[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 29, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1091-H1097]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2010
                     HOUSE ENERGY ACTION TEAM HOUR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbs). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Speaker, I'm here tonight for one reason: to stand 
up for hardworking Americans who are spending far too much when they 
fill up at the pump, and I'm here for that same American who turns on 
the TV or reads the newspaper after a long day at work to see that Iran 
is threatening to cut off our oil supply out of the Middle East and to 
see continued inaction by this administration to discourage energy 
projects, energy production that would lower the price of gas here at 
home. These are Americans that are scared. They simply don't have the 
money in their pocket, in their budget to pay for these high prices, 
$60 to fill up a tank of gas, $80 to fill up the tank of gas.
  I find it increasingly more difficult to explain to my constituents 
from rural Colorado why this government isn't advancing policies that 
will bring down the prices at the pump. It pains me the look on 
people's faces when they tell me that they're making $10 an hour and 
are paying upwards of $4 for a gallon of gas. What are they supposed to 
do, Mr. Speaker, stop going to work because gas is so expensive?
  We are facing a significant crisis, and it's a travesty, it's a 
shame. My colleagues here tonight are here to say we will not stand for 
it.
  How do I go back home this weekend to explain to my constituents why 
gas prices have risen $1.80 per gallon since this President took 
office? How do I explain that this administration may be willing to tap 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is only to be used when there is 
a severe energy supply disruption, instead of opening up more land for 
exploration, which brings me to my next point.
  Mr. Speaker, this administration alleges that it has opened up vast 
amounts of our lands for leasing. In fact, just a few days ago, on 
February 23, at the University of Miami, I quote:
  Under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at 
any other time in the last 8 years.
  This is simply false, a false telling of reality. While it may be 
true that new production is occurring on private lands where the 
President can't involve his anti-energy administration, Federal lands 
and offshore development is far below what it has been in previous 
years. Let me cite to you some very startling statistics.
  According to an article on E&D on Monday, just a few days ago, 
production of natural gas on public lands and waters in fiscal year 
2011 dropped 11 percent from 2010. That's a drop of 11 percent on 
public lands and waters in fiscal year 2011. Oil production on Federal 
lands dropped 14 percent since last year, and this reduction was most 
significant in the gulf, which declined by 17 percent since 2010.
  According to a Wall Street Journal editorial from the other day, 
drilling plans have historically been approved 73 percent of the time. 
Since the beginning of 2012, the President has only approved 23 
percent.
  Approval of an offshore drilling plant typically takes about 92 days 
right now. That's 31 days over average.
  In 2000, just 12 years ago, 32 percent of our oil was from Federal 
lands. Why? In 2010 that number shrank to 19 percent of total U.S. 
production. Let me say that again. In 2000, 32 percent of our oil was 
from Federal lands. In 2010 that number shrank to 19 percent of total 
U.S. production.
  We aren't opening up our Federal lands for development, and that's 
the reason for the significant drop. The total onshore acreage leased 
under this administration in 2009 and 2010 is the lowest in over 20 
years.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has claimed that he is opening up new 
offshore areas for production and more land for leases. Again, this is 
false. Many of these lease sales were already

[[Page H1092]]

scheduled to take place before he even took office. One was even 
cancelled for a year by the administration and is now being reinstated. 
His plan even closes the majority of the OCS to new energy production 
through the year 2017.
  In recent days and months, we have seen the President touting an all-
of-the-above energy approach, but his actions speak louder than his 
words, and they do not promote an all-of-the-above energy strategy. 
This administration has blocked energy production on Federal lands and 
decreased overall domestic energy production across the board. And I 
want to share with you just a few of these examples.
  Tonight we are joined by the House Energy Action Team, a group of 
Members from across the country who are dedicated to sharing with their 
constituents in this country the policies that we have passed in this 
House with bipartisan support to encourage energy production to make 
sure that we are increasing and encouraging natural gas development, 
oil developments, all of our natural resources in a true all-of-the-
above energy strategy. The HEAT action team, the House Energy Action 
Team, is once again sharing that strategy and contrasting ourselves 
with the strategy that this President has presented over the past 3 
years of his administration.
  So the President can claim all he wants to be supportive of an all-
of-the-above energy strategy--said it just a few months ago from this 
podium right behind me in the State of the Union address, supporting an 
all-of-the-above energy strategy--but let's actually talk, let's 
actually talk about what the President's policies have resulted in.
  On oil and gas, he's withdrawn oil leases from Utah, costing 3,000 
jobs; withdrew oil and gas leases from Montana; issued a moratorium on 
gulf drilling, costing 12,000 jobs; reinstated a ban on drilling off 
the entire Pacific coast; announced he would regulate hydraulic 
fracturing.
  Again, the President claims to be a supporter of an all-of-the-above 
energy policy, but on coal he pulled a permit from a West Virginia 
mine, costing 250 jobs; announced the merger of BLM and OSM, which 
could move domestic coal one step closer to extinction in this country.
  When it comes to nuclear energy, this President has blocked uranium 
mining in Arizona for 2 years. He has personally abandoned the Yucca 
Mountain waste site, jeopardizing the future of nuclear energy in this 
country; imposed a 20-year ban on uranium mining, increasing our 90 
percent already, our 90 percent dependency on foreign sources.
  Even on renewable energy and this President's green energy agenda, 
this President has closed all but 2 percent of Federal lands from 
renewable energy development. He's left open only 670,000 of 30 million 
acres of land for solar development.
  Again, the President claims he is for an all-of-the-above energy 
strategy, when, in fact, what we have seen is this President is 
actually for none of the above. This chart--I know it's impossible to 
read--details the inaction of this administration, in fact, some very 
harmful actions to our energy policy where he has stopped, delayed, 
repealed energy production in this country.
  Again, tonight, we are going to be hearing from many Members around 
the country to discuss how we can advance a strong energy policy, one 
that creates American jobs with American energy, building our energy 
security for future generations. There is one great way to power our 
economy, and that's to turn to our energy sector to create jobs and 
opportunity.
  With that, I yield to another great leader on energy issues, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Well, let me thank the gentleman from 
Colorado for his dedicated service to not only the State of Colorado 
but to our Nation.
  We have been coming to the floor talking about the increasing prices 
of energy across America. Since we came back in January, we have taken 
to this floor to talk about the very poor policies coming out of the 
administration.

