[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 107 (Thursday, June 26, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H6110-H6121]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL OIL AND GAS LEASE ACT

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 6251) to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from issuing 
new Federal oil and gas leases to holders of existing leases who do not 
diligently develop the lands subject to such existing leases or 
relinquish such leases, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6251

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Responsible Federal Oil and 
     Gas Lease Act''.

     SEC. 2. ISSUANCE OF NEW LEASES.

       (a) In General.--After the date of the issuance of 
     regulations under subsection (b), the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall not issue any new lease that authorizes the 
     exploration for or production of oil or natural gas, under 
     section 17 of the Mineral Leasing Act (33 U.S.C. 226), the 
     Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands Act (30 U.S.C. 351 et 
     seq.), the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 
     et seq.), or any other law authorizing the issuance of oil 
     and gas leases on Federal lands or submerged lands to a 
     person, unless the person--
       (1) certifies for each existing lease under such Acts for 
     the production of oil or gas with respect to which the person 
     is a lessee, that the person is diligently developing the 
     Federal lands that are subject to the lease in order to 
     produce oil or natural gas or is producing oil or natural gas 
     from such lands; or
       (2) has relinquished all ownership interest in all Federal 
     oil and gas leases under which oil and gas is not being 
     diligently developed.
       (b) Diligent Development.--The Secretary shall issue 
     regulations within 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act that establish what constitutes ``diligently 
     developing'' for purposes of this Act.
       (c) Failure To Comply With Requirements.--Any person who 
     fails to comply with the requirements of this section or any 
     regulation or order issued to implement this section shall be 
     liable for a civil penalty under section 109 of the Federal 
     Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (30 U.S.C. 1719).
       (d) Lessee Defined.--In this section the term ``lessee''--
       (1) includes any person or other entity that controls, is 
     controlled by, or is in or under common control with, a 
     lessee; and
       (2) does not include any person who does not hold more than 
     a minority ownership interest in a lease under an Act 
     referred to in subsection (a) authorizing the exploration for 
     or production of oil or natural gas.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. 
Fallin) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which 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 
gentleman from West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today this body is considering responsible legislation 
aimed at compelling the oil industry to do what it should do best, 
drill for oil and bring relief to Americans at the pumps.
  That may seem like an odd notion, and certainly we will hear 
criticism from our Republican colleagues who continue to coddle Big Oil 
and pander to the industry's political agenda. And there are many in 
the industry who will not want to hear this side of the aisle say we 
are for drilling for oil. My approach is slightly different. Big Oil 
does not need to be coddled, it needs a swift kick in the backside.
  While Democrats in Congress know that we cannot drill our way to 
energy independence and continue to advocate for the development of 
alternative fuels and increased energy conservation, we also know that 
we must increase our supply of oil in the interim. I repeat; in this 
legislation we are not against drilling for oil. That is why today, 
with this legislation, we are saying ``Drill it or lose it.''
  The Federal Government makes vast swaths of public lands, both 
onshore and underlying the Gulf of Mexico, available for oil and gas 
development. What we are finding, however, is that the industry is 
stockpiling these oil and gas leases. At present, 68 million acres of 
Federal lands are being held by oil and gas companies with no 
production occurring on these leases. That acreage is equal to the size 
of Colorado.
  Considering today's oil prices, you would think that they would 
either diligently develop that acreage, bring any oil found into 
production, or relinquish the leases. The pending legislation would 
require this diligent development during the term of an oil and gas 
lease, and if it does not occur, the

[[Page H6111]]

leaseholder would not be allowed to lease even more Federal lands. It's 
simple, ``use it or lose it,'' and allow another company to make a go 
at that leased land.
  Obviously, we have a much better chance to bring relief at the pump 
by producing oil on Federal lands already held by the oil companies 
much quicker than having to go through the environmental lawsuits of 
leasing and permitting required if we were to take the President's 
method and just open up OCS and ANWR immediately. We have a much better 
chance, Mr. Speaker, to help Americans grapple with the high cost of 
fuel by drilling in those Federal lands and waters already open to 
development.
  Over 80 percent of estimated oil and gas resources on Federal lands, 
both onshore and offshore, are available for development or will be 
shortly, pending the completion of planning documents. The amount of 
oil which could be produced from these areas represents 14 years of 
current domestic oil consumption. Think about that, 14 years; yet 
President Bush and his Republican allies continue to rally behind the 
oil industry's political agenda, advocating opening more of America's 
Federal land, including coastal areas and pristine environmental areas, 
to drilling.
  In response to this scheme I say to Big Oil and its allies, ``You've 
got 'em. Use 'em.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in unhesitant opposition to this misguided and 
uninformed legislation. I hope today's debate will allow the American 
people to see this legislation for what it is, and that is, a sham, a 
shallow attempt of the majority to hide that they lack any solutions 
for the American energy crisis facing our Nation.
  Let me start by just stating one simple fact: 97 percent of our 
Federal offshore areas and 94 percent of our Federal onshore areas are 
not leased. Now, let me just say that one more time. Ninety-seven 
percent of our Federal offshore areas and 94 percent of our Federal 
onshore areas are not even leased.
  The Democrat leadership has done everything it could for the last 
several decades to stop the leasing in 97 percent of offshore areas and 
94 percent of onshore areas since they think America's energy needs can 
be supplied by just 3 percent of offshore areas and 6 percent of the 
onshore areas. It is no wonder that America is facing an energy crisis.
  Let's talk about the legislative process, too, that brings this issue 
to the floor today. We are debating legislation that hasn't had a 
hearing, it hasn't had a mark-up, no committee report, it hasn't even 
been opened up for an amendment, and no Member of this House but for 
its author has had more than 5 hours to consider this bill. The Rules 
Committee even had to pass a special rule to allow this bill to come to 
the floor today, a rule that effectively waives all points of order 
against the bill, including PAYGO and earmark bans.
  The bill will also cost the American people not only additional 
energy domestic production, but reduces revenues to the Federal 
Government. Yes, America, in one fell swoop, Congress will increase 
energy costs for American consumers and steal from the pocketbooks of 
American taxpayers. Is this a way to go into Independence Day and to 
celebrate the birth of our country?
  The legislation before us is based on the premise that American oil 
companies are sitting on resources that they should be developing. The 
majority will make claims that millions of acres are not being 
produced. However, the reality is that every leased acre is undergoing 
some form of exploration, is in the process of getting permits, facing 
a legal challenge, or in development. They are all going through those 
processes for every acre.
  The supporters of this misguided legislation are not offering any 
solutions to these challenges. There is no proposal to speed up 
development by reducing the waiting times for permits, limiting public 
challenges of leases and applications for the permits to drill, or 
reducing the frivolous lawsuits. In fact, last year, the Natural 
Resources Committee was fighting against, and I quote the chairman, 
``rapid oil and gas development that has taken place on our Nation's 
public lands in recent years,'' and focused on an agenda to slow, again 
quoting the chairman, ``the rampant, nearly unfettered energy 
development on Federal lands.''
  Last year, oil companies were developing too fast. Today, Congress is 
attempting to punish any company that can't squeeze a 10-year 
exploration and permitting process into a time frame that suits the 
majority. We simply can't have it both ways.
  One additional fact: Most of the majority leadership, including the 
chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, voted in 1992 to give oil 
companies more time to drill on onshore leases. That was done at a time 
when the industry actually had a higher percentage of leases in non-
producing status. The majority didn't seem to mind and didn't seem to 
be interested in complaining about stockpiling then.
  To the contrary, there was a bipartisan recognition that companies 
needed longer terms on their onshore leases to get more production. But 
these days, as production rates are higher, these same Members think 
that companies are stockpiling.
  We have had a number of experts in this area come forward and present 
expertise on this issue. I would reference a letter from the Department 
of Interior which highlights the lengthy, complicated, and often 
unsuccessful process a company must undergo to develop oil and gas on 
Federal lands and waters.
  In addition, I would like to submit for the Record a letter from the 
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, America's scientific 
experts on exploring for oil and gas. And their letter states, 
``Policies that increase exploration costs, decrease the available time 
to properly evaluate leases, and restrict access to Federal lands and 
the Outer Continental Shelf do not provide the American people with 
short-term relief from high prices and undermine the goal of increasing 
stable long-term supplies.'' That policy to restrict development and 
reduce exploration is exactly what this legislation before us will do.
  What America must realize is that the true source of most non-
producing acres in America is the U.S. Congress, which restricts access 
to almost 600 million acres of the Outer Continental Shelf. We could 
produce more oil from opening up 2,000 acres in ANWR than would likely 
be produced from all the onshore acres currently leased but not 
producing today, especially when you understand that much of the 
onshore resources are natural gas and not crude oil. If we were to open 
but a fraction of these acres held up by the congressional majority, we 
could reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create jobs right here 
in America. However, the majority has decided time and time again that 
we should limit our access to our onshore and offshore domestic 
resources.
  The American public is up in arms against the frivolous restrictions 
which Congress has placed on domestic energy production. People 
recognize the simple fact that opening up more Federal lands and waters 
could lead to lower gasoline prices and they're calling on us to lead 
America in this direction. Congress should open up this debate and this 
process today and allow each side to present their very best proposals. 
And that's what this debate is about today.

                                                    June 23, 2008.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, and Minority 
     Leader Boehner: Given the on-going debate about access and 
     leasing activity on Federal onshore lands and the Outer 
     Continental Shelf, I would like to offer some perspective, on 
     behalf of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 
     AAPG, on the science and process of finding oil and natural 
     gas.
       AAPG, an international geoscience organization, is the 
     world's largest professional geological society representing 
     over 33,000 members. The purpose of AAPG is to advance the 
     science of geology, foster scientific research, promote 
     technology and advance the well-being of its members. With 
     members in 116 countries, more than two-thirds of whom work 
     and reside in the United States, AAPG serves as a voice for 
     the shared interests of energy geologists and geophysicists 
     in our profession worldwide.

