 
understand: This is the height of mendacity. This is the height of 
hypocrisy to make that kind of promise and then not deliver to the 
American people. Ms. Foxx talked about it, Representative Foxx, 
Representative Keller.
  And Representative Keller is still with us, and I would be happy to 
yield to him for further thoughts or comments that he may have on this 
issue. We only have about 10 minutes left, but let me yield back to my 
friend from Florida.
  Mr. KELLER of Florida. I thank my friend for yielding. I would just 
take a couple minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, you may be surprised to learn, as I was when I went 
there, that there is not a tree within 100 miles of where we are 
drilling and that the animals peacefully co-exist and, in fact, have 
done well. You may wonder why am I hearing this for the first time? Let 
me explain something to you.
  This is the only village in all of ANWR, called Kaktovik. And when I 
sat there with the leader of the village, Mr. Felton Rexford, who lived 
there his whole life, and I would say he's in his mid- to late 60s, he 
was so kind to me. And as I sit there in 30 degree weather in the 
hottest month, in the middle of August, he told me I was one of the few 
people that ever bothered to visit there, that they were surprised. 
Hardly anyone has ever been there. It's 30 degrees in the hottest 
month. It's 30 below in the winter. They just got running water there 
in the year 2000. Only 300 Eskimos live there. They have a doctor that 
visits their town one time a year. There are no roads in and out of the 
village. They have to travel by snowmobile, and they live off of 
whales. So when you hear about this being a pristine wilderness area 
that's going to hurt the wildlife, you're hearing it from people that 
have never been there and have a vested interest in telling you that 
because they are probably trying to raise money for some fringe group.
  And I made a promise to Mr. Felton Rexford that when I would get back 
to Congress, I don't know if I would sway anybody but I would come to 
the floor of Congress and tell the truth. And the truth is these are 
the most environmentally conscious people in the country that I have 
ever met, and they think it can be done in an environmentally friendly 
way and they support it. And the area there looks like the surface of 
the moon and not a rainforest, and we can have it all.
  So I wanted to honor that, Mr. Gingrey, and I appreciate your giving 
me the chance to speak tonight on this very key issue.
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank my colleague and friend from Florida.
  As I was saying, of course, Mr. Speaker, 15 days in the last 5 
months, and you look at the schedule for this week, and there is 
unbelievably nothing, nothing on the agenda that has anything to do 
with energy.
  We are going to have two bills, one I guess on Thursday and one on 
Friday or maybe Wednesday and Thursday. One of them is the No Child 
Left Inside Act of 2008 to reauthorize the National Environmental 
Education Act to help improve the quality of environmental education 
for primary and secondary school students. And then if you think that 
one's important, H.R. 3667, the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and 
Scenic River Study Act of 2008, authorizes $300,000 for a study of a 
segment of the Missisquoi River in Vermont for potential designation as 
Wild and Scenic. Not only does H.R. 3667 not create more American 
energy, but it might actually prevent future energy exploration along 
the river like the siting of a liquefied natural gas plant as an 
example.
  And the other 2 days we are doing nothing but suspension bills, and 
those suspension bills are the ones that you have to have a two-thirds 
vote. There is little opposition to those bills, and yet they are given 
20 minutes of debate on each side, 40 minutes on each of these 
suspension bills to make it look like we're doing something up here.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I will say that the Democratic majority has done 
some things since they took control. In January, 2007, when the price 
of regular gasoline was $2.22, that date we congratulated the U.S. 
Santa Barbara soccer team. And then on September 5, when the price of 
regular had gone to $2.84, that was National Passport Month. February 
6, 2008, when the price of regular had gone to $3.03, we were 
commending the Houston Dynamo soccer team. Then on May 14, 2008, the 
price of regular $3.77, that was National Train Day. Then on May 20, 
2008, regular gasoline $3.84 a gallon, that was Great Cats and Rare 
Canids Act. Really important. On June 10, 2008, the price of regular 
$4.09 a gallon, the International Year of Sanitation bill. Really 
important. And then last but not least, June 17, 2008, when the price 
of regular had gotten up to $4.14, that was the Monkey Safety Act day. 
We were doing some things all right. We were really working hard up 
here.
  Well, look, the bottom line is this: We have a bill. The Republicans 
have a bill. We have a comprehensive bill. Yes, the cornerstone is 
``Drill Here, Drill Now.'' But this is the all-of-the-above approach to 
energy independence, and that's what we have to have, not only for our 
domestic needs but for the security of this Nation. And I commend our 
nominee for President, John McCain, and our nominee for Vice President, 
Sarah Palin, because they understand we need to drill on the Outer 
Continental Shelf. And we will have a Vice President who is from an 
energy State and understands the importance of those resources that we 
own.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we want to do things in a bipartisan way. And in 
closing, I know we are getting very close to that hour, but in closing 
let me just say this: We can work together. We can work together. I 
know I spent a lot of time up here railing tonight against Speaker 
Pelosi, but I respect her. She is the Speaker of this House not just 
for the Democrats but also for the Republicans. We respect her. We 
respect the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the 
distinguished Mr. John Dingell from Michigan.

                              {time}  2230

  He knows about this country and its needs. Why can't we get together, 
Mr. Dingell and Mr. Barton, and let's have a bill that is 
comprehensive, a little give and take on both sides of the aisle, 
because it's for the American people, and let's worry more about them 
than the next election. The next election, Mr. Speaker, will take care 
of itself. Let the people judge on that.
  I am going to tell you, when you go back home I am hearing from my 
constituents, and I know everybody in this House Chamber is hearing 
from their

[[Page H7849]]

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

                          ____________________