[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19247-19254]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           BLUE DOG COALITION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor on Tuesday 
nights, as often the Blue Dog Coalition does. And tonight the Blue Dog 
Coalition wanted to come to the floor of the House of Representatives 
to have a discussion about energy policy in this country. I think that 
energy policy is an issue that is so important on so many levels, in 
terms of the integrity of our economy, in terms of our national 
security, in terms of the affordability for those who are underserved.
  It touches so many different issues. And that's why I think it's 
important for the Blue Dog Coalition to make its voice heard, to take 
on this very complicated issue that has so many different components, 
and to try to address it in a pragmatic and practical way. Because like 
so many issues in Washington, this is one that's not going to be solved 
by those on the extreme ends of the ideological spectrum, it is going 
to be solved by people who want to sit down and roll up their sleeves 
and come up with practical solutions on how we can provide an 
affordable and secure energy supply for this country.
  Now, I am joined by two other Blue Dogs this evening, my colleague, 
Mr. Scott from Georgia, and my colleague, Mr. Melancon from Louisiana. 
We look forward to having a discussion tonight about this issue. And 
the Blue Dog Coalition energy principles is a document, the Blue Dog 
Coalition has endorsed that identifies certain principles that we think 
ought to be the

[[Page 19248]]

basis of how we go about formulating energy policy in this country.
  And by way of introduction, I wanted to yield as much time as he 
might consume right now to my colleague, Mr. Scott from Georgia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much. It is certainly a pleasure 
to be with both the gentleman from Louisiana, and for you as well, Mr. 
Melancon.
  This is definitely a major, major priority as far as the future of 
this country is concerned. Our energy policy is interwoven directly 
into our vital national security. There is no question about it.
  We have, for the past 50 years, progressively gotten more and more 
dependent on oil from the Middle East. There is a reason why Iraq, 
Iran, Saudi Arabia, those Middle Eastern countries are so vital.
  It is so important for us to try to hopefully find a way in which we 
can get peace in that region. We don't know the answer to all of this; 
it is largely going to be up to those Middle Eastern countries. But we 
are so directly tied to the future stability of that region, largely 
because of one thing, that is, our energy. And that has been a mistake, 
that we are tied to our future energy needs to the most unstable region 
in the world. And we now need to move very rapidly to excise ourselves 
from that.
  The other reason why our energy policy is so vital and so important, 
and again, part and parcel of our national security, is because of 
global warming. Make no mistake about it, there may be differing 
opinions about global warming, there may be differing opinions about 
climate change, but one thing is certain, the facts do not lie. This 
Earth is getting warmer by the day, by the year.
  Scientists have pointed out that the Earth's climate is increasing in 
warmth at a rate of one-tenth of a degree in each of the previous 
decades.

