[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18764-18770]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        THE DEMOCRAT ENERGY BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Altmire). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I will be joined this evening on the floor by 
a number of distinguished colleagues, and we're going to take the 
opportunity on what we believe, Mr. Speaker, is the eve of a historic 
debate on energy legislation in the House of Representatives, to talk 
about the issue that is most bearing upon the American family. It is 
most bearing upon American business. It is most bearing upon our 
schools and our seniors and our standard of living, and that is, the 
high cost of fuel and gasoline.
  The American people are hurting, and Republicans here on the House 
floor are delighted that this Congress is back in session, that the 
lights are back on and the cameras are back on because, all through the 
month of August, while the House Democrats took a 5-week paid vacation, 
Republicans stayed here because we simply believe that there's no issue 
of greater import to working Americans, small business owners or family 
farmers than the cost of gasoline and the high price of oil.
  I will say to you that the disappointing economic news in August, Mr. 
Speaker, can be explained with one phrase: The high cost of energy is 
costing American jobs, and the American people know this.
  As I traveled the four corners of my eastern Indiana district this 
past weekend, I did not hear about the bowling scores of Presidential 
candidates. I didn't even hear about lipstick very much. But I heard 
one Hoosier after another saying to me, please, get Congress to do 
something real about lessening our dependence on foreign oil and 
lowering the price of gasoline at the pump. And that's why we're here 
tonight, to talk about this issue.
  It's an issue on the front page of my hometown newspaper, the largest 
newspaper in my district, I should say, the Muncie Star Press. After 
Ike hit shore, gasoline prices went to $4.29 a gallon. In parts of my 
district, they were reported to be well over $5 a gallon in the 
Midwest.
  The headline tells the tale: Hoosiers are helpless. Millions of 
American people are helpless, Mr. Speaker, as they see a Congress that 
has over the last two years of this Democrat majority twiddled its 
thumbs while gasoline prices rose and rose and rose, and then they took 
their 5-week paid vacation.
  But as I said, Republicans never left. As newspapers reported and 
radio reported all throughout the course of this summer, we stayed on 
this floor even though the lights were dimmed and the microphones were 
off, and we kept demanding that Speaker  Nancy Pelosi would bring this 
Congress back into session and would bring a bill to the floor of this 
House that would give the American people more access to our own 
domestic reserves through drilling and include all of the other 
strategies long-term energy independence, more conservation, more fuel 
efficiency, solar, wind, nuclear.
  A lot of people are looking at Congress this week with the word that 
we're going to be debating an energy bill that newspapers are reporting 
includes drilling and they're saying, Mike, what's your problem? It 
seems to me you were one of those people arguing in the dimmed lights 
of the House Chamber for the whole month of August, demanding that 
Congress come back. They came back. Demanding that they bring an energy 
bill to the floor with drilling. And it looks like they are.
  Well, I want to say, Mr. Speaker, to you and anyone looking in, it 
only looks that way. The energy legislation that will be brought to 
this floor, according to the best information we have, will do 
virtually nothing to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. If they have 
their way and take them at their word, it will still leave more than 80 
percent of our domestic reserves forever off limits.
  Now, we are going to gather tonight with some of the most 
distinguished and eloquent voices in the House Republican caucus to 
talk about this bill, to talk about the Democrat energy bill.
  But I want to frame this debate, because as near as we can tell, Mr. 
Speaker, the Democrat majority's going to file a bill tonight with this 
21st century energy crisis underway that sounds like they're going to 
debate for a whole day, maybe a day and a half, and then we're being 
told we'll be voting by the middle of the week.
  Now, I don't want to get lost in the weeds of boring the American 
people who are looking on tonight with talking about subcommittees and 
committees and things we call markups, but the American people deserve 
to know that this bill, if it's filed tonight, we're being told the 
Democratic energy bill hasn't been written in any committee by people 
elected by the people of the United States of America. It hasn't been 
written in any normal process. It's been written in the back rooms of 
the Speaker's office.
  Ironically, in the middle of August this year, as many of us were 
clamoring on this House floor with the lights dimmed, calling on the 
Democrat majority to come back and debate energy, we learned that an 
environmental group known as the Sierra Club had endorsed their bill. 
Well, we'd never seen the bill. In fact, we still haven't seen the 
bill. But it's coming.
  And so what we are going to do tonight is we're going to do our level 
best to use the franchises that we have on this floor to inform the 
American people about what's going on here, and I'm going to use, Mr. 
Speaker, the Whip Pack that's put out by the office of the 
distinguished majority whip, the Honorable James E. Clyburn, and it's 
about five or six pages of, you know, what people in the political 
business call talking points about the Democrat legislation.
  And let me be clear, I know I and the distinguished legislators on 
the floor tonight, we would love to be debating the bill but we don't 
have it. The Democrat majority is about to bring an energy bill that 
they're calling the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer 
Protection Act, and the title of the bill is all I really know at this 
point. It will likely be hundreds, if not thousands, of pages long, but 
we'll talk about the talking points tonight.
  But I want to make two points before I yield to my colleagues. Number 
one, the American people deserve to know that the Democrats have made 
rhetorical progress in this battle. The truth is that Speaker  Nancy 
Pelosi, a San Francisco liberal Democrat and a distinguished Member of 
this body, who I respect as a person, has been accurately described in 
the media as a zealous opponent of offshore drilling since the 1980s.
  Speaker  Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco has, like many liberals in 
California, been an ardent opponent of offshore drilling throughout her 
public career and was an ardent opponent of even taking a vote on 
offshore drilling until I think last week.
  Let me give you the tale of the tape here. As recently as July 11, 
Speaker  Nancy Pelosi told the New York Times, ``This call for drilling 
in areas that are protected is a hoax.'' She said, ``It's an absolute 
hoax.'' This is this last July. Speaker of the House said, and I quote 
her with respect, ``It's an absolute hoax on the part of the 
Republicans and this Bush administration.''
  In an interview on July 17 on CNN, an interview with Wolf Blitzer, he 
said, ``So let me get--will you allow the issue, offshore oil drilling, 
to come up for a vote on the floor of the House?''
  Speaker Pelosi, ``We're going to exhaust other remedies in terms of 
increasing supply in America . . .''
  Wolf Blitzer, ``So the answer is no?''
  Speaker  Nancy Pelosi, ``I have no plans to do so.''

