Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Absolutely. And if you really want to go and look further into the States, each of our States, many are facing, I think a majority of the States are facing various budget shortfalls. My State of Louisiana is facing about a $1.3 billion budget shortfall. But what our Governor is doing is what I think is the responsible thing that we should be doing up here. Our Governor is actually going in and making responsible cuts to our State's budget. We have a $30 billion State budget and there is a lot of room to make cuts in our State's budget, and that is in fact exactly what our Governor, Governor Jindal is doing. He is going and making cuts. Many States across this country are doing the same thing. They are actually going and doing the things that the American taxpayers are doing. They are living within their means. They are making cuts and responsibly handling a budget shortfall, as opposed to what is happening in Washington.

Mr. SCALISE. I think they have institutions where those people would go. But I think if you look at what is really happening across the country is people are making their responsible decisions, but they really want Washington to make those same responsible decisions. And when they look at what happened with the first bailout and recognize the failure of the first $350 billion, I think what they would want us to do in Congress is to pull back and say, wait, that approach didn't work. Don't spend the other $350 billion, and surely don't have some secret stimulus plan being developed.

Mr. SCALISE. We've gone from 700 to a trillion, and now more people are coming up with more ideas of how to spend taxpayers money; not today's taxpayers, but the next generations and the next generation after that tax money because we don't have enough money.

Mr. SCALISE. I think most people would recognize that bailout didn't work, including many of the people who initially asked for it. And while those of us who voted against it said there was a better way and presented an alternative approach, that was much more based on cutting taxes and encouraging the private sector to make investment. There are trillions of dollars sitting on the sidelines right now that we could bring back into the economy to turn this economy around instead of using taxpayer money and adding another trillion dollars on to a national debt that is already too large.

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Congressman Akin. And you know, when you showed the chart over there about the revenue, the dip and then ultimately as taxes were cut, Federal revenues actually increased. The same thing happened under President Reagan when President Reagan cut taxes. I think one of the myths that is out there is that the deficit grew. Some people tried to attribute that to the tax cuts. But if you really go and look, you'll see a similar chart, you'll actually see an increase in revenue. Unfortunately, you had a Democratic-controlled Congress that spent even more money than the new money that did come in. But in fact, more money came in as taxes were cut. And so I hope we use history as a guide. As you talked about earlier, there is no bill filed yet on this economic stimulus plan. We are expecting in the next week to possibly 2 weeks, there will be a bill filed. And unfortunately, right now what you've got is a bidding war. What started off as maybe a $400 or $500 billion proposal has now reached over $1 trillion where the proposals that we're hearing now are $1.3 trillion.

Mr. SCALISE. It's our grandchildren's money. And if my daughter, Madison is watching, I'd ask her to turn away for a moment because I don't want to frighten her. But my 21-month old daughter, with a $1.3 trillion bill, will take on an additional $4,000 in debt, just my daughter alone. Every man, woman and child in this country, if we pass a $1 trillion deficit-laden spending bill, every man, woman and child in this country will take on another $4,000 each in additional national debt. And that's what this really means to people in this country.

Mr. SCALISE. On the surface it definitely doesn't seem to mesh until you look at what happened. And a real good example of that was something that those of us here that have been talking brought up, along with other colleagues of ours, when there was an alternative proposal to the original $700 billion financial bailout. One of the things that was brought up was, back in 2005 they tried an experiment. Congress actually did something that I think was smart. They said, look, we're seeing that a lot of American companies that have operations overseas in other countries where they're making a profit, those companies aren't bringing those profits back here to America. And the reason they're not is because there's a 35 percent tax if they bring that money back, whereas they don't pay any taxes if they leave that money in other countries helping those other economies. So for 1 year, they relaxed that tax. They brought it down to, I believe, 5 percent for just 1 year. And you know what? They brought in over $300 billion in money, American companies' profits that they were not bringing to our country because they were going to be taxed on it. For that 1 year where they didn't get a tax they brought $300 billion back into our country. So guess what Congress did in 2006 when that expired? Congress let it expire and didn't renew it, so guess what happened to that $300 billion? It went back out of the country and it's still sitting over there helping those other countries when it could be helping our country, by not raising the tax, by cutting the tax. By cutting the tax you bring the $300 billion back.

