[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 120 (Tuesday, July 22, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H6788-H6793]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON S. 294, PASSENGER RAIL INVESTMENT AND 
                        IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2008

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII, and 
by direction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I 
move to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 294) to 
reauthorize Amtrak, and for other purposes, with a House amendment 
thereto, insist upon the House amendment, and request a conference with 
the Senate thereon.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The motion was agreed to.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at 
the desk.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Heller of Nevada moves that the managers on the part of 
     the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the 2 
     houses on the House amendment to the bill S. 294 be 
     instructed to insist on the provisions contained in section 
     221 of the House amendment.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller) and the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada.
  Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer a motion 
to instruct conferees on H.R. 6003, the Passenger Rail Investment 
Improvement Act of 2008. This simple motion directs the House-Senate 
conferees to insist upon section 221 of the House bill, which states 
that ``Amtrak shall be subject to the Buy American Act, the regulations 
thereunder, for purchases of $100,000 or more.''
  Especially during these trying economic times, it is important that 
Amtrak, a taxpayer-subsidized agency that has never turned a profit, 
support American businesses and jobs. In fact, one of the most 
important ways Amtrak could help the American economy is by buying 
American, especially by buying American oil.
  Amtrak runs on diesel fuel, and diesel prices in our Nation are at an 
all-time high. For the past several months, when I was at home in 
Nevada, the number one issue on the minds of my constituents was the 
high price of fuel. I am sure there is no difference than any other 
district, since fuel costs have reached record highs across this 
Nation.
  In fact, this week some of my constituents were in town and came by 
the office. In talking with them, I was vividly reminded just how the 
high cost of fuel, spurred by congressional inaction, is hurting 
families in my district.
  The Anderson family lives in Carson City with their two kids, Steve 
and Sarah. They are a model American middle class family. The father is 
a dental lab technician, the mother is a nurse. Their kids are good 
students and play basketball and volleyball. But gasoline expenses are 
hurting their budget. Disposable income for them, just like all 
Americans, is disappearing as they drop their kids off to play sports 
or attend their kids' games.
  Record high fuel prices are not only crippling family budgets, but 
also public safety efforts, educational institutions, small businesses, 
and causing inflation in all manner of products and commodities.
  Despite several promises from the majority party, however, we have 
seen nothing that would truly help consumers with the high cost of fuel 
today. Yet, April 18, 2006, more than 2 years ago, then Minority Leader 
Nancy Pelosi stated, ``Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices.'' 
Again, April 24, 2006, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi released a 
statement saying, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring 
down skyrocketing gas prices.''
  The parade of bold statements promising help for the American 
consumers continues. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, October 2005 said, 
``Democrats believe we can do more for the American people who are 
struggling to deal with high gas prices.''
  Not to be outdone, Democrat Whip Jim Clyburn said, ``House Democrats 
have a plan to help curb rising gas prices'' in July of 2006.
  And Madam Speaker, we haven't seen the results of these plans. The 
American people would like to see the plan.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I welcome the gentleman's motion to instruct. The Buy America 
provision in Amtrak is comparable to the Buy America provision that I 
authored, got enacted in the 1982 Surface Transportation Assistance 
Act, to require all steel in the Federal Aid Highway Program to be made 
in America, American steel. And we extended that to the transit program 
subsequently, and to the Corps of Engineers program.
  The situation with Amtrak is that there are two Buy America laws. The 
first was established in 1978. It requires Amtrak to buy U.S.-sourced 
equipment, U.S. materials, U.S. supplies for purchase in excess of $1 
million.
  As time went on, there was concern that there was a good deal of 
equipment manufacturing moving offshore because our domestic rail 
transit, rail passenger transit systems were in decline. There was 
little funding for them, and manufacturers were drying up in America, 
and the new sourcing was coming from foreign manufacturers. So the 
Appropriation Bill of 2002 required Amtrak to comply with the Buy 
America for procurements under $1 million, pursuant to Amtrak's grant 
agreements.
  Our bill would require Buy America to apply to purchases of $100,000, 
being very specific about it, $100,000 or more. So this motion 
instructs the managers

