[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16911-16918]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        REPUBLICAN ENERGY POLICY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Altmire). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, we come here tonight to talk about an 
issue that is clearly the number one issue challenging families all 
across America, and that is the high cost of energy at the gas pump. In 
fact, Mr. Speaker, I was just ending what we call a tele-town hall 
meeting talking with the good folks of the Fifth Congressional District 
of Texas that I have the privilege of representing in the House of 
Representatives, and I would say out of, oh, I don't know, 15 or 20 
questions that I was able to take, I would say probably three-quarters 
of them had to do with what is Congress going to do to help bring down 
the cost of gasoline at the pump.
  All across America, Mr. Speaker, families are going to their local 
convenience stores and they are having to decide, do I buy a gallon of 
gas, or do I buy an a gallon of milk? I can't an afford to do both. At 
roughly $4 a gallon, working families in America cannot make ends meet.
  You would think on something of this national import that this 
institution, that this great deliberative body, that the people's House 
would act. You would think maybe we would act in concert, Mr. Speaker, 
but at least we would act. Instead, we don't see it, Mr. Speaker. We 
don't see it. What we see is the Democrat majority saying, well, maybe 
we can somehow sue our way into lower gas prices. Let's sue OPEC. I 
don't know what we are going to do, Mr. Speaker. Are we going to send a 
legion of trial lawyers to the Middle East to sue OPEC? Is that somehow 
going to solve our problems with the price of gas at the pump?
  Well, that didn't work, so they came up with the idea, the Democrats, 
let's tax the oil companies. Nobody likes them. Well, that is something 
that was tried in the seventies, and guess what? When you tax 
something, they will put it in the price and it raises the price to 
you. What we found in the seventies is that we became even more 
dependent upon foreign oil when we did that.
  Now their latest idea, Mr. Speaker, is let's somehow say we are going 
to try to outlaw investment. They call it ``speculation.'' I thought in 
a capitalistic economy investment was a pretty good thing.
  But the reason the price is going up is when we see that demand 
increases and there is no commitment to supply in the U.S., Congress, 
try as they may, cannot repeal the laws of supply and demand, Mr. 
Speaker. It can't be done, anymore than we can say that the sun no 
longer rises in the east.
  So Republicans have a different plan. Actually, Republicans have a 
plan, the American Energy Act. And what we want to do is do all of the 
above. We want to support renewable energy.
  Prior to coming to Congress, I worked for a renewable electricity 
company. I was very proud of the work that was done in the area of 
solar energy, in the area of wind power, in the area of biomass. It was 
an important part of my passion and my professional life, and 
Republicans support renewables.
  We want to do more work in alternative energy, particularly in, for 
example, coal-to-liquids. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal, Mr. Speaker, 
but somehow the Democrats won't let us use it. They won't allow the 
Federal Government, for example, to enter into long-term supply 
contracts for these alternative fuels, oil shale, tar sands, coal-to-
liquids.
  Conservation is a very important part of the mix as well. But, Mr. 
Speaker, so is producing our oil and gas resources that we have in 
America. Why can't we produce American energy in America for Americans? 
And that is what the American Energy Act, supported by Republicans in 
the House, is all about.
  All we ask for, Mr. Speaker, is in the people's House, can't we have 
a vote? But Speaker Pelosi will not allow a vote. She simply says, no, 
we are not even going to vote on it. The people don't even have a 
choice.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, recently the Washington Post, not exactly a 
bastion of conservative thought, said, ``Why not have a vote on 
offshore drilling?'' They recognize that Speaker Pelosi won't even 
allow a simple up-or-down vote. Let me continue to quote from their op-
ed of July 25th: ``When they took the majority, House Democrats 
proclaimed that bills should generally come to the floor under a 
procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full 
amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its 
alternatives.''

                              {time}  2115

  Why not on drilling, the Washington Post says? Why not on drilling?
  But again, as people are suffering in the small businesses, in the 
homes, in the coffee shops of East Texas that I represent, maybe they 
are not suffering in the salons of San Francisco represented by Speaker 
Pelosi and maybe that is why she doesn't necessarily understand the 
pain that people are feeling. And that is why it is so critical, Mr. 
Speaker, so critical that we get an up or down vote in producing some 
supply.
  For all intents and purposes, Mr. Speaker, 85 percent of our offshore 
resources are illegal to develop. For all intents and purposes, Mr. 
Speaker, 75 percent of our onshore resources of oil and gas are illegal 
to develop.
