[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 121 (Wednesday, July 23, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H7044-H7050]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          AMERICAN ENERGY ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I thank my colleagues on 
the Republican side and our leadership for giving me the opportunity to 
be on the floor tonight to talk to all of our colleagues, both 
Republicans and Democrats, about one of the most pressing issues facing 
this country in a long, long time. And of course the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) just spent her 5-minute discussion talking 
about the very same thing. But we are blessed to have an hour worth of 
time tonight, as we have done on several nights for the last I would 
say 3 or 4 weeks talking about this one huge problem, Mr. Speaker.
  And I have a number of my colleagues who have joined me tonight to 
help in this discussion of this energy crisis which is so important 
that the Nation is now facing. We have a Member who I will yield to 
subsequently who wants to talk about something very unique, a new bill, 
something that he has thought of that I think is very, very 
interesting, intriguing, and I want my colleagues to hear about that.
  But let me start the hour, Mr. Speaker, by giving our colleagues a 
little quiz. This is not a pop quiz. Well, maybe in a way it is, but it 
is not a difficult pop quiz. In fact, it is the easiest type question, 
the kind I always enjoyed when in school, it is multiple choice. It is 
a multiple-choice question. So I want to ask the cameras to sort of 
hone in on this first slide that I have to my left. This is the 
question. It is simple. It is straightforward.
  How do we bring down the price of oil?
  Now I have listed about six possible answers. I could have listed 
eight or ten. Let's start with A, open up oil exploration in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf.
  Now that oil and natural gas has been closed to us, has been locked 
up since the mid-seventies when a moratorium was placed. Thank goodness 
President Bush just recently, in the last 2 weeks, lifted the executive 
order and now Congress certainly could pass a law and allow us to do 
that.
  So, A, I am sure for many of our colleagues in this body on both 
sides of the aisle, A, would be their choice as the best answer.
  The second answer, B, build new oil refineries. Well, you mean we 
haven't? No. No, my colleagues, we have not built a new oil refinery in 
this country probably in 25 years. We have expanded a bit along the 
gulf coast where most of the refineries currently exist. And, of 
course, they are right in hurricane alley, and we know what happened 
during Hurricane Katrina when a lot of refineries were shut down and we 
had a real crisis because of that.
  So darn right, B would be a good answer, build new oil refineries.
  And C, commercially develop renewable energy resources. What do we 
mean by renewable energy resources? Well, I think the main two that 
come right to mind are wind and solar. Wind and solar. Wind and sun.
  There are some parts of the energy where there is a lot of energy 
produced by wind and sun. The North Sea, the northern part of Germany, 
Hamburg; in the Netherlands. I have been to both of those countries and 
seen these huge turbines, wind farms, and some are out in the ocean. 
You can't see them, they are a long way from shore, but this constant 
wind source in the North Sea is a good source of renewable energy.
  Solar panels, I would say, work real good in the equator in the 
temperate zones, but they may not work so well in certain parts of our 
country. But without question, C is a good response to how do we bring 
down the price of oil, commercially develop renewable energy resources. 
We are doing that. In fact, we have tax credits to incentivize that. I 
have recently supported a bill by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Bartlett), to renew those tax credits for renewable to stimulate that 
industry. These tax credits expire, I think, in about a month, so it is 
very important that we do renew that.
  Right now only 1 to 2 percent of the energy, the electricity in this 
country is generated from these renewable sources. It ought to be 6 to 
8, maybe 10 percent; and hopefully eventually it will. So C is a pretty 
darn good answer.
  The fourth choice, D, commission new nuclear power plants. Well, you 
know, some of our colleagues may say you mean we haven't? We don't? We 
have got over 100 nuclear power plants in this country, some in the 
southeast. The gentleman from Tennessee is with us tonight, and there 
are some in Tennessee. And there certainly are some in my home State of 
Georgia. I worked at a nuclear power plant in South Carolina when I was 
a co-op student at Georgia Tech. But we have not licensed, the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission has not licensed a nuclear plant in about 30 
years.
  The Three Mile Island scare, there was no loss of life, maybe that 
had something to do with it. But nuclear power today is safe. It is 
efficient. It is clean; and yes, it is expensive. And maybe that is 
part of the reason why we haven't gone nuclear in a more meaningful 
way. Right now I think probably 12 percent of our power in this country 
is generated by nuclear power.
  But when you are paying $140 a barrel for oil, petroleum products, 
all of a sudden nuclear power would be a bargain. And we have a couple 
of power plants in the State of Georgia. Plant Vogtle has two and is 
asking to bring online two more. We need to streamline that.
  There are countries, France in particular, 85 percent of their 
electric power, their electricity, is generated by nuclear power. In 
fact, they even have to sell some of that to their

[[Page H7045]]

neighbor Germany who doesn't allow nuclear power.
  The Scandinavian countries, Sweden, they have nuclear power 
generation almost exclusively, and they have a good way of getting rid 
of the nuclear waste, of burying it deep in bedrock. We have the same 
capability right here in the United States out in Nevada where we have 
spent billions of dollars developing Yucca Mountain, but yet 
politicians, very powerful politicians from the State of Nevada, I 
won't mention names, but they are blocking that.
  So without question, D, commission new nuclear power plants, would be 
a darn good answer.
  The next choice is E, promote conservation.
  Now look, who could disagree with that answer? There are 85 million 
barrels of oil, petroleum, produced in this world every day; 85 million 
barrels. The United States of America utilizes 22 million barrels a 
day. We are about 5 percent of the world's population, and we are 
utilizing about 25 percent of the world production of crude oil. So 
there is something wrong with that math, no question about it. That 
calculus just doesn't add up. So we certainly need to conserve. We need 
to ride in high-occupancy vehicle lanes on our interstates. We need to 
probably, slowly but surely, go to smaller automobiles that are more 
fuel efficient.

