[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 142 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H7941-H7946]
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 Ohio (Mr. Latta) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time.
  As we gather here this evening, we have heard a lot of speeches and 
discussion about one of the number one questions we have in this 
country, and that's our energy policy. We all went home and a lot of us 
didn't want to go home on August 1, and we stayed down here to get an 
energy policy in this country, but as we did go home, we faced a lot of 
questions from our constituents.
  I, for one, represent the National Manufacturing Association, one of 
the largest manufacturing districts, with manufacturing jobs in the 
Congress, and the number one agriculture district in Ohio. We have got 
a lot of needs in our district concerning energy. And that energy isn't 
just talking about oil to put in our cars, but it also depends on what 
we have in our factories.

                              {time}  2000

  This evening, we have a number of Members who I would like to bring 
to the podium to talk a little bit about what's happening, not only in 
their States but across this country. The first Member I'd like to 
introduce this evening is our distinguished Member from Texas, our 
ranking member on Energy and Commerce, Mr. Barton.
  Good evening, and thanks very much.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, thank you, Congressman Latta, and thank 
you for hosting this Special Order.
  It's nice to be on the floor with the cameras on and with the 
microphones on. I was one of, I think, 135 Republican Members of the 
House who participated in what I called our American townhall meetings 
here on the floor during the August work period where we spoke to the 
tourists who were coming through the Capitol. We talked about the need 
for a comprehensive energy policy. We did it without the benefit of 
microphones and with the cameras off, just speaking extemporaneously to 
educate the American public and to keep a vigil for the American public 
for a real energy policy.
  I notice that our distinguished Speaker today held a press conference 
at which she announced yet another attempt to politically confuse the 
American people by putting a so-called ``energy package'' on the floor 
perhaps on Thursday, perhaps on Friday, perhaps some day next week. One 
of her aides, in response to a question from the press corps after that 
press conference, said--and I'm not going to say this is an exact 
quote--that they would never allow the Republican energy package to 
come onto the floor because it was too radical. Well, that must be a 
different definition of ``radical'' than is in Webster's Dictionary, 
because what the Republican energy package is is the radical notion 
that Americans, themselves, can develop American resources so that we 
have American-made energy/American-produced energy to keep America's 
families and America's factories humming and being productive. I don't 
think that's radical.
  I want to talk a little bit about a part of that energy policy, the 
Republican energy policy, which would be to allow drilling in ANWR, up 
in Alaska. I've been having my staff do a little bit of research, and I 
thought it might be beneficial to give the benefits of some of that 
research here to the Members on the floor and to others in the country.
  In 1910, almost 100 years ago--I think it was while Teddy Roosevelt 
was President--the Congress passed a law for the development of 
American resources. That law stated that the Presidents and Congresses 
could set aside certain portions of Federal lands for different 
purposes if they felt that there might be some economic development 
potential in these Federal lands. It was called the Pickett Act. So, in 
1924, they decided to create what we now call the Alaska Naval 
Petroleum Reserve. Now, there is a reason they picked this part of 
Alaska, which is to the west of Prudhoe Bay, fronting on

[[Page H7942]]