[[Page H6789]]

to insist, and we are happy to insist on those provisions.
  I thank the gentleman from Nevada for his motion.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Madam Speaker, I reserve 5 minutes for the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota, Michele Bachmann.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank my colleague from Nevada (Mr. Heller) for his 
leadership on buying American, especially as it relates to American 
energy sources.
  I also thank the Speaker, as well, for this 5 minutes. It is 
important, Madam Speaker, that we do buy American, especially American 
energy.
  Part of the problem that we have had for the last 31 years is that 
the United States, specifically the United States Congress, has almost 
made it a decided decision not to purchase American energy.
  How do I say this?
  I have a voting record in front of me, Madam Speaker, and it says 
this: When the votes have come on this floor to purchase American 
energy, this is how the votes have gone over purchasing oil and 
exploring for oil up in the ANWR region, where Mr. Heller and myself 
were this weekend. Republicans voted over 90 percent of the time to buy 
American, yes, American energy in the ANWR region. Democrats, 
unfortunately, Madam Speaker, voted ``no'' to buy American 85 percent 
of the time.
  When you look at purchasing American energy, Madam Speaker, through 
the coal-to-liquid program, Americans voted almost 100 percent of the 
time to buy American. Democrats voted ``no'' almost 80 percent of the 
time to buy American on coal-to-liquid fuels.
  On oil shale exploration, purchasing American energy through this 
tremendous resource of oil shale exploration of which America is the 
Saudi Arabia of the world in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, Republicans 
voted ``yes'' 90 percent of the time, while Democrats voted ``no'' to 
buying American 85 percent of the time.

                              {time}  1800

  Sounds like we're on a roll. Sounds like we're on a trend.
  Well, unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the Outer Continental Shelf 
exploration, Republicans also voted ``yes'' to buy American oil and 
American natural gas over 80 percent of the time while our Democratic 
colleagues across the aisle voted ``no'' 80 percent of the time to buy 
American energy.
  To purchase American energy, Madam Speaker, to increase refinery 
capacity--this is a crucial issue in our energy capacity--Republicans 
voted ``yes'' to buy American energy from refineries almost 100 percent 
of the time while Democrats voted ``no'' on increasing energy capacity 
with refineries 95 percent of the time.
  I know it's hard to believe and hard to understand, but there has 
really been a very clear divide over energy policy in our country over 
the last 30 years. And unfortunately, our colleagues on the Democrat 
side of the aisle have made a very clear and distinct decision, and it 
has been this: No new energy exploration in the United States. They 
have been very clear about this. They don't want to increase energy 
exploration in the United States. We need to.
  And we aren't choosing just oil, just natural gas, just coal; we want 
to say ``yes'' to wind, to solar, to biofuels, to nuclear power, to all 
of the above. We have to say ``yes'' to all of the above or America 
will find itself at an energy deficit.
  I know the people that I serve, Madam Speaker, in the Sixth 
Congressional District in Minnesota are feeling that squeeze right now. 
I checked today in Minnesota, the average price of regular unleaded gas 
is $3.86 a gallon. It's something more than that nationally. But I will 
tell you the people in Minnesota, especially the people who are living 
on the margins, are feeling the pain right now of these price 
increases.
  But a wonderful story that Congressman Heller and I learned when we 
were on the all-of-the-above exploratory tool is that we have great 
answers here in the United States. The good news, Madam Speaker, is 
that we do not have an energy deficit in the United States. We do not 
suffer from a lack of resources. We have 27 percent of all of the 
world's coal in the United States. We have 2 trillion barrels of oil 
just in the United States. We have 88 billion barrels, conservatively 
speaking, in the Outer Continental Shelf, over 10 billion barrels in 
ANWR, and also 10 billion barrels near my home State in the Bakken Oil 
Reserve. We have energy in abundance in the United States. The problem 
is that Congress has said ``no.''
  So what is standing between $2 gasoline and the American people, 
Madam Speaker, especially American-made energy? It's the United States 
Congress. It isn't the companies that have been bad guys or that the 
American people have been bad guys for using too much energy; it's the 
United States Congress, and unfortunately, the Democrat-controlled 
United States Congress that it's made a clear decision that they don't 
want to increase American energy. This is nonsense.
  Both Congressman Heller and I learned together this weekend that we 
have the resources, we have them available, which is why we need to buy 
American energy now.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Madam Speaker, the House has addressed some 
minor aspects of energy policy. And I have supported several of the 
measures that the House has debated and voted on, including legislation 
to address price gouging, halt delivery to the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, and to address the international energy cartels. But only one 
of these measures is now law.
  I just returned, as my colleague from Minnesota mentioned, with a 
group from the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and other areas of 
Alaska which are rich in potential oil and energy resources. 
Exploration and development of these resources could easily happen in 
an environmentally sound fashion, quickly brought online, and is 
something that Alaskans support.
  Our group on this same recent trip toured the National Renewable 
Energy Laboratory in Colorado as well. As Nevada is a leader in 
renewable energy development, I also strongly support renewable energy 
as a long-term solution to our energy needs. I voted for a renewable 
portfolio standard and on the House floor have cosponsored legislation 
to expand renewable energy by extending tax incentives. However, these 
bills scratch the surface of our fuel crisis, nor are they a 
substitution for a realistic and truly comprehensive energy policy.
  Congress needs to act now on measures that will lower the price of 
fuel immediately and in the short term. Conservation is one such area, 
exploration and drilling are another. Long-term solutions--alternative 
fuels, renewable fuels, and even the expansion of mass transit--are 
simply not going to help our constituents this month, this summer, or 
probably even this year. They are very likely several years off. So 
this Congress must act to address the short-term needs of drivers 
today. Currently, the current approach by Congress to date has done 
little or nothing to address the crisis on fuel prices now gripping my 
district and the Nation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, we have no other speakers on our side, 
and I reserve my time.
  Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Madam Speaker, Americans are now paying on 
average $1.67 more per gallon than they were when the 110th Congress 
began. In Nevada, since the 110th Congress began, gasoline has 
increased about $1.50 per gallon. So far this year, crude prices have 
increased 40 percent.
  Since passage of H.R. 6, a so-called comprehensive energy bill, in 
December of 2007 gas prices have risen nearly 10 percent, diesel prices 
have risen more than 16 percent, oil has reached all-time highs. 
Clearly this bill was not the answer to our fuel problems. Clearly 
whatever the House majority is doing, badgering corporate executives, 
berating the President, holding hearings after hearings wasting time, 
is not working. It's not the commonsense plan we were promised. Tax 
increases on fuels are not part of the commonsense solution and are not 
a substitute for a real energy policy.
  I have spoken to more than 100,000 households in Nevada during the 
course of some telephone/town hall meetings and have asked, Do you 
support the proposed 50 cent per gallon gas tax?

