[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 97 (Thursday, June 12, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H5396-H5399]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be on 
the floor of the House of Representatives here in the United States of 
America to talk about issues that are pressing, representing the 30-
Something Working Group. I will be joined shortly by my friend, 
Congressman Meek of Florida, who will join us through this discussion.
  I want to talk about a couple of issues that are pertinent to what 
has been going on in our country. I think the most pressing issue that 
we've been dealing with in this Congress and that, I think, most of our 
constituents are dealing with every single day is what is going on with 
our energy policy here in the United States of America.
  We have heard, as Democrats have come into office with Speaker 
Pelosi's leading this House of Representatives, is that one of the key 
issues that we're trying to deal with is to make sure that our country 
is energy-independent and to reduce our dependency not only on oil but 
especially on foreign oil and to move off of oil in general, into 
renewable energy, into biodiesel, into solar, into wind, into nuclear, 
into a lot of these other areas that will allow us to be energy-
independent, that will provide for renewable energy and that will 
provide a stable supply of energy here in the United States.
  One of the issues that keeps coming up is: Why don't we keep 
drilling? Why don't we drill in ANWR? That will solve our problem. I'm 
sure, in the next special order, the folks who are paying attention to 
this debate will get the other side of this. But from our perspective 
and from what the analysts are telling us, if you begin drilling in 
ANWR and if you start the process today, it will be 10 years from now 
before you get one drop of oil out of ANWR. If you continue, in 10 
years, you will get 40,000 barrels of oil a day in a market that has 80 
million barrels of oil. In 20 years, you will get yourself up to about 
800,000 barrels of oil a day, and you will reduce the cost of a gallon 
of gas by 1.8 cents per gallon. Now, that is 20 years from now. So, if 
we start today, in 20 years, we will have a savings of 1.8 cents per 
gallon of gas. From our perspective, that is not a long-term strategy.
  One of the reasons that it is not a long-term strategy is that we 
have now currently 68 million acres of land on the continental shelf, 
onshore, that is eligible to be drilled upon. There are 8,000 leases 
for drilling on these acres of land, 8,000. Of these 8,000 leases, 
there are only about a quarter of them that are actually being used or 
that are being pursued.
  What we are saying is, if you have 68 million acres of land and if 
you have 8,000 leases already to drill on those acres of land, why do 
we need to go somewhere else up in ANWR--up in Alaska--when we're not 
even drilling in the areas that we have now in which the oil companies 
have permission to go and drill? That is the question.
  So we have this available to us now, and if we got into the 68 
million acres of land, that would produce 4.8 million barrels a day.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Would the gentleman yield.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I'd be happy to yield.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The geologists with whom we've talked say that 
they know that there is oil in the ANWR and that they know where the 
oil is off the continental shelf. I don't know about these other 8,000 
leases in the spots that we're talking about, but I would be happy to 
talk to them about

[[Page H5397]]