the Arctic Ocean. Here is the scientific basis on which they picked the 
Alaska Naval Petroleum Reserve in 1924.
  New England whaling ships, as they had gone after whales in the 
Arctic Ocean, noticed that there were some oil seeps. So, based on that 
scientific evidence, they set up the Alaska Naval Petroleum Reserve. 
They didn't have the benefit of modern seismic geology or of any 
satellite photography or of any of the 3-D seismic differentiation that 
we have today. Some New England whaling ships, as they went ashore to 
look for water and things of this sort, noticed some oil seeps.
  Okay. Fast forward to 1960. Alaska becomes a State, and the Alaska 
congressional-senatorial delegations decided that we needed to preserve 
some of these Alaskan lands. Alaska had been a territory. Now Alaska 
becomes a State. So they passed an act in 1960 that created to the east 
of Prudhoe Bay an area that we now call ANWR. Now, of course, there was 
a little bit more science available in 1960. So, when they set up the 
Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve, they were searching for oil, and 
they had discovered in what we now call Prudhoe Bay a specific geologic 
formation that they thought had the potential to find some oil.
  It turns out they found the largest oil field on the North American 
continent that has been discovered here today, and so they wanted to 
set up a wildlife reserve. They already had the petroleum reserve to 
the west of Prudhoe Bay, so they decided they needed a wildlife 
reserve, and they set up what we call ANWR, but they had done enough 
scientific exploration that they knew there was an area that might have 
a lot of oil and/or gas. It was called section 1102.
  So, when they created this reserve for wildlife, they put a section 
in the law that said, in this area, we want to really do some 
exploration activity to see if there might be something that could be 
developed commercially. Lo and behold, when they did that exploration 
activity of the discovery well, which was, I believe, drilled by 
Texaco, which is yet to be made public--it's proprietary information--
there is enough that is known, we think, of that one area, of this one 
little section that is 3 square miles, that there could be 11 billion 
barrels of oil.
  Now, as to the Alaska Naval Petroleum Reserve to the west of Prudhoe 
Bay, Speaker Pelosi and her Democratic friends have said we can drill 
over there; we can drill over there, but in the area that's now called 
ANWR to the east of Prudhoe Bay, you can't drill over there; you can't 
drill over there. There's no ecological difference. There's no 
environmental difference. There's really no wildlife habitat 
difference.
  Just by happenstance, in the 1920s, we set up the petroleum reserve 
because whaling ships had seen oil seeps. In the 1950s and early 1960s 
when we created ANWR, as we were creating the wildlife reserve, we did 
carve out this section 1102 because we thought that might have some 
potential, and it appears it has huge potential, but today, we can't 
drill there because of moratoria that have been put in place in the 
last 30 years.
  Now the question is: If we can only drill one well in America next 
year, where would it be? Would you drill down in Congressman Carter's 
district in Texas? in Mr. Latta's district in Ohio? in Mr. Broun's 
district in Georgia? in my district in Texas?
  Mr. Carter and I represent a State in which we've drilled 2 million 
wells since 1895, 2 million. The probability of finding an 11 billion-
barrel oil field in Texas by drilling one more well is one in 2 
million. That's not very good odds. The probability of finding a major 
oil field in Ohio where they've drilled several hundred thousand wells 
is a little bit better. It's still not great. The probability of 
finding a major oil field in Georgia by drilling one well next year--I 
don't know how many wells have been drilled in Georgia. It's probably 
several thousand--is not too great.
  If you drill one well in ANWR, you've got an almost 100 percent 
chance of finding a well that will produce tens of thousands of barrels 
a day, millions of barrels a year, billions of barrels over the life of 
the field, but we can't do it because, in the 1920s, we said the 
petroleum reserve is to the west of Prudhoe Bay. In the 1960s, we said 
the wildlife reserve is to the east. Even in section 1102, we put a 
moratorium in place.
  Now the question to Mr. Latta and to the Members of the House: Is it 
radical to say let's drill up in ANWR? Let's see. I don't think that's 
radical. Is it radical to drill in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, which 
even the Democrats are beginning to think might make some sense? Is it 
radical to see what's off the Atlantic coast? Do you know how much 
exploration, how much seismic, how much geologic exploration we're 
doing off the Atlantic coast? Nada. Zero. None.

  The Canadians are producing north of Maine. The Cubans are trying, 
and the Chinese are looking to produce south of Florida, but we've put 
the entire Atlantic coast off limits. Is it radical to at least see 
what's out there? I don't think that's radical.
  Is it radical to try to develop our 2 trillion oil shale reserves, 
the 2 trillion barrels in Wyoming and in Colorado and in Utah? I don't 
think so.
  So, Mr. Latta, if I were the Speaker, which I'm not, instead of these 
political flimflams that we've had now for the last year, here is what 
I would do--and I ask my colleagues: Is this a radical proposal?
  I would pick a group of Republicans and Democrats who are respected 
in both parties. Let them put together a bipartisan proposal. Then on 
the proposals that cause the most angst in the liberal left of the 
Democratic Caucus, pick a conservative Democrat and a pro-energy 
Republican, and let them offer an amendment to the base package. Bring 
it to the floor. You don't have to bring the Republican bill to the 
floor. Bring this bipartisan bill with some amendments where we're not 
sure of the outcome, and let the House vote.
  Now, in prior Democratic-controlled Congresses, that's basically why 
the energy packages were put together. They weren't put together by the 
Speaker's aides in a back room with no hearings and with no process. It 
was put together. It was bipartisan. It would come to the floor with 
amendments.
  When we elect the Speaker for this body, the majority of the House--
which right now is Democrat--elects that Speaker. It's what we did with 
Newt Gingrich. It's what we did with Denny Hastert when the Republicans 
were the majority. It's what the Democrats have done with the 
distinguished lady from San Francisco, Ms. Pelosi.
  That Speaker has an obligation to, in this case, her party, the 
Democrats, but the Speaker also has an obligation to the American 
people. The Constitution and the rules of the House do not say that, 
once you get to be Speaker, you can only let bills come to the floor of 
which you know the outcome and that fit the political profile of the 
majority within your caucus.
  Let's let there be a real debate on the floor in the next 3 weeks. 
Let's let there be real amendments. Let's see where the votes are. Now, 
my guess is the American people are smarter than the Speaker and the 
Speaker's staff. They want a commonsense, comprehensive energy policy 
that develops American-made energy for American use in the United 
States.
  We'll win those votes, I believe--``we'' being the American people--
if we get them. If we don't, as Leader Boehner has said, the 
Republicans are not going to accept a facade. We want the real deal. We 
want the real policies debated and voted on on this floor before we 
break for the elections in November. If we do that, Mr. Latta, the 
American people will win. Over time, energy prices will come down, and 
our economy will continue to grow.
  I'm glad to participate in this Special Order. I appreciate the time. 
With that, I would yield back to you.
  Mr. LATTA. I appreciate the distinguished gentleman from Texas and 
all of his hard work through all of these years on this energy debate 
because, as he mentioned, this country's future is at stake. Our 
standing in the world is at stake. It's not time to wait to get 
something done down the road. We have to do it right now.
  At this time, I would like to recognize my good friend from Georgia 
(Mr. Broun). I appreciate all of his work that he has done over the 
last year on trying to get an energy policy in this country. I 
appreciate it.
  The mike is yours. Thank you.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Latta, for yielding.

