Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Members of the 111th Congress collectively represent more than 100 million constituents in this Nation. The changes that are being contemplated by the majority today represent an erosion, not of the interests of elected officials, not even of the interests of a political party, but, Mr. Speaker, I say with respect, it represents an erosion of the interests represented in this place of over 100 million Americans. As I listen to this debate, I can't help but wonder what our constituents who might be looking down from the gallery and looking in from elsewhere are thinking. How does this affect them? Instructions being promptly or forthwith, motions to recommit. But really what we are here to object to in this rule package is really the death of democracy in the Democratic Congress. What we do not wish to see is a return to the heavy-handed imperial Congress days that ruled Capitol Hill for some 40 years. And walking away from the provision of the current rules that allows the minority to offer a motion to recommit that would be promptly reported back erodes those minority interests. Repealing term limits on committee chairmen erodes the fundamental principles of reform that the American people voted overwhelmingly into this well in 1994. And so, as we prepare, 2 weeks from today, to receive a new President of the United States of America, as we are just a few hours past bipartisan speeches, it is important to know and to remind the American people that rules matter. The rules on the back of a box of a board game matter, and the rules of the House matter; and they matter because they determine whether or not the interest of all Americans will be represented in this place. And, sadly, we begin this Congress in an inauspicious way, learning that change does not equal reform, and I urge that we reconsider this rule.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, as Chair of the Republican Conference, I am directed by that conference to notify the House of Representatives officially that the Republican Members have selected as minority whip the gentleman from Virginia, the Honorable Eric Cantor.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, as chairman of the Republican Conference, I am directed by that conference to notify the House of Representatives officially that the Republican Members have selected as minority leader the gentleman from Ohio, the Honorable John A. Boehner.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment to the resolution, but before offering the amendment, I request that there be a division of the question on the resolution so that we may have a separate vote on the Chaplain.

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I offer an amendment to the remainder of the resolution.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Clerk, as chairman of the Republican Conference, I am also directed by unanimous consent of that conference to present for election an individual today, but let me say also from my heart it is one of the great privileges of my life to do so, to present for election to the office of Speaker of the House for the 111th Congress the name of a man from the heartland of America, a man of humble beginnings who came to Washington during a time of reform and led and is prepared, starting this day, to lead this Congress back to the aspirations and ideals of the American people, the name of the Honorable John A. Boehner, a representative-elect from the State of Ohio.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and thank the doctors and nurses in the Office of the Attending Physician for their work in saving the life of one of my staff members, Matt Lloyd, on the afternoon of October 8, 2008. After getting an allergy shot in the U.S. Capitol building, Matt had an anaphylactic reaction to an allergy shot that caused him to require immediate medical attention. His blood pressure dropped to 60 over 40 and his pulse was 40 beats per minute and dropping. He had very little time left to live. Thanks to the quick reaction and medical professionalism of Dr. Rob Summerlee, nurses Susan Deans, Lara Crouch, Jean Larson, corpsmen Tom Wolff, David Short and Tre Sutherland, Matt is still with us today. Had each of these professionals, particularly Dr. Summerlee, not reacted in an urgent manner with care and precision, not to mention the correct decision, there is no question Matt would have died. Too often we take the sacrifice and expertise of those who serve us in the medical field for granted. Yet we are reminded, as in Matt's case, that they must handle an enormous amount of pressure when someone's life is dependent on them making the correct split second decision. I thank God for placing these good men and women in the nurse's station in the Capitol the day Matt had this reaction and owe them a debt of gratitude for saving his life.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, we come to this floor in the midst of an extraordinary time in the life of this economy and in the life of our cherished domestic automotive industry. The American automotive industry is facing a financial crisis. Millions of jobs are on the line. Let me say from my heart, Madam Speaker, inaction by this Congress is not an option, but I rise in opposition to the rule, and I rise in opposition to the legislation that will be brought to the floor under this rule, because I believe the American people know we cannot borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy. We cannot borrow and spend and bail our way back to a vibrant automotive sector here in the United States. The legislation that will come before the Congress today will take $15 billion in taxpayer money and make it available to the automotive industry, appoint something in the form of a car czar for the purpose of organizing and encouraging the kinds of changes in the industry that Washington, D.C. believes are appropriate. But I would say the bailout proposed by the White House and congressional Democrats is fundamentally flawed. It exposes the American taxpayer to more debt, fails to reorganize our domestic auto manufacturers, and does not fix the immediate credit crisis that those good