John Shimkus

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Again, the Democrats have decided to demand other countries explore, develop, create jobs in energy, and continue to keep our reserves locked up, never to be used. I am happy to welcome my colleague and friend from Michigan, Congressman McCotter.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague. There is something about the American character. We believe that America is strong because we have this value of rugged individualism, that we believe in self-reliance. And what galls Americans in this debate is that the Democrats are demanding increased oil production everywhere but in America. I mean the Democrats demand increased oil production everywhere around the world but America. And when they do that, they are creating jobs everywhere in the world except in America. Here's the result of their ``no'' policy: When they came in, $2.33 per gallon of gas. On average today, $3.65. You add to that a 50 cent global warming tax, and we would be paying at the pump today $4.15. The barrel of crude oil, the feedstock, when this Democrat majority came in, $58.31. What is it today? It's $115.92. There's a 250-year supply. And by far the least expensive fuel we have in coal reserves across this country, the largest coal reserves of any country in the world, is right here in the United States. And according to the Federal Government, there's enough oil in deep waters many miles off our coast, and on Federal land--that's not on the coast, that's just on Federal land--to power more than 60 million cars for 60 years.

Mr. SHIMKUS. And it's silly that we're not going after our own resources and our own supply when Russia is attempting to grab vast chunks of the Arctic to claim its vast potential of oil and gas and mineral wealth to fuel their country's economy. And actually, as we know, and I've got a friend from Michigan who knows this, they use energy to extort and impose their will on the free governments of the former captive nations, and they use it as an extortion tool. And they're going after resources and we don't. It's crazy. Russia and China have overtaken the United States in dominating the global energy industry. China's building 40 nuclear plants. China opened a new domestic energy reserve in 2004. China is increasing offshore energy production. In fact, China is in league with Cuba to go after Outer Continental Shelf oil 50 miles off Miami, 50 miles. We can't go there, but we're allowing the Communist Chinese access to the gas and oil reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf. And there's much, much more. It is ludicrous that we are the only industrialized nation in the world that does not go after and use our own resources. How crazy is that? It's time we stopped. And I hope the public is getting significantly angry enough that they are going to demand that this House does something to open up reserves. Now I'm joined by my good friend and colleague Kevin Brady from Texas. Welcome.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. And I have a few comments. Immediately after you mentioned Mac Thornberry's bill, I also signed onto the No More Excuses Energy Act. The school bus folks were in town today, and what I have really gotten an appreciation of over the past year is, as I said earlier, how energy costs affect everything. Look at the cost to the local school district, who is paying for the school buses to pick up the kids. The prices of diesel fuel are double. It's not planned in the budget. How are they going to meet these costs? Many will have to go back to the voters of the local control school that we have, and they're going to have to raise taxes to pay for it. There's no benefit to that for the kids. I mean they're still driving the same buses. That is a lost opportunity for money to go in a different direction to help educate kids but now has to go to fund the transportation system to get kids to school. So I appreciate those comments.

Mr. SHIMKUS. If my colleague would yield, they're not going down. Ever since I started this, the numbers are always going up.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I appreciate that. And I have tried to segue a little bit of the climate change debate. We mentioned it here with Chairman Dingell. To be intellectually honest, a carbon tax would be a way to go. He says 50 cents a gallon. So if the average price today is $3.65, you add 50 cents a gallon, Americans will be paying $4.15 a gallon. Now, even in the cap and trade program, really cap and trade equates to 50 cents a gallon. And we just want folks to be intellectually honest and be clear, so the public has to understand. An issue out today, politicians beware, the issue tied for last, climate change tied for last on a list of domestic priorities for President Bush and Congress in a 2008 survey from the Pew Research Center for the people in the press, lagging behind influence of lobbyists, moral breakdown, et cetera. Last. But California just passed a 20 to 30 percent increase on the electricity bills to deal with climate change. So if we want lower energy prices, we need more supply. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague. Pro-production, pro-supply, and conservation I think are key items.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, it's great to be down on the House floor. It has been a limited schedule this week, so we haven't had a chance to really take time to focus on the number one pressing issue in America today, which is the high price of gasoline and energy in this country. We get a chance to do that tonight. I am going to initially yield to some of my colleagues who have graciously come down to help, and the first one I would like to yield to is Mr. Sali from Idaho.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to welcome Rev. Nathan Meador to the Chamber today. Pastor Meador is the pastor of Zion Lutheran Church in Staunton, Illinois. He has served in this capacity since August of 2003. He currently serves as a vicarage supervisor and resident field education adviser to several students from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. Elected in 2006, he is also a member of the Southern Illinois District of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod's Board for Congregational Support. In Staunton, Rev. Meador is proud to serve as the chaplain for the Staunton Volunteer Fire Department, treasurer of the Staunton Area Clergy Association and chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Staunton Education Foundation. Born January 29, 1970, in Highland, Illinois, Rev. Meador spent his entire childhood as a resident of Edwardsville, Illinois. He is a 1988 graduate of Metro-East Lutheran High School in Edwardsville, Illinois, and my former student. He continued his education at Concordia University Wisconsin, earning a bachelor of arts with a double major in pre-seminary studies and theological languages. A master of divinity degree was earned from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri, in 1996. His first call was to serve a dual parish in Sheldon and Gilman, Wisconsin. There he served Trinity and Zion as pastor for 2 years. In 1998 he accepted the call to serve as pastor of Zion Lutheran Church in rural Wausau, Wisconsin. He served in this capacity until August 2003 when he accepted the call to serve in Staunton, Illinois. Rev. Meador is married to Jill Jaeger and has been married for 15 years. They have three children: Joseph, 11; Beth, 8; and Andrew, 4. When not being a parish pastor, Rev. Meador enjoys officiating high school and youth athletics and playing golf. Welcome, Nathan.