[[Page H6112]]

       AAPG strives to increase public awareness of the crucial 
     role that the geosciences, and particularly petroleum and 
     energy-related geology, play in our society.
       Finding and developing oil and natural gas blends science, 
     engineering, and economics. It has distinct phases: 
     exploration, development, and production. And it is risky, 
     because finding oil and natural gas traps, places where oil 
     and natural gas migrate and concentrate, buried under 
     thousands of feet of rock is like finding the proverbial 
     needle in a haystack. Talent and technology increase our 
     chances of a discovery, but there are no guarantees.
       What is exploration? Well, the grid pattern on a block map 
     makes it tempting to think of exploration as a process of 
     simply drilling a well in each grid block to determine 
     whether it contains oil. But because of the natural variation 
     in regional geology, one cannot assume oil and natural gas 
     are evenly distributed across a given lease or region. 
     Rather, exploration is about unraveling the geologic history 
     of the rock underneath that grid block, trying to understand 
     where oil or natural gas may have formed and where it 
     migrated. If the geology isn't right; you won't find oil or 
     natural gas.
       Legendary geologist Wallace Pratt once observed, ``Where 
     oil is first found is in the minds of men.'' When preparing a 
     lease bid, geologists use their knowledge to identify the 
     specific areas in a region that they believe have the highest 
     likelihood of containing oil and natural gas traps. 
     Successful exploration begins with an idea--a hypothesis of 
     where oil may be found.
       Since exploration is about developing and testing ideas, 
     some acreage available for leasing is never leased. That is 
     because no one develops a compelling idea of why oil or 
     natural gas should be there. Similarly, some acreage is 
     leased and drilled repeatedly with no success. Then, one day, 
     a geologist develops an idea that works, resulting in new oil 
     or natural gas production from the same land that others 
     dismissed as barren.
       Once a lease is awarded, geologists begin an intensive 
     assessment. They collect new geological, geophysical, and 
     geochemical data to better understand the geology in their 
     lease area. They use this data to construct a geological 
     model that best explains where they think oil and natural gas 
     were generated, where it may have been trapped, and whether 
     the trap is big enough to warrant drilling.
       If there is no evidence of a suitable trap, the explorer 
     will relinquish the lease and walk away. If they see a trap 
     that looks interesting, they schedule a drill rig to find out 
     if they are right. Drilling is the true test of the 
     geologists' model, and it isn't a decision to be made 
     lightly. Drilling costs for a single well can range from $0.5 
     million for shallow onshore wells to over $25 million for 
     tests in deep water offshore.
       As the well is drilling, geologists continually collect and 
     evaluate data to see whether it conforms to their 
     expectations based on the geological model. Eventually, they 
     reach the rock layer where they think the trap is located.
       If there is no oil or natural gas when the drill reaches 
     the trap they were targeting, they've drilled a dry hole. At 
     this point the explorers will evaluate why the hole is dry: 
     was there never oil and gas here; how was the geological 
     model wrong; and can it be improved based on what they know 
     from the drilled well? Depending on the results of this 
     analysis, they may tweak the exploration idea and drill 
     another well or decide the idea failed and relinquish the 
     lease.
       If there is oil and/or natural gas, they've drilled a 
     discovery. Typically, they will test the well to see what 
     volumes of oil and/or natural gas flow from it. Sometimes the 
     flow rates do not justify further expenditures and the well 
     is abandoned. If the results are promising, they will usually 
     drill several additional wells to better define the size and 
     shape of the trap. All of this data improves the geological 
     model.
       Based on this revised geological model, engineers plan how 
     to develop the new field (e.g., number of production wells to 
     drill, construction of oil field facilities and pipelines).
       Using complex economic tools, they must decide whether the 
     revenue from the oil and natural gas sales will exceed the 
     past and continuing expenses to decide whether it is a 
     commercial discovery.
       The process of leasing, evaluating, drilling, and 
     developing an oil or natural gas field typically takes five 
     to ten years. Some fields come online sooner. Others are 
     delayed by permitting or regulatory delays or constraints in 
     the availability of data acquisition and drilling equipment 
     and crews. Large projects and those in deep water may require 
     a decade or more to ramp up to full production.
       As you can see, oil and natural gas exploration is not 
     simple and it is not easy. It requires geological ingenuity, 
     advanced technologies, and the time to do the job right. It 
     also requires access to areas where exploration ideas can be 
     tested--the greater the number of areas available for 
     exploration, the higher the chance of finding oil and natural 
     gas traps.
       U.S. consumers are burdened by high crude oil prices. 
     Conservation and efficiency improvements are necessary 
     responses, but equally important is increasing long-term 
     supply from stable parts of the world, such as our very own 
     federal lands and Outer Continental Shelf.
       As Congress considers measures to deal with high crude oil 
     prices, I urge caution. Policies that increase exploration 
     costs, decrease the available time to properly evaluate 
     leases, and restrict access to federal lands and the Outer 
     Continental Shelf do not provide the American people with 
     short-term relief from high prices and undermine the goal of 
     increasing stable long-term supplies.
       I am happy to further discuss these ideas. Please contact 
     me through our Geoscience and Energy Office in Washington, 
     DC.
           Sincerely,

                                       Willard R. (Will) Green

                                                        President,
                     American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

  Mr. Speaker, because we have so many other Members who would like to 
speak on this bill, I would like to ask unanimous consent that we 
extend the debate on H.R. 6251 to an additional 10 minutes, equally 
divided.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Oklahoma?
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, did she say 
10 minutes on each side?
  Ms. FALLIN. Equally divided.
  Mr. RAHALL. I have no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, each side will control 5 
additional minutes.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from West Virginia, and I thank him 
for his extraordinary leadership on this issue and for the legislation 
he's bringing out here on the House floor, especially with the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) for his work on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, right now we are facing an energy crisis. The Bush 
administration and Republicans in Congress are perpetuating a myth that 
the oil companies don't have access to enough places to drill for oil. 
This story is nothing more than a drilling decoy. We might as well put 
an aquarium out here in the well, there are so many red herrings that 
the Republicans are throwing into this debate about our energy 
independence.
  Roughly 80 percent of all of the oil and gas are located in areas 
where drilling is already allowed, 68 million acres, 80 percent of the 
resources in America. So ExxonMobil, everybody in America pulling into 
the ExxonMobil station. They made $40 billion last year. Do you know 
what they did with their $40 billion? They put $32 billion of it back 
into buying their own stock. They were drilling for profits in their 
own stock, not on the lands where America wants them to go to find the 
oil and gas, where they are already permitted.
  Now, what did they do on renewables, ExxonMobil? They took $10 
million, million dollars, just millions of dollars, 10 million, and put 
it into renewables. Do you know what else the oil industry is doing and 
the Bush administration and the Republican Congress? They're blocking 
the tax breaks still today for renewables, for solar, for wind, for 
geothermal, blocking them.
  So there is their agenda: Tip the consumer upside down at the pump, 
keep the supply of oil down because they're not drilling on the 80 
percent of the land where we say they could go, even offshore, and go 
and drill; pocket the profits for themselves; nickle and dime 
renewables; and then block the tax breaks for a renewable energy 
revolution in America. It's a recipe for disaster. But there is no 
mistake why we are here. You cannot have an oil and gas President and 
Vice President for 8 years and not have an oil and gas strategy for 
America. And the price that we are paying at the pump is the price we 
are paying for allowing that policy to be implemented for these 8 long 
years.
  So, ladies and gentlemen, we have 2 percent of the world's oil 
reserves, 2 percent. We consume 25 percent of the oil, which we consume 
on a daily basis. Republicans are saying let's drill off the beaches, 
let's drill where the polar bear is, although they are not willing 
today to put a penalty for the oil industry for not drilling where the 
80 percent of oil is. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a big mistake.
  OPEC has two-thirds of the oil in the world. That's their strength. 
Rather than sending a message to OPEC, we are going to innovate our way 
out of this with wind and solar and renewable energy sources. The 
Republicans are

[[Page H6113]]

