[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 30, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H2932-H2938]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           AMERICA NEEDS TO DEVELOP ITS OWN NATURAL RESOURCES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, it's great to be down on the House floor. 
It has been a limited schedule this week, so we haven't had a chance to 
really take time to focus on the number one pressing issue in America 
today, which is the high price of gasoline and energy in this country. 
We get a chance to do that tonight.
  I am going to initially yield to some of my colleagues who have 
graciously come down to help, and the first one I would like to yield 
to is Mr. Sali from Idaho.
  Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, if you're afraid of the future, said Ronald 
Reagan, then get out of the way, stand aside; the people of this 
country are ready to move again.
  As with so many things, President Reagan was right. We cannot avoid 
real problems, gloss over pressing needs or, out of fear of something 
unforeseen, sit immobile until we are overtaken by inevitable results 
of our previous inaction.
  Americans are paying on average $3.62 a gallon, and by early summer, 
we're going to be at $4 a gallon. By the end of this year, it's 
projected oil will be at $180 per barrel, an approximate doubling in 
the space of 1 year. Why are we paying so much? Very fundamentally, 
it's a supply and demand issue. We need oil, but the supply is limited. 
This is frustrating in its own right, but it's truly maddening when you 
consider the supply of crude is not really limited and that we have 
additional resources available to us, but they have been locked up by 
Congress.
  The current majority claims they have the answers in a new clean 
energy agenda which purports to offer reduced reliance on foreign oil. 
But they seek to do it through increased alternative forms of energy, 
much of which is not even available today, instead of drilling for and 
pumping American crude.
  Before the vote was taken on the majority's latest energy bill on 
December 18, 2007, Speaker Pelosi said, You are present at a moment of 
change, of real change. Perhaps she was correct, only the change she 
envisions is radically different than what most Americans want.
  To lower the price at the pump and to break our addiction to foreign 
energy, we must increase production of American crude, not stifle it. 
Today, our country currently imports 61 percent of its crude oil and 15 
percent of its natural gas. It's not only expensive but foolish for us 
to depend on such politically unstable regions like the Middle East for 
our energy.
  If this Congress were serious about reducing America's reliance on 
foreign oil, one would also think it would invest in new energy 
supplies that it can produce in the U.S., such as coal-to-liquids using 
clean coal technology; and it would engage in immediate development of 
domestic oil sources by obtaining oil from ANWR, drawing oil from our 
Outer Continental Shelf, our oil shale, and even oil sands.
  Additionally, we have large supplies of natural gas, and instead of 
using it for domestic purposes, we're selling about two-thirds of it 
abroad. Natural gas is a steal when compared to crude oil. According to 
one recent news story, natural gas prices are currently much lower than 
crude oil when the two are compared on a BTU equivalency basis. 
Currently, crude oil is nearly $120 a barrel compared to natural gas at 
about $11 per thousand cubic feet. Since natural gas is used at about 
one-sixth of the cost of crude oil, that's a bargain.
  We need to actively develop American natural gas resources, and we 
can because the supply is there. We need to lift the moratorium 
Congress has imposed on drilling our offshore natural gas reserves and 
tap into this incredible resource.
  These are supplies that we have right now on the lands of our own 
Nation. We don't have to go abroad and be held economic hostage to 
foreign oil cartels.
  Natural gas is one piece of the puzzle. But let's be candid. We still 
need oil, a lot of it. And as we increase oil supply, we must also 
increase refining capacity to process it, yet it has been three decades 
since we built a new oil refinery. Lack of refinery capacity is another 
reason why gas prices are so high.
  And we further tied our hands by shying away from clean, secure, safe 
nuclear energy. Since the 1970s, nuclear technology has been developed 
that will enable us to produce nuclear energy without the potential 
dangers of previous years.
  In his news conference yesterday, President Bush said, Many of the 
same people in Congress who complain about high energy costs support 
legislation that would make energy even more expensive for our 
consumers and small businesses. He went on to say, Congress is 
considering bills to raise taxes on domestic energy production, impose 
new and costly mandates on producers and demand dramatic emission cuts 
that would shut down coal plants and increase reliance on expensive 
natural gas. That would drive up prices even further. The cost of these 
actions would be passed on to consumers in the form of even higher 
prices at the pump and even bigger electric bills.

