John Shimkus

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I would understand my colleague would be upset about speaking. I would understand why you would be ashamed about talking about healthy beaches and not addressing the real concerns of America which is high energy costs. I've been on the floor numerous times, motions to recommit over the past year and a half to talk about energy crises. One the big things I've talked about is coal to liquid technologies. You know what? It was your colleague who stepped on the floor and talked about we don't want oil exploration off the coast. We don't want more crude oil supplies. Well, I have a solution that would help keep our beaches healthy. Let's use coal to liquid technologies. Let's mine our vast abundant resource of coal right here. Let's build a coal to liquid refinery. In fact, Sasol, the South African energy company, just announced that the Brits are going to buy synthetic aviation fuel. You know, we had all these aviation industry folks just go bankrupt, these low cost airlines that could get to these healthy beaches. You know one reason why they went bankrupt? The high cost of aviation fuel. Those are jobs gone. Those are the inability of me and my family on a low cost airline to appreciate these healthy beaches. Well, I have a solution. They've been to the floor on motion to commit coal to liquid technology. Get our coal, refine it in to liquid fuels, put it in a pipeline and ship it to our commercial and military aviation. I've been using this chart for a year and a half. Has this majority moved on decreasing our reliance on imported crude oil? Negligibly. Zip, zero. Maybe on the RFS. I voted for it. I appreciate that. But doing anything to expand our ability to get our own resources, no, we're here talking about healthy beaches. We don't want to talk about crude oil exploration. We want to talk about pristine beaches. We don't want to talk about that we're paying $110 per barrel of crude oil when it was $58 when you all came into the majority. Translates to a dollar more in gas. It's going to reach 4.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague bringing up the issue of energy and the connection of energy to this bill because that is what we intend to do here today. The irony behind this debate is that Americans really appreciate healthy beaches; but what they are really mad about is high gas prices. I have three kids, 15, 13 and 8. My wife is driving them all over the world to attend every event that kids do today, and the soccer moms of the world are outraged over the price of gas that they are paying. And what has this Democrat majority been doing to continue to affect the price of gas, we just heard it, let's take more assets off the ability to explore. We just heard it from my colleague who just said no more exploration for oil. Where is the plan that the Speaker touted would lower gas prices? That was over 700 days ago. We want answers. We want this majority to do something about the high cost of gasoline. We have truck drivers prepared to strike over the price of diesel, $4 a gallon gasoline is on the horizon, and this majority is doing nothing, nothing. Here is the energy plan: When you have no energy plan, you plan to fail. When this majority took over, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $58. What is it today, $110 per barrel. That translates into a gasoline price of originally $2.33 a gallon to now, $3.34, $3.50, $3.75, and $4. At $3.44, that is a $1.01 increase since this majority took over. Where is the energy plan to lower gasoline prices? The Speaker's plan means that you pay more in energy costs in this country. The beaches that are affected in this legislation, Great Lakes, the coastal beaches, guess what, if I want to take advantage of these healthy beaches, I would have to drive about 285 miles to get to the Great Lakes. I would have to drive a lot farther, almost 745 miles to get to the gulf coast. Last year the cost to Chicago would be about $53. This year the cost is $76. We lose discretionary income when we allow gas prices to go up. Another connection, to go to the great State of Florida to take my family on a vacation, that would have cost me last year $138 to drive. This year, $200 to drive. Do you think that is not going to affect the economy of the Florida coastal areas? Do you think that is going to halt our folks going to your State, my friend from Miami, to enjoy these great, healthy beaches. My folks can't afford to drive to these beaches to enjoy them anymore. And what is the Democrat plan for gas prices? Silence. Nothing. The only plan is the plan to fail. The only plan is higher prices. Here it is: $58 a barrel when you came in, $110 a barrel today. Let me give you some quotes. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on April 24, 2006, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' Well, these skyrocketing prices aren't going down, folks. Speaker Pelosi's plan is to have skyrocketing price increases for gasoline, not decreases. We got it wrong. It's this whole change mentality. Change is good. Change can be bad. The change in this majority has been bad for the cost of energy in this country. And what are we doing? We're talking about healthy beaches. Healthy beaches. We ought to be talking about the price of gasoline. We ought to be talking about the price of diesel fuel. We ought to be talking about the price of electricity generation, nuclear power, clean coal technology. But no, healthy beaches. I hope my folks can enjoy and benefit by these healthy beaches. It's been days since 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.'' Mr. Majority leader, what did you do? You raised prices. You didn't decrease prices. You raised prices. Everyone knows that prices have gone up. Truckers are going to strike over record diesel prices. Diesel this week was at an average of more than $4 a gallon in Oregon and Washington, and nearly $4.12.

