Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for helping remind this body--and I think everybody in this body agrees--that we need more conservation. Everybody in this body believes that we should have more renewable energy and that it's the key to our children's future. Where we depart with the Democrat majority, Mr. Speaker, is we believe that, when 50 percent of our proven resources--petroleum resources--in Alaska are illegal to develop, there's a problem, that when 85 percent of our offshore resources are illegal to develop, there's a problem. We have decades and decades and decades of American energy laying untapped that we could bring to the market to help bring down the cost of energy. Yet the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has said, as this quote shows, that she believes that it's all a hoax. The American people, I believe, Mr. Speaker, disagree, and perhaps they might be interested in calling (202) 224-3121 and in just saying, ``Speaker Pelosi, at least allow a vote. As, supposedly, the most Democratic institution in the history of mankind, at least allow the voices of the people to be heard, and let there be a vote.'' In speaking of voices to be heard, Mr. Speaker, as one of the great voices in this institution, I want to yield now to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership on this issue, his leadership on health care issues, his contribution to the Republican Study Committee which is sponsoring this special order, Mr. Speaker. Again, this is the number one issue, Mr. Speaker, that our constituents write about, call about. They're concerned about. I hear from them every day. I just recently, Mr. Speaker, heard from the Forist family in Mesquite, Texas, that I have the honor of representing in Congress. And they have a small business. They wrote in. ``My husband is an owner operator and the cost of fuel is $1600 a WEEK. We're not making a profit. We can't continue to operate this way. We have now cancelled our life insurance policies, cancelled our cable, scaled down our automobile insurance, and buy the necessities at the grocery store.'' Mr. Speaker, I'm getting letters like this every single day, and yet the Democrat majority will not support legislation to produce more American energy in America for Americans. Now, Mr. Speaker, we agree with the Democrats on many things. We believe that there should be more conservation, and most Republicans have supported the various tax provisions that do that. Mr. Speaker, we agree on renewable energy. I was an officer in a renewable energy company prior to coming to Congress. There are very exciting technologies, and most Republicans have supported those programs. But where we go in different directions, Mr. Speaker, is that the Democrats want to make illegal the production of energy in 85 percent of our offshore resources and, effectively, 75 percent. They don't believe that producing more oil and natural gas has anything to do with the cost of price at the pump. They're trying to repeal the laws of economics. Well, in fact, Mr. Speaker, what the Speaker of the House has said recently, ``This call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax. It's an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this administration.'' Speaker Nancy Pelosi Well, Mr. Speaker, for those who are listening to this special order, they may have a different opinion. Public opinion policy shows that 85 percent of Americans want to produce more American energy in America for Americans. Maybe they may want to call 202-224-3121 and register their opinion with the Speaker of the House. Now, again, I don't know how they feel about the high cost of energy in the salons of San Francisco, but I can tell you in the small businesses and the farms and ranches of the Fifth District of Texas, those people are hurting. And now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield time to another great Member of this institution who has been a leader on the issue as well, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. Clearly he is one of the great leaders in this institution in allowing the people to know that American energy developed in America for Americans can make a huge difference. Now I would like to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for his comments on that.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, before the Democrats became the majority party in this institution, they waxed eloquent about fiscal responsibility. The now-Speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, the gentlelady said, ``It is just absolutely immoral, immoral for us to heap those deficits on our children. No new deficit spending.'' And before he became the majority leader, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland said, ``There is no more single burden of responsibility more crucial to bear than tackling the deficit honestly and head on.'' Mr. Speaker, that is what they said before they became the majority party. We have discovered, Mr. Speaker, their words were cheap. Their deeds are very expensive. Since becoming the majority party 18 months ago, we have seen, under their watch, the Federal deficit double. Mr. Speaker, under the Democrats' watch we have seen the single largest 1-year increase in the Federal debt. Mr. Speaker, under the Democrats' watch we have seen the Federal Government's