companies are facing. Instead, the Democrat bill will actually prevent the necessary changes and force us back into the same situation where taxpayers will undoubtedly be asked to bail this industry out again and again and again. The Democrat bailout also seeks to create, as I mentioned, something known as a car czar with the responsibilities of making car companies more profitable, more fiscally responsible. Well, trusting a Washington bureaucrat, who has probably never even tightened a lug nut, with fixing what ails the American automotive industry is not the answer. Today, House Republicans propose the American Automotive Reorganization and Recovery Plan. It is an effort to lock in the restructuring promised over the last few weeks with firm benchmarks and a tight timeline. Also, in the place of a taxpayer-funded government bailout, House Republicans would encourage private investment to finance a Detroit recovery in this year and the next. It is a solution that will protect our domestic auto industry and the American taxpayer, and that must be paramount in our interest. Under the Republican plan, the Big Three, having presented their plans for restructuring, would be required to lock in a tight timeline with a high degree of specificity about the kinds of changes that will make our domestic auto industry truly competitive and on parity with those cherished companies that have made foreign investments and are manufacturing cars here in the United States. Secondly, we would establish a process for reaching an expedited agreement. Instead of nationalizing America's auto companies by having the Federal Government take a stake interest in those companies, an equity and stock position, we would rather say that because of the many legal and contractual hurdles to restructuring, the companies would be urged to accomplish a restructuring through the use of a prepackaged bankruptcy or other legal mechanism to bring all stakeholders to the table for an agreed-upon determination about their future. With regard to interim financing, again, Madam Speaker, we would not look to the Federal Treasury to finance a recovery in Detroit, but, rather, we would look to the private sector. We would create a hand up, not a hand out, by creating an FDIC-style insurance program where auto companies could be required to purchase insurance as a backstop to private lending that's made into their industry. Now, many of us believe that this would loosen up an extraordinary amount of financing, the so-called debtor-in-possession financing, which is so scarce in our economy today--so a serious reorganization and recovery plan, with hard timelines and urgency. Secondly, a process using the existing judicial institutions of this country to enforce that restructuring; and, thirdly, a priming of the pump with a new federally backed insurance program to encourage investment in Detroit is the antidote to what ails us. Simply handing $15 billion out to Detroit today, however popular it may be with some Americans, I believe, in my heart, it would ultimately be a disservice to the American taxpayer, to our children, and our grandchildren. So I urge consideration of the Republican plan, the American Automotive Reorganization and Recovery Plan. I urge my Democrat colleagues to allow such a proposal to come to the floor, and I oppose this rule.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, our Nation is confronted by a serious financial crisis. The President and Congress were right to act with all deliberate speed, and I am confident every Member of this body is motivated by the best interests of this country. It should be said that Republican leaders and my colleagues worked hard to improve this bill. They removed outrageous subsidies, and today the bank deposits of Americans are safer and the balance sheet of their local bank is more secure because of Republican leadership. But even with these important improvements, this legislation remains the largest corporate bailout in American history. It forever changes the relationship between government and the financial sector and passes the cost along to the American people. The sad part is, Madam Speaker, there are no easy answers, but there were alternatives. House Republicans offered an insurance program that would have required Wall Street, not Main Street, to pay for the cost of this recovery, and fast-acting tax relief to strengthen our economy from within. Teddy Roosevelt said, ``An American must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs.'' With this bill, we place upon the American public a responsibility which is not theirs, bailing out financial institutions after they made irresponsible decisions. This we should not do. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Our Nation is confronted by a serious financial crisis. It's a crisis of confidence in our financial markets and a crisis of confidence in government. While many are anxious about how we will confront this crisis as I saw on the faces of my constituents this week, many more approach this moment with faith, not fear. We will get through this. But we must do so in a manner consistent with the principles that make America great. The President and Congress were right to act with all deliberate speed and I am confident all my colleagues are motivated by the best interests of the Nation. It must be said that Republican leaders and my colleagues in the House worked hard to improve this bill. We slowed the process down, removed outrageous subsidies that were to be added and managed to include an optional insurance plan. And because of the principled stand that Republicans took on this floor last Monday, the bank deposits of Americans are safer and the balance sheet of their local bank is more secure. But even with these important improvements, this legislation remains the largest corporate bailout in American history, forever changes the relationship between government and the financial sector and passes the cost along to the American people. I did not come to Washington to expand the size and scope of government. I did not come to Washington to ask working Americans to subsidize the bad decisions of corporate America. Therefore, I cannot support