[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14563-14572]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 3121, FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM AND 
                       MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2008

  Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by 
direction of the Committee on Financial Services, I move to take from 
the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3121) to restore the financial 
solvency of the national flood insurance program and to provide for 
such program to make available multiperil coverage for damage resulting 
from windstorms and floods, and for other purposes, with a Senate 
amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and request a 
conference with the Senate thereon.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Neugebauer moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3121 be 
     instructed, to the maximum extent possible within the scope 
     of the conference, to (1) include in the conference agreement 
     the provision in section 106 of the bill S. 2284.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Capuano) will be recognized for 30 minutes each.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Section 106 of the Senate flood insurance bill would 
reform the National Flood Insurance Program in a significant way by 
phasing out taxpayer subsidies and requiring that rates are based on an 
actual risk of flooding basis.
  The Senate bill achieves this goal more quickly and fairly than the 
House bill, which does not begin phasing out premium subsidies for 
nonresidential properties and nonprimary residences until 2011.
  We owe it to the American people whose lives get turned upside down 
in the aftermath of flood disaster to encourage an efficient, effective 
program, with adequate resources to be there for them when they need 
it.
  Risk-based pricing will reassure taxpayers that they are not 
subsidizing those who choose to live in high-risk areas near coastal 
lowlands or flood plains where many property owners have repetitive 
losses.
  Section 106 of the Senate version of the flood bill would also 
eliminate subsidies within 90 days of enactment for prospective 
policyholders of nonresidential structures, nonprimary residences, and 
severe repetitive loss properties.
  It would also eliminate subsidies within 90 days for properties that 
undergo improvements or renovations that exceed 30 percent of the fair 
market value of the property, and any property that sustains damage 
exceeding 50 percent of the fair market value after the enactment of 
this bill.
  In addition, Section 106 includes a provision that would prohibit 
subsidies and require risk-based pricing for prospective policyholders 
if the property was not insured within 90 days of enactment or if the 
policy lapses as a result of deliberate choice by the policyholder.
  Risk-based pricing would also be required if the prospective 
policyholder refused to accept an offer for mitigation assistance or 
relocation following a major disaster.
  These are prudent measures to strengthen flood programs, phase out 
taxpayer subsidies, and encourage a premium pricing structure that is 
based on the actual risk of the property to flooding.
  While not part of this motion, I also believe it would be ill-advised 
to force the National Flood Insurance Program to take on new risk of 
wind coverage, as it would expose taxpayers to further losses and could 
unnecessarily interfere with the functioning of private wind insurance 
markets.
  The Republican minority believes that the chief objective of Congress 
should be to reform the existing National Flood Insurance Program, 
including the removal of subsidies over time to improve the long-term 
solvency of the program. Adding new coverage to the program that has 
already lost $18 billion is a move in the right direction.
  Madam Speaker, I want to stop and reiterate that the program, the 
reason this is so important is that we continue to subsidize this 
program and the deficits keep going up. Now, some people say, Well, the 
program pays for itself. But the truth of the matter is, Madam Speaker, 
this Congress is going to have to write off billions of dollars because 
the system is currently insolvent now, and now others want to increase 
and expand the coverage and postpone putting risk-based premiums in 
place.
  The American people already are dealing with a lot of other issues. 
They don't need to be dealing with having to subsidize the National 
Flood Insurance Program any longer.
  As the conferees work on this final flood insurance bill, we ask that 
they produce a bill that is fiscally responsible and does not saddle 
future taxpayers with more losses.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 14564]]


  Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, on reading this motion to instruct, it 
seems reasonable, well-thought-out, and we have no problems with it.
  Therefore, with that, I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. In addition to rising to offer this motion to 
instruct on H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act 
of 2008, I believe it's also critical that we talk about another issue 
that is very important to the American taxpayers, and that is a sound 
and reliable energy policy for our country.
  I am repeatedly frustrated and I know the American people are 
repeatedly frustrated that this Congress has done nothing this summer, 
this year, to produce one additional barrel of oil to help reduce the 
dependency problem that this country has on foreign oil. This is not 
only an economic security issue for our country, it is a national 
security issue for our country.
  We know that we have seen in the last few days that the Iranian 
Government is flexing their muscle and they are saying that they want 
everybody to know that they are a world power and that if people make 
them mad, or if they decide to do something, that they could close the 
Strait of Hormuz, where I think someone said almost 40 percent of the 
world's oil passes through that port. That just says to us that this is 
a national security issue as well.
  There's a very simple solution to America's energy problem. It's not 
complicated, it's not complex. It's a simple, three-letter word. It's 
yes. It's saying yes to drilling for oil within the borders of the 
United States of America. It's saying yes to drilling in Alaska and off 
the Outer Continental Shelf. It's saying yes to continuing to develop 
and use the 250-year coal supply that America has. As someone said a 
while ago, we are the Saudi Arabia of coal.