                              {time}  2130

  We need to go to these fluorescent-type light bulbs. I mean there are 
so many things that we can do. Yes, we need to tighten our belt; so 
that answer is not a bad answer.
  And I said that we could have put some other things in there. ``Sue 
OPEC,'' I don't think that would be a very good answer, but I have 
heard people say that. ``Sue OPEC and Venezuela'' I have heard. And the 
Democratic majority, Mr. Speaker, has legislation and they want to say, 
well, we need to stop all the speculating and the hedging and unless 
you are actually taking possession of the oil, that contract, and you 
really are buying it for the oil company or for the airlines or for the 
Air Force, you shouldn't play in that market. I don't know if that's a 
problem. It may be a little small part of the problem. I could have 
added that as a possible answer.
  But the last choice is choice F, and that choice is ``all of the 
above.'' And I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I think F is the right 
answer. And I believe that the 5,000 or so people that were chatting 
with me last night from Harris, Polk, and Carroll Counties of the 11th 
Congressional District in Georgia told me very clearly that that's the 
choice that they would take. And I believe that a fifth grade geography 
class would make the choice, that they would say just what the 
Republican minority has been saying to our brothers and sisters across 
the aisle for the last month or 6 weeks, that we need to do all of 
these things. There is not one silver bullet. You can't solve this 
problem with the snap of your fingers and sue Big Oil and windfall 
profit taxes and releasing a few million barrels of oil from the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. You might affect the price for a few days, 
but it would go right back up. No, we need to look at this not only in 
the short term but in the long term. If we had done this back in the 
1970s, we wouldn't be in this crisis that we are in today. But we went 
back to sleep is what we did. Shame on us for that, and doubly shame on 
us if we do it today.
  People are suffering, Mr. Speaker. People are suffering severely. And 
we are about to leave this body. Ms. Foxx was talking about 9 days. 
Well, really we're talking about 4 or 5 legislative days and we are out 
of here for recess or vacation or whatever you want to call it. Every 
August, that's traditional. But in a situation like this, I tell you 
what, I would be proud to sit right here on this floor Friday and 
Saturday and Sunday waiting for this body to act and not adjourn until 
we get something done. Because if we are away from here for a month and 
nothing is done, when we come back, the kids are back in school, and 
you know how they're going to get there? They're going to walk or 
they're going to be riding their bicycles out on these busy highways 
because those yellow buses are not going to be on the road because 
these school systems are not going to be able to afford the diesel fuel 
to put in those buses.
  So this is serious stuff, Mr. Speaker, and I think my colleagues 
understand that. I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
understand it. And what they don't understand and what my constituents 
don't understand is why the leadership, the people that bring the bills 
to the floor, those that have the control that say which bills are 
voted on and when, why they can't understand it.
  Well, in this hour we will get into all of that, but I have got a 
couple of my colleagues on the floor with me, and I want to give them 
an opportunity because they have got some very interesting things to 
say. But I have got one more chart, Mr. Speaker, that I want to show 
before I yield to my colleagues.
  This chart, and of course I have already given the answer away, the 
answer F, ``all of the above.'' And, of course, it shows this big huge 
oil rig way out, 150 miles in the Gulf of Mexico. We ought to be doing 
that off the East Coast and off the West Coast, of course with the 
States' consent and with their ability to share in the revenue. And the 
Federal part of that revenue could be used to continue to push and 
promote alternative energy sources like that wind and solar we were 
talking about earlier, coal liquefaction, mining shale, doing a lot of 
things that will make us energy independent and will increase our 
domestic production.
  And, of course, there are some other pictures on this slide as I 
refer back to it. These are some of the wind farms. That's exactly what 
they look like in the Netherlands and in other places that I've seen 
them. This, of course, is a nuclear power plant.
  The drilling in ANWR, I put that there just to point out what a small 
area it is, Mr. Speaker. The light green on the darker green is 2,000 
acres in an area of 19 million, and 2,000 acres in an area of 19 
million is like a postage stamp on a football field. And it's Coastal 
Plain, tundra, frozen most of the year. It's 70 miles from the Alaskan 
pipeline. It's 10 billion barrels of oil, and if you're pumping it, 
it's probably 1.5 million barrels a day. That increases our domestic 
production 15 to 20 percent, just that one site. So, obviously, we need 
to do all of these things if we are going to solve the problem.
  And before I go any further, though, as I said at the outset, Mr. 
Speaker, one of our Members had a very interesting thought. He wants to 
spend a little time discussing it and making sure our colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle understand it. He's a long-term Member. He 
knows about oil. He knows about energy. He's a great Texan. He is the 
ranking member of the Science Committee. I am proud at this time to 
yield to my good friend and colleague from Texas, the Honorable Ralph 
Hall.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Dr. Gingrey, I thank you very much.
  I rise today to talk about a bill that I introduced just today, this 
very day. And, yes, Dr. Gingrey is, I think, the fourth cosponsor on 
the bill. I have 40 or 45, somewhere in that area. Only four have 
failed to cosponsor it. They simply want copies of it, and they will 
cosponsor it. I didn't ask one single member of the Democratic Party to 
endorse it or to cosponsor it because I want to give them time to look 
at it, to talk to their Speaker, to see what she thinks about it. I 
don't want to put them in a bad situation with their Speaker. I hope 
she is going to accept this bill because I think all of us, Republicans 
and Democrats alike, want to solve the problem of high prices at the 
pump that are putting people out of business, that are costing jobs, 
that are causing airlines to fly full and losing money. And, yes, you 
have heard this before, a hundred and one times, that my bill's 
different. But this bill is different.
  It's H.R. 6579. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about this bill just a 
little bit. It was just this day introduced toward affordable energy 
independence, and that's a word we have heard. Dr. Gingrey has been 
going over it here this evening. We hear it day in and day out. I hear 
it all the time when I go back to the Fourth District of Texas.
  My bill is totally different from the multiple attempts to drill on 
ANWR. And just stay with me. I offer something different. I offer 
something that should appeal to anyone who believes in States' rights. 
This bill came to mind last week when I said to myself if we can't 
drill on ANWR, let's give it

