Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, again, one of the things that has changed over the past 30 years is we've had the same policies that have brought us to the situation in which we are today. It is the pain that people have faced at the gas pumps. It has been one of those things that has been a shocking realization. The road on which we have been traveling for over 30 years is a road that is simply not working. Sometimes there are people who, unfortunately, are happy with the pain that Americans are going through at the pumps today. There was a former mayor of one of the major cities in Utah who did not like the fact that people were not living in his jurisdiction and were living across the county line. In an effort to punish them, he tried to insist that every effort to try and build more infrastructure and roads be hammered at every venue, at every opportunity. It looked at least from my side of that line as if it were punishment for actually deciding to live where you would want to live. I talked once at length at a television and radio interview about the issue that we have with energy and about the problems that people are facing with the energy crisis that we have right now. One of the callers called in and said, you know, what we need to do is to simply have more commuter rail service. Now, I don't quibble with that caller, because he's right. We need to have more commuter rail. That's one of the solutions that we have, but having more commuter rail lines does not solve the problem of the farmer who has to fill his tractor with diesel. For one of the farmers in my community, every time he fills up that tractor, it's $600 just to fill up one tractor. That is $600 for which he doesn't get reimbursed at the end of the week by putting in a voucher to his employer. It is $600 he has to eat until the end of the growing season when he may or may not receive money back for the sale of the goods that he produces. Commuter lines are great, but they don't help the trucker who still has to bring those products to market. Ninety-five percent of everything we consume comes to a store by way of truck, and commuter rail lines don't stop at grocery stores. Those truckers still have to be able to have the fuel necessary to bring the food to market. We sometimes forget there is a whole segue that is involved in this particular issue of our energy crisis and that everybody isn't part of it. It's in part of the agriculture that we need. It's in part of the trucking industry that we need. It's in part of the pain that people feel at the pump. Those people who are looking at what is coming out of their pockets week after week don't want us simply coming back here and talking about a highfalutin energy policy. It's not an energy policy to them. It is the way they cook their food. It is the way they heat their homes. It's whether they have a job or not. The pain at the pump is what people are feeling right now, but come this winter, there's going to be pain as the prices of heating their homes will increase by 20 to 30 percent. So far, the only solution this Congress seems to want to do to address that situation is to try to increase welfare payments or LIHEAP payments in some way rather than to go to the root cause of that problem, which is 30 years of mismanagement that we have had that brings us to this particular situation. It also means that food prices will be increasing because it is so much more difficult for the farmers to produce that food, for the processors to process that food, for the truck drivers to deliver that food. All of those are going to come as crisis after crisis after crisis if we do not address a comprehensive, all-of-the-above energy policy and do it now. For every week that we delay, we delay and continue on with the pain that real people are facing out there in America, and we are turning this country almost into a second class society. I had a principal once who was in the military before he went to education, and he always used to answer many of my requests with the old military phrase ``rank has its privileges.'' It is true. Rank has privileges. That's why, in class, I was able to drink a Dr. Pepper and my students could not, because rank had privileges. That's why I get to park in the Cannon building parking garage and my staff does not. Rank has privileges. Some people are able to write bills in the secrecy of their offices and to bring them directly to the floor because rank has privileges. Some people are able to establish an agenda here even though 136 Republicans came back here during the recess time and spoke on that floor, asking, begging, demanding that different types of votes be allowed to take place on this floor. It happens because rank has privileges. In addition to privileges, rank also has responsibilities, and part of the responsibility has to be to solve the real problem that real Americans are facing. When the Members met in Philadelphia to do their Constitution, a document we'll be celebrating in a couple of days, they were sent there to make minor adjustments to the Articles of Confederation, but they recognized that some of the States that had sent their instructions had also told them to go beyond that to solve the problem. What they decided was essential, not because it was what literally was put in front of them as their responsibilities, but what was essential to meet the needs of the people was to solve the problem. If we fail in this Congress to bring an all-of-the-above solution to the floor that is a real solution to real problems, we fail in our responsibility to Americans. