Thad McCotter

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, woven throughout the fabric of our lives in the Wolverine State, we in Michigan, the Midwest, and all of America must never take our Great Lakes for granted. Today, in a bipartisan moment that reflects what is both the best in us and is expected of us, we come together to ensure that we do not take them for granted. I come to this as someone whose parents took him on vacation with my brother up to Lake Superior to see its pristine natural beauty, to watch the glow of a Michigan sunset over Lake Michigan, to fish in Lake Erie and, in a moment of rare weakness on the part of my wife, I proposed to her on the shores of Lake Huron. I won't bring up whether she regrets it or not. I say this because, as we raise our own children and they share the same experiences with the natural beauty of the Great Lakes, we are honoring a commitment to future generations to ensure that, for the time to come, our Great Lakes remain not only the boon of our quality of life and to the vibrancy of our economy, but they remain the most visible way we in Michigan and in the Midwest in America can teach our children that we honored our duty to defend those Great Lakes and pass them on for future generations. I thank you for the opportunity to be a part of this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. And I think you've hit upon, with the quote from Speaker Pelosi about trying to save the planet, one of the fundamental problems that we've run into trying to come up with a sound energy policy for the United States. As the gentleman from Tennessee talked about, we want a bridge. We want a responsible transition from where we are today to where America becomes energy-independent and secure. We believe we need maximum American energy production, commonsense conservation, and free-market, green innovations to provide that responsible transition that does not allow for the callous infliction of economic pain upon the American people. And when you think about what we hear in phrases like, ``I'm trying to save the planet, I'm trying to save the planet,'' what we're really hearing is that the party that was elected to lower our gas prices, the Democratic Party, has made a subtle shift in what they're trying to accomplish. They're now trying to break us off our addiction--not to foreign oil simply; they are now trying to break our addiction to oil. So, in short, their solution to the problem of high gas prices is to make sure that no one has access to any gas at all. And that's why another quote, which I'm sure you'll put up, is that they have described, in their own Democratic staff's words, ``Drive smaller cars and wait for the wind.'' This is not a responsible solution. Like many people, when I was growing up--I'm 43--I remember something called the ABC Wide World of Sports. I remember ``The Agony of Defeat.'' And I used to like Evel Knievel. Now, there was one time when Evel Knievel, instead of just jumping over cars and busses--you know, he worked for a living, it's tough work; if you can get it, it pays well--he was going to jump something called the Snake River Canyon. And I remember watching this on a little, tiny TV screen with my dad. And my dad looked at it, just looked at Evel and his little suped-up motorcycle, he looked at this enormous Snake River Canyon, and my dad said, ``That boy ain't gonna get there from here.'' And when I think of the Democrats' energy strategy, whereby we have no domestic production of our own natural resources from the Outer Continental Shelf, from ANWR, from anybody else, anywhere else, and they tell us, we're going to fix this with green technological innovations, it's going to be magic, I think of poor Evel Knievel. The only difference is that, in trying to jump immediately, cold turkey, from our current petroleum-based economy into some distant green future where we do not need our own domestic energy resources, is we are not simply taking the American people over the Snake River Canyon, the Democratic majority is pushing them over an economic cliff. And they are already beginning to see where the abyss lays every time they drive by and buy gas at the pump. Now, as we heard about the process last night, people think, why does process matter? I don't know. It seems to me that as a sovereign citizen of our free republic, we live in a democracy for a reason; that the will of one person will not be imposed upon any sovereign citizen of the United States, certainly not by the subservient Members of Congress because we work for these people. These people are our bosses, and they want their voices heard on the floor of this House. And on an issue as critical as American energy and how we transition to a secure future not only for ourselves, but more importantly, for our children, they expect to have their voices heard through their elected representatives. And as the gentleman from Georgia pointed out, we heard several promises about what an open process this was going to be, how every vote was going to count, how every voice was going to be heard and we would come together in a bipartisan fashion to serve the American people. And yet, what did we see? We saw a bill drafted in the dead of night by a Speaker, handed to her Rules Committee, no amendments allowed, and voted, rubber-stamped by her Democratic Congress, with no debate on this floor, no dissent about amendments, no chance to offer alternatives, no committee process. Silence, silence, in terms of input on this bill. And then we saw something that I thought I would never see. We saw 24 people who had co-sponsored a bipartisan bill, who had sang its praises to their public and to the rest of the American people, and they voted against it--and I didn't really hear a good reason put forward--so they could pass a sham drill bill. Now, we've heard a lot about why the Republicans didn't do certain things over the course of their majority. And we paid a heavy price-- and a rightful price, as many of us have admitted. We were put into minority, from majority to minority status by the American people, and we are learning a painful lesson. But let us not forget the people who obstructed a sound, sane, productive American energy policy for the entire time they were in the minority. They act as if they had no hand in it. When we were in the majority, we tried, we tried mightily. Many times the House would pass legislation and it would get to the Senate, yet the Democratic minority did everything they could to prevent the expansion of American domestic energy production to the level sufficient that it would serve the American people and lower the gas prices. The only difference now that they're in the majority is they have to pretend that they're trying to lower them. And that's why, when you pass a bill out of this House called a compromise bill when you have not talked to anyone on this side of the aisle about what goes in the bill, it means it's a compromise amongst yourselves. That is a unilateral compromise. So let's be clear about who compromised with who. And then when