unfunded obligations go to the largest number ever, $57.3 trillion. Mr. Speaker, under the Democrats' watch we have seen the largest Federal budget ever. Mr. Speaker, under the Democrats' watch, just yesterday, just yesterday a blank check was given to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that ultimately could cost the taxpayer $5 trillion. And not to be outdone, Mr. Speaker, today the Democrat majority turn off, turn off the Medicare trigger designed to save the program for the next generation. Again, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats' words were cheap. Their deeds are very, very expensive. The trigger means that we begin the reform process in Medicare, and it also means that we will spend $178 billion, almost a 7 percent increase, over the next 5 years. And how do we reform it? Mr. Speaker, we ask that this body put patients and doctors before personal injury trial attorneys. That is what we do. And we ask that maybe the upper income of our Nation be able to pay a little bit more for their prescription drugs. Now, what happens, Mr. Speaker, when the Democrats do nothing? Well, according to the General Accountability Office, ``The rising cost of government entitlements are a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, join with us, put the next generation above the next election. Work with us to ensure that we can get better healthcare at a more reasonable cost. Do not get rid of this Medicare trigger that so many of us worked so hard to place in this valuable program.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I regrettably admit that today Fannie and Freddie are too big to fail. The repercussions to our economy could be dire. But we should not pass any legislation that doesn't ensure the taxpayers are never here again. Not only does this legislation not ensure that, it makes it worse. I mean, even the Washington Post, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought said, ``Strangely, though, both the Senate and House versions of the bill potentially increase the very risks Mr. Paulson's plan is intended to mitigate.'' Don't give these people a blank check. Vote this down.

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, who indicated that part of the package before us was a request of the Bush administration. It may be a request of the Bush administration, but it was necessitated by that gentleman and by others who for years have forestalled any type of reform of Fannie and Freddie, neither man nor beast, half private, half public. You can go back, Mr. Speaker, and look at the record. Before I arrived here almost 6 years ago, the debate has been ensuing how can you have these entities that essentially are able to privatize their profits but socialize their losses and not put the taxpayers at risk? Now we were told, well, there is no taxpayer guarantee here. There's nothing to worry about. I've got a press release here dated '01 from the chairman of the Capital Market Subcommittee who says that the new GSE bill is a solution in search of a problem; that OFHEO has developed and implemented a robust and comprehensive and continuous examination program that works. Well, many of us have said, no, that is wrong. I have got language from, again, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts who says, dating back to a hearing in 2003, ``I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists.'' Well, I think what we discovered today is perhaps there is a lot of unsafety. Perhaps there is a lot of unsoundness that has to be addressed. So now we are being asked to take--really this is a historic moment-- we are being asked to take a terribly flawed housing bill that could put the taxpayer on the line for $300 billion to help bail out people on Wall Street who made bad bets, and then couple that with an absolutely breathtaking bailout of Fannie and Freddie that in its worst-case scenario, which admittedly is unlikely, but in its worst- case scenario could add $5 trillion to the national debt at the snap of a finger. That's an increase of 50 percent in the national debt overnight. That's what would happen, Mr. Speaker, if you have the Federal taxpayer underwrite all the debts of Fannie and Freddie. I mean, this will help establish this particular Congress as having, perhaps, the worst record on fiscal responsibility in our Nation's history. They have had lots of competition. There are so many different reasons why we should not pass the bill today. Let's look, number one, at the underlying housing bill. You have 95 percent of America that either rents their home, owns their home outright and are current in their mortgage, and they are being asked to bail out the other 5 percent. Now out of that 5 percent, some are very deserving. Some were victims of mortgage fraud, predatory lending. Some had bad reverses in the economy that were beyond their control. But others are not so deserving. Many were speculators. Many engaged in mortgage fraud themselves. There's been an explosion of mortgage fraud in the market. Finally, some people just didn't exercise personal responsibility. When people are struggling to pay their own mortgages, who acted responsibly, they shouldn't be forced to pay for their neighbors as well, much less bail out Wall Street. Let's look at the Fannie and Freddie package.