                              {time}  2030

  Now, of course the President was referring to our friends on the 
other side of the aisle. And the fact that he's right does sadden me 
because this is not a partisan problem, it's an American problem that 
demands a true bipartisan solution. Yet, the Speaker's energy bill that 
came out at the end of last year will invest less than $300 million 
over 3 years in such clean energy sources as hydropower, marine and 
hydrokinetic energy, wind energy, solar, and clean coal technology.
  In contrast, consider the cost of what the Speaker chose to invest in 
through her energy bill. The bill contained $375 million for a Green 
Jobs program for 3 years; $600 million to assist developing countries 
with their renewable energy development, and additional funding, as 
needed, to assist India and China with the same. That's right, we are 
sending American tax dollars overseas to the two very countries we are 
competing with for energy supplies. Is that the kind of real change 
that Americans want?
  Tragically, with the policy changes wrest by this Congress, Americans 
across this country have only continued to see higher and higher gas 
prices as new record-high gas prices are reached almost daily. As 
President Reagan correctly reminded us, Americans are not afraid of the 
future, we welcome it. In facing the future, however, America needs 
sound energy policy that develops domestic energy sources from every 
source available, including crude oil, natural gas, clean coal, 
hydropower, and every alternative source of energy. To put it another 
way, we need all the energy we can get from all the sources we can 
possibly afford. We need a real energy policy, not a futuristic wish 
list. Madam Speaker, we're waiting. Please don't make us wait any 
longer.
  With that, I yield back.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I want to thank my colleague, and I appreciate it.
  A couple of things I want to highlight. When he talks about supply, 
we have a 250 years worth supply of coal in this country, 250 years 
that we can have access to. And according to the Federal Government, 
there is enough oil in deep waters many miles off our coast and on 
Federal land to power more than 60 million cars for 60 years. So your 
point about supply is important and a critical portion of this debate, 
and really what separates Republicans from the Democrats as we fight 
about these energy costs.
  We believe that when you bring more supply to the public that's 
demanding it, prices will go low. Speaker Pelosi promised, on April 24, 
2006, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down the 
skyrocketing gas prices.'' Well, they have a plan, but the plan was 
just the opposite of what she envisioned. Here's a barrel of crude oil, 
$58.31 when she became Speaker of the House; the price today, $115.92. 
That, as I stated on this floor numerous times, that is bitter change, 
that's negative change. Change is not always good. This is bad change. 
This is change that was promised by the current leadership in the 
House.

[[Page H2933]]

  Now, how does that translate into the fuel for the soccer moms in the 
country? Well, when the Democrat majority came in, the price of 
gasoline at the pump was $2.33. Today, it stands at, on average, $3.65, 
a huge increase. Again, negative change based upon what was promised by 
the then Democrats in the minority. What they said, what happened when 
they got into the majority, they promised change. This isn't the change 
that we bargained for.
  And just because I like to bring in the aspect that energy is the 
item that affects every aspect of our lives, as I said last week, in 
the Coast Guard Authorization bill, for every dollar increase in diesel 
fuel, it costs our Coast Guard $24 million. For every dollar increase 
in a barrel of crude oil, it costs our United States Air Force $60 
million. For the sake of the taxpayers we ought to be demanding more 
supply.
  And Bill, you know the coal-to-liquid opportunities that are up in 
your neck of the woods, and how the Air Force is pleading with us for 
energy security, for the ability for them to project their cost, and 
really for national security. Isn't it crazy that our military is 
dependent upon foreign sources of energy to run our war machines? Not 
only is it crazy, it's scary. And I would make the argument that it's 
negligent on our part to keep our military financially reliant on 
imported energy and really militarily at risk, where we could, in 
essence, be blackmailed with the threat of controlling those supplies 
when we need to move our war machines.
  Add to this, I always like to add this on this chart, $3.65 is the 
price. Guess what happens when we moved to climate change? Chairman 
Dingell of the Commerce Committee is the only intellectually honest 
person who started talking about climate change, and he said, ``for us 
to address climate change, it will require an additional 50 cents per 
gallon of gas.'' So now if we've got, on average, $3.65 and we add 50 
cents for climate change, that means right now, before we get to the 
summer driving season, people will be paying $4.15 for a gallon of 
gasoline. That is bitter change. That is change that the public did not 
agree to when Speaker Pelosi made her promise in 2006.
  And this highlights what you were talking about. Here's a comic. And 
you know when issues start getting into the media and the folks start 
making fun of public policy in America that you've really got a point 
that's resonating. ``We demand you energy companies do something about 
these high prices.'' Isn't that what we're hearing our friends from the 
other side of the aisle? Okay, energy companies, do something. Can we 
drill in ANWR? Forget it. How about offshore? Are you crazy? Clean 
coal? Out of the question. Nuclear power? You're joking, right? Well, 
don't just sit there, do something.
  And what do we hear from the other side of this building? What we 
hear is, which is laughable, let's add more taxes to the energy 
companies. Now, where in the history of this country, when you've added 
more taxes do you get lower prices? I would challenge anybody on the 
other side of the aisle to show me any time in history where we added 
more taxes and we lowered the price of a good. You know what? They 
can't do it. It's ludicrous.
  And then they also say, I know what, we're going to force the people 
who are selling us the oil, we're going to force them to drill and 
produce more oil when we won't even do that ourselves. How crazy is 
that?
  So as my colleague, Mr. Sali, pointed out, we have options, we have 
solutions. We mentioned many of them. One is, take our natural 
resources in coal, over 250 years of coal resources. Now, I would 
rather have the good midwestern Illinois coal-basing coal that you have 
to go underground, not stuff you can get off the surface like in some 
of the western States, but here is a picture of a western State. Grab 
that, build a refinery, refine that coal into a fuel, stick it in a 
pipeline, send it to our Air Force bases, or send it to our airports. 
How many recent budget airlines have just gone bankrupt? At my count, 
there's four. Think of all the job losses. Think of all the health care 
now that's no longer accessible to those families. Why did they go 
bankrupt? High jet fuel costs.
  One solution would be this; and the great thing about this is, 
American jobs in the coal mines, American jobs to build a refinery, 
American jobs to operate the refinery. These are good-paying jobs with 
good benefits. American jobs to build a pipeline. And of course, these 
are American jobs to fly the airplanes and operate the airfields or 
protect us.