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman who is the sponsor of House Resolution 1372 and an alumnus of the University of Nebraska at Omaha, as opposed to the University of Nebraska at New Orleans or something, such time as he may consume for this particular issue.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say a few words in support of this particular resolution that congratulates the University of Nebraska at Omaha in its 100th anniversary of its founding, which will be 100 years on September 19 of this year. I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Terry, for introducing this resolution. I also have to clarify that he was not the alumnus. His wife is the alumna of this institution. And I want to recognize the contributions the University of Nebraska at Omaha has made to the education of the citizens of this Nation. It was founded with just 26 students and now serves over 14,000. In the 2006-2007 academic year, the university awarded over 2,400 degrees to its students. The University of Nebraska at Omaha is nationally recognized for a strong academic program. Last year alone, the university was honored as one of the Best Colleges 2007 list, and the Best Midwestern College 2007 list and the Best Graduate Schools 2009 list, as published by ``U.S. News & World Report.'' In addition, the College of Business Administration's masters in business in administration students rank in the top 5 percent nationally, while the undergraduate students ranked in the top 15 percent on the most recent standardized exam on business topics. University of Nebraska at Omaha has graduated such notable alumni as Marlin Briscoe, Peter Fonda, and a couple of Senators. Despite that fact, it is still a good school. I would like to congratulate all of the students, the alumni, and past and present employees on all they have accomplished over the last 100 years at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. While I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, our efforts to help these college students will still be incomplete if we don't recognize the factors that all colleges are facing. Our higher education system is being squeezed by the high energy costs, just as the rest of society is. Schools are being forced to limit their operations, to reduce the number of school days just to save on utility costs and save their students the price of a day's commute. I know in both regular education as well as secondary education that the budgets for those particular institutions are written very narrowly and that whenever there is an unusual spike in something like the cost of electricity and the cost of fuel, that it is taken out primarily either in the short term or the long-term from the funds that are available for the faculty and for teachers for their salaries. It is simply a fact of life that if we do not get control of this energy crisis that is burgeoning, every school district in this Nation, whether it be a secondary, elementary, public or private or university level, every one of those schools is going to have the costs that will be borne by the teachers either in suppressed salaries at the current time or suppressed salaries into the future. That is the price we are paying for our failure to try to grasp this particular concept. The majority has been meeting behind closed doors to craft a bill to offer what seems to be, at least from leaks coming out, more political cover than actual reform. I am reminded of the U.S. Senate. The U.S. House has always had galleries so that people could watch what is taking place. But at the very beginning of the United States, the Senate convened in a closed room and no one could see what was taking place in that particular Chamber. The first employee of the United States Senate was actually the Senate secretary, a protege of John Adams who held the job for 25 years. The second employee of the Senate was the doorkeeper whose responsibility was to make sure that the public and House Members did not enter into the Chamber of the United States Senate. In fact, the Senate went on at that time to establish a funding schedule that would pay all Members of Congress $6 a day and Members of the Senate $7 a day. They also established a rule that a secretary could take any communication to the House, but at least two House Members had to be responsible for taking any communication to the Senate. Well, the doorkeeper turned into the Sergeant of Arms as time went on. And eventually the Senate broke down and decided to actually allow people to watch the proceedings on the floor. Yet once again we find ourselves in an amazingly similar situation where the most important issue of our time is what we do with this energy crisis, and yet the bill that is supposed to be debated this day, this week on the floor, supposed to be being heard in Rules Committee as we speak, has yet to be heard in any public forum, has not had any kind of public hearing, and has not had any kind of committee work. And my bets are still that there won't be a heck of a lot of amendments that will be allowed to that particular procedure, all of it done in secret and private and then unveiled on the floor. That is not the way of good regular order. Regular order should allow public process and open vetting so that all ideas are explored and the best ideas are those that surface to the top. We are not doing that this week. And we vitally and desperately need to do that, or just go back to the days where we keep a couple of doorkeepers around so the wrong people are not allowed to participate in the process of the policy of the United States. We need to do that. We need a real energy policy that looks good not on paper, but keeps vital American resources viable and usable, not under lock and key. The students of this college need that for their future. All students need that for their future. Teachers need that if their retirement and their salaries are going to be kept impact. All of us need that if this economy is going to be vibrant and move forward. Mr. Speaker, I do not have other speakers at this time, and I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my last 30 seconds.