[[Page H7943]]

  I appreciate this opportunity to come and speak today on this issue 
that is so drastically important to the American people. Everybody, 
rich and poor, black and white, all races, all nationalities, everybody 
in America is suffering from the high cost of energy.
  When we voted on the morning of August 1 to go home for a 5-week 
break, that afternoon I was part of the group of Republicans here on 
the floor demanding, demanding that we go back in session to find some 
commonsense solutions to the high cost of gasoline at everybody's gas 
pump. Everybody in this Nation, even if you don't have a car, if you 
drive a bicycle or a motorcycle or a scooter, is suffering from the 
consequences of the high cost of energy. When you go to the grocery 
store and try to buy bread, milk, eggs, bacon, the cost of those goods 
in your grocery store are going to continue to go up because of the 
high cost of energy.
  We hear from the controlling party, the Democrats, from Speaker 
Pelosi--now, there are some on the other side that would like to have a 
vote, that would like to see the energy costs come down. Many of our 
friends on the Democratic side of the aisle would vote for a 
comprehensive energy plan that would literally lower the cost of 
gasoline, would lower the cost of heating oil, would lower the cost of 
all energy sources here in America. But they can't have that 
opportunity to vote on a comprehensive plan. We can't have an 
opportunity to vote on a comprehensive plan. Why is that so? Frankly, 
if the American Energy Act would come to this floor for a vote, I think 
it would pass overwhelmingly. But Speaker Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, the 
majority leader, won't let that act come here, to have an up-and-down 
vote, to have an open discussion, a frank debate about all the issues 
within that act.
  Now, what does the act do? The act taps into our own American energy 
sources, taps into our own energy sources. Doing so is absolutely 
critical. We have to stop this dependence upon Middle Eastern oil. We 
are funding governments who hate America, who want to destroy us, and 
they are in turn funding al Qaeda, the insurgency in Iraq, the 
insurgency in Afghanistan. They're funding people who are in our 
country today who want to attack the very fiber of our Nation. We have 
to stop that dependency upon foreign oil, whether it's Middle Eastern 
oil, Venezuelan oil, North African oil, or anywhere else. We have to 
tap into our own natural resources. America is the only nation in the 
world, the only nation in the world, that won't develop its own natural 
resources.
  I became a political activist coming to Washington. I was practicing 
medicine in rural South Georgia, coming here to this Nation's capital 
to lobby as a volunteer about hunters' rights and gun owners' rights 
and conservation issues. I'm a scientist. I'm a medical doctor. And I 
believe that all of our policy ought to be based on science. Not on 
emotionalism, not on what the name of something is, but on science. And 
I believe very strongly that we have to be good stewards of God's 
creation. We're charged biblically to do so. We have to be good 
stewards of our environment. And I'm a conservationist, a very ardent 
conservationist. We can tap into our own natural resources. We can 
develop those God-given resources, what we call fossil fuel, air 
through wind as it moves around our country, through the sun, through 
solar resources. We can tap into those resources. But we are denied a 
vote on an act that would do everything. We call it the ``all-of-the-
above plan.''
  We hear our colleagues on the Democratic side, the controlling party, 
say, well, let the oil companies drill. They already have leases. They 
can't drill. Why is that? My friends, my colleagues, American people, 
oil companies can't drill because of endless lawsuits by the radical 
environmentalists. Any bill that's presented has to include some 
mechanism to stop the endless lawsuits by these radical 
environmentalists that don't want any drilling. They don't want us to 
develop any of our natural resources. They don't want us to do 
anything. I think they want us to live in a cave or in a tree. Come to 
think of it, they don't want us to live in the trees because they think 
that destroying the forests would be adverse to their philosophy. So I 
think they want us to live in a cave. I guess we'd have to go and pick 
up sticks to make a fire and cook our food. A lot of them don't want us 
to even go out and harvest some of the bountiful animals that we have 
in those forests that I enjoy eating as a hunter and as a fisherman. 
But the leadership of the Democratic Party is listening to those 
radical environmentalists, and they closed down this Congress on August 
1 at 11:23 in the morning when many of us wanted to just come to this 
floor, as is our right, as is our privilege, to talk about energy.
  That afternoon I was here as part of that group, as I have already 
mentioned, demanding the ability to bring the American Energy Act to 
the floor for an up-and-down vote, to have a debate, an open debate, 
with amendments, to allow everybody to put their two cents worth in, to 
talk about their philosophy, to offer their suggestions, to find some 
commonsense solutions to our energy dependence on foreign sources.