                              {time}  1130

  There are new technologies out there converting coal and liquefying 
it to use as a very clean and efficient energy source.
  It is saying yes to building more nuclear power plants in this 
country. We haven't built a new nuclear power plant in I think over 30 
years. It is a very safe, reliable source of energy and does not create 
a lot of greenhouse gases.
  It is saying yes to building new refineries in our country. Not only, 
Madam Speaker, are we importing 70 percent of our oil, but because we 
haven't built a new refinery in this country in over 30 years, we are 
importing from 10 to 15 percent of our gasoline.
  It is saying yes to renewable and alternative energy sources, such as 
wind, solar and biofuels.
  Madam Speaker, what we need to do is have a balanced energy program, 
looking at renewables, looking at new technologies, but also producing 
American resources.
  This growing energy crisis is affecting every facet of Americans' 
daily lives. As they try to drive to work, I had recently a telephone 
call with a constituent, and he said, Congressman, I have to drive 
three times a week to get medical treatment, and it is over 100 miles 
to and from to get that treatment. He said, I am down to the decision 
now whether I can afford to be able to go and get my treatment or buy 
groceries or make my rent payment. I need some help.
  Madam Speaker, the American people are looking to this Congress to do 
something. And we can do something. We can say yes; yes to new 
technologies, yes to producing American resources, instead of exporting 
billions of dollars to foreign countries and letting them develop their 
resources.
  I believe last month, June, the average import, this is daily import, 
Madam Speaker, was 13 million barrels a day, 13 million barrels a day. 
That is $1.8 billion dollars every day that America gets up and writes 
a check to send somewhere else. Not to invest in America. We write a 
check for $1.8 billion every day to send to some foreign countries.
  Madam Speaker, unfortunately, some of those countries that we send 
that check to aren't all that friendly to the American people. Our 
friend, Mr. Hugo Chavez from Venezuela, we write him a check every day 
for $170 million. I am sure the American people are pretty excited that 
$170 million of investment that could be building America's resources 
and creating jobs in America is going down to South America, to 
Venezuela, to one of the people that have said we are imperialists and 
that they have invaded America not with armies, but with their oil.
  So, Madam Speaker, what we have to do is we have to begin to look at 
why we are not doing anything in this Congress.
  One of the things I have noticed that we worked on this summer, and I 
know the American people will be extremely excited to know, is that we 
have protected foreign cats, foreign dogs, monkeys, and today we will 
spend about 3 or 4 hours naming a scenic route. Now, I think that 
really goes a long way to assuring the American people that we are in 
fact working on energy solutions that will bring lower energy prices 
for the American people.
  Madam Speaker, we have to begin to say yes, not only to these high 
energy prices affecting Americans' ability to go to and from work. 
Teachers, for example, in rural areas, driving 50, 75 miles, their cost 
of transportation is almost doubling, but their salaries are not going 
up. Those teacher contracts are out right now and they are saying, 
should I accept that teaching contract in that little rural community, 
where it is going to almost take a pay cut to do that because of the 
cost of gasoline?
  It is affecting food prices. One of the things we know about energy, 
Madam Speaker, is it is interwoven in every aspect of our life. In the 
production of food, farmers are paying record prices for fertilizer and 
for diesel. So that is just the production side. The chemicals have 
gone up. Several chemical companies in the last few weeks have 
announced double digit increases in the cost of their commodities.
  Now that we have produced those products, now we have to get those 
products to the processors and to the market. The cost of processing 
that food has gone up. Once we produce that food and we process it, 
then we have to deliver it to the distribution systems, and from the 
distribution systems to the grocery stores, and then the American 
people have to go to the grocery store. All along the way, these high 
energy prices are causing huge inflation for our country, and, Madam 
Speaker, we have to do something about it.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I was under the false impression that we were here to 
talk about flood insurance. I guess flood insurance isn't that 
important to my Republican colleagues, and that is fine by me.
  I said yes, you must have missed it, I said yes to your motion to 
instruct. Now, after your debate, I am kind of maybe rethinking my 
position, but probably not, because I don't want to get dragged down 
there.
  But I am no energy expert. I am learning as we go along. It is not in 
my background. But I know one thing: For 12 years, the Republicans did 
nothing on energy. Nothing. For almost the entire time I have been in 
Congress, we have had two oilmen running this country. They have done 
nothing on energy. Now, all of a sudden, they found it, and we have to 
sit here today and listen to a Republican advertisement while we are 
debating flood insurance. Flood insurance.
  I understand the politics of it, and that is all well and good, but 
it just does amaze me that it is not enough to keep campaigning out on 
the street. Go knock on some doors, and maybe you will win some 
elections. You don't win elections by pontificating on the floor of the 
House. You do it by meeting and greeting people and then listening to 
what they want.
  One of the things they want is for the oil companies to drill on the 
68 million acres they already have. Why aren't they drilling there? Why 
not?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAPUANO. Not at this point, because I am going to get the rest of 
the

[[Page 14565]]

ad in a few minutes. You will get your time.
  They are concerned that somehow we are sending money to someone who 
is not too friendly. I know that. We all know that. Why didn't you do 
anything for 12 years? How did you just find this now? And did you just 
discover it as we were getting into flood insurance?
  Now, I understand fully well. I had no intention of debating this 
issue. Again, the motion to instruct that we came here to debate is 
fine. We do need to act on flood insurance, and we will. And I also 
realize that I will hear the rest of the Republican ad in a moment.
  I, for one, have never engaged in pontification on this floor. I 
haven't done a single Special Order yet in 9 years, because my way to 
communicate with my constituents who elected me is to go home and say 
hello and shake their hands and look them in the eye and listen to 
them, not to pontificate amongst each other.
  I understand that that is not the way you campaign. That is fine, and 
I look forward to the remaining few minutes of the Republican national 
ad that hasn't worked thus far and I doubt will work between now and 
November. But I am looking forward to hearing all the wonderful things 
that you are going to do now, when you didn't do them for 12 years.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  In attempting to respond to the gentleman on the other side of the 
aisle, he said, what have we been trying to do in terms of energy? Did 
we just discover it? Well, no, that is not the case. We have been 
trying to work on energy for the last number of years. Let me just give 
the gentleman some figures.
  On ANWR exploration, every time it has been brought up in the last 6 
or 7 years, 91 percent of the Republicans have supported it; 86 percent 
of the Democrats have voted against exploration in ANWR, a clear 
delineation between the two parties.
  Coal-to-liquid. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have more coal 
than anybody else in the world. So wouldn't it make sense to try and 
use new technology to take coal to liquid? Every time it has been 
brought up, 97 percent of the Republicans have supported it; 78 percent 
of the Democrats have opposed it. That is not pontificating. That is 
voting on the floor.
  Oil shale exploration. Along with Canada, again, we are the Saudi 
Arabia of oil shale. Every time it has been brought up, 90 percent of 
the Republicans have voted for it; 86 percent of the Democrats have 
voted against it.
  Outer Continental Shelf exploration. Every time it has been brought 
up, 81 percent of the Republicans have voted for it; 83 percent of the 
Democrats have opposed it.
  The gentleman says, why aren't we drilling on some of those leases? 
Well, the definition of an idle lease is a lease where drilling has not 
yet occurred. That means you have to go through all of the existing red 
tape, such as permitting and environmental laws. The process can take 
years. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy on the other side of the aisle.
  My friend on the other side of the aisle and his allies in the 
environmental community, what have they done? Environmental protests 
have increased by 718 percent over the last 7 years. Three million 
acres of currently leased land is tied up in courts, where it cannot be 
utilized.
  You ask why they are not leasing? Because they can't, because they 
are subjected to lawsuits. Companies are unable to begin exploring on 
the land they have already leased. Fifty-two percent, 52 percent of the 
wells that have been drilled, exploratory wells offshore, have proved 
to be dry holes. That is why they are not producing on those.
  When I was here 20 years ago during the Reagan administration serving 
in this House, the Reagan administration managed to lease 160 million 
acres of onshore land. Today only 50 million acres are leased. ANWR 
contains 10.4 billion barrels of oil. 100 percent closed. Offshore, 86 
billion barrels of oil we believe are there by the U.S. Minerals and 
Management Service. 97 percent of it is closed off.
  And the gentleman says we are pontificating. We are not 
pontificating. We are asking your side of the aisle to allow us to have 
votes on these issues. Allow us to have a vote on ANWR; allow us to 
have a vote on coal-to-liquid; allow us to have a vote on oil shale; 
allow us to have a vote on offshore drilling, Outer Continental Shelf 
exploration; allow us to have a vote on refinery capacity increases. 
That is not pontificating. That is saying allow the American people to 
have these particular supply-oriented responses to the energy crisis 
voted on on the floor.
  Now, the gentleman may say, we just go home. I go home. I just got 
back from home. I talked to people in my district. You know what they 
said? Get back to Congress and vote to change the laws to allow supply.
  Now, once again, unless your side of the aisle is capable, excuse me, 
Madam Speaker, unless the other side of the aisle is capable----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, unless the other 
side of the aisle is capable of suspending the law of economics, the 
law of supply and demand, we have to start dealing with the supply 
side.
  We have dealt with the demand side. The American people in the last 
several months have dropped their usage per capita of gasoline greater 
than they have at any time since we have kept records. The American 
people are responding in responsible ways. They are responding on the 
demand side. They are asking us to help them be able to respond on the 
supply side.
  That is not pontificating. That is not politics. That is governance. 
We are asking for good governance. Allow us to have the chance to vote 
on these things on the floor, and then let the votes fall where they 
may. Maybe the gentleman from the other side of the aisle is correct in 
his assessment that the American people don't want more supply. I 
suspect he is wrong. The only way we will know is if we have a vote. 
Just give us a vote.
  I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, I didn't hear much that surprised me. I 
guess I must have been mistaken. If I heard 52 percent of the holes 
were dry, that means 48 percent of them weren't, and they are not 
producing.
  I know for a fact that in the oil wells and the oil rigs that they 
have in Alaska now in Prudhoe Bay, they claim to have more natural gas 
than they know what to do with. Yet they have never built a natural gas 
pipeline. There was no obstruction to that. None whatsoever. I must 
have missed it.
  During the 12 years I talked about, Republicans controlled the House, 
the Senate and the White House for most of those years and still did 
nothing. Still did nothing.
  Some Democrats do have some concerns, and I am proud to be one of 
them. Some concerns are about simply saying drill anyplace you want, 
don't worry about the environment. I don't necessarily think in the 
final analysis that is the way out. I think there are other ways. I do 
think that some drilling is appropriate, most of us do, which is why we 
are encouraging oil companies to do it. I don't get it.

