[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 143 (Wednesday, September 10, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H8001-H8008]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE TRUTH SQUAD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNerney). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms.

[[Page H8002]]

Foxx) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, there's so much that needs to be said tonight 
and 1 hour's just not enough time to do it. I think I want to recommend 
that people read, again, if you haven't read, the book, 1984, because 
what you've seen exhibited here tonight is a living example of that 
book, where people distort the facts, they distort the past, and 
certainly distort the facts.
  I do have to say a couple of things. We're here tonight to talk about 
energy and the failed energy policies of the Democratically controlled 
Congress. The Democrats are in control of the Congress, and they have 
been since January 2007. And I think it's very, very important that we 
continue to remind the American people of that.
  For one thing, my colleagues talked about the 605,000 jobs lost in 
the last 8 months. Well, I'm here to say that's because the Democrats 
are in charge of Congress. They want to blame it on the President. The 
President can't make anything happen about those jobs that are lost. 
Congress can. And the American people have to hold the Democrats in 
charge of the Congress accountable.

                              {time}  2130

  I do want to get on to energy, but I have to make, again, a couple of 
comments about what was said here tonight.
  We had a ``Truth Squad'' that used to meet on a regular basis here to 
correct the misstatements made by our colleagues almost every night, 
not every night. But I want to bring this Truth Squad back in the form 
of just me tonight by talking about some of the things, again, that 
they have said.
  I really was a little surprised that they focused so much on the war. 
I think it's really emblematic, again, of their running away from the 
issue that's most important to the American people, and that is the 
high price of gasoline and the high price of fuel oil. And they made 
lots of promises tonight, just like the Democrats did in 2006 when they 
were running for election and asked the American people to give them 
the majority. Well, the American people did give them the majority, and 
every promise they made has been broken. They promised to bring down 
the price of gasoline. They promised to make this the most open 
Congress ever, the most bipartisan Congress. Every one of those 
promises was broken.
  What we need to be focusing on, and what Republicans have been 
focusing on for the 20 months that the Democrats have been in control 
of the Congress, has been the high price of energy and how that price 
has been going steadily up. And again, I was a little bit amazed 
tonight that the focus of the group just before me was on the war and 
on the economy and blaming all of that on somebody else.
  They talked about how jobs had increased under the Clinton 
administration. Let me remind the American people that President 
Clinton had a Democratic Congress for the first 2 years of his 
administration, and those 2 years were not good for this economy. In 
fact, they were pretty rotten, 1992 and 1993. The Republicans took 
control of the House in 1994, in the fall of 1994, and came into office 
in 1995. Certainly we had a good economy under President Clinton, but 
it was because the Republicans were in charge of the Congress.
  The Democrats conveniently leave that little fact out. They give all 
the credit to President Clinton. It wasn't President Clinton's policies 
that gave us a great economy. It was the Republican Congress.
  They talk about the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the 
failed administration. I think we will see more and more coming out 
that the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are because of the 
liberal policies of the Democrats forcing banks, mortgage companies, 
loan companies to make loans to people who should never have gotten 
loans. I'm sure there's some greed out there, and I'm sure that there 
are some characters that we wouldn't like being in the business. But 
most of it was because of the liberal policies that they put into 
effect years ago.
  I do want to say that I appreciate what we have done for our veterans 
in this session of Congress, but the folks who spoke before us said 
they thanked the men and women who served us, and I do, too. We're 
going to be celebrating 9/11 tomorrow, 2001. We'll not celebrate but 
commemorate what happened that day. And I want to say I'm so grateful 
to the men and women who are currently serving in our military because 
they are all volunteers.
  These folks say they think they've been serving in the wrong places, 
they've been put in the wrong places. Well, I thank the good Lord many 
times every day that we have men and women who are willing to serve 
this country no matter where it is they have to serve because they 
believe in this country and they will go wherever it is necessary for 
them to serve.
  Now again, I want to talk more about energy now because that is what 
I think has created so many of the problems that we're facing.
  My colleagues and I were here all during the month of August while 
the Democrats went on vacation. They took a 5-week vacation. And in 
fact, they're still on vacation because this week, we're doing 
practically nothing here in the Congress. We have passed bills like 
commemorating the Kingdom of Bhutan's participation in the 2008 
Smithsonian Folk Life Festival, really important things to be doing 
while we should be voting on the American Energy Act, the bill that 
would create all-of-the-above alternatives for us.
  And I want to recognize now my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) 
who has served his State and this country so well as a member of the 
Intelligence Committee, Ranking Member of the Intelligence Committee 
and formally chairman of the Intelligence Committee, to allow him to 
offer some comments on the energy issue and to bring his perspective to 
this.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague for yielding. And as we go through 
the next period of time, we may have the opportunity to have more of a 
dialogue to talk a little bit about the energy issue and the challenges 
that we are facing as a Nation.
  Of course you and I remember that early in August when Congress 
recessed, we were on this floor that Friday where a number of us had 
signed up for the opportunity to address our colleagues but most 
importantly to address the American people on the issue of energy. And 
we can sign up for 5 minutes, but our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle said, ``No, we're going home,'' and they shut down debate.
  We came to the floor. We continued talking on the floor as they 
turned down the lights, as they turned off C-SPAN as they attempted to 
lock the press from covering the issues as to exactly what was 
happening here on the floor of the House.
  We continued that process for the next 5 weeks until Congress 
belatedly came back into session this past Monday. And as my colleague 
has indicated, we came back into session, and we've done no meaningful 
legislation. We haven't dealt with the issue of the threats of radical 
jihadists. We haven't dealt with health care, we haven't dealt with 
energy. Prices back in my district have again spiked up this week even 
though the price of oil has come down about 30 percent of its high of 
$147. You know, prices at the pump spiked back up this week
  And for some people, the issue of energy is an inconvenience. Paying 
a little bit more or paying a lot more at the pump is an inconvenience 
to some people. But I can tell you in July, I spent a part of a morning 
at the gas station pumping gas. People would come in; I would help fill 
up their cars. They would fill out a survey for me. I would spend some 
time talking to them. And for a number of these people, filling up 
their tank is now a hardship.
  And I think you and I would agree that we wish they had a proposal on 
the other side of the aisle. We wish that they would bring energy to 
the floor of the House for us to debate because this problem is only 
going to get worse.
  I live in a northern State. Today my constituents are challenged with 
the price of filling up their gas tank, because I went through the 
district during August. I found people who drove as much as 40, 50, 60 
miles one way to work. So they're putting on 80 to 100, 120 miles a 
day. Filling up their gas tank is a hardship.
  In those same areas, when we get to November, December, January, 
they're