                              {time}  2245

  That may sound like a little. But when you look at just 2 degrees 
since the turn of the century, that is a major, major fact; the fact of 
dependency on oil in the Middle East, the most unstable region, the 
fact that we are experiencing the damage of global warming. The reason 
for the global warming is the excretion of carbon dioxides into the 
air, and that gives us the greenhouse effect.
  So on those two points, we have no choice but to proceed directly 
ahead and provide the kind of sterling leadership this Nation deserves, 
as you so aptly pointed out, Mr. Matheson, in a very responsible way, 
in which both sides of the aisle can come together. Everybody can come 
together and understand that this is not a Republican issue. This is 
not a Democratic issue. This is an issue for the future of the American 
people and the people of the world.
  Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his comments. Being 
from an oil-producing State such as Louisiana, we have for decades been 
producing America's energy needs. To this day, approximately 30 percent 
of all the energy supply is domestically produced in our coastal areas 
in Louisiana. The same areas that produce all that oil and gas are also 
home to what we refer to as America's wetlands. The coastal marshes of 
south Louisiana are predominately the ones we are losing the most.
  Ironically, in my district they provide roughly 30 percent of the 
seafood to this country. Now, people say, how can the oil industry and 
the seafood industry coexist side by side? Well, for a number of years, 
back at the beginning of time, so to speak, when the oil and gas 
industry began offshore drilling and wetlands drilling, there weren't 
the environmental standards and all the other standards that are put 
forth now. There wasn't the technology that is there today. So, yes, 
there were mistakes made.
  We have learned from our mistakes. Our Government has recognized it. 
The States have recognized it. They have addressed those issues. If you 
look back after the storms, after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, if you 
look at the devastation that occurred across the Gulf Coast, did you 
hear of oil spills? The worst spills that you had actually were the gas 
tanks that were leaking fuel and oil on land at the oil refineries and 
from the service stations throughout the flooded areas.
  There's a misconception. There's a fear by people that's more the 
fear of fear itself that people seem to concern themselves with. We 
have in this country, as was mentioned by some of the previous speakers 
in the first hour, an industry that may be misunderstood. It is called 
``big oil''. But if you look who is producing the oil and gas in the 
United States, for the most part it is small, the independent. It may 
be a company such as Devon out of Oklahoma. Yes, it is on the stock 
market, but it was a company started in 1971 by a father and son. They 
took that gamble. They got out there.
  It has, in fact, by the numbers I have seen, been determined that for 
the major oil companies to drill in the United States, whether onshore 
or offshore, whether deep water or shallow water, it is more expensive 
an investment and proposition than it is to drill in other parts of the 
world. Of course, there are some security problems going on in other 
parts of the world.
  As we look at what we believe in in this country and what we should 
believe in in this Congress, we talk about energy independence. And 
energy independence, as mentioned, is not about Republicans and 
Democrats. It is about the old folks. It is about the young starting 
families. It is about the working people. It is about everybody that 
pumps gas in that car. It is about everybody that goes to a job.
  When you look at natural gas, as Mr. Peterson talked about, it is a 
clean fuel and we have ample supplies throughout this country and we 
ought to be producing those fuels. However, our own policies have 
seemed to stymie us.
  The Blue Dogs have put together a package that we are proposing that 
is a principle, not a package, a principle that we feel we ought to be 
looking at and having guide us as we go through the process of 
developing energy legislation.
  We are not going to get this country moving forward unless we 
encourage development of oil and gas, alternative fuels, green fuels, 
whatever. It all has to be part of the mix. This is not about one fuel 
being better than the other. This is not one fuel seeing if it can 
``out politic'' another fuel. This is about trying to bring together 
the country to devise an energy policy, and we as the Blue Dogs felt 
that it was time for us to try and take the lead and to give some 
guidance and leadership in this matter.
  With that, I turn the floor back over to my friend, Mr. Matheson.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I think the comments from the gentleman 
from Louisiana are spot on in the context of we need it all. We need to 
look at a very diverse portfolio of energy supplies in terms of where 
we are today and where we want to be in the future. We want to, of 
course, develop as many different types of energy and diversify our 
portfolio, because, at the end of the day, having an affordable and 
secure source of energy is what makes the most sense for this country 
and for our economy.
  While all of us would like to see a bunch of new technologies put in 
place immediately, the reality of this situation is it is going to take 
a commitment in the public policy arena and the private sector to bring 
a lot these technologies along.
  These energy principles that the Blue Dogs have published represent a 
set of guidelines. I don't think the Blue Dogs come to the table saying 
we have all the answers. These are complicated issues that are going to 
require a lot of thought and a lot of work. But I do think that these 
principles help articulate a zone of reasonableness, if you will, 
within which this debate ought to take place.
  Since we have kind of led into it, one of the key principles is that 
of fuel diversity, where the Blue Dogs think we should not be picking 
winners and losers, as Mr. Melancon said. We think you have to have a 
diverse energy supply portfolio to have future success in

[[Page 19249]]

this country. So we encourage any policy that is going to add to fuel 
diversity, that is going to add to energy infrastructure in this 
country.
  In the long term, if we are going to have energy independence, there 
is no question that a whole basket of opportunities are going to help 
create that. It is going to include issues of conservation and energy 
efficiency. It is going to include new fuels. It may be cellulosic 
ethanol, it may be biofuels. There may be other sources that are 
alternative sources compared to what we use today. And it is also going 
to include conventional sources of energy that we have today as well.
  We have to take the longer view on this, and the longer view is at 
some point we may have a whole different set of energy options that 
don't exist today. How we get from here to there is going to take a 
commitment to develop those technologies and a commitment to make sure 
we access conventional supplies we have today to keep this economy 
moving in the right direction so that we can all have the economic 
growth and opportunity that is going to allow these technologies to 
develop.
  So, we as Blue Dogs believe in it all, whether it is oil, or gas, or 
biofuels, or coal, or nuclear, or hydroelectric, or geothermal, or 
other technologies that I may not have even mentioned. You really need 
to put all of that on the table, all that on the table, to give this 
country the opportunity to make progress and to move forward and to 
have a responsible, diverse energy supply.
  That is one of the key principles that the Blue Dogs have tried to 
articulate, and I think it is one that everyone in this Congress ought 
to be able to get their arms around in some form and see if they can 
recognize the value to this country if we do that.
  Mr. Scott, I am happy to yield to you.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Matheson, I would like to maybe pick up on 
a point you made on the diversity and alternative sources of energy. 
Let's just take one for a few moments and put this one on the table, 
because I truly believe that this is one of the major directions we are 
going to have to go in.
  As you know, one of the problems with our dependence on oil and 
petroleum, aside from the Middle East and the political volatility 
there and the unstableness that is there, even if we had and were able 
to produce some of this oil on our own here, we have a refining 
problem. We are very short in our refining capacity.
  It has been almost a quarter of a century since we even built a new 
refinery. There are reasons for that, environmental, people don't want 
them around, but they are not there. But that is another reason.
  So, one of my interesting visits not long ago was to go down to South 
America, to Brazil, to visit Brazil. One of the reasons I wanted to go 
to Brazil was because I wanted to find out what they were doing and how 
they were doing it with their energy problem.
  Here is one salient fact: Brazil and Argentina both are not dependent 
upon the Middle East for oil. They have moved very rapidly and are 
setting the curve for ethanol production.
  Now, 85 percent of their automobiles are ``flex'' automobiles, in 
other words, running on a combination of mostly ethanol made from sugar 
cane.
  If Brazil can do those two things, get clean energy, get ethanol, 
make it from a grown product that continually renews itself, and at the 
same time not be dependent on oil from the Middle East, surely we can 
learn something from what is going on in Brazil. And I did. A group of 
us went down to Brazil. We spent a lot of time down there. We talked to 
people and we found out some things there.
  I believe, quite honestly, a major feature, not all of it, but a 
major feature of our way out and our way forward in becoming energy 
independent rests in the production in this country of ethanol.
  Again, we have got to be very responsible as we move forward with 
ethanol production. We have got to have a level of moderation with it 
and we can't go overboard with it. It is very interesting that 
President Bush in his State of the Union, if you recall when he was 
talking about energy, mentioned it. He said we can solve our problem 
with ethanol made from corn, and he put some large figure out there.
  But if we even just went with that, it would put such downward 
pressure on our food stock, on our cost of beef and poultry and chicken 
and pork, who feed off of corn. Corn cannot do it alone. So it has to 
be a dual approach with cellulosic, which is made out of pine straw and 
pine trees and wood chips and switch grass, which we have plenty of.
  The point that I am making is we can move rapidly here, and we are. 
As a part of our farm bill that we will be marking up this week, that 
we are in the process of marking up, we and the Democrats and Blue 
Dogs, who make up a large part of the Agriculture Committee, are in the 
leadership on this, and it is one of the areas in which all of us can 
be very proud. But certainly within our Blue Dog Coalition, we are 
providing the leadership on finding a way out of our energy dependence, 
and we are doing it through our farm bill.
  Just think, that we can grow our way out of dependence on oil in the 
Middle East. We have got all of it right here in this country, and I 
think getting the ethanol plants moving, using corn where we can, but 
there is a certain limit we have to have there, but use these other 
means of cellulosity, the wood chips, and putting the incentives in 
this package, as we have in the farm bill to explore and develop 
ethanol plants and plants of operation.