the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. While this bill promises to bring near-term stability to our financial turmoil, I ask my countrymen, at what price? The decision to give the Federal Government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupts a basic truth of our economy. When the government chooses winners and losers in the marketplace, every American loses. Some say this crisis is too acute to rely on antiquated notions about the role of government in the private sector, but I disagree. I believe the principles of limited government, free enterprise and representative government are as relevant today as they were in 1776. In another October--1964--Ronald Reagan addressed another time for choosing. He said their choice was ``whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.'' There are no easy answers, but the American people deserve to know there were alternatives. House Republicans offered an alternative that would have made Wall Street instead of Main Street pay the cost of this recovery and would have injected liquidity into our markets through fast-acting tax strategies. Should this current legislation pass and our economy continue to struggle, I am hopeful Congress will turn to these proven remedies based on American ideals. Teddy Roosevelt said, ``An American must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs.'' With this bill we place upon the American public a responsibility which is not theirs: bailing out financial institutions after they made irresponsible business decisions. This we should not do. Instead we should confront this crisis with resolute courage, with faith in God and faith in the principles of freedom and free enterprise. I respectfully urge my colleagues to oppose the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act and urge my colleagues respectfully to oppose it. Our Nation has been confronted by a crisis in our financial markets. The President and this Congress are right to act with all deliberate speed in addressing this crisis. We now have a bill that promises to bring near-term stability to our financial turmoil, but at what price? Benjamin Franklin in 1759 said, ``They that can give up liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' Economic freedom means the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. The decision to give the Federal Government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupts this basic truth of our free market economy. It must be said that Republicans in this Congress improved this bill. But it remains, in my judgment, the largest corporate bailout in American history, forever changes the relationship between government and the financial sector, and passes the cost along to the American people. And I cannot support it. There are no easy answers, but the American people deserve to know there are alternatives to massive Federal spending. The Bush administration and this Congress have acted quickly, but ignored free market solutions to this crisis. The House Republican plan, as a solid alternative, would have set up an FDIC-style mandatory insurance program in which Wall Street firms would have paid to insure their mortgage-backed securities. Doing so would have made Wall Street pay the cost of this rescue instead of Main Street. And while there is an option for an insurance plan in this bill, it falls far short of the substitute that Republicans desired. The House Republican plan would have injected liquidity into our markets through fast-acting tax strategies, releasing the economic power inherent in the American economy. Temporarily reducing the repatriation tax, as we did in 2005, would have brought hundreds of millions of dollars back into this economy. And there were other business deductions that would help the financial sector get back on its feet. There were alternatives. So I say to my colleagues: before you vote, ask yourselves why you came here, and vote with courage and integrity to those principles. If, like me, you came here because you believe in limited government and the freedom of the American marketplace, I urge you vote in accordance with your convictions. Duty is ours; outcomes belong to God. The American people and our posterity deserve to know that there were men and women in this Congress who opposed the leviathan state in this hour. If you do this, I promise you, I will stand with you. And I believe with all my heart, the American people will stand with you as well. Stand up for limited government and economic freedom. Stand up for the American taxpayer. Reject this bailout and vote ``no'' on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, our financial markets are in turmoil. The administration was right to call for decisive action to prevent further harm to our economy, but nationalizing every bad mortgage in America is not the answer. This administration's request of this Congress amounts to the largest corporate bailout in American history. I believe Congress should act, but we should act in a way that protects the integrity of our free market and protects the American taxpayer from more debt and higher taxes. The strength of America resides in our faith in God and our faith in freedom, including our economic freedom. To have the freedom to succeed, we must also have the freedom to fail, and any solution to the present crisis must preserve that essential economic liberty. The next Congress should also consider all available options to put our Nation's economy back on its feet. There are no easy answers, but there are alternatives that this Congress can consider. Indexing capital gains to inflation, passing a real energy bill, even regulating the credit default market, as the chief of the SEC requested yesterday, these and other alternatives to a massive Federal bailout must be fully considered and debated before Congress acts. We must address this crisis with forethought and creativity rather than massive Federal resources.