                              {time}  2020

  And just to give you an example of that, on Inauguration Day of 
President Obama, AAA said the gasoline prices in America averaged $1.84 
a gallon. Today, gasoline prices are averaging across this great land 
$3.73 a gallon. That is a 102 percent increase during the Obama 
administration. But yet he will claim, the administration will claim, 
that they have increased domestic energy production. They've increased 
onshore and offshore drilling, and apparently oil and natural gas are 
just bubbling up out of the ground and providing this. But, America, 
that's not the case. That's not the case. Gas prices are going up 
simply due to two factors--supply and demand. Those are the things that 
contribute to the price of a barrel of oil in the world. Supply and 
demand.
  Now, I admit that world demand is up even while United States demand 
is lower than it was in 2008. World demand is up. So that's one factor. 
But the supply factor. Americans know that we are tremendously 
dependent on Middle Eastern oil. We've got the resources here in this 
country. If this administration will just get out of the way and allow 
us to harvest our natural resources, we would be energy independent.
  But let me tell you what the administration apparently has as a 
policy goal, and this comes from the White House statement on the 
Keystone pipeline. The gentleman from Colorado has heard me say this--I 
think this is the fourth time--but America needs to hear it again 
because President Obama said this. He said:
  Decisions here in Congress to force the decision on Keystone pipeline 
do ``not change my administration's commitment''--this is from the 
White House Web site, and I recommend you go look at it for yourself--
``it does not change my administration's commitment to American-made 
energy that creates jobs''--and listen closely--``and reduces our 
dependence on oil.''
  Now, at one time he was talking about these abundant supplies, this 
increased onshore and offshore drilling and production in this country. 
But yet his own words say ``commitment to American-made energy that 
creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil.''
  Now, when you first heard that, you thought, I agree with that. He 
wants to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and Middle Eastern oil, 
but no, no, no. That's not what he said. He said lessen our dependence 
on oil, period. Not foreign oil, not Middle Eastern oil, lessen our 
dependence on oil.
  So you take that with his Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu. Steven 
Chu, before he was appointed as Secretary of Energy in this country, 
said this: ``Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of 
gasoline to the levels in Europe.''
  Now Europeans in England and Germany and France, they're paying $7, 
$8, $9 a gallon for gasoline. America, under these policies, that's 
where we're headed. Under the words of Steven Chu, the Energy 
Secretary, he said: ``Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the 
price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.''
  It shouldn't surprise you that's what they want to do--lessen our 
dependence on oil, period. And that's propagating policies and giving 
money away to companies that supported him in his election campaign, 
companies like Solyndra, $535 million, gone, America, your tax dollars 
that I know you're working hard for every day.
  In South Carolina, my constituents, they go to work every day. And 
they earn the hard-earned dollars. They go to work, and they're 
thinking when they're filling up their gas tank at $3.75 a gallon, $4 a 
gallon diesel fuel--I drive a diesel, so last week I couldn't fill my 
truck up, because I'm hurting just like other Americans, and how much I 
have to take out of my wallet to fill up my truck, and what I could use 
that money for in other ways, whether it's to take my family out to 
dinner or pay off some debt or do some things that we normally would do 
with that money, but now we're having to take more dollars out of our 
pockets to put fuel in our car to drive to work. And so Americans are 
thinking: How many hours of my workday on my job am I working just to 
pay for the gasoline I just paid to get to work and to get home?
  Four dollars a gallon gasoline for diesel fuel, and America, think 
about this: Think about the farmers that are putting diesel fuel in 
their tractors to plant the food that you're going to buy