blocking the tax breaks for that and saying give bigger profits to oil 
and gas, don't penalize them for not drilling for the oil and gas here 
in America where we have access to it, and then go home on the 4th of 
July and pretend as though this 8 years of Republican rule where we 
have gone from $30 a barrel to $130 a barrel is not on their watch. It 
is, ladies and gentlemen. We have gone from 46 percent dependence on 
imported oil on the day the Republicans took over Congress to 61 
percent dependence upon imported oil on the day they left office 1 year 
ago. That's why we are in the mess that we're in right now.
  The American public needs help. We need to send a message to Big Oil, 
to Big Gas: Start drilling. Start drilling right now or lose the leases 
that the American people have given you. Do not warehouse these leases. 
Do not warehouse the oil and gas here in America. Let's put the penalty 
on them. Let us no longer have the policies set by Big Oil, by Big Gas, 
and OPEC. Let us today declare independence from them. Let us say we 
are taking those leases back from you. We are taking back the American 
land where oil and gas is. If you don't drill on it, you lose it, and 
we are going to penalize you for allowing this crisis to build to the 
point that it has today.
  Ladies and gentlemen, support the Rahall bill. This is the day where 
we begin to break and create our own independence from Big Oil in our 
country.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), our chairman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I just witnessed one of the 
greatest displays of inaccuracies I have ever heard in my life.
  It's too bad that the public doesn't understand that this whole bill 
is a charade, and I am disappointed in my chairman because there were 
no hearings on this. In fact, the testimony that I have heard from the 
majority is the reality is not real. The report is not real. And where 
he gets the figures about 68 million acres set aside and not utilized, 
I don't know. And where do they get the idea of getting 4 billion 
barrels?
  I've just listened to the gentleman from Massachusetts' tirade. I 
have heard that same tirade for as long as he's been in Congress. He 
has never supported any energy at all, any development of energy, 
including nuclear. Now his people in Massachusetts are paying that 
price.
  When I first came to Congress, we were in the minority, and the price 
of oil for a barrel was $8 a barrel, 39 cents at the pump. Yes, it's 
high today because the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was the last big 
development we ever had because this Congress would not allow us to 
develop any other oil fields. Now, we have a big oil field in Alaska 
called ANWR, which is 74 miles away from the existing pipeline that 
delivers 17 billion barrels to the American people, and we're not 
allowed to drill it because this Congress won't act.
  And we have a tirade on this floor about blaming Big Oil. There's 
only one group that's to blame, and it's this Congress, both sides of 
the aisle, because it's easier to buy it from OPEC countries. And we 
stopped trying to figure out how we can get off the dependency. We have 
not done that.
  Now, if we don't drill, we are going to be in trouble. I predict the 
price of oil, if we don't drill and start supply to this demand in the 
United States, the price of oil will probably go to $150 a barrel. And 
that's going to be under your watch.
  Are you proud of what you've done? I say no. This bill is a charade. 
It should be voted down, and we should vote ``no, no, no, drill, drill, 
drill.''
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, just to remind all of my colleagues, if this 
administration were not playing politics with oil, why does the 
President not just by one stroke of the pen sign an executive order 
lifting these lands that the other side claims should be open? That's 
all it takes, a stroke of the pen to lift the moratorium on these lands 
for drilling. Instead, he puts a political pointer at this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to avoid remarks in the 
second person.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this is a little lesson about one of the 
largest finds of oil in the United States. We have known about it since 
1923.
  In 1923 this large area of Alaska was designated as Naval Petroleum 
Reserve Number 4. Why? Because we knew there was a huge pool of oil 
under it. Estimates are the current figure is up to 15, ``b,'' billion 
barrels of oil. That's a lot of oil. So the President, I believe it was 
President Harding at the time, designated that as a Naval Petroleum 
Reserve.
  This little area over here, the one they don't want to talk about, 
was designated as a wildlife refuge. Why was that? Well, because we 
didn't know there was any oil under it. So the oil's here, make it an 
oil preserve. There's wildlife here, make it a wildlife preserve. Now 
they say they want to drill in the wildlife preserve, but they're kind 
of neglecting this one over here.
  Now, it was a Naval Petroleum Reserve until 1996. In 1996 the 
Republican Congress voted to open it up to drilling by the oil 
industry. Bill Clinton signed the bill, and, in fact, the Clinton 
administration let the first 3 million acres of leases in the year 
2000. Eight years ago the industry got 3 million acres of land leased 
over a pool of 15 billion barrels of oil. They have drilled 25 wells 
and capped them. That's it. The Bush administration is going to lease 
another 4 million this next year.
  If we don't have this bill, maybe they'll drill some more wells and 
cap them. They have no plans. Now, they say they want to drill over 
here. You will notice actually this area is closer to the existing 
pipeline than this area over here, but they want to debate this area 
over here with no known oil reserves and no pipeline and neglect this 
area over here with massive reserves and no pipeline and apparently no 
plans to build a pipeline.
  If we pass this bill today, that will all change. They won't be able 
to sit on the largest single pool of oil in the United States territory 
anymore. They will have to begin in good faith to develop it. But guess 
what. The industry really doesn't want to do that because they're 
making a bucket of money the way it is now by pretending there's a 
shortage and not drilling.
  Now, that's just the Alaska issue. If we go offshore and look 
elsewhere, as Mr. Markey said earlier, 80 percent, according to the 
United States Minerals Management Service, 80 percent of the oil and 
gas that's known to exist off of the Continental United States is 
accessible from existing leases. Unfortunately, 6,491 of those leases 
are sitting idle. On different days you get different excuses: ``Oh, it 
takes a really long time.'' Well, if it takes a really long time, why 
do we want to let new leases when it's taken a really long time to 
develop the old leases that they're sitting on, that have known pools 
of oil under them? They're taking a bucket of money now. They don't 
want things to change; we do.
  Produce American oil for America.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Sali).
  Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record the 
letter from Assistant Secretary Allred relating to this bill that my 
colleague from Oklahoma referenced in her remarks.

                                       Department of the Interior,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                    Washington, DC, June 25, 2008.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Ranking Republican Member, Committee on Natural Resources, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Young: Thank you for your letter of June 19, 2008, 
     to Secretary Kempthorne regarding a recent report on oil and 
     gas by the House Committee on Natural Resources. Secretary 
     Kempthorne has asked me to reply.
       In your letter you asked that the Department of the 
     Interior (Department) address the report's claim that oil 
     companies hold non-producing leases on 68 million acres which 
     could produce 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 of natural 
     gas each day.
       The report does not reference specific locations for much 
     of the data and therefore we cannot ascertain where each of 
     the numbers was derived. It appears the report took raw data, 
     some of which can be found on the Department websites, and 
     then used various formulas to reach certain conclusions. The 
     report does not disclose the assumptions or formulas used.
       The views contained in the report are based on a 
     misunderstanding of the very lengthy regulatory process. The 
     existence of a lease does not guarantee the discovery of, or 
     any particular quantity of oil and gas. To

[[Page H6114]]

     truly determine this, lessees must develop data and 
     eventually explore their leases which requires numerous 
     permits involving compliance with various environmental laws 
     and regulations. This process often takes months or years. In 
     addition, lessees undertake a vast array of business steps 
     prior to making a decision to move a lease into production, 
     and must obtain another set of Federal and State permits to 
     do so. I would like to provide some background on both 
     points.
       Obtaining a lease is just the first step. The lessee must 
     first obtain the myriad of permits and approvals for 
     exploration activities and development plans that are 
     required before production can occur. Exploration, which 
     occurs after the issuance of the lease, is critical. For 
     example, after an operator acquires an onshore lease they 
     must obtain Geophysical Permits, Permits to Drill, Sundry 
     Notices, and permits that may be required by State 
     government. In addition to all necessary permits being 
     obtained, an operator must also file a plan of 
     development.
       Development offshore is equally complex. An operator must 
     obtain Geological and Geophysical Exploration Permits, 
     Environmental Protection Agency National Pollutant Discharge 
     Elimination System Permits, an Army Corps of Engineers 
     Permit, Permits to Drill, and Marine Mammals/Endangered 
     Species Permits. If a lessee makes the decision to move to 
     development, in addition to the myriad of required permits, 
     an operator must file numerous plans, including Deepwater 
     Operations Plans, Oil Spill Response Plans, Hydrogen Sulfide 
     Plans, Development Plans or Development Operations 
     Coordination Documents.
       While these lists are not exhaustive, they illustrate the 
     efforts that must be undertaken before a lease can be 
     explored and developed and production comes online. A more 
     comprehensive list of the various permits, approvals, and 
     other legal and regulatory prerequisites that may be required 
     based on site specifics for both onshore and offshore 
     production is attached for your information.
       In addition to the processes mentioned above, other factors 
     affect potential development and subsequent production. These 
     factors include capital investments and equipment such as 
     drilling rigs and platforms.
       In shallow water, approximately one in three wells results 
     in a discovery of a quantity of oil and/or natural gas 
     sufficient to produce economically In deeper water, one well 
     in five is economical. Shallow wells cost approximately 
     $200,000 for just the drilling. In deepwater, the drilling of 
     one well may cost $100 million to $200 million. A full 
     development project, including a platform or floater, 
     involves multiple blocks and has cost as much as $3.5 
     billion. Onshore development is less expensive. A well cost 
     10,000 feet or deeper well will $2 million to $3 million. A 
     shallow well runs about $200,000.
       To illustrate further that a lease does not mean the 
     discovery of oil and gas, it is important to look at the well 
     success rates. For onshore leases, the well success rate is 
     about 10 percent for new areas. For areas already developed, 
     it is much higher--about 95%. For offshore, in shallow water, 
     the success rate is about 33 percent. In deepwater it is 
     about 20 percent.
       In the Gulf of Mexico, 1132 new deep water exploration 
     wells have been drilled since 1995, with over 170 new 
     discoveries. While the government does conduct activities to 
     determine resource availability, it is the private sector 
     that funds exploration activities for more refined data and 
     analysis on a site specific basis that can lead to 
     production. The lengthy processes we have in place can lead 
     to more production but it takes time to find the exact 
     location of those resources.
       In today's market, it does not make business sense for 
     lease holders to defer or forgo pursuing production and 
     continue to pay rental fees. In addition to the bonus bid 
     paid at the time of a lease being issued, lessees are 
     required to pay rentals for leases. In Fiscal Year 2007, 
     $267.2 million in rental fees was collected as rent for 
     oil and gas, coal, and other mineral leases.
       If a lessee determines that leased acreage does not contain 
     sufficient resources to produce economically, it will 
     typically relinquish the lease, and the Federal Government is 
     free to offer the tract at a subsequent lease sale. However, 
     only after numerous steps are taken, and leased acreage is 
     determined to contain economically and technologically 
     producible oil and gas, can a lessee justify the significant 
     investment required to bring leased acreage into producing 
     status.
       While increasing the productivity of already leased land is 
     important, to ensure our country's future security and 
     economic well being we need to open new areas for 
     development. The lengthy processes we have in place, which 
     can lead to more production, means that we need to look to 
     new areas. We cannot ignore that the world's demand for oil 
     has grown dramatically. Meanwhile, the supply of oil has 
     grown much more slowly. As a result, oil prices have risen 
     sharply, and that increase has been reflected at American 
     gasoline pumps.
           Sincerely,

                                            C. Stephen Allred,

                                              Assistant Secretary,
                                     Land and Minerals Management.
       Attachments.