                              {time}  1145

  And maybe I am mistaken, but a few years ago we had a vote on the 
floor of this House relative to offshore drilling in Florida. And then 
Governor Bush and every Republican member of the Florida delegation 
voted against that. Voted against that.
  Now, I don't mind. But let's be honest about this. You did nothing 
for 12 years. You think you have a political hit here. Good luck. Good 
luck. Because I think the American people have

[[Page 14566]]

already tried your way, to just simply give everything to the oil 
companies and not ask for anything back. I think they want to try a new 
way. And in the final analysis, we will get where we want to go. 
November will allow us a greater majority here, it will allow us more 
Members of the Senate, and it will probably give us the White House 
with people who actually want to do something rather than simply talk 
about it.
  Now, my full degree of preparation for this debate was to be pulled 
out of a hearing on the entire financial crisis with Secretary of 
Treasury Paulson and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Bernanke. 
I wish I had come here more prepared with statistics and votes from 
1902 and all those other things; but the truth is, this is nothing more 
than a political commercial.
  The rebuttal is easy. It is almost painfully childish: The American 
public hasn't bought it and won't buy it. But I also realize, my 
presumption is there is still more time left for Republican 
advertisement, and we will hear a few more minutes of it as we speak 
now.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I appreciate the gentleman, and I think the 
leadership in his party has been very clear of what their energy policy 
is: No, we are not going to do anything about it.
  I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's 
leadership on this.
  My good friend from the other side said he didn't come prepared to 
talk about his side's strategy on energy. Well, let me share with you 
what an aide from the Democrat side said just this week. He said, 
``Right now, our strategy on gas prices is to drive small cars and wait 
for the wind.''
  That is the problem, Madam Speaker. Because when we want home last 
week, all of us went home last week for the Fourth of July break, we 
met with our constituents; and we heard what I suspect my friend from 
Massachusetts would hear if he asks, and that is, that they understand, 
the American people understand that supply is important. And this is a 
dynamic situation.
  He talks about a vote a number of years ago on whether or not there 
ought to be offshore exploration. Well, Madam Speaker, the situation 
has changed. The American's people opinion has changed. What has done 
that? $4 a gallon gasoline that the other side has done nothing about.
  On our side we have attempted for years, literally for years to 
increase supply. In fact, as has been recited by my good friend from 
California earlier, we have passed all sorts of legislation out of the 
House of Representatives. What has happened is that they have died in 
the Senate. They have not gotten the 60 votes that they needed. But, 
Madam Speaker, I have great confidence in the responsiveness of the 
United States Senators, who have also been home and appreciate that 
this situation has changed.
  The American people are demanding American energy for Americans, and 
there are solutions that are on the table. H.R. 3089, No More Excuses 
Energy Act, would reduce the price of gasoline by opening new American 
oil refineries. Investing in clean energy sources such as wind, 
nuclear, and captured carbon dioxide, and making available more 
homegrown energy through environmentally sensitive exploration of the 
Arctic Energy Slope and America's Deep-Sea Energy Reserves.
  H.R. 3089, Madam Speaker. It is there for the taking. All we ask for 
is a vote. We are not guaranteeing passage, but we do believe that it 
is appropriate for the most deliberative body in the world to have an 
opportunity to vote on increasing the supply of American energy for 
Americans. And the problem is, is that our friends on the other side 
don't want to have that vote. Why? I am not quite certain, because I 
know that their constituents are telling them what our constituents are 
telling us, and that is, increase American energy for Americans. 
Instead, what is their policy? Drive small cars and wait for the wind.
  Madam Speaker, we demand a vote on H.R. 3089 and the other bills that 
will increase American supply, American energy for Americans. Let's 
vote now.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, I think we have gotten all the wind we 
need right here right now. I am not so sure how to harness it, but I 
think we have gotten it, so we don't have to wait for it.
  And I understand the gentleman doesn't want to read any of the bills 
we have put forward. I understand that. Nor should he waste his time, 
because he is not going to vote for them anyway. I know that. But he 
still hasn't answered the reason; again, a very simple question: 68 
million acres and they are not drilling on them. Why? The obvious 
answer is they want to keep prices up.
  Why aren't they using the refineries to their full capacity?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAPUANO. No, I don't yield. I will get the rest of the 
advertisement later.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. The gentleman asked a question.
  Mr. CAPUANO. No, I don't yield.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAPUANO. I do not yield.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. You asked a question.
  Mr. CAPUANO. I do not yield. I have got the full advertisement.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. CAPUANO. You have wasted enough time for the American public 
right now. You are wasting taxpayer dollars right now. You are entitled 
to do it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlemen will suspend. The gentleman 
from Massachusetts controls the time.
  Mr. CAPUANO. The gentleman said why don't I ask my constituents. Why 
doesn't he come to my district and ask my constituents? If he thinks I 
don't talk to my constituents, that is fine. You can insult me all you 
want. It is of no concern. The American people know your answer. Your 
answer is to simply give oil companies anything and everything they 
want and ask for nothing back. Our answer is to allow them to drill 
where there is oil, to do so in a responsible manner, to pay their 
taxes, and to not basically gouge us with ungodly prices and ungodly 
profits.
  I understand you don't want to join us in that. I respect that. Why 
you don't, I don't get; I don't have to get.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. I look 
forward to the remainder of the Republican advertisement.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) 3 minutes.
  Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of a comprehensive energy 
policy. And the gentleman from Massachusetts and I are friends and 
neighbors by offices and talk all the time.
  And do you know what? It may be entirely true that Nebraskans think 
differently than suburban Boston folks. And that is why we go back and 
we talk to our constituents. And what I hear--and this isn't evenly 
divided; this is 95-5--that people are angry at the price of gas; they 
are angry at Congress doing nothing. And we sit here in this body and 
we have no real energy bills to discuss, so we have to use a flood 
insurance bill to be able to discuss these type of issues.
  But my friend from Massachusetts brings up a point that I want to 
kind of correct and kind of agree with. We have been in Congress now 
five terms. I have been on the Energy Committee for 8 years; and almost 
every year that I have been on that committee, we have done an energy 
bill. Most of them haven't gotten to the President. We did get an 
energy bill that included drilling to the President in our first term, 
which was vetoed by President Clinton, that included ANWR.
  My friend would probably remember a lot of vicious debates on this 
floor about opening up drilling in Alaska and ANWR and the deep waters 
off the coast of Florida and the gulf coast. We had incredibly intense 
debates on that, and we passed those. We passed the refinery bill that 
would expand our refining capacity and diversify where they

