Below is part of a release from Majority Leader Hoyer (D-MD) in response to President Bush’s announcement to lift the executive ban on offshore drilling:

___________________________________________________________

“Drilling in the OCS will do nothing to lower gas prices, but it will mean one more handout to those who are already enjoying billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Let me remind President Bush: If the oil companies wanted more domestic drilling, they could begin today. They could begin on the 68 million acres of land that are already set aside, leased, and available for drilling. And with upcoming Democratic legislation to speed up the leasing process for 20 million more acres in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, they’ll be able to drill there, too.” ___________________________________________________________

I can think of no better example of pure partisan rhetoric. This statement does nothing more than contradict itself. On one hand you have Majority Leader Hoyer saying that offshore drilling in the OCS will do nothing to lower gas prices, but then he promotes Democrat legislation to speed up the leasing process for drilling in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. If increasing supply doesn’t matter as he implies in his comment about the OCS, then why promote legislation about drilling in Alaska? Could it be that the pressure from America to drill is forcing the Democrats to appear like they care about rising energy costs?

Hoyer is reaffirming the Democrat talking point of being against drilling which appeases their base, but being for drilling on lands where leases already exist to assuage the anger of the average American voter. That might be a good policy if these lands where leases already exist actually contain oil and natural gas. However, we know this is not the case -- as do the Democrats who voted to recently defeat the Hoyer-Pelosi so-called “Use it or Lose it” bill.  (That’s what his 68 million acre line refers too.) Nearly 1 in 10 Democrats joined Republicans to defeat that bill because it did nothing to actually increase our energy supply.  

These are the kind of games that explain why Congress’ approval rating hovers at 9%. This statement proves that the Democrats are willing to talk the right talk but not seek out real solutions. Americans want energy; they don’t want political ploys.  

With President Bush lifting today the executive ban on offshore drilling, the Democrat Leadership in Congress in the only barrier left standing in the way of opening up our nation's energy resources.

Until about a month ago, the Democrats' mantra in regards to drilling was "we can't drill our way into energy independence."  But then they noticed the overwhelming support from Americans, regardless of political party, for increased energy production here in the U.S.. The pressure was apparently  too great to ignore so they started to echo faintly the Republican support for drilling.

Don't be taken by the Democrats empty rhetoric. According to The Hill newspaper, "Speaker Pelosi has already shut the door on expanded oil and gas drilling beyond areas that have already been approved for energy exploration."

If Speaker Pelosi was really concerned about increasing America's energy production to lower gas prices, she'd open up ANWR as well as follow President Bush's lead in allowing offshore energy production and further exploration of our enormous supplies of oil shale.

It's all up to Speaker Pelosi. She must make the next move.

Yesterday, CongressNow reported that House Democrats will soon schedule a bill that calls for expanded oil and gas production in Alaska. Strange, because for months we've heard that increasing supply won't drive gas costs down and that actually procuring our own oil resources would be damaging the environment. What gives?

"Turning the tables on daily calls by the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans to expand domestic oil and gas production, House Democrats today said they will soon schedule a vote on an energy bill that aims to expedite drilling on millions of acres of public land in Alaska. 'Democrats support increasing the domestic production of petroleum and other energy resources,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said this morning in announcing the bill, which Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said may be brought up under suspension of the rules as early as next week. An aide later said the debate could slip to a later date but would be 'soon.'"

It looks like the pressure for the Democrat Leadership to actually do something has become too much to handle. While I'm hopeful that the Democrats will push legislation like this forward, I'm not holding my breath and I'll be most interested in seeing their text. Stay tuned...

Nancy Pelosi’s letter to President Bush calling for the release of crude oil from the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve proves that Democrats finally recognize that increased supplies will help bring gas costs down. But that’s where the good news ends.