  So with that, I would like to yield to my colleague from Tennessee 
(Mr. David Davis).
  Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus, for your 
leadership tonight, and thank you for your interest in this issue.
  It's interesting, looking at your charts tonight, I notice some of 
your charts actually have numbers that have to change. If you look at 
those, that's almost like I see when I go back home to east Tennessee 
every weekend, I see on the pumps at the gas stations, they have to 
change, also. And it's changing because we see the gas prices 
continuing day after day----
  Mr. SHIMKUS. If my colleague would yield, they're not going down. 
Ever since I started this, the numbers are always going up.
  Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. And you're exactly right. I think when 
Speaker Pelosi took over, oil, I think, was $58 a barrel according to 
your chart. Now it's $115 a barrel. And I can bet by tomorrow if we use 
that same chart, that $115 will be gone and you'll have to change that 
chart again.
  I do thank you for your leadership in this issue. You know, we've 
been busy in this Congress. So far in the 110th Congress we've named 78 
post offices, Federal buildings or roads. We've also passed legislation 
honoring LSU for their NCAA Football Championship, and the Red Sox for 
their World Series sweep over Colorado, and even commemorated the 
Detroit Tigers for winning the American League pennant.
  Granted, post offices need names and championship teams need to be 
honored, but when I go back to the First District of Tennessee, people 
don't ask if I'm working on these types of things. They ask, David, how 
am I going to fill up my pick-up truck if the gas prices don't come 
down?
  What we haven't done is pass a sensible energy policy that will break 
our dependence on foreign oil. And I don't know about you, and I think 
you will agree with me, it scares me that we're dependent on foreign 
nations for our energy needs, dependent on people that hate us and hate 
our freedoms and, quite frankly, hate our religion. It is a dangerous 
precedent that we set when we become more and more and more dependent 
every day. It's time to get our priorities straight and help the 
citizens, families and small businesses in each of our districts across 
America. There is no excuse for this when families in my district are 
struggling to fill up their vehicles just to go to work.
  I can remember a time 10 or 12 years ago, before I came to 
Washington, when there was a lot of talk about one party would steal 
milk from babies, or have senior adults eating dog food. Well, I can 
tell you, this worries me when I have families in east Tennessee that 
are to the point that they have to decide, do they buy food that's 
going up, or do they buy energy to go to work? This worries me.
  There is no excuse for small businesses in my district to be forced 
into bankruptcy because they can't operate under high energy prices 
that they're facing. There is no excuse when families in my district 
have to choose between driving to work each day or putting food on 
their table or sending their kids off to college. There is no excuse.
  Energy is the foundation and lifeblood of the American economy, 
creating the conditions that help us support good-paying jobs in the 
United States and allowing our industrial base to compete with the rest 
of the world.
  Gasoline prices have increased more than $1.23 per gallon since the 
majority party took control of this House last year, increasing from a 
nationwide average of $2.33 per gallon on the very first day of the 
110th Congress to now $3.55 per gallon. And again, that will probably 
change by tomorrow, and it's changing every day.
  What we need is no more excuses. We need an energy policy that allows 
us to use American energy. We need to drill for oil in ANWR and off the 
Intercontinental Shelf. We need to use our abundant coal supplies 
through the use of clean coal technology.

[[Page H2934]]

  One of the first things I did when I was elected to Congress is went 
to the Pentagon and spoke with the Secretary of the Air Force. And one 
of their top priorities is to use American coal, American energy, and 
take that coal and turn it into a fuel that we can actually fly our 
jets with. That's not too much to ask. And we think, boy that sounds a 
little out there, a little futuristic. Well, let me tell you how 
futuristic it is. The Germans ran their war machines in World War II by 
changing lumps of coal into gas. In World War II. This is not 
futuristic, some pie-in-the-sky issue, this is something that was done 
in World War II, it can be done now.