                   Plans and Permits Required on OCS

       The number of required plan and permit approvals is on the 
     order of 25 to 30. The reason for a range is that the 
     specific lease holder may not file for certain permits on 
     their own. For example, they may not file for a G&G 
     (geological/geophysical) permit but it is certain that no 
     lease holder will move forward without geophysical data to 
     guide them. They may obtain sufficient data from a third 
     party that acquired under their own speculative permit with 
     the intention to sell the information to successful lease 
     bidders. Additionally, there may be supplemental plans filed 
     to cover changes in assumptions based on newer information 
     and other steps that not all lessees will need to file. The 
     overview of MMS regulations is at http://www.gomr.mms.gov/
homepg/regulate/regs/reg_sum.html with a discussion of the 
     plans and permits at http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/
 regs/laws/env safe.html_#perapp. Following is a fairly 
     complete list of the plans and permits that a lessee may have 
     to file to bring a lease to production:

    List of Typical Plans and Permits Required to Bring a Lease to 
                               Production

       Oil and Gas Lease.
       Geological and Geophysical Exploration permit.
       Exploration Plan.
       Coast Guard Compliance review for mobile drilling units.
       Oil Spill Response Plan.
       Oil Spill Financial Responsibility.
       Hydrogen Sulfide Plan (some locations).
       Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination 
     (Exploration).
       Army Corps of Engineers Permit (Navigation and National 
     Security).
       EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit.
       EPA Air Emissions Permit (some locations).
       Marine Mammals/Endangered Species permits from NOAA or FWS 
     (some locations).
       Application for Permit to Drill (exploratory wells).
       Application for Permit to Modify (any changes in drilling 
     program).
       Application for Permit to Modify (to plug and abandon 
     exploration wells).
       Deepwater Operations Plan (for some locations).
       Conservation Information Document (for some locations).
       Coast Guard Structural Review (for floating production 
     systems).
       Certified Verification Agent Review (for some locations).
       Development Plan or Development Operations Coordination 
     Document (depending on location).
       Pipeline Right-of-Way. Coastal Zone Management Consistency 
     Determination (Development).
       Application for Permit to Drill (development wells).
       Application for Permit to Modify (any changes in 
     development drilling program).
       Application for Permit to Modify (to plug and abandon 
     development wells).
       Platform Removal Application.
       Pipeline Decommissioning Application.

Permits, Plans, and Surveys for Development of an Oil and Gas Lease On-
                                 Shore


                    BLM Permits, Plans, and Surveys

       Geophysical Exploration Permit--Notice of Intent; Notice of 
     Completion--(Required if the operator chooses to conduct this 
     optional activity) Purpose: Allows exploration for oil and 
     gas resources on Federal lands.
       National Environmental Policy Act 
     (NEPA) Review--Environmental review may consist of review and 
     documentation through a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA), 
     Categorical Exclusion (CX), Environmental Assessment (EA), or 
     Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). (May be completed by 
     the BLM or the Operator to BLM standards. The BLM signs the 
     Decision).
       Land Use Plan Conformance--Project evaluated to ensure it 
     is in conformance with the BLM's land use plan.
       Surveys--(Completed by the BLM or the Operator.)
       Cultural Survey--Almost always required. Almost always 
     completed through an operator-funded contract with a cultural 
     survey contractor that has been approved by the BLM. May 
     involve consultation with the State Historic Preservation 
     Officer.
       Wildlife Surveys--Frequently required. May be completed by 
     the BLM or the operator to BLM standards.
       Endangered Species Act Consultation--only required when 
     endangered species may be affected by the project.
       Tribal Consultation--May occur at the Planning or 
     Permitting stage in areas where Indian tribes have 
     historically used an area or have expressed an interest in 
     proposed projects.
       Oil and Gas Lease--(Required) Conveys a basic right to 
     develop oil and gas from Federal Mineral estate pending 
     approval of additional site-specific permits.
       Land Use Plan Conformance--The proposed lease is evaluated 
     to ensure it is in conformance with the BLM's land use plan.
       Tribal Consultation--May occur at the leasing stage if not 
     current in the land use plan.
       Endangered Species Act Consultation--May occur at the 
     leasing stage if not current in the land use plan and there 
     are endangered species present.
       Communitization/Unitization Approval--(Some Locations) 
     Creates management units to improve development efficiency.
       Plan of Developent--(If operations are located within a 
     unit agreement) Creates a development management plan for the 
     Unit.
       Application for Permit to Drill (APD)--(Required) Contains 
     the operator's proposed

[[Page H6115]]

     drilling and surface use plans and any additional permit 
     requirements added by the BLM. The BLM may also require 
     Cultural and Wildlife surveys.
       National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review--
     Environmental review may consist of review and documentation 
     through a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA), Categorical 
     Exclusion (CX), Environmental Assessment (EA), or 
     Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). (May be completed by 
     the BLM or the Operator to BLM standards. The BLM signs the 
     Decision.)
       Land Use Plan Conformance--Project evaluated to ensure it 
     is in conformance with the BLM's land use plan.
       Surveys--(Completed by the BLM or the Operator.)
       Cultural Survey--Almost always required. Almost always 
     completed through an operator-funded contract with a cultural 
     survey contractor that has been approved by the BLM. May 
     involve consultation with the State Historic Preservation 
     Officer.
       Wildlife Surveys--Frequently required. May be completed by 
     the BLM or the operator to BLM standards.
       Endangered Species Act Consultation--only required when 
     endangered species may be affected by the project.
       Tribal Consultation--May occur at the Planning or 
     Permitting stage in areas where Indian tribes have 
     historically used an area or have expressed an interest in 
     proposed projects.
       Sundry Notice--(Required) Notifies the BLM of the 
     operator's proposed changes to the APD.
       Approval and/or Review--In limited cases may involve NEPA, 
     Cultural, Wildlife, ESA reviews and consultation.
       Hydrogen Sulfide Plan--(Required if the poison gas may be 
     encountered) Plans for protection of public health land 
     safety in the event of a hydrogen sulfide leak.
       Right-of-Way Grant--(Required for any development that 
     occurs off the lease area.) Provides legal access for roads, 
     pipelines, and powerlines.
       National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review--
     Environmental review may consist of review and documentation 
     through a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA), Categorical 
     Exclusion (CX), Environmental Assessment (EA), or 
     Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). (May be completed by 
     the BLM or the Operator to BLM standards. The BLM signs the 
     Decision.) Usually completed in conjunction with the APD 
     NEPA analysis.
       Land Use Plan Conformance--Project evaluated to ensure it 
     is in conformance with the BLM's land use plan.
       Surveys--(Completed by the BLM or the Operator.)
       Cultural Survey--Almost always required. Almost always 
     completed through an operator-funded contract with a cultural 
     survey contractor that has been approved by the BLM. May 
     involve consultation with the State Historic Preservation 
     Officer.
       Wildlife Surveys--Frequently required. May be completed by 
     the BLM or the operator to BLM standards.
       Endangered Species Act Consultation--only required when 
     endangered species may be affected by the project.
       Tribal Consultation--May occur at the Planning or 
     Permitting stage in areas where Indian tribes have 
     historically used an area or have expressed an interest in 
     proposed projects.


            other federal. state. or local permits and plans

       Air Emission Permit--(May be required by State).
       National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit--
     (May be required by the State or EPA).
       Section 404 Permit--(May be required by the Army Corp of 
     Engineers if the project would potentially dredge or fill 
     waters of the U.S.).
       Storm Water Prevention Plan--(Required in some States).
       UIC Permit--(Required for Class II wells--water disposal or 
     reinjection).
       Spill Prevention Countermeasure Control Plan--This is a 
     permit required by EPA when oil and gas activities have the 
     potential to impact waters of the United States.

  Mr. Speaker, the justification for this legislation is a report from 
Democrats on the Natural Resources Committee, and in that report the 
conclusion is reached: ``We can estimate that the 68 million acres of 
leased but currently inactive Federal land and waters could produce an 
additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of 
natural gas each day.''
  Mr. Speaker, may I ask that the gentleman controlling the time on the 
other side be yielded time to respond to a question?
  Mr. RAHALL. Sure. If the gentleman will yield, I will be happy to 
answer the question.
  Mr. SALI. I understand that the Department of the Interior has issued 
a letter saying that they don't agree with the assumptions of your 
report.
  Can you name a single professional organization or government agency 
that has told you that they agree with the assumptions or calculations 
used to reach the conclusion that I have just read from the report?
  Mr. RAHALL. Our Committee on Natural Resources has extrapolated out 
the figures from current production on Federal lands, those figures 
coming from the Energy Administration, the same department that the 
administration uses.
  Mr. SALI. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the answer to that 
question is ``no.'' There is no professional group or government agency 
that agrees with those assumptions.
  In his opening remarks, the good chairman said we must ``increase our 
supply'' of crude oil and that the answer to our energy needs in the 
short term is to increase American production.
  Then why aren't we voting on that today? The fact is that the 
assumptions that this bill is premised on are false and that there will 
be no increased production from this bill.
  Congress is to blame for the shortage of American production today, 
and this is having a real impact on people. There's a gal who is a 
certified nursing assistant in Boise, Idaho, who's taking care of my 
mother and my younger sister in a nursing home.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.