  It's a national security issue for us to be dependent upon those 
nations who want to destroy America. It's an economic issue because our 
dependency upon them makes us subservient to them.
  The high cost of energy is raising the cost of health care in my 
business. It's raising the cost of groceries in the grocery store. It's 
raising the cost of every single good and service in this Nation.
  I as well as many others came during the August break to this floor 
to try to do the people's work, to demand a vote on a commonsense 
solution to this energy crisis we have in America. Right now today 
America is drilling for ice on Mars; yet we cannot drill for oil in 
America. It's insane. We have to change that. We have to tap into our 
oil and gas resources offshore and in ANWR.
  I have already mentioned that I hunt. I have been on the North Slope 
of the Brooks Range. I've been out flying over the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. I've seen the caribou herds that we keep hearing 
about from the Democratic majority that would be harmed. That's 
hogwash. They didn't want the pipeline. I have flown over the pipeline. 
I've camped out by the pipeline. I've seen the caribou herds in Alaska 
blossom and reproduce and get more numerous because of the pipeline. 
I've seen pictures of grizzly bear walking down the pipeline. It's 
actually helped the wildlife.
  We have the technology today where we can tap into those oil 
resources in ANWR, offshore, all over this Nation, and can do it in an 
environmentally responsible way, as we must, as I want to see happen, 
as a lot of my Democratic colleagues would like to see happen. But we 
cannot get a vote.
  I have got a picture here. One of the Democratic folks told us the 
Democrats' energy plan was to ``drive small cars and wait for the 
wind.'' I don't think most of us want to drive around in small cars 
waiting for the wind. We don't have to. We can lower the cost of 
gasoline. We have to tap into our own natural resources to be able to 
do so. We can stop our dependence on Middle Eastern oil by voting into 
law the American energy plan. We can make America secure by voting for 
the American energy plan.
  Whom is Ms. Pelosi listening to? She's from San Francisco. She thinks 
those radical environmentalists out there are normal people.
  But the American people know different. The American people know and 
want an energy plan that makes sense to lower their cost of gas at the 
pumps. But we need more than that. It's September. People are starting 
to buy their home heating oil. Poor people, retirees on fixed incomes 
are going to have to pay a lot more money for their home heating oil. 
Many are not going to be able to afford to buy their supplies for the 
winter. The people that we hear from the Democratic majority that they 
want to represent the most, the poor people and the elderly of this 
Nation, are going to be radically affected and harmed because Ms. 
Pelosi and Mr. Hoyer, the Democratic leadership, will not allow a vote 
on the American Energy Act.
  I represent the 10th Congressional District in Georgia, northeast 
Georgia. One of the cities in my district is Athens, where the 
University of Georgia is. I'm a proud Bulldog. Go Dawgs. Our

[[Page H7944]]

head football coach, Mark Richt, has a three-word phrase he uses to 
energize the football team: ``Finish the drill.'' As a congressman, I 
have got a three-word phrase to energize America: ``Start the drill.'' 
We have to start the drill. We have to tap into our own natural 
resources and develop America's resources. We have to develop 
alternative sources of energy. That's absolutely critical because we 
have a dwindling supply of oil and eventually it's going to run out. We 
have to develop the wind and solar energy that my Democratic friends 
just keep talking about. T. Boone Pickens says that's half the answer. 
That's hogwash also. It's only a small part of the answer. It's less 
than 10 percent. But we have to develop wind and solar. The American 
Energy Act does that.
  Just south of my district, just south of Augusta, Georgia, the 
Georgia Power Company is trying to put in two nuclear reactors, and 
they have been doing that for decades. But because of the radical 
environmentalists and governmental regulations and endless lawsuits, 
they can't build the two nuclear reactors to add to the two that are 
already there. We have the technology to make nuclear energy safe. 
Nuclear energy is the only thing that makes environmental sense and 
economic sense to develop electric energy in this Nation. We have to 
develop nuclear energy.

