Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 100 (Tuesday, June 17, 2008)

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 100 (Tuesday, June 17, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H5421-H5426]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF AMERICAN EAGLE DAY

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the

[[Page H5422]]

resolution (H. Res. 1247) supporting the goals and ideals of ``American
Eagle Day'', and celebrating the recovery and restoration of the
American bald eagle, the national symbol of the United States, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:

H. Res. 1247

Whereas the bald eagle was designated as the national
emblem of the United States on June 20, 1782, by our
country's Founding Fathers at the Second Continental
Congress;
Whereas the bald eagle is the central image used in the
Great Seal of the United States and the seals of the
President and Vice President;
Whereas the image of the bald eagle is displayed in the
official seal of many branches and departments of the Federal
Government, including--
(1) Congress;
(2) the Supreme Court;
(3) the Department of Defense;
(4) the Department of the Treasury;
(5) the Department of Justice;
(6) the Department of State;
(7) the Department of Commerce;
(8) the Department of Homeland Security;
(9) the Department of Veterans Affairs;
(10) the Department of Labor;
(11) the Department of Health and Human Services;
(12) the Department of Energy;
(13) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(14) the Central Intelligence Agency; and
(15) the United States Postal Service;
Whereas the bald eagle is an inspiring symbol of the
American spirit of freedom and democracy;
Whereas the image, meaning, and symbolism of the bald eagle
have played a significant role in American art, music,
history, literature, architecture, and culture since the
founding of our Nation;
Whereas the bald eagle is featured prominently on United
States stamps, currency, and coinage;
Whereas the habitat of bald eagles exists only in North
America;
Whereas by 1963, the number of nesting pairs of bald eagles
in the lower 48 States had dropped to about 417;
Whereas the bald eagle was first listed as an endangered
species in 1967 under the Endangered Species Preservation
Act, the Federal law that preceded the Endangered Species Act
of 1973;
Whereas caring and concerned citizens of the United States
in the private and public sectors banded together to save,
and help ensure the protection of, bald eagles;
Whereas in 1995, as a result of the efforts of those caring
and concerned citizens, bald eagles were removed from the
endangered species list and upgraded to the less imperiled
threatened species status under the Endangered Species Act of
1973;
Whereas by 2006, the number of bald eagles in the lower 48
States had increased to approximately 7,000 to 8,000 nesting
pairs;
Whereas the Secretary of the Interior removed the bald
eagle from the Federal list of threatened species effective
August 8, 2007;
Whereas the bald eagle remains subject to the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and on May 28, 2008, the Secretary of the
Interior issued regulations providing continued protection
under the Act popularly known as the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act;
Whereas bald eagles would have been permanently extinct if
not for vigilant conservation efforts of concerned citizens
and strict protection laws;
Whereas the dramatic recovery of the bald eagle population
is an endangered species success story and an inspirational
example for other wildlife and natural resource conservation
efforts around the world;
Whereas the initial recovery of the bald eagle population
was accomplished by the concerted efforts of numerous
government agencies, corporations, organizations, and
individuals; and
Whereas the sustained recovery of the bald eagle
populations will require the continuation of recovery,
management, education, and public awareness programs, to
ensure that the populations and habitat of bald eagles will
remain healthy and secure for future generations: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) supports the goals and ideals of ``American Eagle
Day''; and
(2) encourages--
(A) educational entities, organizations, businesses,
conservation groups, and government agencies with a shared
interest in conserving endangered species to collaborate on
education information for use in schools; and
(B) the people of the United States to observe American
Eagle Day with appropriate ceremonies and other activities.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Guam (Ms. Bordallo) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Guam.

