[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13950-13957]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             AMERICAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS FOR LOWER GAS PRICES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I just wanted to start out by saying 
that I know that I can't talk directly to the American people, but I 
hope that if anyone is out there listening that they would listen to my 
comments that I make to you.
  Madam Speaker, I guess about 2 weeks ago probably I started getting 
some phone calls about different petitions on the Internet and other 
places about the prospects of America becoming more energy independent, 
that we would not be dependent on foreign oil sources, and that we 
would be able to use our own natural resources to meet our energy 
needs.
  And people began to ask if I had gone and signed them or had seen 
them. One was on americansolutions.com, which offered to increase 
domestic oil drilling. There was one about a gas holiday. There were 
several about developing alternative energy sources. But there were 
some interesting petitions against drilling by Democratic Senator Ms. 
Boxer, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace.
  As I walked into a service station in my district, there was a 
petition on the counter, Madam Speaker, that said: Sign here if you 
want to let your representatives know that you're for lowering gas 
prices. And I'm assuming that the proprietor of that station had it 
there to keep people from talking bad to him about the price that was 
on his pump.
  But what I decided after looking at all these different petitions is 
that I would come up with a petition so the American people could 
understand where their representative was at. We know where our 
constituents are. I think on the American Solutions petition they are 
at like 1.7 million people. So we can kind of understand where the 
American people are at. They want us to be independent. They want us to 
increase our U.S. oil production.
  So what I decided to do was come up with a petition, and what this 
petition says is: American energy solutions for lower gas prices. Bring 
onshore oil online; bring deepwater oil online; and bring new 
refineries on online. Realize, we have not built a refinery in this 
country since the late 1970s.

                              {time}  1900

  And you may not realize this, because we're always talking about 
crude oil, but you might not realize that the United States imports 6.2 
billion gallons of gas and 4.6 billion gallons of diesel every year. We 
import these from the United Kingdom, U.S. Virgin Islands, France, 
Canada, Netherlands, Norway--which, by the way, Norway is now the third 
largest exporter of crude oil, and back in 1965 they were energy 
dependent on foreign oil and they decided that they would open up to 
drilling in the North Sea. They are now the third largest exporter of 
crude oil. But we import refined gas from them--Germany, Russia, Italy, 
and of course the OPEC countries, which don't even really have that 
much refining capacity, Madam Speaker, but yet we buy refined gas from 
them.
  So I got a petition, I've had it over here on the wall, Madam 
Speaker, for probably about 2 weeks now. There are 435 spaces for the 
Members, and then there are seven spaces for the delegates from the 
U.S. territories. And I'm happy to say that we've had 191 signatures. 
Now, this may be too simple for some people because all it says is, ``I 
will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower gas prices for 
Americans.'' And so we need your help, Madam Speaker. We need you to 
sign. I don't think you're on it, Madam Speaker.
  But we've got a Web site, and it's our Web site at house.gov/
westmoreland. And on there we have everybody that has signed, and we 
have everybody that we've talked to that said they would not sign. So 
we've got two columns, we've got a signers and a non-signers. And then 
also, just to let you know, we have notified every office here at least 
once, we will do it again next week. And some people said have, well, 
Congressman, they ask me how long have you been working on this? And I 
say, well, about almost 2 weeks. Well, how come you only have 191 
signatures? Well, Madam Speaker, I'd ask people that ask me that 
question, Sunday, when they're at church, try to talk to 450 people on 
a Sunday, it's almost hard to do, especially when you get in different 
conversations with folks. So if you want to understand, house.gov/
westmoreland, Madam Speaker, that's where somebody would go if they 
wanted to see where their Congressman was at on this simple petition 
that basically just says, ``I will vote to increase U.S. oil production 
to lower gas prices for Americans.''
  I would like to yield some time to my friend from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me just say to my good friend, Congressman 
Westmoreland from Georgia, I am so happy that you are going to all this 
trouble to get all of our colleagues to sign this petition. And if 
you're at 191, you're not too far short of 218. And when you get 218, I 
will join with you to go to the Speaker and show her that we have 218 
signatures--or you do--and that they ought to bring this to the floor 
for a vote because a majority of the House wants this done.
  You know, we passed another week. A week has gone by since you and I, 
I think, last were on the floor. And everybody's going home for the 4th 
of July recess--they're going to be in parades, they're going to be on 
radio, they're going to have town meetings--and we haven't done 
anything about reducing the price of gasoline or moving toward energy 
independence. And so I, like you, if I were talking to the American 
people right now, I would say, when your Congressman or your Senator is 
in that parade, I want you to talk to them strongly and say, we want 
you to drill in America. We want you to move us toward energy 
independence. We've been talking about it since Jimmy Carter was 
President 30-something years ago, and we aren't doing anything. And 
that's why we're dependent on foreign oil and that's why gasoline 
prices are over $4 because we aren't producing the oil here, we're 
sending it overseas.
  We're sending over $400 million a day to Saudi Arabia to pay for oil 
that we're using. We could use that money right here in America, and it 
would help create jobs and expand our economy. We're sending $125 
million a day to President Chavez in Venezuela, who's trying to move 
every country in this hemisphere toward communism and who is a good 
friend of the Castro brothers, Fidel and his brother Raul.
  We have big problems here because we aren't drilling in America. And 
we need to have everybody in this country contact their Congressman and 
Senator and say, hey, listen, get with the