[[Page H7046]]

back to those who can. So stay with me. This is a little bit different. 
It's called the New Resources for Domestic Consumption Act. It 
transfers the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 
called ANWR, to the State of Alaska. Give it back to them for their 
environmentally responsible work and exploration and development of oil 
that's to be explicitly used for domestic purposes or consumption only. 
By that I mean none of this is going outside the United States, and 
that's embodied in this bill.
  According to the United States Geological Survey, there is an 
estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil in ANWR, which equates to 25 
years of Middle East imports that we have to rely on today. This would 
be one of the largest oil fields ever developed in the United States. 
This is the answer now and not 10 years from now. You hear it said, oh, 
we can't drill on ANWR and people are against drilling on ANWR. Many 
environmentalists who don't want us to drill on pristine ANWR say, oh, 
it would be 10 years before you would get any energy from them. That's 
just not true. That's not true at all. Let me just talk a little bit 
about it.
  In addition to producing much-needed oil under this bill, the Federal 
Government will receive much-needed royalties if we give it back to 
Alaska. I'm saying transfer this by deed, transfer it back to Alaska, 
and let them make their own decisions about ANWR.
  We have not been able to get a bill through, and there have been many 
bills tried. None of them have reached the President's desk except one. 
It reached Bill Clinton's desk 10, 11, or 12 years ago. He vetoed it or 
we might have some $2 gasoline today.
  The Congressional Research Service has predicted that with oil at 
$145 a barrel, ANWR's 10.4 billion barrels would deliver $221.7 billion 
in corporate income taxes, not just wages, in corporate income taxes 
and royalty revenue to Uncle Sam.
  So what's important about that? Well, I will tell you. This bill 
would mean more American dollars staying in the United States, not 
going to OPEC countries, and would result in more jobs for the entire 
country. A study from the National Defense Council Foundation says the 
figure could be as high as 1 million new jobs for Americans in all 50 
States and the District of Columbia.
  A principal argument against it, let me talk about that for a minute. 
A principal argument against using oil from the Coastal Plain of ANWR 
to help bring down gasoline prices is that ``it will take 10 years to 
produce oil because it is on Federal Government land.''
  Well, the State of Alaska has a lot better track record than almost 
anyone else I know about. In 10 years America's largest oil field at 
Prudhoe Bay, adjacent to ANWR, was discovered and developed, in 10 
years. And the building of the 800-mile Trans-Alaska Pipeline that 
crosses two mountain ranges and many rivers was designed and 
constructed. The infrastructure is in place for expeditious and 
environmentally friendly development and production of oil, and the 
people of Alaska stand ready and willing to help, as they have helped 
in previous crises in American history.
  The attack on Pearl Harbor spawned the construction of the Alaska 
Highway, a 1,522-mile-long highway stretch that was built in just 6 
months in 1942. In the 1970s our Nation faced an energy crisis as a 
result of the Arab oil embargo, and in a close vote in the U.S. Senate, 
Congress finally approved construction of the Alaska Pipeline. Both 
times the people of Alaska stepped up to the plate on behalf of all 
Americans, and today we need their help once more. As a Texan in one of 
the producing States--ten States produce energy for this country and 
Texas is one of them--and as an American, I say let's not hold Alaskans 
hostage to congressional gridlock. Let's give it back to them.
  Now, who's for giving it back to them? According to a Dittman 
Research Poll, more than 75 percent of the Alaskans support exploration 
and production, and these are people there on the ground in Alaska, on 
the Coastal Plain of ANWR.
  As well, the Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, sent a letter to Senate 
Majority Leader Harry Reid on June 23 of 2008, just several days ago, 
asking Congress to authorize development of oil and gas on the Coastal 
Plain of ANWR. More recently, Governor Palin issued this following 
statement:
  ``I strongly support environmentally responsible oil and gas 
development in the Coastal Plain of ANWR because production there would 
promote the economic and national security interests of the United 
States.''
  She would know better than anybody, and she would have more say over 
who produced there and how they produced it and how environmentally 
perfect they were because she's there. She lives there. This is where 
they are.
  ``The decision on how best to accomplish this objective rests with 
Congress,'' she says. ``However,'' she says, ``I would support any 
reasonable approach, even including the possibility of State ownership 
of the Coastal Plain, to facilitate production.''
  Governor Palin continued:
  ``The important thing is that Congress expeditiously authorize 
exploration and development in the most promising unexplored petroleum 
province in North America. If Congress elects to transfer the Coastal 
Plain of ANWR to the State, I promise, on an expedited basis, to 
initiate a program to explore and develop the petroleum resources 
located there''--we have never had that promise before from anybody 
else--``subject to the safeguards,'' the safeguards that she is going 
to put in, ``designed to protect and preserve the natural resources of 
the Coastal Plain, including the fish and the wildlife.''
  Now, who else is for this? Don Young was the second person to 
cosponsor this. He's the Congressman for all of Alaska. The two 
Senators are for it. I don't think there is any question that they will 
protect their own State.
  Mr. Speaker, since the 96th Congress, there have been 19 votes on the 
House floor that pertained to allowing drilling in ANWR.