[[Page 18765]]

  In fact, many of us remember on August 3, a couple of days after that 
Congress adjourned for a 5-week paid vacation, a memorable and, in my 
opinion, a workmanlike journalistic job by George Stephanopoulos on 
ABC's ``This Week'' Sunday morning program where he must have asked 
Speaker Pelosi five different times whether she would ever allow a vote 
on drilling. And she said no about as we say south of highway 46, 
different ways from Sunday, no, no, no, no.
  In other settings, Speaker Pelosi, has said, and I quote that she's, 
quote, trying to save the planet, presuming that allowing the American 
people to environmentally, responsibly take advantage of our own 
natural resources on the Outer Continental Shelf in the gulf or in 
Alaska would endanger the earth.
  And let me say, that's entirely her right to hold that view. It's 
just not the view of the overwhelming majority of the American people, 
and it is certainly not the view of the majority of the Members elected 
to Congress. All the Republicans and many Democrats are prepared today 
to vote to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling that's been in 
place for decades.
  So I guess that my first point to make today, Mr. Speaker, to you and 
those looking on is, is first and foremost, let's understand our 
context here, that throughout the course of this newly minted Democrat 
majority, Speaker  Nancy Pelosi has made it crystal clear until very 
recently that she was categorically opposed to this Congress ever 
voting on drilling. I think we ought to evaluate the Democratic 
proposal in the context of her sincerely held views up to a week ago.

                              {time}  2145

  And I would say with that, allowing for a belief in the sincerity of 
all of my colleagues, I think we ought to trust, but verify. I think we 
ought to look at the detail. Someone who has been, throughout her 
public career, a vociferous opponent of offshore drilling now allowing 
what we're being told is a bill that would allow offshore drilling, you 
know, we probably ought to read the fine print. And that's what we're 
going to try to do tonight. I can assure my countrymen who may be 
looking on, we will be trying to do that in the whole day we will be 
debating this energy proposal. A day.
  You know, I worked on legislation that passed the House this year by 
398 votes, a bipartisan measure; I have currently been working on it 
for 4 years. It has been debated through committees, it has been 
debated through the House, it has been considered in the Senate. And 
that's pretty typical in legislation. But this bill is going to be 
introduced tonight, and we may debate it for a day.
  I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Let me just ask you a question; I thought that when the 
Democrats took control, they promised the most open process in the 
history of the United States Congress. You've told us here in these 
remarks tonight that we're going to debate this for a whole day--a 
whole day. I thought those rules said that, in this open Congress, 
Members would get 24 hours to see a bill before it was voted on. I 
think our colleague, Mr. Westmoreland, brought that to our attention. 
And yet you mentioned that this bill has not gone to Rules yet and 
wasn't written in subcommittee or full committee or ever marked up in 
subcommittee or full committee. And it's in Rules in the dark of the 
night as we approach 10 o'clock here on the east coast. You can't 
really mean they're not going to give us 24 hours. You can't really 
mean they're going to write this bill in a back room and yet bring it 
to the floor still tomorrow, with less than 24 hours in this, the most 
open Congress in history?
  I would be happy to yield back the gentleman's time.
  Mr. PENCE. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I thank my friend from Indiana. But to the 
gentleman from Arizona, let me point out that that was only a promise.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Oh, okay.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Yes. A Congress working for all Americans is the 
Democratic promise. And what the Democratic promise says is, ``bills 
should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee and 
committee markups with appropriate referrals to other committees. 
Members should have at least 24 hours to examine a bill prior to 
consideration at the subcommittee level. Bills should generally come to 
the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate, 
consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the 
right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute. Members should 
have at least 24 hours to examine a bill and conference report text 
prior to floor consideration. Rules governing floor debate must be 
reported before 10 p.m. for a bill to be considered the following 
day.''
  It also says that the suspension calendar should be restricted to 
noncontroversial legislation. I would like to remind my friend from 
Indiana that all the legislation that we've had thus far in the 110th 
Congress that dealt with energy has either, number one, been brought up 
under a closed rule or under a suspension rule. The closed rule means 
no amendments. The suspension rules mean no subcommittee, no committee, 
no amendments, just a straight 20 minutes for each side.
  And I've got some other points I want to bring up, but I'll let you 
talk about these empty promises that has come about.
  Mr. PENCE. Reclaiming my time, and I thank the gentleman from Arizona 
and the gentleman from Georgia. And in the few minutes that I'm going 
to take before I yield to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, if anyone senses 
a bit of incredulity in our voices, it is borne of profound 
frustration, the profound frustration that the American people are 
hurting. And they don't want backroom deals coming to the floor of this 
Congress; they want a fair and open debate that lets the Congress work 
its will and develop a bipartisan strategy that achieves energy 
independence in the 21st century. We cannot do that in 24 hours. We 
cannot do that with backroom deals that are done in the dead of night 
with no amendments allowed on the floor, one-size-fits-all. That smacks 
more of politics than the kind of bipartisan accomplishment that the 
American people expect from the people's House.
  Now let me give a few details about what we know about the bill that 
has not yet even been filed in the Congress and could be voted on the 
day after tomorrow.
  The Democrat energy bill. Let me just give you 10 ways the Democrat 
energy bill fails the American people.
  The Democrats' energy bill, number one, permanently locks up 80 
percent of American oil reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf; 80 
percent. If it passes intact, 80 percent of our reserves will be off 
limits forever.
  Number two, the Democrats' ``no energy'' bill, as we know it now, 
permanently locks up more than a trillion barrels of oil from oil shale 
in the inner mountain West.
  Number three, the Democrats' ``no energy'' bill permanently locks up 
more than 10 billion barrels of oil on Alaska's remote North Slope, an 
area where energy production and wildlife have been safely coexisting 
for decades.
  Number four, the Democrats' ``no energy'' bill blocks more nuclear 
power production, efficient, less costly production than nations like 
France have been using for decades.
  Number five, the Democrats' ``no energy'' bill does nothing to 
construct new clean coal energy production.
  Six, there is an enormous tax increase in the Democrat energy bill, 
something they've been talking about ever since they took over the 
Congress, raising taxes on oil companies. Well, after the holocaust 
that struck with Hurricane Ike and Hurricane Gustav and Katrina a few 
years hence, the American people know we need more refineries in this 
country.
  Congress passed tax breaks for oil companies to encourage the 
construction of more refineries, and they want to repeal those breaks 
and now raise taxes more. I've got to tell you, the biggest laugh line 
I have in eastern Indiana is when I look at people at town hall 
meetings and at town squares and