Mr. SHIMKUS. In California, according to the American Trucking Association, if a trucker is filling up a 300-gallon semi, that bill could top $1,200. We want to talk about competitive nature. We want manufacturing jobs in this country. Energy prices are killing our ability to compete in the world economy. It's killing our ability to get or product to the ports to ship them overseas to be competitive. It's killing our ability to manufacture the goods using innovation and technology, because that requires energy. No energy plan is a plan to fail. Change is not always good. This is a change that the Democrat majority has brought us. $58.31, the price of a barrel of crude oil upon the assumption of the leadership here in this chamber. Current price today, $110.61. I have those on Velcro tabs so I can just keep following that price as it keeps going up. Sometimes a barrel of crude oil is hard to follow. People don't know what it translates into. Well, I translated it earlier, from $2.33 a gallon, to, on average, $3.34 a gallon, and we know it's going to hit 4. We know it's going to hit 4. And when it hits 4, who are they going to call? They're going to call us. And what are we going to say? We're going to say, ``Oh, the Democrats promised a plan in 2006 to lower prices.'' They're in the majority now. Let's see their plan. A failure to plan is a plan that fails. You have no plan. We're increasing our costs. The economy is hurting, and we bring healthy beaches to the floor. Healthy beaches. High energy costs. And my colleague who just followed me talked about excluding exploration of energy. She tied this debate to energy. She understood the importance.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Democrats have voted, not once, not twice, but four times to raise energy taxes on the 110th Congress. There's a debate in the State of Illinois to lower our gas tax. Why? So the average American citizen can afford to do the job. In rural America, when we have to drive long distances, this directly affects the pocketbook of every citizen in rural America. Every citizen. They're going to drive 20, 30, 40 miles just to go to work. Talk about the inner cities and the traffic congestion, the people who are idling, they're going to end up paying more. Four times the Democrats have said we're going to change the gas price debate here in America and we're going to lower prices. We know that that hasn't worked. Not only have they added insult to injury, they said not only aren't we paying enough in gas prices now, but we want to put more taxes on gasoline. Shoot, $3.50 is not enough. Let's get to 4. Let's pay $4.50 a gallon. Let's pay higher energy costs. And what do we see? The periodicals and newspapers, the print media are starting to understand. In the Buffalo News, April 9: $4 Gasoline Seems Possible This Summer. There used to be a time when Americans got outraged at $3 a gallon. Well, we've sensitized them to over $3 a gallon. They were promised by the Democrat majority they would lower gas prices. They've increased gas prices. Now we have to get prepared for $4 a gallon. What's next? No energy plan is a plan to fail. The Washington Times: Price at the Pump Likely to Reach $4. Fox News, Denver, Colorado: $4 Per Gallon Creeps Closer.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Friends, healthy beaches are important. We all want to benefit from them. I'd like to take my family to a beach. A lot of my constituents like to go there. But if they can't afford the gasoline in the minivan to get them to appreciate these healthy beaches, for what benefit? The Democrats, when they were in the majority, promised us, I've got the quotes, they promised us lower gas prices, lower gas prices. I read the quotes. Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, I've got one from Jim Clyburn. Lower prices. What do we have? Higher prices? And it's about time you started accepting responsibility and do something about these high prices.