[[Page H8003]]

also going to get hit with home heating costs. A double whammy. They're 
going to fill up their pump or their car at the pump, and then they are 
going to have to go home and pay the heating bills for their house. And 
these folks are unwilling to build a plan to address that right here on 
the floor of the House.
  Now, they went into a caucus today, and we see how they're writing 
their legislation. It's kind of like we're going to get a plan that can 
get 218 Democratic votes. They're not going to introduce a bill. 
They're not doing to take it to a subcommittee, have hearings on it, 
have people come in and say, you know, here is what we really like 
about your bill and what we think really works, and we think this may 
be a weakness. People proposing amendments, they vote on amendments, 
the bill gets better, it goes to full committee, you go through the 
same process, and it comes to the floor of the House where again, 
people like you and I who might not be on a committee of jurisdiction, 
if we've got a good idea or something that we think is a good idea, we 
have the opportunity to present it to our colleagues and have it voted 
on to see if it can be part of this final package. That's not the 
process they're going to use.
  They're writing a bill in secret, and we have no idea what it is. And 
I would guess, you know, we thought maybe it would come out Friday. 
They're not going to hit that deadline. They're maybe coming out with a 
bill Monday or Tuesday. It will probably be a thousand pages, and they 
will say, Congresswoman, here it is. Here is our energy plan. 
Congressman, here it is. We will say, What is it? They will say, Read 
it. And it's like, whoa.
  And we already know what it's going to be. We're for all-of-the-
above: Exploration, drilling for American oil, natural gas, we're for 
conservation, we're for higher fuel efficiency standards and 
automobiles and those types of things. We're for alternative technology 
and investing in wind, solar, geothermal, and all of those types of 
things recognizing that to fix the problem on energy, we need an all-
of-the-above solution because nuclear alone won't fix it, drilling 
alone won't fix it. T. Boone Pickens is right. We can't drill our way 
out of this problem. But we can help.
  Right now one final comment, and then we can talk about this.
  Sitting on the Intelligence Committee we know where we're getting the 
oil from. We get a lot from Canada, a lot from Mexico. These are two 
reliable allies, although there is some instability from Mexico. After 
that, the neighborhood gets to be pretty ugly.
  Nigeria. Nigeria is a great country, but it has a tremendous amount 
of instability and corruption.
  You then go to the Middle East. A lot of these folks are not our 
friends.
  You then go to Russia. Ask the Georgians. Is Russia a reliable ally? 
Ask the people in Ukraine. Is Russia a reliable ally? Russia has 
started this. Russia, a couple of years ago, was the country that said, 
or through their policies, indicated that they were willing to use 
energy as a political tool by threatening to cut off natural gas to 
places like the Ukraine. And in many ways we're funding our enemies.
  Bottom line on this. This year we will run about a $600 to $700 
billion trade deficit. If we became energy independent, our trade 
deficit would approach zero. Trade deficit isn't manufacturing. It's 
none of these things. It's energy. And if we invest in that, we could 
move forward.
  Ms. FOXX. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I will yield.
  We're joined by a few of our friends, and I think we can have a 
spirited discussion about the future of America rather than focusing on 
the past. So thank you for yielding.
  Ms. FOXX. I agree with you.
  Do you remember some of the promises that were made by the then 
minority?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentlelady will yield, I think the big promise 
was--I have Speaker Pelosi saying, I have a secret plan.
  I'm not sure that she said ``secret.''
  Ms. FOXX. I think she said, ``I have a commonsense plan.''
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. ``I have a commonsense plan to lower the price of 
gasoline.'' Whoa.
  You know, I hope that she let's America know soon what it is because 
for the last 20 months under Speaker Pelosi, her commonsense plan has 
only meant pain and hardship for my constituents.
  Ms. FOXX. And I think that what we need to do is take some of the 
promises that were spewed out here tonight by these folks who had the 
hour before us and put them next to all of those promises that were 
made by Speaker Pelosi and majority leader Hoyer in 2006 and say, well, 
if they delivered on these promises in 2006, then maybe we could 
believe they will deliver on these promises in the next election.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentlelady will yield for a minute.
  I thought it was pretty interesting on the floor when the minority 
leader on the floor, Mr. Boehner from Ohio, was talking about a 
procedural vote here on the floor and said, ``Will you allow a vote on 
the American Energy Independence Bill?'' And the answer after he asked 
that question three or four times, the folks on that side of the aisle 
started saying, ``No, no, no,'' meaning they don't want to have a full 
and complete debate on energy.
  What really makes me concerned is that they're going to throw up--we 
know what they're going to--we're for all-of-the-above. They're going 
to come out with a plan later on, who knows. I wouldn't even call it a 
plan. They will come out with a piece of paper, and as we dissect it, 
it will be none-of-the-above. They're not for nuclear, they're not for 
drilling offshore, they're not for drilling in Alaska.