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. I also want to commend the chairman, Mr. Oberstar, who is really interested in transportation issues, a good man of heart, and I applaud your leadership. Mr. Chairman, this authorization bill brings 1,500 new Coast Guardsmen. We're proud of their service. My debate, my concern, over the past 2 weeks, obviously, is energy and the increased cost of bringing on the 1,500 new Coast Guardsmen in addition to the burden on the government. It would be better if we had lower energy costs to help meet those needs, but we don't. We have higher costs. Of course, the Coast Guard uses aviation fuel too, quite a bit of it. So does the United States Air Force. For every $10 over a barrel, it costs our Air Force 600 million more dollars out of the budget. We know the burden on the Coast Guard helicopters. We know the cost to the Coast Guard ships that are diesel run. For every dollar increase in diesel fuel, it costs the Coast Guard $26 million to operate. And this is the kind of the charts I have been using over the past 3 weeks and will continue to use this ad infinitum until this country, which is the greatest country on the face of this Earth, does what other developing countries do: that we go and explore and use our own resources to meet our own needs. We know that we are dependent upon imported crude oil. Shame on us. Shame on us when we have the ability to meet our energy needs. And this is what happens: When this majority took over, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $58.31. Today it dropped a dollar from last week, $116. That's the problem. What's the problem at the pump? From $2.33 to $3.55. Bringing climate change legislation, 50 cents of additional tax on gasoline, we would be paying $4.05. What's the solution? One, use our abundant natural resources in our country, coal-to-liquid technologies. In Illinois alone we have 250 years' worth of energy just waiting to be brought on line, turned into liquefied fuel, lowering the cost of diesel to our Coast Guard, saving the taxpayers money. But we won't move on any bill that brings on fossil fuels and expansion of fossil fuels on this floor. Shame on us. What's another solution? The Coast Guard protects our coast. Look at the red area over there: the Outer Continental Shelf, ripe for exploration development, natural gas, crude oil. But, no, it's off- limits. We can't get there. Think about Katrina. The Coast Guard performed admirably. You know what we forget? Remember that big cloud that rolled up? Tell me the major ecological damage based upon all those oil platforms in the coast. Can you name one? No. Not a single one because we can do it safely. So we can do it safely in those areas. We should not have to burden the taxpayer with $26 million of cost for allowing crude oil prices to go up. We shouldn't do that. And that's why it's important to lower our prices.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. I know the liberal left and the environmentalists don't like coal. I know that. And they tout Kyoto. I know that. They tout our European friends. The New York Times today: ``Europe Turns to Coal Again.'' Europe turns to coal. When is this body going to turn to coal to solve our energy prices?

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, this is a small business bill. Let me tell you why this is relevant. The biggest challenge to small businesses in America today is the high cost of energy. Let me say that again. The biggest challenge to America's small businesses today is the high cost of energy. Here's an article from a paper: ``Independent Truckers,'' they're small businessmen, ``Join Strike.'' Why? Over $4 a barrel for diesel, $4 a gallon for diesel fuel. They can't operate. You wonder why food prices are going up? Gas prices are too high. What has the Democrat majority done? Nothing. This is a great opportunity to bring all our collective ideas, put legislation in front of the American people, and say let's vote on bills that will affect and lower the cost of gasoline. Now, the Democrats should be happy about this because Speaker Pelosi promised in April of 2006 that the Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices. In 2006. We're still waiting for the plan. In fact, there is a plan. The plan is this: The plan is for the barrel of crude oil to go up. When the Democrats took the majority, it was $58 a barrel. What is it today? It's $117.36. When you have no plan, you plan to fail. You want to help small businesses? Bring an energy bill to the floor that brings on more supply. Look at what it has done at the gas pump. You've heard the terminology: ``Pelosi premium.'' The price of a gallon of gasoline when the Democrats took over: $2.33. What is it today? It's $3.53. Add to that climate change legislation, Chairman Dingell wants to bring to the floor 50 cents in additional cost to a gallon of gas. Right now that would be $4 a gallon. And we know when we get to the summer driving season, it's going to be $4. Add 50 cents: $4.50 a gallon. What do the Democrats bring to the floor? They bring nothing to the floor. Nothing. Do we have plans? Actually, we have a bipartisan majority if the leadership would bring a bill to the floor. We have a bipartisan majority, most of the Republicans would vote for it, we'd get 40 or 50 Democrats, to move more supply, more supply like opening up the Outer Continental Shelf, more supply like coal-to-liquid technology, more supply like expanding nuclear power, more supply by going after the oil shale, more supply by going after our marginal oil wells. We can bring more supply. We're the only industrialized nation in the world that doesn't use its resources. That's why we import all this crude oil. We don't use our resources. Coal to liquid, in Illinois alone, 250 years worth of fossil fuel. We could turn that into liquid fuel.