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of talking about a bill that asks us to review energy issues with this particular piece of legislation. When the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was originally established, it was designed specifically to inhibit, if not stop, the production of dams across rivers where electricity could be the result. It is fitting and proper to see what kind of impact this wild and scenic river would have in that area, as well as the fact that this river, the Missisquoi River, translated means the great grassy meadow. It could possibly be the ``great gassy meadow'' if we find some kind of minerals down there, which, once again, a review of that I think would be appropriate. Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I wish to defend my good friend from Georgia. Actually he said NOT-A, which is N-O-T-A. It is just that Georgian accent, it's hard to get the letters straight there. That's something we don't face in Arizona or Utah, I realize that. Mr. Chairman, in all sincerity, we support this particular amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in a unique situation on this particular amendment. The gentleman who proposed it thinks it is unnecessary. I think this is a wonderful amendment. It was great when somebody first wrote it, and now that you have incorporated it into the general discussion on these bills, I am equally as enthralled with that amendment. Mr. Chairman, at this time I wish to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, though not in opposition, I claim the time in opposition on this amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope when my chairman rolls me into the surgery room and opens me up, he will solve the problem. May I inquire of the other side if they have additional speakers left up and how much time remains.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I was about to be critical of the remarks of the gentlewoman from Ohio, but once she said the Senate is a problem that should be working, how can I reject that? I would, though, remind you, if you really want to help Exxon, don't do anything. Sixty-eight percent of all the oil and 87 percent of all the natural gas is being drilled by small entrepreneurial companies. If you want competition, allow those to be successful. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. In my 6 long years of being here on this floor, and I welcome my freshman colleague from New Hampshire, we have been involved in many issues that deal with energy, and I found that what was not stopped by filibuster in the Senate, was stopped by litigation in the court, and that is part of the overall reform we are talking about, which is why we desperately need a real vote on a real solution, the American Energy Act. May I just inquire how much time we have remaining.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the discussion especially about Teddy Roosevelt, a famous President. But I would remind my friend that William Howard Taft, who came after him, created more national parks, created more land in the national forests, and busted more trusts in 4 years than Roosevelt did in 8. The difference was he didn't use public relations. Our issue is still the same. Talk about these issues after we have had a debate on real issues for a real solution on the real problem of energy that affects real Americans here on the floor. That should be our priority. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and it will be quite awhile. Well, Mr. Chairman, here we are in a 15-day session. We're now one- fifth of the way through our final session before we end. The Democrat leaders, who have set the agenda and run this floor for almost 2 years now, have had 5 weeks in preparation for this day. So the first issue of significance, the only issue we may have this week that has a rule, the most significant piece of legislation we're talking about today is a study that, if passed, may perhaps someday, if conditions allow and the elements are conducive, possibly create a compromise that would might possibly pass an additional 70 miles being added to the inventory of the national government, and only costing the taxpayers $300,000 to do it. That's what we're doing today. I would like to make a couple of points about this particular bill, not necessarily in opposition to it. But one point that is significant; we talk a great deal in government about transparency. It's important to government to be transparent. It's good to be transparent--until it deals with how we treat people. One of the things that the Republican Party has tried to do on almost every bill that has come either to committee or to the floor that deals with a trail, a heritage area, an historic area or a scenic river is to ensure that the people who will be involved in that area are informed up front about what may or may not happen to them. Because once we go to the