                              {time}  2145

  Ms. FOXX. They're not for nuclear.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. So you go through all of this and say it's not even some 
of the above. They'll put in, especially when it comes to drilling, and 
they'll say well you can drill in these specific areas.
  But as one of my colleagues, Congressman Shadegg, has pointed out, I 
think in Alaska and some other areas, where 487 leases were issued, 
every single one of those leases has been challenged multiple times 
through the process by radical environmental groups to make sure that 
no drilling takes place. Those folks know that we can open this up, but 
because we've created these environmental standards, the radical 
environmental standard, no drilling will ever take place.
  Ms. FOXX. I think that, even though we haven't seen the bill, I feel 
certain that I will be able to give that bill the Emperor's New Clothes 
Award because it will pretend to do something but it will do nothing. 
So I can just about bet that it's going to do nothing and will deserve 
the Emperor's New Clothes Award. I have the Emperor's New Clothes Award 
here. You can see it on the podium here, and so I'm going to give it 
the Emperor's New Clothes Award. I know that's what it's going to 
deserve.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I think as we talk about this, and I hope our colleagues 
join in. I come from the great State of Michigan and we're struggling. 
Last month, we were at 8.5 percent unemployment. My expectation is that 
now with what's happened at the national level that unemployment rate 
is going to go up.
  But as we struggle with these energy costs, it has absolutely 
hammered jobs. It has absolutely hammered the automotive industry and 
these types of things, and the refusal of our colleagues to deal with 
this issue means increased unemployment and increased hardship for a 
State like Michigan.
  And you know, our Governor came out recently and said I can't believe 
that Michigan may be in play in this election, and it's kind of like, 
excuse me, Republicans are going to do very well in the State of 
Michigan because Democrats in Washington have refused to deal with the 
issue of energy. And if people want to take a look at what America 
might look like under a Democrat administration all the way through, 
take a look at Michigan.
  Michigan, our Governor came up with a brilliant strategy of saying, 
you know, we've got the highest unemployment rate in the country. You 
know what we ought to do? To attract more business, to attract more 
investment to the State of Michigan, let's raise taxes and let's make 
sure people don't understand exactly how much or where those taxes are 
going to be raised because we think that will get people to

[[Page H8004]]

come to our State and get them to invest and create jobs.
  Now, we live on a peninsula. People don't come to Michigan naturally. 
If they want to do and invest in Michigan, they've got to be going down 
the expressway in Indiana, and depending on whether they're going east 
or west, they've got to make a left turn or a right turn. And I'll tell 
you, they're not turning into Michigan anymore because they're looking 
at Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and all of these States, and they're saying 
these are pretty good States to do business in. And if we take a left 
turn and go up into Michigan, we're going to be paying more in taxes. 
We will just kind of stay on the interstate and do business here.
  But that's what, you know, we're facing with a Democrat leadership 
that not only won't deal with the energy issue, but will raise taxes 
because they believe the best way for America to be competitive on a 
global basis is not to grow American industries but to tax American 
industries and to tax the American citizen so that we can feed this 
beast in Washington.
  Ms. FOXX. Thank you. I appreciate my colleague from Michigan 
explaining the Michigan situation. I want to make just one comment, and 
I'm going to ask some of my other colleagues to speak.
  When the Democrats took over the Congress in 2007, January 2007, we 
had had 54 straight months of job growth under a Republican-led 
Congress and a Republican administration. What they refuse to admit is, 
as soon as they took over the Congress, the price of gasoline started 
going up, and as the price of gasoline started going up, so did the 
unemployment rate. There is no denying these facts. They caused this 
problem. We've been pointing this out week after week. We're finally, 
we think, getting through that the Democrats are in charge of the 
Congress, and it is their policies that have created these problems.
  I want to recognize now my colleague from Pennsylvania I think who 
has some comments to make about this situation, and we've been suddenly 
joined by several people. And so I do hope that we'll have a great 
dialogue here, but with my classmate, my colleague from Pennsylvania, I 
yield to you.
  Mr. DENT. I'd like to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for 
her leadership on this very important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I feel it's very important that as with Members of 
Congress we lead, and there are a lot of things that the Congress would 
like to do, need to do, but there's one thing that we must do, and that 
is fund the Federal Government. I think it is a dereliction of duty on 
the part of this Speaker of the House and this Congress that this 
Congress has failed, has failed to deal with the various spending 
bills, the appropriations bills to fund the government.
  The reason why this Congress is not dealing with these appropriations 
bills is because there is fear, fear that some Member of the House, 
some impertinent Member, maybe a Republican Member, maybe a Democratic 
Member, will stand up on this floor and offer an amendment to provide 
for additional American energy production from traditional sources.
  So we're not dealing with the most important business of Congress, 
which is to fund the government because there is fear to deal with the 
energy issue, and I think it is unrealistic and unfair that there are 
people in this House who, for whatever reasons, oppose traditional 
sources of energy. Everybody here supports alternative renewable fuels, 
but we also know we need to deal with the here and the now.
  I come from a State, Pennsylvania, where we are rich in coal 
resources, where oil was discovered in Titusville, Pennsylvania, by 
Colonel Drake some time ago. We have tremendous natural gas reserves. 
My State has been part of the energy solution for this Nation for a 
very long time and will continue to be.
  Ms. FOXX. I heard that the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal 
and that we have three times the coal reserves that Saudi Arabia has in 
oil reserves. Have you heard the same thing?
  Mr. DENT. I've heard the same thing, and I believe that reference is 
to some of the vast oil shale reserves out in the Rocky Mountain West. 
But I know in terms of coal, it's estimated that we have about 250 
years' worth of coal supply, assuming we're consuming at the current 
levels.
  What I did want to say, though, is coal is responsible for 50 percent 
of the electricity generated in the United States. Nuclear energy is 
responsible for about 20 percent. Natural gas for another 20 percent. 
I'm up to 90 percent. There's a little bit of other. Petroleum, 
hydroelectric takes a fair amount. Solar and wind I think account for 
about 1 percent.