Mr. SHIMKUS. So we have some options. We can be here spending all day talking about healthy beaches while our businesses and industries fall further behind, fail to compete because of high energy costs. I haven't even got involved in climate change. Climate change is going to bring additional cost to your gas tank, to your electricity. In fact, the only one who's been intellectually honest about this is Chairman Dingell. What does he say? Fifty cents a gallon more to comply with climate change. Now, if we want to do that, then let's vote on it. But you know what? You won't do it because it'll take that $4 a gallon a gas and move it up to $4.50. Guess what? People are going to say, let's re-evaluate this. Let's understand if all the world nations are going to comply. Do we want all this pain, all that job dislocation, all these higher energy costs and no benefit? If India and China do not comply, we get no benefit. All pain, no gain. All pain, job dislocation, higher energy costs, no gain. We ought to insist, before we go into any climate change agreement, that India and China sign on the dotted line verifiable that we know they're going to comply. You know what? I've talked to them. They're not going to do it. They are not going to do it. So why assume these costs? Why burden the American consumer? Why deplete our hotel and tourism industry by people not being able to get there, either through airlines who have failed or the ability to drive the long distances to get there. This majority has had no plan to address. Well, they have. They've promised, lower gas prices, 2006. This Democrat majority promised lower gas prices, lower gas prices. What do we have? Higher gas prices. And no plan to mitigate. You know how you mitigate it? You bring on more supply. And you all won't do that.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to mourn the passing of a great community leader and a great friend. Mayor Stan Schaeffer of Collinsville, Illinois, passed away March 7, 2008, at his home in Collinsville. Like so many of Stan's constituents, I knew him in many different capacities: not only did he serve our city as mayor for the last 9 years, he was also a city councilman, a teacher for over 40 years, and a coach of many sports teams. Stan was dedicated to seeing our community and our region move forward. His tenure as mayor will be remembered as one during which Collinsville grew in population and grew economically through business development, but one during which our town remained the caring, close- knit community it has always been. Many individuals forget that all the basic services we require--local government, police, fire, sanitation, local roads--come from local government. Collinsville faced many challenges during Stan's tenure. His optimistic outlook and his calm spirit is a path that future leaders should follow. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Liz, his daughter Carrie, his stepdaughters Linda, Paula and Jami, his stepsons Timothy and Scott, his fifteen grandchildren, and all those who mourn this day for our friend Stan. He devoted his life to his family and his community, and he left a positive mark on both. He will be dearly missed by all of us who had the privilege to know him.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today with a grateful heart to pay tribute to a selfless American, Marlene Lee of Boyds, Maryland. In 2003, Marlene developed ``Operation Atlas'', a community outreach program for injured soldiers and their visiting families at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. It is through this program that I have been able to work with Marlene on a nearly monthly basis as she escorts soldiers and their families on tours of the Capitol. Marlene is an incredibly giving person, both of her time and talents. Her son, Greg, has served two tours in Iraq, so she knows intimately the pains military families go through. Yet, she is always ready with a willing hand, a kind heart, and a new way to serve others. Named as one of the American Red Cross Volunteers of the Year in 2003, Marlene was recognized again in 2004 by the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. She is also on the board of directors of ``Operation Support Our Troops'' and the committee for Wheels for Warriors. Through her time spent with wounded and recovering soldiers, Marlene recognized the need to reach out to children ``who know of, care about, or just plain love a wounded warrior.'' She went back to school, earning a master's of arts in thanatology, the study of death, dying, and bereavement, from Hood College. With the motto of ``Children `serve' and sacrifice, too'', Marlene has written two books for children on dealing with the loss of a loved one in the Armed Services: The Hero In My Pocket and That's My Hope. She donates a portion of the proceeds from book sales to selected organizations that assist military families. I am honored by the time that I have been able to share in service with Marlene. She is a dedicated and humble person who goes out of her way to bless the lives of the men, women and the children in our military families and communities. May God continue to bless her and America.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Deputy Dave Mills of Gallatin County, Illinois. Deputy Mills passed away suddenly on March 11, 2008. Deputy Dave, as he was affectionately known to the students in Gallatin County, was the Gallatin County School District DARE Officer. I received a letter from a student in Gallatin County, Taylor Jackson, who had this to say about Deputy Dave; ``He was really close to me and most of the students of my school.'' Taylor went on to write, ``he was a great man and a huge influence to me and my teachers and my fellow students . . . I'm only 13, but he really meant the world to me and many others.'' As we can tell from Taylor's words, Deputy Mills' work certainly had an impact that will be forever etched into the hearts and minds of those whose lives he touched. I extend my sympathy to the family and friends of Deputy Dave Mills. My prayers will be with them and the Gallatin County community as they mourn this great loss.