                              {time}  1330

  Ms. FALLIN. I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.
  Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, this young lady, who's a CNA, last week took 
her husband's bicycle and a few other items to a pawn shop to get $37 
so she could put gas in her car to go to work at this nursing home to 
take care of my mother and my sister. This is having a horrendous 
impact on real life people.
  Mr. Speaker, it's time for partisanship to be put aside. It's time 
for Congress to get to the real answer, which is increasing American 
production.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of this legislation. The oil and gas 
companies, awash in profits, would have us believe they have nowhere to 
drill. That's just plain wrong. It is the Bush administration which 
acknowledges that 80 percent of our oil and gas reserves are in areas 
where drilling is already allowed. The industry is sitting on nearly 70 
million acres of public lands where it could be drilling, but isn't. 
The oil and gas industry already owns drilling rights to more than 
6,000 untapped leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
  If the industry is so eager to produce more oil and gas, it should 
get to it. We don't need to open more lands to drilling, when industry 
is dragging its feet on producing where it already could.
  Mr. Speaker, this recent push by President Bush and Senator McCain to 
open up the rest of our coast to offshore drilling is a ruse. It's not 
about lowering gas prices today, or even in the future.
  In response to the previous statement, yesterday Guy Caruso, head of 
the Bush administration's Energy Information Agency, said the following 
about the impact of new drilling, and I quote, ``It would be a 
relatively small effect because it would take such a long time to bring 
those supplies on. It doesn't affect prices that much.''
  This push for new coastal drilling is really just a last-ditch effort 
to get rid of barriers to drilling everywhere before the Bush 
administration leaves office. It's an attempt for favored special 
interest to oil companies to get one more favor from its friends. And 
the high gas prices Americans are now paying offers the perfect cover.
  I urge my colleagues to call this industry's bluff. If Big Oil wants 
to drill on public lands, it can do so now. Please vote for this 
legislation that tells the industry to use it or lose it.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. My first reaction to reading this bill was how could 236 
Members of Congress on the Democratic side, their legions of staff, and 
their hired guns, know so little about a fundamental industry like 
we've got that they would think that these exploration companies would 
invest millions and, in some instances, billions of dollars of 
shareholder equity and debt and lease bonus payments, regulatory 
compliance and bureaucratic compliance costs, geological and 
geophysical

[[Page H6116]]

costs, drilling and exploration expenditures, production facilities, to 
then sit on these generally unsalvageable investments and not produce 
oil and natural gas, which is the only way to recover these investments 
and make a profit.
  This chart, Mr. Speaker, shows a 14-year timeline of the typical 
exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. It is a difficult process to get 
through. There are some 27 bureaucratic steps that we go through. This 
legislation today will add another ongoing step that these companies 
will have to comply with.
  My colleagues here on the other side of the aisle know this 
discourages exploration. It fits in with their overall attempt to 
continue to keep gasoline prices high. It is one more dagger in the 
heart of the American lifestyle that has been developed since World War 
II that has centered on reasonable gasoline.
  Defeat this bill.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has not even read the bill. If 
everything he says on that chart is true, that is due diligence. The 
companies get to hold their lease, under this legislation.
  I am very glad to yield 2 minutes to a member of our Appropriations 
Committee, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Anyone who thinks back just a few years would remember 
how this administration and the Members of the Congress who were so 
complicit with them has been able to falsify information and get this 
country into such deep trouble. The situation in Iraq has got to come 
to mind. All of the deep problems we have there, based upon the 
falsification of information. That is what we are seeing here again, 
falsification of information.
  The Republicans are alleging that no one wants the oil companies to 
be able to drill for oil offshore when the fact of the matter is that 
the oil companies already have leases on 68 million acres, half 
offshore, half on the dry land of this country, and they are not using 
those 68 million acres.
  So what the Republicans want to do, at the request of this White 
House, is to continue to do what this administration has been doing 
since the meeting of Dick Cheney with the heads of the big oil 
companies in this country to continue to have an energy policy that is 
not in the interest of America but in the interest of the big oil 
companies.
  What they want them to do is to be able to get more land, more land, 
more public land, and hang on to that public land and not produce 
anything on it.
  What we are saying in this bill is use it or lose it. You already 
have the leases on 68 million acres of public land. Start using it. You 
want to drill, start drilling. We want you to drill. Drill on the 
leases that you already have. Don't pretend that you have nothing on 
which you can drill. You have 68 million acres.
  What the Republicans want to do is just put more public land in the 
hands of the oil companies so that they can more completely and over a 
longer period of time control all of the energy resources, oil and 
natural gas, that the people of our country own and possess. They want 
the oil companies to possess them for long periods of time, not to use 
them. They are not drilling on what they have.
  So pay attention to this bill, and vote for it. Use it or lose it.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady 
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Today, we are considering a bill to make something the 
law that is already the law. The majority claims it is necessary to 
force energy exploration companies to either use or lose leases they 
hold. However, use it or lose it is already the law. The Secretary of 
the Interior can already cancel a lease if the lessee fails to comply 
with the terms. Federal leaseholders are already required to produce 
oil and/or natural gas within 5 to 10 years of beginning the lease.
  By blocking some firms from competing for new leases, this 
legislation could further increase gas prices that are already 
exceeding $4 per gallon. This is frustrating because I believe West 
Virginians would rather see us take up legislation that will actually 
lead to a new and more forward-thinking energy policy rather than waste 
time passing legislation that is already on the books. That means new 
exploration, coal-to-liquids, and renewables.
  If this is the best the majority can do, is to restate current law, 
that's fine. But I think most Americans and West Virginians understand 
that the time has come for a more serious and comprehensive debate on 
this issue. That's what they deserve.
  Mr. RAHALL. I'm glad my colleague from West Virginia answered the 
previous speaker on the Republican side and explained the bill. But let 
me further clarify what the bill does and does not do, and current law.
  Currently, the law allows leaseholders 10 years to develop oil or 
gas. Our bill used to cut it down to 5 years. We have now upped it back 
up to the 10 years to try to satisfy some of the critics concerned with 
this legislation. Yet, they are still not pleased, of course.
  Existing leases can be cancelled if leaseholders fail to comply with 
lease provisions, such as public safety and environmental requirements. 
Yet, there's no law or regulation that requires diligent development on 
Federal oil and gas leases. That is what we are doing here, is 
requiring this due diligence. As long as the leaseholders paid the 
required annual rental fee, the government cannot compel diligent 
development of the leased lands.
  Our bill requires oil and gas operators to diligently develop oil and 
gas leases, as is currently required of coal leaseholders, I might 
remind my colleague from West Virginia. We had this same regime in 
place for Federal coal leasing. It was put in place when coal was in 
its boom days.
  What we are doing for oil and gas now is what we have done with coal 
and other commodities that are produced on the land that the people of 
the United States own.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Yarmuth).
  Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of legislation that would pressure 
the oil companies to drill, and drill now. In my hometown of 
Louisville, people are struggling to pay more than $4.20 for a gallon 
of gas. While they search for a way to make ends meet, a few 
multinational corporations hold the answers: Permits to drill over 60 
million acres of oil and gas reserves today.
  These existing leases could double U.S. oil production. But the oil 
companies don't want more land to drill, they want more land to 
control, which keeps oil off the market and gas prices high. After all, 
high gas prices have made them the richest companies in the history of 
the world.
  Instead, they demand the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, presumably 
so they cannot drill there too. Even this oil-friendly White House 
admits that drilling the wildlife refuge won't affect the price of gas 
for more than 20 years, and then, only by a couple of pennies.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people's problems are measured in dollars, 
not pennies, and they can't wait until 2030. I urge my colleagues to 
pass this legislation and get American oil into the market as soon as 
possible.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, what time remains for each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Oklahoma has 11\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from West Virginia, 6\1/2\.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. The Democrats claim there's 68 million acres of 
energy-rich lands that companies are refusing to explore. Sixty-eight 
million acres. Really. So name one. Name an acre of land where vast 
reserves of oil are underground and a company refuses to explore.
  I will open the mike. One acre. Any takers?
  Mr. RAHALL. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Absolutely.
  Mr. RAHALL. We have these maps that are identified, that we have 
shown.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Well, bring down the map and identify an acre and 
tell us how much oil is underground and who has refused to drill.
  Mr. RAHALL. Would the gentleman tell us the same about the OCS, where

[[Page H6117]]

the President is proposing to lift this moratorium?
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Do you have an acre you can point to?
  Mr. RAHALL. Yes, we do. We will bring it in. Right here.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. That's what I thought. This bill is a shame and 
an insult to families who are trying to pay their gas bills.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank my friend from West Virginia.
  Mr. Speaker, if I were a football coach and I had been calling a play 
for 7 years and I actually lost yardage, I'd change the play.
  Our friends on the other side, Mr. Speaker, they don't want to change 
the play. They want to keep the same plays that have been losing yards 
and money for the American people for the past 7 years.
  In the spring of 2001, Vice President Cheney had this meeting with 
the oil and gas industry to create a new energy policy for America. 
Then, the cost of a barrel of oil was $23. Now the cost of a barrel of 
oil is $139. The policy did not work.
  Then, the average price of gasoline was $1.46 a gallon. Today, the 
average price of a gallon of gasoline on Long Island is $4.31 a gallon. 
It tripled.
  The policy didn't work. In all that time, oil and gas companies could 
have drilled on the properties which they have leases to. They didn't 
do it.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISRAEL. I will not yield. I only have a little bit of time.
  They did not do it. Now what we're saying is we have got to try 
something new because what was tried before, didn't work. We need a 
change in policy. So what we are saying to the oil companies is use it 
or lose it. Drill what you have the right to drill, explore where you 
have the right to explore, and if you're not willing to do that, we 
will find somebody who can.
  It's time to put the sound bites aside and give real relief to the 
American people. The fact of the matter is that the policies that have 
been tried, have failed. I am not saying that anybody has committed 
wrongdoing, I am just saying that they have pursued the wrong policies.
  The right policy is to put the American people's pocketbooks ahead of 
the oil company profits. Use it or lose it. That's what we are doing 
today.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, nobody likes these high prices, and I think 
most folks understand the law of supply and demand. Worldwide, this 
last year, we pumped 126,000 fewer barrels of oil and we used a million 
barrels more each day.
  We have said no to ANWR, we have said no to tar sands, we've said no 
to oil shale, we've said no to nuclear. Sierra Club, I'm told, has 
opposed solar in California. This Congress has not extended R&D for 
renewables. Yet, 85 percent of our offshore sites are off-limits.

                              {time}  1345

  I would like to put a letter that I received a copy of from the 
American Association of Petroleum Geologists into the Record that was 
sent to the Speaker. They conclude that policies that increase 
exploration costs, decrease the available time to properly evaluate 
leases and restrict access to Federal lands in the OCS do not provide 
the American people with short-term relief from high prices and 
undermine the goal of increasing stable long-term surpluses.
  We can't waive a magic wand and say here it is. If you say 5 years, 
but you still require some 27 different environmentally-mandated 
permits that are required, with no shortening of the time that it takes 
to get those permits approved, you are not succeeding. In effect, what 
you are doing is telling the companies to go look someplace else. They 
are not going to look in America. They are going to look someplace 
else, because they may not have to comply with these same 25 different 
regulations that you have to comply with in this country. You can't 
just say 5 years, without shortening that process.
  Now, I am sorry that I didn't talk to Mr. DeFazio before I used that 
chart, but he cited I think a Shell development in Alaska that doesn't 
have access yet to the pipeline that takes that oil down through to the 
bottom of Alaska. Without the pipeline permits, they have to cap the 
wells.