[[Page H6790]]

Eighty-two percent oppose this tax increase sending a clear message 
that the people of Nevada oppose these outrageous plans.
  Additionally, tax increases that affect oil companies also hurt 
retirees, seniors, and pension funds. In 2004, more than 2,600 pension 
funds run by Federal, State, and local governments held almost $64 
billion in shares of U.S. oil and natural gas companies. These funds 
represent the major retirement security for the Nation's current and 
retired soldiers, teachers, and police and fire personnel at every 
level of government. Fourteen percent of shares are held in IRAs and 
other personal retirement accounts. Forty-five million U.S. households 
have IRAs and other personal retirement accounts.
  The effects of a punitive windfall profits tax on the energy industry 
would likely be the same as when it was tried last in the 1980s 
reducing investment in domestic oil production. The windfall profits 
tax during the Carter administration drained billions of dollars from 
the industry which was money not spent on U.S. exploration and 
production. Furthermore, the windfall profits tax failed to raise a 
fraction of the projected revenue.
  Consequently, like most of the House and Senate Republicans, I have 
voted against billions in tax increases on energy companies which have 
only been passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices. With 
billions in tax increases being put forth in the House, not one of them 
has passed the Senate. Clearly this approach is not consensus and is 
not part of a commonsense plan to address high fuel prices.
  While speculation may have a significant effect on oil prices, this 
process can work in reverse as well. Merely the announcement that 
Congress is willing to allow full debate on the issues or that certain 
moratoria will be lifted will cause energy prices to react accordingly. 
In fact, I have requested a hearing on this issue at the Financial 
Services Committee on which the committee has some jurisdiction.
  A real energy policy will address a variety of measures, including 
the very basic cause of high prices, supply, and demand. Congress 
desperately needs to address refinery expansion, coal-to-liquid 
technologies, lifting offshore moratoria, oil shale, and other areas 
that will address skyrocketing gasoline and diesel prices.
  Our Nation hasn't built a new refinery in more than 30 years, yet 
demand for refined petroleum has continued to increase. Estimates show 
the world's energy needs will be 50 percent higher in 2030 with 55 to 
65 percent of demand from conventional oil and gas.
  The last time Congress opened access of a large oil field to develop 
was in 1973. The Congressional Research Service notes that 86 billion 
barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas are 
classified as undiscovered resources right here in this country and are 
offshore. Yet Congress has imposed moratoria on much of the Outer 
Continental Shelf since 1982. This oil represents about 33 percent of 
Saudi Arabia's proven reserves.
  ANWR holds billions of barrels of oil that we intentionally refuse to 
develop. The U.S. is the only Nation that closes off its own reserves, 
its own natural resources and willfully subjects its economic future to 
the whims of oil dictatorships like Venezuela.
  Russia and the volatile Middle East can hold sway over the American 
economy not because they can but because we allow them to. China, a 
Communist country, is exploring for oil with the consent of Cuba, 
another Communist country right off our shores. In what economic world 
does that make commonsense?
  Simply put, we cannot conserve, tax, or regulate our way out of this 
problem. Nor should we cajole our way out by begging foreign nations 
for help. Renewable and alternative sources of energy, which enjoy 
bipartisan support, are simply not a realistic, cost-effective option 
today.
  The reality today is that our Nation, now and into the foreseeable 
immediate future, runs on gasoline, diesel fuel, and other petroleum 
products. Recognizing this reality and doing something about it is 
critical to our economy, public safety, education, tourism, and other 
areas.
  The House should encourage buying American oil just as we encourage 
buying American products. In the meantime, this House should have a 
real broad, open, and forthright energy debate, not a series of small-
bore suspension calendar bills that merely tinker around the edges. 
Congress must address all of the energy and fuel issues gripping this 
Nation the way the American people understand.
  Let the will of the House work in a fashion that our constituents can 
follow and appreciate. The American people, like the Andersons and so 
many others in my district and nationwide, are demanding answers and 
demanding action. We should respond accordingly.
  Support this motion to instruct and support buying American, 
including American energy.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the chairman, and Madam Speaker, I wanted to 
respond to some of the points that have been raised regarding what is 
going on with the gas prices right now in the country.
  I am talking to constituents, just as my colleague on the other side 
is talking to constituents, and there is no question that people are 
hurting with the gas prices that are out there right now. That's one of 
the reasons the Democrats here in Congress have tried to take some very 
constructive steps to bring down the cost of gas at the pump. Among 
those, we're pushing very hard on the President to cease putting oil 
into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. He finally came around on that. 
So I think that made a difference.
  Secondly, the push in recent legislation to try to curb the 
speculation in the oil and gas industry by interests, frankly, that 
don't know much about that industry but are in it to make a buck and 
have been driving the price up and up, and we want to crack down on 
that.
  Finally, among the more immediate measures that we can take--you 
know, I'm privileged to serve, as is my colleague, on the Natural 
Resources Committee here in Congress. So we bring a very thoughtful 
analysis to what is happening with our Federal and public lands and 
making sure we're using our natural resources wisely.
  One of the ways we do that is to have issued from the agencies that 
have responsibility for it, permits and leases so that the oil industry 
can explore right here in the United States. And I'm going to repeat 
the figure which has been repeated many times because it's an accurate 
one, and that is that there are 68 million acres right now for which 
the oil industry, oil and gas industries hold permits and leases where 
they are not producing, where they are not pursuing those leases.
  So we hear a lot about we should be trying to buy American resources 
and buy American and buy American oil. Well, we have the opportunity to 
buy American oil only if we're producing American oil.