[[Page 13951]]

program, it's time for us to move toward energy independence. We can't 
have this economy of ours suffer anymore.
  I would like to enter into the Record, Madam Speaker, if I might, a 
letter that was sent by the American Association of Petroleum 
Geologists. These are the experts that say there is oil here, we ought 
to drill here, and here's how we ought to do it and here's how we ought 
to explore. And when you read this letter--which is now going to be put 
in the record--it tells very clearly that drilling costs for one well 
onshore costs a half a million dollars, and offshore it can cost up to 
$25 million. And so these geologists, when they get these permits to 
drill in a certain area, they go out to make darn sure that there's oil 
there before they sink a well that's going to cost $25 million. And 
that's an exploratory well. And it's a half million dollars if you 
drill onshore. So we're talking about big money. And when you realize 
that 68 percent of the people who drill for oil are independent 
drillers, they're not the big oil companies, and 87 percent of the 
people who drill for gas are not the big oil and gas companies, they're 
individual people who have small companies, and if they find oil 
they're going to get it, and if they find gas they're going to get it. 
And so this idea that these permits are not being researched and looked 
at is just crazy.
  And when you read what the American Association of Petroleum 
Geologists said, and the President is a Mr. Willard Green, you realize 
that these people want to get oil and gas out of the ground, they want 
to get it out of the offshore sites on the Continental Shelf, and they 
can't do it simply because they don't have the ability to pursue these 
permits.
  Only 3 percent of the area offshore is available for permitting and 
for drilling for oil; 97 percent of the Continental Shelf isn't being 
touched. And we have about 80 percent onshore that's not being touched. 
We ought to explore every place we can to move this country toward 
energy independence. We ought to remove ourselves from being dependent 
on Saudi Arabia, who isn't really a friend of ours, and on Venezuela, 
which really isn't a friend of ours, and other countries that aren't 
friends of ours. We ought to really move towards energy independence. 
And the minute we announce we're going to do that, we're going to drill 
on these sites, I'm sure the American people realize the price of oil 
is going to go down. The competitive nature of the free enterprise 
system and supply and demand will force the price of oil down, and it 
means the price of gasoline will go down as well.

                                                     June 3, 2008.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi, Majority leader Hoyer, and Minority 
     Leader Boehner: Given the on-going debate about access and 
     leasing activity on federal onshore lands and the Outer 
     Continental Shelf, I would like to offer some perspective, on 
     behalf of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 
     (AAPG), on the science and process of finding oil and natural 
     gas.
       AAPG, an international geoscience organization, is the 
     world's largest professional geological society representing 
     over 33,000 members; The purpose of AAPG is to advance the 
     science of geology, foster scientific research, promote 
     technology and advance the well-being of its members. With 
     members in 116 countries, more than two-thirds of whom work 
     and reside in the United States, AAPG serves as a voice for 
     the shared interests of energy geologists and geophysicists 
     in our profession worldwide.
       AAPG strives to increase public awareness of the crucial 
     role that the geosciences, and particularly petroleum and 
     energy-related geology, play in our society.
       Finding and developing oil and natural gas blends science, 
     engineering, and economics. It has distinct phases: 
     exploration, development. and production. And it is risky, 
     because finding oil and natural gas traps, places where oil 
     and natural gas migrate and concentrate, buried under 
     thousands of feet of rock is like finding the proverbial 
     needle in a haystack. Talent and technology increase our 
     chances of a discovery, but there are no guarantees.
       What is exploration? Well, the grid pattern on a block map 
     makes it tempting to think of exploration as a process of 
     simply drilling a well in each grid block to determine 
     whether it contains oil. But because of the natural variation 
     in regional geology, one cannot assume oil and natural gas 
     are evenly distributed across a given lease or region, 
     Rather, exploration is about unraveling the geologic history 
     of the rock underneath that grid block, trying to understand 
     where oil or natural gas may have formed and where it 
     migrated. If the geology isn't right, you won't find oil or 
     natural gas.
       Legendary geologist Wallace Pratt once observed, ``Where 
     oil is first found is in the minds of men.'' When preparing a 
     lease bid, geologists use their knowledge to identify the 
     specific areas in a region that they believe have the highest 
     likelihood of containing oil and natural gas traps. 
     Successful exploration begins with an idea--a hypothesis of 
     where oil may be found.
       Since exploration is about developing and testing ideas, 
     some acreage available for leasing is never leased. That is 
     because no one develops a compelling idea of why oil or 
     natural gas should be there. Similarly, some acreage is 
     leased and drilled repeatedly with no success. Then, one day, 
     a geologist develops an idea that works, resulting in new oil 
     or natural gas production from the same land that others 
     dismissed as barren.
       Once a lease is awarded, geologists begin an intensive 
     assessment. They collect new geological, geophysical, and 
     geochemical data to better understand the geology in their 
     lease area. They use these data to construct a geological 
     model that best explains where they think oil and natural gas 
     were generated, where it may have been trapped, and whether 
     the trap is big enough to warrant drilling.
       If there is no evidence of a suitable trap, the explorer 
     will relinquish the lease and walk away. If they see a trap 
     that looks interesting, they schedule a drill rig to find out 
     if they are right. Drilling is the true test of the 
     geologists' model, and it isn't a decision to be made 
     lightly. Drilling costs for a single well can range from $0.5 
     million for shallow onshore wells to over $25 million for 
     tests in deep water offshore.
       As the well is drilling, geologists continually collect and 
     evaluate data to see whether they conform to their 
     expectations based on the geological model. Eventually, they 
     reach the rock layer where they think the trap is located.
       If there is no oil or natural gas when the drill reaches 
     the trap they were targeting, they've drilled a dry hole. At 
     this point the explorers will evaluate why the hole is dry: 
     was there never oil and gas here; how was the geological 
     model wrong; and can it be improved based on what they know 
     from the drilled well? Depending on the results of this 
     analysis, they may tweak the exploration idea and drill 
     another well or decide the idea failed and relinquish the 
     lease.
       If there is oil and/or natural gas, they've drilled a 
     discovery. Typically, they will test the well to see what 
     volumes of oil and/or natural gas flow from it. Sometimes the 
     flow rates do not justify further expenditures and the well 
     is abandoned. If the results are promising, they will usually 
     drill several additional wells to better define the size and 
     shape of the trap. All of these data improve the geological 
     model.
       Based on this revised geological model, engineers plan how 
     to develop the new field (e.g., number of production wells to 
     drill, construction of oil field facilities and pipelines).
       Using complex economic tools, they must decide whether the 
     revenue from the oil and natural gas sales will exceed the 
     past and continuing expenses to decide whether it is a 
     commercial discovery.
       The process of leasing, evaluating, drilling, and 
     developing an oil or natural gas field typically takes five 
     to ten years. Some fields come online sooner. Others are 
     delayed by permitting or regulatory delays or constraints in 
     the availability of data acquisition and drilling equipment 
     and crews. Large projects and those in deep water may require 
     a decade or more to ramp up to full production.
       As you can see, oil and natural gas exploration is not 
     simple and it is not easy. It requires geological ingenuity, 
     advanced technologies, and the time to do the job right. It 
     also requires access to areas where exploration ideas can be 
     tested--the greater the number of areas available for 
     exploration, the higher the chance of finding oil and natural 
     gas traps.
       U.S. consumers are burdened by high crude oil prices. 
     Conservation and efficiency improvements are necessary 
     responses, but equally important is increasing long-term 
     supply from stable parts of the world, such as our very own 
     federal lands and Outer Continental Shelf.
       As Congress considers measures to deal with high crude oil 
     prices, I urge caution. Policies that increase exploration 
     costs, decrease the available time to properly evaluate 
     leases and restrict access to federal lands