  But unfortunately, while I strongly support solar, wind, geothermal 
and other renewables, I also know there are too many people in this 
Congress that, though renewables account for 1 percent of our source, 
it accounts for 100 percent of their talking points.
  The truth is we know we're going to need coal. We need to clean it 
up. Clean coal technology, there's a lot of interesting, carbon 
capture, storage sequestration going on out there. We need to develop 
that technology. I think we all understand, too, that if we want to 
lower carbon emissions in America we're going to need to expand nuclear 
energy.
  But again, many people in this building are opposed to coal 
technology. They're opposed to nuclear. They're opposed to drilling for 
gas and oil where those resources may actually be. So that really 
limits our options as a Nation.
  We have to get to work. Everybody knows it. And this is not a 
Republican issue or a Democratic issue. This is an American issue. The 
American people are pragmatic. They want us to solve the problem.
  I'll be the first to tell you, you know, our critics, the critics of 
the Republican Party will say that Republicans are too focused on 
production and supply. Critics of the Democrats will say that they're 
too focused on conservation and efficiency. The truth is we must do 
both, and I'll be the first to tell you that we can't drill our way out 
of this problem, but drilling is most assuredly part of the solution, 
just as conservation is part of the solution, and neither can you 
conserve your way out of the problem.
  So we need people to be pragmatic, come down here and support 
something reasonable. The American Energy Act about which we've been 
speaking tonight is a good piece of legislation. It deals with all of 
the above, the alternatives, renewables, transitions to the future, as 
well as traditional sources of energy, conservation, efficiency.
  There's another bill out there, the Peterson-Abercrombie bill, which 
is a genuine bipartisan bill that there's a lot in there I like and 
there's some things I'm not particularly crazy about, but I would 
support that bill. I'm a cosponsor of it. In the name of compromise, 
I'm willing to support legislation that will advance this discussion 
and actually, more importantly, advance America's energy security.
  At the end of the day, the American people want us to become less 
dependent on unstable parts of the world for fossil fuel. I think you 
and I agree to that, but it's going to require leaders to say, yes, 
take an affirmative approach to energy. But as you know, too many 
people here are not willing to do that, and I have to lay the blame at 
the doorstep of the Speaker of the House.
  I thank Ms. Foxx, my classmate, for allowing me to speak on this 
important issue.
  Ms. FOXX. I want to thank my classmate, Congressman Dent from 
Pennsylvania, for illuminating this issue from his perspective in 
Pennsylvania.
  Now I want to turn it over to a new Member of Congress this year 
who's been, I think, one of the really bright lights in the Congress, 
who's one of the most articulate people that we have in the Congress, 
Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann from the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, 
which just hosted many of us who were at the Republican National 
Convention.
  And I want to say that it was certainly ``Minnesota Nice.'' The folks 
in Minnesota were fabulous. They treated us very well, very friendly, 
just like the people in North Carolina. I was extremely pleased to be 
there, and I want to ask you if you will share some of your 
perspectives on this issue of energy.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you, Ms. Foxx. I appreciate that.
  Minneapolis/St. Paul is a very nice area. Minnesota is the ``Land of 
Minnesota Nice,'' and we really do love

[[Page H8005]]

people. So y'all come back, if we can borrow that from you. Y'all come 
back.
  My name is Michelle Bachmann. I do represent Minnesota's Sixth 
Congressional District, and I tell you what I am so pleased about is 
the fact that the United States, we have the answer to our energy 
problem.
  We have, as Representative Dent of Pennsylvania said, we have an 
abundance of coal. We're the leader in the world. Twenty-seven percent 
of the world's supply of coal lies here in the United States of 
America.
  We're the Saudi Arabia of oil in three States alone: Utah, Colorado, 
Wisconsin. We have more oil than all of Saudi Arabia contained in shale 
oil.
  We have an abundance of natural gas. We have over 420 trillion cubic 
square feet of natural gas, and that's just in the Gulf of Mexico.
  We have so much oil and we haven't even begun to tap what we have in 
terms of nuclear power, what we can do with wind, what we can do with 
solar, with all of the inventions that are yet to come out of brilliant 
young entrepreneurs. All we need to do is unleash it.
  But right now, you're looking, Mr. Speaker, at the problem for this, 
for the energy crisis. It isn't lack of resources. It certainly isn't 
lack of technology. What it is is lack of will on the part of the 
United States Congress. Mr. Speaker, the Democrat-controlled United 
States Congress is the problem for America's energy crisis. Look no 
further. The Democrat-controlled Congress, under their leadership, 
their auspicious leadership, has led to an increase of 76 percent in 
the price of gasoline at the pump.