next step and actually create this wild and scenic river, the Federal Government is given--not in this bill, but is given in the existing powers they have--the right of condemnation of any of that land that will be in that area. They have almost unlimited rights of easement. They always have the ability of dealing with local officials to create zoning ordinances that have a huge impact on the people in those areas. Almost always these studies are done with small groups. And then citizens will come back to us afterwards and say we were unaware of what was actually happening at this time. The dairy farmers along this river--who may or may not need protection and may or may not be happy and satisfied with what will result to them--may or may not have any idea what will happen as they go through this study. The first year I was here in Congress I passed a wilderness bill. I made sure that I went to every single property owner in that area that would be impacted by that wilderness bill, even the guy who was dead and had no heirs, which was a neat trick. But we went to every one of them to make sure they were well aware in advance of what was to take place. And yet when we tried to add an amendment, both in committee and once again before the Rules Committee, to make sure that everyone who may be impacted by this new designation and this study was made aware and they had to respond affirmatively that they wished to be part of the study, it was again rejected. Why do we not treat Americans with respect? We will pass these types of provisions to empower government, but we will not ask the citizens who will be impacted by our decisions to be part of this particular process. It's something that used to be standard language that we would add to these types of provisions, and it should be added again. That's a flaw. For 2 years Speaker Pelosi has been the one who was to set the agenda for our discussions here on the floor. One of those issues that I think people would like us to talk about is obviously energy. We have been talking about that for a long time. When this new leadership took over the House, on day one, when the energy prices started to climb and it was $2.22, the topic of discussion we had on this floor was congratulating the University of California-Santa Barbara soccer team. When energy reached $4 at the pump, I was here to spend a rollicking hour and a half talking about monkey bites. And today, after our 5-week adjournment, after people have been talking to us, after our constituents have said what is affecting them, after 5 weeks of preparation, what we are proposing to talk about today as the significant issue on the agenda is to study two rivers in Vermont. The only bill we will have with a rule, to study two rivers in Vermont. And I hate to say this; I'm not opposed to it. There's no reason to be. It's fine. The bill is a nice bill. It can be improved significantly, but there's nothing wrong with it. The question is, why are we here talking about that after 5 weeks of getting prepared to talk about significant issues? I had a couple of my constituents come to me. They said what they wanted to see Congress do is something in a bipartisan way; that we should come back here and show that we can work together. Indeed, the Senators have already told us that there is only a bipartisan energy plan of theirs, that's the only thing that can be passed, therefore, we should come together and support what they are trying to do in the spirit of bipartisanship, not only between two political parties, but between two branches of Congress. I am sure maybe someday this week we might even have another energy bill proposed for discussion on this floor, and I'm sure somebody will say this is the only thing we can pass; let us now embrace this in a spirit of bipartisanship so that we can show that we can work together. Sometimes I have the feeling that we on this floor believe that if we toast one another or we slap one another on the back or we have congratulatory comity, that that, indeed, is the end of the discussion; that is the goal, not the means to reach some kind of discussion; when the end should be, have we solved the problem? We have now had eight votes over 3 days on this floor, each of them getting around 400 plus votes. That is bipartisanship, that is comity, that is coming together. But have we solved what the needs of the American people are? Those eight votes, we've named three post offices, we said we're against hunger and we're for the Red Cross. That's good. But that does not solve the problems plaguing Americans. If I was to go to a hospital and I was on the gurney being rushed into the surgery room, is it logical that I would look up at the assembled doctors and nurses and say, ``Look, when you open me up, I don't really care what you do inside just as long as you do it together in harmony, in a bipartisan way''? Or would it be much more logical for me to say, ``Ladies and gentlemen, when you open me up, solve the problem''? And that is, indeed, what the American people are looking at us to do here today is not necessarily find out how many bills we can pass on suspension, how much comity we can have, but how we can solve the problem. To simply pass a political statement does not make a difference to individuals. We are supposed to be here to try and solve the problem. And it is very clear that the problem has to be some way in which we have an overarching, comprehensive energy proposal. That is the problem that we're facing. We need to come to this floor and actually encourage people to conserve, not