[[Page 13952]]

     and the Outer Continental Shelf do not provide the American 
     people with short-term relief from high prices and undermine 
     the goal of increasing stable long-term supplies.
       I am happy to further discuss these ideas. Please contact 
     me through our Geoscience & Energy Office in Washington, D.C. 
     at 202-684-8225 or 202-355-3415.
           Sincerely,
     Willard R. (Will) Green,
       President, American Assoication of Petroleum Geologists.

  And when they talk about these speculators, there are people that 
speculate in gas futures and oil futures, there is no question about 
that. But the minute we say we're going to drill here in this country, 
you watch those prices drop; you watch those speculators start getting 
out of the market and selling what they have. And that will force the 
price down on oil, it will force down the price of gasoline, and it 
will help this country.
  And let me just say to my colleague--and I really appreciate him 
yielding to me--if we don't get with the program, if my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle and the Senate and the House don't work 
with us on this side of the aisle, we're going to end up with gasoline 
prices being $5 or more per gallon. And if we have a conflict in the 
Middle East, as we've heard talked about here tonight, it could go much 
higher than that. That will put extreme pressure on this economy.
  And I hate to predict this, but I really believe that if we don't get 
control of this situation and start drilling onshore and offshore in 
our territory, I think we could have a severe economic recession in 
this country. And when I say severe, I mean severe. The price of food 
is going up rapidly, the price of gasoline is going up rapidly. The 
price of products that are shipped across this country, which is 
almost--everything is going up very rapidly, and we're not doing a darn 
thing about it because we're depending on the Saudis.
  We had Senators go over to the Saudis just recently and ask them to 
open up more oil fields so we can buy more of their oil. Why are we 
doing that? Why aren't we drilling in America so we don't have to 
depend on foreign oil? It makes absolutely no sense to send billions 
and billions and billions of dollars overseas and to other countries 
that don't even like us when we won't even drill here in the United 
States.
  And so I am so happy that my colleague has taken the time and the 
effort to get the message out to our colleagues that they ought to sign 
onto this petition. And I know he feels like I do--and we come down 
here night after night talking to each other--that we would like, if we 
could talk to the American people, to put pressure on their Congressmen 
and Senators to sign onto this policy of drilling in America, to sign 
this petition so we can move toward energy independence. If we do that, 
and I would say this to my American friends all across this country, if 
we do that, you watch the price of gasoline go down. It will go down 
like a rock. You will see gasoline below $3 before you know it. But we 
have to say that we're going to drill for oil in this country, onshore 
and offshore. The minute we do that, America, just watch these prices 
go down. But first of all, we have to get this body and the other body, 
the House and the Senate, to get together and say, okay, we're going to 
drill. And we can't do that unless the American people put pressure on 
their Congressmen and Senators to sign on.
  You have done yeoman service to this country, Congressman 
Westmoreland, because you've got 191 Members that have already signed 
that. And I'm going to work with you to get 218. And as I said before, 
the minute you get 218, I will walk with you to the Speaker's office 
and say, hey, it's time to bring this to the floor.
  You're doing good work. I'm proud of you.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank my friend from Indiana. And I want 
to get 300 signatures because I would like for the American people to 
know that way more than just a simple majority is behind them for 
making sure that, not necessarily those of us that are our age, but our 
children and our grandchildren will not have to go through the things 
that we're going through today. Because in 1995, this Congress passed 
drilling in ANWR and President Clinton vetoed it. And by all estimates 
today, 13 years later, we would be getting one million barrels of oil a 
day.
  And as Senator Schumer said over in the Senate about 2 weeks ago, if 
we could get OPEC to increase oil production by one million barrels a 
day, it would lower the price of gas 50 cents a gallon just like that.
  We don't need to be sending our President over to foreign countries--
and especially those that are not that friendly to us--with hat in hand 
on bended knee asking them to use more of their natural resources to 
provide us with oil when we won't use our own natural resources.
  In talking about that, because this is the one thing that gets people 
fired up, Madam Speaker, and really gets those lines hot, that they 
want to find out if their Congressman has signed this very simple one 
sentence, is that it says, ``In a recent interview on al Jazeera, 
Chavez''--now this is Hugo Chavez from Venezuela--``Chavez called for 
developing nations to unite against U.S. political and economic 
policies. What can we do regarding the imperialist power of the United 
States? We have no choice but to unite,'' he said. ``Venezuela's energy 
alliances with nations such as Cuba, which receives cheap oil, are an 
example of how we use oil in our war against neoliberalism,'' he said. 
Then there was another date, on March 15, 2005, in the Washington Post, 
Mr. Chavez says, ``We have invaded the United States, but with our 
oil.''
  Now, that would make your blood kind of boil, Madam Speaker, but this 
is what really gets people off is the fact that every day American 
families and businesses in this country write Hugo Chavez a check for 
$170 million. That $170 million could be going to our country. It could 
be going to provide energy independence. It could be going to provide 
jobs and build an industry, put into infrastructure; $170 million a day 
to Mr. Chavez.
  Now, what we've been doing this week with the Democratic majority--
and let me remind you, Madam Speaker, that it was back in April of 2006 
that then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi made a statement, and she said, 
``Democrats have a commonsense plan to bring down the skyrocketing 
price of gas.'' And at the time it was about $2.06 a gallon. We are 
waiting on that commonsense plan to be unveiled. We're waiting on it. 
And we heard that there were going to be about four energy bills this 
week. And Madam Speaker, the energy bills that were brought out this 
week was kind of like putting lipstick on a pig.
  H.R. 6377, the speculation bill, this is what it says, ``to direct 
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to utilize all its 
authority.'' In other words, we passed something that's already 
existing law. That's what we did, we passed something that was already 
existing law.
  I want to read to you what happened in some quotes from H.R. 6. H.R. 
6, Madam Speaker, was a bill that the new majority passed in January--I 
believe it was January 18, 2007--shortly after taking over, after they 
had promised the American people that they were going to lower gas 
prices. And I do want to read this one quote before I start reading 
these others. This is from Paul Kanjorski, and this was about 2 weeks 
ago. It said, ``A man was trying to question Mr. Kanjorski about his 
remarks that Democrats had overpromised during the 2006 congressional 
elections by implying that they could end the war if they controlled 
Congress.''