                              {time}  2145

  19 times on this floor this body has said yes, we want to drill on 
ANWR. And all of those times, except one time, when President Clinton 
vetoed it, it failed in the other body.
  Votes in the House of Representatives on energy development within 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are as follows, and these aren't 
all of them. I am just going to touch a few of them to let you know 
that we have been doing it a long, long time.
  In 1979, in section 152, on a voice roll call, Udall-Anderson 
substitute for H.R. 39 adopted by the House, including provisions 
designating all of ANWR as a wilderness. H.R. 39 passed the House, 360-
65.
  Then on 11/12/1980 it was voice voted, a unanimous vote, Congress, of 
H.R. 39 passed the House.
  In the 104th, in 1995, the House agreed 237-189, the conference 
report to H.R. 2491, reconciliation of a large bill that included the 
1002 area development provisions. That is the ANWR development.
  In 2001, the House passed the Sununu amendment to H.R. 4, to limit 
specified surface development of that same area in ANWR to a total of 
2,000 acres, which we agreed, to which the Governor has indicated that 
all is the only amount she will take.
  And yes, Dr. Gingrey told you a moment ago how really ridiculous it 
is to say that if you drill on 2,000 acres in 19 million acres, that 
that would ruin the beautiful pristine part of Alaska. That is 
outrageous. As he said, it is like putting a dollar bill in the end 
zone of Texas Stadium or in the Yankee baseball field, putting one in 
any part of the field and saying it ruins the whole baseball stadium or 
ruins the football field. It is just outrageous, it is not true, and it 
is almost silly.
  In 2001, article 317, the House rejected the Markey-Johnson amendment 
to H.R. 4, to strike this 1002 area. That is the area we are wanting to 
develop. It was passed. They rejected Mr. Markey.
  On 8/2 2002, H.R. 4, an omnibus energy bill, passed the House. Title 
V of Division F contained the 1002 area development provisions.
  And again, in 2003, the House passed the Wilson amendment to H.R. 6, 
to limit certain features, but still to drill on the 1002 area.
  Again, in 2003, again in November of 2003, the House passed a 
comprehensive energy bill.
  And again, in 2005, the House adopted 218-214 the concurrent budget 
resolution, H. Con. Res. 95, which included

[[Page H7047]]