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, in a press release on April 24, 2006, then Leader Pelosi, now Speaker Pelosi said, Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down the skyrocketing cost of gasoline. In an op-ed penned by my friend from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), he claimed that their success is because Democrats realize the anxiety of stagnating wages, the cost of health care, education, and even gasoline and vowed to address their concerns. Well, they addressed their concerns. Gas prices are up. When the Democrats took over, gas prices were $2.33. Now they are $3.53. We call this the Pelosi Premium. Add the 50 cent gas tax for climate change, consumers would be paying $4.03. And when gas prices reach $4 this summer, add 50 cents for climate change; we will be paying $4.53 for a gallon of gas. That's not the type of change that the suburbs in America bargained for when they allowed Democrats to get this Chamber.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, from Congress Daily AM on Monday, 21 April, the heading was: Florida delight as talks intensify behind closed doors on several issues. Members negotiate behind the scenes to finish a farm bill conference and plan their maneuvers for moving a war supplemental bill and more possible tradeoffs to move a Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Funny. No talk about gasoline, no talk about the high energy prices. The number one issue affecting consumers today and the pocketbooks of mom and dad and driving kids to events is the high cost of gasoline. When this majority took over, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $58.31. Today--actually, this is wrong--it was updated at $117. It did get to $118 a barrel. When you don't have a plan, you plan to fail. I would hope that the Democrat majority would, in their negotiations, talk about how they are going to address the high cost of energy in this country.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a heroic educator who saved the life of one of her students a few weeks ago. In the blink of an eye, a moment of levity and fun became a moment of terror, as fifth grader Kelci Ottwell, who had been at the lunch table, laughing at a friend's joke, suddenly found herself choking and unable to breathe. Gasping for air, Kelci moved toward her principal, Brenda Vernatti for help. Unable to speak, Kelci reached out for Ms. Vernatti's arm to get her attention. Immediately sensing Kelci's distress, Ms. Vernatti swung into action and began to perform the Heimlich maneuver, trying in vain four times to dislodge the small piece of pizza that was by now causing Kelci's face to turn purple. Finally, on her fifth attempt, Kelci coughed up the pizza and began to breathe again. Kelci's mother, Melissa, told the local newspaper, ``She's my hero. I want the world to know she saved my baby's life.'' Brenda Vernatti has served the Alton School District for 22 years, touching hundreds if not thousands of young lives. But just a few weeks ago, she went above and beyond the already lofty call of duty of an educator to become a life-saving hero. Every day, our Nation is blessed to have heroic citizens ready to spring into action to help another in distress. Today, I have the honor of recognizing Brenda Vernatti, who has dedicated her life to helping others attain their goals through education, and who, in that blink of an eye, reminded us all of the heroes in our midst.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I'm glad we are talking about healthy beaches. As I said earlier, one of the most damaging aspects about healthy beaches is an oil spill, and one way to limit the risk of oil spills is to become more self-reliant, and I know my colleague would appreciate it because he does a lot of renewal, and it's great work, but renewable alone can't fill the future demand. In fact, it really only nibbles around the edges. I'm also glad we're opening up the discussion to climate change because the reality is is that climate change will cost the American public, and it's going to cost us big bucks. And those of us on our side who are willing to go into debate just hope that there's some honest discussion on the real costs needed. I'm not a big cap-and-trade guy. I think it's a game by which we're going to play with the consumers hiding the real cost. Chairman Dingell, intellectually honest, said, let's add 50 cents a gallon to gasoline to help pay for the climate change cost. He's at least being intellectually honest because he's going to go and help the debate saying there is going to be a cost, we're going to have to pay for it, let's add 50 cents to a gallon of gas. Now, a gallon of gas is $3.50; that would make it $4. We know it's going to get to $4 this summer. That means a gallon of gas will be $4.50. That's the challenge. The California Public Utility Commission on electricity generation said, let's add a 20 to 30 percent surcharge on our electricity bill. That's the cost we're going to incur to comply with climate change. So, again, we're asking that there be a great debate on climate change, and as we're going to bring in money to help address this, that the people who are going to have to pay these costs know that there's going to be costs. And again, Chairman Dingell is being intellectually honest. The Public Utility Commission of California is being intellectually honest. And we are going to address that. Because here is the problem. When the Democrats took office, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $58 a barrel. Now what is it today? I think this is actually wrong. It's $114 a barrel. $114. Now, I came down here on a 1-minute this week, got some clips. Here is a clip from my district, Independent Truckers Join Strike. Independent Truckers Join Strike. You want to know why the aviation industry is going bust, all of these low-cost airlines? High fuel costs. So if we want healthy beaches, and we don't want oil spills, we have to develop the resources that we have. We have a solution. One that the Democrat majority is unwilling to bring to the floor; although if they did, we would pass it. I could guarantee we would pass it. And that's using great natural resources in the only coal basin, the high plains of Montana, Wyoming, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio. We know we have coal under the ground, and we know that we can turn that coal into synthetic fuel. Low-cost fuel, abundant supply, and we know that we can refine this coal using biomass and carbon sequestration cleaner than current crude oil refineries. And where are our crude oil refineries? They're on the coast. Most of them are in the gulf coast. That's a great place to protect our healthy beaches, by having all of these refineries on the coast. And we saw what Katrina did. Katrina caused a disruption in cost. Katrina caused obviously outages in these refineries. This would give us the opportunity to have refineries located in the heartland with the commodity product of coal right there. Dig the coal, American jobs; build the refinery, American jobs; refine the oil into fuel, American jobs; put it in a pipeline to the aviation industry, American jobs. What is clearer than that? It's a great success. But we can't get that moved to the floor. So what do we have? No supply, $113 a barrel. Now I have read the quotes from the Democratic leadership. They had a plan in 2006 to lower gas prices. I have read the quotes. No one has disputed them. And guess what? You have only raised gas prices. And guess what is going to happen this summer? Gas prices are only going to go up higher. When you have no plan, you plan to fail.