                              {time}  1815

  And the industry, for one reason or another--and it's kind of hard to 
figure out the industry--has not taken advantage of those permits that 
they have.
  We tried to put through legislation last week. It was defeated in 
large part because of the opposition on the other side, a bill where we 
would basically force the oil industry to either use these permits or 
lose these permits, which we think is the right thing to do in order to 
take advantage of the natural resources that we have here right in our 
own country.
  I'm trying to figure out why the oil industry doesn't want to drill, 
and then it occurred to me that, if you're an oil company, the current 
state of things isn't so bad. You know, people are paying $4, more than 
$4 a gallon for gas at the pump. The oil industry last year pulled down 
$100 billion worth of profits. So why would they think there's any 
problem? That's why we've got to push them, and the other side hasn't 
taken advantage of the opportunity here legislatively to try to push 
the oil industry to take advantage of these leases and permits that 
they already have.
  Not only that, there are leases and permits out there with respect to 
the Outer Continental Shelf in terms of exploring our natural resources 
there, as well as the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.

[[Page H6791]]

  You know, we've heard a lot about this visit that a contingent of 
Republican lawmakers took to visit the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
last week. They went to the wrong place. I mean, why not go to the 
place where you can actually get some oil and get it quick, if we would 
take advantage of the fact that permits and leases can be issued? We've 
already done the analysis on the NPRA, on this National Petroleum 
Reserve in Alaska, and the evidence is that we could get more oil from 
that location, for which we already have the authority to issue permits 
and leases to drill, than we could from the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge.
  So I want to caution Americans not to be misled by some of this 
rhetoric that we're hearing from the other side.
  We need to break our addiction to oil. The President of the United 
States himself has admitted that we're addicted to oil. If you're 
addicted to something, you don't solve your problem by just going and 
finding a new supply of the same thing that you're addicted to. You try 
to move to something else. You try to transition, and we need to move 
over the long term to smarter policies with respect to energy and 
finding alternative sources of energy and renewable sources of energy. 
We can do that. We have the ingenuity in this country; there's no 
question about that, if we're given the tools and the right kind of 
policies to pursue it. And we can break this addiction.
  In the meantime, there's going to be a transition, absolutely, and 
it's not like tomorrow we're going to wake up and we're not going to 
need oil anymore. I understand that. Everybody in this body understands 
that. So you have got to have a plan to transition, and during that 
transition, we absolutely should be taking advantage of the resources 
in our own country. They can provide some of the energy.
  And that's why, again, I come back to wondering out loud why it is 
that our Republican colleagues are so adamant in opposing these efforts 
to try to get the oil industry to drill on lands and in waters where 
they already have permits.
  So, I'd just like to say that what the American people are looking 
for right now is not a lot of rhetoric, not a lot of double-talk. They 
want to know that we're trying to create smart policy here in 
Washington. The Democratic leadership has been doing that, both with 
respect to the steps we can take in the immediate near term to deal 
with the price of gas at the pump, but also to show that we've got an 
idea of where we're headed so that we can move away from this oil 
dependency and addiction.
  Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 5 minutes 
to my colleague from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank my colleague, Mr. Heller.
  I am so grateful that the majority brought this issue up of use-it-
or-lose-it because this is something that the American people have been 
subjected to now for the last couple of weeks, this canard, that there 
are 68 million acres, and they somehow want the American people to 
believe that companies are risking their capital on leases that they're 
not using.
  And what I challenge the majority to do is produce even one lease, 
even one lease in the U.S. where there is an acre of land that has been 
leased that is not in some stage of production or exploration. Not one. 
We haven't seen proof of even one lease where a company has bid for 
that lease and that lease is not in some stage of either production or 
exploration.
  Again, let's look at Congress and Congress' complicity in this area 
