[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 38 (Thursday, March 6, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H1415-H1416]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      OIL AND GAS AND THE ECONOMY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, we all spend time with search engines. We 
all spend time with Google. You know, if you Google the term 
``gambling'' you'll get millions of matches. And of course, you can't 
come to a Google page without seeing the Wikipedia. And if you go to 
Wikipedia to see about gambling, it states that ``Gambling has a 
specific economic definition, referring to wagering money or something 
of material value on an event with an uncertain outcome.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what is going on with energy policy here 
in the United States House of Representatives. Earlier today, the price 
of oil rose to a record high, nearly $106 a barrel.
  We all feel pain at the pump. In fact, I drive a hybrid car back 
home, but it's still getting awfully expensive to fill up. And like any 
good Texan, I have a Ford F-150 pickup truck, and last week when I had 
to fill it with metal to drive to the recycler, it cost me almost $80 
to fill up the truck.
  In fact, since the Speaker of the House took the gavel on January 1, 
2007, the average price of gasoline has increased by about $1 a gallon. 
The price of gas now back home for me is about where it was in the days 
after Hurricane Katrina. You remember Hurricane Katrina wiped out 
almost all the refining capacity in the United States, and the price of 
oil went up higher than anyone had ever seen it go before. The price of 
gas at the pump was higher than anyone had ever seen before, and we're 
there now.
  And I've got to tell you, in Texas, this time of year, we generally 
have our cheapest gas. So what's it going to be on May 1 when we start 
having to have all of those fancy blended gasolines for the compliance 
with the Clean Air Act, and the peak of the summer driving season is 
about to start? We're likely to see gasoline at $4 a gallon back home.
  And how does the House of Representatives handle this uncertainty and 
the resulting rise at the pump? By gambling. We bet our energy policy 
chips on future sources of energy that cannot fully support a country 
as large or as energy reliant as is the United States of America.
  Last week, the House of Representatives voted to provide tax breaks 
to consumers who make green choices, and extends tax breaks to 
producers of renewable energy to create green jobs. Fair enough. But 
unfortunately, this scheme ignores the fact that green choices and 
renewable energy are currently more costly for consumers and are not 
yet ready for full market use.
  In addition, the plan offsets these breaks by sending an $18 billion 
bill to the energy industry that will ultimately pass that cost on to 
the consumer.
  Now, I'm not all that good at math, and I'm certainly not a gambler, 
but for the life of me, no matter how you add and subtract, I cannot 
understand how we stand to benefit by handicapping the very resources 
that we rely upon to get to work, to create our jobs, to go to school, 
to go to the grocery store or even to the doctor's office. By doing so, 
the democratic majority here in the House of Representatives is 
gambling American resources on a horse they know full well cannot 
possibly win the race.
  Thanks to this legislation, the country has now lost $18 billion that 
could have been spent by experts in the energy industry to expand 
renewable and alternative energy capabilities, the same energy 
capabilities that this scheme purports to promote.
  I hope these new green jobs are close to home, because workers are 
going to have to pay for walking shoes in addition to work boots.
  Mr. Speaker, why is the majority willing to gamble our economic and 
national security on the uncertainty of the energy sources of tomorrow 
in order to bow to the billion dollar environmental industry today?
  Of course, Members of this House want to expand alternative and 
renewable energy resources. In fact, we must do so, as we just heard in 
the last hour. We must have clean, safe, reliable, affordable sources 
of energy to continue to compete in the 21st century. But these are not 
new technologies in which we are investing. Ethanol has been subsidized 
since the 1970s, in fact, probably earlier than that. We've had solar 
and wind power capabilities since the 1980s. Yet, somehow this majority 
believes that the reason that these technologies have not taken over is 
because of some sort of cabal by the energy market.
  So rather than financially support the research into new technology, 
this body chose to strap higher costs on the backs of already cash-
strapped Americans. What about the needs of the Nation's families 
today? What about the families struggling to pay for oil to heat their 
homes, gas to drive their cars?
  Today we face a slowing economy, a credit crunch. We have a hard hit 
housing sector. So how does the majority respond to those who are 
struggling to pay for gasoline and heating oil? They say the energy 
equivalent of ``let them eat cake.'' Let them pay for something that is 
inherently more expensive than the current market provides.
  Mr. Speaker, if California wants to cut energy demand by pricing 
people out of the market, as we just heard in the last hour, that's 
fine for them. But please don't think that the rest of the American 
people are going to sit back and let that happen without a fight.
  Our economy is suffering. Our energy needs are great. This is not the 
time to double down on short-term schemes that deals long-term 
problems. America relies on energy to fuel our economy and our lives. 
That means that America needs real change to spur the development of 
new technology in the fields of renewable and alternative energy.
  Let's spur this development in the right way and invest in all forms 
of energy, and let's do so without prejudice, without handicapping or 
picking the winners and losers based upon the

[[Page H1416]]

cleanness or the carbon consciousness index, whatever that is.
  Let me end by quoting the famous songster, Kenny Rogers, the Gambler, 
because it seems like an appropriate way to wrap up this discussion. 
``You got to know when to hold them, you got to know when to fold them; 
know when to walk away and know when to run.''
  Let's hope the other body walks away from this risky democratic 
scheme so we can keep Americans from having to pick up the marker for 
the House's irresponsible gambling habit.

                          ____________________