                                           American Association of


                                         Petroleum Geologists,

                                                    June 23, 2008.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, and Minority 
     Leader Boehner: Given the on-going debate about access and 
     leasing activity on federal onshore lands and the Outer 
     Continental Shelf, I would like to offer some perspective, on 
     behalf of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 
     (AAPG), on the science and process of finding oil and natural 
     gas.
       AAPG, an international geoscience organization, is the 
     world's largest professional geological society representing 
     over 33,000 members. The purpose of AAPG is to advance the 
     science of geology, foster scientific research, promote 
     technology and advance the well-being of its members. With 
     members in 116 countries, more than two-thirds of whom work 
     and reside in the United States, AAPG serves as a voice for 
     the shared interests of energy geologists and geophysicists 
     in our profession worldwide.
       AAPG strives to increase public awareness of the crucial 
     role that the geosciences, and particularly petroleum and 
     energy-related geology, play in our society.
       Finding and developing oil and natural gas blends science, 
     engineering, and economics. It has distinct phases: 
     exploration, development, and production. And it is risky, 
     because finding oil and natural gas traps, places where oil 
     and natural gas migrate and concentrate, buried under 
     thousands of feet of rock is like finding the proverbial 
     needle in a haystack. Talent and technology increase our 
     chances of a discovery, but there are no guarantees.
       What is exploration? Well, the grid pattern on a block map 
     makes it tempting to think of exploration as a process of 
     simply drilling a well in each grid block to determine 
     whether it contains oil. But because of the natural variation 
     in regional geology, one cannot assume oil and natural gas 
     are evenly distributed across a given lease or region. 
     Rather, exploration is about unraveling the geologic history 
     of the rock underneath that grid block, trying to understand 
     where oil or natural gas may have formed and where it 
     migrated. If the geology isn't right, you won't find oil 
     or natural gas.
       Legendary geologist Wallace Pratt once observed, ``Where 
     oil is first found is in the minds of men.'' When preparing a 
     lease bid, geologists use their knowledge to identify the 
     specific areas in a region that they believe have the highest 
     likelihood of containing oil and natural gas traps. 
     Successful exploration begins with an idea--a hypothesis of 
     where oil may be found.
       Since exploration is about developing and testing ideas, 
     some acreage available for leasing is never leased. That is 
     because no one develops a compelling idea of why oil or 
     natural gas should be there. Similarly, some acreage is 
     leased and drilled repeatedly with no success. Then, one day, 
     a geologist develops an idea that works, resulting in new oil 
     or natural gas production from the same land that others 
     dismissed as barren.
       Once a lease is awarded, geologists begin an intensive 
     assessment. They collect new geological, geophysical, and 
     geochemical data to better understand the geology in their 
     lease area. They use this data to construct a geological 
     model that best explains where they think oil and natural gas 
     were generated, where it may have been trapped, and whether 
     the trap is big enough to warrant drilling.
       If there is no evidence of a suitable trap, the explorer 
     will relinquish the lease and walk away. If they see a trap 
     that looks interesting, they schedule a drill rig to find out 
     if they are right. Drilling is the true test of the 
     geologists' model, and it isn't a decision to be made 
     lightly. Drilling costs for a single well can range from $0.5 
     million for shallow onshore wells to over $25 million for 
     tests in deep water offshore.
       As the well is drilling, geologists continually collect and 
     evaluate data to see whether it conforms to their 
     expectations based on the geological model. Eventually, they 
     reach the rock layer where they think the trap is located.
       If there is no oil or natural gas when the drill reaches 
     the trap they were targeting, they've drilled a dry hole. At 
     this point the explorers will evaluate why the hole is dry: 
     was there never oil and gas here; how was the geological 
     model wrong; and can it be improved based on what they know 
     from the drilled well? Depending on the results of this 
     analysis, they may tweak the exploration idea and drill 
     another well or decide the idea failed and relinquish the 
     lease.
       If there is oil and/or natural gas, they've drilled a 
     discovery. Typically, they will test the well to see what 
     volumes of oil and/or natural gas flow from it. Sometimes the 
     flow rates do not justify further expenditures and the well 
     is abandoned. If the results are promising, they will usually 
     drill several additional wells to better define the size and 
     shape of the trap. All of this data improves the geological 
     model.

[[Page H6118]]

       Based on this revised geological model, engineers plan how 
     to develop the new field (e.g., number of production wells to 
     drill, construction of oil field facilities and pipelines).
       Using complex economic tools, they must decide whether the 
     revenue from the oil and natural gas sales will exceed the 
     past and continuing expenses to decide whether it is a 
     commercial discovery.
       The process of leasing, evaluating, drilling, and 
     developing an oil or natural gas field typically takes five 
     to ten years. Some fields come online sooner. Others are 
     delayed by permitting or regulatory delays or constraints in 
     the availability of data acquisition and drilling equipment 
     and crews. Large projects and those in deep water may require 
     a decade or more to ramp up to full production.
       As you can see, oil and natural gas exploration is not 
     simple and it is not easy. It requires geological ingenuity, 
     advanced technologies, and the time to do the job right. It 
     also requires access to areas where exploration ideas can be 
     tested--the greater the number of areas available for 
     exploration, the higher the chance of finding oil and natural 
     gas traps.
       U.S. consumers are burdened by high crude oil prices. 
     Conservation and efficiency improvements are necessary 
     responses, but equally important is increasing long-term 
     supply from stable parts of the world, such as our very own 
     federal lands and Outer Continental Shelf.
       As Congress considers measures to deal with high crude oil 
     prices, I urge caution. Policies that increase exploration 
     costs, decrease the available time to properly evaluate 
     leases, and restrict access to federal lands and the Outer 
     Continental Shelf do not provide the American people with 
     short-term relief from high prices and undermine the goal of 
     increasing stable long-term supplies.
       I am happy to further discuss these ideas. Please contact 
     me through our Geoscience & Energy Office in Washington, D.C. 
     at 202-684-8225 or 202-355-3415.
           Sincerely,
                                          Willard R. (Will) Green,
                                                        President.

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) to reply.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. The former Naval Petroleum Reserve has 15 billion 
barrels of oil under it. It was leased by President Bill Clinton in 
1998. There is no pending lengthy application process for the pipeline. 
They have no plans to connect to the pipeline.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Certainly, whatever time I have left.
  Mr. UPTON. If the gentleman would yield, it is my understanding that 
they haven't been able to conclude the permits that would link those 
oil discoveries.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) in bipartisan opposition to the 
bill.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise not necessarily in 
opposition to H.R. 6251. It is difficult to support or oppose something 
that is already current law. We already have use-it-or-lose-it. We have 
10-year leases in this bill. That is what the law is.
  Americans need Congress to look at real solutions in addressing 
energy needs, especially when we have $4 a gallon gas. We need answers, 
and not just slogans. We cannot drill our way to energy independence, 
we can't conserve our way, and we surely can't use alternatives to have 
energy independence. We need to do it all.
  The legislation before us today was introduced a week ago with no 
committee hearings, no markups. And they raise a valid question: Are 
people really sitting on oil leases and not producing?
  Now, there may be reasons for it, like there are not permits allowed 
to get it from the Navy Petroleum Reserve. I know in the Outer 
Continental Shelf, which I am real familiar with because it is off of 
Texas, a lot of those leases can't produce because there are no 
resources on it, but they still have that lease for 10 years.
  Let me tell you, with $140 a barrel oil, everybody wants to drill 
everywhere that you can. But we already have 10-year leases. In fact, I 
would like to include for the Record a copy of a current lease that is 
from Minerals Management on section 4, diligence and rate of 
development. We already have a diligence requirement in the 10 year 
leases that are there.
  What we need to do is actually do everything we can. We need to drill 
the leases we have, but we do need to get additional leases available 
in some of the most productive areas of the Outer Continental Shelf and 
make it available, because we need to make sure that our country is 
going to be energy independent and not dependent on Venezuela or Saudi 
Arabia or any other country. And we can do it. We have Senators going 
to Saudi Arabia begging for them to increase their production, but we 
won't increase ours in some of the most potential productive areas.
  That is why we need solutions instead of slogans. That is why I have 
a hesitation to support the bill or oppose it, because it is already 
current law.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. RAHALL. I appreciate my friend from Texas yielding.
  The due diligence requirements or timeline that you asked for 
submission into the Record, that is perfectly allowed under my bill. We 
would not grab a lease. If a company is showing due diligence, if a 
company is moving toward production of oil or gas on Federal leases, we 
don't touch them.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I would be glad to read part of the lease 
for you, the fact that they can already take that lease back now under 
current law, if they want to.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the lease section referred to earlier for the 
Record.

       Sec. 4. Diligence, rate of development, unitization, and 
     drainage--Lessee must exercise reasonable diligence in 
     developing and producing, and must prevent unnecessary damage 
     to, loss of, or waste of leased resources. Lessor reserves 
     right to specify rates of development and production in the 
     public interest and to require lessee to subscribe to a 
     cooperative or unit plan, within 30 days of notice, if deemed 
     necessary for proper development and operation of area, 
     field, or pool embracing these leased lands. Lessee must 
     drill and produce wells necessary to protect leased lands 
     from drainage or compensatory royalty for drainage in amount 
     determined by lessor.