If we release our emergency reserves, we are putting America at serious risk in exchange for a very short term and limited solution. The reserve is kept for national emergencies and if we diminish our supplies and are then attacked or hit with a serious natural disaster like a Hurricane Katrina, the effects will be catastrophic.  Is selling off these reserves worth the gamble to our national security? To me, it’s simply irresponsible.

If supply does indeed matter as Speaker Pelosi suggests and as Republicans have been saying, then why not lift the bans on offshore drilling, start drilling in the Alaskan Energy Slope, and start exploring our oil shale reserves?

If we want to increase supply, we are sitting on the answer.

Today, my colleagues and I are writing the United States Supreme Court to express our extreme disappointment over their recent decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana that prevents convicted child rapists from receiving the death penalty for their heinous crimes.

The Court's decision is based on seriously flawed logic and certain absolute facts disprove the basis for their ruling.  The case should be reconsidered in the interests of justice.

What the Court failed to consider is that in 2005, Congress enacted the death penalty for child rapists under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and, in 2007, President Bush issued an executive order codifying this provision into the 2008 Manual for Courts-Martial.

Furthermore, the passing of this provision of the Code by a wide majority in Congress demonstrates a national consensus for the death penalty for child rapists of which the Justices were apparently previously unaware.  
 
Despite the Court's reasoning, the federal government does indeed have the death penalty for the rape of a child already on the books.

Our letter respectfully asks the Court to reconsider its decision by taking into account the complete set of facts.

A rule is making its way through Congress that will have a huge impact on our freedom of speech. This rule would prohibit Americans from getting information from their Members of Congress – about what they are doing in Washington, what they are saying, and what they are proposing – on websites that are not “approved” by the Committee on House Administration, the panel that creates rules governing the internal operations of the U.S. House.

This rule affects all of us regardless of political affiliation.

What this essentially means is that sites like YouTube that Members use to communicate with constituents would have to make their way through a complicated, arcane, and restrictive set of House regulations before Members could post videos on them. Under the proposal, the House Administration Committee would develop a list of “approved” websites, and Members of Congress could post content to only those websites.

This proposed rule could mean the end of blogs like this one that have become a real forum for conversation.

The rule has been proposed by the Democrat Chairman of the Commission on Mailing Standards, Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), and is being considered for adoption by the Committee on House Administration, chaired by Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA).

Read Rep. Capuano's letter to Chairman Brady.

If this rule is adopted, the free flow of information from Members to constituents and vice versa would be significantly stunted. Essentially, a panel of federal employees that are not neutral or independent would say what messages and formats are fit and unfit for circulation.

This rule accomplishes nothing except increased censorship of free speech.

Here's one for those folks who think we're making too big a deal out of the outrageous price of gas. The MACCRAY School District that makes up the towns of Maynard, Clara City, and Raymond in western Minnesota is switching to a four day school week.

Why the switch?

Like everyone else these days, the price of fuel is blowing their budget. The district says it will save $65,000 out of a $7 million budget with the shortened week.

I imagine other districts around the country won't be far behind.

Another fine example of the everyday impact of the Democrat Congress' failure to address the issue of energy with any substantial piece of legislation. Sadly, our school districts are putting into practice the close relative of the gas plan of Barack Obama and other Democrats -- "get off the road and drive less." What's next, staying home from school all together? This is no solution.

Nineteen months in and the Democrat Congress still has no energy plan. We need to explore here, explore now, so we can pay less.

I wish I saw this before the 4th of July recess, but Investors Business Daily had a great editorial entitled, Energy Myths.

They take 4 popular talking points that the Democrat Congressional leadership have been using against domestic drilling and exploration and give you the truth about America's energy reserves and their impact on prices and supply.  It's a must read.

Here are the myths they dispel:

As we near the 4th of July, I've been busy back in the district with parades and a variety of other meetings and events. As I'm sure you can imagine, the three biggest issues everyone is talking to me about are gas prices, gas prices, and gas prices.