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, Fannie and Freddie have become financial Frankensteins that now threaten to gobble their creators. They're private companies that receive special congressional benefits granted no other companies in America, and with these special benefits, they have learned how to privatize their profits and socialize their losses. They've taken these special privileges, and their executives have received millions and millions of dollars in bonuses, some of whom received those bonuses through manipulating earnings, cooking the books, by privatizing their profits. And now we have a bill before us that, taken to its logical conclusion, could cost the taxpayer $5 trillion, increase the national debt 50 percent overnight. They have learned how to socialize their losses. Mr. Speaker, I will admit that contingency is unlikely, but it is likely enough that we have this package before us, because I will admit, Mr. Speaker, that unfortunately, today, Fannie and Freddie are too big to fail. But shame on us if we allow them to be too big to fail tomorrow, or the next year, and send yet again the taxpayer the bill. This legislation before us, Mr. Speaker, not only doesn't prevent a future multibillion dollar bailout, it actually increases its risk. Mr. Speaker, item number one: this bill puts on a mortgage tax on Fannie and Freddie. Now, let's think about that for a second. These are companies that apparently are so poor that we have to bail them out, but apparently, they're so rich that we can impose a new tax on them. It's insanity, Mr. Speaker. Conforming loan limits. Under this legislation, their conforming loan limits can rise, meaning they can engage in even more risky behavior that has nothing to do with low-income housing. Their portfolio cap has already been lifted. Under this legislation their portfolio holdings can increase, who two Federal chairmen have cited as a great source of systemic risk throughout our economy. Their capital standards, already low, they can be lowered even still. I mean, they're a third of what a well-capitalized bank should be. We go from an implicit government backing to explicit government backing. And, Mr. Speaker, think about the precedent. If you're big enough, if you're interconnected enough, if you spend $170 million on lobbying, you become too big to fail. If you're small, independent, and you don't have a lobbyist, well, guess what, you're too small to help but you can still pay the tab for Fannie and Freddie. It's time to take away their special privileges. It's time to introduce legislation over a reasonable period of time that privatizes these institutions. Mr. Speaker, I will do just that tomorrow. We should reject this bill and not send anymore bills to the taxpayer.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Well, I thank the gentlelady from Ohio for yielding back, and I know there are other speakers who wish to speak, so I will try to be brief. The gentlelady from Minnesota spoke about life-saving centers. On Monday of this week, I went to one. I didn't go as a Member of Congress. I went as a father. And my wife and I have two small children, 6 and 4, and it was time to donate their old baby beds and donate a bunch of maternity clothes. And I had heard about the Dallas Pregnancy Resource Center. A bunch of great ladies in Dallas, Texas, trying to save human life. I had heard of them. I didn't think they knew me, and I showed up on a Monday morning unshowered, unshaven, in a T-shirt to donate two baby beds and a box full of maternity clothes that belonged to my wife. They were very thankful for the gift. And when I was filling out the paperwork, they realized who I was and insisted that I tour the facility. And although I was unshaven and unshowered, I complied with their request, and I'm glad I did. And it is amazing to me, as I think upon my visit with these ladies on Monday, to think that on the one hand, you have Planned Parenthood getting hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to take the lives of the most innocent among us, the unborn--as pictured next to the gentlelady from Minnesota--hundreds of millions of dollars spent on this abortion factor. And here is this one little place in Dallas, Texas, called the Dallas Pregnancy Resource Center, and they sit there and they counsel with these low-income, these mostly young teen mothers. And every time that they are able to convince a mother to choose life over death, they put a tiny, tiny set of paper footprints on a bulletin board. As you might imagine, sometimes they're blue and sometimes they're pink, and they have the date that one human life was saved. To the best of my knowledge, the Dallas Pregnancy Resource Center receives no Federal money whatsoever to save human lives, and Planned Parenthood takes hundreds of millions of dollars of Federal taxpayer money to take human life. Something is wrong in America when that takes place. We need to stop, we need to take note of what is taking place. In my head and in my heart, I can come to no other conclusion but that life begins at conception. I take it as a matter of faith, but if I didn't take it as a matter of faith, how can any human being, how can any American, look at that picture next to the gentlelady from Minnesota and conclude otherwise? In our Founding documents, the right to life is unalienable. How can this body ever act otherwise?