because Congress has set artificial timelines, delayed timelines, for 
permitting. The leases are 10 years' long, and there are no less than 
11 different stop points in that 10-year lease period where private 
parties can file lawsuits to stop the drilling. So, if a lawsuit is 
filed, for instance, by Friends of the Earth, by Sierra Club, by Earth 
Justice, the oil company, or whatever business it is, has to respond to 
the lawsuit. The lawsuit will end up in Federal district court. Then it 
may get kicked up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. There's one 
case where a decision wasn't rendered for 2 years. Well, who made that 
scenario? The United States Congress.
  The companies have bid on these leases. They've put money down on the 
barrel head to actually lease the land. They've got a 10-year timeline 
that Congress has given them, and there are artificial delays built in 
for the permitting and also 11 different points for private lawsuits to 
be filed. So those delays, again, are ones that Congress has allowed to 
occur.
  There aren't companies that are sitting or dallying on a lease. I 
challenge this majority to produce even one, even one lease on even 
just 1 acre, where a company has a lease and they're not in some stage 
that Congress created of either producing or exploring on the land. Let 
alone defying any common sense of any businessman or -woman who puts 
their money on the line, their capital, they're not going to dissipate 
capital.
  But you will hear the Democrat majority, Madam Speaker, rant and rail 
that there're somehow dilatory companies out there that are sitting on 
leases. They haven't produced one, they haven't shown one example that 
they can parade around this Chamber where a company is not producing on 
the land. It's just a patently false statement and, in fact, one that 
shouldn't be used.
  I tell you, the real use-it-or-lose-it, Madam Speaker, it's this. 
When Congressman Heller and I were recently up in ANWR this weekend, we 
learned a very sobering fact, and the sobering fact is this. Thirty-one 
years ago, the largest oil field in the United States was up in the 
North Slope of Alaska, Prudhoe Bay. Today, the largest oil field in the 
United States remains up in Prudhoe Bay.
  This Congress has made a decision not to increase its oil fields. 
When the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was built in Alaska in the mid 
seventies, when oil production first began, 2.1 million barrels a day 
was flowing through that 800 miles of pipeline, 2.1 million barrels a 
day. Do you know what that is today, Madam Speaker? We are now down to 
700,000 barrels a day flowing through that pipeline, 700,000 barrels a 
day. We have diminished by more than half the amount of oil that we are 
sending down to the lower 48 from that wonderful energy lifeline in 
Alaska.
  Here's the sobering news, Madam Speaker. We learned this weekend that 
once we get down to 300,000 barrels a day flowing through that 
pipeline, the pipeline won't work anymore. This pipeline is a marvel of 
modern human engineering, a marvel. It's an incredibly valuable asset. 
I was told this weekend, Madam Speaker, that if we had to rebuild that 
pipeline today, we could be looking at a $15 billion investment.
  What's the window of opportunity that we have? If we don't open up 
new oil fields, potentially within 10 years' time, that pipeline will 
be of no use to us because what we were told is, if you don't use it, 
you lose it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Minnesota 
has expired.
  Mr. HELLER of Nevada. I yield 1 additional minute.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank my colleague for that additional minute.
  I just want to conclude by saying this. If you want to talk about a 
real use-it-or-lose-it, Madam Speaker, you're talking about one of the 
most valuable resources we have. It is the American energy lifeline 
that runs through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline that brings the valuable 
oil down to the lower 48. If we lose this pipeline, and if we lose it 
on this Democrat-controlled Congress' watch, we will lose our lifeline 
for any future oil development, which is all the more reason why we 
need to begin drilling here in the United States so we can buy American 
energy and buy it now.
  If we fast track the permitting, if we pull out all of the 
unnecessary lawsuits, we could literally within just a few years' time 
build a 74-mile spur into ANWR, get that oil down to the United States, 
and increase American energy reserves by 50 percent.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding that time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. May I inquire of the Chair how much time remains on 
both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota has 22 minutes. 
The gentleman from Nevada has 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. In the interest of fast-tracking Amtrak, I reserve the 
balance of my time.