                              {time}  2045

  And we need to create safe nuclear power plants and we need to build 
refineries. And we need to expand our green energy initiatives like 
switchgrass. The University of Tennessee has a wonderful program 
looking at that possibility. Wind power, solar power, hydroelectric 
power. I think we have to look at green energy, but I think we've got 
our heads in the sand if we feel like we can run the American economy 
off green energy.
  I think we have to have an energy plan. And an energy plan, an energy 
policy, combines all of these things together. It's a supply-and-demand 
issue. It's that simple. If you have a lot of something and a few 
people want it, the price will come down. This is basic economics that 
you learn in high school. If you have a small amount of a product and a 
lot of people want it, the price will go up. We have a limited supply. 
And it's not just Americans now that want the supply. China wants the 
supply. India wants the supply. We live in a global marketplace.
  There are people in this Congress that believe you can tax and 
regulate yourself into prosperity. It never has happened. It won't 
happen today, and it will not happen in the future. If there's anybody 
that serves in this House that believes that you can put a tax on a 
business and that tax won't be passed on to the consumer, they haven't 
taken economics. They will pass that cost directly on to the pump.
  Now we see that gas prices have gone from $2.33 a gallon, when the 
majority party took over, to $3.65, according to your chart today. Can 
you imagine if we put more taxes on top of that, what that's going to 
do? That's going to put a higher burden on the American consumer, on 
the American family.
  There are families back in East Tennessee that sit around their 
kitchen table trying to decide how they're going to put a budget 
together, and it's putting a real dampening spirit on them when they 
have to try to spend $50 or $60 to fill up their vehicle.
  Mr. Speaker, some people here in Washington believe the best way to 
reduce our gasoline price is just to tax the oil companies that are 
providing our energy supply. You can't tax and regulate yourself out of 
an energy crisis. You can't tax Joe's or John's or Chris's pickup truck 
full of gasoline. It just doesn't make any sense.
  The American middle class deserves better. They deserve an energy 
policy that is dependent on American energy, not foreign energy. That's 
why 2 weeks ago, I signed onto a piece of legislation that's carried 
from my good friend from Texas, Mac Thornberry, called the ``No More 
Excuses Energy Act.'' ``No More Excuses.''
  We've talked about energy for years, before I ever came here. As I 
was running for office in the last election, I heard the majority party 
say if you'll just let us take power, we're going to lower your energy 
costs. Well, I certainly don't see it in your charts today, Mr. 
Shimkus. I can tell you we need no more excuses. We need to use 
American energy. It's the only way to lower the cost at the pump and to 
give some relief to the American taxpaying citizen.
  Thank you for your leadership.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you.
  And I have a few comments. Immediately after you mentioned Mac 
Thornberry's bill, I also signed onto the No More Excuses Energy Act.
  The school bus folks were in town today, and what I have really 
gotten an appreciation of over the past year is, as I said earlier, how 
energy costs affect everything.
  Look at the cost to the local school district, who is paying for the 
school buses to pick up the kids. The prices of diesel fuel are double. 
It's not planned in the budget. How are they going to meet these costs? 
Many will have to go back to the voters of the local control school 
that we have, and they're going to have to raise taxes to pay for it. 
There's no benefit to that for the kids. I mean they're still driving 
the same buses. That is a lost opportunity for money to go in a 
different direction to help educate kids but now has to go to fund the 
transportation system to get kids to school.
  So I appreciate those comments.
  Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. Just to follow that same logic, think 
of the local volunteer fire department or the local ambulance service 
taking money from health care or the local police department taking 
money from corrections. You can see this through all branches of the 
economy. It really is affecting people in a very negative way.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. And it's silly that we're not going after our own 
resources and our own supply when Russia is attempting to grab vast 
chunks of the Arctic to claim its vast potential of oil and gas and 
mineral wealth to fuel their country's economy. And actually, as we 
know, and I've got a friend from Michigan who knows this, they use 
energy to extort and impose their will on the free governments of the 
former captive nations, and they use it as an extortion tool. And 
they're going after resources and we don't. It's crazy.
  Russia and China have overtaken the United States in dominating the 
global energy industry. China's building 40 nuclear plants. China 
opened a new domestic energy reserve in 2004. China is increasing 
offshore energy production. In fact, China is in league with Cuba to go 
after Outer Continental Shelf oil 50 miles off Miami, 50 miles. We 
can't go there, but we're allowing the Communist Chinese access to the 
gas and oil reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf. And there's much, 
much more.
  It is ludicrous that we are the only industrialized nation in the 
world that does not go after and use our own resources. How crazy is 
that? It's time we stopped. And I hope the public is getting 
significantly angry enough that they are going to demand that this 
House does something to open up reserves.
  Now I'm joined by my good friend and colleague Kevin Brady from 
Texas.
  Welcome.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Thank you for your leadership on this issue. You 
come from a State, Illinois, that has a diverse blend of energy 
sources, and you've got a leadership role on the Energy and Commerce 
Committee. You know this issue. And you're right, ``no'' is not an 
energy policy.
  I think this new Democrat Congress is completely disconnected from 
the real world. I say that because recently I held some roundtables at 
Mama Jack's Restaurant in Kountze, Texas, which, by the way, has great 
food and a great small business owner who's living the American Dream. 
And then I went to a new Chevron station earlier this week in 
Shenandoah, Texas, across from the Woodlands, where our family lives, 
and just talked to motorists about this issue.
  What I found at Mama Jack's Restaurant were two small business people 
who basically say they work for free now. One was a florist. Another 
one, I forget what small business he was in. They basically said the 
price of fuel has eaten up all their profits for the week.
  I talked to the sheriff of Hardin County, who said, basically, they 
run through their annual budget in law enforcement about halfway 
through the year. Now their officers aren't able to make some of the 
discretionary, positive, proactive calls they'd like to make. 
They don't have the money to do it.

  At the gas station, I talked to a painter who lives in Montgomery 
County, works all throughout the Houston area, who said, basically, 
that he used to make $500 a week, what his net was. Now his fuel eats 
up $250 of that.
  I ran into a teacher, a guitar teacher, a young man who had a very 
fuel-efficient car. He actually sold his land in Willis and moved 
closer to where he works just because, as he said, ``We just can't take 
these fuel prices.''
  Yet look at Congress. Look at this new Democrat Congress. Since 
they've been in office, not only has the price of energy just 
skyrocketed, but look at