Mr. HENSARLING. And if the gentlelady will yield again, I see in the same article that as the taxpayers have to subsidize all of these abortions, that Planned Parenthood are updating their clinics to, Have a contemporary, fun, and lively look with a new color pallet that includes pink, orange, and teal. Can the gentlelady enlighten me what is contemporary, fun, and lively about the abortion industry?

Mr. HENSARLING. I want to thank her for bringing this article in the Wall Street Journal, one of America's largest newspapers, to the attention of this body; and obviously it is fascinating for us to discover that the single largest provider of abortion in the Nation, Planned Parenthood, I believe performing one out of five abortions in America, has now planned, according to the press, a rebranding campaign to appeal to women of means. I quote from the article, A move that opens new avenues for boosting revenue and they hope political clout. And as I understand from the gentlelady from Minnesota, as I read through this article, that their political action arm plans to raise $10 million to influence the fall campaign; and as they take the lives of almost 300,000 innocent children, not only is the American taxpayer being asked to subsidize this horrid, this gruesome procedure that so many in America consider to be absolutely immoral, then to top even more indignity on the act they're going to turn around and use money and come back to Congress and ask for even more. Do I understand that correctly?

Mr. HENSARLING. Would the gentlelady yield?

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Yes, Mr. Speaker, in its current form.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard. Again, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how, when you can have speaker after speaker come to the floor and say essentially this is a bill having to do with the economic well-being of a distressed area of Michigan, the economic well-being of a Native American tribe, and not believe that somehow the cost of energy factors into the economic well-being. We are talking also about a piece of real estate. We are talking about the value of underlying minerals in this piece of real estate that will be greatly impacted on whether or not this section 526 is repealed or not. I would just simply ask the Speaker, when is it germane to bring a motion to produce American energy in America and bring down the high cost of energy for the American people? If not now, when, Mr. Speaker? When will the Democrat majority allow these motions to be voted on?

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. HENSARLING. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I listened very carefully to this debate, it is clear that the majority of the speakers feel very passionately that this is a debate about economic development for the region, a distressed region of Michigan. It's about economic development for a Native American tribe. Someone would have to be totally out of touch with their constituency not to realize that the number-one challenge to the economic well-being of our citizens is the high cost of energy. So, Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is very simple. It removes a provision in last year's ``non-energy'' energy bill that would prevent the government from using its purchasing power to spur the growth of American energy resources, such as coal-to-liquids technology, oil shale, and tar sands. This is especially important since we know that right north of the border, right north of Michigan, that our neighbor to the north, Canada, is rich in these resources. Particularly, so much of their energy and many of their exports come from tar sands. The real estate that we are talking about in question could be greatly impacted should the section 526 not be repealed. Because as most people know who have studied the issue, Mr. Speaker, the United States Air Force wishes to enter into long-term contracts in order to help develop these promising new alternative energy alternatives. Yet in the Democrat ``non-energy'' energy bill, they would be effectively prevented from doing so. That will clearly have an adverse impact upon the economic growth, the economic well-being of the Native American tribe in question, not to mention the real estate in question as well. So, again, Mr. Speaker, when we look at energy, energy now has become a health care issue. It has become an education issue. It is certainly a Native American issue. It is an economic growth issue as well. What has happened is we have seen that the Democrat majority simply wants to bring us bills that somehow believe that if we beg OPEC, we can bring down the price of energy at the pump. Maybe if we sue OPEC, we can bring down the price of energy at the pump. Maybe if we somehow berate oil companies, that will cause prices to go down at the pump. Maybe we should tax them. Well, they will take those taxes and put it right back in their price. But what the Democrat majority hasn't decided to do is to produce American energy in America and bring down the cost of energy that way. Not only have they decided not to do it, Mr. Speaker, they are moving in the complete opposite