Mr. SCALISE. I've heard those analogies before. Really, what's happening up here is an insult to sailors who drink, because they don't act irresponsibly like that in terms of spending. One thing we can use is history as a guide because these aren't ideas we're just pulling out of the sky. What you have been talking about and what your charts prove is that these are all things that have been tested and proven. When you cut taxes, the income to the government actually goes up because people make better decisions. The Federal Government isn't going to tax people more. They're just going to go turn on the printing press and print up another $1.3 billion that doesn't even exist yet, and then they're going to go and spend it. Does anybody really think that that $1.3 billion would be spent anywhere near as efficiently as if you had just gone and cut tax rates in areas where it's stifling growth and where it's keeping people from making good decisions so that their families can have basic education that they might want or so that their families might be able to get better health care or so that their families might be able to make better decisions in buying a car to help the auto companies rather than bailing out the auto companies for failed decisions?

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule that we're discussing right now which prevents any amendments from being brought forward on this legislation. The reason that I've got some real concerns is that, Number 1, there's a big change in current policy that allows for verification of identity and of citizenship that's in current SCHIP law. What this bill does, H.R. 2 actually deviates very dramatically from that current law. It changes the legislation and takes away any ability for us to verify the citizenship of people that would be eligible for SCHIP. What that means to the average American people out there is that the taxpayers who will be footing this bill will be having to pay for illegal aliens that will now be able to get benefits under this bill that, under current law, they're not able to get because there is a verification process. Why would the leadership want to take away that verification process, opening the door for fraud and abuse? We know there will be fraud and abuse if this bill becomes law without the amendment that I brought forward last night that would change and revert back to current law. The current law allows for the verification and identification of citizenship. This bill takes that away. The Congressional Budget Office actually estimates that this change, the change in H.R. 2 that we'll be voting on later on, will cost the taxpayers up to $5 billion in illegal aliens being able to get SCHIP benefits that, under current law, are not able to get it because there is a verification process. We need to put that verification process back in place to make sure that the hardworking taxpayers out there, especially during these tough economic times, as people are paying those taxes to fund this program, what kind of message does it send to them, many of whom have no insurance of their own, that they're going to have to pay $5 billion of their hard-earned money, so that illegal aliens can now be eligible; not eligible necessarily under the law, because the law at least acknowledges that illegals shouldn't be able to get the money. But the verification has been taken away in this bill.

Mr. SCALISE. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, the first vote in this new Congress gives us a preview of what the leadership is planning to do, repeal reforms that make government more transparent. Over 10 years the House established rules that open up the legislative process to make Congress more accountable. The rules package we see today undermines the accountability we have put in place and encourages the old way of doing business with back-room deals and dictator-like authority. By ending term limits for committee Chairs, the Democratic majority is severely restricting opportunities for all Members, and is encouraging dictatorial-like authority. Six-year term limits for committee Chairs prevents a dictatorial concentration of power. Since 2006, Congress has seen some of the lowest approval ratings in history. By giving only a few Members of the House positions of permanent power, we are only going to perpetuate that lack of trust. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better from us on the first day of this new Congress. I rise in opposition to these rules changes that roll back the clock on important reforms.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mrs. Ursula Villere who will be 90 years old on November 30, 2008. She was born and raised in New Orleans, Louisiana, and has lived in Metairie, Louisiana, since 1955. Mrs. Villere had seven children: five boys and two girls. Six out of the seven still live in Louisiana and one daughter moved to Texas after Hurricane Katrina. She also has 14 grandchildren: 12 boys and two girls; and six great-grandchildren: two boys and four girls. Mrs. Villere graduated from Dominican High School and Dominican College with a B.S. in education. Mrs. Villere taught school both in New Orleans and Jefferson Parish. She retired from Jefferson Parish School System in 1980. She is still an active member of KKI Sorority, Lakeshore Golden Age Club at Lakeshore playground, and is a parishioner of St. Angela Merci Church.