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina. Let me say I rise in support of H.R. 6229, honoring the life and the work and memory of Mayor William ``Bill'' Sandberg of St. Paul, Minnesota. I believe, given the tenure of his career and the durability of his reputation, we can assume in both parties that Mayor Sandberg was a man at the local level that attended himself to what people were really dealing with and he provided leadership. And it is about just that focus that I also wanted to rise, Mr. Speaker, today. Because I rise this afternoon, I think with millions of Americans, simply to express my frustration, that after only one day of debate, late in the night last night, this Congress again failed to pass a bipartisan bill that would set us on a course for energy independence in the 21st century. I must tell you that it was equally frustrating today to awaken and see headlines around the country that say ``Congress eases restrictions on drilling.'' But I don't want to be critical of my friends in the Fourth Estate. This bill was revealed to the world 24 hours before it was voted. It was written in the back rooms here in the Capitol, not considered by committees, but brought to the floor abruptly the night before last and just as abruptly voted without amendment or without serious consideration in the Congress. So I won't fault members of the media, who didn't understand that the drill-nothing Democrat Congress actually only moved to a position that was the drill-almost-nothing Democrat Congress. But this legislation, despite the headlines, is a story worth telling. For the past 20 months, until last week, the Democrat majority in Congress made one thing more clear than anything else; there would never be a vote on more domestic drilling in America. Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeated her personal and historic opposition to drilling and said that she would never permit a vote. And they adjourned on August 1, turned off the cameras and turned off the lights. But Republicans refused to leave. We held this floor during the entirety of the August recess, and during that time the Democrat majority changed their position. In a very real sense, millions of Americans contacted their Members of Congress and said we want more access to American oil. We want Congress to come together and compromise on conservation, fuel efficiency, solar, wind, nuclear, an all-of-the-above strategy. But we want a bill that allows us to drill into our domestic resources. And, to their credit, the Democratic majority relented in their historic opposition to drilling. But the bill that came to the floor abruptly and was just as abruptly passed last night failed in many counts. Not only did it bring with it an enormous tax increase, not only did it bring with it no opportunity for new refineries, no opportunity for nuclear energy development and other powerful alternatives, but also this bill truly brought with it very little, if any, opportunity to drill into our own domestic reserves. The bill seems to allow drilling, but not within 50 miles of shore. Most experts say that 88 percent of our domestic reserves are within 50 miles of the shoreline of the east coast and the west coast and the eastern Gulf. Beyond that, the Democrat bill that passed last night would allow drilling, but only if States vote by referendum or in their legislature to permit the drilling. That sounds reasonable enough. But what is not reasonable is the Democratic bill, unlike current law for Gulf States that allow drilling, the Democratic bill offered States no revenue whatsoever. So people in South Carolina, people in California, would presumably have to decide for themselves or their elected representatives decide to allow drilling off of their shore if it meant nothing financially to their State coffers. Also there was a failure to provide any streamlined judicial review or litigation reform, leaving any drilling that would be allowed beyond the 50 mile limit to be tied up immediately in court, as hundreds and hundreds of leases are tied up today. So that is why I say, and I attempt to be intellectually honest about this, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority did move on their energy policy about drilling. They went from a drill-nothing Democrat Congress to a drill-almost-nothing Democratic Congress. And last night, most sadly, they passed on an opportunity that some 40 Democrats had been working tirelessly to develop, legislation coauthored by Congressman Abercrombie and Congressman Peterson that is a truly bipartisan solution. I was a cosponsor of the bill myself. Dozens upon dozens of Republicans joined us in the bill, as well as I believe 40 Democrat Members of Congress. When it came time for the Republicans to offer their alternative, quite frankly, we could have played some sort of a game, but we think that the American people are struggling under the weight of record gasoline prices. Families are hurting, seniors are hurting, and this was not time for political posturing or games. So we brought the bipartisan bill to the floor as our alternative. Strangely, unless I can be corrected, only 13 of the Democrats out of the some 40 who cosponsored the bill voted for it. It was a true bipartisan bill that had been fashioned through tough bipartisan negotiation over months of time, and it was rejected by many of the same Democrats who had worked to build the legislation. We missed an opportunity last night, Mr. Speaker, to truly do something for the American people, to do something, as Daniel Webster says on words on these walls, to do something worthy to be remembered. So I rise today to pay sincere tribute to Mayor William ``Bill'' Sandberg. I am confident that this tribute on this Post Office is altogether fitting. But I also rise to just simply express my frustration that, at a time when we hear about one bailout after another, this Democrat majority passed an energy bill last night that Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu even said was ``dead on arrival in the Senate.'' We accomplished nothing to set this Nation on a course of energy independence. So our message is very simple: We are not going away. We are going to fight on this floor in every moment that we have left, in the waning days of this Congress and in the weeks preceding our national election, to demand that this Congress roll our sleeves up and seek that bipartisan consensus that does exist. Let me say from my heart, I truly believe that there is a bipartisan majority in this Congress that would say yes to conservation, yes to fuel efficiency, yes to solar, wind and nuclear, and would say yes to a substantial increase in domestic drilling that was real and significant and would lessen our dependence on foreign oil. So Republicans are going to stay in this fight. Bailouts for corporate America, but no relief for our citizens struggling under the record weight of gasoline prices is not acceptable to Republicans in this Congress. We will stay on this floor. We will continue in this fight. We are not going away until the American people have a bipartisan strategy that sets us on a short-term course to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and on a long-term course for energy independence in the 21st century.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