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, energy security is national security. When President Bush was sworn into office, a barrel of crude oil was approximately $27 a barrel. When the Democrats took over the House, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $58, a $31 increase. Since this Democrat-controlled House has been in power, the price of a barrel of crude oil has gone from $35 to today $110 a barrel of crude oil. Now, what's the solution? The solution is more supply. Democrats continue to block Outer Continental Shelf exploration. They continue to block oil exploration. They continue to block coal-to-liquid technologies. More supply brings lower prices. If you know basic economics supply and demand, you know that if you have a high demand you need more supply. Until we bring more supply back into this debate, the only thing we could tell our consumers and our constituents is be prepared for more price spikes. Energy security is national security.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Granada Theater located in Mt. Vernon, Illinois, as the community celebrates its 70th anniversary. The Granada Theater was designed in 1937 by the Boller Brothers and was recently reopened to the public with a weekend long celebration. Many wonderful memories were shared by community members who recalled the original theater and several great movie classics. The announcement that Pearl Harbor had been attacked and the first air conditioning system in the theater were among many unforgettable memories. However, one of the greatest memories that will be shared for years to come was created that night with the relighting of the marquee. Countless hours of hard work and dedication from community members, along with local businesses, came together to make this celebration possible. Along with the memories shared there were theatrical performances, and the first movie was shown in the renovated theater. The renovated theater is intended to be used for other community events, such as dinner theaters and wedding receptions. I am pleased to congratulate the Granada Theater on its 70th anniversary celebration.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor the Centralia Orphans basketball team, which on Friday, February 15, 2008, became the first high school boys' basketball program in the State of Illinois-- and just the second in the nation--to record its 2,000th victory. The visiting Orphans defeated the arch-rival Mt. Vernon High School Rams 45-43 to reach the milestone. Current members of the Orphans include Evan Burmester, Adrian Dabney, Ben Kracht, Stile Smith, Carlton Westbrook, Keith Johnson, Justin Keef, Devan Wells, Brandon Buchanan, Myron Cunningham, R.J. Kwiatkowski, and Mark McConnaughy. Their head coach is Lee Bennett, who is assisted by Brad Goewey, Ryan Blaha, and Doug Jack. Since its beginning in 1906, the Centralia boys' basketball team has featured such standout players as future Olympic track star Dwight ``Dike'' Eddleman, future Harlem Globetrotter Bobby Joe Mason, and future Los Angeles Laker Dickie Garrett. The Orphans have won three Illinois State championships, all under legendary High School Hall of Fame Coach Arthur L. Trout. I send congratulations to the players, coaches, students, alumni, and fans of Centralia High School on a remarkable achievement.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I too want to join my colleague from the State of Kansas to raise concern about the recent announcement by the United States Air Force on the tanker contract. National security is always a big concern. Having airplanes built by U.S. manufacturers and paid for by U.S. tax dollars is critically important. We want to continue to make sure that as we look at this contracting and bid-letting that everything was done according to our current rule of law and the processes designed by this House in legislation passed over this year. I promise to commit myself to the work of my colleague from Kansas to make sure that that all was done.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to a great American patriot. Randy Jones served the American people as a staff sergeant in the U.S. Army from 1972 until 1980, and then as a civilian employee of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for over 20 years. He did his duty to our Nation through two deployments overseas in the war on terror and through his work at the Melvin Price Lock and Dam. At the time of his death last week, he was the Lockmaster at Lock and Dam 27 on the Mississippi River. He is remembered by his colleagues as a dedicated employee and a mentor to a great many co-workers. My thoughts and those of the House go out to his wife Sharon, and his three daughters and two sons-in-law, Lori and Jeremy Cole, Meredith and Kenneth Zimmer, and Shara Jones, his son and daughter-in-law, Chad and Ann Jones, his eight grandchildren, as well as his brothers and sisters and all his neighbors and friends in Brighton, Illinois. All of America is grateful for Randy's service to our Nation, and he will be dearly missed by all who knew him.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Centralia, Illinois native Steven J. Breeze on being awarded the United States Air Force Distinguished Flying Cross and upon his promotion to Lieutenant Colonel. Lt. Col. Breeze was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for his role in a March 22, 2003 mission during Operation Iraqi Freedom. His low level flight lasted 3 hours, covering 590 miles. His skills saved 58 lives and delivered an assault force on time to their destination. I am proud to recognize Lt. Col. Breeze for his service to the United States of America. I join a grateful Nation in thanking him for his service and congratulating him on this award.