it comes to the floor, it's called ``landmark legislation,'' it's going to create jobs. And if you vote against this, you are a captive of Big Oil because you don't want to lock up 88 percent of America's reserves? As our friend Steve Scalise from Louisiana said, the Democratic ``sham drill bill'' might as well have been written by OPEC; it's going to make them a lot of money when America doesn't produce its own oil and gas. And the best part is their unilateral compromise the Speaker cut with whomever, they didn't bother to talk to the Senate. As Senator Landrieu from Louisiana mentioned, that bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. How do the statements we've heard yesterday, the justifications, the compromise, landmark legislation, when your own Democratic Senators think it's dead on arrival? Where is the hope for the economically struggling families across America? Where is your sense of responsibility, not only to the people of this country, but to their House right here, to this institution? Where is the hope for the American people who are suffering under energy prices, skyrocketing since you took power in this place? There isn't. Because it's a sham. And it is the Democratic Senate that will prove it. It is not Republican Luddites that don't want to go forward towards a more ``green'' future. What it is is the Democratic Senate telling the Democratic House we can't stomach your bill. Now, the thing that I think that everybody should remember is there is a solution to this. If and when this happens, if the Democratic Senate refuses to pass the Democratic House ``lethargy bill,'' this Democratic majority here in the House, the Democratic majority in the Senate, this Democratic Congress can say we will not leave here until a real piece of energy legislation helping the American people is signed into law, until we have done the job we have been elected to do on behalf of the American people. I do not think that is too much to ask. I do not think that is something that the American people should be denied. I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. McCOTTER. Will the gentlelady yield for a question?

Mr. McCOTTER. You've brought up the Constitution. Previously, we had heard throughout the energy debate that there is about $10 billion a month being spent in Iraq. Will the gentlelady please tell the Democratic Congress who controls the power of the purse to appropriate those billions of dollars to Iraq?

Mr. McCOTTER. Will the gentlelady please yield for one more impertinent question?

Mr. McCOTTER. If the Democratic House and the Democratic Senate chose not to appropriate money to Iraq to the tune of $10 billion a month, could that money be spent there?

Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentleman. Earlier the gentleman from Tennessee had mentioned that we are going to be looking at the prospect of a speculators bill on the floor again. My question is, regardless of the merits of the speculators bill, it is a simple proposition to anyone watching. We have heard much debate about energy policy. I remember hearing much of this back in a very unpleasant period of our Nation's history called the 1970s. What is old is new again. So when we hear about the speculators bill, the Democratic Congress, the Democratic majority, had come in with a reputation for being against the production of American domestic energy. Again, it was not limited to the technique of drilling. Clean coal, nuclear energy, all sorts of alternatives they were opposed to. Now, if you were investing your money in the energy market and you saw the anti-American energy party take power in Washington, and you understood the concept of supply and demand, that as demand goes up, if supply stays stagnant, prices skyrocket, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that when the Democratic majority came into Washington, it was against the domestic production of America's own energy resources, that something was going to give and the prices were going to shoot through the roof and you were going to make a lot of money. So, again what you see is the total denial of responsibility for their policies, many of which have failed to be implemented, having an impact on markets. Just as we will hear later on, or throughout the rest of the year, the 12 days or so that they even show up for the work they are paid to do, is when you promise the largest tax increase in American history in your budgets, when your chairman of the Ways and Means Committee talks about the ``mother of all tax increases,'' this is going to have affect on markets. This is going to have an effect on the rational, hard-working Americans, who every day know that as much as they scrimp and save, here comes big brother government to take that money right out of your pocket. So consequences of ideas, or even bad ideas especially, can be detrimental to the average, hard-working American. Now, you and I, through the Chair the gentleman from Georgia, we know one thing: The best economic stimulus for the United States of America is an all-of-the-above energy strategy that gets that trend line on energy prices stabilized and going down so that the unemployment numbers can stabilize and start going down; so speculators start losing money because the supply of oil will be coming online and they know it; so big oil doesn't make the money as the supply floods the market to meet the demand and the prices stabilize and go down; so hard-working Americans know they are not going to have to choose between freezing and eating, they are not going to have to worry about whether they can drive to see their doctor in rural areas; so they can make sure they still work in manufacturing because the fixed cost of energy hasn't driven their job offshore or killed it altogether. We know this, which is why we are so passionate about helping the people who have entrusted us with the opportunity to serve them in this, their House. I will wrap it up with this, the gentleman from Georgia. There are many people who say, Republicans, you weren't great. You told us you stood for things. You told us you believed our liberty was from God, not the government; our prosperity was from the private sector, not the public sector. Yes, we did, and we did not do a good enough job keeping with our principles. There is a difference between us and this Democratic majority. I want to know what the succinct enunciation of the principles upon which you base policy are. Because what I see in the energy debate, or lack thereof, and the Democrat sham energy bill is a quite simple proposition. They support the government rationing of American energy. You will get 12 percent when you are suffering. We will lock up 88 percent forever. That is the gist of their argument. Why does this matter now? Because you hear more of the same promises that the gentleman from Georgia listed and had proven broken. And when you start to do your thinking this year, as the American people are want to do, I will be more than happy if the American voters judge this Democratic Congress not by the fact that it took America in a new direction to a 9 percent approval rating, which technically makes the Democratic Congress the most hated in American history; I want Americans to look at two numbers. I want Americans to look at the price of gas when the Democratic Party took power in January of 2007, promising to lower them; and I want them to look at the price of gas, oh, maybe around early November 2008. And tell you me if you have changed your mind, if you no longer think this Democratic Congress deserves to be the most hated in American history. Because they have a chance to work with us. We are putting politics aside. We will compromise in a real bipartisan fashion to help the people whole elected us. But if you refuse, there is nothing we can do, because, as the gentleman started out earlier, the math doesn't add up in our favor.