[[Page H2935]]

what it's done. The first thing it did to address energy prices, it 
passed a bill through the House to allow individuals to sue OPEC. To 
sue OPEC. What is that going to accomplish?
  Then the second thing is this Congress began promoting longer-lasting 
light bulbs. Those are fine, but I don't think it's going to help lower 
the price at the pump anywhere.
  Then they decided, no, here's the problem: We're apparently producing 
too much energy here in America. So they went after the U.S. energy 
companies. And what happened was 3 years ago, a Republican Congress, 
concerned about the loss of jobs overseas, changed the Tax Code. We 
basically said, look, if you produce and invest in America, create jobs 
in America, manufacture in America, you will have a lower tax rate than 
if you do that overseas. It makes great sense. Well, this new Democrat 
Congress said, no, there's one industry that we won't stand for. So 
they singled out the U.S. energy industry and said, no, we're going to 
tax you like you're producing, investing, and creating jobs in foreign 
countries; so we're going to treat you and your workers like you're a 
foreign investor. So at a time when we need more U.S. energy, we 
basically told our American energy companies, we're going to punish you 
for exploring here and producing and manufacturing in America, and, by 
the way, we're going to outsource good American energy jobs to other 
countries. We'll just make it more attractive for them.
  And then this Congress apparently squeezed in between hearings on 
steroids in baseball and appearances by Julia Roberts, and we managed 
somehow to pass a measure to insist on more fuel-efficient cars. That's 
good. That actually is a good thing. But then this Congress went right 
back to punishing U.S. energy producers. The latest scheme out there is 
that we won't sell any military planes made in America, by the way, by 
American workers unless OPEC agrees to sell us more oil. So, in other 
words, our message to OPEC was: We want to do less, but we insist that 
you do more. It makes no sense at all.
  I agree with you, Mr. Shimkus. We need a balanced approach to our 
energy. We need to take more responsibility as America for our own 
energy needs. We need to conserve more. Every one of us can do more to 
stretch our energy. We do need new technology because everything we 
touch can be made more energy efficient. And, yes, renewables are 
important. In fact, the Republican Congress is the one who put in place 
many incentives on wind and solar and biomass and biofuels types of 
issues.
  But what your point is that I agree with, and, I think, the American 
public agrees with, is we do have to increase supply. We are, I think, 
a country of Americans that want more American energy. And the way we 
do that is to unlock our resources.
  I'm from Texas. I have watched this Government push our energy 
companies deeper and deeper into the gulf coast, into riskier and more 
expensive waters, and then we wonder why the price of oil is higher. 
We've locked off most of our reserves along the gulf coast. We've 
locked off our Arctic energy, which is a tremendous, vast resource. We 
refuse to help work on the U.S. Naval Shale Reserve, which is another 
resource. Mr. Shimkus, for many years I have heard you talk about the 
need to take coal and turn it into super clean liquid fuels that can 
help again fuel our country as we go forward.
  The good news is America has remarkable resources if we will just 
take more responsibility for what we need because our economy is like a 
growing young boy. We continue to grow. But other countries do as well.
  I will finish with this: I've watched Congress blame everyone in the 
world for high oil prices except themselves. I think Congress ought to 
look in the mirror when it comes to high energy prices at the pump, and 
here is why: The high world oil prices reflect the new reality of this 
Democrat Congress. And what we have said is stable governments like 
America are no longer going to take responsibility for energy; so we 
are actually pushing more of the world's reserves into unstable 
countries, just as you said: Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria, and 
others. As a result, we pay a premium price because the rest of the 
world now knows that America, a stable government, has said no, we are 
not going to be part of the solution, we want other countries to. And, 
unfortunately, our motorists, our small businesses, our law enforcement 
are paying the price. America needs to take more responsibility for our 
energy.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague.
  There is something about the American character. We believe that 
America is strong because we have this value of rugged individualism, 
that we believe in self-reliance. And what galls Americans in this 
debate is that the Democrats are demanding increased oil production 
everywhere but in America. I mean the Democrats demand increased oil 
production everywhere around the world but America. And when they do 
that, they are creating jobs everywhere in the world except in America.
  Here's the result of their ``no'' policy: When they came in, $2.33 
per gallon of gas. On average today, $3.65. You add to that a 50 cent 
global warming tax, and we would be paying at the pump today $4.15. The 
barrel of crude oil, the feedstock, when this Democrat majority came 
in, $58.31. What is it today? It's $115.92.
  There's a 250-year supply. And by far the least expensive fuel we 
have in coal reserves across this country, the largest coal reserves of 
any country in the world, is right here in the United States. And 
according to the Federal Government, there's enough oil in deep waters 
many miles off our coast, and on Federal land--that's not on the coast, 
that's just on Federal land--to power more than 60 million cars for 60 
years.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Again, the Democrats have decided to demand other 
countries explore, develop, create jobs in energy, and continue to keep 
our reserves locked up, never to be used.
  I am happy to welcome my colleague and friend from Michigan, 
Congressman McCotter.
  Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue 
and for yielding me some time.
  We have heard a lot throughout the past years about making America 
more energy independent. Myself, being a natural contrarian, have heard 
recently members of my own party saying that the Speaker has yet to 
unveil her plan to lower gas prices. I think this is an error. I think 
the more disturbing news is we have seen the Democratic party's plan to 
lower gas prices, and it has failed miserably.
  If we remember last year, we were told we were taking the steps 
toward American energy independence. We passed a ``Lethargy Bill,'' as 
I referred to it, that was going to solve all our problems. We were 
going to innovate our way out of this, we were going to conserve our 
way out of this. We were going to throw American taxpayers' money to 
India and Communist China and around the world to make the red 
bureaucrats green.
  When the Speaker was recently on Larry King's show last week, 
apparently she was under the impression that their plan had worked. 
When asked what the price of gas was, she replied, $2.56. She was off 
by $1. Evidently the pattern of wishful thinking had already set in; 
that their wonderfully detailed plan that they had waited to unveil had 
already been hoisted upon an unsuspecting American electorate. And 
these are the results.
  Now we hear the ``blame game'' beginning. Because having had their 
energy plan fail, they are now looking for scapegoats. When politicians 
come looking for scapegoats to explain their failure, I assure you of 
one thing, it's going to cost taxpayers money. It may cost you 
directly, it may cost you indirectly, but this will cost you money.
  I will say why. First, their policy having failed for a fundamental 
reason, they can come up with no better thing to do than to try to 
affix blame. Their policy has failed because it's built on a 21st 
century energy fallacy. The fallacy is that environmental conservation 
and energy production are irreconcilable. The Republican party takes 
the opposite view. We believe that a plan of conservation and 
innovation and responsible production through the use of green 
technologies and others is entirely possible for our free people, and 
it can help increase the supply of domestic energy and help to 
alleviate the