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to the contribution of a small business in my district to granting foreign workers their certifications necessary to work in this country. CMW & Associates, a female owned and 8(a) company located in Springfield, Illinois, has assisted the Department of Labor in Chicago in assuring that per Secretary Chao's directive, there is no longer a labor certification backlog. Recently, Secretary Chao commended her staff at the Office of Foreign Worker Certification. ``Behind every application is a person or group of people, waiting to come to our country and work in jobs for which no qualified U.S. worker can be found. The Permanent Labor Certification program is really proud about people--their hopes and their dreams of greater opportunities, and reunification with their families.'' Secretary Chao presented a certificate of recognition to Bill Carlson, Administrator of the Office of Foreign Labor Certification for his leadership role. I want to recognize the Department of Labor for its exemplary work in expediting the processing of granting foreign workers their certifications necessary to work in this country, both on a permanent and temporary basis. And I want to thank Charlene Turczyn, CEO of CMW & Associates for her role in making sure America is able to obtain the skilled workforce necessary to make U.S. employers successful. As is often the case, small businesses play an integral role in the success of our government's ability to achieve its goals.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the city of McLeansboro, Illinois upon receiving the Governor's Cup Award for efforts to build a youth playground in the city park. The Kids Kingdom Playground was made possible thanks to a donation by the Jerry and Bobbye Sloan Hand-in-Hand Foundation as well as thousands of volunteer hours. I have had the opportunity to visit the Kids Kingdom Playground with Coach Sloan and I can attest that this is an excellent addition to the park for the McLeansboro community. This project is a shining example of the willingness of a community to work together for the greater good. I extend my gratitude to those who made this playground a reality. I am pleased to congratulate the city of McLeansboro and all those who made the Kids Kingdom Playground possible.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, legislation is like making sausage. When Henry Waxman and John Shimkus come to the floor on an energy bill that we grudgingly will support, that is probably newsworthy in itself. A couple of things. First, congratulations to Mattoon, Illinois, that has been named as the FutureGen site for the next generation of coal- fired clean emissions plants. I want to put that on the record. The benefit of this bill is the tax increase is out of this bill. That is a plus. That is less cost to the American consumer. The RFS is out of this bill. That is a plus for the consumer. The RFS was unable to be met and would have been costly to the consumer. The RFS could have been better. It could have been an alternative fuel standard which brought in coal-to-liquid technologies that I have talked numerous times on the floor about, taking coal, using fossil fuels, turning it into clean-burning liquid fuels. That is a fight we will have to bring to the floor another time. And the CAFE language is an acceptable compromise that industry supports. The world will continue to demand more energy, not less. We have to focus on more supply. That supply comes from coal. It comes from natural gas. It will come from nuclear power. While this bill doesn't measure up to the demands that we need in the future, it is an acceptable start. With that, I will support the bill, but continue to come to the floor talking about the importance of bringing coal, nuclear and natural gas portfolios to the energy debate; coal-to-liquid technologies, which takes a natural resource; a U.S. refinery to fuel our war machines of the future, whether that is aviation fuel, whether that is diesel fuel; clean-burning technologies that are available today. The majority is going to have to wise up and know there has to be more supply in the energy debate.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that we're on the floor here today. This year I've yelled on this floor. I've cried on this floor. I've stormed off this floor. So today I decided to be the still, small voice in support of coal, in support of the internal combustion engine, and in support of national security. Illinois alone is the Saudi Arabia of coal. If you want to decrease our reliance on imported crude oil, coal has to be in an energy bill. It just has to. And to deny that is a failure on public policy ramifications. I here hold in my hand an internal combustion engine, much maligned on the floor and in the world today. It's 1.5 horsepower. It's lighter and it's easier to carry than 1\1/2\ horses. And we have to imagine the benefits to this world that the internal combustion engine has caused, how it's uplifted the poor and the downtrodden. But this bill attacks the internal combustion engine. And on national security, coal-to-liquid fuel and natural gas, the evidence is clear: the Department of Defense wants to relieve itself of reliance on imported crude oil. They are seeking support of coal-to- liquid applications for jet fuel. The United States Air Force is the number one consumer of aviation fuel. Our coal fields to our refineries, to our pipelines, to our jet planes is the way in which we can decrease our reliance on imported crude oil and protect our national security interests. This bill does nothing in that respect. Vote ``no.''