[[Page H1093]]

at the grocery store. Input cost. Input cost on the front end affects 
the price on the back end.
  Mr. Chu, the Secretary of Energy, said this. He's calling for 
gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over the next 15 years to coax 
consumers into buying more-efficient cars and living in neighborhoods 
closer to work. This European model where we'll all live close in town 
and we can walk to work or bicycle. That's the optimal thing in their 
eyes. We don't live that way here in America. We like our freedom. We 
like to get in our cars and drive ourselves to work. The policy of this 
administration is affecting what you pay at the pumps, and it's very 
clear using the President's own words about gasoline and about oil.
  So we are seeing rising gasoline prices, and we've got the power to 
do something about that here in America. We have the capacity, the 
resources in this country that far exceed what's found in Saudi Arabia. 
Far exceed by hundreds of billions of barrels of oil more than what 
exists in the Saudi oil reserves here in this country. We've got them. 
We're buying a lot of oil from Canada. We talked about the Keystone 
pipeline. The gentleman from Colorado and I have talked about this 
numerous times. But instead of pursuing American energy independence, 
beyond that why can't we pursue maybe North American energy 
independence and buy from our largest and best trading partner, Canada, 
if our policies are going to keep us from drilling off our coast in 
South Carolina, or off the coast of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, 
places where there are proven reserves, and we've been pumping oil for 
a long time?
  Or going onshore. North Dakota. North Dakota has an energy-driven 
economy. Their unemployment rate is 3 percent or less. They're pumping 
oil out of the Bakken oil fields there in North Dakota. President Obama 
is taking credit for increased oil production in North Dakota, but back 
up, because the oil that's being pumped out of the ground in North 
Dakota isn't on Federal land, and it isn't because of any policies of 
this administration. The permits were issued during the last 
administration and the one before that, and we're producing oil on 
State and private lands in North Dakota. It's not Federal lands; it's 
State lands. It's private lands. Unemployment is 3 percent. Good 
paying, long-term jobs, energy-driven economy in North Dakota.
  But guess what? The Bakken oil field extends beyond the borders of 
North Dakota, and it goes into Montana and other States. Well, if you 
go across that artificial border between North Dakota and Montana into 
the same oil field known as Bakken, you're not going to find any energy 
production over in Montana. You know why? It's because it's on Federal 
land. And that Federal land has been off the table for energy 
production and energy exploration. But over where it's on State and 
private land, it's gangbusters. It's going gangbusters, 3 percent 
unemployment in North Dakota. That's a telling sign, America, on what 
you do when you go after your own resources and you produce American 
resources to meet our American energy needs.
  I heard the gentleman from Colorado talk about an all-of-the-above 
energy strategy, and I've heard the President here at the State of the 
Union say the same thing. But, you know, in my opinion an all-of-the-
above energy strategy says (a) first, we're going to take care of a 
proven technology of oil and natural gas to meet our immediate energy 
needs. And then we're going to continue to expand nuclear power in this 
country because it's proven, it's tried, and we can expand that.
  I applaud the new permit in Georgia for a new reactor. We're going to 
have one very soon in my home State. It'll be the second in about 30 
years where we've permitted a nuclear power plant to provide 
electricity to this country. But the President, he likes this global 
warming cap-and-trade scheme. And he says that under his plan of a cap-
and-trade system, ``electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'' 
Electricity rates are going to skyrocket. Well, we've got the ability 
to build more nuclear power plants and permit those that are underway 
and provide good, stable electricity in this country. So all of the 
above includes oil and natural gas, energy exploration, offshore, 
onshore, where we have those resources, and expanding nuclear power 
plants in this country, looking at the things that are tried and true 
and allowing the free market, not your tax dollars, America, but the 
free market to determine the winners and losers with regard to green 
energy.
  If it works, if it can be successful, I guarantee you, there are 
American investors and worldwide investors that would invest their own 
hard-earned dollars at their own personal choice to invest in that 
technology, and they will pick a winner because on the back side 
they're going to make a profit.
  But that's not what's happening. This administration is taking your 
tax dollars, and they're making your investment decisions for you in 
companies like Solyndra. They're picking the winners. They're picking 
the losers. It's wrong. It's got to stop.
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina, and I know 
the gentleman from Arizona is going to be joining us in this debate, 
this conversation tonight.
  You mentioned some quotes, some statements made by Secretary Chu. You 
talked about the statement where the President had said under my plan, 
electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.