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, for months we've been talking about the need to address this national energy crisis that's facing our country that's hurting our economy. We've been talking about getting a bill on the floor like the American Energy Act that approaches this in a comprehensive way and addresses all of the issues. But yet I rise today in strong opposition to this bill that the Democratic leadership filed in the dark of night with no discussion that they're going to bring up today and allow no amendments on. And let's look at why that bill is so bad. First of all, it puts a permanent ban on 88 percent of the known Outer Continental Shelf reserves. That's billions of barrels of oil that we know right where they are, and yet there's a permanent ban on these reserves placed in this bill. That's something that OPEC would want because OPEC now would have even more leverage on us because they know that we would be taking off-limits 88 percent of our known reserves offshore. If you look at the new taxes and the billions of dollars in new spending that they have that has nothing to do with energy, and yet Speaker Pelosi says we don't have money to give States their own fair share of royalty sharing because she knows that's a deal breaker that will lead to absolutely no drilling. Mr. Speaker, I would attest to you that OPEC could not have drafted a better bill than what the Democrats filed in the dark of night. We need to vote this down. The American people see through it. Bring up the American Energy bill. We have no time to waste.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank my colleague. I am glad in one sense that we are finally having a real debate with people on both sides of the aisle. For the last 5 weeks, Republicans have been here debating this issue. For the last 4 months, we have actually had a proposal on the table. What is very unfortunate is we hadn't seen a formal proposal by our friends on the other side until 10 o'clock last night. The bill was filed by dark of night, no inclusion of the membership on the other side, no bipartisan agreement. And yet now the bill is going to be thrown up here with no ability to offer amendments to the most important issue facing our country today, and that is solving this national energy crisis. If you want to complain about Big Oil profits, you know how you can lower the profits of oil companies? You can increase the supply of American oil, which will immediately reduce the price of gas at the pumps. And, by the way, then their profits fall down. But we need to be mostly concerned about what we can do to help the American consumer, and that means increasing the American supply. This bill does nothing to increase American supply. And you don't have to just ask me, you don't have to ask my Republican colleagues. You can ask my Democratic colleague, Senator Landrieu, across the aisle; Senator Landrieu, who said this bill, the Democrat House liberal energy bill, is dead on arrival in the Senate because of the provisions in the bill that literally will allow no drilling to occur to help increase American supply, to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Now, if you want to be relying on OPEC, this is your bill. This is the bill that takes away all of our leverage so that we can finally tell OPEC we are moving away from our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, we are not going to need you anymore, and then we have the money from all the billions that will be generated to bridge ourselves into all of the renewables we are trying to achieve in the American Energy Act. This bill won't get us there, though, because by taking away revenue sharing, which, by the way, for States like Louisiana is what we would use to restore our coast, which is our barrier against hurricanes. Why would they want to take away the money that we would use to protect us from future hurricanes? That is one of many reasons why this bill is clearly dead on arrival in the Senate. They don't want to pass a bill if this is the only option they are going to put on the table. Bring back the American Energy Act, a truly bipartisan bill, and let's solve this crisis together.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, in the last 4 months, there has been a very intense debate going on here in this Congress, but also across the entire country, and that debate has been about energy; about what can be done to lower the price of gasoline at the pump and reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. It's a very healthy debate, a debate that we need to have, but a debate that we need to resolve here in this body with an open debate and vote on the options that have been put on the table. Back 2 months ago, House Republicans put together a bill that actually has garnered bipartisan support, called the American Energy Act, a comprehensive plan to address this national energy crisis our country is facing, both to look at what we can do to increase the supply of American oil, to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil in the short-term, but also to look at the long-term objectives of how to move off of oil and move more toward alternative sources, like renewable sources of energy, looking at wind, looking at solar, and trying to advance those technologies so that they can become more viable in the marketplace so that somebody can go and buy an electric car and be able to drive back and forth to work without plugging it in for 6 hours. Those technologies will advance, and in the American Energy Act we are encouraging those renewable sources of energy, to advance things like, instead of using products like corn for ethanol, using the biomass, the waste products of things like corn and sugar cane and other products, to make ethanol, which we can do. The technologies haven't advanced to the point where they are commercially viable. All of that is here in the American Energy Act. To look at doing things like increasing the ability to permit nuclear facilities so we can reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. All of the things that have been talked about in the last few months have been encompassed in a bill that has bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the liberal leadership has not allowed a discussion, a debate, or a vote on the American Energy Act. So what we have said is, Bring it up. If you don't like it, let's bring up amendments. Let's have