[[Page H6792]]

  Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Madam Speaker, I have some final thoughts I'd 
like to share with this body, and I want to thank the chairman for his 
patience on this particular issue.
  It was well-addressed by the gentlewoman from Minnesota, the amount 
of time and the time and the energy we spent up in ANWR, but I want to 
talk a little bit about the energy renewable laboratory in Golden, 
Colorado, where we also spent some time.
  I found the statistics and the issues there very, very interesting. 
I'm one who thinks that we have a three-pronged chair here that's very 
important in our energy future. We want, of course, to be in 
conservation, which I believe the American people understand that 
conservation is a critical part. Renewable energy is also the third leg 
of that chair which is very critical. And also finding additional 
sources of energy through our natural resources is very critical.
  I want to talk about the National Renewable Energy Lab that we spent 
some time with out there. We saw and drove in electric cars. We saw and 
drove in hydrogen cars, and obviously, we saw the hybrid cars, also.
  I just want to mention briefly that renewable energy is the future, 
but I believe it's a long-term future. Let me give you an example.
  Five or 6 years ago, I drove in a hydrogen car down in Las Vegas. I 
got a phone call from the other end of the State, come on down, drive 
this hydrogen car. I thought it was a great idea, went down there, 
drove in a hydrogen car, went around the block, got out of the car, and 
I asked the gentleman: So what does it cost? How much does it cost for 
a consumer to buy this hydrogen car? He told me it was $1 million, $1 
million for this hydrogen car.
  Well, Madam Speaker, I drove a hydrogen car last week, drove it 
around the block, got done, opened the door, asked the gentleman: So 
how much does this car cost? And the car still cost $1 million dollars, 
$1 million for a hydrogen car. I don't have very many constituents that 
are willing to go out today and buy a $1 million car.
  So we drove the electric car, drove it around the block, ran fine, 
asked the question: How far does the car go? He said, well, about 70 
miles on a charge. How long does it take to charge? About 6 minutes. 
How much does this car cost? Very expensive, over $100,000. I said, 
well, what would it take, what would it take to get an electric car 
that goes 300 miles at 60 miles an hour that charges in 10 to 15 
minutes and costs less than $30,000 but it will go 60 miles an hour? 
That's what the consumers want here in this country, and they say we're 
not even close. We're not even close to that.