by mandating conservation efforts, but by rewarding Americans for conservation efforts and they will take it from there. We must come to the floor and finally realize that our problem is supply and demand, and that we have to increase production of that supply, that we do not have a logical pattern of funding alternative energy sources. But if we could actually increase the amount of oil and coal and oil shale and natural gas, that we could use the royalties this government would then create to actually fund a comprehensive energy program for alternative energies--for solar, for wind power, for anything else that happens to be there--if we simply decided to use an ``all of the above'' approach. We can solve our problem in the emergency, for the beginning, for the present time, as well as coming up with a long-term strategy for the future that actually would be funded. We could finally realize that this country does not have an infrastructure that will allow energy to be moved from one part of the country to the other. There are good friends in New England who will face high costs of heating their homes this fall. We have a good pipeline that goes, but it stops before it ever gets to their part of the country. We need to solve those problems. We need to make sure we have more refineries. We need to make sure we do something on the electric grid. And we are not. That is the solution to the problem for the American people. We need to finally realize that the future of this country is not going to be solved by bringing experts into Washington to sit around a room and come up with an idea, but the ability of America to solve its problem rests with the people out there. Because within the American people, without their soul and heart, is the ability and the creativity to come up with real solutions if we just empower them to find those solutions and then reward them for the creativity that they can expound. We need to realize that the solution to our problem is that the next time we lose 84,000 jobs it is not exacerbated by the lack of energy; that the next time an airline doesn't have enough energy to run 100 planes, they don't have to fire 1,100 people because of it; that the cab driver in Washington, D.C. who now drives 2 hours extra every day because he needs that to provide enough funds for the new energy he has to provide could actually be back at home meeting his kids after school the way he used to; or that we provide enough energy in here so the father in Virginia can finally go with his son to a father and son outing; or the family in Maryland can finally have enough energy so they can re-enroll their daughters in dance and gymnastics; so that school kids in the middle of this country can finally make it to field trips this year; or the teachers in our districts throughout this country will not find their salaries to be depressed or in some cases slashed because of unusual and unexpected energy costs in their districts; so that home heating oil will not drive people out of existence; so the farmer in the field will have enough energy to put in diesel in his tractors to produce the food so that truckers will have enough energy to drive them to market so that the prices of food that we have to pick up at those markets will not be spiraling this winter and this next year. And all of those is what we should be talking about. The river is nice; it's okay. The study is okay. But it is not where we should be at this particular time because it doesn't solve the problem. There are a lot of rich people in this body. For them, this energy crisis is an annoyance. But for those people on fixed incomes, those people at the bottom of the scale, those people in the middle class, we're not talking to them about energy policy. We're talking about the way they cook their food, the way they heat their homes, whether they have a job or not. Three days into the last 15 days of this session, and the most significant issue is a study bill on two rivers in Vermont. This country is aching for legislation that will nourish the body politic, and yet we continue to put up, day after day on this body, pieces of legislation that are as nutritional as cotton candy. We need to do it differently. But, on the plus side, we will probably do this bill in a bipartisan way. Doesn't it make you feel proud? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank you for that kind introduction. And it won't be 50 minutes unless I go into Mr. King's time in some particular way. I'm excited to be here to join you and to join the others, especially the gentlelady from Minnesota, who painted such a marvelous vision of what we could, indeed, be doing in the future if we just come together on this particular issue. There are many people who have said, you know, where have we been all these years on this particular issue? I haven't been here forever, but I do know, from my years here as well as in the State legislature in Utah, that we have been arguing this issue for years. One of the freshman Members today came to the floor and criticized us for why we haven't done any of these issues earlier. And the bottom line is: We did. I have not been here forever, but there have been countless votes I have made in favor of drilling in ANWR and I would do so again. I have made countless votes in this body on expanding our offshore drilling leases and permits in areas and would do so again. From the very first day I came here, John Peterson has been extolling the problems this economy will face if we don't face up to the fact we have a dwindling supply