                              {time}  2300

  Also, we have to do it near the points of distribution. And in the 
process of creating this new industry, we create jobs when we create a 
clean energy source and that is one of the major steps I believe for us 
as we move towards energy independence.
  Mr. MELANCON. I think about the technology as it was brought up a 
second ago. One of the concerns that we have to have here as a Congress 
is there is a lot of technology out there. But there is a lot of 
perception that there is more technology than is factually out there. 
What we can't do with Federal policy is put demands and time slots, et 
cetera, production, that far exceeds what the technology provides for.
  We need to make sure that we put a bill out there that is going to be 
reasonable. We don't want to run off our good-paying jobs. As discussed 
by Mr. Peterson earlier, natural gas is a basis for everything from 
fertilizer to foods to plastic, heating our homes, you name it, it is 
there. We need to make sure as the government, that we provide in the 
policy sections of these bills not only the financial support mechanism 
through tax breaks and other mechanisms to encourage the development of 
alternative fuels and to encourage the research and development of 
these new concepts, these new technologies, we as a government need to 
put that carrot out there so as to get industry to participate and to 
get involved in it and not discourage it.
  Some of what we have seen in some of the legislation is a concern to 
us because it is going to be difficult to become energy independent if 
you are delaying the time frames for providing drilling permits to 
drilling companies, if you are having longer review periods for whether 
and when you can drill. We don't want to walk over the environmental 
issue. We want that to be taken under full consideration.
  But right now the International Energy Agency is telling us that by 
the year 2030 if not sooner, this world will be short on oil and 
natural gas and the fossil fuels that we need to drive all of our 
economies worldwide. Now when you start looking at who holds the key to 
all the energy in the world, it is not the United States. It is in fact 
not the oil companies. It is the foreign countries most of whom are not 
necessarily our best friends.
  So as a country, we need to start thinking about energy independence 
if we are going to stay strong. I have told people that being a strong 
country means when times get tough, as they did back in World War II, 
my parents and others, they manufactured airplanes and boats. The 
Higgins Crafts were made right in New Orleans. The wives went to work 
at the plants. The

[[Page 19250]]