                              {time}  1915

  ``Now, anybody who is a good student of government would know that 
that wasn't true,'' Mr. Kanjorski said at an Ashley town hall meeting 
in August, ``but you know the temptation to want to win Congress back. 
We sort of stretched the facts, and people ate it up.''
  Yep, they ate it up. And right now they're paying a price for it.
  I want to read you some quotes. These are from January 18, 2007, when 
we were debating H.R. 6:

[[Page 13953]]

  Mr. Peter DeFazio: ``It is sad to see the Republicans come to this. 
Now they laughingly say that this will lead to higher gas prices.''
  Well, gas was $2.23 a gallon on the day Mr. DeFazio made his 
statement. It's about $4.08 today. So we were probably right. This was 
no way to lower gas pries.
  The same day, January 18, 2007, Mr. Jim McGovern said: ``What we are 
doing today really is responding to the outcry of the American people 
who are outraged by the fact that in the midst of being gouged by Big 
Oil . . . ''
  Well, we have had seven investigations into price gouging, and it 
hasn't lowered the price of gas. In fact, it has gone up almost $2 a 
gallon since that statement was made.
  The same day, John Hall: ``Today we are going to take back the tax 
giveaways to Big Oil so we can give the American people a break at the 
pump.''
  January 18, floor statement, Kathy Castor: ``Instead of giving away 
billions of dollars to big oil companies which made multimillion dollar 
profits last year, the new Congress intends to chart a course in a new 
direction by investing in alternatives for the American people. This 
will help America become energy independent and ultimately lower the 
utility costs for average Americans.''
  I would like to tell the gentlewoman that the price of natural gas is 
twice what it was.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Will the gentleman yield for a moment?
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I yield.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I just want to follow up the train of thought 
that you have.
  These taxes that they want to put on Big Oil, if there are excessive 
profits made and there is collusion or something like that, if there is 
criminal behavior, obviously everybody wants to make sure that doesn't 
take place. But whatever they're promising, everything that I have seen 
the opposition party promise, is that they are going to hit Big Oil 
with more taxes. That isn't going to get one more drop of oil to the--
--
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Reclaiming my time, evidently taking these tax 
breaks away is not lowering the price of oil either.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. No. That's right. They want to take tax breaks 
away. They want to increase taxes. And when you pass a tax increase on 
to a business or industry, oil or automobiles or whatever it is, it's 
passed on to the consumer in the form of price increases. So if they 
raise taxes, it won't give us one more drop of oil, which we ought to 
be drilling for right now, but it will make more expenses for the 
companies, and unless they can prove wrongdoing, those expenses will 
passed on to the consumer in the form of another price increase. So 
raising the taxes on the oil companies is only going to exacerbate the 
problem and make the cost of oil go up more. And I don't understand why 
my colleagues don't understand basic economics and the law of supply 
and demand. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
  We need to pass legislation that will get more oil to the refineries, 
build more refineries, as you've said, and start getting the price of 
oil down because we are energy independent. And just talking about, 
okay, we're going to hit Big Oil, that may resonate with a lot of 
people. Some people say, oh, my gosh, they are not paying enough taxes. 
They ought to be taxed more. They are making too much in profits. 
That's not going to bring any oil to the market, not a drop.
  So I just say to my colleagues, quit beating on a dead horse. We have 
got to become energy independent. We have to drill here in America. And 
I hope everybody in the country who may be looking at this, and we 
can't talk to them, but everyone in the country who is looking at this 
tonight ought to ask their Congressmen and Senators, Is what you're 
talking about in Washington going to bring one more drop of oil to the 
marketplace? Is it going to move us toward energy independence? And if 
it isn't, they ought to sign that petition. They ought to get on with 
the program in making us more energy independent.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I thank you for saying that because that's exactly 
true, and the petition is actually so simple, one line: ``I will vote 
to increase U.S. oil production to lower the price for Americans.'' And 
you can go to house.gov/westmoreland and see if the Congressman is 
there.
  Madam Speaker, you would really have been intrigued at some of the 
things that I heard about why they couldn't sign it.
  But I want to continue on. These are quotes from the H.R. 6 debate, 
which was on January 18 of 2007, after the new majority, the Democrats, 
had overpromised the American people, as admitted, and now they were 
coming up with something that was satisfying that radical 
environmentalist base of theirs, whom they felt like they owed their 
victory to, at least in part. So they were going to take away the tax 
breaks and other things.
  I'm not a big fan of Big Oil. Don't get me wrong. But I had a high 
school economics teacher, and I didn't pay that much attention in 
school, but Colonel Wofford at Therrell High School there in Atlanta 
taught us that taxing manufacturers or producers does not lower the 
price to consumers. So for whatever that's worth, I will give that to 
the majority.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman would yield, let me just 
elaborate on that really quickly.
  I hope everybody who may be paying attention to this, our colleagues 
in their offices, realize that business and industry have a certain 
margin of profit that they have to make to keep the doors open, 
whatever it is. And as you have just said, if they are taxed and they 
have a margin of profit of 8 percent and you raise their taxes, they're 
going to pass that cost increase on to the consumer in the form of a 
price increase. And that's what my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, your colleagues, don't understand.
  We really need to do what's necessary to move toward energy 
independence, and raising the price of gasoline by taxing these 
companies is not going to solve the problem.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you.
  January 18, and these are quotes from H.R. 6, which was their 
mantelpiece legislation. This was their commonsense plan, I guess, for 
bringing down the skyrocketing gas that at the time was $2.23 a gallon:
  Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee said: ``The price per barrel of oil is $50 
plus.'' Today I think it's about $140.
  She goes on to say: ``And so what is this Congress and this 
leadership doing? It is doing the right thing.''
  January 18, floor statement by Steve Israel: ``This dependence on 
foreign oil, Mr. Speaker, is a glaring threat to our national 
security.''
  I could not agree with you more. But we are more dependent today than 
we were when you made that statement.
  Mr. John Lewis, my colleague from Georgia: ``More than ever we need 
to get our priorities straight. We need to stop dancing while Rome 
burns and reverse the damage we have done to our environment. The 
American people need relief from energy costs.''
  And I couldn't agree with you more, Mr. Lewis, but the problem is 
that gas has almost doubled since you made that statement.
  Rahm Emanuel: ``Mr. Speaker, let's review the score: ``Big Oil, one; 
taxpayers, zero. Now the score is tied, and we are just getting warmed 
up.''
  Well, I hope you're about as warm as you're going to get, Mr. 
Emanuel, because I don't know if we can stand any more of this.
  January 18, 2007, floor statement from Allyson Schwartz: ``The United 
States imports 65 percent of the oil we consume. We spend $800 million 
every day on foreign oil-producing countries. This threatens our 
economic stability, our environmental security, and our national 
security, and today we say `enough.'''
  Well, I say ``enough'' too, but if we had said ``enough'' then and 
started producing our own oil and started using our own natural 
resources, maybe oil wouldn't have almost doubled since then.
  The chairman of the Democratic Congressional Committee, Mr. Chris Van