General Leave

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Guam?
There was no objection.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
House Resolution 1247, as amended, celebrates the recovery of the
American bald eagle, the symbol of our country displayed on American
currency and government agency seals, including the seal of the United
States Congress. The bald eagle's recovery is a huge success story for
the Endangered Species Act and the conservation laws which preceded it.
In 1963, there were just 487 pairs of bald eagles in the lower 48
States. Today, Mr. Speaker, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, there are an estimated 9,789 breeding pairs.
Effective August 8, 2007, the bald eagle was removed from the list of
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, demonstrating that
it had truly recovered. At the same time, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act continue to provide
important protections for this magnificent bird.
I commend our colleague, Congressman David Davis from Tennessee, for
introducing this resolution encouraging organizations and government
agencies working on the conservation of endangered species to
collaborate on educational information for use in our schools.
The resolution further encourages the American people to observe
American Eagle Day with appropriate ceremonies.
This resolution merits our support.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield, before I make my
statement, to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis), the
sponsor of this particular resolution, as much time as he may consume.
Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 1247, a bill I introduced, to support the goals and ideals of June
20 as American Eagle Day. The bill also highlights the successful
recovery story of the American bald eagle, the official national emblem
of the United States.
The American bald eagle has been a part of American culture for
hundreds of years. In 1782, the Second Continental Congress established
that the bald eagle was the official emblem of the United States
because of its uniqueness to North America. It can be seen on the
United States seals in public buildings, schools, and even here in the
House Chamber. Over the years, the bald eagle has become a living
symbol of the United States spirit, freedoms, and continual pursuit of
excellence.
Mr. Speaker, just 45 years ago the United States had only about 400
nesting pairs of the American bald eagle. Through conservation,
education and careful planning, today we have seen a significant rise
to about 7,000 nesting pairs of the American bald eagle.
Because of the successful recovery exhibited by the American bald
eagle, the Department of the Interior has taken the bald eagle off both
the endangered and threatened species list. The bald eagle has been a
national symbol, and its recovery has been a national success story.
H.R. 1247 will not only honor the now thriving American bald eagle,
it will also encourage support of the United States Mint bald eagle
commemorative coin program which has been a success for the past few
years. Currently, this coin program has raised over $5 million for the
American Eagle Foundation, which is located in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee,
which is located in my district.
The American Eagle Foundation is a successful not-for-profit
organization seeking to protect and fully restore the bald eagle
population across North America. They also care for the injured and
orphaned birds that have a strong environmental presence through
educating thousands of families who visit Pigeon Forge, Tennessee each
year.
Furthermore, this bill encourages school systems, businesses,
governmental agencies and conservation groups to share information on
the American bald eagle that will benefit children and schools across
our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting H.R.
1247, a bill I introduced to support the goals and ideals of June 20 as
American

[[Page H5423]]

Eagle Day, and celebrate the recovery and restoration of this great
bird, the bald eagle, the national symbol of the United States.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
I rise also in support of House Resolution 1247 which endorses the
goals and ideals of the American Bald Eagle Day, or American Eagle Day.
226 years ago the Second Continental Congress decided to use the
image of the American bald eagle on the great American, great seal of
the United States. Since that time, the image of this majestic bird has
graced our art, our culture, currency, stamps, headbands, and rubber
things you put around your wrist. It's been the subject of more than
2,500 published books, making the bald eagle the most extensively
studied bird in North America.
While we estimate there were nearly 500,000 bald eagles on this
continent, this species was particularly devastated by a reproductive
failure. In response, Congress did enact the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act, and the bird was listed on the Endangered Species Act.