                              {time}  2200

  Seventy-six percent increase. I've only been here 20 months, and 
we've seen gas prices go up 76 percent under Democrat-controlled 
leadership.
  Minority leader John Boehner made a decision late in the month of 
July. He decided to lead 10 Republicans to go up to Alaska to visit the 
ANWR region that has been so vilified, that we've been told that we 
absolutely cannot drill up in ANWR, that somehow the world will come to 
an end if we drill in ANWR. Well, John Boehner, with his leadership, 
took 10 Republicans--and I was blessed enough to be one of those 
Republicans to go not only to Colorado to visit the National Renewable 
Energy Laboratory, but also up to Alaska to ANWR.
  And there is one little story that I want to tell the American people 
before I hand this over to my colleagues to continue, and it's this: 
While we were up in Alaska visiting our oil-rich region where we were 
able to go to the North Slope--here is the North Slope of Alaska. 
Thirty-one years ago, the North Slope of Alaska was the largest 
producing oil field in the United States. Sadly, 31 years later, this 
is still the largest producing oil region. Why? Because we have a 
Prohibition-era mentality when it comes to production of American 
energy legislation. Because this Congress has made a decision: No more 
energy production here; if we're going to have energy, we've got to buy 
it offshore. Well, that is ridiculous; it's why we're in the situation 
we're in.
  But here in the North Slope 31 years ago, when we began building this 
energy lifeline which is our North Slope Trans-Alaska Pipeline which 
extends 800 miles from Prudhoe Bay down to Valdez, when we built that 
31 years ago we were producing 2.1 million barrels of oil a day. Do you 
know where we're at now? Seven hundred thousand barrels a day. Within 
10 years we will be down to $300,000 barrels a day. You know what 
happens, Mr. Speaker, when we get down to 300,000 barrels a day? When 
we get to that point, this energy lifeline that feeds the lower 48, 
it's going to shut down. And, I mean, when it shuts down, you can't add 
another oil field and bring it back up into production. And do you 
know, Mr. Speaker, what it costs us to replace this energy lifeline? 
Fifteen billion dollars. And it isn't just the $15 billion, it would 
take several years to rebuild this because this pipeline is made out of 
stainless steel, and stainless steel doesn't come cheap anymore.
  We are in trouble. Because if, as the Democrat nominee, Barack Obama, 
has said, he doesn't plan to do any more drilling, and Speaker Pelosi, 
Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat-controlled House, has said she really 
doesn't plan any more drilling, or as Harry Reid has told us, he really 
doesn't believe in more drilling, if the Democrats have their way, 
there won't be more drilling. And so we will have this energy pipeline 
that has served our interests for over 31 years, it's going to shut 
down within 10 years time. Shut down. So if we thought $4 a gallon was 
a lot to pay for energy, we're going to think that's a cheap date 
because it's going to be $6, $8, $10 a gallon because the Democrat-
controlled Congress has said, no how, no way, not on their watch are we 
ever going to start drilling. It's not going to happen. And it's not 
going to happen under Barack Obama.
  There is a very real choice that the voters have to make come this 
November, and it's this: Do you want to pay $2 a gallon for gas under a 
President McCain and a Vice President Palin--who will drill, by the 
way, for new energy--or do you want to pay $6, $8 or $10 a gallon for 
gasoline very soon under a Barack Obama and a Democrat-controlled 
Congress who said no way, no how, never under their watch will they 
begin the drilling process? It's that simple: $2 a gallon, or $6, $8 or 
$10 a gallon? That's what the American people will be asking 
themselves.
  And I'll tell you one thing, under a Republican-controlled Congress, 
if we can get there this fall, this November, there will be a change. 
There will be drilling in ANWR. There will be drilling in the oil shale 
region. There will be drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. There 
will be expansion of clean coal technology. There will be building of 
45 new nuclear power plants. Instead of being the world's greatest 
dependent on foreign energy importation, we will become the world's 
leading exporter of energy.
  Can you imagine? Millions of jobs, high-paying jobs. And I will end 
with this. As a matter of fact, up in Alaska, what I was told is that 
entry-level jobs on the North Slope pay over $100,000 a year plus 
benefits. There's a lot of people from the great State of Minnesota 
that would go up to take those jobs.
  We have the answer. We have got the ticket. We don't have to be mired 
under $4 a gallon gas or $6 or $8 or $10. Under a Republican-controlled 
Congress, Mr. Speaker, the American people will get back to paying $2 a 
gallon or less. This is real, and it can happen very quickly. And 
that's why I'm so grateful to the gentlelady from North Carolina for 
bringing this important discussion and reminding the American people 
that under a Democrat-controlled Congress we've seen gasoline prices 
increase 76 percent. And that can take a nosedive if we see real change 
at the ballot box this November.
  Ms. FOXX. Well, I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Bachmann from 
Minnesota. And I want to say she has boiled it down to a very simple 
fact. And I say that people in this Congress are either pro American 
energy or anti American energy. And I think we know the difference in 
the two groups of folks.
  The people who don't want us to produce energy in this country are 
anti American energy. They don't want us to be independent of these 
foreign countries. It is a difficult thing for me to understand, it's a 
difficult thing for my constituents to understand.
  And as our colleague, Mr. Dent from Pennsylvania, said, we want all 
those alternatives, but they only produce a small part of what we're 
going to need. Perhaps eventually we will have the technology to 
produce more of it. But we have to increase our supply of gas and oil 
and other fossil fuels to get us through this situation that we're in 
now until we get to those alternatives. And certainly we want them, but 
they're a small part right now of what we can produce.
  Other people who have joined us tonight include my great colleague 
who is on the Constitution Caucus with me and is often here speaking on 
the Constitution, a former teacher from the State of Utah. Now, former 
teachers like Congressman Bishop and I often have tendencies to speak 
for 50 minutes at a time, but since there are other folks here tonight, 
I'm hoping he is not going to speak for 50 minutes. But he is going to 
be very eloquent in what he shares with us.
  I yield to my colleague, Mr. Bishop from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank you for that kind introduction. And it 
won't be