everything put on the table to address this important discussion that is so important to our country, and hurting our economy. Something that we can do to help the economy. So what happens? What is the approach that is taken by the liberal leadership? By dark of night, last night, we finally saw what their plan was. It was this bill that was put together in a back room somewhere with who knows what groups, because nobody, even people on the other side, Madam Speaker, members of the Democratic Party who support a comprehensive plan, were not even allowed to have input on the bill that was filed late last night, dark of night, with a 10 o'clock filing of the bill. At 10:30, they had a meeting to decide that they weren't even going to allow an amendment to be brought up, and that today it would come up on the House floor for a vote. That is not the way you handle the most important issue in this country that we are facing right now. When there's been an alternative on the table for a month, with active discussion, you don't by dark of night put something together that nobody's seen, and then say, Okay, tomorrow we're going to bring it up for a vote, and not one amendment can be offered. Of course, once you start looking through their bill, you can quickly see why they did it by dark of night and why they don't want any amendments offered. Because this bill that they are going to have a vote on today, that nobody has been able to go through in great detail, the more you look at it, you realize this is a do-nothing bill. This bill will actually put our country more at risk to Middle Eastern oil. Why is that? Well, there are a number of provisions. First, let's talk about revenue sharing. Right now, States have the ability to get revenue sharing for the drilling that they do. In my State, Louisiana, we drill about 30 percent of the country's oil. We have been doing it for a long time. Finally, after years and years of negotiation, we were able to get an agreement that there would be revenue sharing. That we would be able to participate in the revenue that is generated by the drilling that's done off of our own coast. It doesn't start until 2017. Their bill takes that away. Why is that significant to States like Louisiana? Number one, it's a huge disincentive for anybody to want to drill. If a State that doesn't drill at all, like Florida, now wants to start looking at drilling, which they do, this takes away their incentive. We use those revenues in Louisiana. It's dedicated in our constitution to rebuilding our vanishing coast. That's our barrier against future hurricanes. Why would the Democratic leadership want to take away our ability to have revenue sharing that we will use to restore our coast and put our hurricane barrier back in place in Louisiana? They don't do anything on oil shale revenue sharing. They don't do anything on the lawsuit abuses. Right now, lawsuits by radical environmental groups take up about a third of the time it takes to bring oil to market. They don't do anything on nuclear, to encourage more nuclear power, like in France. France uses 80 percent nuclear power for their energy in their homes. There's nothing in this bill to encourage and remove those barriers on nuclear. So, clearly, OPEC could not have drafted a better bill than the bill that the radical environmentalists/liberals filed today. I would encourage a ``no'' vote.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I will happily yield.

Mr. SCALISE. Again, a lot of interesting points are being brought up, great points that you just brought up, and ultimately, this comes down to a supply-and-demand problem. And when you're talking about the price, you are exactly right, because when you talk to economic experts, what they will tell you--and anybody that understands basic market economics, and I think most people in the American country do-- unfortunately, I think the Democratically-controlled leadership of this Congress doesn't understand that you've got an increase in global demand for oil all across this world, not just in the United States, and yet the supply is flat. OPEC's not going to increase their supply because they want a high price. But we here in our country have the ability to increase some of those moratoriums that were arbitrarily placed by Congress. And you talked about the President lifting the ban on Outer Continental Shelf drilling. You saw a $10 drop in the price of a barrel of oil in just 1 day because of an executive ban, even though still now and I think most in people in the country now see that the only thing standing in the way of opening up that Outer Continental Shelf to drilling is the congressional ban that's in place, and that's the ban that's part of the all-of-the-above strategy, and we're asking Speaker Pelosi to just give us a vote on that. If she wants to disagree with it, if these radical environmental groups don't want to do that, that's their prerogative, but let's have a straight up-or-down vote. I think that a lot of Democrats would vote for that, too, as well as Republicans because ultimately you would see a real solution being placed on the table. But in fact, what we're left with is this do-nothing approach and the leadership in Congress saying let's adjourn for 5 weeks rather than address this problem because they're afraid of the realization, and I think they realize that if we had a vote on this, we opened it up to all amendments so that we could actually talk about a full, comprehensive energy plan which our country doesn't have--the fact that if we did that, you would see an immediate drop, even bigger than that $10 a barrel drop you saw that one day. You would see a dramatic drop, as my friend from California talked about, at least a 20 percent drop, which our people, our constituents all across this country would realize very quickly in a lower price of gas at the pump, and that's ultimately what we should be trying to achieve.