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor the extraordinary life of Barbara Colbeck upon her passing at the age of 64. For almost 50 years Barbara dedicated her life to liturgical music and her community. Born and raised in Detroit, Barbara attended Saint Lawrence Grade School and Holy Redeemer High School. There, she would meet and fall in love with her high school sweetheart William. They married, and spent 40 wonderful years together. A resident of Livonia, Barbara began to play piano and organ at St. Lawrence when she was in 7th grade. For 49 years she played at Detroit area Churches. She played liturgical music at St. Simon, St. Jude, was First Organist at St. Colette, and finally served as Music Minister at St. Edith. On August 17, 2008, Barbara passed away. A beloved mother, grandmother, daughter, and sister, she is survived by her husband William, sons Patrick and Christopher, daughter Cherlyn Sellepack, and grandchildren Michael, John, Carolann, and Julianna. Known by her friends and family for her generosity, her strength, and her smile, Barbara faced cancer with dignity and courage, never losing her faith or friendship for all. St. Edith Church was graced by her music and her smile for 23 years. Barbara Colbeck's music will live on in the memory of those who knew her. Madam Speaker, Barbara Colbeck is remembered as a musician, cantor, teacher, mentor, and friend. Today, as we bid her farewell, I ask my colleagues to join me in mourning her passing and honoring her lifetime of contribution to our community.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule, and like our previous speaker from Indiana (Mr. Pence), I do support the Childers amendment in the nature of a substitute. But I, too, find it ironic that we are discussing this today when we have so little time to discuss America's future energy security and energy independence. Earlier today we've heard that we will be confronting landmark legislation. I concur with this assessment. Unfortunately, it will not be a landmark energy policy. It is going to be a landmark in political cynicism. We've heard much about a compromise being struck. Yet as a member of a party that has not been consulted on this legislation, let alone involved in a free, open, and transparent process, we are left but to assume there's a compromise amongst the Speaker herself, potentially radical special interest groups, and maybe members of her own caucus that were privileged to be a part of its drafting behind closed doors. Then what do we celebrate, as we've heard the word ``celebrate'' this landmark legislation so much? What do we celebrate? Do we celebrate the end of the House as a free, open, transparent institution where the voices of the American people are expressed through their servants in this Congress, to have an influence on legislation, to have an impact on legislation? Or do we actually, more, commemorate the loss of an individual's ability to serve as legislators rather than as radical rubber stamps for legislation placed under their noses? What does this legislation do? Well, it increases a lot of things. It increases utility prices. It increases gas prices, increases taxes, increases everything but energy. And as we know, this is not what the American people demand. It is not what the American people deserve. So we ask ourselves why. Well, there are two reasons. The first reason comes to us out of the curious visage that we have before us as Members, who in the past would not vote to drill a tooth, now embracing oil derricks as if they were endangered darter snails. The question is why. It's because, as has been pointed out by many of my colleagues, this bill is not a drill bill, and drilling is, by the way, a technique. It is a technique that meets the goal which is maximum American energy production, and in that, this bill falls short. In fact, while you might be tempted to judge this book by its cover, the Dems are in the details and no drilling will occur, for many of the reasons put forward earlier. So you ask yourself why. Why would we not expand supply? Why would we not allow Americans to access their own domestic energy resources to help successfully transition to American energy security and independence? The reality is this. There are people who believe that high energy prices will help make this transition necessary, will force the American people to radically change their lifestyles in the pursuit of some abstract dystopia put forward by radical environmentalists and others who seek to undo the industrial age in American economic prosperity during this transition to a globalized economy. That is the real basis of this discussion. That is the basis of this debate. We can have an all-of-the-above energy strategy that responsibly transitions America into a future of energy security and independence, or we can have a radical restructuring of their very lifestyle through the government regulation and rationing of American energy. The consequences upon the people of this country will be devastating and, in the end, they will not be fooled. For while this bill comes before us and we are told the Republicans should not take ``yes'' for an answer, the reality is this: The American people will not mistake ``no'' for a solution, and in the end, they will also come to the conclusion that by not increasing American supply of their own energy resources, this deadbeat, drill-nothing Democrat Congress is Big Oil's best friend.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, two quick points as the debate draws to a close. First, I have to question again the use of the term ``compromise.'' The use of the term ``compromise'' implies that the minority party was consulted, our advice was sought, that we could channel the wishes and aspirations and voices of our people into this debate as the legislation moves forward. We were denied that opportunity. Perhaps it would be best to clarify that this is a compromise amongst the Democratic Party itself and not amongst the majority and minority parties. Secondly, this bill continues to ration energy. This is a government rationing of energy, and at this point in time when America needs energy production, it will not meet the needs of people who are suffering.