                              {time}  2030

  We have to develop hydrogen. We have to develop new batteries. We 
have to conserve. And I am a conservationist. Conservation has to be a 
part of the answer. We have to do it all. Well, guess what, American 
public? The Republican's American energy act does all of that. We must 
have a vote.
  So, Republicans, on the afternoon that we were forced to go home on 
this 5-week break, Republicans have been coming here every single day 
since that day, since August 1, to try to get our Democratic colleagues 
to come back here and do America's work, the American peoples' work, to 
vote on a comprehensive energy act bill that would do all of the above: 
Would tap into America's bountiful natural resources, that would 
develop nuclear energy, would develop alternative sources of energy, 
would develop conservation issues, would stimulate the innovativeness 
of the American public to develop new sources of energy. There may be a 
source of energy we have never dreamed of.
  We have to do all of those things. The American energy act will do 
just that. We can't have the Democratic energy plan of driving small 
cars and waiting for the wind. We have got to lower the cost of gas at 
the pump. We have got to lower the cost of home heating oil.
  Republicans are here fighting for the poor people. We are here 
fighting for the elderly on limited incomes. The Democratic leadership 
are just doing what my son calls ``dissing'' them. The leader on the 
Democratic side, Speaker Pelosi is dissing poor people, dissing the 
elderly, those who are hurt most by us not having the vote.
  So I come here tonight with my colleagues, and I applaud Mr. Latta 
and Mr. Burton and Mr. Barton and Judge Carter for coming here tonight 
to bring forth to the American people the idea that Republicans are 
here for the American people. We are here trying to find those 
solutions. We have been here through the whole August break, inviting 
our Democratic colleagues to come back and do the peoples' work, the 
poor peoples' work, the elderly's work, everybody's work, to lower the 
cost of energy.
  And so I just call upon my Democratic colleagues, particularly those 
many over here on the Democratic side who would like to have a vote, 
please ask your leadership to bring the American energy act to the 
floor for a vote with an open rule so that we can have all the 
amendments that you want to put in, all the amendments that our folks 
want to put in, have an open debate, but let's do the American peoples' 
job in the peoples' House. Let's do the peoples' work to find some 
solutions to this energy crisis that is an economic crisis and a 
national security crisis for America. So I call upon my Democratic 
colleagues to get your leadership to allow us to have a vote on the 
American energy act.
  I thank Mr. Latta for the opportunity to come here and discuss this, 
and I applaud your efforts, I applaud my other colleagues' efforts, and 
I thank you for this opportunity. Maybe the American people will 
listen.
  When I was here in the dimly lit House with no microphones, no 
cameras--different from tonight--and we had the tourists sitting here 
on the floor of the House, I asked them to go home and not just enjoy 
being in this historic moment sitting on the floor of the House of 
Representatives but to go home to contact their Member of Congress and 
demand a vote on the American energy act.
  Former U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen one time said, when he feels the 
heat, he sees the light. What he was saying is when his constituents in 
his State start contacting him through calls and letters, that he would 
start feeling the heat. We need the American public all over this 
country to start putting heat on their U.S. Senators and their Members 
of the U.S. House by calling, writing, e-mailing, visiting district 
offices, visiting Washington offices, and demanding a vote on a 
comprehensive energy package that would lower their costs of energy, 
whether it's gasoline, home heating oil, electricity. That is what the 
American energy plan is all about, is to lower our energy costs.
  So I applaud your efforts tonight, sir, my friend, and dear 
colleague, and I ask the American public to get busy to apply the heat 
to your Member of Congress. Write them, call them, e-mail them, and 
demand a vote on the American energy act so we can have an up-or-down 
vote, open debate to lower your cost of energy, lower your cost of 
gasoline, lower your cost of groceries, lower your cost of health care, 
lower your cost of every good and service that you have to buy to make 
America secure. Energy secure.
  I thank you, sir, for your leadership. I applaud you, and I thank you 
for this opportunity to come back today.
  Mr. LATTA. I appreciate your willingness to be with us tonight, your 
hard work, your dedication to be back here during the August break and 
make sure we get that word out to the American people that we had to be 
here, not on break, but be here on this floor and make sure that we get 
an energy plan, especially all-of-the-above. We are talking about 
everything from nuclear to clean coal technology to hydroelectric to 
drilling for oil and natural gas and all the alternatives.
  At this time, I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Indiana for I 
believe he said a few minutes. I appreciate your time.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I see my other colleague who's here. I hope I 
am not jumping in front of you. If I am, I will pledge to you I am 
going to talk a very short period of time so you can get to the mike 
and express your views.
  My brother, Congressman Latta, is a State representative in Indiana, 
Woody Burton, and he called me the other day and he gave me some 
startling facts. I think the American people would be interested in 
hearing these things he told me because I'm sure it's happening all 
over the country.
  He said that sales tax in Indiana is down by 28 percent, which means 
simply that people are buying so much less because they are spending 
their money on gasoline and getting to and from work and on buying 
products that they have to have to survive. Food. Milk in Indiana had 
gone from about $2 a gallon, up over $3, and they are making packages 
of food that are close to the same price but they contain less of the 
commodity. And so sales tax is down in Indiana by 28 percent.