[[Page 14567]]

are at in this body. So to be able to come and say on the House floor 
that we haven't done anything for 12 years is not accurate.
  What is accurate is a bipartisan opposition to energy in the Senate, 
where we did good work, but unfortunately we had a group of 40 that was 
mostly Democrat but Republicans also that voted to kill refinery 
expansions, that voted to--well, sometimes they voted on deep-sea and 
ANWR, but most of the time they just ignored what we did here, in the 
Senate. And I am angry and upset at that.
  But the people are demanding action now. And what I would like to see 
is, instead of this partisan rhetoric that we are hearing on the floor 
today, that my friends on the other side would say, hey, let's all get 
together. Because you talk about conservation. I wrote with Baron Hill 
the CAFE bill that ups the amount of fuel efficiency for the auto 
manufacturers. I am open to more of those types of discussions.
  Let's get together and work on an energy policy, instead of this 
partisan bickering that we are hearing right now.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and classmate for not 
getting further down that nasty little road. He made a good point. No 
new points. But I appreciate his tone.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, could I inquire of the amount of time 
that I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 8\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 22\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I encourage our discussion on flood 
insurance. But like my colleagues, I am very frustrated with the high 
price of gasoline. And I believe that West Virginians deserve a 
comprehensive all-of-the-above approach.
  I had a lot of conversations just last night with West Virginians, 
and they had wonderful, creative solutions. They had amazing ideas: 
Let's use algae, let's use cooking oil, let's use biomass; and, of 
course from West Virginia, let's use coal.
  We also had a gentleman who offered a great national call for 
conservation, that we would incorporate our youth through education and 
other methods to get involved with how we can conserve. But the most 
thing I heard was the question of frustration, and why are we not doing 
anything?
  Unfortunately, this House has yet to act on any legislation that will 
actually make a difference. And it is time for a change. It is time for 
this Congress to get serious about protecting consumers and taking 
action on real solutions.
  West Virginians are less concerned, as the previous speaker said, 
about the political battles that are encompassing Capitol Hill. We are 
more concerned about a bipartisan breakthrough that actually increases 
supply and makes our Nation more self-reliant.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings) may consume.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my distinguished friend from 
Massachusetts, who came here to discuss what I thought I came here to 
vote on, and that is the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act 
of 2008.
  Lest we lose sight of the importance of flood insurance, coming from 
an area where that is a continuing critical problem and knowing that 
those in the Midwest and certain portions of the South are presently 
suffering in that regard, it is regrettable that we are not focusing on 
the importance of that particular legislation.
  Now, let me also add my voice to the voices of my colleagues on the 
other side who continue to say that they want to do something about the 
continuing increase in the price of gasoline.
  I recently was before an editorial board, the Sun Sentinel Newspaper, 
in my hometown, and I was asked the question: What are you all in 
Congress going to do about gas prices?
  A footnote right here. I would that my colleagues would stop the 
folly of using the words of an aide in a congressional office as the 
strategy of the Democratic Party. What I said to my newspaper was we 
were going to use an awful lot of hyperbole between now--we, meaning 
the Congress; we, meaning the U.S. House and Senate; we, meaning 
Democrats and Republicans; we, meaning liberals and conservatives.
  What we were going to do between now and the election, I said to 
them, was talk a lot about things that are likely to take place in the 
future but that cost an immense amount of money in order to accomplish. 
And I said to them, let me give you the hyperbole. We are going to use 
the language geothermal. We are going to say biomass. You are going to 
hear alternative energy, solar or wind. You are going to hear all of 
those things, and many of those things are certainly going to be a part 
of our energy production at some point in the future.
  I also rather suspect that what is going to happen is those companies 
that supply energy today are more likely than not to be involved in 
that research and production of the alternative energy sources. But to 
say that the Democrats have done nothing, and I am now here 15 years 
and I have seen 12 years of the Republicans' attempts to do something 
about energy which amounted obviously to nothing.
  So the Democrats are in charge 1\1/2\ years, and we are told with a 
White House that is more than involved in the energy issues of this 
Nation and this world, and with a Senate that won't move a single 
solitary thing that is productive coming from the House of 
Representatives; we still have managed to enact into law the Energy 
Independence and Security Act in 2007, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act.

                              {time}  1200

  We enacted into law the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, and 
I won't go into all of the details. There is more coming, reducing 
transit fares, cracking down on price gouging, use or lose it, which my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to have forgotten that 
we just voted on before we left here, and that we are likely, just so I 
give them a heads-up, give you another chance not to go with use it or 
lose it, which compels the oil industry to start drilling or lose 
permits on 68 million acres of undeveloped Federal oil reserves which 
they are currently warehousing, keeping domestic supply lower and 
prices higher. We need to further close the Enron loophole which was 
also a part of that legislation.
  We have also passed the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act. We 
passed the Gas Price Relief For Consumers Act. We passed the Energy 
Gouging Prevention Act.
  So I continue with what I said to my newspaper, we were going to say 
switch grass. We were going to say algae. We were going to say use cane 
as Brazil does. We were going to say all of those things, and then when 
we finish, we are not going to do one single solitary thing that is 
going to cause Jane Lunchbucket, when she goes to the gas pump next 
Thursday, to witness a reduction in her gas prices.
  We have tried as best we can to deal with speculators that we know 
have driven up some of these prices. We are doing everything that we 
can to try to ensure that the 200,000 acres of oil shale that are 
already under the control of six companies are utilized.
  We allow that people need to understand that if we drill off the 
coast of Florida, and let it be clearly understood by everybody in this 
House of Representatives that I will be the last man standing saying 
that you will not drill off the shore of Florida beyond the limits of 
the law that all of us agreed to until such time you change that law. 
Florida's beaches are pristine. Florida's tourism depends upon them, 
and I am astounded that my California colleagues would come here and 
say that they want that kind of drilling. We own that opportunity. 
Sixty-eight million acres are already leased; as well as 23 million 
acres in the Arctic. What in the world are you talking about? Why are 
the oil companies not doing that drilling at this point?
  And you come down here with some simplistic solution saying that some