Mr. SCALISE. My colleague makes a great point because that, in fact, is what happens. Katrina was a horrible, horrible tragedy. Hurricane Rita came right behind it. So you had two of the worst hurricanes in our Nation's history, came through the Gulf of Mexico within a few week period of time of each other, and many rigs were knocked down. We saw the price of oil go up because our State supply is about 30 percent of the Nation's domestically produced oil. We would sure like to increase that percentage. But when those rigs got knocked down, one thing that didn't happen is you did not see environmental spills because they do, they do drill today in an environmentally safe way, and you had no disasters because they know how to do it in a very technologically safe way, as my friend from California showed. The platform, the footprint of an oil rig today is about one-fourth of the size of an oil rig just a few decades ago, and yet they can also drill in a wider area, directionally drill up to 8 miles. So the technology is there. We have a plan that we've laid out, and if the Democratically controlled Congress has a better idea, put it on the table. Let's stay. Let's roll up or sleeves during this next 5 weeks and solve this crisis rather than taking a 5-week vacation, which is the plan, I guess, the only energy plan that the Democratically controlled Congress had. That's why I'm proud to say no Republicans voted to adjourn because we want to stay here and work on the solution because, we know, we've got the ingenuity here in our country. We've got the technology to lower gas prices.

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you. And I want to thank my colleague from California for putting this together. I think it's very important that while our country is facing a national energy crisis, the only debate that's going on on the House floor is right here tonight with Members of the freshmen class that are sick and tired of the delays and the inaction of the leadership of this Democratically controlled Congress. Madam Speaker, I think today might have been one of the lows of that 110th Congress, the fact that the only real vote that was taken today on this floor was a vote to adjourn Congress for 5 weeks. The fact that Congress passed a resolution to adjourn for 5 weeks and take a vacation at a time when our country is facing a national energy crisis--we should be here debating solutions to this problem. We should be here talking about the proposals that are on the table. And there are a number of proposals that are on the table to debate. If the leadership doesn't want to have a straight up-or-down vote, there's going to have to be some reckoning because the American people are sick and tired of it. I think if you look right now--and it's ironic, and it is very unfortunate, that many of the families in my district, in my colleagues' districts, throughout this country, families are canceling their summer vacations because they can't afford the price of energy to go to the places that they wanted to go this summer. So what is Congress doing to address that big problem that's facing our country? Today Congress voted by one vote, voted to take a 5-week vacation at a time when American families are canceling their vacations. I think that's a low point for this Democratically controlled Congress, and I think they're going to have a hard time answering to the people why they won't bring up a vote. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid of debating these ideas that we put on the table? I filed a bill called the GAS Act, Grow American Supply. Removes the barrier that exists. There's a congressional ban on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. I come from Louisiana. We know how to drill in an environmentally safe way. People know that you can drill and not do harm to the environment. In fact, now the environment thrives in the areas where drilling occurs. The best place to go fishing in south Louisiana is next to an oil rig because the fish congregate around that area. It's an estuary for them. By the same token, when we went on that American energy tour when we were in Alaska, we went to Mile Marker Zero, the beginning of the Alaskan pipeline, and we saw three caribou approach about 40 yards away. They were just walking to us. They weren't afraid of us. They were walking towards the pipeline, and we found out back when they built the pipeline 30 years ago, some of these same radical groups that don't want to explore natural resources in America today, some of those same radical groups were saying, ``Don't build the Alaskan pipeline. You'll destroy the caribou population.'' They were there. You can't find them now because guess what happened? After they built the pipeline, the caribou population increased by about five times, a five-fold increase in the caribou population because they like the warmth of the pipeline and they mate around the pipeline. So it's actually helped the environment. You can peacefully coexist with the natural habitat by safely and environmentally friendly drilling in exploration for our natural resources. So we put all of those different solutions, the all-of-the-above plan that my friend from California talked about in a bill called the American Energy Act, and everybody in this room cosponsored it. I would encourage all of my Democratic friends to cosponsor the bill as well because it is a comprehensive