I think Newt Gingrich is an innovator and is among the best in breaking down and conveying sometimes boring and complex topics in a way that millions can understand. His latest video  is "3 Ways to Lower Gas Prices."



Also, be sure to sign the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" petition. I signed on to it this morning.

Have a great Independence Day!

In an effort to pass some kind of energy bill before the 4th of July recess and having failed with their price gouging bill, the Democrats brought H.R. 6251 - the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act sponsored by Rep. Rahall from West Virginia -- to the floor last week. The bill is also know as the "Use it or Lose it" bill.  

Not only does it do nothing to increase oil production, this bill prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from issuing new leases for exploration for, or production of, oil or natural gas, unless the applicant certifies that he is “diligently developing” the leased lands or surrenders the leases.   This bill would restrict the development of American energy, while sending a signal to the energy markets that petroleum had better come up quick or not at all, a move that could trigger higher energy prices and discourage investment in energy exploration.

19 Democrats joined 176 Republicans in defeating this "duplicate" piece of legislation. I say duplicate because Federal energy lease holders already must produce oil or natural gas within five to 10 years to live up to the terms of the lease and the law. 

Interestingly enough, back in 1992, Speaker Pelosi – as well as Majority Leader Hoyer and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV), author of the bill – voted for the very duplicate provisions of the current lease structure.  According to Title 30, Subsection 188(a) and (b) of the United States Code, “any lease … may be forfeited and canceled … whenever the lessee fails to comply with any provisions of this chapter, of the lease, or of the general regulations…  Any lease … shall be subject to cancellation by the Secretary of the Interior after 30 days notice upon failure of the lessee to comply with any of the provisions of the lease.”  

So here we are in recess having left Washington, D.C. again without acting on any meaningful legislation to increase the supply of American-made energy to help lower gasoline prices. Now we know why Congress' approval rating is at 18%.

I was pleased to see today that the Supreme Court upheld our nation’s greatest document, the Constitution, by restoring Second Amendment rights long denied to D.C residents by their extraordinarily restrictive firearm ban.

The Second Amendment guarantees the individual a right to bear arms, and for too long it has been attacked by Washington politicians. Our Founding Fathers wrote this Amendment to protect the rights of our citizens, and their voices were heard today by the Supreme Court as their freedom to own a firearm was protected.

I was also pleased  that yesterday the House Financial Services Committee adopted language I offered  to protect the Second Amendment rights of public housing tenants during a mark-up on H.R. 6216, the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act.  Recently, several public housing authorities were forcing law-abiding citizens to give up their Second Amendment rights in order to reside in taxpayer subsidized public housing.  

Today, the House passed H.R. 6275, the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act, sponsored by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). This atrocious bill would impose $61.6 billion in permanent tax increases on businesses and individuals over eleven years in order to temporarily prevent for just one year a huge, unintended tax increase.  This bill would place a one-year “patch” on the exemption level for the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), without which more than 25 million taxpayers would be subject to a large tax increase beginning in tax-year 2008. 

Congressman Charles Rangel (the bill’s architect) and I had a nice little debate about it on CNBC’s Squawk Box this morning.



What makes this bill worse is that it would single out oil and gas companies from a broad domestic manufacturing tax deduction available to nearly all manufacturing in the United States. This is an irresponsible measure. Not only would it create disincentives for domestic energy production and investment, but it would make foreign energy investment and reliance more attractive. At a time when gas prices are soaring , increasing taxes on energy companies will make it even less likely that energy prices can come down.

We should completely repeal this antiquated tax policy without tax increases and give American taxpayers the full relief they deserve. This bill is a permanent tax increase to give a one-year tax cut. That’s a really a bad deal for the American people.

For more info on this legislation, check out my article published today by National Review Online: Be Pro-Choice: The AMT really has a hold on the middle class.