spending targets that would be difficult to achieve unless ANWR 
development legislation was passed.
  In 2005 the House rejected, again, the Markey amendments to strike 
the ANWR provision in its omnibus energy bill, again, saying we need to 
drill in ANWR.
  Again, in 2005, the House passed an omnibus energy bill, and in 2005, 
in section 669, the House adopted the conference report on the defense 
appropriations bill which would have allowed oil and gas leasing in 
ANWR.
  I could go on and on, but on 8/4/2007, the House rejected a motion to 
recommit H.R. 3221 to the Energy and Committee with instructions to 
report back with language authorizing ANWR development.
  And then 5/14/2008, the House rejected a motion to instruct conferees 
for S. Con. Res. 70 to adjust budget levels to assure increased 
revenues from opening ANWR to development. That is 19 times I think 
that has happened. Not one of these votes has led to us letting an 
overwhelming number of Alaskans do what we have been asking them to do. 
Let's give it back to them.
  I understand and agree with the desire and the need to maintain 
pristine environments in our great and vast country. But it is 
impossible for opposition groups to mislead, and it is irresponsible 
for them to mislead the public into thinking that the Coastal Plain is 
the wild and scenic area they would like to point to in photographs.
  Let me show you, here is the wild and scenic area. Let me just show 
you this for a moment. This is the area that they are talking about, 
and it all looks just exactly like that. The truth is the Coastal Plain 
is just exactly what it says; it is plain. There are no trees or snow-
capped mountains with streams running through them. This is what the 
Coastal Plain looks like right here. That is what they are talking 
about wanting to save. How many of you have ever seen it?
  I doubt if there is anybody within the sound of my voice or reaching 
here that have seen that, have even been up there to see it. I have 
never been there. I bet there haven't been 10 people out of this 
Congress have ever seen ANWR.
  The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is 19.2 million acres. The 
Coastal Plain is 1.5 million acres of that. And point to poster 2, 
right here it is. This is the wilderness right here. This is the little 
area that they have set out to send back to Alaska, and this is the 
area that there are no trees or no snow-covered mountains with streams 
running through them. The Coastal Plain, allowing the Alaskans to drill 
responsibly on the Coastal Plain in not going to ruin ANWR, nor will it 
ruin the experience of the average of 1,200 visitors a year to the 
refuge.
  So I would just say to you, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill. This is a different bill. There has never been a 
bill like this involving ANWR. And it will allow them to move through 
the legislative process and come to the House floor for a vote.
  Actually, I tried to speak today to the Speaker. I have asked only 
Republicans to sign on to my bill. I have not asked a single Democrat 
to because I am not asking them to sign something that I think that 
their leader may object to.
  I don't think she is going to object to it. Here is what I intend to 
do. I tried to see her today, but logically she had appointments. I 
went over and waited a while, but we were in session. I just missed 
her. She would have been courteous enough to give me a hearing if I 
could have waited for her. But I am going to talk to her again 
tomorrow. I want to impress upon her that this bill is different, that 
this is a different situation.
  The President didn't set ANWR up for drilling when he encouraged us 
to do some drilling on some other areas. Neither of the aspirants for 
President have set up ANWR up.
  Madam Speaker, you could be alone on this. You could be alone in 
giving back to the people of Alaska the right to protect themselves. 
They may not drill. You are not directing them to drill. You are 
authorizing them to drill.
  I just hope very much that procrastination has cost Americans dearly 
at the gas pump. We can't afford to wait any longer. We have an 
emergency, we have a crisis, Americans need our help.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas. 
He did not disappoint. I think that his explanation was exactly what I 
anticipated.
  And I want to, before I yield to my good friend and colleague from 
Tennessee, I wanted to point out, reference back to Representative 
Hall's poster in regard to the map. And he pointed out, of course, that 
this whole area, the refuge area, 9 million acres, refuge area, no 
development allowed. That is this orange area.
  And then also, in the yellow area, wilderness area, another 8 million 
acres, no development allowed.
  And then this Coastal Plain area on the very top, the north slope, 
that area was reserved by our own President Jimmy Carter, from my State 
of Georgia, who fully intended that, eventually, that oil exploration 
could be allowed in that area that Representative Hall was talking 
about, and not the whole area, but this small, I mean, it is about 1.5 
million acres and we are talking about 2,000 acres. So clearly that was 
the intent, as he pointed out, back in 1980.
  So I love this slide and I love his idea. I think it is intriguing.
  And with that I want to yield now to my good friend from Chattanooga, 
the Honorable Zach Wamp.
  Mr. WAMP. Well, I thank Dr. Gingrey, and I thank Mr. Hall for his 
unique insight.
  It is a privilege to come tonight. I think Mr. Hall is right. There 
are a lot of people of good will in this body that really want to do 
something about this. As a matter of fact, the heat is on.
  I had a Democratic colleague tell me recently that he was on an 
airplane and a guy came up to him and said bring down gas prices. And 
the guy was pretty upset, as we see often now at home. And the 
Democratic Member said, don't you think if we could do something 
quickly we would? And that really is the response that a lot of Members 
give.
  And politics sometimes gets in the way of progress. But I have got to 
tell you that it is important the votes you cast, and it is important 
when you try to push a legislative initiative, and when things are 
vetoed and do not go forward, there are consequences. And we find 
ourselves in that mess today.
  I don't come to the floor to blame anybody. Frankly, I come to the 
floor to offer solutions. And I think the blame game has got a lot of 
people really dissatisfied with the Congress to begin with. But these 
solutions really need to be debated and voted on. That is what we are 
really trying to press is for more legislative activity around new 
energy sources for Americans.
  Now, for the last 8 years, I have had the privilege of co-chairing a 
large bipartisan group in the Congress called the Renewable Energy and 
Energy Efficiency Caucus. It is well over half the House. I know both 
these men, I think, are on the caucus. But it is about 60 percent 
Democratic Members, 40 percent Republican Members.
  And I have to tell you, from our perspective, conservation is kind of 
job one. I say conservation is not for wimps; it is for warriors. Not 
everybody is going to put the uniform of our Armed Forces on, but 
everybody can help our country in a mighty way by increasing efficiency 
and conserving as they can. They can weatherize their home and save 
electricity. They can cut back, and they can go to a more efficient 
vehicle, and they can be smart about how they consume energy. And as we 
reduce demand prices will come down, and every American has a patriotic 
obligation to push for efficiencies and conservation, and that really 
ought to be job one. And we all need to say more about that because it 
is real.
  The number one energy source over the last generation in this 
country, is conservation, if you just calculate all of the energy and 
how much we have saved since the 1970s when we conserve and create 
efficiencies. That is important.
  Now, there is an irony here, and that is the Energy Policy Act that 
was signed into law almost 3 years ago this week, EPAct, the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005, was a Republican bill with a Republican Congress 
signed by a Republican president.
  And everybody trashes the President and the Vice President for 
knowing a lot about the oil and gas industry. But the truth is, and I 
was there and wrote what was called the Energy Efficiency

[[Page H7048]]

