[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 147 (Tuesday, September 16, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H8133-H8134]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          AMERICAN ENERGY ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, in the last 4 months, there has been a 
very intense debate going on here in this Congress, but also across the 
entire country, and that debate has been about energy; about what can 
be done to lower the price of gasoline at the pump and reduce our 
dependence on Middle Eastern oil. It's a very healthy debate, a debate 
that we need to have, but a debate that we need to resolve here in this 
body with an open debate and vote on the options that have been put on 
the table.
  Back 2 months ago, House Republicans put together a bill that 
actually has garnered bipartisan support, called the American Energy 
Act, a comprehensive plan to address this national energy crisis our 
country is facing, both to look at what we can do to increase the 
supply of American oil, to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil 
in the short-term, but also to look at the long-term objectives of how 
to move off of oil and move more toward alternative sources, like 
renewable sources of energy, looking at wind, looking at solar, and 
trying to advance those technologies so that they can become more 
viable in the marketplace so that somebody can go and buy an electric 
car and be able to drive back and forth to work without plugging it in 
for 6 hours.
  Those technologies will advance, and in the American Energy Act we 
are encouraging those renewable sources of energy, to advance things 
like, instead of using products like corn for ethanol, using the 
biomass, the waste products of things like corn and sugar cane and 
other products, to make ethanol, which we can do. The technologies 
haven't advanced to the point where they are commercially viable. All 
of that is here in the American Energy Act. To look at doing things 
like increasing the ability to permit nuclear facilities so we can 
reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. All of the things that 
have been talked about in the last few months have been encompassed in 
a bill that has bipartisan support.
  Unfortunately, the liberal leadership has not allowed a discussion, a 
debate, or a vote on the American Energy Act. So what we have said is, 
Bring it up. If you don't like it, let's bring up amendments. Let's 
have everything put on the table to address this important discussion 
that is so important to our country, and hurting our economy. Something 
that we can do to help the economy.
  So what happens? What is the approach that is taken by the liberal 
leadership? By dark of night, last night, we finally saw what their 
plan was. It was this bill that was put together in a back room 
somewhere with who knows what groups, because nobody, even people on 
the other side, Madam Speaker, members of the Democratic Party who 
support a comprehensive plan, were not even allowed to have input on 
the bill that was filed late last night, dark of night, with a 10 
o'clock filing of the bill. At 10:30, they had a meeting to decide that 
they weren't even going to allow an amendment to be brought up, and 
that today it would come up on the House floor for a vote. That is not 
the way you handle the most important issue in this country that we are 
facing right now.
  When there's been an alternative on the table for a month, with 
active discussion, you don't by dark of night put something together 
that nobody's seen, and then say, Okay, tomorrow we're going to bring 
it up for a vote, and not one amendment can be offered.
  Of course, once you start looking through their bill, you can quickly 
see why they did it by dark of night and why they don't want any 
amendments offered. Because this bill that they are going to have a 
vote on today, that nobody has been able to go through in great detail, 
the more you look at it, you realize this is a do-nothing bill. This 
bill will actually put our country more at risk to Middle Eastern oil. 
Why is that?
  Well, there are a number of provisions. First, let's talk about 
revenue sharing. Right now, States have the ability to get revenue 
sharing for the drilling that they do. In my State, Louisiana, we drill 
about 30 percent of the country's oil. We have been doing it for a long 
time. Finally, after years and years of negotiation, we were able to 
get an agreement that there would be revenue sharing. That we would be 
able to participate in the revenue that

[[Page H8134]]

is generated by the drilling that's done off of our own coast. It 
doesn't start until 2017. Their bill takes that away.
  Why is that significant to States like Louisiana? Number one, it's a 
huge disincentive for anybody to want to drill. If a State that doesn't 
drill at all, like Florida, now wants to start looking at drilling, 
which they do, this takes away their incentive. We use those revenues 
in Louisiana. It's dedicated in our constitution to rebuilding our 
vanishing coast. That's our barrier against future hurricanes. Why 
would the Democratic leadership want to take away our ability to have 
revenue sharing that we will use to restore our coast and put our 
hurricane barrier back in place in Louisiana?
  They don't do anything on oil shale revenue sharing. They don't do 
anything on the lawsuit abuses. Right now, lawsuits by radical 
environmental groups take up about a third of the time it takes to 
bring oil to market. They don't do anything on nuclear, to encourage 
more nuclear power, like in France. France uses 80 percent nuclear 
power for their energy in their homes. There's nothing in this bill to 
encourage and remove those barriers on nuclear.
  So, clearly, OPEC could not have drafted a better bill than the bill 
that the radical environmentalists/liberals filed today. I would 
encourage a ``no'' vote.

                          ____________________