exploring those if we could work together to get the oil out of the 
ground and get it to market.
  I'd just like to say to my colleague that I know that you want to 
move toward energy independence. We have a different view on how it has 
to be done. You'd like to do it in an environmentally safe way, and so 
would we, but we aren't starting. So I'd just like to say to my 
colleague:
  When are we going to start? In your opinion, how are we going to 
start, and how long will it take?
  The transition to hybrids and to everything else and to get everybody 
in this country working on these things is a laudable objective, and I 
agree with you that we should be doing that, but in the interim, we've 
been just sitting around, waiting for 30 years. The American people, I 
don't think, can wait much longer.
  So I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I'd just like to ask you: Where do 
we start? When do we start? How do we start if we don't drill?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time.
  I have a great deal of respect for my friend from Indiana. I wanted 
to give him an opportunity to speak his peace.
  It's not up to us, and that is the point I was going to make. This is 
already available. It's the oil companies that are not pursuing this. 
They have the leases. They have the space. They have the okay, but 
they're the ones that aren't doing the drilling, and that's the point.
  One of the reasons is that there is a difference between the 
certifications. When you have to mine for coal and you get one of these 
permits and you get the ability to lease, there's a 20-year lease for 
coal companies, but you have to show that you're diligently developing 
your mining with coal. Under oil and gas, it's only a 10-year lease 
that is renewable, but you don't have to show that you're diligently 
developing the leases and that you're diligently developing the mining 
in trying to get the oil and the gas out.
  So the oil companies have the leases--they have the ability to do 
it--but the law does not require them to show a diligent developing of 
a particular resource. That is the problem. So they're holding the 
leases and are, in our minds, driving up the cost. Now, I think there 
are some other things going on, too, with commodity markets and 
whatnot, but this is the gist.
  There is a bill that is coming out of Mr. Rahall's office from the 
Natural Resources Committee, the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease 
Act of 2008. I will be happy to share with my colleague and have my 
staff get to your staff the proper information here because there is no 
reason why they're not developing it, and that's the problem that we 
have here.
  So look at what is going on in the commodities market. We have passed 
a bill out of this House of Representatives to try to address that 
problem. If we soon pass Mr. Rahall's bill that will deal with the 
lease issue and the oil companies' being able to hold onto these 
leases, I think then we can force these folks to either get rid of the 
leases and get them in the hands of somebody who will actually do the 
drilling or they will have to drill it themselves, but you have to show 
diligence in developing that particular resource that you're going 
after.
  So that's really the main issue here, and I appreciate the 
opportunity to bring that up and to further expound on that point 
because it puts the ball right back in the court of the oil companies'.
  So, on all of these prongs, whether it's futures or whether it's the 
leases or whether it's the $14 billion in subsidies that the taxpayers 
have given the oil companies, on each of these issues, we're trying to 
change the policy, and we want to join with the Republicans to help us 
to do that because a lot of this oil and gas is available to be 
developed, to be explored, to be used here in the United States of 
America.
  Not only that, there is a bill that we passed, I think, in 2005 that 
would allow a 50 percent tax credit to build refineries. That is one of 
the other points that has been made, which is of the refineries. Why 
aren't there more refineries? Refineries now are only working at 85 
percent capacity.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Would the gentleman yield.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would be happy to yield. I'm going to yield to 
you because you're my friend, but I'm going to have to leave, so I'm 
not going to get a chance to rebut you guys, but go ahead, because Mr. 
Westmoreland and I are going to be on Fox later, so we'll be glad to 
take that up over there.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The reason I wanted to talk to you really 
briefly before Mr. Westmoreland and I take this hour is that we're 
going to have to work together to solve this problem. On its face, for 
us to say that the oil companies with these leases really don't want to 
exercise the ability they have to drill doesn't make sense.
  The problem we have with energy right now is that China is buying an 
awful lot of the oil, and India is buying a lot of the oil. The 
appetite for energy is growing at a very rapid rate, even here in the 
United States, and we're not keeping up with the production necessary 
to keep the prices down. The oil companies want to drill. They want to 
make this money. They want more refineries.
  You and I don't know each other really well, but what I'd like to say 
to you is that I'd like to sit down with you and with some of the oil 
companies executives and talk to them about the drilling problem and 
about the lease problem. Maybe there's something we can do by talking 
to them to get this thing off dead center. But to sit around and say 
they're not drilling where they should when the world needs more energy 
doesn't make any sense. We need more refineries. Everybody knows that.
  As you were talking a minute ago, we want to move toward energy 
independence, but that's going to take time as well. So I would like to 
work with you and with other Democratic leaders--Mr. Rahall and 
others--and see if we can't get some of the oil execs in without 
beating them over the head about, you know, taxes on them and just say, 
``What do we need to do to get you to do exploration in a clean way and 
to get this energy to market as quickly as possible?'' I'd like to talk 
to you about it and see about that.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time.
  I'd like to chat with you about it. I think it would be important to 
have Mr. Rahall involved in that conversation.