  Recently Brazil found a huge offshore find of energy, and the whole 
Nation celebrated. It seems like, in America, when we find energy it is 
some kind of point of shame and we want to cover it up and we want to 
make sure that nobody knows about it and nobody develops it. We appear 
to be the only industrialized nation in the world that won't develop 
its own energy. Again, Mr. Speaker, it is all of the above. We have got 
to do it all to bring down the price of gas at the pump.
  So Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that I have been joined by some other 
colleagues who are real leaders in this institution in trying to create 
more American energy for Americans, in America, and help those families 
who are having to commute to work every day, who are trying to help 
take an elderly parent to the doctor, who are trying in just a couple 
of weeks taking their kids to school.
  I just had a person tell me this weekend that they now are spending 
1\1/2\ days a week just to pay to commute to work. Out of a five-day 
work week, they are spending 1\1/2\ days just paying to commute so they 
can get the 3\1/2\ days of pay. That is just not right, Mr. Speaker. It 
is just not right.
  And so again, I am glad I am joined by a couple of my colleagues 
here. And at this time I would be very happy to yield to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Conaway) to get some of his comments.

[[Page 16912]]


  Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman for his comments and for hosting 
our hour tonight.
  We have been talking about this issue of energy and America's need 
for energy and America's supply of energy for quite some time now, and 
I hope we are making progress with certainly the American people, Mr. 
Speaker. I don't know that we are making much progress with our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle as we continue to talk about 
American-sourced energy. Whether that is American-sourced oil 
production, American-sourced natural gas production, American-sourced 
coal, coal to liquids, American nuclear, American hydropower, American 
wind, American solar, American all of the above. And it seems lost on 
some of my colleagues that there is something inherently bad about 
American production.
  Crude oil as an example is a worldwide commodity that nations around 
the world produce and nations around the world use. And the price is 
set in the world market, it is not set here in the United States, and 
the players in the world market pay for that crude oil and there is a 
big issue with supply and demand.
  There is a relatively thin difference between total world supply and 
the total world demand. Currently, the supply is just barely in excess 
of the demand. And when you have got that thin a margin, disruptions or 
potential disruptions that are threats to producing areas cause the 
markets to get anxious about the delivery and the ultimate supply of 
the crude oil. So, consequently, you see a run-up of prices like we 
have seen recently, you see a decrease in prices.
  It makes the price very volatile when the world produces about 86 
million barrels a day and uses about 85 million barrels a day, that 
much of a disruption in any of the major suppliers will cause great 
anxiety among those folks who have to buy crude oil to run their 
refineries, those folks who have to buy that product, making sure they 
have got to it to keep their work in process moving and their 
production flow going.
  Recently, Mr. Speaker, we have had an interesting phrase that has 
been thrown about that I think trivializes and ignores the true depth 
of this issue, and that is the Use It Or Lose It bumper sticker that 
served as the in-depth analysis of the problem that we face from some 
of my colleagues across the aisle. They throw out a figure of 68 
million acres that is currently under lease by oil and gas companies as 
somehow being evidence that we are doing all we can to produce 
American-sourced crude oil and natural gas. We have got a series of 
questions that I would like them to answer for us about that 68 million 
since they seem to have come up with the number and know the most about 
it.
  I would like them to analyze that 68 million to tell us how much of 
that 68 million was leased within the last 2 years. Certainly, no one 
rationally expects any oil company to be able to go through the 
bureaucratic exercises that they all have to go through in order to get 
all of the permissions from some up to 29 Federal agencies that they 
have to walk the tight ropes to get permission to drill in less than 2 
years.
  I would also like to know the amount of acreage that is currently in 
the bureaucratic morass that we put in place for all Federal leases, 
how of much that acreage is simply waiting on a decision from some 
bureaucrat deep in the bowels of the Department of Energy, deep in the 
bowels of EPA, deep in the bowels of Washington, wherever they are, to 
simply make a yes or no decision on a particular permit. Because I 
think there is a significant layer of that 68 million acres that is 
hung up with the bureaucrats waiting on their decision. In some 
instances it is a good-faith delay on the part of the bureaucrats, but 
I think in many instances it is just simply business as usual to slow 
play, to not make expeditious decisions on the applications to drill, 
the applications to conduct seismic, the applications for access, all 
those kinds of things that go on.