[[Page H8006]]

50 minutes unless I go into Mr. King's time in some particular way.
  I'm excited to be here to join you and to join the others, especially 
the gentlelady from Minnesota, who painted such a marvelous vision of 
what we could, indeed, be doing in the future if we just come together 
on this particular issue.
  There are many people who have said, you know, where have we been all 
these years on this particular issue? I haven't been here forever, but 
I do know, from my years here as well as in the State legislature in 
Utah, that we have been arguing this issue for years.

  One of the freshman Members today came to the floor and criticized us 
for why we haven't done any of these issues earlier. And the bottom 
line is: We did. I have not been here forever, but there have been 
countless votes I have made in favor of drilling in ANWR and I would do 
so again. I have made countless votes in this body on expanding our 
offshore drilling leases and permits in areas and would do so again.
  From the very first day I came here, John Peterson has been extolling 
the problems this economy will face if we don't face up to the fact we 
have a dwindling supply of natural gas here in the United States. We 
have been talking about this forever. Even before Speaker Pelosi 
changed my mindset and told me that natural gas is not a fossil fuel 
and you don't actually have to drill to get it, despite that fact there 
is something that is different now. And like most issues that come to 
their prime, there is a catalyst that changes and a catalyst that 
drives the issue forward. We have seen that this year.
  I come from the West, which is the energy-producing section. Some of 
my friends in the areas that I call the ``energy consuming'' sections 
have been very happy over the years to try and lock up areas of the 
West and areas off the coast which produce energy, and they can do it 
with impunity because it has no impact on their lives. But all of a 
sudden, when you start paying 4 bucks a gallon of gas, then something 
is different.
  The massive spike in gasoline prices at the pump over the last 2 
years is the catalyst that is taking the arguments--and the arguments 
that we have said over and over and over again year after year--and 
have finally driven it to the point where everyone realizes mistakes we 
have made in our energy policy and our land policy for the past 30 
years have brought us to the situation where we are today. And the cost 
we are paying at the pump is because of misguided decisions we have 
made for over 30 years. And now is the time where Americans are ready 
to stand up all over this country and say now is the time we need to 
take a new direction with real solutions so that we can solve where we 
have been brought by past decisions.
  And as has been stated before, we're not just talking about drilling. 
It's one of the common arguments they say, all Republicans want to do 
is drill. Yeah, we want to drill, but we have always said it's not 
drilling alone. When we say we need an all-of-the-above solution, it 
means we need an all-of-the-above solution.
  The common fossil fuels are as important to solve our energy problem 
now as expanding alternative energy sources will be to solve our 
problem in the future. But one of the issues we have never faced in 
this country--once again, another decision we've made improperly years 
ago--is an adequate way of funding our investment and expansion of 
alternative resources.
  Now, one of the things we could do if we actually do increase our 
production of oil and natural gas and oil shale and coal is to use the 
expanded royalties this Federal Government would receive and funnel 
those royalties into building and developing our alternative resources 
for the future. And that's what the all-of-the-above American Energy 
Act wants to do. It is both of those.
  I have found, to my utter amazement, there is no source of energy 
that does not have its critics. How can one be opposed to solar power? 
Although when we tried to build a solar plant in New Mexico, people 
were opposed to it because it would take up too much of the desert. How 
can you be opposed to wind power? Although I was reading an article in 
a local paper of a farmer in Wyoming who was opposed to wind power 
plants simply because the wushing of the blades makes too much noise, 
or it chops up too many birds that are part of the Migratory Bird 
Treaty.
  Every source of energy has somebody who is opposed to it, which is 
why, if we're really going to reach a consensus of everybody, the only 
solution is to say nothing is off the table, we develop everything. It 
is the only real solution, it is the only fair solution, and that's 
what we are after. If we care about consumers in the future, we develop 
everything.
  Conservation is essential, but we all know conservation alone does 
not solve our problem. But the American Energy Act is the only bill 
that actually has real incentives for Americans to conserve and 
rewarding them for efforts to conserve. We realize we do not have the 
infrastructure to move energy from one part of this country to the 
other. And the American Energy Act is the only one that realizes we 
must put extra money and effort into building our infrastructure or 
everything else is useless. We are the only ones that realize it has 
legal impediments. As was mentioned before, as soon as you open up an 
area, it is immediately open to open-ended standing so that anybody can 
sue, and that is, indeed, what happened. And in the Americans for 
American Energy Act, that is the only area that actually talks about 
reforming that process so that once a decision has been made, we can 
move forward.
  The American Energy Act is the only one that recognizes solutions are 
made by people out there, because within the soul of American people is 
the creativity we need to solve our problems. And what we should be 
doing as a government is not trying to dictate solutions from here in 
these hallowed halls, but allowing Americans to find their solutions by 
themselves and then rewarding them for it.
  When England became a superpower on the oceans, they did not have a 
way of mapping the oceans, so they established a prize of 20,000 pounds 
to the first person who could figure out how to do it. And the British 
clock maker from London who invented latitude and longitude, we are 
still using his invention. When Napoleon started marching with his 
troops, he realized he did not have a way of feeding them, so he gave a 
14,000 frank prize to the first person to solve the problem. The 
vacuum-packed concept of food is the same thing he invented for 14,000 
franks and we still use today. When Lindbergh flew across the ocean he 
was after a prize from a newspaper. And the aeronautics industry has 
developed from it.
  All we need to do is say we will reward Americans for coming up and 
producing a solution and reward them well for it, and they will solve 
the problem without our expert attention driving that way.
  Now, we've heard a lot of blame about the problem. We've heard Big 
Oil blame because they're gouging people, therefore let's tax them--
which is what we tried 30 years ago when the development dried up; or 
we have said that they have leases out there they're not using it, so 
use it or lose it--even though that's exactly what the status quo is, 
indeed, doing. We've had all sorts of other ideas that Big Oil is the 
problem here. As Newt Gingrich said, if you really want to help Exxon, 
do nothing. They already have their oil. Sixty-eight percent of all the 
oil that is being drilled in this country and 87 percent of all the 
natural gas being drilled in this country today are being done by small 
entrepreneurial companies, 200 employees or less, names of which no one 
in this body has ever heard.
  If we really want to expand our economy and add competition, which 
will lower price, expand the efforts of people to become involved in 
this process. What we need is not another political scheme, we have had 
30 years of them; we need real solutions. And that is what we want, a 
vote on a real solution, not some faux solution, a real one that 
actually addresses real issues for real Americans and solves their real 
problems.