[[Page 13954]]

Hollen, said this: ``This is the time to change direction, to set a new 
course on energy policy, to say to the country we're not just talking 
rhetoric, we mean what we say.''
  Mr. John Yarmuth: ``Mr. Speaker, my constituent, like yours, paid 
over $3 a gallon for gas last year. Isn't that enough?''
  Absolutely it's enough. But today we are paying over $4 a gallon, and 
the reason we are is because we refuse to use our own natural resources 
for the health of this country and, like so many of these other 
statements said, for the national security of this country.
  Stephanie Tubbs Jones: ``Critics of H.R. 6 argue this measure will 
place an undue burden on oil companies which will lead to higher gas 
prices.''
  Okay. We must have been right because what happened was after H.R. 6, 
with gas being $2.23 a gallon, today it is $4.08.
  What we are trying to do, before I yield to some of my colleagues, we 
have that petition that my friend from Indiana and I have been talking 
about, and what it says is ``I will vote to increase oil production to 
lower the price of gas.'' And what that means is bringing onshore 
drilling online, offshore drilling online, deepwater oil online, and 
bring in more refineries online.
  If we bring onshore oil online, it will save anywhere from 70 cents 
to $1.60 a gallon. To bring deepwater oil online, the Outer Continental 
Shelf, 90 cents to $2.50 a gallon. To bring new refineries online, and 
not one has been built since 1976, would save anywhere from 15 to 45 
cents. The gas tax holiday, 18 cents. To halt oil shipments to the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a nickel.
  Now, I have got some more quotes on that, and, of course, this was 
passed in the House probably back in May. We stopped those shipments in 
July, and so we should find out if it's going to bring it down a nickel 
a gallon. But if you look at what the Democrat plan was, and this is 
that commonsense plan, I'm assuming, but ``sue OPEC,'' we have had a 
lot of success with that. ``Launch the seventh investigation to price 
gougers.'' ``Launch the fourth investigation to speculators.'' Now, we 
put that lipstick on that pig today with the speculation bill, that we 
just really passed something that's already on the books.
  ``Twenty billion dollars in new taxes on oil producers.'' I can 
hardly wait to see what that does to lower the price of gas. And we've 
seen that just not even putting the new taxes on them but just taking 
tax relief away from them has caused gas to almost double.
  And then of course they've got ``halt oil shipments,'' which is a 
nickel.
  You can see that if we put our policies in place that gas today would 
be somewhere around $2.10, and that's using very conservative savings 
over there. And you can see that if this works, and we don't even know 
that this is going to work, it would be about $4.03.
  So we hope that we will get 300 signatures on this petition to show 
the American people that we are not going to lie here in a fetal 
position or just keep doing repetitious things to make you think we are 
doing something. So if you could just go to the house.gov/westmoreland 
and look at it. We had 45,000 hits on it, Madam Speaker, last night. 
And we have had a couple of Members that have come to us and said, We 
have heard and we want to go from the ``would not sign'' to the 
``sign.'' So we can't do it, Madam Speaker, if people aren't going to 
be involved with us because we don't have that much influence over the 
majority.
  I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, my 
classmate (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Thank you so much, Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you for leading 
this Special Order tonight and for the work that you have been doing 
for the last several weeks on this issue.
  I think it's important that we say over and over and over again that 
the Republicans do have a plan to lower gas prices. We are doing 
everything that we can to create new sources of American-made oil 
because we are in touch with the American people. We go home every 
weekend. Most of us worked for a living before we came here; so we know 
what it's like to meet a payroll. We haven't been in government all our 
lives. We haven't served in the Congress for 53, 54 years.