                              {time}  2030

  You talk about Secretary Chu talking about how he wants to boost the 
price of gasoline to the levels in Europe. Have you ever heard this 
President talk about expanding production in the United States or 
adding U.S. domestic capacity to actually decrease the cost of 
gasoline?
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Gentleman from Colorado, that's a great 
example. I've never heard him talk about that. The administration talks 
about the exact opposite. They want us to pay for what Europeans pay 
for oil and natural gas. They want to see us move toward a green energy 
economy, and they want to create policies, tax policy and regulatory 
policies, that are going to force you, as Americans, to buy what they 
want you to buy, and that is an electric car.
  Mr. GARDNER. And I would point out to the gentleman, too, as he 
knows, we've seen gas prices increase dramatically around the country. 
In South Carolina, I think gas prices have increased 10 percent from 
just a year ago.
  The gentleman from Arizona who joins us now in the conversation is--
New Mexico--has seen tremendous price increases, as well.
  With that, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico, my neighbor to 
the south.
  Mr. PEARCE. Thank you. I would gladly be from Arizona, except I'm 
representing New Mexico, and I'll stick there for awhile.
  My father worked for the oil industry my entire life. We grew up in 
the oil industry in southeast New Mexico. Back in the late seventies 
and early eighties, the company that my dad worked for, Humble, and 
later Exxon, began to tell all the employees that oil would be out, 
that it would be finished in eastern New Mexico and that they would 
need to get their affairs ready to be transferred somewhere else.
  Now, my dad retired in the late eighties, and the oil fields are 
still viable in Lea County, New Mexico, because of increasing 
technology. The ability to drill laterally has really revolutionized 
the ability to produce energy, and also the 3 D seismics have been very 
effective at finding now sources of oil. So basically what we're 
finding is that the old estimates of how much oil was left in the U.S. 
have been grossly inadequate. With the new finds all the way across the 
country, this Nation could be self-sufficient in oil, except there are 
people here in Washington who absolutely do not want us to be self-
sufficient. They want the pressure on the economy. For some reason, 
they believe that we should have a level playing field with the 
European countries that have to import all of their energy.
  I think that America should be allowed to develop its resources that 
it's blessed with. I believe that the American people should be allowed 
to work in careers and in jobs that pay good money. Other people in 
Washington think that we should shut down all of the timber production, 
all of the oil and gas production and all of the mines and convert over 
to hospitality jobs. The hospitality jobs do not pay

[[Page H1094]]

enough. They're fine jobs, but they don't pay enough to raise families. 
So we have these different visions of America where one says we're 
going to shut off the resources, we're not going to develop them, and 
the other group says, yes, we must have American energy, we must have 
American jobs, and we must improve the economy.
  We're facing times when our budgets are completely unworkable. This 
coming year, we're looking at $1 trillion in deficits. We're going to 
spend about $3.9 trillion, and we're going to create revenues of about 
$2.9 trillion. Now, people at home can do the math. That's a deficit of 
$1 trillion, $1.1 trillion.
  Now, a magical thing happens when we start creating jobs in America. 
People are saying, Can you cut your way from 3.9 to 2.9? I don't think 
that we have to do that. Every time that you put someone to work, they 
come off of food stamps and they come off of unemployment, so the cost 
of government begins to decrease with every job you create. 
Additionally, those people will pay taxes. And so if we would allow the 
jobs to be created, they would be forming daily. If we would just open 
the doors to energy production in this country, then we would see our 
economy moving toward balance, and that's what we desperately need. We 
need our checkbook balanced, because that's the only way we're going to 
sustain the economic future of this country.
  Now, people just can't believe that Washington would put oil and gas 
off-limits completely. They can't believe that the country's leaders 
would make life that much more difficult for them to pay their bills, 
to send their kids to school, and to feed and clothe their children. 
They can't imagine policymakers in Washington who would willingly do 
that. And yet you have repeatedly heard the President and his staff say 
that we need the price of gasoline to go up, we've got to figure out 
how to increase it. Well, they've figured out how to increase it, and 
that's simply to limit the drilling of it.
  I think this year's elections will pin on the cost of gasoline and 
the functioning of this economy. People across America are desperate 
for job creation, not just any jobs, not just minimum wage jobs, but 
those jobs where you can get in it and make a career, like my father 
who worked his whole life in the oil and gas industry. It was a good 
living for his family. That's the sort of jobs that Americans are 
looking for, and that's the sort of jobs that we can create.
  But how are American policymakers putting the oil and gas off-limits? 
For instance, shale. America is the Saudi Arabia of shale oil. And yet 
in 2007, the Pelosi House passed a bill that put all of the shale 
production in Colorado completely off-limits. That's just wrong. We 
should be exploring every opportunity for energy.
  Another way that they're limiting the production is that they're just 
not processing the applications to drill. So you have a lot of people 
who would invest a lot of money right now creating jobs, but the 
Federal Government will not process the application for permits to 
drill on Federal lands. Much of the West is Federal lands. New Mexico 
is about 33 percent Federal lands. Other States have as much as 80 
percent Federal lands, and those are being completely eliminated from 
oil and gas production, from mining, from timber and from other jobs 
that could be created.