                              {time}  2215

  Groucho Marx once said that ``politics is the act of looking for the 
trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying 
the wrong remedies.'' If we're not careful, that's exactly what we 
could do in these next 2 weeks. We can't just go for the cheap fix 
political deal. We have to go for a

[[Page H8007]]

real solution that helps real people. And that's the vote that we 
demand.
  Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Utah. He never disappoints. We 
got not only a very concise discussion of the problem but some 
wonderful history lessons in the process.
  I want to now recognize another distinguished and very eloquent 
person in our Congress, a member of the Republican leadership and 
chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, Thaddeus McCotter from 
Michigan. He's our second person from Michigan tonight, but Thaddeus is 
the kind of person who, when he speaks, everybody listens because we 
have to listen very closely to make sure we don't miss all of that wit 
and innuendo that he'll share with us.
  I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I have great empathy for the gentleman from Utah who hoped for a big 
ending. I would prefer just a passable beginning; so bear with me.
  I come from the State of Michigan, as my colleague who spoke earlier, 
Peter Hoekstra, so well earlier discussed. We are a State that is 
suffering. We are a manufacturing State that has seen job losses for 
several years in a row. And what we have also seen because of the high 
price of energy is a drop-off in our tourism trade both from Michigan 
residents inside the State who could not afford to take a family 
vacation and for people who come to our wonderful Great Lakes State to 
recreate. This is a twofold problem which has done something to the 
State of Michigan which has happened to no other of the 49 States. Last 
year Michigan became the only State in the Union to have a rise in 
poverty and a decrease in median income.
  The cost of energy is exacerbating this suffering greatly. Now, 
because my State wants to work under difficult economic times, I want 
to express the absolute disgust that many of us have for the way people 
who have been elected by the sovereign citizens of the United States to 
serve in this Congress have worked on their jobs. We have seen over the 
month of August in America 84,000 American jobs lost in large part due 
to energy costs. In response, the Democratic-controlled Congress took a 
5-week paid vacation.
  On our part as Republicans, we came to this floor every day this 
Congress should have been in session and had a speak-in with the 
American people about what we hoped to do on their behalf if given the 
chance by the Democratic majority to actually come here and earn the 
salaries that we were being paid. We got no response from the 
Democratic Party. But we did get a response from the American people. 
And the response that we got from the American people was loud and 
clear: It was we would like to have a fair up-or-down vote on the 
bipartisan all-of-the-above American energy strategy.
  What is in this? As the speaker from Utah stressed, it is not simply 
a drill-only bill. It has three key components as we move towards an 
important goal. The first is maximum American energy production. The 
second is commonsense conservation. The third is free market green 
innovations.
  Now, why do we need all three? So we can have a responsible 
transition to American energy security and independence. If we do not 
recognize that this problem is one of supply and demand, if we do 
nothing to increase the supply, you can do one of two things: You can 
let the cost continue to escalate or you can focus on the demand. If 
you focus solely on the demand, what you are doing to the American 
people is saying what some people have said about American gas prices: 
``We are better off without cheap gas.'' This is a cold turkey policy 
which for ideological reasons will accomplish nothing but pain and 
suffering unnecessarily on the American people's family budgets and on 
their pursuit of the American Dream, which I point out is not 
necessarily to be mandated that it has to occur on foot. We want a 
responsible transition to American energy security and independence, 
one that makes the American people full participants in this 
transformational undertaking and does not continue the state of affairs 
that is occurring now here in their own country.
  Who are the best friends of Big Oil? My friend from Utah touched upon 
it. The best friends of Big Oil are the people who do nothing. And for 
5 weeks we saw who was doing nothing and we saw who was trying to do 
something. If you want to be a friend to Big Oil, continue the 
government-mandated rationing of American energy. Stop Americans from 
extracting their own natural resources to increase supply as we 
transition to American energy security and independence because if you 
do not allow that supply to increase here at home, American oil from 
American soil, you're going to continue to see prices rise. You're 
going to continue to see the Big Oil companies that you claim not to 
like reap even greater harvest at the gas pump, and meanwhile you will 
know that you were complicit in this, and we will make sure that the 
rest of the country does too.
  In the final analysis, if we do not have a fair up-or-down vote, the 
suffering is going to continue and no amount of political chicanery is 
going to mask the fact to the American people that you refused to act 
and when you were compelled to act, you refused to do anything 