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner), our minority leader.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding and tell my 
colleagues that in 1992 I voted for this bill. In 1992, the chairman of 
the committee voted for the bill. In 1992, Mr. Hoyer, the majority 
leader, and Ms. Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, voted for the same 
bill. This is already the current law.
  All this is is another excuse put up by the majority to not go after 
more American energy. That is all this is. And we have had more 
excuses. We going to blame it on speculators, we are going to blame it 
on the oil companies, we are going to blame it on OPEC, when there is 
only one group, only one group in this Chamber we ought to blame, and 
that is all the liberals in this House who have voted on for no energy 
each and every time over the last 18 years that I have been here.
  Forty-six votes. Forty-six votes have been brought to this floor over 
the last 18 years that I have been here to produce more American-made 
energy. I voted yes 46 times out of 46. Ms. Pelosi, as an example, 
voted yes twice. Just twice. And how many times did the gentleman from 
West Virginia vote to bring more American-made energy to the market?
  We are giving $600 billion a year to people in the Middle East, money 
that could be spent here in America if we were willing to bring more 
oil out of our ground in an environmentally safe way.
  Republicans have put forward an all-of-the-above strategy. We need to 
conserve more of our energy, we need to develop biofuels, we need to 
develop alternative fuels, we need to have nuclear energy, and, yes, we 
need to produce more oil and gas here in America in an environmentally 
safe way. But all we get from the other side each and every time are 
excuses. ``Let's blame somebody else.''
  We are about to go home for our Independence Day district work 
period. We should not leave here until we take steps that will help us 
move our country toward more energy independence. Not more excuses, not 
more posing for ``holy pictures,'' as the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee would say. We need to bring bills to the floor 
that will actually put Members on record whether they are for more 
American-made energy or not.
  I am willing to show my constituents how I will vote. Let's let all 
of America

[[Page H6119]]

see how our colleagues will vote, for more American made energy, which 
is what we need to do to bring gas prices down in America.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I would simply remind the distinguished 
minority leader, if my memory serves me correctly, the minority party 
was in control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue for some 6 years, 
both Houses of Congress. I don't recall this legislation or any serious 
energy policy being adopted during that time period.
  Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the minority leader about developing 
all of our domestic reserves. Coming from a coal area, certainly I 
agree with that scenario, that we need to develop all of our domestic 
resources, and in a non-partisan fashion as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, July 28, 2005. The House of 
Representatives, one month from now will be the 3-year anniversary of 
the House Republican Congress passing their energy bill. The minority 
leader, who was just here, said at that time when gas was $2.29 a 
gallon, ``It will ultimately lead to lower energy prices for the 
consumer and will spur our economy.''
  President Bush when it was signed: ``I am confident that one day 
Americans will look back on this bill as a vital step toward a more 
secure and more prosperous Nation that is less dependent on foreign 
sources of energy.''
  We have had 3 years of your energy policy, 3 years where you promised 
lower prices and a spur to the economy. By any standard of the 
imagination, it is a failure. Not because you want it to be. You 
thought it was the right policy. But it was a failure.
  We have today a policy, because we do not believe this is an either-
or choice, between more drilling or more conservation. We think it 
takes both. That is why we passed the standards, which you did not 
after 12 years in control, to increase the fuel efficiency standards 
for our cars. The first time in 30 years that was done. You all voted 
against that in your leadership.
  Second, when it comes to drilling, we do believe as it relates to the 
oil and gas companies who are having record profits, use it or lose it. 
We gave you 68 million acres of public land. I have 3 children, 11, 9 
and 8. My middle one, she loves chocolate, really loves chocolate. But 
we have a rule in the house: You don't get your desert until you finish 
everything on your plate. And to the oil and gas companies that want 
those leases in other areas, you don't get those leases until you 
finish what is on your plate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has 
expired.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds
  Mr. EMANUEL. So see what we have done here. Not only have we given 
them 68 million acres with record supplies of oil and gas, you, the 
taxpayers, because they refused to agree to this, give them $14 
billion, that is the oil companies, to drill, out of your money. $14 
billion. They all vote against rescinding that and putting it towards 
alternatives. You give them $14 billion. You give them 68 million of 
acres of public land. And what is the policy? $4.08 a gallon for gas.
  I say it is time for a new direction: More conservation, more 
drilling, use it or lose it.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Ms. FALLIN. I would like to ask how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Oklahoma has 5 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from West Virginia has 1 minute remaining.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the minority whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for recognizing me.
  I would point out to my good friend the conference chairman on the 
now majority side that we often passed pieces of legislation from this 
House that are already available to pass again today. Certainly there 
is no question that on the other side of this building, that 
legislation was often blocked. But we would like to see a comprehensive 
solution.
  My littlest boy and my grandchildren all love Band-aids. In fact, 
sometimes my little boy, Charlie, will fall and bump his head, and he 
feels better if we put a band-aid on his arm.
  I think that is kind of what we are doing here this week. We are 
bringing band-aids to the floor, rather than dealing with the real 
problem. We have got bills on the floor that say it is the people who 
run the service stations, and maybe there is price gouging; or it is 
the people who participate in the market; or it is the people who look 
for oil and gas.
  I would suggest it may very well be the people that don't bring the 
legislation to the floor that would do the things that my friend from 
Illinois just said he was for: Production. Those bills are there. We 
would like to see them discharged.
  We have got the No More Excuses Energy Act that the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Thornberry, has proposed, that would allow the kinds of 
production that the majority has just said they are for.
  We have got a refinery siting bill that Mr. Pitts from Pennsylvania 
has that would allow more refinery capacity.
  We have a repeal on a ban that won't let the government buy any of 
these alternative fuels that we are hearing are such a good idea. The 
very best way you can get a loan and go to the bank is if you had a 
government contract for coal-to-liquid jet fuel or oil shale or the tar 
sands. We have a Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Act that we will be trying to 
discharge in the future. We would like to see the real solutions come 
to the floor.
  And on-use-it-or-lose-it, absolutely you do lose it when the lease is 
up. Less than 10 percent of the available land is being used now.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentlewoman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this misguided bill. 
Rather than allowing us to bring forth legislation that will allow us 
to increase the supply of oil and gas, allow us to lower the price of 
gas at the pump, the Democratic leadership brings us this bill that 
could now halt leases for up to 3 years.
  Section 2(b) of this Act would require that the Department of 
Interior publish within 180 days major regulations dealing with 
development on Federal lands. If you go look, regulations associated 
with the EPA Act of 2005 are still not in place, and that has been 3 
years.
  Furthermore, with at least two agencies, both the Minerals Management 
Service and the Bureau of Land Management, having to conduct separate 
rulemaking, I find it hard to believe that with all the public comment 
and lawsuits that would be associated with this, it would be impossible 
to meet that timetable; and that would mean a delay of 2 years or 3 
years in leases.
  In Louisiana, the heart of our coast relies heavily on revenues we 
receive from offshore activities. We have dedicated in Louisiana that 
revenue to restore our vanishing coast. We have lost thousands of miles 
of land and acres of our coast to coastal restoration, and we have 
dedicated our revenues from leases to coastal restoration. Those funds 
are desperately needed.
  We cannot afford to wait to lose 3 years to have more leases. Our 
Nation cannot afford to lose 3 years of offshore leasing just because 
the Democratic leadership is trying to push legislation based on false 
assumptions.
  We need to defeat this legislation. We need to bring forth a real 
plan to increase supply and lower gas prices.
  Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of our time to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 90 
seconds.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, we have heard before that Big Oil is 
trying to gouge the consumer, and now Big Oil is down there trying to 
hide this stuff, in an effort to find another scapegoat or say there is 
a big conspiracy that is causing our problems,

[[Page H6120]]

rather than 30 years of failed policies on behalf of this Congress. And 
now we are doing this on a suspension where we have half the time to 
debate, no amendments are possible in an effort to stop discussion.
  The fact of the matter is 68 percent of all oil leases and 87 percent 
of all natural gas leases are done by small companies, small companies 
who need to produce to put food on the table. Is it logical that they 
are actually part of a conspiracy to hide the oil beneath the ground? 
This bill is nothing more than another law with a layer of bureaucracy 
put on it than we already have.
  But maybe, for the gentlelady of Oklahoma, maybe the Democrats have 
something here. Maybe we should be looking at this tactic for other 
areas. Like we all know 18-year-olds and women have the right to vote. 
Maybe we can pass another law to let them vote; this time, they can use 
it or lose it.
  Or I know free speech is in the Constitution. Maybe we can say we all 
have free speech, unless we use it or lose it. I think there are some 
Members of this body who would never lose it. Or faith, use it or lose 
it. Or maybe a brain. You can use it, or you can become a Member of 
Congress.
  What we need to do right now is to stop finding scapegoats and find 
solutions. This bill is not a solution.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I have said this in my opening comments 
and I will say it again. We on the Democratic side are not opposed to 
drilling. We are for drilling on leases that oil companies currently 
already have in hand. We are for a comprehensive energy policy, 
including using all of our domestic resources and our domestic 
willpower as an American people.
  A comprehensive energy policy is something that this Congress will 
address using in a bipartisan fashion the talents of this body and the 
talents of American ingenuity and willpower.
  This pending legislation is a responsible bill that seeks to say to 
the oil companies: Use what you already have or show where you are 
moving toward producing that oil; otherwise, give somebody else a 
chance that may want to competitively bid on that same lease.
  This is a use it or lose it. And I urge a ``yes'' vote for this 
responsible piece of legislation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I think it would be instructive 
for Members to see this letter from the national organizations 
representing the oil producers, oil and gas supply industries and the 
off shore oil and gas infrastructure supply industry; the organizations 
that supply domestic energy for the American consumer.