  And so we find an administration and a mindset in Washington that 
says we're going to starve America for jobs, we're going to starve 
America for energy, and we're going to send those jobs overseas. I 
think that Americans are waking up and realizing that it does not have 
to be that way. We don't have to be paying $4 for gasoline.
  People here in Washington routinely say that we cannot drill our way 
out of the problem. I hear that a lot. But if you look at the cost of 
natural gas, the price of natural gas today, you'll see that it has 
diminished tremendously because we have drilled our way out of the 
shortage that existed just 4 or 5 years ago.
  The price of natural gas spiked around $10. Today it's less than 4. 
We have to understand that you can produce more energy, you can get the 
cost down, but a government has to stand aside and let the people work.
  I just returned from Vietnam, a known communist country, and yet 
they're hungry for production of energy. The Communist Chinese are 
looking for new oil and gas supplies. They're drilling just 47 miles 
off the coast of Florida, and yet this country will not let American 
firms drill 45 miles off the coast of Florida. So we continue to see 
policies come out of Washington that are strangling the economy for oil 
and gas and driving the prices up.
  It's just not the oil and gas, though. The sad thing is they're doing 
the same thing to electricity. Two electricity generating stations in 
New Mexico are being told to shut down energy production. We suffered 
rolling blackouts just a year and a half ago, and we're being told to 
shut down electrical generation? These are not generators that would 
not produce. These are generators that they're saying, well, they might 
be contributing to some pollution. They can't prove it.
  The standards that they hold us to need to be measured by a computer, 
because the naked eye can't see the difference in the haze that they're 
trying to demand the improvement of. So, again, we see policymakers who 
are willingly making life more miserable and more difficult for the 
average American.
  The Republicans in Congress today are speaking up for the average 
homeowner, the average person that goes to work every day, does their 
job, goes home and raises their family. We need to support those kind 
of people, and I compliment the gentlemen, both of them, especially the 
gentleman from Colorado, for leading this fight for lower energy 
prices. It's a commonsense thing, and we need to back him up.
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico. Before he yields 
the floor, I wanted to ask him a quick question.
  I know you've done tremendous work with the Western Caucus. You're a 
cochair of the Western Caucus trying to make sure you are eliminating 
regulations to do what we can to improve the economy of the Western 
United States, and I just wanted to share with you a quote from our 
colleague in the Senate, Senator Schumer from New York. This was 
February 27, just 2 days ago, a quote from The Hill newspaper. He is 
talking about trying to find solutions to increasing gas prices. Here 
is what he had to say:
  To address the situation, I urged the State Department to work with 
the Government of Saudi Arabia to increase its oil production, as they 
are currently producing well under their capacity.
  So, apparently, many of our colleagues, some in the Senate, think 
that the solution to the way out that we have isn't here in the United 
States at all. In fact, it's creating more dependency on overseas oil 
instead of developing in areas like the Western United States.
  I know you've done tremendous work to open up access to energy in the 
Western U.S., and I don't know if you had seen that comment or had time 
to reflect on it.

                              {time}  2040

  Mr. PEARCE. I have not seen the comment, but it's standard that comes 
from some here in Washington. You have people who are saying, They 
should develop their resources, but, oh, we should not develop ours. 
It's that mindset that is killing American jobs. It's that mindset 
that's killing American energy, driving prices up.
  The American families are struggling. Hardworking families are 
struggling under the demands of just raising their families. And it is 
abysmal that Washington policymakers in either body are having that 
kind of mindset.
  Across the West, we see a continuing failure to give access to public 
lands. That's one thing that we're fighting in the Western Caucus. I 
would refer any of the people in this body or any of the people 
watching this program to go online, take a look at the Western Caucus, 
the Jobs Frontier--over 40 pieces of legislation that would bring on 
jobs, each one of them designed to bring on jobs with no government 
investment. That would all be private money creating private jobs. 
Also, there are bills which are designed to stop the government from 
killing 3 million more jobs this year. So the Western Caucus is hard at 
work trying to preserve the economy of the United States. And I 
appreciate you bringing that up.

[[Page H1095]]

  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman.
  The gentleman from South Carolina, again, some of our colleagues 
would like to see energy production increase in Saudi Arabia. They'd, I 
guess, stand idly by while this administration nixes, vetoes, puts a 
fork in the Keystone XL pipeline; yet they'd rather see those jobs go 
overseas. They'd rather see that energy production occur overseas 
instead of doing it right here in our own backyard. I'm sure our 
colleagues mean well, I'm sure they're well-intentioned, but I 
certainly hope they would produce those jobs here, produce that energy 
here, develop an energy policy that is with American jobs for our 
security.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. GARDNER. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. You're exactly right. These are about 
American jobs going overseas and American tax dollars going overseas, 
and American-earned income. Because, as I mentioned earlier, you're 
digging deeper into your wallet, taking out--instead of a $20 bill to 
fill up a gas tank, taking out a $100 bill. Americans know what they 
could do with the rest of that money, the difference there.
  I get a little passionate about this issue, and I apologize to the 
ladies here in the Chamber that have to record what I say, but I'm not 
alone in this. America is passionate about this as well because they 
know we have the resources here and they know we can be energy 
independent and we wouldn't be giving money to Middle Eastern 
countries, who a lot of times don't like us maybe as well as the 
Canadians and other countries closer to home like us.
  I spouted off some things about Federal land and State land and North 
Dakota and Montana a minute ago, so let me just tell you: in 2000, 
Federal oil production accounted for 32 percent of the total U.S. 
energy production. In 2010, after 2 years of the job-destroying Obama 
administration policies that I mentioned earlier, Federal production 
only accounts for 19 percent of the total U.S. oil production. That's 
an 11 percent decrease.
  When I think about the year 2000, I think about some of our friends 
on the other side of the building, and John Kerry and some of these 
guys that said, you know what, if we decided to drill today and open up 
new lease areas and do energy exploration, whether it's the Outer 
Continental Shelf, it won't have any effect on the price at the pump 
for Americans because it takes about 10 years for that to come online 
and start producing oil. But, hey guys, that was 10 years ago. What 
impact would those policies of drilling in ANWR or off the Outer 
Continental Shelf or more onshore production, what impact would that 
have had on the price you pay at the pump today?
  I think we've got to get serious about American energy exploration 
and production here. The journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single 
step. We need to take that step today. I'll tell you, the House 
Republicans have done that with numerous job-creating, energy-
production bills that have passed out of this Chamber that are 
languishing in the abyss known as the United States Senate--that's 
failed to pass a budget for our country in 1,036 days, that's failed to 
take up American energy-independence bills, job-creating bills that we 
passed out of this Chamber.
  So energy production is down on Federal lands, and the Obama 
administration is taking credit for increased production and saying 
we've opened up new offshore areas. But the data I have says there's 
less offshore acreage open for energy exploration and production now 
than when President Obama took office when nearly 100 percent of the 
Outer Continental Shelf was opened up under the Bush administration. 
They lifted the moratorium for energy exploration, let alone 
production.