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. I want to thank my colleague, Don Manzullo, for putting this together tonight. It is great to listen to my friend and colleague, Ray LaHood, and follow Dana Rohrabacher. I think you will see a lot of Members speak tonight, and they will say a lot of similar things. We have colleagues from Texas, Ohio and New Jersey here, which shows the width, breadth and the reach of Chairman Hyde. When you come to this institution as a new Member, there are people who are national figures and many people learn to become friends with them in different ways. I think one of the great privileges is when you become a colleague of one of these great figures of history, and as Dana Rohrabacher said, he meets the requirements of what you would expect and the person that you have idolized and respected over the years. I follow Ray LaHood who mentioned our bipartisan luncheon. We would also get together as a Republican delegation every now and then, and at that time we had the Speaker. Before the Speaker would weigh in, he would always turn to the dean of the Illinois delegation seeking Henry Hyde's counsel, his wisdom, his experience, and his expertise. I think that is a sign of a great leader when you know who to go to; and, of course, with the great respect we had for the wisdom and the conviction of Chairman Hyde. When Henry spoke, people really did listen. That is a lot to be said because we speak a lot and a lot of times people aren't listened to. But Henry Hyde did it, and for many of the reasons that Ray mentioned, but I think because of the great respect that people from both sides of the aisle had for Henry Hyde. We all have our own little stories to tell. I am an individual who struggled personally with the term limits debate. Chairman Hyde would just always respectfully beat the heck out of me because of my stated position. He said, John, we have term limits; they are called elections. When people talk about Henry's strong speeches on the floor about term limits, they would think he was for term limits, but Henry was adamantly opposed to term limits because he was a constitutionalist at heart. He said the Constitution allows for term limits, and that is why we go before the voters every 2 years. After wearing me down for many, many years, I eventually moved to the Henry Hyde position on term limits. But that is the type of person he was, not out of a view of political expediency or what is right for the public political perception at the time, but what was right for the country. We have a lot of colleagues down here so I am not going to belabor the point. Dana Rohrabacher said it right. I think the great way to remember Henry Hyde is to remember life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life in the Hyde amendment. You can say these simply, clearly and they identify Chairman Hyde. Again, life would be the Hyde amendment. Liberty, aid to the freedom fighters in Nicaragua and Central America and the fight against the nuclear freeze movement. Chairman Hyde, that was liberty making the hard decisions against political expediency to promote democracy and freedom. And the pursuit of happiness, the Millennium Challenge. It is not just the pursuit of happiness for the country, it is the pursuit of happiness for the whole world. I am honored to be able to be on the floor to take a few minutes to thank Chairman Hyde for his friendship, his mentorship. He is and will be missed. God bless you, Henry Hyde.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague, and it's great to be here tonight. We did a press conference last week addressing some of these concerns, and it's good to follow up with a Special Order tonight. At the press conference, we really highlighted the issue of when our friends on the Democratic side took over the majority, crude oil prices were at $58.31 per barrel of crude oil. And when we did the press conference of last week, the crude oil price was at $96.65, the price of a barrel of crude oil. Our issue was that when you have no energy plan, you have, when you can't plan, you have, this is the default energy policy of this country. The price escalations, as my friend from Texas, the difference about the price escalations now is that many times when we saw the run- up of these, the costs for a barrel of crude oil in the past, it was based upon some national emergency, Katrina, pipeline disruptions, maybe a refinery fire. What's different about the price escalations today is that it's all demand related. So if you, as many of us have, have taken Economics 101 in college, maybe in an MBA program, the simple law of supply and demand. If you have high prices, and we'd say we have high crude oil prices and we're quoted today at $91 a barrel, you would think that that would then encourage people to go into the business to explore new means of recovery of crude oil so that they would bring more supply into the market so that you would lower the prices. But the policies here in Washington not only prohibit that, but they discourage any investment, because when people bring capital to the market, they assume risk. And when you assume risk, you assume the opportunity of losing it all. And most people in the investor community and the business community, all they want to do is if they're going to assume risk, they want to try to get a return on that investment. So last week we had close to $100 a barrel of crude oil, in California $5 a gallon of gas. Now, this is before we even talk about a global warming debate and a 50 cent per-gallon tax. And as I said last week, so what you now have is we have European prices for liquid fuel, but we don't have European distances. I always remind my friends, those that want to, well, why shouldn't we have as high gas prices as they have in Europe? Well, that's because you can put all