Mr. McCOTTER

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. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I have great empathy for the gentleman from Utah who hoped for a big ending. I would prefer just a passable beginning; so bear with me. I come from the State of Michigan, as my colleague who spoke earlier, Peter Hoekstra, so well earlier discussed. We are a State that is suffering. We are a manufacturing State that has seen job losses for several years in a row. And what we have also seen because of the high price of energy is a drop-off in our tourism trade both from Michigan residents inside the State who could not afford to take a family vacation and for people who come to our wonderful Great Lakes State to recreate. This is a twofold problem which has done something to the State of Michigan which has happened to no other of the 49 States. Last year Michigan became the only State in the Union to have a rise in poverty and a decrease in median income. The cost of energy is exacerbating this suffering greatly. Now, because my State wants to work under difficult economic times, I want to express the absolute disgust that many of us have for the way people who have been elected by the sovereign citizens of the United States to serve in this Congress have worked on their jobs. We have seen over the month of August in America 84,000 American jobs lost in large part due to energy costs. In response, the Democratic-controlled Congress took a 5-week paid vacation. On our part as Republicans, we came to this floor every day this Congress should have been in session and had a speak-in with the American people about what we hoped to do on their behalf if given the chance by the Democratic majority to actually come here and earn the salaries that we were being paid. We got no response from the Democratic Party. But we did get a response from the American people. And the response that we got from the American people was loud and clear: It was we would like to have a fair up-or-down vote on the bipartisan all-of-the-above American energy strategy. What is in this? As the speaker from Utah stressed, it is not simply a drill-only bill. It has three key components as we move towards an important goal. The first is maximum American energy production. The second is commonsense conservation. The third is free market green innovations. Now, why do we need all three? So we can have a responsible transition to American energy security and independence. If we do not recognize that this problem is one of supply and demand, if we do nothing to increase the supply, you can do one of two things: You can let the cost continue to escalate or you can focus on the demand. If you focus solely on the demand, what you are doing to the American people is saying what some people have said about American gas prices: ``We are better off without cheap gas.'' This is a cold turkey policy which for ideological reasons will accomplish nothing but pain and suffering unnecessarily on the American people's family budgets and on their pursuit of the American Dream, which I point out is not necessarily to be mandated that it has to occur on foot. We want a responsible transition to American energy security and independence, one that makes the American people full participants in this transformational undertaking and does not continue the state of affairs that is occurring now here in their own country. Who are the best friends of Big Oil? My friend from Utah touched upon it. The best friends of Big Oil are the people who do nothing. And for 5 weeks we saw who was doing nothing and we saw who was trying to do something. If you want to be a friend to Big Oil, continue the government-mandated rationing of American energy. Stop Americans from extracting their own natural resources to increase supply as we transition to American energy security and independence because if you do not allow that supply to increase here at home, American oil from American soil, you're going to continue to see prices rise. You're going to continue to see the Big Oil companies that you claim not to like reap even greater harvest at the gas pump, and meanwhile you will know that you were complicit in this, and we will make sure that the rest of the country does too. In the final analysis, if we do not have a fair up-or-down vote, the suffering is going to continue and no amount of political chicanery is going to mask the fact to the American people that you refused to act and when you were compelled to act, you refused to do anything substantive that was going to help them because all they have to do is drive. All they have to do is need any form of energy, be it gasoline, be it home heating oil, and check the price and see what did or did not occur on your behalf and who did or did not act. When we came back into session, what did we find? We found trout waiting for us. We decided we were going to do something about trout and perhaps that would spawn an energy bill that perhaps could help Americans. This is yet to prove the case because what we have seen is a continuation of the 5-week paid Democrat vacation that has stumbled into week 6 with nothing substantive being done about energy prices, an internal debate amongst their own caucus as to what to do if to do anything. And we stand here with not a bluff but a bill. We have stood here with the American Energy Act and asked for one thing: an up-or- down vote. They have refused. I have no doubt that as we proceed in this process, the American people are not only going to be outraged by the fact that we have done nothing on energy to help them, they are going to look at a calendar as put forward by the Democratic majority in this Congress that has something that you who work for a living could never do. Between August 1 and January 1, this Democratic Congress cares so much about working Americans and energy that they will meet for 15 working days out of 5 months for full pay. You try doing that at your job, if you're lucky enough to have one, thanks to this Democratic Congress.