  Listen, I served for 18 months on what was known then, under the 
Mineral Mining Services of the Department of the Interior, the OCS, or 
Outer Continental Shelf, 5-year Planning Subcommittee where we looked 
at the next 5-year plan for this country on what areas we were going to 
open up offshore. What areas were available for us to even talk about 
were small grid squares in the western Gulf of Mexico, nothing in the 
eastern Gulf of Mexico, nothing in the Atlantic Ocean, nothing off the 
coast of California, nothing off the coast of Alaska except for another 
small square.
  This was prior to the latter years of the Bush administration when he 
decided, you know what, American energy independence means we need to 
open up the Outer Continental Shelf and really see what's out there and 
begin energy production. But the 5-year plan we looked at looked at 
these grid squares, and we were going to recommend a lease/sell, where 
we were going to offer leases to those areas, to the energy companies 
so they could go out there and explore and produce those resources.
  Well, the Obama administration has taken a lot of that off the table. 
They haven't created a new 5-year plan. They're going to say they just 
came out with a new one, but I believe it's just all for looks.
  The total onshore acreage--I was talking about offshore--but the 
total onshore acreage leased under the Obama administration in 2009 and 
2010 is the lowest in over two decades. We're not talking about ultra-
Deep Horizon accident-type offshore production.
  Mr. GARDNER. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. GARDNER. Because, again, going back to a speech given recently by 
this administration, by this President, he said at the University of 
Miami that we have record oil production, that he's actually leading us 
out of this energy crisis.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Energy production might be up in this 
country, but it has nothing to do with the policies of this 
administration. It goes back to the previous administration that said, 
you know what, we're going to open up Bakken because the geological 
survey found a ton of oil reserves there. In your home State, the oil 
shale in the Rocky Mountains, Colorado, could be the next Saudi Arabia 
if we were to allow onshore production for oil shale in the Rocky 
Mountains. I know the gentleman from Colorado probably wants to talk 
about the oil shales of Colorado.
  Mr. GARDNER. Well, I absolutely do. In fact, not only talk about the 
oil shales of Colorado, but this entire country where we actually are 
home--the United States is home to six times Saudi Arabia's proven 
resources because of the potential for oil shale in this country--1.5 
trillion barrels of potential oil shale. That's six times Saudi 
Arabia's proven resources. That's enough energy to power the United 
States for the next 200 years.
  The gentleman talked about legislation that we have passed to try to 
keep jobs. You talked about some of the comments that were made that, 
well, that won't impact our supply until sometime over the next 10 
years. Let me just tell you about one bill that we passed last summer, 
H.R. 2021, passed with bipartisan support.
  That bill was focused on a particular project in the Beaufort and 
Chukchi Sea north of Alaska. In the time that it has taken one company 
to get a permit for that energy development--an area that's already 
approved for energy development by this government--it's taken 6 years 
to get a permit. In the time that it's taken them to try to get that 
permit--they still don't have it completely done, by the way--but in 
the time that it took them to get this far, they've drilled over 400 
wells around the world, creating jobs around the world, creating energy 
for other people, creating jobs and resources, economic development for 
other people, but certainly not in the United States.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. You're exactly right.
  You know, we had a tragic accident. Nobody is running from the fact 
that Deepwater Horizon was very tragic in the Gulf of Mexico, and we'll 
learn from that. The oil companies, energy production companies will 
learn from that. But during that moratorium under the Obama 
administration--and then later he said he lifted the moratorium, but 
there was a de facto moratorium because they were failing to issue 
leases and permits for continued drilling out there.
  For companies that already invested billions of dollars in purchasing 
the rights to those lease areas to explore for energy and produce 
energy, they were languishing out there, waiting on