of Europe on the eastern seaboard. We don't have the distances that our European friends do where they can drive across their country in 2\1/2\ hours. I can't drive across my district in 2\1/2\ hours from one point to another from the far west to the far east. So that's a problem that we have in this debate. So what we would like to see, we've already moved some energy bills on the floor. They're mostly efficiency oriented, the light bulb and the light car tires. But what we need to do is we need to focus on bringing on more supply, and that should be an energy policy. When you have no energy policy, the energy policy of this country is $96 a barrel crude oil. That's the default energy policy of this country if you do not bring on significant amounts of increased supply. So what kinds of supplies? All my friends here on the Republican side, one thing we have in common, although we will talk about different types of supply, is that we're all supply people. We all know that you if want to lower costs, you've got to bring more supply on board. And so that's kind of the commonality of the focus, because when you have more supply, you have lower cost. When you have lower cost, that's lower out-of-pocket cost to the individual consumer. And the consumers are going to start complaining when they're at $3 a gallon of gas, $3.50, especially around Christmastime because they're going to be spending that extra money at the pump versus going to the store. Then you have an oversupply of toys at the store. We all know about the focus on, you know, the Christmas shopping period. High energy costs will diminish and dampen the ability of our consumers to have a good Christmas shopping season. So that affects the manufacturers of all the things that we would like to buy for our loved ones at Christmas. So how do we address the supply concerns? And again, all of us are going to be involved with that. One thing that I've always pushed for and always encouraged us to take, look after, is an alternative fuel standard. When the President was here for the State of the Union address he said he would sign an alternative fuel standard. An alternative fuel standard would talk about things like corn-based ethanol. It also would address stuff like soy diesel, soybeans crushed and mixed with petroleum diesel, which is obviously the soybean portion, or the beef tallow or the reformulated cooking oil or all things that are renewable. And then, obviously, we have coal. And now in Illinois alone and in parts all over this country, we have a 250-year supply of coal in the Illinois coal basin. Now, coal can be used for a lot of things. Coal can be used to generate electricity. When we have this energy debate, we focus, sometimes we all lump it together, and sometimes I like to split it apart: part of it would be electricity generation; the other would be liquid fuel. It would surprise people if they knew that 50 percent of the electricity generated in this country comes from coal. In fact, the lights in this building and the lights at the Pentagon and all the electricity that we use here in the Capitol complex we can point to not only our own power plant, which uses coal, but one right across the river that also provides electricity. Now in this country, we're pretty much independent on electricity generation. Fifty percent coal, 20 percent hydro, 20 percent nuclear, 10 percent the other one. The concern we have is the liquid fuel debate where we are highly dependent on imported crude oil. And hence, because demand goes up, we have $96.65 a barrel crude oil. A no energy plan is a plan to fail and a plan to increase crude oil prices. So while we're trying to work with our friends across the aisle and the leadership of this House, I mean, there's a lot of my friends who I call fossil fuel Democrats who understand the importance of fossil fuels in this country and understand the importance of making sure that we bring more supply in the fossil fuel arena to this debate. They have been tampered down by the leadership. But we hope in this Special Order, we hope from the press conference of last week, and we hope from the anger and angst that the driving public's going to see by escalating prices, that we'll start at least start making the point of you can't always say no if you want to have an energy policy. You can't always close up supply. You've got to make sure that where you know you have available resources, you then take the opportunity to go in those arenas. Like we want to exploit the Illinois coal basin for electricity generation and for liquid fuel. We do not want to shut off areas by which we can bring in more natural gas reserves or other type of fossil fuel research. So for my colleague from Texas, for planning to execute this Special Order, I appreciate the time that he has allotted me and want to let him know that I'm going to continue to be on the watch trying to drive home to the American public the importance and the need for a sound energy policy that, yes, talks about some efficiency issues, but as important, in fact, I think more important, talks about really bringing more supply to the debate so that we can at least maybe hold prices steady. I'd like to see us move to start lowering prices so that the consumers of this country have more spending power, the manufacturers in this country will have that as a net plus in their competitive advantage, which is low-cost power. And I feel that the inability of the Democrat leadership of this House to move effectively on the supply end will cause great distrust, dissatisfaction, and danger for the energy security position of this country.