{time} 1500

From its all-time low of 417 nesting pairs in the continental United
States during the Lyndon Johnson administration, extraordinary
conservation efforts have saved the bald eagle since that time, and we
have witnessed a significant population increase.
Today, there are just under 10,000 breeding pairs in the lower 48,
not to mention to 30,000 bald eagles living in Alaska. By any objective
stand, the recovery of the bald eagle has been remarkable and sadly,
one of the few success stories of the Endangered Species Act, an act
that obviously needs significant reform.
The Secretary of Interior has removed the bald eagle from the Federal
list of threatened endangered species, and there is no question that
the bald eagle will continue to inspire millions of America, but it
symbolizes fundamental values of this country: courage, freedom,
patriotic spirit, and of energy development.
Under the terms of House Resolution 1247, the people of the United
States are encouraged to observe American Eagle Day on June 20, to
provide educational information about the bald eagle and our Nation's
wildlife resources. And I also urge a ``yes'' vote.
And I want to commend and compliment the author of this resolution,
Congressman Davis of Tennessee, for his effective leadership in
proposing this celebration of American Eagle Day.
I will reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BORDALLO. In that case, Mr. Speaker, I also reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize the gentlelady
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for what time she may choose to consume.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Utah for
yielding me time, and I want to congratulate and commend my colleague
from Tennessee (Mr. Davis) for his work on this resolution.
I want to say that this Capitol Building in which we are working
today and which people are visiting every day is one of the most
wonderful symbols of our country. The American bald eagle is another
symbol of our country,
An intangible symbol of our country has always been our independence
and our innovative nature and our freedom. The people all around the
world know this country for what we stand for: freedom, and the rights
of individuals, and the ability to solve problems, and to create ways
to solve those problems.
But right now our way of life is being threatened because of the
price of gasoline in this country, and there are many who believe that
there are liberals in this country who think that the United States
should be taken down a peg or two, that we shouldn't be allowed to be
the great Nation that we are; and that one way of doing that is by
crippling the United States through the inability to be independent
with gas and oil.
But I want to say that that's not the direction that Republicans want
to be going. Republicans want us to have the supply that we need for
gasoline so that we can bring down the price of gasoline. We know that
Democrats have blocked our ability for that. I spoke about that a few
minutes ago, and I'm not going to repeat that; but I heard my colleague
on the other side of the aisle talking about the argument that there
are many, many leases out there that oil companies are not utilizing.
That's another tactic of the Democrats: blame the oil companies, blame
George Bush, blame everybody else for the problems that we have. Don't
take the responsibility yourself. But again, unfortunately, we have the
facts to back up what we know is true, which is Democrats have voted
against our increasing supplies.
They're also wrong on the issue of leases. They talk about ``use it
or lose it.'' They want to introduce a bill that has no basis. They're
inventing false arguments again.
``Use it or lose it'' is already the law. For Federal onshore
competitive oil and gas leases, an oil company must have a producing
well by 10 years. This comes from section 17(e) of the Mineral Leasing
Act. Prior to 1992, the lease term was 5 years. The Energy Policy Act
of 1992, under a Democratically controlled House, modified it to 10
years. So it's the Democrats who changed the leasing terms.
For Federal offshore oil and gas leases, an oil company must produce
energy between 5 to 10 years. It's in the government's discretion. This
is from the Outer Continental Shelf Land Act. So Democrats, House
Democrats, do not even know what is the existing law now.
What Democrats would have you believe is that a lease is a license to
produce oil and gas. It is not. A lease is only the start of a process
involving several steps the government requires an oil company to take
before it may even receive permission to drill.
Democrats are effectively arguing that we should pull leases away
from oil companies before they receive permission to drill. This is
like saying we should flunk a first grader on his first day of school
because he has not yet taken his final exam.
Most of the drilling on Federal leases has been for natural gas, and
natural gas production was up, way up last year, and so was demand. In
fact, the industry is producing more gas under these leases, but they
cannot keep up with the demand because Democrats and their radical
environmental allies will not allow the leasing of new areas and 97
percent of Federal offshore areas are not leased; 94 percent of Federal
onshore areas are not leased.
We can solve our energy problems in this country, and we do have
them, but they've been brought on by the Democrats who say, We can't
drill our way out of this. No, but we can do many things, including
drilling. That will be a part of what we can do, and we can be energy
independent. But again, many of them don't want us to be.
They don't want us to have a Nation that soars into greatness like
the bald eagle that we are honoring in this resolution or continue the
great reputation that we have had over the years for being the greatest
Nation on earth. They would like to take us down a peg or two. I know
Republicans and most Americans don't agree with them.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would say to the gentlelady that we are here to salute the American
eagle. I would say that the American eagle would not be proud that 68
million acres of Federal energy lands are being held hostage by big oil
companies.
To respond to the points just made, number one, current law allows
leaseholders 10 years to develop oil or gas. The Responsible Federal
Oil and Gas Lease Act cuts that down to 5 years. While existing leases
can be canceled if leaseholders fail to comply with lease provisions,
laws, or regulations, such as public safety and environmental
requirements, there is no law or regulation that requires diligent
development of Federal oil and gas leases.
The next point. As long as leaseholders pay the required annual
rental fee, the government cannot compel diligent development of the
lease lands.
Next. The Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act requires oil and
gas operators to diligently develop Federal oil and gas leases as is
currently required of coal leaseholders. This requirement was enacted
in the 1970s to