The Democrats promised a roll out of their energy agenda. Last week, they announced a call to nationalize the oil industry and it didn't take long for them propose legislation pointing us in that direction. Yesterday, they offered their first piece of legislation which they claim to be aimed at lowering gas prices. Unfortunately, their policy would have the opposite effect.

The Federal Gas Gouging Prevention Act (H.R. 6346) was taken up yesterday by the Democrats "to address our energy supply needs." The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and several other free market organizations dedicated to growing our economy and creating jobs are ardent opponents of this legislation. Luckily, the bill was defeated.

This bill's approach was flat-out wrong on several fronts, but most jarringly threw the concept of supply and demand right out the window. Americans for Tax Reform provides a nice, clear example of how the supply and demand model works:

"When a product, like gasoline, becomes scarce, that information is incorporated into the price. This amount is then raised by the producer as a warning to the consumer to curtail consumption. As a result, the consumer will respond to this scarcity by reducing their demand to meet the expected supply.

“However, when prices are fixed, as H.R. 6346 proposes, the demand will exceed the available supply, a fuel shortage will occur, gas will be rationed, and an inevitable black market will develop in response."

Although this bill was supposed to drive gas costs down, it would most likely create shortages and higher gas prices for U.S. consumers and companies. It would also create disincentives to invest in energy production and distribution.

Other problems with the bill?

Terms within the bill such as “unconscionably excessive,” “gross disparity,” and “grossly exceeds,” are without definition, subject to widely varying interpretations, and provide no guidance to suppliers.  The inevitable outcome of this ambiguity is litigation.

The FTC—despite numerous investigations—has never found any evidence of collusive price fixing or “gouging” behavior amongst oil and gas companies – which, of course, points out the obvious, that the FTC has existing authority to go after collusive price fixing under current antitrust law.  Furthermore, federal legislation is unnecessary as any price gouging is localized and aggressively prosecuted by state governments.  

The Democrats only prescription for rising gas prices so far is bad medicine.

There is actually a lot going on this week – nothing to cut the costs of rising gas prices; but a lot of other pretty important legislation is being considered.  First, however, I want to get you caught up on an historic bill that passed late last week. We finally passed a supplemental funding bill to support our troops and it contained long-overdue reforms of the Montgomery G.I. Bill, providing expanded educational benefits to veterans and their families.

A key component of the reforms is that now for the first time ever, veterans will be able to transfer their G.I. Bill benefits to family members, a key provision not included in earlier versions of this legislation. That’s why I was a co-sponsor of a bill that allowed these benefits to be transferred to the veteran’s spouses and their children and I was pleased it was included in this funding bill. This long-overdue reform finally recognizes the sacrifices made not only by our brave soldiers, but also the sacrifices made by their loving families.

In terms of what’s happening on the floor this week:  Democrats are rehashing their blame-game price gouging legislation and bringing a tax hike bill in the guise of an Alternative Minimum Tax relief bill.  I'll be sure to keep you in the loop as it happens.

You have to give credit where credit is due, and the FBI and the Department of Justice deserve to be recognized for their effort to crack down on mortgage fraud schemes. From March 1 to June 18, 2008, more than 400 defendants were charged for roles in mortgage fraud schemes as part of operation "Malicious Mortgage." The FBI estimates that approximately $1 billion in losses were inflicted by the mortgage fraud schemes employed in these cases.

Most recently, two senior managers of failed Bear Stearns Hedge Funds were indicted yesterday in separate mortgage-related security fraud cases.

Since July 2002, the DOJ has made almost 1,300 corporate fraud convictions, including the convictions of more than 200 chief executive offices and corporate presidents, more than 12 corporate vice presidents, and more than 50 chief financial officers.

These efforts are crucial for the benefit of American homeowners and taxpayers and the housing market. All the agencies involved deserve a great deal of respect for their efforts.

On Wednesday, I appeared on the O'Reilly Factor to discuss the Countrywide Mortgage Scandal involving “VIPs” Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND). Take a look.