direction with this section 526, which prevents the Federal Government from contracting in order to spur the growth of these promising alternative fuel sources, like coal-to-liquid technology, like oil shale, like tar sands. They are moving in the complete opposite direction. Mr. Speaker, not unlike probably yourself and many of my other colleagues on the floor on both sides of the aisle, we hear from our constituents. I have heard from a constituent that says the high cost of energy now is preventing them from having three meals a day. The high cost of energy has caused them to have their adult children to have to move back in with them. Yet our Democrat majority will not bring a bill to the floor that actually produces American energy. What Republicans want to do on this side of the aisle is, number one, continue to develop our renewable energy resources. Mr. Speaker, before coming to Congress I was an officer in a green energy company. Those technologies are promising. But, Mr. Speaker, until they are technologically and economically viable will be years to come. In the meantime, people have to take their children to school every day. People have to go to work every day. Many have to go and see their physicians. And so we need to bring down the cost of this energy now. We know that we haven't built a refinery in America in almost 30 years. Our capacity is down. We are having to import not just crude but we are having to import refined gasoline as well. Yet, the Democrat majority does nothing, does nothing to help build more refineries. We need diversification. We need nuclear energy. We sit here and talk to the American people about the threat of global warming, yet we know nuclear energy has no greenhouse emissions whatsoever. It's imperative that we pass this motion to recommit and get more American energy today. Point of Order

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

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. We have tried these policies. It is deja vu all over again. What our friends on the other side of the aisle won't do is open up ANWR where we know we have half of the Nation's proven reserves. Almost 85 percent of our deep sea energy resources have been put out of bounds. Listen, we all agree, we need to develop renewables. We need to develop alternative sources of energy, but people have to go to work every day and take the children to school every day. This bill does nothing to help them. We need to produce American energy in America today.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, 18 months ago, there was an election. The Democrats won. They won fair and square. And for 18 months, Mr. Speaker, they have controlled the economic policies and the energy policies of our great Nation. Let's look back and take a look at what has happened in those 18 months. Since Democrats have taken control of these policies, the price of bread, Mr. Speaker, has increased 21 percent; milk, 26 percent; eggs, 34 percent; gasoline, the price that we pay at the pump, has increased 71 percent under the energy policies of this new Democrat majority. As an aside, in the last 18 months, the value of one's home has decreased 7 percent under their policies. Mr. Speaker, tonight many of us have gathered to specifically talk about the energy policies of the Democrat majority and how they differ so greatly from the policies of the Republican party. All over America, families are going to convenience stores and they are having to make a decision: Do I buy a gallon of milk, or do I buy a gallon of gas? They are having to make decisions about do I take my children to school, or do I go to work? Families are in pain, having seen their gasoline prices increase 71 percent. What has the Democrat majority brought us in the way of an energy policy? Well, their first policy was to beg. ``Let's beg OPEC. Let's see if maybe we beg them, they will bring down the price of gasoline at the pump.'' Well, that didn't work, Mr. Speaker. What was their next policy? Their next policy was to sue. ``Let's sue OPEC. If we somehow bring in the trial attorneys, we will lower prices at the pump.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, that didn't seem to work either. Well, here is another one they want to try. ``Let's tax. Let's tax oil producers, and somehow that will bring down prices at the pump.'' Well, something I remember from my eighth grade economics about supply and demand and cost. You impose another cost on a producer, well, he is going to do his best to put it in the price of the product. Well, in fact, that is what will happen. It almost sounds the like the policies of Jimmy Carter and a Democrat Congress of a bygone era which made us even more dependent upon foreign oil. Here is another one: ``Let's try to castigate. Let's bring up people who produce energy and let's say nasty things about them and their companies and their families. Surely that will bring down the cost of energy at the pump.'' Well, that hasn't seemed to work either. The new one we tried today, the Democrat majority, ``well, let's outlaw people who charge unreasonable prices. Let's criminalize that activity.'' What they never have thought