[[Page 18766]]

I say, who among you thinks that by raising taxes on oil companies you 
will lessen the price of gasoline at the pump? It's a laugh-out-loud 
line, but it's what passes for the Democrats' energy policy.
  Quickly then. The Democrats' ``no energy'' bill, as we know it, 
permanently prevents Federal agencies from using alternative sources of 
fuel. It increases electricity costs on families, seniors and small 
businesses through new heavy-handed electricity mandates. It includes 
plans for exactly zero new refineries as I mentioned before. And it 
ultimately defies the will of the American people who want this 
Congress to work together, who want this Congress to take an up-or-down 
vote on lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling, who want this 
Congress to bring all-of-the-above strategies--wind, solar, nuclear--
and vote them up or down. But instead, we get a backroom deal, brought, 
soon to be, I assume, in the dead of night with no opportunity or 
meaningful opportunity for debate or amendment.
  With that, I'm pleased to yield to the Policy chairman of the 
Republican Conference. Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan is a colleague who 
spent more time on this floor during the August recess than any single 
Member of Congress. And I yield to him to speak about this legislation 
and its flaws.
  Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentleman from Indiana.
  As you know, a fellow midwesterner, we, in the Great Lakes State, 
have suffered gravely from the high cost of energy. We've seen our 
manufacturing sector hard hit; we've seen our tourism industry hard 
hit; and across the board, we've seen our residents hard hit by the 
high cost of energy. And they have taken exception to the fact that the 
Congress, which they elect to work for them--and the Democratic 
majority in particular--chose to take a 5-week paid vacation while they 
suffered, while their family budget shrank, and while there was time 
for politics, but no time to bring a vote on this floor for an all-of-
the-above energy strategy.
  Now, let us make one thing clear: You will hear much from the 
majority Democrats that this is a drilling bill. This fails on two 
accounts. First, this is a political bill. All statements by the 
majority party have been phrased in the context of a political decision 
to provide them cover with the electorate they have so ill served over 
the course of the last 18 or 19 months. So when you say that we have 
incredulity on our side of the aisle, it is more than that; we have 
indignation at the way the process has been abused to prevent help 
going to our constituents through a sane, sound, all-of-the-above 
strategy.
  Secondly, what we are most concerned about is the fact that the 
Democratic majority seems to believe its own myth that all the 
Republicans care about is drilling. This is not the case. Drilling is a 
technique. What the Republican Party has been about is the maximization 
of American energy production. It is not the technique, it is the goal.
  We have focused on an all-of-the-above strategy that requires maximum 
American energy production, commonsense conservation, and free market 
green innovation so we can have a responsible transition to American 
energy security and independence. And when we see a bill come forward 
that says we are going to allow some drilling, we are going to somehow 
continue the government rationing of America's energy and provide you 
with maybe 20 percent relief by allowing you access to those precious 
materials and fossil fuels--which are yours, the American people--we 
not only strain credulity, we not only raise indignation, but what we 
have done is we have insulted the intelligence of the American people 
that somehow help will be on the way.
  So when this bill comes forward in the manner that you and the 
gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from Georgia have talked 
about, this is surely proof positive that this is a political ploy. It 
is not an energy policy suitable for the United States in the 21st 
century. And we have no doubt that while some on the majority side in 
the Democratic Party may have the witty talking line that Republicans 
will not take yes for an answer, I have no doubt that the American 
people will not mistake the Democratic Party's ``no'' for a solution.
  I yield back to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the Policy Committee chairman for his remarks.
  I am informed, Mr. Speaker, that I stand corrected; that the 
legislation that I said had not been filed was filed during my opening 
remarks. And so anyone looking in should be aware that at 9:45 p.m. 
Eastern tonight, or thereabouts, the Democrat majority's plan for 
achieving energy independence in the 21st century was filed. We do not 
know the contents of the bill; we do not know the length of the bill. 
We are attempting to receive a copy of it and will attempt to report on 
that as much as we can before we adjourn tonight.
  The Secretary of the Republican Conference, the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas, John Carter, is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. I thank you very much for recognizing me on this issue.
  You know, tonight, as we gather here, a bunch of Texans have just 
weathered a pretty rough storm down there in our part of the world. And 
it brought to the forefront something that Americans have already 
experienced in Indiana, and that is, when one-fifth of the refining 
capacity of the United States is hit by a hurricane because it is 
concentrated on the gulf coast, then we're going to see gas prices and 
diesel prices go up.
  And even though tonight there are double shifts working in every 
refinery--and we were blessed that those refineries were not damaged 
more than just slightly--to bring that production back up is just like 
any other factory you shut down, you have to bring it back up to get to 
full production. And it will take days, and maybe even weeks, to where 
we're back. And the market knows that, and the market fears that. Just 
look at what happened when one refinery burned outside of Chicago 
partially, that's the first jump in gas prices, if Americans will think 
back to when the first jump in gas prices occurred.
  Now, the reason why I bring this up, not only do I think about my 
neighbors back home and all the pain and suffering that they're going 
through, and then I think about the neighbors around the country that 
are going to suffer as a result of this natural disaster down there 
with the prices, and then I think about the fact that Republicans on 
this House floor have been trying to get something done about refining 
capacity for 30 years. And for 30 years, it has been the policy of the 
Democrats to say ``no more refineries.''
  And as the gentleman mentioned, we finally got at least an incentive 
package to try to get refineries to start building new refineries. And 
quite frankly, if you're putting together an energy plan and you're 
talking about just refineries, shouldn't you maybe think about putting 
them someplace else besides the Texas and Louisiana and Mississippi 
gulf coast, seeing as we know what happens there all the time when it 
comes to hurricanes? We should be having a plan for just the simple 
matter of having some gasoline and diesel produced in this country.
  Now, Americans have common sense. Things don't have to be complicated 
for them. They look at an issue and say, are you telling me that this 
bill was written by the Speaker of the House and her folks with really 
no input from anybody? What makes them experts? And do I want them 
planning my life and my energy needs for the next 20 years in the back 
room of the Speaker's office?