  A third layer, Mr. Speaker, would be those acreage that cannot be 
developed because they are currently tied up in lawsuits. The 
experience of many folks who get a Federal lease one day is to be sued 
by the Sierra Club and others the next day just on general principles, 
because the environmentalists don't want us exploring on Federal lands, 
and so they will file frivolous lawsuits in most instances that 
continue to tie up acres for extended amounts of time, and don't allow 
these oil companies to move forward with the progress that they would 
want to.
  I think a fourth layer, Mr. Speaker, of the 68 million acres would be 
those acres on which we are actually conducting drilling operations. 
There are some 1,800 drilling rigs working in the United States, many 
of those on Federal leases and offshore, and so there is a significant 
section I would believe of that 68 million that is actually being 
worked on and drilled right now that they are trying to determine if 
crude oil is there in commercial quantities, and we need to know what 
that is.
  And then the final layer, Mr. Speaker, or next to the final layer 
would be those acres on which drilling has been conducted, commercial 
quantities of oil and gas that have been found, and the operator is 
simply waiting on those final bureaucratic permissions to run the flow 
lines, to build the roads, to build the infrastructure needed to move 
the crude oil and natural gas from the wellhead into markets.
  And then that final layer, Mr. Speaker, would be those acres that 
companies have looked at, they are still within the primary term, and 
they are not actively seeking production on those but they have paid 
the lease bonus on all of those acres as a permission to take that 
time, the 10 years on Federal offshore leases, to make their decision. 
And since they paid the piper, they ought to be able to maintain those 
leases through their primary term. And so to the extent that we voted 
that down in the last couple of weeks on this use it or lose it thing, 
I hope we can put it to bed in its final form.
  We hear comments from time to time from our colleagues across the 
aisle that these oil and gas companies are sitting on production and 
holding it off the market in hopes of, I guess, getting a higher price. 
That begs the question of: How do oil and gas companies make money? 
They have onshore hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars 
invested, offshore billions of dollars invested of their shareholder 
money and equity capital and in many instances debt that they have 
invested in these oil and gas leases, and the only way they get any 
money back, the only way they get a return on those investment dollars 
is if they produce the crude oil and natural gas that they are 
exploring or set up to produce.
  So there is actually no incentive for them to withhold production 
from the market in hopes of getting I guess a higher price, because the 
longer they take to produce the crude oil natural gas and sell it, the 
longer it takes for them to get their money back on the original 
investment, the lower the return on investment, and it is just bad 
business to try to do something like that.
  It is an interesting concept that producers would withhold production 
from the market and that they get accused of doing that, when in fact 
if you look at the policies of this democratic majority, most or all of 
their policies do just that. The Democrats withhold American-sourced 
crude oil, American-sourced natural gas from the market; and 
particularly with respect to American-sourced crude oil, they are 
withholding that off of the market, holding that out of the worldwide 
supply, they are directing contributing to these higher prices that my 
colleagues are talking about and the higher prices that result in 
higher gasoline costs, diesel costs, and ultimately home heating costs 
this fall.
  Let me leave you with this one thought, Mr. Speaker. I don't think 
anybody rationally thinks that we won't be using crude oil in 10 years. 
So as we look at America's potential for production of crude oil over 
the next 10 years, why is it not good enough reason to do that simply 
to replace barrels of oil that we import from countries like Venezuela, 
like the Middle East, other places where the countries are at best 
maybe not our allies or in the instance

[[Page 16913]]

of Venezuela an avowed opponent, why does it not make sense to replace 
production that we buy from bad guys with production that is produced 
here in the United States? Because the American production creates 
American jobs. American refineries create American jobs. So even if 
that is the only thing we are able to accomplish with all of this 
effort is to reduce the number of barrels that we buy from other folks, 
it helps balance the trade, it will strengthen the dollar. It does a 
lot of good and, to my view, it does limited, if any, harm to produce 
American crude oil and natural gas.
  So as we conduct this debate, we do it on a lot of levels, but on one 
level it simply should say: Look, if we are importing crude oil and 
natural gas from other parts of the world while we have domestic crude 
oil that could be produced, we are making a foolish decision and a 
foolish allocation of resources to do that.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to drop the partisan rhetoric, drop the issue of just simply 
trying to maintain who gets elected in November, and let's deal 
responsibly with this issue of high crude oil prices and the resulting 
high gasoline prices that come with that.