                              {time}  1930

  We are out there every weekend talking to the folks that we 
represent, and we know how the high prices of gasoline are hurting 
them. I think the Democrats are in strong denial. They think, again, 
that they can continue to bash the oil companies and hide their heads 
in the sand about what is going on.
  I want to thank you and our colleague from Indiana and our other 
colleagues that are going to be speaking tonight who are exposing the 
Democrats for who they are and what they are. Again, as I said earlier, 
it's important that we let the American people know it's the Democrats 
who are in control. The President cannot create new gas sources or new 
oil sources. Only the Congress has the power to do what needs to be 
done. So we need to set the record straight.
  It seems like the Democrats want to do everything possible to avoid 
creating new oil and bringing down the price of gasoline. They purport 
to represent the little person, the common person, the average person 
in this country, but it's obvious that that's not who they care about. 
They care about the radical environmentalists and toeing their line.
  Now I consider myself an environmentalist. My husband and I are in 
the nursery and landscaping business. I cherish the earth. I am a big 
recycler. I am very careful about how I spend things. When you grow up 
poor, you learn to be careful with money.
  But we know that our Speaker is the wealthiest person in Congress. 
Many of the Democrats are among the wealthiest people in the Congress. 
This really isn't hurting them at all. Again, I think it's very 
important that we debunk what they are trying to say to the American 
people about why their ``use it or lose it'' is what needs to be done. 
Again, they are good at blaming everybody else in the world for the 
problems that they create or that they can't solve.
  I want to talk a little bit about their comment that all we have to 
do is get the oil companies to use the leases that are available to 
them and put out some facts. We had the Truth Squad. The Truth Squad 
hasn't been active lately, but we need to bring it back. As our 
colleague says, You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not 
entitled to create facts.
  So let me say something about why we need to do something more than 
simply pass legislation that has already been passed. During President 
Reagan's administration, 160 million acres of onshore land was leased 
for exploration. Today, only 50 million acres are leased. Only 6 
percent of Federal onshore land is available for leasing. ANWR contains 
10.4 billion barrels of oil, but is 100 percent closed.
  I want to say something about ANWR, and I want to say something--I 
saw these pictures on TV again tonight. When ANWR is portrayed, it is 
usually portrayed as this meadow with daisies growing in it, animals 
grazing. That isn't what ANWR is. ANWR is a frozen desert. The 
temperature gets to 60 degrees below zero there sometimes. Practically 
nothing grows there.
  I was all over Alaska in 2005. I saw the oil fields. And, you know 
what? The oil fields don't look like the oil fields they show you on TV 
either. We have got to get those guys to get up-to-date pictures. You 
don't have these big cranes going up and down and back and forth like 
this. The oil wells don't even look like oil wells. They are little 
boxes with some gauges on them. If somebody didn't tell you that they 
were drilling oil there, you couldn't possibly know it. So we are not 
going to be spoiling our scenery, and we are certainly not going to 
hurt ANWR.
  The OCS contains 86 billion barrels of oil, the Outer Continental 
Shelf, but 97 percent of it is closed. Onshore Federal land contains 31 
billion barrels of oil, but only 6 percent of it is open to 
exploration. Oil shale on Federal land contains 2 trillion barrels of 
oil, but is 100 percent closed.
  The Democrats' claims are wrong. They claim that there are 4.8 
million

[[Page 13955]]

barrels and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day that may be 
extrapolated from unused Federal leased lands. Stephen Allred, 
Assistant Secretary of the Land and Minerals Management, wrote that 
anyone who makes these claims has a ``misunderstanding of the very 
lengthy regulatory process. Lessees must comply with permit upon 
permit, often 27 total permits, without any drilling, and a lease does 
not equal oil. A lease is not a permission to drill, a lease is a 
permission to explore.''
  The Democrats assume that every acre of leased land can produce the 
exact same amount of oil and gas as the very best producing acres. This 
argument is not based on science, fact, or even common sense. A lease 
doesn't guarantee the discovery of oil and gas. A lessee may never 
actually find oil or gas. Between 2002 and 2007, 52 percent of all 
exploration wells were dry.
  We have got to set the record straight. We can't let the Democrats 
get by with talking about things that aren't true and trying to fool 
the American people.
  I see my colleague from Georgia has some wonderful maps here. Let me 
defer to you to talk about ANWR a little bit.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, what I wanted to point out, this is what ANWR 
looks like. It's kind of a frozen tundra. I had some young people up 
here the other day from a school, and one of them asked me a question, 
said, Are you for drilling in ANWR? I said, Yes, I am. She kind of 
frowned. I said, Why? She said, I don't want you to ruin all the 
beautiful trees up there.
  I tried to find a tree. I couldn't find a tree on the place. So 
there's a lot of misunderstanding out there about what it is. Then you 
can look at the size of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and then 
the ANWR part as compared to the whole State of Alaska. A lot of people 
don't understand that Alaska--we have got a map of it somewhere--it's 
bigger than Texas. I know Mr. Conaway is here from Texas. Three times 
the size of Texas.
  In fact, I will let Mr. Conaway talk about Texas and ANWR and other 
things, if he would like.
  Ms. FOXX. If I might, before Mr. Conaway speaks, I want to make one 
more comment. I have been getting a lot of letters in the last couple 
of weeks from boy scouts who are talking about their concerns with what 
is going on. I got one this week that was really heart-rending. He 
said, If the price of gas keeps going up, we are not going to be able 
to go on vacation, we are not going to be able to go to the grocery 
store. We are not even going to be able to go to church anymore.
  I think it's a real shame that we have people out there who are being 
denied the opportunity even to go to church because they cannot afford 
the price of gasoline. That is a sad state that we have come to in this 
country, and it's a sad commentary on the Democrats when they want to 
allow that to continue, when they have the power to do something about 
it.
  I yield back.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Let me say this, that it is a shame that we are 
having to limit so much of the travel. We need to conserve, but we 
can't conserve our way out of this. The real shame of this is when 
winter comes and natural gas is twice what it was. Mr. Peterson from 
Pennsylvania was down here the other night and really opened my eyes to 
it. Not only are people not going to be able to leave their home, they 
are not going to be able to stay warm in their home when the winter 
comes and the price of natural gas.
  To another one of my classmates and colleagues, Mr. Conaway from 
Texas.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Well, I thank my classmate from Georgia for hosting this 
hour tonight.
  We spend an awful lot of time at these microphones, both sides, 
basically talking past each other. Usually, the rhetoric is heated, and 
we don't listen. My experience is this is the worst 435 listeners on 
the face of the Earth because we are clearly more interested in hearing 
what I have got to say than listening to what you have got to say.
  It happens time and time and time again at these microphones, 
basically because we tend to polarize and take the absolute positions, 
knowing full well that the best path for America is somewhere in the 
middle.
  The best path for America includes working all the other alternatives 
and trying to develop those and trying to see as far over the horizon 
as we can for a day in which crude oil and natural gas will no longer 
be available, not by choice but by the fact it has all been used up. It 
is a finite resource. We should be conserving everywhere we get, not on 
an individual basis but collective as well.
  Yes, from our position, we should be exploring and developing and 
producing American resources; crude oil, natural gas, uranium, nuclear, 
oil shale, tar sands, the full gamut of these resources.
  So if we can actually spend some time and sit together and try to 
work out our differences, I think there is a solution here that is 
really best for America.
  When I first read the ``use it or lose it'' bill, my first reaction 
was how can 236 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and all 
of their staffs and all of their hired consultants know so little about 
a fundamental industry that is so vital to our national security, our 
economic security, and that is the oil business. Then I came to the 
cynical conclusion that I was wrong; they do know about it.
  They do know exactly what they are doing by this bill that was up 
earlier today on a suspension calendar that we were able to defeat 
because over a third of us said that is wrong-headed.
  Here's a quick basic. When an oil and gas oil company, generally a 
major oil company because it requires so much money, leases in the Gulf 
of Mexico, where we have been drilling for a long, long time, they pay 
a lease bonus, which is a sizable amount of money that is given to the 
Federal Government, that says for a time certain I get exclusive rights 
to explore and try to find crude oil and natural gas on this particular 
parcel of land. That bonus money is a sunk cost because if they find 
oil, they get to produce it. If they don't find oil, too bad.
  This industry, much maligned from these microphones, is a group of 
dedicated, hardworking, patriotic, honest people who have an incredible 
tolerance for risk in this environment.
  So they put up the lease bonus money, sometimes millions and millions 
of dollars, just for the right to wade into the bureaucratic morass 
that we have created around these circumstances, where you have got 27 
permits and all kinds of stuff to get to just until you get to start 
the process. The process includes geological studies, geophysical 
studies, evaluation to try to find where on that parcel of land the 
best spot may be. You have got sunk costs, regulatory compliance costs.
  Then, once you have decided where you are going to drill, that you 
decided that you think there are commercial reserves in place under 
that dirt, under that ocean, then you still don't know it until you 
drill it. Then you have got the cost of drilling, all the expense 
there. Then, if you find commercial quantities of crude oil, you have 
to build a production platform that has got to be uniquely built for 
the particular formation you have got, and that has got to be moved out 
into the gulf and anchored.
  So what you have is many millions and millions, in some instances, 
billions of dollars of shareholder equity and debt that's been invested 
in trying to find crude oil and natural gas. Most of that is sunk cost. 
The only way they get a return on their investment, the only way they 
justify to their shareholders that they are making the right decision 
is to produce whatever crude oil and natural gas is in place.
  So there are plenty of incentives already built in to produce. The 
idea that they would ``sit'' on production in the hopes that this price 
gets even higher, which they know the price is too high now, is just 
wrong-headed.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Not only that, reclaiming my time for a minute, did 
not the Democrat majority in 1992 extend that lease period to 10 years? 
Was it prior not 5 years or 7 years what it was?
  Mr. CONAWAY. The traditional offshore lease needs to be at least 10 
years