Cornerstone Act with some industry groups for the renewable and energy 
efficiency organizations. That was rolled in. And if you were in the 
wind, solar, biomass, geothermal or renewable energy sector, you loved 
that bill, and you said, this is the best bill that has been signed 
into law for us in a long, long time.
  But as Dr. Gingrey said, those tax credits to incentivize the 
investments in those new technologies have expired. Some of them may 
still be going on, but most of them have already expired. They were 2 
years.
  Now, if you are in the majority in the Congress today, you have a 
majority in the House and the Senate, and you believe in those things, 
why in the world have you not not only extended them for another 2 
years, but extended them for 5 years or 10 years?
  There is an article today that the chairman of the Senate Finance 
Committee is frustrated that he can't get the votes in the Senate to 
bring this up.
  You talked about Congressman Bartlett from Maryland. I am the 
original cosponsor with him of the extenders for these tax incentives 
for renewables and efficiencies without any tax increases. Just extend 
them. If you believe in them, extend them. Don't worry about the budget 
consequences because it will stimulate. And right now the cost of 
energy is so heavy we can't afford not to. As a matter of fact, we 
can't afford to do a lot of things now because of the cost of energy. 
We really can't afford any more time delays, any more recesses, as Dr. 
Gingrey says. And these investment tax credits are important.
  The industry groups will tell you give us a 5-year investment tax 
credit and you will see major investments. If you really believe in 
those things, to the new majority, and I am not blaming, I am just 
saying, let's get on with it. Bring it up now. Time is of the essence.
  The gentleman talked about nuclear. And yes, Yucca Mountain is out 
there, and yes, you can take the spent fuel from nuclear and you can 
bury it, but that is a long now protracted process that is involved in 
a legal dispute.
  What does France do? Because they get 81 percent of their electricity 
from nuclear they reprocess the spent fuel. They are not as afraid of 
it as we are. Now, listen, the French have not been accused of being 
overly courageous here of late. Yet, here, they have more courage than 
we do. Actually they are smarter than we are on energy utilization. 
They go 81 percent nuclear, and they reprocess the spent fuel and turn 
most of it back into energy. And they have half as many nuclear 
reactors as we do. We are at about 105 reactors. They are at about 53 
reactors. They have one reprocessing facility, therefore, we would need 
two. We have the technology to do it. I represent the Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory. We can demonstrate for the country right now, and 
TVA is prepared to show we can reprocess the spent fuel and stand up 
nuclear.
  And the gentleman is right. It is 8-12 percent right now, reactors 
on-line of our total electricity capacity. It needs to be at least \1/
4\ nuclear.

                              {time}  2200

  Now they're going to come up, the Democrats, in a few minutes and 
talk about Boone Pickens. Okay. He's an oilman who now says 25 percent 
wind. Great. He shows us where they can be put. Great. What they're not 
going to tell you, as he also says, is go after all of the oil and gas 
capacity in this country that you can because we have to have new 
energy, okay? We can go in all of these renewable and efficiency areas, 
but it's still not enough given the demand. The demand is way up.
  We've had a robust economy for 15 years in this country. I know it 
has sputtered of late, but because of that dynamic economy and because 
of the demand in India and in China and in other parts of the world, 
the demand exceeds the supply globally, and the price points are now 
unacceptable and unsustainable. We have got to have some new capacity 
as well. The Outer Continental Shelf, way out in the ocean where you 
cannot see it, should be a no-brainer for people if the State says 
``okay.''
  So that's what Senator McCain has proposed is let the States decide. 
That's a good idea. If South Carolina wants to do it, let them do it. 
If Florida doesn't want to do it, don't let them do it, but get out of 
the way with the global moratorium.
  The President released the executive moratorium on Outer Continental 
Shelf exploration. Now the Congress should do it. That's another thing 
that the Speaker ought to bring to the floor. Let's lift the 
moratorium. Things have changed.
  When President Clinton vetoed ANWR in 1996, 70 percent of the 
American people thought that we should preserve all of that Alaska 
wilderness and not drill. Today, it's the other way around. Seventy 
percent of Americans say let's get on with it because we can't afford 
gas. We need help.
  Senator Obama says it's going to be 7 years before you can pull any 
of it out. How much worse off are we going to be in 7 years if we don't 
get started now? We need all of the above.
  Let me tell you that I know a lot of Democrats want to go ahead and 
start drilling. They want the votes, but they won't let us have the 
votes. Today, here at the Capitol, in Washington, there were dozens of 
protesters who were holding up signs, saying, ``Do not drill. Protect 
our coastlines. Protect our wildlife area regions.'' I've got to tell 
you that they are now in the minority in this country. The American 
people don't want them up here protesting our going after American 
energy for American citizens. We have to do all of the above.
  I just want to close on a couple of new technologies that have great 
potential out of the Silicon Valley, which has, frankly, led the world 
now for a long time on things like information technology and which has 
really helped the U.S. economy and our exports.
  There is a company called Bloom Energy, and they've developed a 
solid-oxide stationary fuel cell. It looks like the HVAC system in your 
home, and without a transmission system at all, it creates electricity. 
Now, it obviously has to have some feedstock going in, but it can run 
off a host of feedstocks. It can run off natural gas. It can run off of 
ethanol. It can run off of solar in some applications. This is a 
unique, new technology.
  We're trying to demonstrate that solid-oxide stationary fuel cell 
here at the Capitol because all of these lights are on today as a 
result of a fossil-fired, dirty powerhouse here in Washington where we 
actually pollute in Washington about as bad as anywhere in the country. 
There's not much efficiency here. The lights stay on all the time. It's 
really ridiculous. The Democrats have a greening initiative for the 
Capitol, but it mostly involves light bulbs. We really need to get 
serious about it and take some of these buildings off that fossil 
powerhouse and move into solid-oxide stationary fuel cell-type 
technology.
  Plug-in hybrids, we need them. Get them to the marketplace. 
Biodiesel, ethanol, new fuel mixes, get on with it. Wind technologies 
have tremendous potential in the Northern and Central United States.
  As the gentleman from Georgia says, the right approach is everything. 
Don't pick winners and losers. Don't leave anything off the table. They 
did that in California with electricity, and the lights went out. You 
can't regulate yourself into a solution here. You can't tax your way 
into a solution here. We have to have a robust agenda, and it is time 
for Democrats and Republicans to come together and get this done.
  I thank the gentleman for coming again tonight, for giving us the 
opportunity to talk about what the solutions are, and then let's get on 
with it. The American people are tired of waiting.
  I yield back.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. He is 
always very, very thoughtful, and his presentation is so clear. 
Hopefully, all of my colleagues can understand the message that we are 
presenting tonight. That is, really, as we go back, thinking about the 
initial little quiz, the little pop quiz, multiple choice, it's all of 
the above. It's all of the above. That is what Representative Zach Wamp 
from Chattanooga, who is a member of the Appropriations Committee and 
who understands this issue, is explaining to our colleagues and to 
anybody else who might be listening tonight. This is important stuff, 
and it is critical. It is critical that we do something about it.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand--and this is awfully small, but