[[Page H5424]]

prevent coal operators from using Federal resources for speculation
that would drive up prices.
And finally, no such requirement is placed on oil and gas operators.
And H.R. 6251 corrects that situation.
And again, I would like to repeat, and I would say to the previous
speaker, that we are here this afternoon to salute the American eagle.
And I would say that the American eagle would not be proud that 68
million acres of Federal energy lands are being held hostage by big
oil.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may wish
to consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, only on this floor would we debate how the
American eagle would feel. I'm astonished that the Democrats have the
hubris to talk in terms of how the American eagle would feel. As a
matter of fact, the American eagle and countless thousands of birds and
other wildlife have been used as an excuse for a generation for 68
million acres--yes, they are leased, but a lease is in fact not a right
to drill. Just because you have a lease doesn't waive any environmental
consideration. So beyond the requirement to find out if in fact there
is oil on a lease site, you have to go through a myriad of hoops before
you can begin drilling.
It's one of the reasons that, in fact, offshore drilling has become
so popular. Not only are there vast resources out there, but in fact,
the fish simply swim away; and in deep water, particularly over 400
meters, it is unlikely to find an environmentalist at the bottom
claiming that there is some new form of life that is not only new but
highly in danger.
So with all fairness to the Nation's bird, I would say that what we
need to do is stop talking about 68 million acres that are ``available
for production'' when in fact, the vast majority of that has little or
no usable oil.
And I just want to give you a fairly short statement, Mr. Speaker. It
is not a question of whether or not you have acreage, it's a question
of whether the acreage is valid acreage for oil. I will give you the
easiest example. West Virginia. It's a wonderful State. Beautiful
State. They take a tremendous amount of coal out of there. They also
take a quite a bit of oil. As a matter of fact, with 3,400 oil wells,
they take a total of 5,000 barrels a day out of there. To the contrary,
or to the other example, Alaska, with only 1,700, half as many wells,
take 700,000 barrels a day.
So it's not, Mr. Speaker, whether or not you have millions of acres,
it's do you have the acreage that you are able to drill in, do you have
the acreage that is, in fact, yielding oil. And I can assure you at
$134 a barrel, if anyone was holding acreage that yielded barrels that
in fact could deliver that kind of revenue, it would be drilled today.
The truth is the vast majority of the acreage is either off limits
for environmental reasons or, in fact, would be like West Virginia:
3,400 wells, 5,000 barrels a day.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Guam.
It's probably appropriate that we're here saluting the American eagle
because if there is anything that the American eagle represents, it's
the spirit of American independence, American self-reliance, American
strength.
In the debate we're having today about the resolution honoring the
American eagle, I don't want to say the energy debate has hijacked it
because in many ways, it's quite relevant. The fundamental question
that this country must decide is whether we will pursue a path of
energy independence or continue to go hat-in-hand to the oil-exporting
countries to try to solve our problems.
Some of you may remember, which for me was the most vivid
representation of the American energy policy, and that was a picture on
the front page of the New York Times a couple of years ago, when the
President of the United States went to Saudi Arabia, and hand-in-hand,
as is the custom in many of the Middle East countries, President Bush
and the Saudi prince walked in to have a private conversation about
America's oil future. And what was going on there was not the spirit of
American independence represented by the eagle. It was a spirit of
capitulation where our President was imploring a foreign country to
solve the problems that we face.
A confident country, an energetic country solves its own problems. It
doesn't look to others to help solve those problems. It takes on the
challenge. Energy is a big challenge. It takes on the challenge of
solving those problems on its own.
And that's the question that this Congress faces: Will we have the
self-confidence of a vigorous and strong Nation to chart a course of
energy independence?