of natural gas here in the United States. We have been talking about this forever. Even before Speaker Pelosi changed my mindset and told me that natural gas is not a fossil fuel and you don't actually have to drill to get it, despite that fact there is something that is different now. And like most issues that come to their prime, there is a catalyst that changes and a catalyst that drives the issue forward. We have seen that this year. I come from the West, which is the energy-producing section. Some of my friends in the areas that I call the ``energy consuming'' sections have been very happy over the years to try and lock up areas of the West and areas off the coast which produce energy, and they can do it with impunity because it has no impact on their lives. But all of a sudden, when you start paying 4 bucks a gallon of gas, then something is different. The massive spike in gasoline prices at the pump over the last 2 years is the catalyst that is taking the arguments--and the arguments that we have said over and over and over again year after year--and have finally driven it to the point where everyone realizes mistakes we have made in our energy policy and our land policy for the past 30 years have brought us to the situation where we are today. And the cost we are paying at the pump is because of misguided decisions we have made for over 30 years. And now is the time where Americans are ready to stand up all over this country and say now is the time we need to take a new direction with real solutions so that we can solve where we have been brought by past decisions. And as has been stated before, we're not just talking about drilling. It's one of the common arguments they say, all Republicans want to do is drill. Yeah, we want to drill, but we have always said it's not drilling alone. When we say we need an all-of-the-above solution, it means we need an all-of-the-above solution. The common fossil fuels are as important to solve our energy problem now as expanding alternative energy sources will be to solve our problem in the future. But one of the issues we have never faced in this country--once again, another decision we've made improperly years ago--is an adequate way of funding our investment and expansion of alternative resources. Now, one of the things we could do if we actually do increase our production of oil and natural gas and oil shale and coal is to use the expanded royalties this Federal Government would receive and funnel those royalties into building and developing our alternative resources for the future. And that's what the all-of-the-above American Energy Act wants to do. It is both of those. I have found, to my utter amazement, there is no source of energy that does not have its critics. How can one be opposed to solar power? Although when we tried to build a solar plant in New Mexico, people were opposed to it because it would take up too much of the desert. How can you be opposed to wind power? Although I was reading an article in a local paper of a farmer in Wyoming who was opposed to wind power plants simply because the wushing of the blades makes too much noise, or it chops up too many birds that are part of the Migratory Bird Treaty. Every source of energy has somebody who is opposed to it, which is why, if we're really going to reach a consensus of everybody, the only solution is to say nothing is off the table, we develop everything. It is the only real solution, it is the only fair solution, and that's what we are after. If we care about consumers in the future, we develop everything. Conservation is essential, but we all know conservation alone does not solve our problem. But the American Energy Act is the only bill that actually has real incentives for Americans to conserve and rewarding them for efforts to conserve. We realize we do not have the infrastructure to move energy from one part of this country to the other. And the American Energy Act is the only one that realizes we must put extra money and effort into building our infrastructure or everything else is useless. We are the only ones that realize it has legal impediments. As was mentioned before, as soon as you open up an area, it is immediately open to open-ended standing so that anybody can sue, and that is, indeed, what happened. And in the Americans for American Energy Act, that is the only area that actually talks about reforming that process so that once a decision has been made, we can move forward. The American Energy Act is the only one that recognizes solutions are made by people out there, because within the soul of American people is the creativity we need to solve our problems. And what we should be doing as a government is not trying to dictate solutions from here in these hallowed halls, but allowing Americans to find their solutions by themselves and then rewarding them for it. When England became a superpower on the oceans, they did not have a way of mapping the oceans, so they established a prize of 20,000 pounds to the first person who could figure out how to do it. And the British clock maker from London who invented latitude and longitude, we are still using his invention. When Napoleon started marching with his troops, he realized he did not have a way of feeding them, so he gave a 14,000 frank prize to the first person to solve the problem. The vacuum-packed concept of food is the same thing he invented for 14,000 franks and we still use today. When Lindbergh flew across the ocean he was after a prize from a newspaper. And the aeronautics industry has developed from it. All we need