  But just to let you know how much the people are spending on 
gasoline, gas sales tax is up 24 percent. So you see a direct 
correlation between the amount of money people are spending on products 
that help the economy and the amount of money that they are spending on 
gasoline to get to and from work and do what they have to do.
  My colleague from Georgia just made a very eloquent statement on why 
we need to deal with this energy crisis now. I won't belabor the point 
by going into it again, except to say that about 75 or 80 percent of 
the American people, depending on which poll you look at, say: Drill 
here, drill now, just like T. Boone Pickens says. They don't want to 
see $700 billion going overseas when we can keep that money at home and 
create hundreds of thousands of jobs which, again, would be a big help 
to the economy.
  I just want to say we really need an energy bill, we need it right 
away, and

[[Page H7945]]

if the American people are paying attention, I hope that they will, Mr. 
Latta, take this opportunity to contact their Congressman and Senators 
because when the pressure is put on them, then they do respond.
  I talked to one of my Democratic colleagues today. He is a cosponsor 
of a bill that I am sponsoring with him and about 20 other Members of 
the House, both Democrats and Republicans, which is a bipartisan energy 
bill. And he said their caucus today was entirely about the energy 
issue, and he told me he was confident that we would have an 
opportunity to debate and vote on an energy bill in the next 2 or 3 
weeks, which is the end of the session.
  I hope he is correct, and I hope if we do have an energy bill, it's a 
real energy bill and not some kind of a facade. If we get a facade 
here, I hope we at least have some amendments that we can vote on, 
which would make it a real energy bill, and that means we'd have to 
have an open rule.
  So let me just say to Mr. Latta one more time, thank you for doing 
this. I know it takes away from things you would like to be doing 
elsewhere, but you come down here on the floor of the House, along with 
a few of our colleagues, to talk about how important this issue is. And 
I applaud you for that.
  Mr. LATTA. I appreciate the gentleman's words from Indiana. When you 
were talking about what your brother had contacted you on in regards to 
the sales tax issue in Indiana, I know it strikes close to home because 
it wasn't too long ago that we were looking at our charge card 
statement for the month and I said to my wife, What did we buy this 
month? I started looking down the list. It was gasoline, gasoline, 
gasoline, and mostly my fault because I am out in my district, it's a 
larger district, and when you're filling up 3 or 4 times a week, you 
put in a lot of gasoline. It's really cutting into our Americans' 
pocketbook.
  At this time I'd like to recognize the distinguished jurist and the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas. I know that you have had a lot of 
discussions with your constituents, especially I know the one that you 
told us about the long hauler from Texas that took that load to 
California. I know I have given that example to many people across my 
district over the last couple of months after I heard it from you.
  At this time, I'd like to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CARTER. I thank my friend Mr. Latta for yielding to me. Let me 
say that when the uprising started, I was one of the 10 that began the 
uprising. I was the fourth person to speak that day. In fact, I got to 
speak just after the microphones were turned off, just before the 
lights were turned down. And I'm very proud of the fact that the 
Republicans stayed in Washington and demanded that the voice be heard 
of the American people on the issue of energy.
  And what we were really saying, we were calling for the Speaker to, 
Come back, come back, call the House back, let's work together, because 
we are in an energy crisis. Let's reason this out and come up with 
solutions that we can all live with that will allow us to prosper in 
this country. I think that is what this is all about.
  So I got to thinking today if you look at the pie chart--and Mr. King 
from Iowa had a pie chart in here one day that showed what all our 
sources of energy are. I can't get the numbers exactly right. I can 
remember that the alternative energy today, that is wind, solar, and 
biofuels, is about 2\1/4\ percent of our energy use in America. Right 
now. That is things we are looking at in the future and that is part of 
what the American energy act promotes, is research, development and 
working on those issues. But today it's about 2 percent.
  And then the other sources of energy are gasoline and diesel to power 
our vehicles; natural gas, which we burn in industry and our homes; 
coal, which we burn in industry and our homes; oil, which we burn in 
industry and our homes, and a small portion we still use of 
hydroelectric power, which was one of the original sources of energy in 
colonial America.
  And so what the proposal seems to be and the debate seems to be 
between our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats 
who are in charge of this Congress and have the power to make things 
happen in this Congress, I think that it's that debate we are talking 
about. It's those fuel sources that we are talking about. And nuclear 
energy, which make up right now I think it's around 18 percent of our 
power, but don't hold me to the numbers. But that whole chart makes 100 
percent. But I do remember alternatives that today are a little over 2 
percent.
  The proposal we seem to be hearing is there's some things that now 
are bad. These are bad resources, even though the rest of the world, 
when they find natural gas off the coast of Brazil, they celebrate. 
When they drill a well off of--my wife is from Holland, and back in the 
sixties when they drilled a well in northern Holland and found this 
huge source of natural gas, they celebrated.