[[Page H7049]]

maybe the camera can focus in on it. This just shows you a number of 
bills that have been introduced by the Republican minority starting the 
week of June the 9th:
  H.R. 3089, the No More Excuses Energy Act of 2007: No action on that 
bill. We have a discharge petition. Almost every Republican has signed 
that discharge petition, but we need 218 of our colleagues. That means 
some of our Democrat colleagues need to sign these bills as well.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Courtney). The gentleman is reminded to 
address his remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, thank you. Of course.
  The next bill, H.R. 2279, was introduced the week of June the 16th. 
This bill, the title of it, is Expand American Refining Capacity on 
Closed Military Installations. Mr. Speaker, as you know, there has been 
no action on that bill. Right over here to my right, at the desk, is a 
discharge petition. We've got Republican votes. We're awfully close, 
Mr. Speaker. We need 218, but so far, no action.
  Basically, this bill just says in the BRAC process, where we have a 
number of closed military installations, we have that government land, 
and if that community wants to have a refinery placed there, then we 
can do it. It's a very simple bill. As I said at the outset, we 
desperately need to expand existing refineries and bring more online.
  Now, in the week of June the 23rd, H.R. 5656: Repeal the Ban on 
Acquiring Alternative Fuels. It reduces the price of gasoline by 
allowing the Federal Government to procure advanced alternative fuels 
derived from diverse sources like oil shale, tar sands and coal-to-
liquid technology.
  I want to spend an extra amount of time, my colleagues and Mr. 
Speaker, discussing that particular bill because that was a provision--
section 526, I believe--in the Democrats' energy bill of 2007. The 
energy bill, I think, is called the Energy Independence and Security 
Act of 2007.
  Now, this section 526 basically says that no agency of the Federal 
Government can enter into a contract to purchase any nontraditional 
fuel if the result of processing that fuel or of burning that fuel is 
an increase of one scintilla--a scintilla, my colleagues, is a very 
small amount, indeed, a nanogram, an infinitesimal increase--in the 
carbon dioxide footprint.
  So that means that domestic sources that are not traditional bubble-
up petroleum that are easily obtained cannot be utilized, and that is a 
tragedy. That is a tragedy for this country when the Department of 
Defense, one agency of the Federal Government, is spending in the year 
2008 an extra $9 billion on fuel. Now, this is not the total amount 
they're spending. This is just the delta because of $145 a barrel on 
petroleum and what it costs eventually to produce jet fuel.
  Yet we have in this country, in the Rocky Mountain States, in three 
or four States out in the Rocky Mountain area, a product called shale. 
It's a rock, and it's embedded with petroleum, and it can be mined on 
the surface. People get concerned, I guess, sometimes about the 
environmental effects of mining, but if we didn't mine in this world, 
there would be no highways; there would be no aggregate to produce 
concrete and asphalt. Indeed, there would be no diamonds, no copper.
  Mining shale has the potential in this country of producing 1.5 
trillion barrels of petroleum, 1.5 trillion barrels of petroleum, Mr. 
Speaker. Yes, it's a little more difficult to get it, and possibly, it 
does yield a scintilla increase in the carbon dioxide footprint, but 
when we're in a crisis like we are in today in this country and when 
people are suffering, I'll guarantee you the citizens of the 11th 
District of Georgia--of northwest Georgia in the nine counties that I 
represent--and probably my 434 colleagues in this body on both sides of 
the aisle and their constituents will tell you the same thing:
  We're worried about the carbon footprint; we want a clean 
environment, and we know that that's important to our future, and we're 
going to work toward that.
  Guess what the number one priority is today. That is bringing down 
the price of gasoline because we can't eat and because we can't get our 
kids to school. We can't get to work. This is something that you would 
think, Mr. Speaker, the leadership of this body could clearly see when 
everybody else in this country can see it.
  I could give you some statistics about polling. We all look at polls 
particularly in this big election year. According to a CNN poll, 73 
percent of Americans favor more exploration of deep ocean energy 
resources far off of American shores. In a Reuters-Zogby poll just this 
past June, 75 percent of Americans support drilling for oil off the 
shores of the United States while 59 percent support drilling in ANWR.
  We have heard this. This is an undeniable fact. I mean I know people 
can have their own opinions, but they cannot have their own facts. The 
fact is we're the only developed country in the world that has not 
taken advantage of exploring for oil and natural gas off of our 
Continental Shelf. It makes no sense. In fact, right now, Cuba and 
China are talking about exploring for oil and natural gas off of the 
coast of Cuba, 45 miles from our coast, and it's perfectly legal; they 
can do that. Yet we're sitting on our hands. It doesn't make a whole 
lot of sense.
  Well, I've got a number of other bills, Mr. Speaker, that are sitting 
over there with those discharge petitions that are just waiting for a 
few Democratic signatures. I wonder of the conservative members, 
particularly of the Democratic Conference and of the Blue Dogs, where 
their signatures are. It's amazing to me that they don't go to their 
leadership and say, ``You know, you're killing us. We're on the verge 
of committing political suicide. We've got to do something.''
  If I cared only about the politics of it, I probably wouldn't say a 
word. I would let them continue this folly of their leadership and hope 
that the political consequences in November would be advantageous to my 
Republican Party, and we'd regain the majority, and we'd elect 
President McCain. I hope that happens.
  What's more important right now is that we come together in a 
bipartisan way and that we do the right thing for the American people 
and then let the politics take care of themselves and let the chips 
fall where they may, and they will.
  As we get toward the close of the hour, in the remaining few minutes, 
I want to talk about a bill that was introduced just yesterday by the 
leader of my party, by the minority leader, John Boehner, the gentleman 
from Ohio. What Mr. Boehner did is he took all of these bills that our 
colleagues have introduced over the last 6 or 8 weeks, and he put them 
together into one bill, the American Energy Act.