{time} 1515

Now we're hearing arguments that the problem we face can be solved by
drilling our way out of it, and of course, that's an argument that has
been pursued vigorously since we discovered oil. But you know, there's
enormous evidence that allows us to take a look at this proposition.
Will more permits to drill, will more drilling reduce the cost of oil?
And I have here, Mr. Speaker, a chart. The first chart shows the
number of wells. The number in red here, we've got the number of
leases, and in this blue, we have the number of wells. Starting in
1994, there's been a steady increase of the number of leases and a
steady increase in the wells drilled. And step by step by step, as
leases and as drilling has increased, so has the price of a gallon of
gas, from $1 up to about $4 a gallon today.
So reasonable people would step back and ponder the question, whether
more drilling and more leases results in lower prices. History shows
us, in nearly the past 20 years, that is simply not the case.
The other proposition is that the problem is the Federal Government
is denying leases to the oil companies so that they can't do drilling,
and the evidence is overwhelming that's simply not the case.
This chart, the second chart, shows on a pie chart, the whole circle
there is the land that is available for leasing. And the green is all
that's available, and the red here, or orange, is all that is open for
leasing. Pardon me, I have it the opposite way around.
But of all of the land open and available for leasing, 79 percent is
open and subject to exploitation and exploration by our oil companies.
Only 21 percent is off limits. Yet, of this land where the oil
companies have leases, 68 million acres where they can put metal to the
ground is not under production, and there's no effort to put it under
production.
My friends on the other side have argued that the oil companies have
to go through certain environmental permits. I'm not sure you're right
about that because much of that work has been done. Assuming that is
the case, that's no different than what has been the requirement for
the production of oil on federally-owned lands.
You know, there are many people who are asking the question as to
whether the fix is in for the oil companies, and there's overwhelming
evidence, in fact, that it is. Number one, the amount of speculation
that now is core to the energy future trading markets is inflating the
price at the pump, inflating the price of home heating fuel. How did
that happen? Thanks to Congress.
In 2002, under the Tom DeLay Congress, the Enron loophole was passed
at the request of that great company, Enron, that did so much for
America's energy situation. Enron passed a loophole that took away any
kind of regulatory oversight of the energy future trading market, and
it led directly and immediately to an explosion in speculation. Hedge
funds, private investors, folks who saw that they could make a lot of
money on the misery of a lot of people rushed into the speculation in
the oil energy markets. Now, that's wrong. There should be no
speculative premium that comes at the expense of American consumers,
folks trying to heat their home, small businesses trying to run a
business.
This Congress has had an opportunity to get rid of that Enron
loophole. House Democrats have passed legislation. It hasn't gotten
through because of opposition on the other side, either

[[Page H5425]]