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, it's great to be down here to talk about healthy beaches again. I spoke on the rule. The first colleague on the other side talked about oil wells and how they endanger healthy beaches, so it gave me an opportunity to continue to talk about the failed Democratic policies on energy and the continued increase in the cost of energy in this country and the continued future plan for energy increases in the decades to come. It's a simple economic debate, supply and demand. We need more supply. The failed Democrat policies will not bring more supply to this debate. How does it relate to healthy beaches? I will tell you how it relates to healthy beaches. What is the most damaging thing to a beach, an oil spill. How do oil spills occur? They occur when we have these big super tankers traveling all around the world trying to feed the demand. We want to stop oil spills, and the best way to stop oil spills is to develop our own resources, redevelop our own oil wells. In southern Illinois, in Texas, on the Outer Continental Shelf, a lot of the places we have oil, the Democrat majority continues to put them off-limits. What happens? Prices go up. Here is an example. We have seen this chart before, and I imagine we are going to see it a lot the rest of this year, except there is going to be a change. Every time we see it, the price of a barrel of crude oil is going to continue to go up. When this majority, Speaker Pelosi, took the oath of office, swore us all in, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $58.31. What is it today? Actually, this is wrong, they didn't update it. This was from a couple of days ago. I think it raised, got to $114, $114 a barrel. When you do not plan, you plan to fail. The Democrats have no plan. They said they had a plan, Speaker Pelosi is quoted, in a quote on April 24, 2006, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' I have a plan. The only plan was to increase gas prices, not lower them. Here is a quote from Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on October 4, 2005: ``Democrats believe that we can do more for the American people who are struggling to deal with high gas prices.'' You are doing more for the people who are struggling with high gas prices, you are making it more difficult. We have, as I have used the term before, bitter change. Why are folks bitter in America? Why are folks bitter in rural America? Because we are paying high gas prices because we can't get supply. You bet we are bitter, because in rural America we drive the long distances to get to work. We are the folks who don't have buses, we don't have light rail. We have got a lot of rural Members here, and we need big vehicles to haul our beef and our pork and our corn to the refineries. We need trucks. I brought down pictures yesterday of independent truckers going on strike. Why? Diesel oil is up over $4 a gallon. When you don't have a plan, you plan to fail. What's the solution? Coal-to-liquid technologies. It's not imported. Coal field, U.S. refineries, U.S. jobs, lower price fuel. That's a solution. What's another solution? These are all the areas Democrats have put off-limits for exploration. Look at it. You know what is even worse, what you all tried to do in the last energy bill, you tried to take a big chunk out of Colorado and say we are not going to explore there either. Supply and demand, the simple basic economics. We have higher demand, you don't allow a supply, we get higher prices, over $1.02 a gallon for gas since the Democrats went into the majority. You know what? It's going to continue to go up. You have no plan. How are we going to get these prices lower? ``Oh, let's tax the oil companies.'' That's really going to bring prices down. You know what that's going to do? It's going to raise prices and you are hurting the people you say you support. You are hurting the middle class, you are hurting the lower middle class. This also translates into electricity, translates here into your great debate on climate change. John Dingell said let's address climate change by adding an additional 50 cents a gallon for gas. Announcement By the Acting Chairman

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi said, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' We are calling it the Pelosi premium.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, it is, in essence, the third day in the legislative schedule when I come to the floor to talk about energy prices. When this Democrat majority took over the House, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $58 a barrel. Today, it hovers around $111 a barrel. In 2006, the Democrat leadership promised lower gas prices. What we've seen, in reality, is higher gas prices. We've seen negative change, which has caused bitterness in rural America with the high- increasing cost to travel around rural America. All we're asking is for a plan to bring on more supply. I have been in this well numerous times in this Congress to talk about coal-to-liquid technologies. We shouldn't limit it to that. We should talk about expanding renewable fuels. We should talk about the outer continental shelf. We ought to talk about ANWR. We need to bring more supply to lower the cost of fuels because the average American citizens are tired of paying these high gas prices, and it hurts the economy of this country.