[[Page 14568]]

child in an office back there said drive small cars and wait for the 
wind. We aren't going to wait for the wind. T. Boone Pickens is not 
waiting for the wind. He has been an oil man all of his life, and he 
has decided that among the things that he is going to do is get 
involved in wind research.
  I go to Denmark frequently in an organization that I work with. 
Denmark is supplying more than 30 percent of their energy with wind. 
And most of the windmills that you see come from that Denmark area. 
Assuredly at some point wind is going to be a major source, as is 
geothermal, as is gasification.
  All of us know the buzz words, but let's stop kidding Americans. The 
solutions are costly, and the energy companies are the ones that are 
more likely to do this rather than us sitting around here with some 
mumbo-jumbo and a bunch of people running down here so that they can 
have a bumper sticker.
  Everybody goes home, everybody buys gas, everybody knows it is high, 
and none of us in this place are going to do one doggone thing between 
now and the time that we leave here that is going to cause it to come 
down that much that it will be dramatic.
  I have one more proposal: A tax credit for Jane Lunchbucket and Joe 
Lunchbucket. Give them a tax credit. When I was a child, we had oil 
coupons because oil was cheap, not cheap, but at the same time was not 
plentiful. So during the Second World War, we did what was necessary, 
and I would ask all of my colleagues in this body, just ask yourself 
the question: What would Roosevelt do? I think what he would do is say 
that we have a national crisis and that we owe it to ourselves to focus 
on what it will take, worldwide, in this global economy that we live in 
and in our Nation to undertake to do what is necessary for the American 
public.
  I thank my colleague for yielding me this time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to 
instruct, but I also rise in support of my colleagues who today are 
stressing the plight of the American people concerning the price of 
gasoline.
  Let me just note that this weekend I was surfing in my district. My 
wife and I are avid surfers, and my friend and colleague from Florida, 
who also, of course, represents a State with a long coastline, should 
understand that we have had offshore oil rigs off California for many, 
many years, off of my district for many, many years. The only oil spill 
we have ever had has come from a tanker which had an accident off our 
shore.
  Those people who are adamantly opposed to offshore oil drilling, as 
we have just heard, are actually making us more vulnerable. They are 
making their pristine beaches more vulnerable to spills because a 
tanker has about a 500 percent greater chance of spilling oil than does 
an offshore oil rig.
  In fact, let us note that we have heard the argument time and again, 
why aren't the oil companies drilling off the land they have already 
been given? In my area that is very clear. The reason the oil companies 
can't proceed is that they have been stopped by roadblocks put before 
them, legislative and legal and regulatory roadblocks by radical 
environmental groups that won't let them drill and won't let them get 
to that oil. As long as the alliance for the radical environmentalists 
and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party keeps hold, we are not 
going to get that supply.
  The price of oil is high, gasoline is high because the supply is 
down. The supply is down because there is a coalition between the 
liberal left and radical environmentalists that have prevented any type 
of new supply from being developed in the last 30 years. It's as simple 
as that. The money being extracted from our pockets at the pump is a 
result of the lack of supply. The idea that pristine beaches are going 
to be threatened by offshore oil rigs has been used to diminish supply 
and increase the price of oil at the pump.
  I rise in support of the motion to instruct and the arguments in 
favor of more supply of oil for our country.
  Mr. CAPUANO. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I was not going to speak here this morning, but I have heard the 
rhetoric on the floor and it is really sort of disheartening to be a 
Member of this body and see all the pointing of fingers going on on 
energy. I sit on the Energy and Commerce Committee and in my role as 
the chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, we have 
held six hearings in the last 2 years about what is happening with gas 
prices, oil supply, and what is happening in our markets, especially 
with speculators. We continue to work on legislation to do a number of 
things.
  But I think the honest thing we have to tell the American people, any 
Member of this House, Democrat or Republican, if they had it within 
their power to lower a price of a gallon of gas, they, we, would do it. 
We would have done it. We realize the pain that is being felt by the 
American people.
  When I was home doing my Fourth of July parades, people demanded we 
do something. I finally said to one of them, ``Don't you think if 
Congress had the magic wand and could lower gas prices tomorrow, we 
would have done it?'' There are some things that are out of the hands 
of the U.S. Congress at this point in time.
  So what is our strategy to move forward? What can we do immediately? 
Supply and demand. It is more than just supply and demand. The price 
has doubled within a year, and there have been no shortages in the 
supply.
  If you take a look, when we were doing these Fourth of July parades, 
oil was $145 a barrel. Today, Thursday, July 10, USA Today, Moneyline, 
it is $136.05. Why did it drop $10 in less than 7 days? That's the 
volatility we see in the market right now. It is a very volatile 
market. Some of us want to bring stability to the market and lower 
these prices. Why the $10 drop when nothing has really happened? There 
is no more supply that came on the market. We do have more speculators. 
We do have this Democratic Congress holding hearings, like in the Ag 
Committee, regarding excess speculation in the market. Some of us have 
been working on that angle since 2006.
  We have had legislation, the PUMP Act, to stabilize prices and to 
lower prices. So if you take a look at the PUMP Act regarding how we 
get these prices down from $136, it is to close the Enron loophole. The 
Enron loophole says the Commodity Futures Trading Commission will not 
deal with energy or energy derivatives. We had turned a blind eye to 
what happened in the market.
  We should close the swaps loopholes. Eighty-five percent of the 
trades now on energy are going through a swap loophole.
  We should enforce the aggregate position. You're only supposed to 
hold 20,000 contracts for oil on NYMEX. So I hold 20,000 on NYMEX. I 
hold 20 on Dubai, I hold 20 on the London exchange, the ICE Exchange, 
as they call it. There are 60,000 contracts. Every contract represents 
a thousand barrels of oil.
  The foreign boards of trade. You set up a foreign board of trade and 
you give it a name like the London Exchange or ICE Exchange, and guess 
what, we outsource the enforcement of the trading that is going on in 
this country for West Texas intermediate crude oil. That's what has 
happened. We've outsourced our responsibility, and we rely on London 
and Dubai to enforce laws to make sure that the markets are performing 
accurately and not these wild swings we see each and every day.
  So I don't care if you're Democrat or Republican, if we had a way to 
lower gas prices, we would do it.
  I believe one thing we can do to immediately bring some relief, 
without drilling all over the world, is close these loopholes, the 
Enron loophole, the swaps loophole, enforce aggregate positions, close 
the foreign boards of trades. We can do that. We are having a hearing 
today, and it will be going