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentleman from Iowa, and I rise to address some of the issues that were raised by our colleague from New York, whose sincere earnestness was not matched by his argument's accuracy. Let us look at this situation squarely in the face. You can either increase America's supply of its own domestic natural resources in oil and gas, or you won't. Now, if you want to support it and increase the supply of American oil and natural gas, which we have to understand is that every time you play politics, for whatever ideological reason, to have government imposed rationing over America's production of their own domestic natural resources, you are going to increase the cost to the American consumers, because the more you hold back, the less supply is added, and this at the very time that global demand increasing. What you are going to want to do is increase the supply as best you can, as fast as you can, so you can help Americans who are suffering. What we have seen out of this Democratic party is quite simply a fig leaf plan to do nothing. First, do-nothing bills that come to this Congress that are purported to be energy bills are in fact lethargy bills that are designed in fact to have a supermajority required to pass them. Why are they designed so have a supermajority to pass them? Why make it harder to do something that will actually help Americans at the pump? Because they are designed to fail, and they are not allowed to be amended by the Members on this floor. So this is part of a cynical strategy to put forward a do-nothing bill, get nothing done, and refuse to accept your accountability as the Democratic majority. All we are asking the Democratic majority is to either agree with us to have a bipartisan vote on the all-of-the-above energy plan or to be honest with the American people. We have heard that somehow the Republican Party is engaged in a myth. Well, if it is a myth, then let us put it to the test on the floor with a vote. Let us see how many Democrats believe it is a myth. The Republican Party can pass nothing in this House without Democratic support. We believe we have it, and if we don't, we will accept the defeat, move forward and try to find a way to work with the Democratic Party's leadership, which seems to believe that the United States does not need to increase its own domestic energy supplies, but rather needs to go cold turkey into an oil-free future, which I continue to stress is going to callously inflict pain upon Americans' pocketbooks and their quality of life. This is an ideological battle, but it is not an ideological battle amongst the majority of Members of Congress. Again, I could be wrong, but give us an up-or-down vote. In fact, as you know, through the Chair to the gentleman from Iowa, as you know, we have seen this Democratic Congress take a 5 week paid vacation while 84,000 Americans were put out of work. The Speaker of this House had time to write a book, but not a bill on energy. We still do not have a bill on energy. We still have nothing in front of us, except what? A bill that has already been introduced called the American Energy Act. And whether it is fact or fiction, or good or bad public policy, we can debate that, if you let us. We can debate that and have a vote, if you let us. If you allow this representative institution, this beckon of democracy to all the world to actually function as it is intended under the Constitution of the United States and as it has been entrusted to us by our constituents, put it up for a vote. Let our voices be heard on behalf of our constituents, and let the majority, if not a party prevail, but the people prevail. That is all we ask. But let us be clear about what the stakes are and the positions are. We support an all-of-the-above strategy. We want maximum domestic energy production as a part of it. We do not want minimum energy production as part of an ideologically zealous pursuit of some unobtainable future in the near term which is going to devastate Americans' lives now. I yield back.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, in August the high price of energy helped cost 84,000 Americans their jobs; 39,000 auto manufacturing jobs in the State of Michigan alone were reported lost. The response of this Democratic Congress was to take a 5-week paid vacation at taxpayer expense without doing anything on the price of energy. What we have asked for repeatedly in this Chamber, and even through the recess by taking to the floor, is for an all-of-the-above energy strategy that includes maximum American energy production, commonsense conservation, and free market green innovations. It is time for a vote on this commonsense bipartisan proposal. The American people cannot afford to wait. Instead, we see a Speaker who had time to write a book now coming to us finding time to write a new energy proposal unilaterally. All we ask for is a vote on existing legislation. Again, Mr. Speaker, the American people cannot afford to wait.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to place into the Record my letter to His Holiness Benedict XVI concerning the persecution of the Christian community in Iraq. July 24, 2008. His Holiness Benedict XVI, Apostolic Palace, Vatican City State, Europe.---- Your Holiness: It is with great respect that I write to you as both a Member of Congress and a Roman Catholic. Your witness to justice and advocacy of the plight of the persecuted is an instrument of hope. Your Holiness has emphasized the importance to the Church of the well-being of the ancient Christian community of Iraq. It is now widely acknowledged to be an ``endangered'' community, with nearly half of its members forced to flee Iraq over the past five years. As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Migration & Refugee Services reported last July: ``Especially critical is the plight of Iraq's minority religious communities, including Christians and Mandeans (or Sabeans). These groups, whose home has been what is now Iraq for many centuries, are literally being obliterated--not because they are fleeing generalized violence but because they are being specifically and viciously victimized by Islamic