                              {time}  2200

  Now I think the American people say no.
  And I think the American people would say that this is an issue that 
should have some concentrated effort. Maybe they should have been here 
for the 5 weeks that the Republicans were here. I think the people back 
home were saying maybe we should have been meeting, which they seem to 
talk a lot about, in a bipartisan method to come up with a real all-of-
the-above energy solution the Republicans started talking about 6, 
almost 7 weeks ago

[[Page 18767]]

on a Friday afternoon when they shut off the lights, shut off the mics 
and ran off the press in this very House. But we Republicans stayed. 
And we talked. And we said this is a crisis. And then we've had another 
natural disaster which has enhanced that crisis. It's time that we wake 
up and realize, quit playing politics with that long distance trucker 
who is going to have to pay maybe $6 or $7 for diesel and not make a 
dime on his load. Or I had a rancher tell me that today, if you sell a 
calf at the auction in central Texas and you get $90 for him, $45 of 
that is in energy costs. It's time for us here in this Congress to wake 
up and instead of cramming eleventh hour pieces of legislation that 
look like the Fort Worth phonebook down our throats, maybe we should 
have that bipartisan discussion.
  It's a shame that this type of legislation, and I can see it in your 
hand there, has come here in the last, it's 10 o'clock, in the last 20 
minutes. It's time we get to work as Americans and pass a comprehensive 
energy plan that we all participate in.
  Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Congressman Carter.
  The gentleman from Texas just made reference to what I have in my 
hand, which is the bill, Mr. Speaker. It was filed just a few short 
moments ago. We will be debating it tomorrow because what is known as 
the Rules Committee is meeting tonight to outline the parameters of 
debate. And it looks like some of us are going to be up late. It's 290 
pages. And for those who might be looking in, you're looking realtime 
at what passes for legislating in the Democrat majority in Congress. 
It's 290 pages filed tonight. And we're voting on it tomorrow. And I 
assume the committee is meeting tonight and can move quickly because 
there will be apparently no, if any, amendments allowed.
  Now let me say before I yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
Arizona on this issue, when I said earlier that this legislation locks 
off permanently 80 percent of our domestic oil and natural gas reserves 
on the Outer Continental Shelf, let me explain that to you because I 
have confirmed it now in the bill. This bill permits leasing and 
drilling for oil between 50 and 100 miles if States opt in. Of course 
it offers absolutely no revenues to the States for opting in the way 
that current law does with States along the gulf coast and the way that 
the Republican bill offers States, I think 39 percent of revenues go to 
States. And 10 percent goes to the Federal Government in the Republican 
bill, and then 50 percent of the revenue goes into developing new 
alternative energy strategies. But when I say that it permanently locks 
it off, there is no drilling here permitted between the current 3-mile 
threshold and 50 miles. None whatsoever. It's banned permanently.
  And to give you an idea of what kind of resources we're talking 
about, eastern seaboard 3.8 billion barrels estimated, 3.7 billion in 
the eastern gulf of Mexico, 11 billion barrels in the Pacific coast. 
And most experts say most of it's between 3 and 50 miles. The Speaker 
of the House called plans to drill a hoax. And I'm not in the name-
calling business, but the American people should know that this so-
called energy bill which includes so-called drilling actually bans the 
American people from the overwhelming majority of our domestic reserves 
on the Outer Continental Shelf forever.
  Let me yield to the gentleman from Arizona, John Shadegg, for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I want to thank the gentleman for conducting this 
Special Order. I think it's vitally important. I want to thank all of 
my colleagues, the chairman of the Policy Committee, my colleague, Mr. 
Westmoreland from Georgia, and each of my colleagues who have spoken 
before me. It is I think a particularly sad moment. Kids grow up in 
schools in America today believing that legislation is written in a 
committee process allowing people across the Nation, quite frankly, to 