[[Page 13956]]

because from start to finish--we have got some graphs here that we can 
show you the logical, businesslike progression that companies have to 
walk down. What is not mentioned so far is all the litigation costs 
that are associated with these leases, particularly in the Rocky 
Mountains. If a company is able to win a lease, they are immediately 
sued by environmentalists to prevent their exploring for it. This 
current price of gasoline and crude oil is a product of supply and 
demand.

                              {time}  1945

  About 86 million barrels a day of production, about 85 million 
barrels a day of usage, and that varies from day-to-day. Inventories 
start dropping. That means demand has gone beyond the current 
production supply.
  The most immediate area for quick relief in this regard would be 
Iraq. The Iraqi government has recently reached out to ExxonMobil, 
Shell, BP and Chevron to ask them, ask the experts, the folks who have 
the money to be able to do it, to come into Iraq and help them increase 
the amount of production that Iraq produces from oil and gas. They are 
about half of what they were under the Shah. And their fields are on 
land and the most quickly responsive to getting new oil and gas 
supplies to the market.
  Charles Schumer, a colleague on the other side of the building, 
immediately weighed in, said that is wrongheaded and said he wants to 
find out some way to prevent Iraq from developing Iraq's resources.
  It is not good enough that we prevent America from developing 
America's resources, but now we want to tell the Iraqis how they should 
be able to do it as well. We are about to run out of time. That is one 
of the things I wanted to say, and I appreciate getting to weigh in on 
this.
  Here is the bottom line: Post-World War II, we have developed an 
American lifestyle that was incredibly dependent on inexpensive 
gasoline, suburbs, rural America, that requires being able to drive to 
and from work, to and from recreation. Maintaining these high prices, 
as our colleagues across the aisle are intent on doing, is, in my view, 
an attack on that way of life.
  You can call it partisan or not, but if you look at where the bulk of 
the Democratic support is in the Congress, it is in big cities, where 
they have access to mass transit, trains and buses and those kinds of 
things. But in rural America, flyover America, where most Republican 
support is, we don't have access to that.
  I can assure you, the folks who live at Lake LBJ, named after Lyndon 
Johnson, and work in Marble Falls and Llano and Burnet, there are no 
buses to get to and from work. They have got to drive their cars.
  So as we continue to on purpose maintain these high gasoline prices, 
this is an attack on our suburban way of life, an attack on rural 
American and the rural way of life and a lifestyle that has served us 
well since post-World War II.
  One final statement: When I go home, this is all my constituents talk 
about. And if I were to come up here and take the position that I am 
going to ignore what they are saying, the way our Democrats appear to 
be doing, I would get tossed out of office, because apparently they are 
not hearing the same thing that you and I are hearing when we go home. 
Apparently in Democratic districts the high gasoline prices are not 
particularly relevant, which begs the question that 71 percent of 
Americans want to drill.
  So I appreciate my colleague letting me speak tonight. We can solve 
this. We can fix this. But it is going to require some modification on 
our part, some modification on our Democratic friends' part. But we 
really do need to start listening to each other and quit demagoging, 
and particularly with respect to the oil business, considering those 
folks less than human as we look at what they do for America every day.
  I yield back.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I thank my friend. Now I have got to go catch a 
plane, but I hope that everybody will go to House.gov/westmoreland, 
Madam Speaker, to find out who is for drilling and who is for not just 
drilling, but like the gentleman from Texas said, for producing more of 
our natural resources to lower the price of gas.
  Now I want to yield to my good friend from Nebraska, from the 
heartland of this country, from one of the corn-producing States, 
another one of my classmates that came in, and that is Mr. Fortenberry.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, my good 
friend. I am so sorry you have to leave quickly, but I understand. I 
hoped we could dialogue a little bit and perhaps broaden the discussion 
slightly. Mr. Conaway just gave a great segue by saying I think we can 
get this done, and I think that is what the American people are hungry 
for.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Burton will dialogue with you.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. You got to go.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. So you have to settle for me.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. That is fine too, my good friend from Indiana. But I 
believe the American people are hungry for a bold new energy vision.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) is 
recognized for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the 
minority leader.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, I think the American people are 
hungry for a bold new innovative vision for a sustainable energy 
future, and I think we have to have an honest conversation about the 
full range of options in our energy portfolio; looking at the 
opportunity to increase domestic resources, use of domestic resources 
in an environmentally responsible way, while also bridging to a 
sustainable energy future that looks at the full range of opportunities 
that are presented to us. And one of the things that I don't think is 
unpacked quite adequately, Mr. Burton and Madam Speaker, is the issue 
of how small-scale entrepreneurs can play an increasing role in meeting 
a sustainable energy policy.
  For many years now, by the way, I have powered my home by wind. Now, 
I don't have a wind turbine in my backyard. I live in the city. But, 
nonetheless, I used to be on the Lincoln City Council. Nebraska is a 
public power State. The Lincoln City Council basically has authority 
over the electric system.
  We greatly encouraged them a number of years ago to move forward on 
wind energy and they integrated wind turbines into their portfolio. Of 
course, it is a small portion of their portfolio, but nonetheless, I 
thought it was important to support that. I paid a little bit more than 
$4 a month extra on my energy bill to help underwrite that new 
development a number of years ago. Now they have integrated that cost 
and are sharing it with everyone. But, nonetheless, we have been in 
front of this trend for some time.
  There is a hog farmer in my district, for instance. A couple years 
ago, Danny Kulthe in Colfax County, he just decided he was going to do 
something different. He has 8,000 head of hog. He captures that manure 
in a methane digestion pit, takes that methane, puts into a generator 
and produces enough electricity to power 40 homes from 8,000 head of 
hog. And he did this a number of years ago by pulling together the 
capital through a variety of innovative sources, some grant sources as 
well.
  But a small scale entrepreneur like that is helping lead the way in a 
whole new energy vision that does several things: He solves an 
environmental problem, he wedded agriculture and energy policy, and he 
created additional income for his farm. Small scale entrepreneurs like 
that I think are yearning to be engaged in this bold, new energy vision 
to help write the various chapters we are going to need to help solve 
this.
  Mr. Conaway said it well. I think we can get this done, but it is 
going to take bold, new, creative thinking and public policies that I 
think underwrite this type of vision for a sustainable energy future.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman will yield just for a minute, 
I would like to say I agree with my colleague. These new forms of 
energy, these new technologies, are extremely