husbands went to war. And wives went to war, too, I'm being 
discriminatory, but everybody played a part. We were producing all of 
the food we needed in this country at that time and more. We were 
producing the energy that we needed and more. We could manufacture 
everything that we needed and more. And now, we as a country have come 
to a position where we need to import most of our energy.
  According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the United 
States imported 36 percent of domestically consumed crude oil and 
petroleum products and 4.3 percent of our natural gas supply in 1973. 
In 2005, we imported 66 percent of our crude oil and 16 percent of our 
natural gas from foreign sources. Morever, EIA projections indicate 
that the United States will consume 21 percent more oil and 19 percent 
more natural gas by 2030. Those numbers are dramatic, and that is just 
one country in this world who has been and should continue to be one of 
the strongest and mightiest and most independent countries in the 
world.
  But what fuels the farms, is the energy that we need. What fuels the 
ability to get the energy, is the farms that feed the people. So it is 
part of a cycle. We need to make sure that if we are going to stay a 
strong, independent, viable country that can defend itself should it 
need to, then have to have an energy policy and we as Blue Dogs believe 
we need to provide and help guide this Congress in a way that brings us 
good energy policy for the long term, not for the next week, not for 
the next month, not to the next Congress, but for years to come.
  We are drilling in areas and there are questions amongst our friends 
and colleagues. When you look at the gulf coast area, Mississippi, 
Louisiana, Texas and Alabama who front on the gulf, are producing oil 
and gas for this country. Florida has ample supplies, but there are 
some restrictions off the coast, and if you come up the entire East 
Coast and West Coast. Now I don't fault my friends from those States 
not wanting to drill off their shores. But at the same time, we can't 
sit and talk about bringing oil and gas prices down if we are not all 
into this national effort. That is another issue. That is not going to 
be part of this bill, but that is something that Charlie Melancon 
concerns himself with.
  Mr. MATHESON. The gentleman mentioned that up to 16 percent of our 
natural gas is now being imported.
  When we throw out the term energy, there are all different forms of 
energy, and it is dangerous to look at simple policy solutions when oil 
policy has its own implications. We know about dependence on foreign 
oil, but I don't think a lot of people realize we are increasing, 
although not yet to the same degree, but we are increasing our 
dependence on foreign supplies of natural gas as well. We have seen a 
lot of price increases over the past 5 to 7 years in the United States, 
and natural gas is such a key component of our economic model in this 
country. Those price increases can have such damaging effects on the 
integrity of our economy, let alone reaching each individual, 
particularly those on fixed incomes.
  I think it is important to note, and that is the statistic that my 
colleague from Louisiana mentioned, we are importing natural gas into 
this country. I don't think a lot of people know that we are importing 
a lot of natural gas into this country. I want to piggyback on one 
other thing, short term and long term.
  We have talked about how in the long run we hope technology takes us 
into some new places. But how do we get there. We can invest in 
developing those technologies, but traditional energy sources that we 
are using in the country today, be it oil or natural gas or coal or 
nuclear power, those are key components of the portfolio today. And as 
we move ahead in the long run and look for alternative fuels, I am sure 
they will provide a significant piece of that portfolio as well. But in 
that period before that takes place, this Congress ought to enact 
policies that help encourage a reliable supply of those conventional 
fuels that we are utilizing today. It is going to be important for our 
economy, it is going to be important for making process as an economy, 
and I think that is consistent, in fact I know that is consistent with 
where Blue Dog energy policy recommendations have gone.
  I want to mention a second principle that is in this document, and 
that is the concept, because we are so concerned about maintaining 
energy security. We certainly don't want to go in the wrong direction. 
So we have taken our term PAYGO which is usually in the Congress in the 
context that if there is a new program that you want to spend money on, 
you have to find a way to pay for it. We have used that term in terms 
of Blue Dogs believe in energy PAYGO. That is we don't think that we 
should be enacting policies in this country that reduce existing 
domestic production. We are concerned because there are some policies 
out there by some of our colleagues in this Congress that we are 
concerned may do just that. That doesn't match up with the notion of 
trying to make sure that we have a secure, reliable, affordable energy 
supply. And the statistics that my colleague from Louisiana mentioned 
about the projected growth demand in the future in this country, you 
don't want to go backwards and be cut back on our existing domestic 
capabilities and in that context increasing even more so our reliance 
on foreign supplies.
  Another critical part of the Blue Dog principles is the notion that 
when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. We don't want to create 
a greater reliance in terms of our reliance on foreign supply. And it 
is not just with oils. You have to put natural gas into that discussion 
as well because we are importing more natural gas than we have in the 
past, and we have to be very careful about if we reduce our natural gas 
production capabilities in this country, what that means in terms of 
prices and putting us in an even less secure, less dependent position 
than we are today.
  I yield to my colleague from Georgia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I think you made a significant statement there, 
Mr. Matheson, that when you are in a deep hole, the first thing you do 
is stop digging.
  I want to very, very briefly share, and I am sure there are some 
American people who are watching our discussion this evening, on just 
how serious a situation we are in. I talked about instability in the 
Middle East and our dependence upon oil.
  Clearly there are two known facts. Right now, 42 percent of all of 
the known oil reserves rest under the basin in the Middle East, in 
Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. That is nearly half of all of the 
available oil supplies that we know of in the Earth. And it is not 
renewable. It doesn't renew itself. Eventually at some point oil is 
going to run out.
  When I was at NATO, and we had a meeting over in Paris this past 
winter, our winter NATO meetings, a question was put to a noted 
economist, John Malone, and he made a profound statement. He said we 
didn't leave the stone age because we ran out of stone; nor will we 
leave the oil age because we have run out of oil. What he said was that 
civilization as we know it could very well run out before the oil runs 
out with the rapid rate we are going with the damage that oil-driven 
energy sources around the world are causing with the greenhouse 
effects.
  I thought it would be very interesting to share with the American 
people just how serious this is given the fact that oil is not a 
renewable source of energy, given the fact that almost half of it is in 
a very unstable region, and much of the world is still depending upon. 
But according to the Energy Information Administration, here are some 
startling facts. They say that world daily oil consumption is projected 
to grow by 1.4 million barrels this year in 2007 and by 1.6 million 
barrels in 2008. That is daily oil consumption. You talk about running 
out with that rapid rate, and each year it goes up. In addition, the 
EIA projects a steady increase in natural gas and electric use in the 
United States which will create upward pressure on prices. This doesn't 
paint a very good picture.
  And then it goes on to say that almost all scientists agree that the 
Earth's climate is rapidly changing and