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

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas for his leadership and for yielding this time. And I rise to oppose this rule. I support the Childers amendment in the form of a substitute. I am left to wonder, as I'm sure any of our countrymen looking in are wondering why, after only learning of the Democrat's energy bill last night at 9:45 on the House, we have taken some sort of a timeout from a contentious, and I thought, substantive debate on the Democrat energy bill that will be brought up, I assume, within an hour. The Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled on this issue. I understand there is some disagreement in the Democrat majority over how it's to be handled from a funding standpoint, but what I don't understand is the timing. Mr. Speaker, to be honest with you, I look across this aisle, I see men and women that I respect deeply and with whom I have worked on issues, sometimes in nontraditional ways. And so I would not accuse my colleagues that are here on the floor doing their duty of any ill motive. But I have to wonder about a Democrat majority that introduces this discussion about gun control on the one and only day that they are going to permit us to debate their energy bill. And I think the American people are entitled to know, Mr. Speaker, the Democrat Party in the Congress, after spending the last 20 months telling their constituency and the American people that there would never be a vote allowed on this floor that would permit more domestic drilling, abruptly announced last week that they were going to bring an energy bill to the floor with drilling. Now for those of us who have been clamoring for a comprehensive energy bill that included more drilling, more conservation, more fuel efficiency, solar, wind, nuclear, this was welcome news. And imagine how anxious we were late last week to wait for the Democrat bill to be filed, assuming we would have the weekend to examine it. And as we waited throughout the first day of the week yesterday, it wasn't until 9:45 last night that a 290-page bill was filed on this floor. And we found that the drill-nothing Congress has introduced legislation that is essentially a drill-almost-nothing bill; and I want to speak about that in the very limited time that we have. So while I oppose the rule, I want to speak about what is bearing upon the American people, bearing upon American families and school systems and seniors, and that is the unbridled and unprecedented weight of the cost of energy in America. As Wall Street reels from another financial crisis, as we hear unemployment numbers that are heartbreaking to real working Americans, most Americans know the high cost of energy is costing American jobs. And so on the one day that the Democrat majority will allow us to debate their comprehensive strategy for energy independence, I want to speak about what the substance of that bill is. Now, as I said, the drill-nothing Democrat Congress announced they were going to bring this energy bill to the floor. It includes more drilling, and now many of them have said in many corners of the national media that Republicans have to take ``yes'' for an answer. Well, I would suggest to my countrymen, before you sign a contract, read the fine print. The fine print of this contract is profoundly disappointing to those of us that were looking to give the bipartisan majority of this Congress that supports a comprehensive energy strategy, that includes a real access to America's domestic reserves, a fair up-or-down vote. The drill-nothing Democratic Congress is essentially, as I said, a basically drill-almost-nothing. Here's some examples. They say ``yes'' to drilling in their bill but not in Alaska, not in the eastern gulf and not within 50 miles of our country. They say ``yes'' to drilling in the bill, but they say States can decide on whether we drill off their coasts, but we will give the States no revenues whatsoever for allowing us to drill. The Governor of a coastal State was on the floor of the Congress today. When I said, ``What's the likelihood that your State will permit drilling if we offer your State legislature no revenues from the drilling in your waters?'' And he only laughed out loud. I assume that the Democrat majority, in saying that unlike the Gulf States that get some 39 percent of the revenues that are drilled in their waters under existing agreements, I assume the Democrat majority believes that States will opt in to drilling out of the goodness of their hearts, out of their patriotism. Maybe not. They say ``yes'' to drilling, but the lack of litigation reform will allow environmental lawyers to swarm over any new leases, even those that are permitted more than 50 miles out, and they'll be tied up in court for years before a single drop is pumped. In their legislation, there's a renewable mandate that literally could cause electrical rates between now and 2012 to skyrocket on working Americans. There's no commitment to increasing our refinery capacity. There's huge tax increases on oil companies. As I've asked before to my citizens in Indiana, ``Who among you thinks by raising taxes on oil companies you're going to lower the price of gasoline at the pump?'' That's usually a laugh out loud moment in town hall meetings. That's what passes for the Democrat bill.