substantive that was going to help them because all they have to do is 
drive. All they have to do is need any form of energy, be it gasoline, 
be it home heating oil, and check the price and see what did or did not 
occur on your behalf and who did or did not act.
  When we came back into session, what did we find? We found trout 
waiting for us. We decided we were going to do something about trout 
and perhaps that would spawn an energy bill that perhaps could help 
Americans. This is yet to prove the case because what we have seen is a 
continuation of the 5-week paid Democrat vacation that has stumbled 
into week 6 with nothing substantive being done about energy prices, an 
internal debate amongst their own caucus as to what to do if to do 
anything. And we stand here with not a bluff but a bill. We have stood 
here with the American Energy Act and asked for one thing: an up-or-
down vote. They have refused.
  I have no doubt that as we proceed in this process, the American 
people are not only going to be outraged by the fact that we have done 
nothing on energy to help them, they are going to look at a calendar as 
put forward by the Democratic majority in this Congress that has 
something that you who work for a living could never do. Between August 
1 and January 1, this Democratic Congress cares so much about working 
Americans and energy that they will meet for 15 working days out of 5 
months for full pay. You try doing that at your job, if you're lucky 
enough to have one, thanks to this Democratic Congress.
  Ms. FOXX. Again, I promised you eloquence and you received eloquence.
  I want to share with you some of the bills that the Democrat Congress 
has been presenting to us to vote on while they have been ignoring the 
need to vote on the American Energy Act.
  How about this one: recognizing the American Highway User Alliance on 
its 75th anniversary. Now, that was a really important bill for us to 
be voting on.
  Or how about what we did this week: condemning the use of television 
programming by Hamas to indoctrinate hatred, violence, and anti-
Semitism toward Israel in young Palestinian children. I am one of the 
biggest supporters of Israel that you will find, but I don't think that 
our passing this bill had one wit of difference on Hamas.
  Another really significant bill: supporting the goals and ideals of 
National Passport Month. When we should have been dealing with American 
energy, we were passing that bill.
  We also passed a bill recognizing the 100th anniversary of the 
declaration of the Muir Woods National Monument by President Teddy 
Roosevelt. All of us Republicans are very glad to see Teddy Roosevelt 
honored because he's the original conservationist. He set the tone for 
Republicans, and we all know that. But I'm sure Teddy Roosevelt would 
have rather we had been dealing with the American energy situation and 
not commemorating something he had done because it was the right thing 
to do.
  Two hundred and eighty-two laws have passed in the 110th Congress. 
Thirty-seven percent of them have named buildings or lands. Thirty-
seven percent of them passed unanimously. Another fifteen percent 
extended the law or made technical corrections to

[[Page H8008]]

an existing law. This Congress has done nothing while the American 
people have suffered.
  The Democrats' answer to the needs of the American people for lower 
gas prices is ``drive small cars and wait for the wind.'' Ladies and 
gentlemen, that should not be the response of this Congress to the 
needs of the American people. When gasoline prices are $4 a gallon, we 
need to do something. And as my colleagues have so eloquently expressed 
here tonight, we can do something. We have it within our power to 
create all of the energy that we need in this country at very 
affordable prices. However, this Congress, led by Democrats, controlled 
by Democrats, having Democrats in charge, have done nothing to act on 
the needs of the American people. I think one of the most important 
things we were able to accomplish in August when many of us were here 
every day talking to the American people on this floor because, as 
people have said before, the lights were out, C-SPAN was off, the 
microphones were off--in fact, many of us have had trouble speaking 
with microphones again because we were on the floor speaking so many 
times without microphones. We brought the issue to the American people. 
We let the American people know who was in charge, who is in charge of 
this Congress. The American people have said we want something done.
  The Speaker is saying they're going to bring a bill, but as my 
colleagues have said, we have been here all week. They had the whole 
month of August. They had 5 weeks to come up with something, in 
addition this week. No bill yet to vote on. And I will make one little 
correction to my colleague from Michigan who said we will be working 
for 15 days from August 1 until January 1. We are not going to be here 
on Friday; so it's only going to be 14 days. We're being paid to do 
that. The Democrats are in charge. It is their responsibility.
  My constituents find it hard to understand how one person can be 
totally in control of what bills come for a vote in the House, but that 
is the case. Speaker Pelosi, a San Francisco Democrat, is the person 
who controls whether we vote on bills on the House floor. And you need 
to let your interests be known to her and to your Democratic 
Congressman if that's who you have representing you.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the leadership for giving us this hour.

                          ____________________