[[Page 19251]]

getting warmer, having increased by 2.6 degrees Fahrenheit since the 
turn of the century. Now as I mentioned earlier, on the surface of it, 
2.6 doesn't seem like much, but it is major. The Earth's global average 
temperature is now approaching or possibly has passed, according to 
this report, the warmest experience since human civilization began over 
12,000 years ago. Now it is approaching the warmest it has ever been in 
the history of mankind. Global warming is a fact. Climate change is a 
fact.
  And it goes on to say that over the past 150 years, measured carbon 
dioxide concentrations have risen by more than one-third. The question 
is not whether greenhouse gases will result in climate change, but 
rather the magnitude, the speed, and the geographic details and the 
likelihood of impacts stemming from this trend.
  I am not painting a gloom and doom picture here. We are talking about 
facts so we can get a sense, a greater sense of urgency in this 
Congress and in the world. So many places over in the world we are 
fighting and killing one another over what could very well be in the 
scheme of things very trivial. We are all in the same bucket as human 
beings.

                              {time}  2315

  This earth of ours is precious, and for no other reason more 
important than saving this earth for our future generations, the air we 
breathe all rests in the decisions that we make in this Congress today.
  I know and I share the same feeling with you all that we feel very 
honored and very privileged to be elected and serving in Congress at a 
time when this is our challenge. And when they write the history books 
and perhaps our grandchildren and children will look and say, well, 
what did grand-daddy or my daddy do at that time, the history books 
will reflect very proudly that we provided the leadership at a very 
crucial time to move this Nation forward in getting away from oil 
dependency and getting into clean energies.
  We have the means to do it. We know we need to do it, and we have the 
direction to do it.
  Mr. MELANCON. I'd like to expound on what Mr. Scott just had to say. 
I've talked about that since the storms that devastated south 
Louisiana. I've seen the marshes of south Louisiana that I grew up 
hunting and fishing in, where my son and I have spent many, many 
weekends and weekdays and just out there enjoying the land and the 
water. And I've got a new grandson, and of course, after these storms, 
seeing the damage to these wetlands, these estuaries, seeing and 
hearing the facts that I'm hearing on climate change and the concern 
with, as I tell people, there will always be a planet called earth. The 
question is will there be an earth with life or with quality of life.
  And we are in the generation, we are in a time in this Congress where 
I believe, as you, we have an opportunity to do it, but we have to do 
it right because I don't think we're going to get multiple chances at 
it. We've got to try and make those decisions as wisely as we can so 
that, whatever it is that we do, it is for the next generation and 
those that succeed them.
  Hopefully, when they read the history books, the three of us and the 
other Blue Dogs and the other Members of this Congress, both Republican 
and Democrat, will go down well in history as saying they had the 
foresight.
  Think about the people that put together and wrote the Constitution 
of the United States, and look at how we've lived with that 
Constitution for well over 200 years, and you think about it. It should 
be possible that people of our times and our capabilities can come 
together and work and come up with a policy that gets this country, 
gets this world and makes it work for us so that we can all live in 
harmony and peace.
  And one of the things that I can remember a number of years back in 
one of the presidential elections, one of the presidential candidates 
went to the grocery store and didn't know what the checkout scanner 
was. Well, you know, there are kids in this world, I hope there's no 
Members of Congress that still believe that milk comes from the dairy 
department at the grocery store and not from the cow on the farm.
  And the same with gas from the gas pump. There's many people out 
there that don't realize that you have to go and drill for oil in order 
to put that gasoline in that automobile to run those kids to baseball 
or basketball or cheerleading or whatever.
  And so we need to understand what it is that drives the country. It 
is not a mechanical pump at the convenience store at the corner. It is 
an industry that needs to have a return on investment, and it is the 
government that needs to set policy that makes it so that the industry 
wants to produce it and produce it in volumes.
  Yes, we have not done what we should be doing to encourage investment 
not only in the refining capacity. We're starting to see that. We did 
some of that about 2 years ago. There is some on-line. In my district 
alone, there's at least two refineries that are expanding. One of them 
will be a huge expansion project.
  And the problem that I've always said is it's not that we can't 
produce the oil and gas or buy it from some other country, but you 
still have to have the capability of processing it through. But you 
still have, because you are not producing it fast enough in this 
country, dependence upon foreign oil coming in.
  Ironically, this past week, speaking of climate change, there was a 
scientist that decided to swim in the Arctic Ocean and dove in and swam 
6/10ths of a mile in 29-degree water in the Arctic Ocean. The symbolism 
there was we have a problem. He is the first man in history to swim for 
any length in the Arctic Ocean in a swimming suit. He might need other 
testing, but at the same time I think he's proved his point to me.
  For those people that don't think that there's such a thing as global 
warming and/or climate change, the scientific community has documented 
it. It's there. We've talked about it. You don't have to believe 
everything that's said by a Member of Congress. Sometimes I doubt some 
of the things I hear, but the things that I see, the horrific 
hurricanes, the tornado activity throughout the country in areas that 
have never been affected, the floods that are occurring consistently, 
the droughts that are occurring throughout the United States, some 
people say, well, you just know more about them because the news is 
there. No, they're there. They're being documented. They are more 
frequent, more severe than we've ever seen.
  So we need to move fast. We need to move together. We need to come 
together as a country, as a Congress, and put together policy that our 
kids and our grandkids and the future generations will have hope that 
the world will be as good as it was for us.
  Mr. MATHESON. Well, I thank my colleague and I want to follow up with 
two more of the principles. There are eight in total by the way. We've 
already talked about a couple.
  But one of the Blue Dog energy principles does have to do with 
climate change, and my two colleagues really have described mostly the 
thinking behind these principles, but to put in summary, the Blue Dog 
principles say, look, there's broad scientific consensus that climate 
change is happening.
  Blue Dogs also believe it's taken place over a significant period of 
time. We need to make sure we get this right with a methodical 
approach, and it may very well be a long-term approach to try to change 
the direction we're going, but we want to make sure we get it right. 
There are some folks who want to act very quickly and in a radical way, 
and that may not be the best solution.
  We also wanted to make sure we had a global approach. If we simply 
enact policies in this country, we may be exporting jobs and pollution 
overseas, and that doesn't get us to where we need to be because this 
is a global issue. So the Blue Dogs want to have an approach that tries 
to encourage global participation, an approach that does not 
disproportionately affect one industry or one sector. It needs to be an 
economy-wide approach in how we