[[Page 13957]]

important. I am kind of awed by the fact that you have taken the lead 
in Nebraska in getting this done.
  But while we are doing that, the one problem that I think we have is 
we have to realize the transition to the new technologies is going to 
take time, and while that is taking place, we are going to have to have 
energy. That is why we ought to be able to drill in the United States, 
and do it in an environmentally safe way, so we can produce natural gas 
and oil here at home. And while we are doing the transitioning to the 
new technologies like you are talking about, we won't have to depend so 
much on foreign oil and what might happen in another part of the world.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. One of the issues regarding our very heavy 
dependence on foreign oil as well is that it does entangle foreign 
affairs considerations. That is a very significant issue. It greatly 
increases trade deficits, it entangles foreign affairs considerations. 
It leaves us vulnerable, not only economic, but in many other ways.
  So I think it is very important as you are saying to look at full 
range of options in this portfolio we have, potential portfolio, and 
have a ``both-and'' discussion about how we bridge to that sustainable 
energy future by looking at, first of all, the easiest and best thing 
we can do quickly obviously is to think through the issue of 
conservation, how we become and continue to be and expand our ability 
to be good stewards of the resources we have, integrate these new 
technologies, use the resources we have now to bridge to that 
sustainable future.
  Here is another example for you. I was visiting with a small-scale 
car manufacturer. They have some proprietary battery technology. I am 
not an expert in these areas, but apparently this vehicle can go 120 
miles on a single charge. It takes 10 minutes to refuel it, so-to-
speak, if you have the special equipment. If you don't, you can plug it 
into your 220 volt outlet, like your dryer plugs into, and that takes 
about six to eight hours. It goes zero to 60 in about 10 seconds, and 
it has a 5-star safety rating, crash rating. It is like a regular 
vehicle, except the engine is different.
  So let's be clear: This spike in gas prices is causing great duress 
for families and farmers and small business owners, particularly in an 
area like I represent that I think has some similarities to where you 
represent as well. And I think it compels all of us to begin to think 
boldly and innovatively about how we can get this done by looking at 
that full range of options that we have in our energy portfolio and 
bridge into that energy future.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I want to thank the gentleman for taking this 
time. I know you have to catch a plane tonight. I think it is important 
that the people who are watching in their offices and maybe Americans 
who might be paying attention, that they realize that we are not just 
talking about oil and gas, we are talking about all forms of energy, 
and we want to get to that.
  But, as you said and as has been said many times, that is going to 
take a transitional period, and during that transition, while we are 
trying to encourage more innovation, that we don't sink the ship by not 
having enough energy to get the job done.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I really thank you for the opportunity to dialogue 
on this question and to focus, yes, on the urgency of the moment, while 
also creatively thinking about where we go. I mean, this is America. 
This is the land of innovation. We can get that done.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry. Have a nice trip 
back, and tell the people of Nebraska we said hi.
  Madam Speaker, we are about to wrap this up. I just want to say to my 
colleagues, I see my colleague from down south is waiting patiently for 
us to end our Special Hour, I just want to say that we all want to work 
together. We want to solve this problem for the American people. We 
want to get the price of gasoline down and we want to go to new forms 
of energy. But it is going to take time. And during that time for 
transition, it is extremely important that we start moving toward 
energy independence. And a main cog in that wheel is drilling here at 
home for oil and natural gas.
  So I hope, if I were talking to the American people, that they would 
talk to their Congressmen and Senators over this July 4th break. They 
are going to be there for parades and everything else. And I would say 
to the American people, if I could talk to them, talk to your 
Congressmen and your Senators. Tell them you want to be energy 
independent, you want to move toward energy independence, and we ought 
to drill here in the United States wherever we can.

                          ____________________