                              {time}  1830

  Renewables are incredibly important; the technology isn't there 
today. So that is the purpose that we continue to go up to ANWR, take a 
look at ANWR, talk about additional oils.
  I will tell you, what struck me on my trip up to ANWR was this; that 
if we conserve--and the American people are conserving and they'll do 
more to conserve--if we build renewable energy, look for cars, look for 
opportunities, the technology for renewable energies, and meet our 
goals--our goal here in this Congress I believe is 15 percent by the 
year 2020--if we meet those goals, we are still going to need an 
additional 10 million barrels a day of oil by the year 2025. Even if we 
conserve, even if we do all the renewable efforts--and the American 
people are doing that--we're still going to go from 15 million barrels 
of oil a day to 25 million barrels a day by the year 2025. That's why 
it's critical. That's why we went up to ANWR. That's why we want to 
take a look at the opportunity to open up the Outer Continental Shelf, 
to look at the northern shore of Alaska. I think these principles are 
critical, that's why we did that.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I appreciate the thoughtful presentation of the gentleman from 
Nevada, very structured and supported by documents and references to 
specific facts.
  The energy issue really consists of three elements; supply, demand, 
and a regulatory function. We need to deal with all three of those.
  On the supply side, one of the elements we're supplying is the Maglev 
project that was authorized in the current SAFETEA legislation that the 
gentleman from Alaska and I worked on to connect Los Angeles with Las 
Vegas. I know that's of great interest to the gentleman from Nevada. 
And I'm very hopeful that we will see that project take root and go 
into operation. It will be a great addition to our surface 
transportation system and will reduce energy costs.
  I heard the gentleman's reference to the electric car. There is a 
small, family-owned firm in my district that's making a very small 
electric car, selling for under $120,000, maybe $115,000. It's not an 
Escalade, but it's a very nice vehicle. It can get people from one 
point to another very efficiently for about the cost of what it takes 
to run your refrigerator for a year. So there is progress being made in 
all of these arenas.
  In Amtrak, we will be able to make an enormous contribution, an 
alternative to air travel, intercity passenger rail more fuel efficient 
than car and air travel, consuming less energy than a car or airplanes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself an additional minute.
  And with the new energy-efficient equipment that Amtrak and the 
freight rail network are using, we will see more fuel-efficient 
switching locomotives, more energy-efficient auto train vehicle 
carriers, and the regenerative braking system with Acela.
  We need to move ahead with this legislation and make our contribution 
in our little corner of the world in transportation through 
accelerating the work on Amtrak, which has been a bipartisan product of 
our committee.
  Section 221 of the bill requires Amtrak to comply with the Buy 
America Act, and the regulations thereunder, for purchases of $100,000 
or more.
  Amtrak is currently subject to two separate Buy America laws. The 
first was established in 1978 and requires Amtrak to procure U.S.-
sourced equipment, materials, and supplies for purchases in excess of 
$1 million. The second was established in the appropriations bill of 
2002 and requires Amtrak to comply with Buy America requirements for 
procurements under $1 million, pursuant to Amtrak's grant agreements in 
effect with the Department of Transportation.
  Our bill ensures that Amtrak would be subject to one set of Buy 
America requirements for procurements of $100,000 or more.
  This motion instructs the House managers in the conference to insist 
on the provisions contained in Section 221 of the bill. The Senate-
passed Amtrak reauthorization bill does not contain a similar Buy 
America requirement for Amtrak. We feel this provision is important, so 
we support the motion.