have input either directly themselves to that legislation or through 
their Member of Congress. And so they get out a textbook when they grow 
up that says ``How a Bill Becomes a Law.'' And it shows that a citizen 
has an idea, and they take it to a legislator. And that legislator says 
that is a good idea, and they write it into a bill. And then they bring 
that bill to this floor and they introduce it. And the bill gets 
assigned to a committee, and from the committee to a subcommittee. And 
it goes through a subcommittee hearing and a subcommittee markup and a 
full committee hearing and a full committee markup. And then here in 
our body it might go to a second committee. And ultimately it goes 
through Rules Committee.
  I suggest that in America we need to amend our textbooks because 
under the current regime under Speaker Pelosi, that does not happen. 
Bills get written. This bill of huge moment and of huge importance to 
the American people was not ever written or introduced or seen in a 
subcommittee, never seen in a full committee, never had a chance for 
input. And that is shocking. But let me point out why that matters.
  It matters because the Nation believes this week in Washington we're 
going to do something important. The Nation believes this week in 
Washington we're going to take up the drilling issue. I want to suggest 
to you, and I know my colleague understands this, that nothing that 
happens this week will have any legal meaning, any practical impact at 
all. I don't mean to be harsh. But it is a charade. It is, quite 
frankly, a hoax on the American people. And let me tell you why. Not 
one of these bills, not the bill you just held up, not any of the three 
bills that will be debated in the House and Senate this week, will 
produce a drop of oil. And if Americans sitting across the country are 
saying, well finally we're going to draft a bill that will produce some 
oil, they need to sit down. They need to listen carefully. They're 
about to be shocked. Not one drop of oil will be produced.
  I will tell you why. Because the bill didn't go through a committee 
markup process. All of these bills are silent on legal challenges. I 
asked the gentleman in the chair to listen. He is a thoughtful 
Democrat. He knows that these things matter. I ask him to listen. Not 
one of these bills contains language dealing with legal challenges. And 
without that language, there won't be a drop of oil. Let me tell you 
why. This Nation has got people in it who will file lawsuits 
challenging whatever we do, and not a drop of oil will be produced.
  Back that claim up, Congressman Shadegg. Well let me tell you the 
story. Here are the facts. Radical environmentalists, the Center for 
Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra 
Club and numerous others, Earth First, have filed lawsuits blocking 
every single oil lease issued in this country and all future oil leases 
already.
  Let me give you some shocking statistics. In February of this year, 
the Bush administration issued 487 oil leases in the Chukchi Sea, which 
is the coast off the west side of Alaska. Radical environmental groups, 
the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense 
Council, the Sierra Club and others challenged not 80 percent of those 
leases, not 90 percent of these leases, they challenged with a lawsuit, 
pending right now, stopping those leases from going forward, all 487 
leases. They didn't let one go forward.
  The government decided to issue a 5-year plan for oil leases in 
Alaska and in the lower 48. And so in July of 2007, the Federal 
Government issued a plan to allow oil leasing over the next 5 years. 
Radical environmentalists, the Center for Biological Diversity and 
others, already filed lawsuits challenging every existing oil lease and 
every future oil lease. In Alaska there are a grand total of 748 oil 
leases. How many do you think have been challenged? I will yield to the 
gentleman. How many do you think have been challenged if there are 748?
  Mr. PENCE. I would speculate 748.
  Mr. SHADEGG. The gentleman is precisely correct. That is to say 
whatever bill we pass today, whatever oil leases come from that bill, 
if Joe back in Texas or Sarah in Washington State or Jill in my State 
of Arizona or Jack in Utah believe that that bill will in fact lead to 
drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, they are wrong. It will lead 
to nothing because radical environmentalists will sue every single oil