                              {time}  2215

  We had a press conference today on the West steps of the Capitol, and 
Chairman Boehner, Leader Boehner, and our leadership and a number of 
Members who actually went up to--Mr. Hall said earlier he had not seen 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and wondered how many Members had. 
Just this past weekend, Leader Boehner and 10 freshman members of the 
Republican Conference went, and with their very own eyes, they saw this 
area.
  They also went out to Golden, Colorado, to see where all the research 
that's being done on renewable fuel and coal-to-liquid. We have 
something like 1.5 trillion tons of coal in this country, and we use a 
lot of it, a lot of it to fire our electricity plants. But we could 
convert so much of that excess coal to petroleum, coal liquefaction, 
and we could do it in a clean and environmentally friendly way.
  So Leader Boehner introduced the American Energy Act, and as I said 
earlier, remember the multiple choice question, an all-of-the-above 
approach to energy independence: increase the supply American made 
energy in environmentally friendly and sound ways; promote alternative 
and renewable energy technology; improve energy conservation and 
efficiency. That's the approach that Leader Boehner and the Republican 
minority is asking our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to get on board with us 
for the American people.
  And under the bullet point of increasing the supply of American-made 
energy--we talked about it tonight--open the Outer Continental Shelf, 
provide an additional 3 million barrels of oil per day, as well as 76 
trillion--yes, that's with a T--76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas; 
open the Arctic National

[[Page H7050]]

Wildlife Refuge, an additional 1.5 million barrels a day; and reduce 
bureaucratic red tape to construct new oil refineries; and increase the 
supply of gas at the pump, increase the supply of American-made energy; 
promote alternative and renewable energy technologies.
  As I said, repeal that idiotic section 526 prohibition on government 
purchases of alternative energy and promote coal-to-liquid technology, 
shale mining, tar sand production. A lot of the oil that we get from 
Canada already comes from tar sand, but yet we can't get it right here 
in the United States of America. It's insanity.
  Establish a renewable energy trust fund using the revenues generated 
by exploration in the OCS and ANWR. What Mr. Hall and Representative 
Wamp were both talking about is when these States share in the revenue, 
if they allow this drilling off of their coast, 25, 50, 100 miles out 
to sea, then the Federal Government also shares in royalties. That 
money could be spent on research and development for alternative fuels.
  Permanently extend tax credits for alternative energy production: 
wind, solar, hydrogen, biomass. We talked about that earlier.
  And eliminate, of course, barriers to the expansion of nuclear power 
production, which we also discussed.
  And then the final chart, improve energy conservation and efficiency. 
There are a number of things on this chart. I could talk about them 
real quickly: provide tax incentives for businesses and families that 
purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles; provide a monetary prize for 
being the first to develop an economically feasible superfuel-efficient 
vehicle--John McCain is for that--provide tax incentives for businesses 
and homeowners who improve their energy efficiency.
  So, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity, as I say to be here 
tonight, to talk about these issues, has been a privilege. It indeed 
has been a privilege, and I want to say to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, 
that we Republicans care about the environment. We care about 
conservation. We want to reduce greenhouse gases for sure. Some of us 
believe that there's scientific evidence there that suggests that 
global warming is a real thing and it's caused by too much greenhouse 
gas production. But we can take care of that problem without breaking 
this country, if we do it in the right way.
  Right now, first and foremost, it is time to lower the price of 
gasoline at the pump. We can do it by drilling here, drilling now, and 
saving money for the American people. We're sent here to represent 
them. We're not doing a very good job of it. No wonder our approval 
rating is 9 percent. That's shameful.
  Let's stay here through the August recess. You know, if it's a week, 
if it's two weeks, whatever, let's get this job done for the American 
people.

                          ____________________