  So I want to thank my colleague from Texas for allowing me this time 
to speak.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for his leadership in this 
institution, particularly on the piece of legislation that we are 
working together on in trying to repeal something known as section 526, 
that disallows the Federal Government from entering into long-term 
supply contracts for alternative fuels to help jump-start that needed 
industry.
  The gentleman from Texas brought up a number of good points in his 
comments. And, again, you would think this would not be particularly 
controversial.
  Just last week, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve stated: A one 
percent increase in supply could lower prices by 10 percent. Now, that 
is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Supply matters. And yet, our 
friends from the other side of the aisle, the Democrat majority, 
refuses; not only do they refuse to produce any more American-made oil 
and gas, not only do they refuse to do that, Mr. Speaker, they won't 
even let us have a vote.
  So, Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that the American people could 
do tonight that would help bring down the cost of energy at the pump is 
go to their computers, go to their telephones, contact their Members of 
Congress and say, at least let's have a vote. Let's have a vote on the 
American Energy Act.
  Survey after survey after survey shows that three-quarters, 80 
percent of Americans want more supply and they want it now. We have to 
start today, Mr. Speaker. And it is just absolutely ludicrous when 
families are suffering, like the Gardner family of Dallas, Texas, that 
I have the pleasure of representing who wrote to me that, ``In order to 
afford to send our youngest to camp, we have had to cancel the family 
vacation due to the increased cost of fuel.''
  Family vacations all across America are getting cancelled because the 
Democrat majority will not allow more American energy to be produced in 
America. Since they have taken over, the energy policy in this Nation 
18 months ago, the cost of gas has gone from roughly $2.50 a gallon to 
roughly $4 a gallon. Now, I am not saying it is all their fault, but 
they are moving this country in the complete wrong direction.
  And now, Mr. Speaker, again I am very pleased that I have been joined 
by a number of my colleagues who have a lot of expertise on this issue 
of energy, and one of the great leaders we have on this side of the 
aisle is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). I yield to him at 
this time.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague for the time, and I thank Mike 
Conaway for his great comments. And it is important that we are here 
tonight, and it is important that we continue to push this issue, 
especially as we are coming close to the time when we adjourn for what 
we call our district work period, which is for layman's term it is 
really the month of August, and it will go to the first week of 
September. We will be back in our district. Members will be traveling 
around the world on the congressional delegation tours and events.
  But one of the main premises that we are trying to address this week 
is just stating the position that we should not leave. We should not 
adjourn and leave Washington until we have at least one vote on 
increasing supply.
  We have been talking about bringing on supply as part, not the 
totalitarian solution, but as part of the solution, and we have been 
down here 3 months straight pretty much and continue to drive the 
message. And in the People's House, the House of Representatives, this 
is the body that you are supposed to hear the outcry of the citizens. 
You are supposed to hear the pain and the agony, as my colleague from 
Texas stated. And you are supposed to transform those cries for help 
from the citizenry to at least a debate on the floor and hopefully a 
vote to address these issues.
  I too did a tele-town hall meeting last night, and an independent 
trucker called me up. And you know what he was saying. He is saying, I 
can't make it. I can't make ends meet. I used to be able to make a good 
income for my family and provide for them. But now with the doubling of 
the cost of diesel fuels, I don't know, we need help. And his response, 
and I think we have been helpful in moving the debate nationally, is we 
need to bring on more supply.
  So I would like to just go back to the basics real quick, where we 
came from, where we are at and where we are headed. And because my 
debate has been over a period of months, I have softened the debate as 
far as the real partisan rancor and just talked about the facts.
  So I go back to when President Bush got sworn in. The price of a 
barrel of crude oil was $23. Now, when I came in, elected in 1996, came 
in 1997/1998 we were worried that the price of a barrel of crude oil 
was so low that it was going to close the margin wells in Southern 
Illinois. It was down to about $10 a barrel.
  So here we are at $23. The new majority comes in January 2006. The 
price of a barrel of crude oil is $58.31. And today, I think this is 
correct. If it is not, it is close. $123.67.
  And then the basic of this chart is just to say, you know, the trend 
line is not good. It doesn't matter if you start in January 2001, it 
doesn't matter if you start back in January of 1997, January 2001, 
January 2006, or today, this trend line is not good, and it is not 
sustainable for the people that we ought to be standing up for on the 
floor of the House here, and that is the middle income, lower middle 
income individuals who are disproportionately hurt by high energy 
prices.