[[Page 18768]]

lease. This year in the Chukchi Sea, we issued 487. They sued to block 
487. In all Alaska including the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, we issued 
748, and they filed to block 748.
  The Minerals Management Service this year approved an exploration 
plan for 12 leases in the Beaufort Sea. That is to say an oil company 
came in and said we've got a lease. We now want to go forward. Here is 
our exploration plan that they have to file with the government under 
current law. There were 12 of those that were approved this year by the 
Minerals Management Service of the Federal Government. How many of the 
12 were challenged? All 12. You got it right.
  There is another lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act going 
after every single lease in the country. But it is not just in the 
Outer Continental Shelf. Let's talk about here in the United States. On 
July 16, 2008, the Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State office, 
auctioned off 78 oil leases, some in New Mexico, some in Kansas, some 
in Oklahoma, some in Texas, the gentleman who just spoke. Out of 78 
leases they issued in New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, along 
comes a group called the Western Environmental Law Center and Wild 
Earth Guardians, and they filed suit against not 80 percent of them, 
not 85 percent of them, not 92 percent of them, they filed a lawsuit 
against 100 percent of the leases in New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma and 
Texas. The government issued 78 leases. Radical environmentalists sue 
78 leases.
  This is I think a really sad day because the Democrats are holding 
themselves out, and tomorrow on this floor, they will say they are 
addressing drilling in this country. They will say they are going to 
allow drilling to go forward. And it is a charade. It won't happen 
because they know that the Center For Biological Diversity, Natural 
Resources Defense Council, and friends like Wild Earth Guardians will 
file suit and stop not some of these leases, not most of those leases, 
but every single one of them.
  That makes me sad because it has the Congress deceiving the people of 
Arizona, the people of America. They are deceiving the people of my 
home State of Arizona too, and it shocks me. This is amazing. And 
somebody might say well, Congressman, that is the norm. People can 
always file suit. That is not true. When we did the Alaska pipeline, we 
wrote a provision into the law that said, if you want to file suit, you 
have to file it in this court and it has to be done in this amount of 
time. All of us on the floor here were here when we passed the 
legislation to build fencing along the southern border of the United 
States to keep out illegals. In that legislation, we said that if you 
want to file a legal challenge, the government can get you past that 
legal challenge.
  I want to suggest, as I conclude here, that if Speaker Pelosi really 
wants to produce oil, if the Democrats on the other side in the Senate, 
the other body, really want to produce oil, if our friends, our good 
Republican friends who are a part of the original gang of 10, now maybe 
it's the gang of 16 or the gang of 20, if they really believe they want 
to produce oil and they want to contribute to this, it's easy.

                              {time}  2215

  You can write language into the bill that says we are going to allow 
lawsuits. Everybody believes in the process of law. I call myself a 
recovering lawyer. I don't want to preclude all lawsuits. But we can 
write reasonable language to block dilatory lawsuits, language that 
says you must file any legal challenge to this bill within 180 days, 
and it takes priority over any other litigation, and it must be 
resolved within that 180 days, and then you get a period of time of 
maybe another 180 days for appeal.
  If we pass a bill here in the Congress, in the House or the Senate, 
which says to the American people we are going to allow drilling to 
occur, and it is silent, as that bill you are holding is, it is silent 
on expediting legal challenges, the bill is meaningless and we will 
have played a nasty, mean-spirited trick on the people at home who want 
us to do something about oil.
  I call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. If they care 
about solving the problem of drilling, if they really mean yes, I am 
willing to allow some compromise on drilling, then it has got to have 
language expediting lawsuits.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his extraordinary 
insight on this issue. It really does beg the question, Mr. Speaker, 
for anybody looking in. This is the Democrat energy bill. It was filed 
we think about 30 minutes ago. It is 290 pages long, so I can't speak 
with authority about what is in it, because I haven't had a chance to 
read it.
  But what we know is not in it is any expedited litigation reform that 
would prevent environmental organizations or radical, leftist groups 
from tying up our domestic oil reserves in the courts, as they are 
doing in existing leasing areas. Also what is not in it is any revenues 
at all to drill in that 50 miles out to 100 miles out.
  Mr. Speaker, if you think we are suggesting that that is more 
important than it really is, I would quote to you Democrat Senator Mary 
Landrieu, who in her hometown newspaper this weekend urged House 
Democrats to oppose the House Democrat bill. Democrat Senator Mary 
Landrieu said because the bill offered the States no money to drill off 
their shores, that it was ``dead on arrival in the Senate.'' She said, 
``It most certainly won't see the light of day in the Senate.''
  So as I prepare to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Minnesota, no one wants to see a bipartisan compromise on comprehensive 
energy legislation more than me.
  I spent a good chunk of my August recess talking in a darkened 
chamber. I would love to see the Congress come together this week and 
figure it out and share all the credit. But it has to be a serious 
effort to say yes to solar, yes to wind, yes to nuclear, yes to 
conservation, and it has to be a serious effort to say yes to giving 
the American people more access to American oil. And when one hears the 
gentleman from Arizona and one hears people like the Democrat Senator 
from Louisiana, one comes to the conclusion this is not a serious 
effort to give the American people more access to American oil.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, Michele Bachmann.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding, and I 
hear the frustration that is in your voice, because you are echoing the 
frustration that the American people are feeling all over this country. 
Right now, they are taking their pencils and breaking them, they are 
taking their shoe and throwing it across the room, because they can't 
believe that for the 21 months that the Democrats have held the gavel 
in this Chamber, they have only now tonight, for the first time in 21 
months, had the guts to put on this floor their ``commonsense energy 
plan.''
  From what we know of this bill so far, this ``commonsense energy 
plan'' doesn't have a lot of energy in it. If you take about 80 percent 
of the Outer Continental Shelf and make it illegal, permanently off 
limits to energy production, how can you with a straight face before 
the American people say that you want to get serious about solving this 
problem?
  This isn't a bill. As our colleague Representative Shadegg said, this 
is a charade purported upon the American people. So what we are saying 
is, whose side are you on? Whose side are you on? Do you want a pro-
American energy bill? That is what we want. We want to be truly energy 
independent.
  I want to piggyback back on what Representative Shadegg said. He 
talked about the lawsuits that have been filed. Every single lease that 
has come up for sale has had a lawsuit filed.
  I just want you to know, in my district we have the longest-running 
unfinished bridge project in the history of the United States of 
America. Why? Because we have lawsuits filed by the Sierra Club. We 
still don't have a bridge coming on line, because the Sierra Club now 
has run up the tab so that people in my district will be paying over 
$400 million to build a bridge