approach to a major national crisis that's facing our country. It doesn't just talk about exploration and drilling for oil. It talks about renewable sources of energy, the things that we found at the National Renewable Energy Lab when we went and looked at the wind and solar and the hydrogen technologies that are being advanced. But even the people that are advancing those technologies will readily admit that those technologies alone will not meet the energy needs of our country 10 years from now, 20 years from now. You're still going to have to have a reliance on multiple sources, multiple approaches to this, including fossil fuels. So we look at things like oil shale and tar sands where we know we can get billions of barrels of oil. Yet what's standing in the way? The Democratically controlled Congress will not let us have a vote on lifting a Federal moratorium that even exists on exploring those alternative sources of energy. So I think the more that the American people see this, and the fact that they see every 2 weeks or so the Democratically-controlled Congress brings out another scapegoat, another person to blame. They blamed OPEC and said, ``Let's sue OPEC.'' And then the price rose. And then they said, ``What about use-it-or-lose-it, and oil companies are sitting on millions of acres of leases.'' And then people looked at that and researched it and realized that's not true. In fact, it's some of these radical environmental groups that filed lawsuits to stop people from exploring for our own natural resources, and that's the biggest delay in bringing oil to the markets so that our people can see a lower price of gasoline.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address the House and urge my colleagues to allow a vote on the American Energy Act, a bill that was filed today by many of my colleagues, a bill that I think is very important to bringing real solutions to this national energy crisis that our country's facing. And if you look at what's happening across the country now, you look at the fact that gasoline is over $4 a gallon; you look at the fact that people are starting to make decisions on whether or not they're even going to take a summer vacation; you look at the fact that this isn't only affecting people at the gasoline pump when they pay a price that's too high, a price that we should not have to afford for gasoline; but the fact that when you go to the grocery store now you're paying higher food costs because the trucking, the transportation of all of our food products are driving up the cost of food; the fact that when you go to a shopping center to buy clothes for children that are going to be going back to school, you're paying more money for those clothes; the fact that many small businesses are starting to have to lay off people or even make decisions on whether or not they're going to be able to make it because they can't pass on these cost increases, this is a crisis that's facing our entire country. And what's really sad about it, Mr. Speaker, is that we have the ability to do something about it right here in our country. We have American solutions to this American crisis, and there is a long-term and a short-term solution to the problems we're dealing with. And that's why the American Energy Act that we filed today does not just deal with one side of the issue. It deals with all of the above. It deals with a very comprehensive approach to solving this problem that's addressing and facing our entire country. And so what we're trying to do on the long-term solution is address the alternative fuels issue, to try to explore different methods of providing energy that it's going to take for people to do things that they do in their daily lives. I was honored to go on the American energy tour, just got back Monday, where over the weekend Leader Boehner, as well as about 10 other Members of Congress went first to the National Renewable Energy Lab, and we went and looked at the future of the technologies that are being developed to try to create some alternative sources of energy. And there are some very good alternatives that we are trying to pursue, and in fact, in the American Energy Act that we filed, we support the continued development of these alternative sources of energy because that is our future. But one of the other things we saw is that those technologies are not on the ground today for consumers to buy. They're not things that are going to help our consumers, the people across this country, improve their way of life and address the problem of this high cost of gasoline that they're paying. We looked at things like wind, like solar, like hydropower, like electric cars. You drive an electric car right now--and we test drove an electric car. The capacity on an electric car right now, with all the best technology, you can drive 60 miles, and at the end of those 60 miles, you will run out of electricity in the car. It will take you 6 hours to recharge that battery. Now, I sure hope that we continue to pursue this technology so that someday people can drive 300 miles on that electric car and maybe can recharge it in 15 minutes. But we're just not there today, and we're not going to be there for a few more years according to the experts. So we need to also address, in a comprehensive strategy, the short-term problem. The short-term problem that's truly leading us to the $4 a gallon price that we're dealing