                              {time}  2045

  When people in Venezuela drill wells and find oil and natural gas, 
they celebrate, and yet we are ashamed of those resources.
  Those resources are evil now, so we are basically starting to have a 
policy being proposed that says that there are some things that are 
just off limits for power right now because they are bad, and even 
though we don't have sense enough to know they are bad, we are going to 
get taught by the government that these are bad. And those things, by 
the way, most of them have to do with hydrocarbons, but we will start 
off with the one that doesn't, nuclear energy.
  Now, we have heard arguments here tonight and examples were given 
here tonight of what other nations are doing in the way of nuclear 
energy. An example was given that the Chinese have on their drawing 
boards I believe it was 42 nuclear plants they are planning on 
building. And we are not planning to build, I don't think, any. Maybe 
there are a couple that are on the drawing board someplace, but we 
haven't built one in decades. Nuclear energy, our colleagues don't seem 
to want to open up nuclear energy, so it is sort of off limits.
  Now we get off into the really evil stuff. Coal, terrible. You can't 
use coal. Oil, horrible. Horrible. As Speaker Pelosi said, we have got 
to wean ourselves off of hydrocarbons. And she said the solution is 
natural gas. I am sorry, but that is a hydrocarbon too. But still, 
let's throw natural gas in there.
  Now, between coal, oil and natural gas, they probably make up about 
75 or 80 percent of the fuel sources for industry and for 
transportation in America today. If those are off the table, let's just 
call it a small number, 60 percent, if 60 percent of what we are today 
using for power is off the table, then we have to replace it with 
something.
  The proposals are solar, wind, biofuels, and new ideas we are going 
to come up with, like batteries and a lot of stuff, all of which is 
good and is in the American Energy Act. But today and tomorrow, and in 
fact for probably about 10 years, these things are not anywhere near 
the size and capacity to come even close to covering 60 percent of the 
power in this country.
  So we are going to replace these oil, natural gas and coal resources 
with those power sources overnight, and we don't expect to stop right 
now on those things and not see prices go through the roof because of a 
supply shortage?
  So what are we going to do for that supply shortage? Well, what we 
have been doing. We are going to buy from foreign countries, who are 
happy to have those products and happy to sell those products. But wait 
a minute. We just saw a comparison of the streets of Dubai. We don't 
have anything against Dubai. They are good friends of ours. But the 
change in that country between 1976 and today is like watching a 
miracle in the development of that country because of their intelligent 
use of the money that we are buying oil from them with and the rest of 
the world is.
  So as we look down the pike, the corridors of time, if we make all 
these things off limits, then where are we going to go, except to 
foreign countries? And what we are talking about as part of our energy 
crisis is our dependence on foreign countries, whether they are friends 
or whether they be enemies.
  So I think the average American back home in my district, when I talk 
to them, they all get it. They know that tomorrow, all this year for 
sure, and probably for at least the next 8 or

[[Page H7946]]

10 years, when they get up in the morning to go to work they are going 
to start a vehicle that is probably going to run on oil, an oil product 
or a natural gas product, gasoline or diesel. To say that we are going 
to keep this dependence going is insane in their opinion, and they want 
to know why we can't go after our own resources.
  So why don't we put some things back on the table? Let's put American 
oil and gas back on the table by going to find it where we know that it 
is. Let's don't drill where it is not. If you want to lease property 
that has no oil and gas on it to drill on, you are welcome to lease my 
place. It is 2 acres right outside of Round Rock, and I guarantee you, 
you can put a drilling rig on it and it won't produce one drop of oil. 
But if you like drilling on places where there is no oil, I volunteer 
mine, and I will take the lease money. But that is ridiculous.
  So when we hear proposals, why don't you drill where you have already 
got leases or where we have already offered leases, and our research 
tells us there are little or no resources there, why would we place 
millions and billions of dollars worth of drilling rigs on those sites 
to lose money? Why would anybody do that? So that doesn't make sense.
  So let's go back. Let's start with the hard one, coal. But, you know 
what? We are learning very quickly how to clean up coal. We are 
learning how to liquefy coal and find new uses for coal. We are 
abundantly wealthy with coal. We shouldn't just put that off the table. 
And I am not from a big coal State, although question have got some 
coal. But the facts are we can't shove that resource off the table 
completely.
  Oil, we know, as has been explained by Chairman Barton and others, 
there are at least 10 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic, up in ANWR, 
in an area which we intentionally set aside. There is abundant oil and 
gas resources off all the coasts of America.
  Chairman Barton pointed out the reason they started looking at Alaska 
is because some whalers saw some oil seepage. Do you know that a place 
where there is oil seepage to this day is off the coast of California. 
In fact, those tar pits, that is just really, really thick crude at the 
top of the ground. But that is off limits.
  Let's start being reasonable, taking care of the environment and 
drilling for these resources, producing them and putting them on the 
table. I for one am 100 percent in favor of Boone Pickens' proposal 
that we put natural gas in certain vehicles. It works. But he tells you 
20 percent is the solution.
  I think wind is a great idea, and it works. But it has got to be 
boosted to transport, and so we have to work on that. And still, with 
all the windmills we have got in production right now, we couldn't 
power Austin, Texas, for 2 days.
  So, in order to meet our power needs, we have to be intelligent about 
what we are doing. As we reason with our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle, let's look at this picture and say reality says today, 
tomorrow and at least the next 10 to 20 years, we have to deal with 
what we have got. We can't hope that miraculously 2 percent of the 
power generated in America will instantly become 60 percent, just 
because we wish it to be.
  I once asked a physicist from Austin, Texas, how big the solar panel 
would have to be to power Austin, Texas, for a day on the best day, 
that being a day in the spring when we don't need air conditioning and 
we don't need heat, and he said the size of the Texas panhandle. The 
size of the Texas panhandle is bigger than quite a few of the States in 
this country. So solar has its means, we will find a way for it, but 
today it is not going to even power Austin, Texas.
  So as we look at this comprehensive energy that we have got to look 
at, if we are trying to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, let's 
wisely use the resources we have. Let's protect our environment as we 
do this. Let's make these burns and new scientific methods. For 
instance, you can burn things in pure oxygen and have no air emissions. 
You can capture carbon dioxide and use it to replenish oil fields, to 
bring more oil to the surface. We can do a lot with science and 
technology available and all those things on the table to be learned.