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I know there is at least three times, and I'm being told four, using this same pot of money to justify the PAYGO, the new spending that they brought on. The other thing that we really need to have here and talk to the American public about is that the Energy Information Service, what we don't have depicted is, what is going to be the future demand? And the future demand is going to double. So with your great chart of all the portfolio there, it's kind of confusing because the public might think, well, as we look at that, that everything is going to stay pretty much the same. But the reality is demand is going to go up exponentially. And if you have the same amount of supply and the demand goes up, then you see $100 a barrel crude oil, $120 barrel crude oil. And that's why, as we have come here to talk about supply, we want to bring more supply to the table. And we know we have friends on the other side of the aisle that believe the same thing. I'm working with Rick Boucher. And you mentioned coal-to-liquid. Just imagine this, we have 250 years' worth of coal in the only coal basin. So you have the coal underneath the ground, you build a coal mine, right on top of it you build a coal-to-liquid refinery somewhere in the Midwest or somewhere in Pennsylvania where there is a coal field, and then you connect it to pipelines that we have today. Then you limit the risk. The risk we have now is, if we're not going to build new refineries, we're going to build refineries and expand existing refineries, and we have so many down on the gulf coast, we have them in Louisiana, we have them in Corpus Christi, we have them in Houston, we have them in all these areas where they are really at risk, and we dodged a bullet this year, of major storms that take these refineries offline, depending upon the severity of the storm. So for national security sake, to have a diversified energy portfolio, John, you said it numerous times, diversification. When you have an investment portfolio, you want diversity for security. We've got to have a diversified energy portfolio. And for our friends on the other side to say no to coal, no to oil, no to nuclear, yes to solar, yes to wind, and it's such a small portion of what can really affect the cost, it's really sending a terrible signal to our constituents that the salvation is in renewables when we all agree we want a diversified portfolio. We want to bring them on. But if you do it at the risk of the other major sources of supply, you do great harm to this country.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I mean, you bring up a good point. And I would like to focus on that for a minute. Because now you're going from 12 coal fire plants or electricity generation plants to three. And one of the reasons why the building trade and many in organized labor are in support of a new supply provision, because look at what you've done, look at all the jobs to build these plants, and then look at all the good-paying jobs to operate these plants. I don't know what Texas plans are, but I can see them very well, governments south of the great State of Texas citing a power plant and selling power across the border into Texas. And then who gets the jobs? It's like the same, my friend from Pennsylvania, we talk about natural gas all the time; if we're not willing to have a liquefied natural gas port built inside this country, where are they going to go? Where are they going to go? To the Bahamas. Or they are going to go to other places where when they build the port facility, they build the liquefied natural gas, and then they pipe it in to this country. Who loses the jobs? We lose the jobs. So that is one of the frustrating things of this debate. There are two main issues. We always talk about energy security because we address it in the national security component of how do we keep our Nation safe, how do we stop from being extorted by foreign rogue countries, and how do we keep our economy from falling in disruption should there be a strike in the sea lanes. But there is also another security debate that we have talked about, and that is financial security, financial security for this country, and what really strikes individual families is financial security for the families. When you have these types of price escalations, when you don't bring new major supply to the economy and you put all your promises on a small portion of renewables that won't even meet the future demand increase, then what you are doing is, you are going back to $96 a barrel of crude oil. And that is the no energy plan that we are talking about. And all we are saying to our friends, and again, I have many of them. I work with them on the committee all the time. My fossil fuel Democrats, now is the time to make sure that fossil fuel is a huge, is a part of this debate. And my friend from Pennsylvania is right. We are not saying it has to be the whole thing. We are all comers here. I have got my corn here. I have got my soybeans. I have my coal. I have got marginal oil wells in southern Illinois, marginal oil that we can use and recover, and we are still recovering oil from southern Illinois. Bring on the wind, bring on the solar, but we want to bring everything in. The more supply we have, the lower the cost, the Nation will be better off

Mr. SHIMKUS. I know that the public, sometimes they don't understand that carbon dioxide is a commodity that is bought and sold, that people want, and we want it in the soda business to give the fizz in your Coke or your Pepsi, or as my friend from Texas knows, advanced oil recovery. You shove that CO2 back in the ground, it helps recover that margin of oil that has been harder to recover in the past.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I want to ask my friend from Pennsylvania a couple of aspects on the chart. The first one, when we talked about the tax, under this current Congress, how many times have the Democrats gone to that same pot of money for PAYGO issues of other bills that have come to this floor?