with, over $135 a barrel gasoline, is a supply and demand issue. And on the supply and demand issue, you've got a global increase. It's not just American increases in demand; it's a global increase in demand. And yet the supply is flat. And any economist, anybody that's studied Economics 101 can tell you, if you have got demand going this way and supply staying flat, you're going to have an increase in price. And that's what our country is facing right now, and what we're trying to do with the American Energy Act is say let's deal with the short-term problem as well. And Mr. Speaker, all we're asking for is a vote, a straight up-or- down vote here on this House floor, on what is the most important issue to our country's economy right now, the issue that's affecting most people in our country. One of the things we did is we went to Alaska on the American energy tour, and we talked to the people in Alaska. You know, I talked to the Governor of Alaska, and I said what do the people of Alaska think about exploring, opening up some of these moratoriums that Congress has, and exploring our own American energy to make our country more independent of Middle Eastern oil so we don't have to rely and be concerned about what OPEC's going to do. We can solve our own problem with American ingenuity, with American natural resources. And what she told me is about 80 percent of the people in Alaska want to explore for oil right there in Alaska because they understand that this can be done in an environmentally safe way. And I think that's one of the points that many of the opponents of exploring American sources of energy don't get, the fact that the technologies have advanced so much over the last few decades that in my State in Louisiana, we have extensive drilling. Our State supplies about 30 percent of the Nation's supply of oil and gas, and we're proud to do it because we know we can do this in an environmentally safe way. And in fact, if you want to go fishing in south Louisiana, you go next to an oil rig because that's the best place to go fishing because the fish actually use that as a sanctuary. We've got the ability to solve our problem here in this country. All we're asking for is a vote here on this House floor, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentlewoman from Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this misguided bill. Rather than allowing us to bring forth legislation that will allow us to increase the supply of oil and gas, allow us to lower the price of gas at the pump, the Democratic leadership brings us this bill that could now halt leases for up to 3 years. Section 2(b) of this Act would require that the Department of Interior publish within 180 days major regulations dealing with development on Federal lands. If you go look, regulations associated with the EPA Act of 2005 are still not in place, and that has been 3 years. Furthermore, with at least two agencies, both the Minerals Management Service and the Bureau of Land Management, having to conduct separate rulemaking, I find it hard to believe that with all the public comment and lawsuits that would be associated with this, it would be impossible to meet that timetable; and that would mean a delay of 2 years or 3 years in leases. In Louisiana, the heart of our coast relies heavily on revenues we receive from offshore activities. We have dedicated in Louisiana that revenue to restore our vanishing coast. We have lost thousands of miles of land and acres of our coast to coastal restoration, and we have dedicated our revenues from leases to coastal restoration. Those funds are desperately needed. We cannot afford to wait to lose 3 years to have more leases. Our Nation cannot afford to lose 3 years of offshore leasing just because the Democratic leadership is trying to push legislation based on false assumptions. We need to defeat this legislation. We need to bring forth a real plan to increase supply and lower gas prices.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2642 and strongly encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. I am pleased that the Democratic leadership has chosen to not delay this bill any longer by hijacking it with tax increases. Our troops in the field will now have the resources they need to be successful in the war on terror. In addition to providing our troops with critical and timely funding, this bill also includes funding for the communities in southeast Louisiana that were devastated by the flooding after Hurricane Katrina. On August 29, 2005, the failure of the federal levees resulted in over 1,400 deaths in my home State. Hundreds of thousands of Louisianians lost their homes. Over 80,000 small businesses were severely impacted. Of the 18 hospitals that served the area before Hurricane Katrina, only 10 have re-opened and continue to struggle financially. An estimated 217 square miles of coastal marshland were transformed to open water, expediting the erosion of Louisiana's coastal buffers that reduce the intensity of hurricanes before they strike our towns and cities. While much progress has been made, our State is still struggling to recover from the Nation's worst natural disaster. The legislation before us today not only helps to protect our troops in the field, it also takes us one step closer to protecting the citizens of south Louisiana from future flooding. This bill contains essential funding for the Army