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, it was a pleasure to be down here listening to the special orders of my friends from the various States, and especially my friend from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney, and I understand his compassion and concern. But I will tell you that if we don't get a handle on these energy costs, people aren't going to have the money to do the things they want to do with their families on a day-to-day basis. So we have this time tonight to talk about energy and our energy status in the world today. We started doing this last week on a bill that came to the floor that we are going to finish this week, the Beach Protection Act of 2007. We took that opportunity to talk about that. But we ought to be addressing some of the pressing concerns of this country today. We hear the term that America, and rural America, is bitter. It is a big phrase today and over the weekend. They are bitter. They are bitter about high energy costs, and they are bitter about the fact that this Congress is not doing anything to address the supply part of this debate. More supply means lower costs. That is basic economics 101. Anyone who has gone to have a bachelor's degree, and even some good high school programs teach economics, it is a simple supply and demand equation. So we are going to talk about energy tonight. My focus is going to be on supply, how we need more supply. We also hear a lot this year about change. We want change, and everybody wants change. But, you know, change is not always good. Here is an example of change. Since the Democrats got in the majority, when they first got sworn in, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $58.31. Today, the price of a barrel of crude oil is $111.15. I would say that is bad change. That is not good change. So change is not always good. This is negative change, and it flies in the face of promises from my friends on the other side of the aisle. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi said on April 24, 2006, about 2 years ago, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down the skyrocketing gas prices.'' Well, that was almost $60 a barrel less ago, and $1 and change per gallon of gas less. Majority leader Steny Hoyer said, October 4, 2005, ``Democrats believe that we can do more for the American people who are struggling to deal with high gas prices.'' Well, they did. They did. What did they do? They raised their gas prices. You want to talk about not being able to pay for dental care? People are using their money to get to work. In rural America, we drive long distances. Rural America doesn't have the access of buses. Rural America doesn't have the opportunity to take the Metro or light rail. Those who are driving distances to get to work are harmed exponentially greater. Democrats proffered lower gas prices. What do we have? We have higher gas prices. All we are asking them to do is keep their prices. Help them lower the price of gasoline, but they won't do it. Do you know why they won't do it? They won't do it because they really hate fossil fuels in this country. They hate crude oil, and they hate coal. They hate crude oil, and they hate coal. They hate fossil fuels, so to address high prices, what we have to do is bring on more fossil fuels to the market, and they won't do it. That's why we are not going to have any relief on gases. Constituents ask me, what are you going to do to lower prices? What are you going to do, Congress? I just shake my head, and I said the only thing that's going to happen is prices are going to go up because demand is going to continue to go up, supply is going to stay the same, and you are going to have higher prices. Democrat Whip Jim Clyburn, Democrat from South Carolina, said ``House Democrats have a plan to help curb rising gas prices.'' Jim got it wrong. ``No'' is not an energy plan. They had no plan, and when you have no plan, you plan to fail, and what do you get? You get higher prices. We know we are going to have $4 a gallon gas this summer sometime. We know it. In fact, the newspapers are starting to raise this issue, ``$4 gasoline seen possible this summer,'' the Buffalo News, April 9, 2008; price at the pump likely to reach $4, the Washington Times, April 9, 2008; ``$4 Per Gallon Gas Creeps Closer,'' Fox News, Denver, Colorado, April 9. We know we are going to have $4 a gallon of gas. How do we stop that from happening? We have to bring on more supply. I have some friends here to join me, but I am going to finish with one solution that has bipartisan support, and that's coal-to-liquid technologies. There are a lot of ways we can address this debate and this issue, but let me just pitch one to you. The Illinois Coal Basin, and I am from Illinois, I am biased, the Illinois Coal Basin is basically the State of Illinois and the southwestern part of Indiana and the western part of Kentucky. That's all a big coal field. Under the ground there is as much fossil fuel energy in coal as Saudi Arabia has in oil, 250-year's worth. We have been mining and using it for generations. In fact, I am fourth-generation Lithuanian American. My great grandfather immigrated to my home town of Collinsville, Illinois, where I still live. What did he do? He worked in the coal mines. My grandfather worked in the coal mines. In southern Illinois, we have coal mines and we have mine workers. We have an abundant natural resource. Now, we know coal can be used to generate electricity, but I am not talking about generation of electricity right now. What I am talking about is liquid fuels, the stuff that we need to put in our cars so we can get to work. How do we lower the price of gasoline in this country? That's where coal-to-liquid technology comes in. We also had these budget airlines, three of them went bankrupt, one is on the verge. What's one of the problems? The high cost of aviation fuel. All those people are unemployed. They don't have a job. They are going to be a burden to the safety net. They are not going to have dental care which was provided by their employer. But now they are unemployed because of the high cost of jet fuel. How do we bring liquid fuel back to the arena that the budget airlines and the soccer mom, who is shepherding those kids around in the minivan, can afford to do that. We bring on more supply. One option is to use our vast resources of coal in this country and use that technology that goes back to World War II, the Fischer-Tropsh technologies. Synthetic fuel, Sasol, the South African oil company has been using it for decades. It just got permission to use synthetic aviation fuel for the British commercial air fleet. We have not a single coal-to-liquid plant in this country. The premise is simple, you have a coal mine. This is surface mining, mostly western coal here. In Illinois it would be below surface. At that location you build a coal-to-liquid refinery. First of all you have jobs, jobs in the coal mine. Then you have jobs that build a refinery. Then you have jobs to operate the coal mines and jobs to operate the refinery, good-paying jobs with good-paying benefits and dental care. Then you have a pipeline so you don't have to address the transportation of this fuel, and you pipe it to the major metropolitan areas of this country, or you pipe it to the air base. You know the number one aviation fuel user in the world, you know who it is? Our United States Air Force. They are begging for this opportunity. They