[[Page H2936]]

cost of gas at the pump and the cost of energy throughout our economy, 
which is eating into family budgets even as we speak and do nothing in 
this 110th Congress.
  Now what are they going to do instead? They are going to put taxes on 
energy companies. Windfall profits tax. I remember something Ronald 
Reagan said a long time ago. Corporations are not taxpayers, 
corporations are tax collectors.
  So here's how this works. This is the new energy plan. The new energy 
plan is to divert attention from the fact this Congress has done 
nothing to increase the supply of oil or domestic energy to help 
Americans. They will then try to tax the energy companies. The energy 
companies will turn right around and put that cost into your pump. It 
will be passed right on. This is not my speculation, this is what 
economists tell you almost universally.
  Then the politician comes to you, after Government has more of your 
money, and says, Thank me. I punished those bad people. And you say to 
them, Well, that is great, but what about me? Is there any more energy 
being produced? You have taxed it, there is less of it, the price 
continues to go up. You walk out of here with more of my money. I don't 
think the American people are going to be grateful for that.
  Another short term gimmick that we are hearing is we must demand that 
OPEC produce more oil. This is sheer genius. Sheer genius. We are now 
hearing calls from the Democratic party to make America more energy 
dependent on foreign sources. They pump more, we buy more, they keep 
the money. There is no energy independence in this shortsighted call, 
there is just another attempt to deflect blame and responsibility away 
from this Chamber, where it belongs, the Chamber across the hall, where 
it belongs, and from a total failure of a 21st century fallacy to fix 
energy needs in America and make us more energy independent.
  Now, as we know, these costs go throughout the economy. They are 
inflating the cost of living for all Americans. And yet there's talk, 
talk, talk, talk. But there are people who are not talking about 
energy. We are engaged in a fight for the global access to oil with the 
Communist Chinese as we speak. They are in every continent of our world 
and they are trying as hard as they can to gain direct access to these 
foreign sources.
  At the very time the United States of America, as the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas points out, is trying to deter American companies 
from finding new sources of oil, at the very time we are told by some 
voices that we demand energy production everywhere but America, it is 
easy in our day and age to say to ourselves that there is no real 
direct cost to Government. We live in a credit card age. We don't live 
in the age my parents grew up in, my grandparents, and I was raised to 
respect you save your money, you plan your budget, you work 
responsibly, and hopefully the good Lord takes care of you. No.
  But when you think that votes on an energy bill or votes on a 
regulation that is imposed or votes on litigation that is imposed or 
votes on taxation that seem indirectly removed from you, there's a cost 
to all this. When we talk about the cost of taxation, litigation, 
regulation and an aversion to production of American energy, you need 
not go to the CBO to have this scored.
  Look at the gentleman from Illinois's chart. That is the cost of a 
government that is unaware of what is happening in America, what our 
future energy needs are, and who do not understand that the American 
people, when challenged, will meet that challenge, we will provide for 
environmental conservation, free market innovation, and the domestic 
production of energy to take America where it needs to be, which is 
energy independent. But then, again, we have always viewed America as 
the solution, and we always will.
  I thank the gentleman for all the work that he has done on this, and 
I look forward to continuing this discussion with him in similar 
forums, for it is important that the American people understand 
something. According to the chart in front of us today, it is clear 
that in the 110th Congress Democrats don't care what they cost you.
  I yield back.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague.
  There's a great op ed today in the Washington Post by Robert 
Samuelson. I want to read the first paragraph: ``What to do about oil? 
First it went from $60 to $80 a barrel, then from $80 to $100 and now 
to $120. Perhaps we can persuade OPEC to raise production, as some 
Senators suggest; but this seems unlikely. The truth is that we are 
almost powerless to influence today's prices. We are because we didn't 
take sensible actions 10 or 20 years ago. If we persist, we will be 
even worse off in a decade or two. The first thing to do is start 
drilling.''