of, Mr. Speaker, is why don't we try to produce more American energy in America? I mean, not only have they not thought about it, Mr. Speaker, they are moving in the complete opposite direction. They are passing policies that make it more difficult to produce American energy in America to bring down the cost at the pump. In fact, in one of the many non-energy energy bills that this Democrat majority has brought to the floor, they passed a provision known as section 526 of Public Law 110-140 that would prohibit Federal agencies, in this case specifically the United States Air Force, from contracting, taking in long-term contracts in order to get energy from oil shale, tar sands, coal-to-liquids, alternative fuels, which is one, one of the ways that we could make ourselves more energy independent and quit relying so much on foreign sources of oil that are driving up the cost of gasoline at the pump. Because of this section that was introduced in one of the many Democrat non-energy energy bills, or, as one of my colleagues say, the Democrat lethargy bills, myself and the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Conaway, have introduced H.R. 5656, which almost has 100 cosponsors now, that would repeal this section, which would allow the Federal Government to contract for these alternative fuels to try to bring in more energy independence to help jump-start some of these alternative technologies, which is a huge part of the solution in order to bring down the price of gasoline at the pump. Mr. Speaker, many of us will come to the floor to talk about this very critical issue to American families, and those who have town hall meetings know it is the number one issue on the minds of our constituents, as it well should be. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to lead this Special Order tonight. At this time I would like to yield to the coauthor of H.R. 5656, which would repeal this needless section making it more difficult to enact alternative energy policies, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Conaway, for his opening comments.

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman, and for our final closing comments, I yield to the other gentleman from Texas.

Mr. HENSARLING. Again, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership. I thank him for working with me and co-authoring, I think, a very important piece of legislation. Again, Mr. Speaker, since the Democrats took control of the energy policy of this Nation 18 months ago, the price of gasoline has increased 70 percent to over $4 a gallon, having a terrible impact on working families all across America and the Fifth District of Texas that I represent. I recently heard from the Gardner family of Dallas who wrote me: ``Dear Congressman, I am the proud father of an Eagle Scout. I know you are an Eagle as well. I have a younger son in the Scouting program. In order to afford sending our youngest to summer camp, we have had to cancel any summer family trips in order to afford the increased cost of fuel of sending our youngest to camp in Colorado.'' Mr. Speaker, I salute this family for their commitment to Scouting, their commitment to their son, but under the Democrat energy policies that have seen gasoline go to over $4 a gallon, families all across America are having to cancel their summer vacation plans. Mr. Speaker, what's the answer? Well, I wish there was just one magic button or one magic wand that we could wave to get this done. There is not, but it has a lot to do with, again, producing American energy in America, and it is not just oil and gas. It is renewables. It is alternatives. I am proud to say that our Republican Party has constantly, constantly supported renewable energy. In the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was almost $4 billion for the hydrogen fuel cell program, with the goal of launching hydrogen fuel cars by the year 2020; $3 billion dedicated to developing affordable, efficient and renewable energy technologies. We supported extending the renewable electricity production credit, the H Prize that would offer cash prizes for achievements in the development of hydrogen energy technologies, millions for biomass research, millions for solar research. Renewables are part of the equation. Mr. Speaker, before I came to Congress, I was an officer in one of the Nation's leading retailers of green electricity. I'm committed to it. Mr. Speaker, I'm the father of a 6-year-old daughter and a 4-year- old son, and I hope one day that they are driving in hydrogen-powered cars. I hope that one day they will have solar cells on their roofs and no longer be tied to the electricity grid. But in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, every day in America somebody needs to drive to work today. Every day in America somebody needs to take an elderly parent to see a doctor. That's today. Somebody has to take their child to school. That is today. There are wonderful renewable technologies, but I can tell you as one who has worked in the industry, for these to be commercially viable, for them to be scalable, these technologies are easily 10 years away, perhaps 15, and in some cases, 20. Another part of