[[Page 19252]]

look at this issue and how we try to reduce our carbon footprint in 
affecting the climate change issue.
  So I think the Blue Dogs have laid out a framework that makes a lot 
of sense. Again, as I said before, we don't claim to have the answer to 
every single aspect of this issue. We think we've established a 
framework that makes a lot of sense for people making good, sound 
decisions.
  A second principle, and it really follows up on what my colleague 
from Louisiana said a little earlier, he was talking about how people 
sometimes don't know what it takes to get energy to the point where you 
use it. People just pull the pump at the gas station. They don't have 
any real appreciation for the complex process it takes to get it to 
that point. And that applies to all forms of energy.
  I think people take for granted when they flip a switch and the light 
goes on, that the light just goes on, and they don't have a full 
appreciation for what it takes to generate that electricity and get it 
delivered to that building or that house where the light switch exists.
  And so another one of the Blue Dog energy principles recognizes we 
need to invest in the energy infrastructure in this country. It doesn't 
just happen without investment. It costs money, and whether it's a 
refinery expansion or whether it's an ethanol plant that my colleague 
from Georgia was talking about that we want to develop in this country 
or whether it's finding renewable sources, let's say, wind energy that 
makes electricity, that costs money. It doesn't happen without that 
type of investment.
  It's going to take significant commitment from both the public and 
private sector in this country to ensure we have an energy 
infrastructure that can deliver reliable sources of supply and 
affordable sources of supply.
  So we need to look for those. Again, the Congress we need to look for 
those public policy options, public policy decisions that create the 
environment for that to happen. It's not going to be done all by the 
government, nor should it be by the way. We want the marketplace to 
evolve and pursue the most efficient technologies and efficient 
delivery systems, the most efficient ways to make this happen, but we 
can help set the table, if you will, to make sure we have the right 
incentives in our economic model to encourage that to happen.
  So that's another one of the Blue Dog energy principles that I think 
is very important, and we specifically point out within the electorate 
sector that we need to make sure we have investment in the transmission 
grid, investment in making sure it's efficient distributed generation.
  During the previous hour, one of our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle had their Special Order here just before us. I think one of 
my colleagues mentioned the notion that you may have a significant wind 
resource where you can put up a number of windmills, but it's going to 
go be in a remote area, and you have got to get that product, that 
electricity created by those wind turbines, from that remote area to 
where the load factor is, and that's going to be let's say in urban 
area that may be hundreds of miles away, and you have got to invest in 
a transmission system that allows that to happen.
  So, as I said at the start of my comments at the start of this hour, 
it's a complicated issue. You can mention with energy and everyone kind 
of nods their head, but if you really start looking at all the sub-
issues below that, there are a lot of issues out there. And the Blue 
Dogs are trying to articulate a pragmatic, practical approach to try to 
capture all those issues and have a good discussion with Members of 
both parties and try to create those good public policy decisions to 
help us get to where we want to be as a country.
  So I wanted to again follow up on those two comments that my 
colleague from Louisiana mentioned, and with that I'm happy to turn 
over time again to Mr. Scott.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much. I think in addition to the 
plans and the points that we have offered here, there's the other side 
of this that we have got to face, and that is human behavior. We've got 
to provide leadership to change human behavior when it comes basically 
to the one instrument that is causing so much of the pollution, that is 
causing the earth to get warmer. That is the automobile, and we have to 
move on both fronts. We have to move on the front of getting the 
American people to do, and we can do this if we use our policy right, 
if we use our incentives right.
  One is that we need to provide encouragement and incentives for 
individuals to get out of their automobiles, to use other means of 
transportation, especially in our large urban areas.
  Let me tell you about my region of the country that I represent which 
is Atlanta. The Atlanta area has one of the highest carbon dioxide 
emissions area in this country, and with that is traffic congestion, 
which is about to choke the great promise of our city, not only in our 
region, not only in terms of the traffic but the air we breathe.
  So we have got to move and provide the leadership to get alternative 
means of transportation moving people from place to place without such 
great dependency on the automobile. Just think about the time and 
productivity and hours that's a waste in the human productivity of 
sitting in traffic jams, let alone the waste of energy and the idling 
of the motors just in the traffic jams alone. We can't continue that 
way. We've got to do things.
  Commuter rail is one of the areas that we are working. That's hard. 
It's hard to get people out of their automobiles, but it might be good 
policy for us to move to an area of good Federal tax dollars being used 
as incentives to be able to give people opportunities to get on these 
commuter rails. Perhaps we ride for free. Perhaps they're down in a 
subsidized cost. We've got to do something.
  In Europe and in France and throughout Europe and in Japan, they have 
got trains now that are zipping people along at 100. They have got one 
over in Asia and Japan somewhere that's going about 150, 160 miles an 
hour. Where would we be without the rapid commuter rail systems we have 
in the northeast? Can you imagine if we didn't have it? You think 
traffic is bad between New York, Boston and Washington, DC. Just think 
it what it would be like if we didn't have those systems.
  So there are ways in which we've got to do that.