are held captives to imported crude oil and the high cost of jet fuel. We can do it here. We know what Katrina did to the refineries in the gulf coast, it shut a couple of them down, causing price spikes, causing dislocations. Well, what's the benefit of this technology? You don't have to have it on the gulf coast. You are not importing the crude oil. You can build one in southern Illinois. You could build one in Wyoming, in Montana. You could build one in Kentucky or Ohio or West Virginia, right where the coal is located, close to the pipeline that connects to our major metropolitan areas, available, low-cost fuel to turn into jet fuel, gasoline, aviation fuel, diesel fuel, things that are causing great concerns and problems in our country today. We have got bills to do this. Many Members do. My bill, I am the primary cosponsor with Congressman Rick Boucher, a Democrat from Virginia, on a price-collar provision. There are provisions for long- term contracting. There are some other marketing provisions out there where we could do this, we could send a signal to industry. We want to do this, we want to have these up and running in 5 years. We want to help decrease our reliance on imported crude oil. We want to lower the cost of fuel. This Congress could do it. I guarantee you if we did it, this administration would sign the bill. It's up to Democrats who made promises in 2006 that they had a plan to lower the price of gasoline. You read the quotes. I read the quotes to you, Madam Speaker. You know the promises that were made. You know the promises that were not kept. In fact, not only were the promises not kept, we have done worse. You didn't lower the cost of fuel, we raised the cost of fuel. We didn't lower the price of a barrel of crude oil. When Speaker Pelosi got sworn in, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $58.31; today, $111. Now I did this part of the speech last week, it was $110. It has gone up $1 just since Wednesday. With that, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from New Jersey, Congressman Garrett. I thank him for joining me. I yield you some time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague for coming down to the floor. As he was speaking I was thinking, and of course I started by talking about two buzz words that are out there because of this politicized season. I think we need to merge them together. What we have from the Democrat majority on energy policy is bitter change. Bitter change; $58 a barrel for crude oil to $111 per barrel of crude oil; $2.40 for a gallon of gasoline to $3.50. We have bitter change, not good change, bitter change because there is no energy policy. First there are the grand promises made by the Democratic leadership which I quoted earlier and will probably quote again. No change, bad change, bitter change. It is unfortunate because it is our citizens who are feeling the burden. I started this last week again during the healthy beaches discussion. It is amazing as I was looking at the stories over the weekend flying home and flying back today, a whole bunch of articles. ``Truckers feel the crunch of high diesel prices.'' This one is better. ``Independent truckers join strike.'' It has tractor-trailer rigs, shut them down, on strike. Try $4 a gallon; bitter change to the independent truck driver. There is no energy policy. When you have no policy, you have a failed policy. Another article, ``High fuel prices mean high costs.'' There is a lot of blame being given to the agricultural sector because of the high cost of food, but the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City said over the past three decades, rising labor and energy costs have boosted that share steadily from 67 percent in the 1970s to 80 percent today. The Federal Reserve Bank also estimated that a 10 percent gain in energy prices could contribute to 5.2 percent increase in retail food prices. And, John Urbanchuk in an article ``The Relative Impact of Corn and Energy Prices in the Grocery Aisle'' on June 14, 2007, said rising energy prices had a more significant impact on food prices than did corn. Bitter change; no energy plan. The Democrats failed to bring supply into the energy debate. We can pass efficiencies and renewables, but the reality is it is only nibbling around the edges. The Energy Information Agency projects a 30 percent increase in demand in electricity by 2030, a 30 percent demand increase. And we are nibbling around the edges. People think we are going to do it with solar panels and wind turbines. They can help. We would like to have them. In fact, I just heard Illinois is one of the largest States to try to employ wind power. But it is not going to meet our demand. Energy prices are going to go up, and when they do, the average American citizen, especially in rural America, pays a disproportionate burden because we have to travel long distances to go to work. We don't have the commuter rails and the bus services. What we have is our truck. And we like our trucks. I am going to talk about electricity generation. I have spent a lot of time on liquid fuels, but I am joined by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan) and so I yield to him at this time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague, and especially for again returning the focus to the national security dynamics of this. The United States Air Force is the number one consumer of aviation fuel in the world. What are they asking for? They want a safe, reliable supply of aviation fuel. Reliable. The only way they are going to get a reliable supply of aviation fuel is if that aviation fuel is produced by a commodity product where we are not relying on importation. That goes back to this debate on coal-to-liquid technologies. Again, just in the Illinois coal basin alone, 250 years worth, as much energy as Saudi Arabia has in crude oil, just the Illinois coal basin alone. We are not talking about the Wyoming-Montana coal basin or the West Virginia, Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky region. We are talking about the Illinois coal basin has as much energy as Saudi Arabia has in oil. So as we go back to the coal-to-liquid debate and we are talking about national security, and we need to have the fuel to fly our war machines, coal, locally discovered, developed, brought to the surface, with a coal-to-liquid refinery, built by the building trades, operated by organized labor and our boilermaker friends, high-paying wages, good benefits, not on the coastal plain, in the Midwest, pipeline to, and this chart just happens to show an F-18 Tomcat, a United States Air Force fighter plane. Our Air Force is asking for this for national security, a reliable source of jet fuel, and we continue to delay. What's the other world doing? What's the other countries, other world doing? Well, Russia is attempting to grab a vast chunk of the Arctic to claim to its vast potential oil, gas and mineral wells to fuel that country's economy. Russia's going after fossil fuels. Well, what's our other friends doing? Brazil, Russia, India and China have overtaken the United States in dominating the global energy industry, according to a study by Goldman Sachs. What's the Chinese doing? China is building 40 nuclear plants in the next 15 years. 