                              {time}  1815

  Our argument on this side, and I think it is not a prima facie case 
here, these are the facts that have been explored. They have the 
leases, they have the land, there is nothing preventing them from doing 
it. You have a 50 percent tax cut on refineries. They still haven't 
done that. And we are giving them $14 billion to help develop this 
stuff. I mean, how much more do you need? And you are the most 
profitable industry in the country.
  So it leaves folks like us to say, you know, you are obviously not 
doing things properly, because the price of oil is going up.
  And I agree, obviously China and India are a major component of this. 
No one is saying it will be $20 a barrel if we implement this stuff. 
But if you talk about it, most people are saying anything between a 10 
and 100 percent increase because of the commodity trading, which 
probably puts it somewhere in the middle at 40 percent, which would be 
40 or 50 bucks a barrel. That alone would reduce it to about 90 bucks a 
barrel.
  Now, drilling has increased by 66 percent since 2000, so there is 
more drilling going on to try to keep pace with that. But the prices 
have increased. Last Friday a barrel of oil increased more in one day 
than it cost 10 years ago. That is a significant increase, and you 
can't say there are some shenanigans going on here.
  All we are asking is, I think if we pass something like the 
Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Relief Act of 2008, if we say that you 
have to diligently develop those leases that you have, I think that 
would be a piece of this argument, to say you got the lease, you are 
not allowed to sit on it. Either develop it or give it to someone else.
  No one here is saying we are going to be off oil tomorrow. What we 
are saying is we don't want to be in the same situation a decade from 
now or two decades from now because we opened up ANWR and saved 2 cents 
a gallon. That is not going to get us where we want to be. And the 
sooner we take the brain power here in the United States of America and 
put it to work to develop some of these alternative energies, the 
better off we are going to be.

[[Page H5398]]

  So, 68 million acres, 4.8 million barrels a day, 44.7 billion cubic 
feet of natural gas, this is the direction we need to be going in. This 
is the direction that I think Americans want us to go in, Mr. Speaker. 
This is the direction that the Speaker and the Democrats want to lead 
this country in.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We are happy to. You guys are going to have more 
time on my Special Order than I am.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I just want to ask you one question and give you 
time to rebut it, and I will leave.
  To my friend Mr. Ryan, you mentioned not being able to use our 
technology. In the energy bill that we passed in January of 2007, 
section 526 really limits the government agencies' ability to use fuels 
that could come from our technology. It says we cannot use these fuels, 
such as oil from shale, fuel made from that, for NASA, our military or 
other government agencies.
  Could you kind of rectify that and how that relates to what you are 
saying? Because I agree with you, we have some of the smartest people 
in the world here that can look at some of the technology that has been 
in place in Europe for years of coal-to-liquid. But how does that 
translate in your energy policy, compared to what you are saying about 
the technology? Because I certainly agree with you about the 
technology, but I don't necessarily agree with the energy policy.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Well, regardless of how we develop it, I think this 
is what we have done. We put billions of dollars into research and 
development, and we will continue to put more into research and 
development, maybe even over the protests of some of the folks on your 
side of the aisle.
  But you could talk about oil shale and you could talk about all of 
these the other issues. We have 68 million acres right now, there are 
8,000 leases, and you folks keep talking, Mr. Speaker, the other side 
keeps talking about going up to ANWR, when we have 68 million acres 
already to be tapped, 8,000 leases ready to develop this. They are only 
using a quarter of them. Go ahead and drill. But why do we have to go 
up to ANWR, when we already have the ability to do it now? That is all 
we are saying.
  So, yeah, we should use technology to figure out other ways to 
develop oil and the coal-to-liquid. As long as you are sequestering the 
CO2, speaking on behalf of myself now, I don't have any 
problem with it. You have nuclear plants that are going on and permits 
and leases for moving that process forward.
  So this is going to be a comprehensive bill and a comprehensive 
approach to all this. But when you have the oil companies getting $14 
billion, you have the commodities problem that you have, and you have 
them buying leases and holding them because they don't have to 
diligently develop, like they have to do for coal, you get skyrocketing 
gas costs, and that is what we are trying to fix here.
  The oil companies have more incentives than they could ever possibly 
need. They have been getting $14 billion in basically corporate 
welfare. They get a 50 percent tax credit to develop a refinery, and 
they still haven't done that. So these issues are hanging around here, 
and we are trying to change it and the rhetoric from the other side is 
we got to go to ANWR, when we already have the ability to address these 
problems here.
  So I think we have a comeprehensive approach on how to fix this 
problem. It is much different. And, again, to just say, you know, Mr. 
Speaker, it was the other side. They were in charge for 6 years, had 
the House, had the Senate, had the White House, and we are currently 
living under their energy policy and the Bush economy.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman will yield for just one 
second, I know you have to leave and I just want to say one thing real 
quickly, if you don't mind.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. You know, you can blame us, we can blame you. 
We can go all the way back to the Carter administration when we had 
lines. You are a fairly young man, you probably don't remember, But 
there were lines around the block and people coming with five gallon 
cans to get gas because we didn't have any. There is probably enough 
blame to go around.
  The problem is we are in an economic crisis right now that is not 
going to get any better until we work together. I have been down here 
railing against you and the Democrats for the last three or four or 
five weeks saying you guys are the reason that gas has gone up a buck-
and-a-half in the last 2 years. You can blame us if you want to. But 
the people who are watching on television and the people around this 
country right now are paying 4 bucks-plus a gallon and they want us to 
work together. I would like to sit down with you and others like you 
and try to figure out a way to get this problem solved.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time, you are exactly right. We could 
sit here, Mr. Speaker, and blame each other about whose fault it is. I 
say that as a point of clarification, because one is now you have 
solutions that you didn't implement while you were in, they didn't 
implement while they were in, Mr. Speaker. So I think that is an 
important point to make.
  But the discussion here today is look at what the Democrats have 
done. We are trying to repeal the $14 billion in corporate welfare. We 
are trying to crack down on the commodities futures trading. We are 
trying to make sure that oil companies can't just hold leases and not 
develop them, and not develop them and diligently pursue the natural 
resources that are there. That is what we are saying. The other side is 
saying, go to ANWR. Now, that is not a solution.