[[Page H1096]]

the drilling permits to come back from Washington. The Department of 
Energy and the Department of the Interior were slow-walking these 
permits. And so at some point in time those energy companies said, you 
know what, we're going to drag those drilling platforms out of the Gulf 
of Mexico.
  They towed them to the shore offshore of Brazil, to the seas offshore 
Brazil and the seas offshore of Africa. Today, they are drilling for 
energy in other countries. And we had them here in the Gulf of Mexico 
producing American energy to lower the price at the pump for American 
consumers. It's very expensive to get those drilling platforms back to 
the gulf.
  And so, as tragic as Horizon was, we learned from it. The Obama 
administration issued a moratorium to stop that drilling. Then they 
said, well, we're going to end the moratorium. But then when they 
failed to issue the leases, it's really a moratorium, it's instituting 
their policies. And it's going to be very difficult for us to get that 
production level back in the Gulf of Mexico because it's expensive for 
those companies to bring those rigs back.

                              {time}  2050

  Mr. GARDNER. I think as those rigs have left, as we've seen 
production occur elsewhere because of the roadblocks to domestic energy 
production, we see other countries--us becoming even more reliant on 
overseas energy.
  Just a couple of weeks ago, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke 
warned that a major disruption in foreign oil supplies that sends 
prices skyward could thwart the economic recovery. So the Federal 
Reserve Chairman has recognized that the more dependent we become on 
somebody else, if there's a disruption in that supply, a disruption in 
that overseas energy source that we're relying on, it could thwart our 
economic recovery.
  Let me just go to a chart next.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Before do you that, can I just remind 
you that Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along 
that same line, said, there can be no national security without energy 
security. There can be no national security without energy security. 
That's a wake-up call, America.
  Mr. GARDNER. That's a great point on national security, because not 
only do we have economic objectives that we need to achieve with a 
national energy policy where we're relying on our own production, but 
we've got national security implications. And if we don't rise to the 
challenge, we're going to be risking our security because of our 
reliance on other nations.
  To go to the point of energy prices, this chart just illustrates how 
much gas prices have increased, how high they've increased. $1.80 over 
the past several years. The average price of gasoline has increased 42 
cents since February of 2011. That's just on average around the 
country.
  The important thing to recognize is the impact that gas price 
increases have on the American consumer, on American families. All 
told, each penny increase in the cost of gasoline takes about $1 
billion out of the economy. So as gas prices hit $3.17 in February, 
just a few weeks ago, $3.18, every penny was a billion dollars taken 
out of the American consumers' pockets, sent overseas. If a 50-cent 
jump in gasoline prices is sustained over the next year, $70 billion 
would be lost in the U.S. economy.
  This chart says it all. Go back to January of 2009. The President 
takes office, $1.84. If you went and you filled up your car, $1.84 a 
gallon. As of February 23, just a few days ago, just a week ago, $3.61. 
Billions of dollars taken away from the American consumer, sent 
overseas, when we could be using that money right here to create 
American jobs, reducing the price at the pump.
  By spring, perhaps sometime this spring, according to Barron's, 
gasoline may even reach $4.50 a gallon. These aren't scare tactics. 
This is reality that Americans are facing each and every day when they 
fill up at the pump. Trying to figure out how to make ends meet, trying 
to make sure they're able to meet their mortgages, pay their bills, put 
food on the table for their family, $60 a tank, $70 a tank to get to 
work.
  What trade-offs are we forcing the American consumer to make, when we 
have the opportunity to create American energy right here, to build the 
Keystone XL pipeline, to develop our Federal resources and do it in a 
responsible manner, do it in a way that creates jobs, giving our own 
communities the benefit of that exploration, of that development of the 
tax revenue that they generate.
  $3.61 a gallon, it's unacceptable, and yet we hear talk of increasing 
production in Saudi Arabia, instead of doing it here? We hear an 
administration that says, you know, they were against the Keystone 
pipeline and then they were for it and then they're for part of it. I 
heard the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), who's been a leader on 
the XL pipeline, say that that's like a little bit like the rooster 
trying to take credit for the dawn.