in the Senate or the consistent opposition of the President of the
United States.
So what can we do if you want to be independent? One, we can get rid
of the Enron loophole, wholly and completely. The second thing is that
the energy companies, in fact, are hording leases, and that's a fact.
There's an enormous push on this Congress to open up ANWR, and the
argument is made and it has a surface appeal that if you open up ANWR,
then it is going to mean a reduction in prices because the supply will
go up and demand will go down.
A couple of problems with it. First and foremost, the oil companies
have leases on 68 million acres. They're not exploiting them. Why? We
don't know exactly why because they won't say. They will come in, raise
their hand, take an oath, acknowledge that they're paying their
executives 10s of millions of dollars, acknowledging that when one
executive was retiring he was given a $400 million payday to say good-
bye, but they won't tell us why they're not putting drill bits to earth
to exploit the leases they have.
But you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what the
motive may be. If they keep that lease and the oil or the natural gas
sits in the ground and it goes from $28 to $48 to $68 to $134 a barrel,
that's sound money for those companies, and it will fatten the already
extraordinary profits, $125 billion in profits for the oil companies
last year, the big five oil companies.
Second, oil companies push hard to bring online as much Federal land
for leases as possible because the Big Oil companies have been
extremely successful in crowding out some of our small, independent
producers, and in fact, my view is that's a detriment and a reason why
this 68 million acres aren't exploited. If you had smaller, more
independent, hungry, energetic companies that had an opportunity to
make good money at $134 a barrel, and they owned those leases, they'd
be drilling.
So what you have is a situation where the oil companies are doing
quite fine, they really are, and the status quo serves them very well.
What may not serve them so well is the self-confident Congress, the
self-confident President saying, you know what, we're not going to play
that game anymore. There are other ways.
We're going to take away the tax breaks, about $13 billion that
American taxpayers are turning over to our oil companies, and that,
with all due respect, is just an astonishing public policy. Our folks
are paying over $4 a gallon for gas. In my home State of Vermont, we're
paying over $4.25, $4.40 for a gallon of home heating fuel, and
taxpayers are paying the oil companies about $13 billion in tax breaks.
That's your money and mine. It's hard to see how that's justified, but
the oil companies are quite happy to take that taxpayer subsidy.
But what they won't like is what the House is pushing, and that's a
policy of energy independence, where we take those tax breaks, we steer
them, as America has frequently done when there's something important
for the American people, and it's taken a push from our taxpayers to
get us over that initial technological hump, and that's having those
tax breaks go as incentives to alternative energy sources, wind and
solar, biofuels.
You know, if we could step back a minute and take a look at some of
our friends in Europe and the leadership they're taking because of
self-interest, a recognition in Portugal that investing in alternative
fuel is a way to strengthen the economy, or Germany, investing in
solar, Germany has less sun than Vermont. And let me tell you, I'm here
to tell you that Vermont doesn't have as much sun as we need and I
want. They have less sun than we do, but they are leading in solar
technology.
So, the bottom line question is really very simple. Do we want
leadership, as best exemplified by President Bush when he was with the
Saudi prince, imploring the Saudi prince to rescue us from ourselves,
or do we want leadership where we say we will take care of our own
future, that particularly in face of what I think are unfounded
arguments, that we can drill our way out, that Congress or the American
government is an impediment to drilling that is available immediately
for our oil and natural gas companies, and that there isn't supply that
we can achieve through efficiency and alternative energy.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. May I inquire how much time is left for the bald
eagle to discover oil?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah has 7\1/2\ minutes.
The gentlewoman from Guam has 4 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Let me yield myself as much time as I will go
through here.
We're now looking at a whole bunch of issues that deal from an
Endangered Species Act that has few examples of success--this one
happens to be one of those few--to an energy policy that we have
developed over the last 40 years which can only be described as
discombobulated.
It seems there are a group of people who control this floor whose
past policy towards energy development and energy independence was to
blame Big Oil, and now that prices of gasoline are at $4 a gallon,
$1.75 more than when this Congress started, it seems now we try to have
an expanded policy which is to blame Big Oil and allow lawyers to sue
OPEC to give us more oil.
Simply, it does not come back to the reality of the situation that we
have locked resources within this country, both onshore and in this
country, that can produce our own energy independence.
We have laws that already say if you have a lease, you have 5 to 10
years. The Secretary of the Interior has power already under law that
if he thinks that is not being used properly, they have power to
abrogate those contractual leases. However, for each one of those, we
have 7 to 10 years of regulation, litigation and study, including an
Interior appropriations bill that will be coming to the floor either
this week or next week, which expands those restrictions and expands
the moratorium that we have.
The bottom line is 30 years ago this country was producing about 11
million barrels of oil a day, and our need was 17. We had to import.
Today, we produce about 8 million barrels of oil a day, and our need is
20, which means we have to import more.
We have a 22 percent reduction in production in this United States,
and we're the only country in this continent that does that. Mexico has
increased. Canada has increased. We have decreased our energy
production, even though our needs have come up.
The chart you were looking at is somewhat skewed because it deals
with only the offshore, and there's a difference to land that's
documented and open and not opened to lease. The bottom line is,
offshore, there's 1.7 billion acres of area that we could do to produce
energy. We are doing 68 million acres. That leaves 1.6 billion acres
still undiscoverable, locked away, not usable. That's 85 percent of
everything we have.
The gentleman from Vermont was correct in which he said speculation
is indeed driving the cost of oil, but the speculation is driving the
cost of oil because the speculators believe this country will not
continue to produce, that we will decline in our production. And until
we have a policy that says we are going to increase our production,
speculation will continue to increase, and those costs will increase.
What this Congress has to have is a comprehensive policy that says we
will do more for conservation and we will do more for production of all
sources of energy, alternative as well as carbon-based, and we will
come up with new and innovative ways of delivering that energy. And
until this Congress actually sits down and says we will have a
comprehensive energy policy, all the data, all the instructions,
everything else we're talking about is nothing more than useless
rhetoric.
Interesting facts, totally irrelevant to the needs of the time. The
needs are people are suffering now, and we need to do something to help
those people who are suffering. And we have to have a comprehensive
policy which does include increases of production of all sources of
energy.
The gentlelady from Guam will be happy to know, I'm the last speaker
on this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to say, as Mr. Welch
stated, ANWR, everybody keeps talking about ANWR. But if you opened

[[Page H5426]]

ANWR today, you would not get any energy production tomorrow. You
wouldn't get any for a decade or more. Whereas right now, the oil
companies have 68 million acres of land available for development, and
they are not exploiting them.

{time} 1530

I don't care how much rhetoric goes on here today, there is still the
68 billion acres of land available for development. They have access to
enough acreage to produce six times the amount of energy that we might
get from ANWR. So again, I'll repeat over and over, ``use it or lose
it.''
I urge support for House Resolution 1247.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1247, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________