                              {time}  2330

  The other thing is; and I am not saying, I know how hard it is, I 
love my car. We are a society in a culture in America that has just 
grown up with the automobile. It's a part of us from the drive-ins to 
all the things that we associate with the good life. Get a home, get a 
car. You are in America.
  But maybe, in addition to getting them out of those cars with 
incentives and the commuter rail and other means, maybe we can do 
something with the car itself. They are doing some things, American 
ingenuity is already at work in New York. The Ford Motor Company is now 
putting together an electric car. They are already out there. We have 
moved, and I think we are moving with the proposal in this Congress, to 
give an incentive, to give a tax write-off, tax benefit, some help, for 
people who will buy cars that run on the batteries and electricity. 
They have this.
  I think there is a lot more we can do, in changing the habits of the 
American people, changing to get them out of the automobiles, and then 
changing the nature of the automobiles themselves, and then, of course, 
getting the clean sort of renewable energy we can to put them in. These 
are the kinds of proposals and approaches that I think this issue calls 
for, and I think it's the way forward in the future.
  Mr. MELANCON. I think about Americans, myself as an American, and how 
spoiled we are with just being able to get in our car and go where we 
want, when we want. I like to tell people, and it's not that I should 
be bragging on it, because I'm not, but I think I'm probably a typical 
American family man. I have got a Suburban and a Tahoe, I

[[Page 19253]]