  Now I am joined by my colleague from Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland. 
Welcome.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus, and thank you for doing 
this. I am glad to hear all of the discussion today. As Mr. McCotter 
was just talking about, the Democratic plan, I guess, or their policy, 
was H.R. 6, which was part of their monument pieces of legislation this 
was going to change the direction of this country. As we see by your 
chart, they definitely have changed the direction of gas prices in that 
they are skyrocketing up. We heard so much before they got in charge 
about the commonsense plan that they had. So H.R. 6 was their energy 
bill.
  If you look at H.R. 6, and, Mr. Shimkus, I did a little word search 
and found that crude oil was mentioned five times in that bill, which 
was well over 300 pages. Gasoline was mentioned about 12 times. 
Domestic drilling was not mentioned. Drilling on the Outer Continental 
Shelf was not mentioned. But what was curious was that swimming pool 
was mentioned 47 times because there was a piece of swimming pool 
legislation that was added to the bill. So swimming pool was mentioned 
about seven times more or eight times more than gasoline. Then the 
other interesting thing is 350 times in that bill was lamp or light 
bulbs.
  So I have a hard time explaining. I just spoke to a group of farmers 
Saturday morning at a breakfast and they were asking me about fuel 
prices. As you know, the price of diesel is up well over $4 a gallon. 
When I tried to explain to them the Democratic solution to our energy 
problems and our dependency on foreign oil, I don't think that they 
believed me. I read them the bill, I read them the things that were in 
the bill, and I am having a hard time convincing them that I am telling 
the truth.
  So I am proud that you're here and that these other members are here 
so I can have somebody to go back and say, Look, I told you I am 
telling you the truth. This is their policy. It is a nonpolicy. Their 
commonsense plan that they had to reduce our dependency on foreign oil 
and to bring down the rising gas prices has done nothing but cause them 
to go up almost 50 percent.
  So I thank you for doing this, and I hope that by me sitting here 
listening to some of my other colleagues, I can get some ideas about 
what to go home and tell the people of the Third Congressional District 
of Georgia.
  What really is their plan? Did they really have one? As it turns, it 
seems if they had one, it has certainly backfired on them and, 
shamefully, the American people.
  Thank you.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague for coming. In reality, and I 
taught high school for a couple of years, and when you don't make a 
decision, you have made a decision. Even though you don't have a 
policy, you in fact have a policy.
  Our debate is that when the Democrats promised us, when Speaker 
Pelosi promised us, and I quote, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to 
help bring down skyrocketing gas prices''; and when Majority Leader 
Steny Hoyer promised, ``Democrats believe that we can do more for the 
American people who are struggling to deal with his gas prices,'' well, 
they sure did more. They just burdened struggling citizens with higher 
gas prices. Democrat Whip Jim Clyburn said, ``House Democrats will have 
a plan to help curb rising gas prices.''
  When you don't have a plan, the plan that you have is a plan for 
failure. This is a planned failure, $58 to $115. Facts are hard things 
to dispute. Gasoline prices, $2.33, $3.65. That is Speaker Pelosi's 
plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices. They are skyrocketing gas 
prices but they are not being brought down. They are continuing to go 
up.

[[Page H2937]]

  So Monday we had truckers driving around Washington, D.C. protesting 
the high cost of diesel fuel. I have got independent truckers going 
bankrupt. In fact, I brought to the floor in the last couple of weeks a 
picture of a local strike of independent strikers protesting the high 
cost of diesel.
  My friend, Congressman Brady, highlights the fact that many small 
town, independent, self-employed people are not making any profit this 
year because the profit they had planned, it's all going into pay the 
high cost of gasoline. This is failure.
  We would hope our colleagues on the other side would recognize this 
failure and come to the floor and help us fix this. But their solution 
is demanding on other countries more drilling when they won't demand 
drilling in our own country. And then they have this convoluted idea 
that if you tax people, that is going to lower prices. I challenge them 
anywhere historically to show me a time when you have raised taxes and 
prices have come down.
  In fact, I have got the perfect colleague to come up here and talk, a 
CPA and accountant. He has probably seen a lot of small businesses, 
probably seen a lot of tax burden come onto businesses. I am not sure 
those tax burdens have ever lowered the cost of that company doing 
business. But I would like to welcome Congressman Conaway from Texas.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I thank my colleague for hosting the hour tonight and 
for his work on the issue of trying to educate the American people as 
to what we are doing here.