Corps of Engineers to make progress in completion of 100-year flood protection in South Louisiana. The bill also includes essential language directing the Corps of Engineers to provide an official cost estimate on the ``Pump to the River'' project, which will direct flood waters to the Mississippi River rather than Lake Ponchartrain, providing an important alternative method of flood prevention for thousands of citizens. While I support the vital flood protection funding provided for in this bill, I am disappointed that the House leadership stripped critical funding that was included in the Senate version to allow local governments a longer payback period for their local cost share on levees. It is also very unfortunate that funding was stripped out for the hospitals in our area that are struggling financially to care for the uninsured citizens of southeast Louisiana, many of whom went to the State's Charity Hospital and the Federal Veteran's Administration Hospital that were closed down due to damage from Hurricane Katrina. The Senate added a 30-year payback provision on the local cost-share for the Federal levees. This 30-year payback provision is critical to the recovery of south Louisiana. The levees that failed our city and our region were Federal levees. If our local governments are required to pay the 35 percent cost-share up front, it will likely prevent them from being able to move these critical flood protection projects forward. In addition, our State will likely be prevented from initiating any new coastal restoration efforts which would prevent hurricane protection efforts outside the greater New Orleans area. Similarly, if the hospitals in our area are not provided immediate assistance, the stability of our entire health care infrastructure could be jeopardized. These hospitals are currently caring for patients that before Hurricane Katrina were receiving care at the government-funded, State-run Charity Hospital and the Federal VA Hospital. Our local hospitals are incurring hundreds of millions of dollars in losses and continue to provide 90 percent of health care services in the region. Without immediate assistance, the sustainability of the entire health care system and a major economic engine of the New Orleans region will be made extremely vulnerable, which could hinder our recovery. Critical law enforcement funding to combat the post-Katrina crime wave was also cut in the House version of the bill. These funds would have provided personnel, equipment and technology to apprehend perpetrators of violent crimes. The safety of the citizens is crucial to our rebuilding efforts. I implore my colleagues to continue to support my efforts and the efforts of the entire Louisiana delegation as we work to restore these other important provisions that are not yet in the legislation. I encourage support for this important bill.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. Speaker, why would we want to extend unemployment benefits when we can instead pass legislation that will create more American jobs and lower gas prices at the same time? We can create American jobs by passing legislation to increase the supply of oil by exploring our own natural resources, in places like ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf. We can create more American jobs by passing legislation to expedite the permitting process to increase refining capacity here in our own country. We can create more American jobs by passing legislation to explore alternative sources of energy. We can create more American jobs, and not only will these pieces of legislation do that, these pieces of legislation will also reduce unemployment and lead to lower gas prices at the pumps. Rather than passing a bill that pays unemployment benefits for a year to someone who only worked for 2 weeks, like this legislation does, rather than passing a bill that adds more than $8.5 billion to the Federal deficit, I call on Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership in Congress to set this bill on the side and bring up our legislation that will increase the supply of American oil, reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and, most importantly, create more American jobs and reduce gas prices.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 336, a measure to honor the sacrifices and contributions made by America's disabled veterans. Throughout our Nation's history, the men and women of our Armed Forces have gone bravely into battle, risking their lives and livelihoods, sacrificing their safety to defend our freedom. When their duty is done, many return home to life as it was. Sadly, for veterans seriously injured in the line of duty, leaving the battlefield does not mark the end of conflict. These permanently disabled soldiers often carry home life-changing disabilities, harsh reminders of the price of freedom. By supporting H. Con. Res. 336, we will recognize the great sacrifices made by disabled veterans and their families. We will call upon the people of the United States to honor disabled American veterans and the freedoms for which they sacrificed. We will encourage local, State and national organizations and governmental institutions to participate in the effort to honor the sacrifices of America's disabled veterans, and we will support the goals and ideals of Disabled American Veterans Week. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.