[[Page 18769]]

because we have lawsuits filed against this bridge.
  Why do we even allow lawsuits at all? If the United States Government 
certifies that land is available for leasing, shouldn't the United 
States Government certify that this land should be truly available for 
leasing? We don't need these outside groups to come in and file these 
lawsuits, because, after all, if there is a problem with the 
environment, if there is a problem with laws being violated, don't we 
have the Minerals Management Service that could issue a fine, that 
could issue a temporary restraining order, that could prohibit that 
company from drilling at all and pull that lease back? Certainly they 
could.
  Why do we allow these leases at all? We are in a serious situation in 
this country. We just saw financial firms, Bear Stearns has had a 
problem. They have needed a government bailout. We have seen Fannie 
Mae, Freddie Mac. They needed the Federal government to come in and 
take them over. Just this week, Lehman Brothers is filing bankruptcy. 
We are seeing Morgan Stanley being bought out by Bank of America.
  What are the American people worried about tonight, Mr. Speaker? They 
are worried about if they are going to have a job tomorrow morning. 
They are worried if they will have enough money in their bank account 
to put gas in the tank so they can go to their job. This is serious, 
Mr. Speaker. This is no joke. That is why I think this is an insult to 
the American people.
  This is 290-some pages, as the gentleman from Indiana said. But this 
is a joke on the American people. If this won't produce one drop of 
oil, then why are we wasting our time?
  Let's face it: We have got now nine days before adjournment, nine 
days before the end of the year. Nine days. So we are going to, what, 
dance around a little bit and have a charade a little bit? We don't 
even know if we can file an amendment on this bill. We don't even know 
what we will be allowed to do.
  But the one thing I guarantee, Mr. Speaker, is we will not remain 
silent. For the next nine days, the Republicans in the House on this 
floor will not remain silent before the American people, because we are 
going to tell the truth. We are going to tell the truth that under the 
last 21 months of Democrat-controlled Congress, we have seen post 
offices renamed. We have seen Federal buildings renamed. In fact, we 
have seen monkeys saved from being transported across State lines. We 
have even seen $25 million of American taxpayer money go to foreign 
countries in the form of foreign aid to pay for foreign cats and 
foreign dogs. We have seen this come off of the floor of this body.
  But only tonight, at a quarter to 10, did we see an energy bill come 
before this body, which we believe will not produce one drop of energy, 
while the American people tonight are paying $4 a gallon for gasoline. 
If we don't get serious and really produce energy, come this November, 
the American people are going to have a choice: Do they want to pay $2 
a gallon for gasoline under a commonsense Republican plan, or do they 
want to pay $6 or $8 or $10 a gallon for gasoline? That will be the 
reality, because under a President Obama, we won't have drilling, and 
under a Democrat-controlled Congress, we know we won't have drilling. 
That is the choice before the American people, Mr. Speaker: $2 a gallon 
for gasoline, or $6 or $8 or $10.
  That is why I am so grateful to the gentleman from Indiana tonight, 
because he has pegged it. He has pegged it. He has said that this bill 
is nothing more than an insult to the American people. And that is why 
we are here tonight, as the precursor for the debate that will occur 
tomorrow.
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota, and would 
recognize the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Virginia Foxx, one of 
the most passionate, eloquent advocates of American energy independence 
in the Congress.
  Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for leading this. I want 
to say it is a tough act to follow, Michele Bachmann from Minnesota. 
She did such a wonderful job of synthesizing this.
  I want to add just a couple of comments to what she has said. The 
Democrats took over control of the House and the Senate in 2006 by 
making a lot of promises. They have broken every one of those promises, 
and this bill is a culmination of the promises that they have broken.
  As you all have pointed out, it is a 290-page bill. The Rules 
Committee is meeting now. We got it 45 minutes ago. They are going to 
come out, there will be no amendments offered for the bill. It is just 
a sham. It deserves the ``Emperor's New Clothes Award.'' That is what I 
want to give it.
  I think we need to point out, why are we allowing lawsuits? That was 
a question our colleague just asked. Let's just say it straight, folks. 
The Democrats in this Congress are being controlled by three groups of 
people: The trial lawyers, the unions, and the radical 
environmentalists. Again, this bill is a good indication of how they 
are being controlled by those three groups.
  The other thing I would say is that from the first of August of this 
year until the end of December, the Democrats will have kept the House 
in session for 14 working days. That is all. Talk about a slam against 
the American people. We are letting the American people suffer with 
high gas prices while the Congress, led by the Democrats, and it needs 
to be said 3,000 times every day, the Democrats are in charge.
  I want to say why we are going to have this vote, because I am 
quoting from today's Congressional Quarterly, so it isn't just coming 
from us as Republicans. This is an objective piece of journalism. The 
Democrats need to provide political cover to moderate members of their 
caucus who could suffer on election day unless they can show 
constituents they voted for an expansion of drilling.
  They don't expect this to become law. There is no expectation. But 
they are giving cover to a few of their members who can say, oh, I went 
home and voted for this, this sham of a bill.
  The American people are becoming more and more cynical. There is a 9 
percent approval rating for the Congress. I hope that those who are 
watching know again the Democrats are in charge. If you want a Congress 
that is not going to leave you cynical, that is not going to walk away 
from its job, that is not going to leave you paying $4 a gallon for 
gas, then you need to pay attention to who is representing you.
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for her 
passion and candor.
  If I can yield to each of our last two speakers, then we will be able 
to clear the baffles. I think those that might be looking in, Mr. 
Speaker, can sense the frustration, not of the opposite political 
party, not of a frustrated minority, but what you are hearing here is 
the frustration of public men and women that know the American people 
are hurting. Seniors, small business owners, family farmers, school 
systems are struggling under the weight of record gasoline and diesel 
prices, and we ought not to be on this floor playing politics with this 
issue. We ought to be compromising. We ought to throw open the windows, 
open the blinds, have the debate, take the votes and let the cards fall 
where they may. That is mostly certainly not what is happening this 
week.
  I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, Mr. Burgess.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman from Indiana. It just strains 
credulity. I sit on the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, and it strains credulity that I come to 
the floor of the House tonight and find that this bill has been filed 
by the Rules Committee.
  We have had tons of hearings over the last 18-20 months in our 
subcommittee, and fact is, we never got a chance to look at this bill 
in subcommittee. We never got a chance to mark it up in subcommittee or 
full committee. Why even bother having congressional committees, when 
this stuff is going to spring from whole cloth in the Speaker's Office? 
It makes no sense.