                              {time}  2115

  I would say as kind of a spin-off of your comment earlier, I think 
our colleagues on the other side do have a plan, but they are not 
explaining the plan fully to the American public. Their plan is to 
promote anything but oil and gas and fossil fuels. And that is fine. We 
can have a legitimate philosophical debate and argument and 
disagreement as to whether or not we should continue to explore for and 
exploit fossil fuels. But in that conversation ought to be the cost of 
changing to a non-fossil fuel environment.
  So I would argue that the policies that have been put in place over 
the last 15 months have been specifically garnered to reduce America's 
production of fossil fuels. They have been specifically put in place to 
raise those costs and make other alternatives more competitive in the 
market. But what they have not done a particularly good job of is 
explaining to the American public that these alternative sources have a 
cost.
  If it were already cheaper to produce electricity any other way than 
the way we are currently doing it, we would be doing it that way. That 
is the American model. If it were already cheaper to power our 
automobiles and trucks and planes any other way, we would be doing 
that.
  So as we look at these policies that are being put in place by our 
colleagues on the other side, they are specifically intended to raise 
costs on our businesses, raise costs on American businesses, raise 
costs to consumers. When you raise costs to businesses, those 
businesses compete in a global environment. They compete with companies 
around the world who may have a different cost structure than they do. 
And to the extent that our costs here are higher than other places in 
the world, particularly as it relates to energy, then our companies 
would be less competitive, and the less competitive our companies 
become, the fewer jobs available for Americans to take. So you can kind 
of get a sense of this death spiral that we put ourselves in by making 
ourselves less competitive.
  The cold, hard facts are that energy costs over my lifetime and your 
lifetime will continue to increase. There is just no other way to get 
around it. That is going to happen. But those increases should not be 
as dramatic as the increases that my colleague has shown on the floor. 
We can manage and work towards slowing those increases down, making 
those increases much more manageable and easier to deal with if we had 
a rational, pro-production, pro-supply policy that we put in place.
  If we make a decision that we want to go totally green, we want to go 
to a zero carbon footprint, that has immense costs that we have to 
agree on. If we collectively agree those are costs we want to bear, 
then let's go do that. But at this point, at this juncture in time, no 
one is talking about the costs of moving to the style of energy 
production that my colleagues on the other side want to do.
  As an example, section 526 of the energy bill that was passed in 
December prevents any Federal agency from contracting for sources of 
energy if they can't prove that the lifecycle greenhouse gases are less 
than they otherwise would have been. Well, that has a cost to it, 
because that means our Federal agencies, including the Department of 
Defense, can't buy energy from Canada.
  Now do you want to buy energy from Canada? We share a long border 
with those guys, it is a democracy and we go to war together. We don't 
go to war with each other. Or do you want to buy crude oil from 
countries who hate our guts, from regimes that would just as soon 
America would go away as look at us?
  What section 526 does, well-intentioned but misguided in its impact, 
is it says you can't buy things, you can't buy unconventional sources 
of energy like gas-to-liquids, like oil shale, like tar sands, unless 
you can prove, quote-unquote, that the greenhouse gas cycle is less.
  These are policies that our colleagues on the other side are putting 
on. They are policies intended to increase costs to the American 
consumer. They simply won't say that. But if you look at the impact 
those policies have, they are specifically set to reduce America's 
supply of energy. If you reduce our supply of energy in a growing 
demand circumstance, straight economics tells you that your costs are 
going to be higher.
  So as we move toward what we would all agree is a laudable goal, and 
that is making America dependent on energy sources that are within 
American control, that are environmentally responsible, let's look at 
the cost of how we make those moves. If we want to make them 
dramatically and unprepared, then, fine, those are dramatically higher 
costs than would otherwise have needed to be the deal.
  So the basic points are costs will go up over the rest of our 
lifetime. We ought to do to what we can to manage those costs, prevent 
the spikes we see and the dramatic impact there, because businesses and 
consumers have a difficult time dealing with spikes. They can deal with 
a gradual increase over time, because that is just the way normal 
things work, but spikes hurt us in trying to plan for and be 
competitive in the world markets.
  Let's come clean as to what all of these costs are for carbon tax or 
global warming or climate change, whatever it is. Our colleague from 
Michigan has said it ought to be 50 cents a gallon for gasoline. I 
don't know if that is the right number, but at least he put a dollar 
value on the ideas of how we move toward less dependence on sources of 
oil, in this instance fossil fuels.
  But the phrase ``energy independence'' is a misnomer. We will never 
have a world where we aren't dependent on energy. We have to have 
energy to turn the lights on in this building. What the phrase should 
be is that we are not dependent on energy from sources that we don't 
control, from sources in countries who hate our guts, from sources that 
when we give them money, they turn around and take that money and do 
bad things to American citizens. So we can have an energy policy that 
makes sense, is responsible to the environment, but doesn't raise costs 
dramatically and arbitrarily on the American consumer.
  I appreciate my colleague giving me a chance to rant a bit tonight 
and participate in our conversation.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague.
  Pro-production, pro-supply, and conservation I think are key items.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Let me add one other thing that I left out. I had a 
conversation today with some folks from an energy electric company. We 
talk about energy, we ought to bifurcate the discussion. One is the 
electricity production, which is the bulk of the energy we use in this 
country, versus fuels that power cars and airplanes and trucks. They 
are looking at the impact that some of the proposals out there are with 
respect to increased costs in order to lower their CO2 
emissions.
  They currently produce energy at almost 4 cents a kilowatt hour. 
Under

[[Page H2938]]

the proposals that they are examining, which are led by the Democrats, 
they believe their costs will go to 11.8 cents a kilowatt hour. That 
doesn't mean just in the vacuum. But take your electric bill that you 
pay this month, or the one you pay in July when it is really high 
because of air conditioning, and multiply it by 2\1/2\. That will be 
kind of a rule of thumb as to what some of the proposals out there are 
doing for energy costs.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I appreciate that. And I have tried to segue a little 
bit of the climate change debate. We mentioned it here with Chairman 
Dingell. To be intellectually honest, a carbon tax would be a way to 
go. He says 50 cents a gallon. So if the average price today is $3.65, 
you add 50 cents a gallon, Americans will be paying $4.15 a gallon. 
Now, even in the cap and trade program, really cap and trade equates to 
50 cents a gallon. And we just want folks to be intellectually honest 
and be clear, so the public has to understand.
  An issue out today, politicians beware, the issue tied for last, 
climate change tied for last on a list of domestic priorities for 
President Bush and Congress in a 2008 survey from the Pew Research 
Center for the people in the press, lagging behind influence of 
lobbyists, moral breakdown, et cetera. Last. But California just passed 
a 20 to 30 percent increase on the electricity bills to deal with 
climate change. So if we want lower energy prices, we need more supply.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

                          ____________________