the answer, Mr. Speaker, is diversification. China is building two to three nuclear plants a year. In America, we haven't built a new nuclear plant and we haven't had any new permits in 30 years, and yet we know nuclear power has zero emissions, no impact, no carbon footprint whatsoever. We need diversification. Another thing we need to do, Mr. Speaker, under the Republican plan to bring down the price of fuel at the pump is reduce the number of boutique fuels. There was a time in America's history where if you drove from Spokane, Washington, to Kansas City, Kansas, to Dallas, Texas, to Miami, Florida, there's only one gasoline you bought. Now it may be as many as a dozen, which drives up the price and leads to spot shortages. Mr. Speaker, not only have we doubled, we are twice as dependent on foreign sources of energy today as we were at the height of the Arab oil embargo. Not only are we importing more oil, we are now having to import refined gasoline. Why? Because we haven't built a refinery in a generation because of this worshipping at the altar of radical environmentalism. And Mr. Speaker, sometimes I think my friends on the other side of the aisle have forgotten that people are part of the environment, too, and they're struggling. They're struggling to keep their job, pay their rent, fill up their cars. We have to expand American refining capacity. And then we have to produce the energy we have. Mr. Speaker, we are blessed with great energy resources. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. That's why I and the gentleman from Texas have introduced this bill to ensure that Federal agencies can contract to help to develop these promising technologies in coal-to-liquid. It's already being done in Britain, in Saudi Arabia. We can do it now if the Democrat majority would get out of the way and let us produce. And our oil resources, Mr. Speaker, the Outer Continental Shelf, our deep sea resources, why is 85 percent of that outlawed? Why is it off the board? Why can't we produce there? There are decades and decades and decades of energy just sitting there for the take, and again, the radical environmental left that helps control our Democrat majority won't let it happen. The arctic area of Alaska, half of our proven petroleum reserves sit there in an area of America where almost no one lives. Mr. Speaker, I get to represent a large portion of East Texas, and I can tell you, somehow man, nature and pump jack can coexist. They can coexist peacefully, and it can be done in Alaska as well. So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that something as challenging as the high price of petroleum, that we could come together as Republicans and Democrats and work for the betterment of all the people in America. But Mr. Speaker, you cannot outlaw supply and demand. You cannot do it. Demand has increased precipitously over the world, particularly in areas like China and India, and we're sitting on these great supplies, and we're the only Nation in the world that I'm aware of who sits on so much energy and refuses to produce it. And instead, what does our Democrat majority offer us? Beg OPEC, sue OPEC, tax oil companies, castigate oil companies, impose a form of price controls. That does nothing, nothing to help American families. The Republican plan will, and with that, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman from Texas for joining us this evening. I thank him for the valuable leadership that he provides us in the Republican Congress, and I particularly appreciate his comments, his illuminating comments on leasing and what it is that we can do as a Nation to provide more American energy in America. Again, Mr. Speaker, elections have consequences. Since the Democrats took over the energy policy of this Nation 18 months ago, when they took it over, gasoline was selling at a national average of $2.33 a gallon. Today we know, Mr. Speaker, it is well over $4 a gallon in just 18 months. I'm not sure if history shows us any greater increase in the price at the pump in such a short period of time under the policies, again, of this Democrat majority. Now, that's having a devastating impact, Mr. Speaker, on working families. And yet the Democrat majority refuses, refuses to do anything to produce more energy in America. And I think sometimes, Mr. Speaker, they forget about how their policies are impacting hard working American families. Again, I have the privilege of representing the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. And I hear from my constituents often about the challenges they're facing having to pay this Pelosi premium, having to pay all of this extra money for gas. I recently heard from the Forest family of Mesquite, Texas. And they wrote to me, Dear Congressman, we cannot continue to operate this way. We have now canceled our life insurance policies, canceled our cable, scaled down our automobile insurance, and buy only the necessities at the grocery store. No movies or other luxuries. My son and his daughter have had to move in with us because he can no longer pay rent, day care, buy food, and pay for his auto insurance and gas to go to work. Again, Mr. Speaker, I know they don't mean