  The bill that the Republicans are putting forward calls for us to 
wisely use all available resources, researching and developing the new 
ideas, offering incentives for more new ideas, offering incentives for 
conserving energy and all the things we need and want to do to make 
this country competitive, so that Indianapolis, Indiana, will look like 
Dubai some day, and not like Dubai in 1976, as was described earlier in 
a presentation here. Our infrastructure needs resources. We need to 
start taking care of America.
  By the way, these lost jobs that people move overseas, did you ever 
think the high cost of energy might have something to do with that too?
  So let's start thinking about ourselves and let's reason this out 
together. We have 3 weeks to do it. Time is running out. Our friends 
are back from their vacations, our Democratic friends are back from 
their vacations. Let's put our heads together. Let's don't give us an 
energy policy that comes from one person from San Francisco. Give us a 
policy that we work out in a bipartisan fashion, and I believe we can 
do it in the next 3 weeks.
  Thank you for allowing me to speak.
  Mr. LATTA. I appreciate the gentleman's words from Texas.
  At this time I would like to introduce the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Foxx), who has been a leader on this energy issue here on 
the House, in her 1 minutes and 5 minutes and her many, many speeches 
and special orders. I yield to her at this time.
  Ms. FOXX. I want to thank my colleague from Ohio who has been leading 
this Special Order tonight for giving me this opportunity. I hope to 
have a chart tomorrow that is going to show this better, but I am going 
to describe very briefly something that I think we need to be talking 
about.
  I am encouraged by the Speaker saying that we are going to have a 
vote on an energy plan. I am concerned that it is not going to be the 
vote on the American Energy Act. We need a straight up or down vote I 
think on increasing American-made energy.
  I have said over and over again on the floor, I am pro-American made 
energy and I think that is what we need to be doing. I was very proud 
to be here during August when the seats were filled with citizens who 
were here visiting. There was no mike, there was no C-SPAN, there were 
no lights on, but we had a great time talking to the American people 
and I think it showed our Republic at work. People took action, 
contacted their Members and said we need to do something about it.
  But recently we have heard about how the unemployment rate has gone 
up, and our colleague from Texas, Judge Carter, talked about jobs going 
overseas. I think we also have seen that as the gas prices have gone 
up, we have also seen unemployment go up. Again, while I don't have a 
chart, I am going to make do with the chart that I have here.
  When the Democrats took over in 2007, we had an unemployment rate of 
4.5 percent, one of the lowest in the history of this county. We had 54 
straight months of job increases. What happened? By 11-07, the 
unemployment rate had gone up, which was about right here, as gas 
prices started going up. When gas prices got to here, the unemployment 
rate had gone up to 5 percent. Gas prices in May were up to $3.84 and 
the unemployment rate went above 5 percent. The unemployment rate is 
now at 6 percent, and that is where gas prices went, there.
  I agree with Judge Carter. We need to look at why jobs are going 
overseas, and in large part it is because of the gas prices. The 
American people simply don't understand why the Democrats are so anti-
American energy. If we will drill in ANWR, if we will drill off the 
coast, we can bring down the price of gasoline in this country. We can 
bring down the price of home heating oil, which is going to be hurting 
everybody in this country in the very next few days, because it is 
hurting them.
  I yield back to my colleague who began this so he can close the 
evening.
  Mr. LATTA. I appreciate the gentlewoman from North Carolina's words. 
I appreciate her work. I also would like to thank the Speaker for this 
evening's Special Order.




                          ____________________