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I say to my Democrat colleagues, many of whom I respect deeply and with whom I work on a broad range of issues, on behalf of our constituents that are struggling under the weight of record gasoline prices, don't do this. Don't do it this way. This Congress is better than that. We have a bipartisan majority in this Congress, including some men and women that I am looking at right now, who, if given the opportunity, would come together in a bipartisan way and pass legislation that said ``yes'' to more real drilling, but also ``yes'' to conservation, ``yes'' to fuel efficiency, ``yes'' to solar and wind and nuclear. But we can't say ``yes'' with a backroom deal brought to the floor of the Congress, given one day of debate, no amendments, and jammed through the American people. Let's end the charade. Let's stop playing politics with American energy independence. Let this Congress work its will, and we will come together on a strategy that works for all of our Nation.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Democrat energy bill, the Comprehensive American Energy Act. I have enormous respect for the gentleman from Maryland. This is a serious issue. The American people are hurting. Gasoline prices in eastern Indiana in 6 hours on Saturday went from $3.79 a gallon to $4.29 a gallon. They expect this Congress to come together. Where I respectfully disagree with my colleague from Maryland is this is a serious issue, but this is not a serious proposal. A serious proposal is considered in committees. A serious proposal is the subject of hearings. A serious proposal is the subject of more than a half a day of debate on this floor. A serious proposal gives consideration to all the Members of this Congress through the amendment process. The truth of the matter is this Congress is coming to this point, because after 20 months of the Democrat majority refusing to bring a vote to the floor to allow more domestic drilling, House Republicans took this floor in the month of August, and we held it. We demanded an energy bill, a comprehensive bill that said ``yes'' to fuel efficiency, ``yes'' to conservation, ``yes'' to solar, wind, and nuclear, and, ``yes'' to more domestic drilling. The Democratic majority, the drill-nothing Congress, cried ``uncle,'' and it brings us to this day. But I would suggest to my countrymen, as you hear again and again, that Republicans are refusing to take yes for an answer. Read the fine print. Reality is that this is no longer a drill-nothing Congress; it's a drill almost-nothing Congress. They say ``yes'' to drilling in this bill, but not in Alaska, not in the eastern coast and not within 50 miles. They say ``yes'' to drilling, but States can decide whether we do it or not, and they won't get a single penny from revenues for allowing drilling off their shores. I guess we are just going to rely on the goodness of our States' hearts to open up their shorelines to more drilling. They say ``yes'' to drilling, but litigation rules will allow environmental lawyers to tie up the leases from the very day they are filed. I say to my House Democrat colleagues, from my heart, don't do this. Daniel Webster said it a century ago, and it's chiseled on the wall. Let us develop the resources of our land and call forth its power, and let us do something worthy to be remembered. We can do better than this. We can pass a bipartisan comprehensive energy bill, and I urge my colleagues to do that.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that every Member who has not spoken be allowed to address the House for 1 minute.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the American people are hurting. They are struggling under the weight of record gasoline prices, and in that cause Republicans have been fighting for a comprehensive energy bill that includes more drilling. Three-quarters of Americans agree with us. Just last week, the drill-nothing Democrat Congress announced they are going to bring an energy bill to the floor that includes more drilling. And now they say Republicans have to take ``yes'' for an answer. Well, I would suggest to my countrymen, Mr. Speaker, that they look at the fine print. The drill-nothing Congress has brought a bill that actually includes basically drill-nothing provisions. They say ``yes'' to drilling, but not in Alaska, not in the eastern gulf, and not within 50 miles. They say ``yes'' to drilling, but States can decide, even though they get absolutely no revenues for choosing to drill. I guess States are going to just allow drilling out of the goodness of their hearts. They say ``yes'' to drilling, but litigation rules will allow environmental lawyers to tie up all leases from the very day they are filed. I say to my House Democrat colleagues from my heart, on behalf of our constituents who are struggling under record gasoline prices, end this charade. Stop playing politics with America's energy independence. Bring us a full and fair debate to this floor and you will see a bipartisan result.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for Georgia and all my colleagues who are here and those that offered to come here. I just say from my heart, and I have been passionate on the floor tonight, but it's a passion that is borne of a desire to solve this problem. But seeing a bill 290 pages long dropped on to the floor of this Congress less than 24 hours before it is to be debated does not represent a serious effort to bring about bipartisan compromise in this Congress. My colleagues of goodwill know this. The truth is the American people want this Congress to come together in an open, fair debate and take and develop a comprehensive energy strategy that says yes to conservation, yes to solar, yes to wind, yes to nuclear, yes to greater fuel efficiently standards, and takes a bipartisan vote to lift the moratorium and let the American people have access to our vast domestic reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf and in Alaska. Wherever those votes fall, let the cards fall where they may. But that's the process the American people want to see happen, and that is the basis upon which we can build a long-term strategy to achieve American energy independence. We have just begun this battle. It will continue tomorrow.