to do it, but the Democrat majority has got to wake up on how their no energy, no production policies are hurting working Americans. People in Mesquite, Texas, are having to cancel their life insurance policies and take in their adult children back into their homes because they refuse, refuse to produce any American energy in America to bring down the cost of gasoline at the pump. That is a travesty, Mr. Speaker, a travesty. And for further comments on the energy policies that we need in the Nation, and the need to repeal this Section 526 that for all intents and purposes will make it almost impossible to develop oil shale, tar sands, and coal-to-liquid technology, I once again want to yield to the coauthor of H.R. 5656, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for joining us, and I certainly appreciate his illuminating comments. Mr. Speaker, I hope people listened very carefully to what the gentleman had to say. First, again, since the Democrats took over the Nation's energy policies 18 months ago, the price of gasoline, as almost every working family in America knows, has increased, roughly, 70 percent in just 18 months. How does that impact working families in America? Well, Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, and I go out of my way to make sure that I reach out to my constituents and understand the challenges, their hopes and aspirations, and I hear from them frequently. I have recently heard from the Thomas family in Mesquite, Texas. They wrote to me. ``Dear Congressman, to make up for the rising prices, we calculate the use of the car to make the gas last a week. Some things we no longer can buy. We have had to cut back on our groceries. We rarely have three meals a day anymore.'' Mr. Speaker, I know they don't mean to do it. I know there are men and women of good intentions, but under the Democrat energy policies, people in Mesquite, Texas, can no longer have three meals a day. That is the result of these policies. Again, as they have tried to beg, castigate, tax and criminalize their way into lower gas prices, they have failed each and every time. What they want to do is produce American energy in America. As the gentleman from Georgia pointed out, under their policies, Mr. Speaker, 85 percent, 85 percent of our deep-sea resources are put out of bounds, out of bounds. And 75 percent of our onshore resources, out of bounds. The Arctic area of Alaska where more than half of America's proven energy reserves reside, no, can't produce American energy there. Why wouldn't you want to do that when people are suffering? Now there are so many different things that we need to do, but the most important thing that we need to do, Mr. Speaker, is produce American energy in America. I just read today where there was a huge discovery of petroleum off the coast of Brazil. In Brazil, they celebrated. What a wonderful thing, we have these huge new energy reserves. America must be the only country in the world that when we discover great energy reserves, it is a cause for mourning. Oh, no, we have oil. Oh, no, we have natural gas. Quick let's go out, let's make sure nobody can touch it. It is a point of shame. We can't have these natural resources helping working American families. I mean, what a fouled-up policy, Mr. Speaker. I am very happy that we have been joined tonight by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) who knows all too well what the Democrat majority has done to put all of this energy out of bounds and who will speak to us more about what needs to be done in leasing our deep-sea resources and the Arctic area of Alaska. I am very happy to yield time to Mr. Carter.

Mr. HENSARLING. Well, I thank the gentleman for his opening comments, and I certainly thank him for his leadership and for working with me in coauthoring this critical piece of legislation to help us really start, jump start, some of the alternative fuels that will help us bring down the cost of gasoline at the pump. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I want to yield time to one of the real workhorses in Congress, to one of the outspoken advocates of trying to produce American energy in America. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is recognized.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the Lake Highlands Exchange Club and Rhonda Russell, founder of the Lake Highlands Military Moms. Rhonda formed Military Moms so that mothers could meet once a month to exchange stories, updates, and photographs of their children serving our Nation in uniform overseas. Recently, these two groups joined together to ensure that our servicemen and women received the local recognition they deserved for their heroic efforts. For example, they created posters for display throughout the Lake Highlands Community featuring photographs of 54 men and women serving our Nation in uniform. Additionally, they ensure that every returning servicemember is publicly honored at the Exchange Club meetings. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I'm honored to be able to recognize the Lake Highlands Exchange Club and Lake Highlands Military Moms for their continued efforts in honoring our heroes in uniform.