  The poor, they are not going to go out to the new car dealer and buy 
the Toyota Prius. If they are lucky, they are going to scrape some 
money together, they are going to go to the used car lot, and they are 
going to get whatever they can afford to get them to work. That is what 
the poor are going to do.
  And when we cause this increase in the price of a barrel of crude 
oil, which translates into an increase in gasoline costs, we hurt the 
people that we are trying to protect, which is the poor, the middle 
class, and in my aspect of my district, rural America.
  Rural America is disproportionately harmed greater because in rural 
America you have to drive many miles to get to your schools. You have 
to drive many miles to get to your health care. You have to drive many 
miles to get to your job, and so that is the difficulty.
  Now, here is the problem. Here are some solutions. And part of that 
solution is what my colleague from Texas said, Americans for American 
energy. American energy translates into American jobs. In a time of low 
economic development, wouldn't it be great to use our own resources to 
create American jobs using American energy?

[[Page 16914]]

  So we have a couple of things here. Of course, parochial interests 
are always important. We have 250 years worth of recoverable coal in 
the United States. We have as much Btu, British thermal units, of coal 
in the Illinois coal basin as Saudi Arabia has in oil. We use coal; 50 
percent of all of our electricity is generated by coal in this country. 
But we can also use coal to turn it into liquid fuels.
  Wouldn't it be great to have a competitor at the pump to gasoline, 
based upon crude oil, so that there is some competition between the 
liquid fuels competing for lower prices, better quality, better 
service?
  And we do that by taking a coal field, American jobs, building a coal 
to liquid refinery, American jobs to build the refinery, American jobs 
to operate the refinery, a pipeline, American jobs to build the 
pipeline, to the airports of the world. You can take coal, you can turn 
it into jet fuel.
  Why do we have four budget airlines have gone broke? Why is American 
Airlines charging $15 a bag? Why are our airline tickets going up? It 
is all because of the high price of fuel. And if we incentivize coal 
using fissure trope technology into jet fuel, we would not have the 
loss of these aviation jobs that we have today. And that is a trickle-
down aspect, because when people are unemployed they are not going to 
the store. They are not going to go to the movie theater. As my 
colleague from Texas says, they are going to make decisions whether to 
go to vacation or send people to camp or just stay at home.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. HENSARLING. We know that America has an incredible amount of coal 
reserves. And the solution, the partial solution the gentleman is 
suggesting makes imminent sense. What is it that is preventing people 
in America from doing this now? I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, the answer is it is the extreme environmental left 
that hates coal. The leader of the other body, Senator Reid said, 
``Coal will kill you.'' That is his direct quote. And so that is the 
leadership is saying that coal is bad.
  I am here to say that coal is good. It can address our concerns. It 
could bring on more supply. We can do it cleanly, we can create jobs, 
and it is part of the solution. Our part of the debate is American 
energy, all-of-the-above. Part of that all-of-the-above is the great 
use of a great resource. We have more recoverable coal in this country 
than any country in the world and we ought to take advantage of it.
  Mr. GINGREY. Will the gentleman from Illinois yield on that point for 
a second? It is my understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, that in 
this country there are known resources, veins of coal in the amount of 
1.5 trillion tons, and it is suspected that there may be that much more 
that is not for sure. But 1.5 trillion tons of coal. And I think we 
utilize about 22 billion tons a year in this electricity generation. So 
I just want to make the point that there is so much more of this 
resource, whether it is in West Virginia or Kentucky or in Illinois, 
and to not utilize it, as the gentleman says, makes no sense at all.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. And part of the debate is, you know, we are one of the 
few major--it doesn't have to be a major country. Most countries, when 
they see a great resource that they have available, they say, yahoo. We 
have a strategic advantage because we can create low cost power which 
will help our manufacturing base, which will help create jobs.
  We see a national asset like coal and we say, we have an 
environmental disaster here. And there is no way we are going to use 
this. And that is the fallacy, not just in coal, but it really involves 
any of the fossil fuel arena, whether it is our OCS, or Outer 
Continental Shelf, whether it is the billions of barrel of oil, the 
trillions of cubic feet, it is the inability to look at that as a 
strategic national advantage and look at it like an environmental 
hazard, by the Democrat leadership, both here in this House and in the 
other body, that is stopping our ability to take advantage of the 
resources we have involved in this country.
  And the country is now awakened, and they know that we have these 
resources, and they are really confused as to why we are not taking 
advantage of them.
  Mr. HENSARLING. If the gentleman would yield again, isn't it true 
that we have several hundred years' worth of coal in our country today? 