Mr. PENCE. Reclaiming my time, and I thank the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from Georgia. And in the few minutes that I'm going to take before I yield to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, if anyone senses a bit of incredulity in our voices, it is borne of profound frustration, the profound frustration that the American people are hurting. And they don't want backroom deals coming to the floor of this Congress; they want a fair and open debate that lets the Congress work its will and develop a bipartisan strategy that achieves energy independence in the 21st century. We cannot do that in 24 hours. We cannot do that with backroom deals that are done in the dead of night with no amendments allowed on the floor, one-size-fits-all. That smacks more of politics than the kind of bipartisan accomplishment that the American people expect from the people's House. Now let me give a few details about what we know about the bill that has not yet even been filed in the Congress and could be voted on the day after tomorrow. The Democrat energy bill. Let me just give you 10 ways the Democrat energy bill fails the American people. The Democrats' energy bill, number one, permanently locks up 80 percent of American oil reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf; 80 percent. If it passes intact, 80 percent of our reserves will be off limits forever. Number two, the Democrats' ``no energy'' bill, as we know it now, permanently locks up more than a trillion barrels of oil from oil shale in the inner mountain West. Number three, the Democrats' ``no energy'' bill permanently locks up more than 10 billion barrels of oil on Alaska's remote North Slope, an area where energy production and wildlife have been safely coexisting for decades. Number four, the Democrats' ``no energy'' bill blocks more nuclear power production, efficient, less costly production than nations like France have been using for decades. Number five, the Democrats' ``no energy'' bill does nothing to construct new clean coal energy production. Six, there is an enormous tax increase in the Democrat energy bill, something they've been talking about ever since they took over the Congress, raising taxes on oil companies. Well, after the holocaust that struck with Hurricane Ike and Hurricane Gustav and Katrina a few years hence, the American people know we need more refineries in this country. Congress passed tax breaks for oil companies to encourage the construction of more refineries, and they want to repeal those breaks and now raise taxes more. I've got to tell you, the biggest laugh line I have in eastern Indiana is when I look at people at town hall meetings and at town squares and I say, who among you thinks that by raising taxes on oil companies you will lessen the price of gasoline at the pump? It's a laugh-out-loud line, but it's what passes for the Democrats' energy policy. Quickly then. The Democrats' ``no energy'' bill, as we know it, permanently prevents Federal agencies from using alternative sources of fuel. It increases electricity costs on families, seniors and small businesses through new heavy-handed electricity mandates. It includes plans for exactly zero new refineries as I mentioned before. And it ultimately defies the will of the American people who want this Congress to work together, who want this Congress to take an up-or-down vote on lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling, who want this Congress to bring all-of-the-above strategies--wind, solar, nuclear-- and vote them up or down. But instead, we get a backroom deal, brought, soon to be, I assume, in the dead of night with no opportunity or meaningful opportunity for debate or amendment. With that, I'm pleased to yield to the Policy chairman of the Republican Conference. Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan is a colleague who spent more time on this floor during the August recess than any single Member of Congress. And I yield to him to speak about this legislation and its flaws.