40. We'll be lucky to have one. One. No carbon emissions in a nuclear power plant. Zero. I think that's the biggest frustration that a lot of us have from our friends on the environmental left. They don't like nuclear power. They don't like coal. They don't like crude oil. We're trying to find out what they like. China is planning 40 nuclear power plants in the next 15 years, and I pray that we have one. I would be ecstatic to have four. There's no way we'll have 15. There's just no way. The United States has not licensed one nuclear power plant in 30 years, not one, due to my friends on the other side's continued opposition to nuclear power. We could bring nuclear power legislation to the floor in this Congress. And it would have bipartisan support. All the Republicans would support it. Well, we might lose about three. And I bet we could grab 40 Democrats that would support it. I bet we could have a bipartisan majority vote on coal-to-liquid technologies. I'd bet it'd be the same. We'd have all the Republicans minus a handful, and we'd get about 40 Democrat votes. But this Democrat leadership will not bring a bill to the floor that addresses the supply debate. China opened new domestic energy reserves in 2004 and has planned to increase production by about 8 billion barrels by 2010. Democrats refuse to allow American workers to produce American oil. In fact, in the energy debate last year, not the final bill that passed, but the two that didn't get signed into law, they put another area of natural gas off limits. We need increased supply. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if you want lower prices, you have to have more supply. We don't get any help. China's increasing offshore energy production to reduce its own dependence on foreign oil. Let me say that, because I've got some friends over there who live on the coast. China is increasing offshore energy production. In fact, we know just 50 miles off of Florida, 50 miles, it's not a U.S. energy company or a U.S. energy exploration to go after the oil in the Gulf 50 miles off Miami. It's China. China has better access to our oil reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf than we have. Isn't that crazy? China's increasing offshore energy production to reduce its own dependence on foreign oil, growing that production at an average of 15.3 percent per year, with plans to make offshore oil production China's largest source of oil by doubling production by 2010. And we know what happens any time we talk about offshore exploration, a counting of gas and oil reserves, just trying to figure out what's there we have a fight. China invested $24 billion in large scale coal liquification technologies. Oh, that sounds familiar. Coal-to-liquid technologies. The United States, what are we doing? Zip, zero, nada, nothing. What's China doing? China invested $24 billion in large scale coal liquification technology. We can't get a vote on that on the floor. China's expanding its natural gas infrastructure by constructing pipelines. We can't get a pipeline bill moved. China rapidly is expanding its refining capacity. Democrats have repeatedly voted against expanding American refinery capacity. In fact, one of the huge problems we have, which I find is really--I think people understand that we import crude oil. We're relying on imported crude oil and that's bad. What the public, I think, would even get angrier at is we import refined product. We import gasoline. So not only, we lose the refining jobs. It would be better for us to import the crude oil and refine that crude oil, or at least we'd have our friends in the refining industry, many of those bargaining unit employees would have jobs. But we are importing refined product. Criminal negligence. China is ambitiously developing its nuclear power industry with plans to spend approximately $50 billion on 30 additional nuclear reactors within the next 15 years. China is planning on constructing many new large scale hydroelectric projects over the forecast period, including the 18.2 gigawatt Three Gorges dam project, which is scheduled to be operational by 2009. In fact, we're tearing down dams. We're not expanding hydroelectric power. 50 percent of the electricity we use is produced by coal in this country. 50 percent. 20 percent by nuclear power, 20 percent by hydroelectric, and the rest the others. I'm going to move to the concern. With no plan to address this problem, which is the escalating costs of crude oil, again, when Speaker Pelosi took over, $58 a barrel, crude oil. I'll be honest. Bush took over it was $27. I always say that. Bush it was $27, Pelosi, $58, now $111. With all the promises, and maybe I'll just read those one more time as I end. But the basic premise is, under Democrat leadership of the House, the average American is paying more. We're paying more. We're going to pay more in taxes. We know that. But this isn't a special order on taxes. This is a special order on energy. We're paying more at the pump. Here's the reason why. The high cost of a barrel of crude oil, we're relying on imported crude oil. One solution would be technology. Another would be to move into electric cars. But guess what? Electric cars need an electric supply. They'll need nuclear power plants. They'll need coal generating, coal, then the electricity generation plants buy coal. There's going to be, we have to have something to charge the batteries to allow these battery-run cars to run. Let's talk a minute about global climate change. We know that the public is paying more at the pump when the Democrat majority promised lower prices. That's a given. We had a hearing in the subcommittee last week. My issue to the panelists was, the American public, they need to understand that if we address global climate change there is going to be a cost. Of course, some on the environmental left said no. We're going to have all these efficiencies. We're going to have all these new jobs. It's going to be a wash. Well, it's funny, flying home, an AP story on the 12th, the State of California is going to put on the electrical bill, a 25 or 30 percent surcharge on customers' electric and gas bills for global climate change. So your electricity bills are going to go up. Gas prices are up. Electricity prices are up. You're going to pay more in taxes. This is bitter change, bitter change, not