extremists and, in some cases, common criminals.'' As you meet with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki tomorrow, please know that the United States is shifting its burden to the Iraqi government. It is imperative that he acknowledge and commit to the future well-being of Iraq's endangered religious minorities. Concerned Americans, including the ChaldoAssyrian Christians in my Congressional district, are anxious that the Maliki government address the following issues to ensure that the Iraqi Christians, who have made contributions to Iraqi society far beyond what their numbers suggest, and other smallest minorities are able to maintain their presence as part of the national fabric of that country: Security, including protection for their vulnerable clergy, development assistance, humanitarian aid for the large number of displaced among them, educational opportunities, full civic participation, including thorough measures to guarantee free and fair provincial elections later this year that would allow them just representation, and equal treatment under the constitution that would allow political autonomy in the Nineveh Plains. Be assured that I will remain actively engaged with the ChaldoAssyrian Church and civic leaders in the United States and Iraq to protect the fundamental dignity of this oppressed ancient community of Iraq. The psalmist seeking deliverance from his enemies remembers the great mercy of God. ``Blessed be the Lord! For he has shown me the wonders of his love in a besieged city . . . Be strong and let your heart take courage, all you who wait for the Lord'' (Psalm 31: 21,24) The Christians of Iraq have suffered threats of violence, kidnappings, murder and being exiled from their ancient homeland. And yet, they are resilient in the face of what is certainly an existential threat. Their great faith and your advocacy on their behalf, give them hope. I have the honor to profess myself with the most profound respect, your Holiness, sincerely yours, Thaddeus G. McCotter, Member of Congress.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, this week we commemorate the 55th anniversary of the armistice which theoretically ended the armed hostilities in the Korean War. I say ``theoretically'' because it appears communist North Korea periodically forgets it is the party to the permanent ceasefire. For instance, in July 2003, soldiers in the DMZ exchanged machine-gun fire, with the first shots coming from communist North Korea. This particular attack was not timed arbitrarily. It occurred on the 55th anniversary of the enactment of South Korea's constitution. Fortunately, no one was hurt. Similarly, less than a year ago last August, there was an unprovoked gunfire shot from a communist North Korean guard post toward a South Korean guard post in the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) which separates the free Republic of Korea from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Again, fortunately, in that incident, nobody was injured. Most recently, on July 11, 2008, a South Korean citizen, Mrs. Wang- Ja Park, was shot dead by a communist North Korean soldier while visiting a beach at Mount Keumgang, a resort that is popular with South Korean tourists who visit communist North Korea. The killing of Mrs. Park is a serious matter that deserves worldwide scrutiny. Even without the context of previous exchanges of military gunfire between North and South Korea, this event should not be considered in isolation from larger policy questions. The unfortunate and regrettable killing of Wang-Ja Park offers illumination to my view, which is shared by others, that the current administration's decision and notification to Congress to remove communist North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism was premature and ill-considered. This incident lays bare the brutality of the communist North Korean regime and suggests we should continue to be vigilant. Madam Speaker, in the wake of Mrs. Park's death, we should all be concerned about the lack of cooperation by communist North Korean authorities in the investigation of the incident. South Korean investigators have been refused access to the scene of the crime by communist North Korean authorities, and there are serious discrepancies in accounts made by eyewitnesses and by the communist North Korean government. I strongly urge communist North Korea to cooperate fully with South Korea on a joint investigation into this terrible tragedy. The South Korean government has rightly suspended tours to Mount Keumgang and the suspension should continue until a joint investigation has been completed and North Korea's communist government assures this will not happen again. To do otherwise would simply whitewash the incident. Apart from the very serious foreign policy ramifications of this tragic event, I wish to convey my sincere condolences to the family of Mrs. Park and to all South Korean citizens who have been shocked and dismayed by her death, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. The people of South Korea should know Americans are thinking about them, about their safety and security, and we remain committed to the shared verities of ordered liberty and democracy which make our nations--the Republic of Korea and the United States of America-- prosperous, free, and compassionate.