[[Page 14569]]

again tomorrow, and hopefully next week we can bring forth this 
legislation. So let's take the speculators out of the market so we 
bring a stable price and less volatility in the market.
  And then let's look at opening more areas for drilling. Democrats are 
for that. We are for that when we take a look at the long term. And why 
don't we streamline. In fact, we did. In 2005, the Energy Policy Act, 
passed under the Republican majority, I was a conferee to that bill, we 
streamlined so we could bring more refineries online, but no one has 
done that. We streamlined the process so it is easier.
  So all of this finger pointing going on here is not doing the 
American people or any of us a lot of good.
  We have to look at alternative fuels. The first commercial bio-diesel 
fuel in Michigan is in my district. I am proud of that. Is it enough? 
No, but it is a start.
  So we need a short-term strategy and a long-term strategy. I think 
the PUMP Act prevents an unfair manipulation of prices, gives a short-
term strategy, stabilizes the prices, and gets the volatility and 
excess speculation out of the market. And then let's look at long-term 
solutions.
  So instead of coming down here and saying one side is going to do 
this and one side can't do that, that is hogwash. None of us have 
within our power to lower gas prices today or tomorrow. Let's be honest 
with the American people. What we can do is get the speculators out of 
the market, do a reasonable approach, and let's take a look at some 
long-term solutions.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, just in response to the gentleman, 
what can we do, we can increase the supply. And as the other previous 
speaker from Florida said, we are not talking about geothermal or 
switch grass, Madam Speaker. We are talking about proven technology. We 
know we that can use oil. We know that we can use nuclear. We know that 
we can use coal. And the only way you are ever going to lower the price 
is increase supply, yet my colleagues on the other side are saying 
``no.'' The American people are saying ``yes.''
  I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Westmoreland) who has been trying to bring this point to the forefront 
in this Congress.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I also want to address what the 
gentleman from Michigan on the other side just got through saying about 
they are for drilling. Well, if they are for drilling, why is it that 
they pulled the appropriations bill when there was just a mention of 
having an amendment to allow drilling?
  Let me just go back to April 2006 when then-minority leader Nancy 
Pelosi, now Speaker, said the Democrats have a commonsense plan to 
lower the skyrocketing price of gas. Where is that plan? Well, the plan 
was supposed to be, I guess, H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 which came forth. I am assuming this was the 
commonsense plan that the Democrats had.

                              {time}  1215

  Well, you know what? If they want bipartisan for it, if they wanted 
to vote on drilling, if they want to vote on getting to the Outer 
Continental Shelf, or if they wanted to be serious about tar sands, 
alternative fuels, coal-to-liquid, shale oil, then why did we have a 
closed rule? Why did we shut out half of the American people in this 
country that have representation in this body that didn't have a voice 
about an amendment on the floor that did not have an amendment in the 
Rules Committee?
  If we're so bipartisan now that this issue has come up and that the 
majority has not been able to address it, why are we wanting to be 
bipartisan now? Why weren't we bipartisan when we passed H.R. 6? And 
let me tell you this: In that bill of over 300 pages, crude oil's 
mentioned five times, gasoline is mentioned one; exploratory drilling 
is mentioned two; offshore drilling, zero; domestic drilling, zero; 
domestic oil, zero; domestic gas, zero; domestic fuel, zero; domestic 
petroleum, zero; gas prices, zero. Commonsense, goose egg.
  Greenhouse, 103; green building, 101; ecosystem, 24; climate change, 
18; regulation, 98; environmental, 160; geothermal, 94; renewable, 333; 
swimming pool, 47. And yes, don't forget the popular CFL light bulb, 
350 times.
  Madam Speaker, we cannot regulate our way to energy independence. We 
cannot tax our way to prosperity. When is the majority party going to 
understand that we have got to do some of these things that we hear 
them talking about?
  It's time to show the American people, Madam Speaker, that we mean 
business about lowering the price of gas at the pump. I want to quote 
this, and I think this is a representation of what the Democratic Party 
did to the American people in 2006.
  This is a quote from Mr. Kanjorski from a newspaper:
  ``Now, anybody who is a good student of government would know that 
wasn't true,'' Mr. Kanjorski said at an Ashley town hall meeting in 
August. And he was talking about ending the war.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has 
expired.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. ``But you know the temptation to want to win back 
Congress--we sort of stretched the facts, and the American people ate 
it up.''
  Well, I've got something to say to Mr. Kanjorski and the majority 
party. The people are paying the price for that meal that they had of 
lies and untruths and half-truths. They're paying the price for it at 
the pump.
  It's time we took action. It's time we make it where the American 
people didn't have to make the choice of visiting a sick relative in 
the hospital or going to work.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, I wouldn't mind getting a list of these 
radical environmentalists. I would like to know who they are because I 
wouldn't want to associate with them. I don't know where they're 
meeting to somehow deny the oil companies their massive profits. I 
would like to know what they are doing. When they get the list of 
radical environmentalists, I would just respectfully ask that they send 
it over to me because I would like to know who they are so I can make 
sure not to hang around with them.
  As I understand it, I still haven't heard any reason--I don't 
understand this. We have said ``yes'' to drilling. We have given out 68 
million acres to do it on. We have given out 10,000 permits that are 
being unused now. Right now as we speak. There are refineries that have 
excess capacity right now. Right now. Today. Right this very minute. 
Not being utilized.
  With all of this land that they have that they don't want to use, 
we're simply trying to get them to use it. Even John McCain says he 
doesn't want to drill in ANWR. He knows that that's a red herring. He 
knows that that's not the answer. He knows that there are other answers 
that are more readily available that will get us where we want to go 
more quickly without destroying the last bit of environmental parts of 
this country that we have.
  Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not going to agree with many things that 
Mr. McCain has to say. But he's right on one. And I'll give it to him.
  If the companies don't want to use the land that they have, why don't 
they give it back? Either drill or get off the plot. Very simple. Or 
explain to us who these radical environmentalists are who have somehow 
secretively been so successful at foiling the good-hearted intentions 
of our major oil companies in providing us low-cost oil. Because if 
that's the case, I will sign up with Exxon and Sunoco right now and 
deny my friends on the environmental side, unless, of course, I find 
that they're so successful, they're so capable that maybe they'll 
convert me, and maybe I will join them. But I'd certainly like to know 
who they are.
  Mr. DOYLE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAPUANO. I certainly will yield to my friend from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. DOYLE. Since the oil companies apparently don't want to drill in 
all of this land that's accessible to them today, and since our friends 
on the other side of the aisle want so desperately to get oil out in 
America to

[[Page 14570]]