[[Page 18770]]

  I need to say a word about refineries, because we have tried for the 
last 3 years since Hurricane Katrina roared ashore to get siting for 
new gasoline refineries in this country.
  We passed an Energy Policy Act in August of 2005. It became obsolete 
in September when Hurricane Katrina came ashore. In October 2005, we as 
Republicans tried to pass legislation that would allow for siting of 
new refineries on closed military bases.

                              {time}  2230

  It's come up in various forms again and again over the last 3 years. 
Most recently, at the end of July, I tried to add an amendment onto the 
military construction appropriations bill, the only appropriations bill 
we have had in the Congress this year, and I was denied. I was told 
that the military service organizations wanted a clean bill. It was 
important to them to get this done quickly, but the bill had passed out 
of committee on May 24, and it was July 31 that we were hearing it here 
on the floor of the House. We had plenty of time to arrange these 
things and allow for amendments.
  I would just have to add, if we want to talk about, for our members, 
the men and women of the military, we ought to be working too on the 
Department of Defense appropriations bill, because their pay raises are 
going to be in that bill. If we kick the can down to road to an omnibus 
bill at the end of the year, we are asking our men and women, who are 
serving, to protect us this very evening to delay receiving those 
benefits that they so richly deserve.
  This bill is a travesty. I have been going through it here in the 
back here while we have been talking. You have credits in here to 
Freddie and Fannie, for crying out loud. Is that a good idea for with 
what we have just been through?
  There are earmarks in this bill. There are very specific targeted 
pieces of legislation contained within this bill. This bill is not a 
good idea. We would fix those things in committee if we only had the 
chance.
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman from Texas very much for those 
thoughtful insights.
  The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We hear this bill called a sham, a charade, a travesty. Let's make it 
clear to the American people, this bill is a bald-faced lie. It's a 
bald-faced lie because the Democratic majority that controls this House 
is going to say they are for drilling, they are for producing oil. They 
are not.
  We have heard from Mr. Shadegg. There is nothing in there to stop the 
lawsuits, the endless lawsuits that are going to keep us from producing 
oil. We don't know what oil is in this bill, but we know in submission 
that are aren't in this bill. There's nothing about nuclear.
  It won't come to a floor controlled by Nancy Pelosi that has anything 
dealing with nuclear energy. We won't have new refineries. It's a sham, 
it's a travesty. It is a charade, but is it a lie?
  It's a lie to the American people that's being put forth by the 
Democratic majority, by Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, and the American 
people need to know that. It's not about trying to produce energy. It's 
about a line to the American people, giving cover to some of their 
folks so that they can go home and say I voted for a drilling bill.
  Now we need a drill to bill, but we need a bill to produce oil, and 
this is not it. So I encourage my Democratic colleagues to oppose this 
bill.
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for Georgia and all my colleagues 
who are here and those that offered to come here.
  I just say from my heart, and I have been passionate on the floor 
tonight, but it's a passion that is borne of a desire to solve this 
problem.
  But seeing a bill 290 pages long dropped on to the floor of this 
Congress less than 24 hours before it is to be debated does not 
represent a serious effort to bring about bipartisan compromise in this 
Congress. My colleagues of goodwill know this.
  The truth is the American people want this Congress to come together 
in an open, fair debate and take and develop a comprehensive energy 
strategy that says yes to conservation, yes to solar, yes to wind, yes 
to nuclear, yes to greater fuel efficiently standards, and takes a 
bipartisan vote to lift the moratorium and let the American people have 
access to our vast domestic reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf and 
in Alaska.
  Wherever those votes fall, let the cards fall where they may. But 
that's the process the American people want to see happen, and that is 
the basis upon which we can build a long-term strategy to achieve 
American energy independence. We have just begun this battle. It will 
continue tomorrow.

                          ____________________