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge Mr. and Mrs. Matthew and Diane Dunaskiss upon their 30th wedding anniversary. The couple first met in the Lake Orion School District, where they still reside today. Diane Tench had always wanted to be a teacher, and after graduating from Wayne State University, she became an elementary teacher at Pine Tree Elementary in Lake Orion, Michigan. Her loyalty and commitment to the school grew in the year 2000, as she became principal. Diane Dunaskiss was elected state-wide and is serving her second term on the Wayne State Board of Governors. Matthew Dunaskiss put himself through college by making buttons at local fairs and, later, graduated from the University of Michigan. Mr. Dunaskiss started his career in teaching, but life took him on another path, which led him into politics and small business. Matthew served at the state level as a State Representative and State Senator for over 20 years. While Matthew and Diane developed their careers, they decided to start a family and had three beautiful children, Jamie, Justin, and Jordan. Through all of their hard work, Mr. Dunaskiss still prepares meals he thinks his wife will enjoy, and Mrs. Dunaskiss still finds time to help her husband out around the house. They have raised their children in a loving, fun, and educational environment, and have shown them, through good times and bad, to support and love your spouse unconditionally. Madam Speaker, Matthew and Diane have demonstrated their enduring love and commitment to one another for the past thirty years. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. and Mrs. Matthew and Diane Dunaskiss on their anniversary as well as their continued devotion to the community and our country.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge Mr. and Mrs. Giovanni and Lina Del Signore, who on March 9, 2008 celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. Giovanni and Lina both grew up in Italy, where they met, and decided to marry in the spring of 1958. Just one week after the wedding Giovanni left his hometown and wife to pursue a future in the United States. Four years later, Lina was finally able to join her husband in Michigan, and in 1963, the couple opened DiGiovanni's Pizza in Livonia, Michigan. Today the Giovannis are the proud owners of the Laurel Manor Banquet and Conference Center, which has been a family affair since its opening in 1988. While their restaurant business prospered, John and Lina have made time for their loving family they have built together. Over the years, they have been blessed with four beautiful children, Constantino, Luciano, Nazzrena, and Renata. In subsequent years each of their children went on to assist their parents in continuing the tradition of quality and hospitality within the community. Madam Speaker, this year John and Lina returned to Italy to renew their vows and celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. Today, I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in congratulating them on this spectacular milestone and sending our best wishes for many more years of happiness.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to acknowledge and remember the 55th anniversary of the Korean War Armistice and to remember the more than 474,000 Allied troops who lost their lives defending our freedom and liberty. On June 25, 1950, the North Korean People's Army crossed the 38th parallel in blatant contravention of international law and aggression against South Korean democracy. Under the guise of a counter-attack, the North Korean Army struck on the early Sunday morning behind a firestorm of artillery. The North Korean army advanced quickly and eventually gained control of nearly 90 percent of the peninsula. After days of bloodshed, South Korean and Allied troops pushed North Korean forces back beyond the 38th parallel. Then on October 8, 1950, Chinese forces joined efforts with North Korean troops. Fighting continued for the next two years, and both sides struggled until ultimately ended in a stalemate. By July 27, 1953, a ceasefire was established at the front line which by that time was again the 38th parallel. After three years of full scale fighting, tens of thousands of allied troops and South Korean civilians had died. Today, South Korea and the United States share a deep and abiding commitment to uphold the ideals of freedom, democracy, justice, and human rights. Madam Speaker, today many people refer to the Korean War as the ``Forgotten War,'' but we cannot forget the sacrifice of our American service men and women. I ask my colleagues to rise with me in remembering the courage and sacrifice of those lost.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to acknowledge and remember the 34th anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, to mourn the thousands of Greek Cypriots who lost their lives, and to condemn Turkey's ongoing occupation of the Republic of Cyprus. On July 20, 1974, Turkey invaded the island in blatant contravention of international law. After days of bloodshed, Turkey's soldiers maintained a stronghold in the north, and eventually gained control of roughly 37% of the island. As a result of the invasion and occupation, approximately 200,000 Greek Cypriots were forced from their homes and over 5,000 were killed. Furthermore, over 1,400 Greek Cypriots, including 4 Americans, remain missing since the start of Turkey's onslaught. Cyprus and the United States share a deep and abiding commitment to uphold the ideals of freedom, democracy, justice, and human rights. The international community has a moral and ethical obligation to stand with persecuted Cypriots, reunify the island, and end Turkey's military occupation. Madam Speaker, we cannot forget the realities of what took place on July 20, 1974, in Cyprus, nor can we continue to ignore the ongoing human rights violations by Turkey's occupying army. Today, I wish to offer my support for a single independent and sovereign Cyprus, which not only respects human rights, but the fundamental freedoms of all Cypriots.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. I thank you. This bill is worse than nothing; it is the illusion of something. As was alluded to by my colleague from Nebraska, when you see people who claim to be more green than the Maid of Arran supporting a drilling bill, questions do arise. In the final analysis, I must be honest. In fairness, this bill will do one thing. It will unleash the new power of the Democratic Party's hybrid of solar and wind power. It's called hot air. Now, hot air will not fuel your car, it will not fly your plane, and it will not lower your gas prices. I would point out before you vote on this, remember the more hot air that you unleash over this, the more disastrous the consequences to both gas prices and global warming.