mean, that's not good, but I have got a boat. My son has a boat. We 
like to hunt, and we like to fish.
  We have lifestyles that we have been fortunate enough that we can 
live. But now we're coming to a point in time where instead of maybe 
having a Suburban and a Tahoe, I could do with just having one and have 
a more efficient vehicle that got better mileage.
  Part of what we are talking about in the energy efficiency system 
CAFE limits. Now, you can get to the limits drastically, as Mr. 
Matheson expressed, by just saying, by year 2015 or 2018, you have got 
to reach a certain limit for automobiles and trucks, and, you know, 
just damn everybody else, doesn't matter about the jobs, let's just get 
there.
  Or you can take it as a curve that takes you to that point, maybe not 
as acutely as a straight line, and says that you got to get there by 
2022, and you have got to achieve some goals on the way up there, that 
doesn't provide that we lose the manufacturing jobs and the 
manufacturers. I mean, after World War II, there were 33 vehicle types 
in America, our labels, as they call it. There are 335 now, different 
vehicle labels out there in the United States.
  We are spoiled, and we still want to have those luxuries and be able 
to live those lives, the lifestyle. But we all have to start, first of 
all, all of us, are going to have to start pinching ourselves and come 
to the realization that we are going to have to make some changes in 
our lifestyles if we want to keep this world and this country vibrant 
in more ways than just fuel economy.
  So the CAFE limits, we are going to have to choose, choose something 
that works, choose something that is not drastic, so that America can 
make that transition, so that America doesn't have to just drop 
everything and start all over again.
  When we talked about infrastructure, we need to provide incentives so 
that you see some of the problems you have with providing electricity. 
In the northeast, you saw a lot of it over the last several years. Some 
of our transmission capacities and the grids Mr. Matheson talked about. 
Yes, it's great to go produce solar power or wind energy, but you have 
still got to get it somewhere.
  If you are going to do ethanol, they are saying there is a problem 
with putting it in the pipeline, so you will have to build special 
pipelines just for ethanol. But somebody has got to have incentive to 
go build those pipelines.
  We talk about having fuel-efficient cars. They are all over the 
place, flex fuel. You can walk out of here. There are thousands and 
thousands and thousands of them. But you can't find a station to find 
E-85. It's not available.
  So to do one thing that sounds good, it's part of a whole package, 
and that's what the Blue Dogs are trying to make sure that we keep 
focused. There was a guy that I knew once, he says, just remember, keep 
your eye on the ball, and the ball here is getting America moved 
forward, but getting America's energy policy done right.
  That's what we have got to stay focused on as a country, as a 
Congress, and this administration, to help us make sure that we provide 
good, sound energy policy.
  Mr. MATHESON. I think there are two broad issues out here. Our hour 
is drawing to a close, but there are two broad issues out here in the 
energy debate. One is energy independence and security, and the other 
is climate change challenge.
  Now those issues are not mutually exclusive. In fact, a number of the 
provisions to pursue each of those issues are complementary, and we 
should look at it in that context. But I do think that the Blue Dogs 
have come up with a set of principles, we haven't been able to talk 
about every one of them tonight, and we will come back again on the 
floor to do that.
  As I said, this is a complicated issue. There are a lot of layers to 
this issue, and this Congress needs to first recognize that level of 
complexity to make sure we make good decisions. You have to recognize 
the magnitude of the issue before you can make good decisions.
  But I do want to touch on just one other area that is a principle the 
Blue Dogs feel is very important, and that's the notion that we need to 
have an aggressive effort at technology development. We talked a little 
bit about technology development tonight, but let's put it in 
perspective to where if we really want to get to a point where we have 
greater energy independence, and if we make progress on the carbon 
emission issue as well.
  The technologies aren't there today that need to be there. First of 
all, is the technology called carbon capture and sequestration. More 
than half of all the electricity we make in this country is coal. You 
know what, this country has a lot of coal. In fact, one-fourth of the 
world's coal is right here in the United States. It's cheap, it's 
plentiful.
  The way we burn it now we put CO2 in the atmosphere. The 
hope is that we can develop the technology to capture that carbon and 
sequester it. But that technology isn't there yet today.
  So, when Blue Dogs talk about we need to make a significant and 
aggressive commitment to technology development, that's one of the 
technologies. It's real straightforward. We will have coal as part of 
our energy mix. I think most people think that in terms for the long 
run in terms of our electric production. But we have got to solve that 
carbon issue, and we have got to invest in technology.
  Second, we have had discussions about cellulosic ethanol. We can't 
rely on corn as our source of ethanol in this country. There has to be 
a better way to do it. We have got to move technology in that 
direction. A third one, just to throw an example, battery technology. 
We want to get to the point where we have the car you can go home and 
plug in at night and run on electricity. A lot of people have spent a 
lot of time and money trying to develop that battery technology. We are 
still not there yet.
  That's an appropriate Federal role to invest and move ahead with that 
research and development. I just want to make sure, that's the other 
principle I get out tonight that the Blue Dogs believe in, that that's 
the right role for the Federal Government to do, to push the 
development of these technologies.
  One of the greatest American strengths is innovation. That's what 
this country is all about. It's why we are a superpower. We have got to 
unleash that again and again. The government can't drive all that, but 
we can sure encourage it. That is what we ought to do.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. The one area we did not mention, because we 
need to, because it's going to play a very important role in the 
future, that's nuclear, nuclear energy. I know when you mention the 
words nuclear energy, folks get a little shaky, but that's an education 
job, that's a leadership job. But nuclear energy is reliable, it's low 
cost, everywhere we have the safety necessary, there's a licensing 
process that we go through, there are all kinds of features there. But 
nuclear energy is very, very important, it's going to play a very 
important role, and we have got to invest in it.
  Finally, I have got to say, I think in reminding a great historian 
once said, on the bleached bones of many past civilizations are written 
those pathetic words, too late. Let us hope and let us know for sure 
with the action we are taking in this Congress that they will not be 
able to say that about our civilization on this energy and global 
warming. We are not going to move too late.
  Mr. MELANCON. I agree with that, and in one closing remark, just a 
thought, as people in public life, you have times where constituents 
are there wanting things, and, of course, as there is the old 
expression, what have you done for me today? I hope when this energy 
policy debate is over, and we have come to a consensus and passed a 
bill, that it's a good bill, and that we can say to you, I worked to 
secure your energy future, and I hope that it's going to be one that 
carries you for generations.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Well stated.
  Mr. MATHESON. I want to thank both of my colleagues for joining us. 
As I said, the Blue Dog coalition stands ready to work with people on 
both sides of the aisle. We approach these

[[Page 19254]]

issues through a very, practical, pragmatic way. We want to do what's 
right for this country.
  We are going to come back and talk about energy more and more. By the 
way, I think this is one of the great domestic policy issues. By that 
way, that's foreign policy implications, as my colleague pointed out in 
his comments earlier. It's one of the great issues we face as a 
country, and it's helpful to help drive forward that debate.

                          ____________________