to do is say we will reward Americans for coming up and producing a solution and reward them well for it, and they will solve the problem without our expert attention driving that way. Now, we've heard a lot of blame about the problem. We've heard Big Oil blame because they're gouging people, therefore let's tax them-- which is what we tried 30 years ago when the development dried up; or we have said that they have leases out there they're not using it, so use it or lose it--even though that's exactly what the status quo is, indeed, doing. We've had all sorts of other ideas that Big Oil is the problem here. As Newt Gingrich said, if you really want to help Exxon, do nothing. They already have their oil. Sixty-eight percent of all the oil that is being drilled in this country and 87 percent of all the natural gas being drilled in this country today are being done by small entrepreneurial companies, 200 employees or less, names of which no one in this body has ever heard. If we really want to expand our economy and add competition, which will lower price, expand the efforts of people to become involved in this process. What we need is not another political scheme, we have had 30 years of them; we need real solutions. And that is what we want, a vote on a real solution, not some faux solution, a real one that actually addresses real issues for real Americans and solves their real problems. Groucho Marx once said that ``politics is the act of looking for the trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.'' If we're not careful, that's exactly what we could do in these next 2 weeks. We can't just go for the cheap fix political deal. We have to go for a real solution that helps real people. And that's the vote that we demand.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Wisconsin chose not to extend our time by debating energy here tonight. I wish to speak specifically to this point of order. The issue on a point of order is the nexus between the amendment to the underlying bill, and it would be my contention there are multiple in which one can look. This particular bill on MILCON has at least eight references to runways and roads which are to be produced, all of which will be made by asphalt, which is a petroleum-based substance. With costs increasing, it would be a difficult price to try and do that. We will have people coming in here talking about VA benefits to people, falling all over themselves stumbling to be good about it. That is great. But if, indeed, those VA hospitals are going to have a 30 percent increase in heating costs which have to be paid first, many of the benefits that we are looking at in this bill will be unable to be provided. It is almost like taking medicine off their trays when we require people to get those benefits to pay 4 and $5 a gallon to get there. The couple in West Virginia that drove 80 miles every week and were reimbursed 11 cents a mile. For 8 bucks they could not fund their ability to get those benefits. We will increase our benefits and, at the same time, tell veterans they are going to have to pay at a higher price out of their pocket to get those benefits. What we give with one hand will be taken back simply with another because of our inaction. There is precedent for what I am attempting to do. In 1999, there was an amendment that was made in order even though it was in violation of the germaneness rule by Spence and Ortiz. In 2000 there were two more that were part of the Department of Transportation bill, bipartisan amendment. There was another one that was made in 1990, and those are the original ones we were able to look at, let alone the concept of all sorts of legislation that we routinely put into appropriations types of measures. There is precedent for what I am trying to talk about. Mr. Chairman, this is one of those situations where a ruling by the Chair will make a decision on whether we deny discussion on energy in this body or not. A ruling by the Chair will decide whether we talk about conservation and production and infrastructure needs; will deny or not a vote by the representatives of the people on an issue the people are asking for us to take a vote. Benjamin Franklin, when talking about the Revolution once said that ``revolutions come into this world like illegitimate children.'' He didn't use the word illegitimate, but illegitimate children, ``half improvised and half compromised.'' We have provided the improvisation for this issue. We are looking to the gentleman at the Chair to provide the compromise; to simply say that we can go forward with the debate that is significant, it is timely, it is important and does have significant nexus to this particular piece of legislation for, indeed, what we are appropriating cannot be accomplished if the energy prices continue to soar and make it an impossibility to do that. This is a chance, Mr. Chairman, that the fate of the American economy and maybe our military intelligence will rest in the hands of your decision. It is my hope that you will decide in the favor of people on this particular point of order.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Would the gentleman yield to a question?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for interrupting; I just want to be clear. Is the gentleman speaking to a point of order, or is he speaking to the amendment itself? I would make the point of order the gentleman is not speaking----

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. If the gentleman will yield on that issue? That was always our intent. I think I am enough.