  We have an obligation to make sure we're developing our resources 
right here, right now. We hear others talk about tapping into the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In fact, just a few headlines in recent 
days: Secretary Tim Geithner says tapping the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve is an option that's on the table for the administration.
  An article in Politico on February 25: House Democrat leaders are 
urging President Obama to open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  Another article, that same day: Washington liberals call on President 
Obama to tap Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARDNER. Absolutely.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I've gotten Facebook posts. I've gotten 
phone calls in our office encouraging just that, for the President to 
tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserves to help lessen the price at the 
pump.
  But let me just tell America that it was during the 1970s oil embargo 
that I remember, as a small child, that Congress created this huge 727 
million-barrel reserve that was intended for national security 
emergencies.
  Before President Obama tapped the SPR, the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, back in June of 2011, the reserve had previously only been 
tapped once for war, the other to combat a natural disaster, and the 
third time, quite similarly, for political opportunism. And the 
examples are this:
  President Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush, the first Bush, used the 
SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserves, during Operation Desert Storm 
because we were going to war over there and he was afraid that would 
disrupt Middle Eastern supplies, and so he tapped those reserves just 
to make sure Americans didn't suffer because of our actions over there 
in Operation Desert Storm.
  And then in 2005 we had, down along the gulf coast, which is a 
tremendous energy production area, in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, 
Texas, we had a little thing called Hurricane Katrina that came through 
and really disrupted supplies in the Gulf States and did a lot of 
damage there. And President George W. Bush opened up the strategic 
reserves to lessen the price at the pump for Americans because we knew 
there was going to be some supply disruptions.
  So we had a natural disaster, and we had a war.
  But then in 2000, just another example, President Clinton opened up 
the supply under the Strategic Petroleum Reserve right before a 
campaign, right before the Bush-Gore campaign. There wasn't any natural 
disaster. There wasn't a hurricane bearing down on us. We were not 
going to war. He was trying to stabilize the market to help him in a 
political game.
  And then we see President Obama, in June of 2011, do the same thing. 
Instead of focusing on American jobs and American energy production and 
a long-term energy policy, they're playing games with tapping the 
strategic reserves which have an intended purpose, and that intended 
purpose is not to bring the price down at the pump. It's to stabilize 
the American economy in case of war or in case of a natural disaster.
  Now, we've got these reserves sitting there, and we've got a lot of 
middle eastern unrest with what's going on in Iran and Iran cutting 
England and Germany or England and France, one of the European 
countries, off from any oil. It's actually a reverse embargo, where 
Iran's not going to ship oil to some friendly countries in Europe. And

[[Page H1097]]

so we're seeing this volatility due to the unrest in Iran.
  Shouldn't we, as America, keep that oil in reserve just in case 
there's a problem over there? Maybe--who knows, maybe there's further 
disruptions, Strait of Hormuz issue. Strategic reserves are there for a 
stated purpose, not for political gains.
  Mr. GARDNER. I would just make the point that if this administration 
acknowledges that by tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve they 
can increase supplies and, therefore, have an impact on price, isn't it 
obvious what we ought to be doing as the policy of this country?
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. That's too much common sense.
  Mr. GARDNER. If supply is the answer, tapping into the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, we should increase domestic production. We should 
increase opportunities in the Western United States, on our Outer 
Continental Shelf. We should utilize the energy that our neighbors to 
the north are willing to help us out with through the Keystone XL 
pipeline. Because if the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is, indeed, about 
supply, the political fix to a supply problem----
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. A Band-Aid, so to speak.
  Mr. GARDNER. Why isn't this administration willing to actually do the 
right thing, do what's necessary to keep our economy afloat, to keep it 
from running on fumes and make sure that we can produce that energy in 
our own backyard, increase our opportunities to produce domestic 
energy?
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. The gentleman from Colorado has been a 
stalwart and a leader in energy, American energy independence, as a 
leader of the House Energy Action Team. We call it HEAT, H-E-A-T.
  Let me just tell America, if you want to find out some of these 
details, some of the facts that we've laid out for you in black and 
white, you can go to the Web site for House Energy Action Team, under 
the House GOP Web site, and find this data out. We're putting it out 
there for you. We're not shying away from it. We're not. We're 
providing this information for you Americans to make informed decisions 
to understand that these energy bills we pass through the House, they 
have merit and they would have results if we could get the Senate to 
take them up, and let's have a true comprehensive energy policy for 
this country that focuses on American energy independence, that does 
things right for you Americans to lessen the price that you're paying 
at the pump, to lessen the price that you're paying on your electricity 
bill every month.
  House Energy Action Team is focused on this. The gentleman from 
Colorado is a leader on that. Our caucus and our conference is a leader 
on that.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
for his leadership, and this is the third time that we've done that 
this year already, come down and talk as a group about what we can do 
to get our energy prices down to relieve the pain at the pump, to make 
sure that we're restoring our energy independence. So we'll continue 
this effort.
  Last week, I had the opportunity to visit the western slope of 
Colorado. The vast majority of the land there is owned by the Federal 
Government. They've seen rigs being sent away, shutdowns, and 
opportunities, though, of great success where there is a glimmer of 
hope for increasing development in the western slope of Colorado.
  In my district on the eastern plains of Colorado, one county has 
drilled over 2,100 wells just last year, putting thousands of their 
people to work, helping create economic opportunity, creating jobs, 
bringing opportunities to the county that they never would have had 
otherwise.
  So when I talk to people of western Colorado, eastern Colorado, they 
simply want to do what they do best. That's to run their businesses, to 
do it in a responsible manner, to do what's right for their children 
and their grandchildren, and to stop sending the hundreds and hundreds 
of billions of dollars that we send each and every year overseas to get 
energy from them instead of using that money right here on our own 
families. Every year we send $331 billion to foreign nations. We can 
start using that money in our own backyard.
  The House Energy Action Team is committed to leading this country to 
a future of economic growth, economic opportunity, energy security, and 
energy independence.
  I thank my colleagues from South Carolina and New Mexico for joining 
me tonight.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________