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, earlier today we saw a picture of the President of the United States with foreign dignitaries. We today see the Speaker of the House with a foreign dignitary. We do not begrudge either of them on this side of the aisle. We have to have responsible foreign relations. The only difference is we do not use pictures to explain America's energy policy or put forward conspiracy theories as to why you are feeling the pain at the pump. Let us be realistic about this. We need more American oil production, commonsense conservation, and free market innovations. And no amount of political cant or hot air is going to do anything except keep your prices at the pump to the point where your family budget shrinks.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. We all have different constituencies, but I think you said something that I can't quite agree with, and that is that everybody seems to understand this problem and what the solutions are. I had a friend. We used to play in a band back in Detroit Rock City, and my brother one time loaned him my guitar. So it dawned on me that before the statute of limitations expired, I better go get my guitar back. So I went to see Bob. He was living in his parents' basement and he was enjoying some goat's milk and granola. I complimented him on his earth shoes and I said, ``Dude, I want my guitar back.'' He said, ``You can have it back because it doesn't make very much noise.'' I said, ``Bob, it's an electric guitar. You have to plug it in.'' Bob didn't like that because Bob believed he was getting electricity from the local nuclear plant and had to make a stand even at the expense of no one hearing his cacophony of terrible folk music. He then said, ``You work in Congress, right?'' ``Yes, I do.'' ``So you go up to Lansing to do that?'' ``No, Bob, I go up to Washington.'' He said, ``I have something to tell you people.'' I was fascinated, so I said, ``What do you have?'' He said, ``We have to get the rest of the world to like us, and we have to stop our reliance on foreign oil. And we have to make sure that we don't tear up America's natural resources trying to drill our way out of this problem.'' I looked at Bob and I said, ``Bob, I would rather have the world respect America, but be that as it may. You want people to like America, but you have just told them you are not going to buy their product because they are foreigners. This might be detrimental to your cause. And if you are talking about not producing American oil, where are you going to get the oil to compensate for that so as supply increases, prices can come down?'' He then said that he agreed with many Democrats that we should have OPEC produce more oil. I then asked Bob if he understood that OPEC is composed of foreigners whose oil he no longer wanted to buy so we could break America's reliance on foreign oil. The dazed look on his face was akin to the one that he had probably around 1983 prom night shortly before his parents took away the car keys for quite some time. The reality is we hear circular arguments about what needs to be done. Bob is not an exception. Every day here on the floor of the Congress we hear every excuse in the book as to why the American people will not be allowed to solve the gas price problem and the energy problem. As Ronald Reagan once said: In this instance, government is not the solution, government is the problem. If the government would just get out of the way, remove its regulations, litigation, taxation, and other obstacles to the production of American energy by entrepreneurs and allow free markets to work, the supply of oil will increase. It will be American oil. The price will start to stabilize as investors within the world markets realize that we are serious about attaining energy security. Gas prices will precipitously fall, and not only will the energy problem begin to be addressed by the very people who can do it best, the American people, you will also to start to see people understand that there is no other alternative than to face the reality that if you want energy security, you must concomitantly reduce the bureaucracy. Again in a nutshell, if we want to help our little guys and gals, get big government out of their way, allow American energy production, allow for commonsense conservation, allow for free market innovations as we transition to energy security and independence. That is the best thing we can do for our constituents and for my friend Bob. I yield back.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge the Western Wayne County Conservation Club, a group dedicated to the preservation and continuation of outdoor sporting for all generations, upon reaching their 70th anniversary of the club's establishment. The Western Wayne County Conservation Club provides many services to the Michigan community. The Club has created more opportunities for outdoor sporting with their sponsorship of a launching trap and skeet fields, a 3-D walk-thru archery range, and a black powder group with a walk-thru range. Additionally, The Wayne County Conservation Club has fundraisers for the Pinkerton School for the Blind, the Rouge River Clean-up, hunter education classes, Girl Scout and Boy Scout camping activities, and for the University of Michigan Burn Center. The Western Wayne County Conservation Club has been recognized for their dedication to outdoor sports. The Club has received prominent awards including the President's Award from the National Wildlife Federations, North American Hunter's Safety Award, and the National Rifle Association President's Award. To the Michigan community, the Wayne County Conservation Club is an organization dedicated to their goals, committed to serving their community and defending Americans' Second Amendment Rights. Madam Speaker, the Western Wayne County Conservation Club is a group which has mastered outdoor sporting and has excelled in using their mission to help other community organizations. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Western Wayne County Conservation Club for reaching 70 years as an organization and honoring the group's devoted service to the community and our country.