  So the discussion that we are having here is that your side is 
saying, go to ANWR and drill, and we are saying there is 68 million 
acres, 8,000 leases, and they are only using a quarter of them. The oil 
companies are holding them. They could get 4.2 billion barrels a day, 
and they are not doing it. That only leaves one conclusion.
  I guess we are kind of blaming each other. But if you put up drilling 
in ANWR or drill in what we have now and focus billions of dollars on 
an alternative energy policy and strip the $14 billion from the oil 
companies and make sure that if they get leases they got to use them 
and make sure that there is not all kinds of monkey business going on 
in the commodities market, that is our solution, which your side votes 
against.
  We are going to have an election. You guys are going to say drill in 
ANWR, we are going to say alternative energy, and the people are going 
to decide. So we can blame each other all we want, but the people are 
going to hear our position, they are going to hear your position, and 
they are going to hear the presidential candidates' positions, and they 
are going to decide who they want to vote for.
  I believe and our caucus believes that when we get the message out 
that there are already 68 million acres to be developed, there are 
8,000 leases being held by the oil companies, that they are only using 
a quarter of them, that it will look like our friends on the other side 
are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the oil companies. And we are 
going to have a vote at some point on Mr. Rahall's bill that will allow 
and force the oil companies that if they have leases to use them, that 
you may fall on the one side of that and we may fall on the other, and 
then the people will have that vote to decide on.
  I am getting a bit redundant, but we want to make sure our friends 
who are just kind of passing through the debate catch both sides.
  The gentleman from Indiana, I know he is a busy man, but if you have 
time tonight, me and your partner in crime there will be on Fox TV, on 
Hannity & Colmes, to further this discussion, and I very much look 
forward to it.
  I think my partner in crime, Mr. Meek, is not here, will not be here, 
and I will take your thank-you's later, because you had more of my 
special order than I had.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman will yield just real quickly, 
I would like to say this to you as you leave. I would like to see a 
number of you--
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Does the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Will the gentleman yield just for a second?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Well, you are going to get the next hour.

[[Page H5399]]

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I know, but I would like to talk to you before 
you leave.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman want to yield, or yield 
back?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield back the balance of my time. I will wait 
and listen to you.

                          ____________________