                       Energy Benefits of Amtrak

       Amtrak and intercity passenger rail helps fight global 
     warming. Our transportation sector produces one-third of the 
     nation's greenhouse gas emissions (and one-twelfth of the 
     world's). The average intercity passenger train produces 60 
     percent less carbon dioxide emissions per passenger mile than 
     the average automobile, and 50 percent less carbon dioxide 
     emissions per passenger mile of an airplane.
       Amtrak and intercity passenger rail reduces highway and 
     aviation congestion. Gridlock is becoming a shared experience 
     for tens of millions of motorists every day, which impacts 
     communities across the country. Over the past decade alone, 
     travel growth on the nation's highways has averaged 2.2 
     percent annually. In 2007, congestion forced Americans to 
     waste 2.9 billion gallons of fuel and cost Americans a 
     staggering $78 billion. One full passenger train can take 250 
     to 350 cars off the road. Further Amtrak as a whole removes 8 
     million cars from the road and eliminates the need for 50,000 
     fully-loaded passenger airplanes each year. In conjunction 
     with metropolitan transit systems, the city-center to city-
     center service offered by intercity passenger rail can also 
     support dense, transit-oriented development in downtown 
     areas, helping to reduce highway travel demand for both local 
     trips and intercity trips.
       Amtrak provides an alternative to air travel. Intercity 
     passenger rail is competitive with air travel of 500 miles or 
     less, and more than 80 percent of all trips exceeding 100 
     miles in length are less than 500 miles. For example, Amtrak 
     service controls 56% of the air/rail market from Washington, 
     DC to New York City and 43% of the air/rail market from New 
     York City to Boston, MA.
       Amtrak and intercity passenger rail is more fuel efficient 
     than automobile and air travel. The Department of Energy's 
     Transportation Energy Data Book reports that intercity 
     passenger rail consumes 17 percent less energy per passenger 
     mile than airlines and 21 percent less per passenger mile 
     than automobiles.
       Amtrak and intercity passenger rail consumes less energy 
     than automobile and air

[[Page H6793]]

     travel. Amtrak's British Thermal Unit, (or, ``BTU,'' standard 
     unit of energy) per passenger mile was 2,650 in 2006. This 
     compares to the 3,264 BTUs for air travel and 3,445 BTUs for 
     highway travel in 2006. New energy efficient equipment is 
     further improving conservation (e.g., in addition to Acela 
     Express trains' regenerative braking system, Amtrak has 
     acquired new more energy-efficient Auto Train vehicle 
     carriers and is evaluating more fuel efficient switching 
     locomotives). Amtrak's BTU per passenger mile improved from 
     2,800 in 2003 to 2,760 in 2004, 2,709 in 2005, and 2,650 in 
     2006.
       Amtrak is taking steps to further reduce its greenhouse gas 
     emissions. After Amtrak restored electrified service to the 
     104-mile Philadelphia-Harrisburg line in October 2006, it 
     replaced 9 diesel powered roundtrip trains per weekday with 
     12 roundtrip trains powered by electricity. Today, most of 
     the electric power Amtrak uses between New York and 
     Washington is generated from non-fossil fuel sources.

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's 
comments and his commitment to renewable energies.
  I just want to mention, living in a district that's 105,000 square 
miles--and I mention that every time I get a chance to speak----
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Absolutely.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. My district is 30,000 square miles. I sympathize.
  Mr. HELLER of Nevada. It takes me 15 hours to get from one end of my 
district to the other.
  So what I'm looking for, as I mentioned earlier--and I appreciate 
your commitment to electric cars because we're all there. The fact is I 
want a car that goes 300 miles and recharges in 5 to 10 minutes because 
if you live in Elko, Nevada and you have an electric car, it takes you 
300 miles roundtrip to get anywhere. And if it takes you 6 hours to 
plug it in, it's certainly going to cost you more to reserve time in a 
hotel in order to get back. But again, I want to thank the chairman.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The motion to instruct was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________