good change. Bitter change. Bitter change for the average American who all they want to do is go to work and pay their bills, take care of their family, try to save some for the future. They can't save with these high energy prices. And you saw the independent truckers, the article I held up. If we could have effective change, let's assume that we do all we can as Americans to lead the way, go through all this pain. Do you really believe that our Chinese friends, after I gave all the stats on what they're doing, are going to comply with an international agreement? Not only do I not believe it, they've told me no. And I've mentioned this in many committee hearings. In fact, the senior Chinese official said twice to two of my Democratic colleagues' questions when they said, if the United States led, would you agree to an international agreement to coal carbon? And their answer was, you all have had, well they didn't use you all. That's kind of a Southern Illinois thing. They said, you have had 200 years to develop a middle class in your country using fossil fuels, and it's our turn. That doesn't sound like a country that wants to address carbon debate in an international arena. So should Americans, should we go through all this pain on global climate change, and have no gain? Do we go through all this exercise, all these job dislocations, all this pain, for not one single benefit? And if we do, you know, I just want us to be transparent with our citizens. Intellectually honest. Chairman Dingell said, you know, if we want to be honest with the American people, what we should do is put 50 cents additional tax on gasoline and take that money, and address our carbon debate. Well, that works great. That now takes $3.50 a gallon of gas, which people are outraged about, and brings it up to $4. And it's going to get to $4 without the additional 50 cent tax. But at least it's intellectually honest, saying that there's going to be a cost. The California Public Utility Commission is honest. 25 to 30 percent increase on your energy bill for climate change. Great. Well, it wasn't a front-page story. It was, I don't know, I ripped it up. I think it was, like, the Business Section, like D6, way in the back. So I'm not sure if it made the front page of the California papers, but that's what their public utility commission has agreed to do. All pain, no gain. The public needs to know the cost and be prepared to assume the cost. All I see in this debate on energy is bitter change, bitter change for the working men and women of this country. This is contrary to the promises made. April 24, 2006, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' Bring down skyrocketing gas. They weren't even skyrocketing then compared to what we have now. Now we've got skyrocketing gas prices. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, ``Democrats believe that we can do more for the American people who are struggling to deal with high gas prices.'' Y'all did more? You raised gas prices even more. Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn said, ``House Democrats have a plan to help curb rising gas prices.'' No energy plan is a plan to fail. We go from $58.31 a barrel of crude oil to today, $111. Now, I got these on little, kind of like a Blue Dog type of thing. I got this on a moveable type of a number system here. So that if it goes up, I can add. If it goes down, I can adjust. But the reality is, the spread, under the leadership of this House, has only gone up. And I believe, and the economists today believe, it will continue to go up. We can do better. We can do better. I talked to many of my friends on the other side. I actually voted for CAFE language. That was a hard thing for me to do. Helped expand the renewable fuel standard. Brought biodiesel and ethanol into the national energy debate. That's all good stuff. Energy Star provisions. Electricity savings provisions. We want the deployment of solar cells. We want wind power. As I mentioned earlier, Illinois could be at the forefront of electricity generation by wind. What we do know, Texas had to call their high electricity users when their wind turbines stopped turning because the wind stopped blowing. That's the challenge of renewable energy. Instead of having a consistent base-load energy, and in this country it's undisputed that coal is the primary commodity product that produces 50 percent of the electricity generation in this country. The electricity we're using in the Capitol building tonight is produced by coal. The electricity on the Capitol grounds is produced by coal. There are some of my friends on the other side that would like us to not use another ounce of fossil fuels ever in this country. I am afraid of those days because those days will only occur when there's another worldwide recession. And you want to see the pain and the agony and the frustration on the middle- and the lower-middle class of our country, wait till there's no jobs. We won't be putting carbon in the air. That will be good for some people, but we won't be employing our citizens either. And that will be a shame. Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me this time. I want to thank my colleagues, Congressman Garrett and Congressman Sullivan, for joining me in a plea to my friends on the other side that, as we continue to talk about energy, we don't disregard the supply debate. That's got to be part of the solution. It just has to be because just so much of the electricity that we use today is based upon 50 percent coal, 20 percent nuclear, 20 percent hydroelectric. They have to be part of the mix. It's my plea that, as we move forward and try to address the high cost of electricity and liquid fuel, we remember the great resources that we have in this country and have a plan to use them.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Lincoln Wildcats basketball team, winners of the Illinois Elementary School Association's Boys Class 4A State Championship. This outstanding group of young men from Edwardsville, Illinois, took the State championship in February with a thrilling one point win over Normal Kingsley in the State finals. For the season, they posted a record of 24 wins against only 5 losses. Today I want to recognize coach Dustin Battas and assistant coach Matt Rogers, and the members of the Edwardsville Lincoln Wildcats State championship team: Diarra Cropper, Quincy Morgan, Brendan Colligan, Blake Brown, Casey Thebeau, Maleek Malone, Derek Page, Brian Gifford, Austin Abegg, Tony Miner, Jacob Nolan, Tyler Ogden, Will Suttles, Alex Jackson and Jared Krebs- Carr. These student-athletes have made our community proud, and have represented Edwardsville with great honor. I congratulate them on bringing home the State title, and wish them the best of luck in all their future endeavors.