     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi: We write today in opposition of HR 
     6251, the so-called ``use it or lose it'' legislation under 
     consideration in the House today. As Americans cope with $4 a 
     gallon gasoline, it is regrettable that some in Congress 
     choose to propose diversionary legislation, not based on 
     facts, instead of focusing on the real issue--the need for 
     additional energy supplies to meet growing world energy 
     demand.
       Over the past few weeks, rhetoric surrounding our nation's 
     lack of a coherent energy policy has reached an apex. 
     Unfortunately, policy proposals like the ``use it or lose 
     it'' legislation ignore fundamental facts about the oil and 
     gas industry and jeopardize the long-term energy security of 
     our nation.
       Every energy forecast has predicted that oil and natural 
     gas will be a critical component of America's growing energy 
     demands. The federal Energy Information Administration (EIA) 
     estimates 88% of our nation's energy needs will be met by 
     oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power in the year 2030. 
     This fact is being lost in the proposals of some members of 
     Congress. While political candidates talk of energy 
     independence, some in Congress are offering proposals that 
     will lead our nation in the opposite direction. These members 
     ignore the challenges of domestic production, and make 
     unfounded accusations such as the latest charge that non-
     producing leases are the same as inactive leases. This 
     couldn't be further from the truth.
       The U.S. oil and natural gas industry is in the business of 
     supplying energy, not sitting on it. The industry has 
     reliably supplied our nation with the necessary energy to 
     move our cars and fuel our homes and will continue to do so 
     for decades to come. The industry buys leases with the intent 
     to produce all commercially viable reserves of oil and 
     natural gas. Unfortunately, not every acre of land under 
     lease contains oil or natural gas. In fact, many leases do 
     not contain any commercially recoverable oil or natural gas 
     resources.
       But these non-commercial leases continue to provide rental 
     payments for the federal government, on top of bonus bids 
     paid for the right to explore this land. In fact, the federal 
     government received more than $9 billion in bonus bids from 
     the last four offshore lease sales alone.
       For the acreage that does include promising reserve 
     prospects, it can take years and millions, or even billions, 
     of dollars to develop this resource. The exploration process, 
     which precedes production, necessarily takes time. Seismic 
     surveys must be undertaken, delineation wells must be 
     drilled, government permits must be obtained, environmental 
     regulations must be adhered to, and complex production 
     facilities must be engineered and installed.
       Oil and gas development is an extensive, expensive and 
     time-consuming process, even with advances in technology. As 
     an example, in the U.S. ultra deepwater (greater than 5000 
     ft) in the Gulf of Mexico--where some of our nation's most 
     promising new discoveries have been made--only 21% of wells 
     drilled have resulted in a discovery of oil or natural gas. 
     However, as a result of this industry's willingness to invest 
     billions of dollars despite these odds--and because of what 
     has historically been a stable domestic oil and natural gas 
     regulatory regime--the U.S. oil and gas industry has 
     continued to explore the Gulf of Mexico. This exploration has 
     resulted in an 820% increase in deepwater oil production and 
     a roughly 1,155% increase in deepwater natural gas production 
     from 1992 to 2006, while adding billions of dollars in 
     revenue to the federal treasury.
       In fact, royalty payments provide the second-largest 
     revenue stream to the federal government, behind only federal 
     taxes administered by the IRS.
       The ability to explore in Gulf Coast waters has resulted in 
     not only a steady stream of major discoveries since the mid 
     1990s, but also a tripling of estimated undiscovered 
     potential from 1995 to 2003. Similarly, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska 
     was initially thought to contain 9 billion barrels of oil, 
     but the industry has already produced about 12 billion 
     barrels and it still is estimated to contain reserves of 
     another 6 billion barrels. Imagine what American industrial 
     ingenuity could find through environmentally responsible 
     exploration and development of 85% of Lower 48 Outer 
     Continental Shelf and 83% of onshore federal lands that are 
     currently off-limits or facing significant restrictions to 
     development.
       The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Mineral Leasing 
     Act, and the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands already 
     establish a regulatory system that sets time limits on lease 
     terms, establishes annual rental payments for leases that are 
     not yet in production, and requires diligent development of 
     all available resources. The current debate does not 
     acknowledge these facts. The American public deserves a 
     policy discussion grounded in market fundamentals.
           Sincerely,
     American Petroleum Institute.
     American Exploration and Production Council.
     International Association of Drilling Contractors.
     Independent Petroleum Association of America.
     Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States.
     National Ocean Industries Association.
     U.S. Oil and Gas Association.

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, the administration's answer 
to record gas prices today is to allow drilling in Alaska's pristine 
wilderness and off our shorelines for little payoff a decade from now.
  What they don't tell you is that big oil companies already lease 68 
million acres of public lands that they are not developing. Big oil 
companies are sitting on 81 percent of America's Federal oil and gas 
reserves, but all they are producing are complaints that it's not 
enough.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6251--the ``use it or lose it'' 
bill. This legislation would compel the oil industry to start drilling 
on the acreage they already lease before obtaining any new leases.
  Madam Speaker, if domestic drilling can bring relief to American 
families, what are the oil companies waiting for?
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in 
opposition to H.R. 6251, the Democrat ``use it or lose it'' plan.
  Leases and drilling permits are not awarded with any certainty that 
oil or gas will be found. Just because my Democrat colleagues say oil 
and gas is there, does not necessarily make it so. The Democrats in the 
majority need to stop playing geologist and start representing the 
American people.
  Seventy-six percent of the American people believe Congress should 
expand domestic production. Gas prices are high because demand is 
greater than supply. In fact, U.S. oil production has steadily 
decreased since 1970.
  Reports by the Bureau of Land Management and the Minerals Management 
Service place potential federally managed areas for oil

[[Page H6121]]

and gas exploration at 1.3 billion acres. Currently, only 68 million 
acres of Federal land are being explored for oil and gas.
  This Congress should be more concerned with opening up Federal land 
to energy production than wasting time arguing over the 5 percent of 
land that is currently available.
  Democrats have pushed for higher gas prices for decades. Now that 
they have finally succeeded, Democrats seem determined to keep them 
that way.
  Madam Speaker, we know increasing supply will lower the price of 
gasoline and we have the means to do so. Drill here, drill now, pay 
less.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6251, the 
Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act.
  Over the last few months we have frequently heard claims from our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we need to open up more 
Federal lands to oil and gas drilling, the magic bullet that will solve 
our energy crisis. They have told the American people that Democrats 
and environmentalists are protecting our Nation's most sensitive and 
special environments at the expense of the American people. They have 
claimed that opening up land in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
(ANWR) and on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) would quickly help 
bring down the price of gas. Not only are these claims misleading 
American families desperately seeking help with skyrocketing gas 
prices, they are completely false.
  Currently 81 percent of our Nation's Federal lands are available to 
be leased for the purpose of oil and gas drilling. Sixty-eight million 
acres of the lands open for drilling both onshore and offshore 
currently are leased by oil companies who are not using them for 
production. It is estimated that these leased but unused lands could 
produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic 
feet of natural gas each day, nearly doubling U.S. oil production and 
cutting oil imports by a third. Existing leases can also come online 
much faster than any newly leased lands, which would save only pennies 
per gallon, more than a decade down the road.
  I would like to commend my colleague from West Virginia, 
Representative Nick Rahall, for introducing H.R. 6251, the Responsible 
Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act. This legislation would require oil 
companies to certify to the Department of the Interior that they are 
actively developing on the lands that they have already leased. If 
these oil companies are not producing on these lands, they either would 
have to relinquish these leases or start producing on them before they 
could apply to lease additional lands. Also my colleagues who say 
``drill, drill, drill'' should support this legislation and they should 
stop talking about drilling on our environmentally sensitive coastlines 
and wildlife refuges until oil companies have gone as far as they can 
towards on these currently leased lands.
  This legislation is common sense and I urge my colleagues to support 
it. There is no logic to opening up more land to oil and gas drilling 
when we are not utilizing the leases we already have. Of course this 
legislation is not a long term solution to America's energy needs. 
Currently we produce 3 percent of the world's oil and consume 25 
percent. Unless we find a way to dramatically reduce our consumption we 
will never be able to drill our way to energy independence. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
develop a long term solution to this crisis.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I will vote for this bill.
  In recent days, discussion of the bill has included statements--by 
some supporters and some opponents alike--that I found exaggerated in 
their descriptions of the likely effect of its enactment. I regret 
that, and think it would be better to avoid the ``use it or lose it'' 
rhetoric that oversimplifies the issue and fails to reflect the reality 
that oil and gas exploration is a complicated commercial and scientific 
enterprise involving efforts not easily fitting within strict 
regulatory timelines.
  But while the bill may not be as far-reaching as some have claimed, I 
think it is a reasonable response to current conditions and should be 
passed.
  In essence, the bill would bar the current holders of Federal mineral 
leases--whether for onshore or offshore areas--from obtaining 
additional leases unless they are able to show that they are 
``diligently developing'' the leases they already hold. The Secretary 
of the Interior would be responsible for spelling out in regulations 
exactly what would be needed to show such ``due diligence.''
  Current Interior Department regulations include provisions addressing 
due diligence requirements, so this is not a new concept. But I think 
giving it greater emphasis is appropriate in view of the continuing 
importance of oil even as we work to increase the availability and use 
of alternative energy sources.
  More useful in terms of energy policy, this bill will reinforce the 
provisions of current law that aim to prevent hoarding of leases, and 
by providing an incentive for relinquishment of some leases may 
increase the opportunity for others to seek and obtain the right to 
explore for and perhaps produce oil or gas from those lands.
  This approach is similar to that taken when Congress amended the 
coal-leasing laws by passing the Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976 
over President Ford's veto. That 1976 legislation provided for a due-
diligence requirement as part of a comprehensive overhaul of the laws 
governing leasing and development of federally owned coal resources--a 
provision that some analysts have said had the most immediate practical 
effect of any of the legislation's various provisions.
  As a result, for several decades the holders of Federal coal leases 
have been required by law to diligently develop their leases, which has 
aided in the orderly and efficient development of the Nation's coal. I 
think a similar reinforcement of existing law for leasing of other 
Federal energy resources makes sense.
  This bill alone is certainly not all that needs to be done to improve 
our energy policies. But I think it can make at least a modest 
contribution to achieving that, and so I will support it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6251, 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.
  Ms. FALLIN. Madam 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.

                          ____________________