lower gas prices, I would ask them to join Democrats in asking 
President Bush to release 10 percent of its gross 70 million barrels of 
oil in the economy immediately, not 10 years down the road once we 
start some new drilling project, but immediately we could have oil in 
the domestic economy just by releasing 10 percent of the SPR without 
affecting any national security concerns and gasoline prices could come 
down.
  So I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will join us in 
asking President Bush to do that immediately.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, maybe they can just say ``yes'' to that.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, it's my honor to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished minority leader, Mr. Boehner.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague from Texas for yielding.
  I think all of us understand that American families are struggling 
with the high costs of food, health care, and yes, the high cost of 
gasoline. Small businesses are struggling. And what Americans are about 
to see in the coming months is that the cost of fuel is in virtually 
everything that we buy and everything that we use. And when we begin to 
see these giant price increases in the coming months, the squeeze on 
American families and small businesses is going to get a lot worse.
  That's why I and my Republican colleagues have been supporting a plan 
that says, Let's do all of the above. If we're serious about energy 
independence, we're serious about wanting to help our economy, help 
families, and help small businesses. We know we need to conserve more 
fuel, more energy in America. That's why many of us voted to increase 
CAFE standards to get higher fuel mileage for American cars. We also 
need to continue to promote biofuels, and whether it's cellulosic 
ethanol, whether it's regular ethanol, biodiesel, there's still room to 
grow in the biodiesel area.
  We also need to have alternative sources of energy, whether it be 
wind, whether it be solar, geothermal, hydroelectric. All of these 
alternatives are out there. But we ought to make sure that the 
incentives that we have are sufficient to help bring these alternatives 
to market as soon as we can.
  But we also need to be serious about nuclear energy. France produces 
almost 80 percent of its electric from nuclear energy. In America, 
we've put such a stranglehold on the ability to construct a nuclear 
plant that it takes over 15 years and billions of dollars to maybe, 
maybe get one sited, much less build it and to operate it. We can meet 
all of the safety concerns of nuclear energy in a much more efficient 
way that would allow people to bring these plants on and save the oil, 
gas, and coal that is used today.
  But even if we did all of these, we haven't done enough. We haven't 
done enough to take the step toward truly helping Americans be energy 
independent. And that's where we need to drill. We need more American-
made oil and gas. And we can do this. But a lot of people on the other 
side continue to say no.
  1989, when the ANWR bill was on this floor, George Miller, my 
colleague and friend from California, said, We shouldn't pass this. 
Because even if we passed it, we wouldn't see any oil or gas out of 
ANWR for 10 or 12 years. Well, let's see. I'm not the greatest 
mathematician, but that was somewhere around the year 2000 we would 
have started to see a million to a million and a half barrels of oil a 
day coming out of ANWR.
  The House has passed ANWR drilling legislation 10 or 12 times. It's 
the Senate that continues to block it. But in 1995, the Senate actually 
came along. We passed an ANWR drilling bill. We sent it to President 
Bill Clinton. And he said when he was vetoing the bill that well, even 
if this were to become law, we wouldn't see any oil or natural gas out 
of ANWR for 10 years. Well, let's see. That's 2005. So for the last 3 
years we would have been getting a million to a million and a half 
barrels of oil a day.
  Now, my colleagues on the other side want to make all kinds of 
excuses. They want to blame the speculators, they want to blame the oil 
companies, they want to blame everybody other than who they should 
blame. Get the mirror out. Look in the mirror, because it's my 
colleagues on the other side over the last 20 years who, over 85 
percent of the time, have voted to block more American-made energy. 
Every single time.
  Now, we've been having this debate the last several months about 
having a pro-energy vote here on the floor of the House. Right here. 
Right here in the people's House. Why can't we vote? Why can't we have 
a debate? Why can't we let the American people see where their Congress 
is, where their Members are? What do we have to fear? Oh. We have to 
stop the appropriation process because oh my goodness, somebody might 
offer an amendment that would lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. 
We can't expose our Members to a vote like that. They might vote the 
wrong way.
  Why can't we have a vote right here on the floor of the House on 
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a 19-million acre plot 
of ground and where we would use about 2,000 acres to actually do the 
drilling? Now, if you want to look at that, that's the size of a 
postage stamp on a football field. That's how much of ANWR would be 
affected by oil production up there.
  Why not have a vote? Why not let the Members make a decision. 
Offshore oil drilling. How about oil shale in the Intermountain West? 
Why can't we have a vote here to have more energy production?
  But I'm going to say it one more time. We need to do all of the above 
if we're serious. And we can drill in an environmentally sound way, and 
that's what we should be doing.
  Madam Speaker, I support the gentleman's motion to instruct, and I 
would tell my colleagues on the other side we're not going to leave 
here for the August recess until we get a vote on having more American-
made energy.
  And I see my friend, the majority leader, coming down. Maybe he can 
promise us that we will get a vote over the next 3 weeks on having more 
energy produced right here in America.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader, 
the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I was in my office, as I have been over the days recently, where I 
see the distinguished minority leader rise, I see other Members on that 
side of the aisle rise, beat their chests about drilling. My side of 
the aisle is for drilling. We just had a press conference on drilling. 
But as I sit there, I think to myself, you know, the American people 
gave the opportunity to the Republican Party, the minority party now in 
the House of Representatives, to lead this country; and they gave them 
all of the power in Washington. They gave them the Presidency, the 
House of Representatives, and the United States Senate. They did that 
in the year 2000. They had already given them the House, and two oil 
men were elected President and Vice President.
  In January, the Vice President decided to have, and he had over the 
coming months in 2001, he convened a meeting, a secret meeting of those 
involved in the energy industry to adopt energy policies.
  Now that meeting--the minority leader is now leaving, but we will see 
him later--that meeting perhaps resulted in success, I don't know. I 
don't know what the meeting was about.
  But during the course of the Presidency of Bill Clinton, oil went 
from $1.06 to $1.46. A nickel a year, 5 cents per year was the increase 
in the cost of gasoline at the pump for Americans.

                              {time}  1230

  And then, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the Republicans came 
to town, all of town, and gas went from $1.46 in January 20, 2001, to 
over $4.10 on average throughout this country. Pretty stark. It now 
goes up from time to time 5 cents a day, where under Bill Clinton 5 
cents a year.
  And then the Republicans, 5 years later, adopted a bill, 2005, their 
energy

[[Page 14571]]

policy. They were in control of the House, control of the Senate, and 
they had the Presidency. They passed that bill. Gas was then about 
$2.20. And they said we've adopted an energy policy--said it on the 
floor, said it when they signed the bill--we have done a bill now 
that's going to stabilize prices, going to make sure that Americans 
have energy supply. That's what they said. That's not what we said.
  Now, ladies and gentlemen who are listening to this debate on this 
floor, I tell you that there are 68 million acres right now, right now 
available for leasing. You wring your hands and say, well, open up 
places for drilling. We've done that, friends. Look at the statistics, 
68 million acres in the lower 48 and another 20 million acres, give or 
take a million, in Alaska.
  They talk about a wildlife refuge that they want to drill in, but 
they don't talk about the 20 million acres in the National Petroleum 
Reserve area in Alaska currently available. The administration could be 
pursuing leases on it. We may well have legislation to say, 
Administration, start moving, start drilling, start bringing product to 
the market so we'll bring prices down.
  Now, of course, one of the aspects of bringing prices down, my 
friends, will be that the oil companies will make less profits. I know 
everybody in America believes that the oil companies want to get more 
products so they can bring prices down and make less profit. I know all 
Americans believe that's the way the system works.
  The Republicans keep harping on drilling. We want to drill. We want 
to produce more American product. And by the way, we're going to bring 
legislation to the floor that's going to say when you drill, sell it 
here in the United States of America, keep our resources here in the 
United States of America.
  I want to tell my friends, there are 88 million acres. And now, let 
me tell you something, 88 million acre, that's Maine, Vermont, New 
Hampshire, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 
Delaware, and most of Maryland. Now, I know my friend from Texas thinks 
that's not much of an area of space, but I will bet everybody listening 
to this debate thinks that is a pretty large piece of property on which 
you can drill in America today. Why? Because we want to produce energy.
  But I will tell you, one of the reasons we're in this pickle is 
because for a quarter of a century, for a quarter of a century that 
I've served in the Congress, a little more than that, the Republican 
Party has taken the position, no, we don't want to invest in 
alternatives, we don't want to see alternative energy sources 
developed.
  And you can say it's not true as much as you want, I tell my friend, 
but the record reflects that has not been the priority. The priority 
has been, let's get more oil. We want to get more oil.
  But I will tell you a country, as Boone Pickens said--I don't know 
whether you read Boone Pickens. He's one of the people who thinks that 
some of the policies you have been pursuing aren't too bad. He's not a 
Democrat. Here is what Boone Pickens said. The problem, of course, is 
our growing dependence on foreign oil. It's extreme, it's dangerous, 
and threatens future generations. And he says in this article in The 
Wall Street Journal, you are not going to drill yourself out of this 
hole that we've dug. He says, rightfully, that we need to see 
investments in alternatives.
  Now, happily, last year when we took office, took control of the 
House and the Senate, we adopted a bill, the President signed that 
bill, which looks to alternatives to complement the relatively small 
supply. America demands 25 percent of the energy resources in this 
world, and we have 3 percent of the petroleum supply. My friend the 
minority leader said he wasn't much of a mathematician, but you don't 
have to be much of a mathematician to know that if you're relying on 
that 3 percent, it's not going to be there very long.
  So, yes, my friends, we need to find more domestic product. We need 
to drill where we now have authorized drilling to occur, and if that 
doesn't produce the resources that experts tell us are on that 
property, then I tell you this. Then we ought to look at other 
alternatives, and perhaps we ought to look at other alternatives now.
  But for you to have a blind eye and pretend to the American people 
that somehow we're not allowing people to pursue drilling on our soil 
here in America and on the Outer Continental Shelf, I want you to know, 
that is currently authorized where drilling is not occurring, then you 
are misleading the American people. The American people ought to know: 
The Democrats want to make sure that we have more domestic product.
  The Speaker has written a letter to the President just the other day 
saying, Mr. President, we have 773 million barrels of oil that are in 
our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Mr. President, use some of those, as 
your father did, as Bill Clinton did, at a time of economic crisis to 
help our people, help our people get to work, help them get their kids 
to school, help them afford their other expenses.
  So I tell my friends that we need to deal with this issue. We're 
going to deal with this issue. We're concerned about this issue, all 
435 of us, but to hear day after day after day that somehow we, who 
came to office just 18 months ago, after an energy policy was conjured 
up by the Vice President and the White House and an energy bill was 
passed in 2005, that somehow, somehow what's happening now is our 
fault, the American public aren't buying that. Polls show that.
  But I will tell you, that we can work together because we need to be 
energy independent. It's a national security objective, an economic 
security objective, and we also need to keep our environment from 
choking our children and generations to come.
  We're committed to both of those objectives, and we will join with 
all those who want to do the same.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, one of the things I want to say is we 
are more than willing to work in a bipartisan way if the majority 
leader has a plan to supplant the fact that we import 13 million 
barrels a day. If he's got some plan to do that, the Republicans will 
stay here till December to pass that legislation.
  I just want to also let the gentleman know that the largest wind farm 
in the world is in my congressional district, and there's more wind 
power in my congressional district than in the whole State of 
California. We were able to accomplish that in just 5 years.
  Madam Speaker, what the American people that are here today, they 
want to know is, is this Congress, is this majority, going to do 
something about energy. Either yes or no.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, I think everything that needs to be said 
has been said. I appreciate the opportunity to listen to the preview of 
the November election. I look forward to seeing the 30-second version. 
I don't know how it's going to be cut down, but I'm looking forward to 
it.
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record 
the following concerns and suggestions regarding certain sections of S. 
2284, the Senate version of the Flood Insurance Reform and 
Modernization Act. These specific concerns were expressed to me by 
officials from the town of Marana, Arizona. They relate to the 
potential adverse effects these sections could have on the Marana 
community. I urge my House and Senate colleagues to take all of these 
concerns into consideration while negotiating the final version of this 
bill.
  The specific concerns relating to Section 6 are the reason I will 
vote ``no'' on the Republican Motion To Instruct Conferees.
  The town of Marana's concerns are as follows:

       1. Section 6, Reform of Premium Rate Structure: Much of 
     this Section seeks to disallow preFIRM (Flood Insurance Rate 
     Map) rates for second homes, repetitive loss structures, 
     substantially improved structures, commercial structures, and 
     others. However, the current language could have unintended, 
     adverse consequences. Of concern to Marana is Subsection 
     (g)(1), which states:
       ``(g) No Extension of Subsidy to New Policies or Lapsed 
     Policies.--The Director shall not provide flood insurance to 
     prospective insureds at rates less than those estimated under 
     subsection (a)(1), as required by paragraph (2) of that 
     subsection, for--(1) any property not insured by the flood 
     insurance program as of the date of enactment of the Flood 
     Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2008;'' . . .

[[Page 14572]]

       We are concerned that Subsection (g)(1) would preclude the 
     writing of any new pre-FIRM policies after the enactment of 
     the legislation. This could negatively affect residences that 
     were built pre-FIRM but then placed into a floodplain by a 
     subsequent map change after the legislation is enacted.
       2. Section 7, Mandatory Coverage Areas: The intent of this 
     Section appears to be the accurate portrayal of risk behind 
     man-made flood control structures. Subsection 107(b)(1) reads 
     as follows:
       (1) include any area previously identified by the Director 
     as an area having special flood hazards under section 102 of 
     the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a);
       This language would essentially require properties located 
     in areas that had once been designated as floodplain, but 
     since removed from the floodplain, to continue to carry 
     mandatory flood insurance. Marana would like to point out 
     that many Letters of Map Revision (LOMR) incorporate better 
     information (hydrology or topography) than was available when 
     the maps were originally created. These types of LOMRs do not 
     involve physical construction and therefore the areas removed 
     are not typically residual risk areas. Areas that are at a 
     residual risk after a LOMR from a physical change would be 
     accounted for in Subsection 107(b)(2), which reads as 
     follows:
       (2) require the expansion of areas of special flood hazards 
     to include areas of residual risk, including areas that are 
     located behind levees, dams, and other man-made structures
       We recommend this language be revised. It is problematic in 
     that it equates residual risk areas to Special Flood Hazard 
     Areas (SFHAs). SFHAs are high hazard areas requiring normal 
     flood insurance. Residual Risk areas typically require less 
     flood insurance or preferred risk policies. Also, the 
     language is not clear regarding man-made structures that are 
     distinct flood control structures.
       The language could be revised as follows:
       (2) define residual risk areas to include areas that are 
     located behind levees, dams, and other man-made flood control 
     structures
       3. Section 8, Premium Adjustment: This section overrides 
     the practice of grandfathering original zone designations. 
     Grandfathering has been an important part of the National 
     Flood Insurance Program and has been used to help mitigate 
     the impact of zone changes when flood maps are revised. 
     Section 8 discredits floodplain management. Structures that 
     are compliant with the code and mapping in effect at the time 
     of their construction should be grandfathered and remain 
     compliant.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________