Is that correct? I yield back to the gentleman.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. That is correct.
  Mr. HENSARLING. And if the gentleman would yield again, I had asked 
the question earlier, what is preventing us from taking advantage of 
American resources on American soil?
  Isn't it also true that recently the Democrat majority passed 
legislation known as Section 526, that prevents the Federal Government 
from entering into long-term energy contracts, something I believe the 
United States Air Force wanted to do to wean itself away from foreign 
oil and develop coal to liquids on American soil; but yet our friends 
on the other side of the aisle, I believe, have prevented our Pentagon 
or our United States Air Force from doing that. Is that correct?
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, that is true. Let me just give you a--for every 
dollar increase in a barrel of crude oil it costs our United States Air 
Force $60 million. That is $60 million of our taxpayers dollars that 
has to go just to fuel the aviation fleets of our, the defense of our 
country.
  And you mentioned the Democrat majority. I know it is the Democrat 
leadership. I am hoping, I know I have got a lot of great Democrat 
friends in those coal areas that are just looking for the right time. 
We are just here trying to encourage them to seize the day, seize the 
moment and help bring supply on.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. If the gentleman from Illinois would yield.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Well, isn't it my understanding as well that 
technology has long existed to turn our vast resources of coal into 
super clean liquid fuels, the type, because you always think of coal 
will help lower your utility bills at home, but the truth of the matter 
is the technology since the 1940s in Germany converted coal to diesel 
fuel, the type we use in our cars and trucks. And today some of our 
African countries are using coal, converting it to diesel for almost a 
third of all their transportation needs.
  I recently talked to our major research company, the Woodlands 
Huntsman, to talk about coal and its conversion and could it be done. 
And their researchers just laughed. They said, are you kidding? Of 
course we can do this.
  My understanding is the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hensarling, has 
introduced legislation to use the purchasing power of our Air Force, to 
use the purchasing power of our own government to accelerate that type 
of research and bring it into the marketplace so we can develop those 
super clean liquid fuels coming from an abundant resource that will be 
less dependent on foreign countries for our energy needs.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I have no disagreement with that. We have an all-of-the-
above strategy. We have an American energy, you know, meet the American 
needs. It is all of the above. It is highlighting the great abundance 
of coal that we have in this country, and taking advantage of it.
  We get it. We are going to do it in an environmentally safe and sound 
way. But we want to bring other commodity products to help make our 
energy needs. We want to thrust them in a competitive market with other 
sources of energy so they compete at the pump, so that we have lower 
prices. It is the American way, and we ought to encourage it.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. If the gentleman will yield, first of all, I thank 
you for your leadership on the issue, because we all appreciate it, 
those of us in Republican Study Committee, and the Republican 
Conference, and I think the American people appreciate the leadership 
and the insight that you have brought to this issue.
  Of course, at Energy and Commerce Committee I have had the 
opportunity

[[Page 16915]]

to watch your leadership, even going back as we were working on the 
2005 Energy Policy Act.
  And I would imagine that some of our constituents who are at home and 
watching us carry out this colloquy and this discussion here on the 
floor are thinking, they are talking about coal. Now, I thought coal 
was a dirty fuel, and I sometimes will hear people talk about carbon 
emissions and not wanting to use coal because of the emissions that go 
into the air and not wanting to use that natural resource.
  Now, we all know that there are clean coal technologies that will 
prevent that. But I think that those who are sharing this discussion 
with us tonight would appreciate hearing just a little bit about some 
of the clean coal technologies that would allow the use of this vast 
supply of coal.
  You know, most people refer to the United States as the Saudi Arabia 
of coal. We have got more than anyone else. And we have good, bright 
engineers and innovators who are using those skills and gifts to figure 
out ways to use this coal in an environmentally friendly way. And I 
would love to hear the gentleman's comments on that.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. SHIMKUS. I will just be brief. And I thank you for the question.
  And there was a time when you just grabbed the coal and threw it in 
and you burned the coal. Pretty dirty, pretty sooty emissions, and that 
goes back to the advance of the industrial age.
  Then they developed crushing and pulverizing the coal and sweeping it 
up in oxygen to burn it a little more thoroughly. It still has, if 
you're a climate change person and carbon person, that still you have 
the carbon emissions.
  Now, the carbon emissions are not toxic. It's not like nitrous oxide, 
it's not like SO2. It's not like particulate matter. It's 
not an issue where people are going to point the finger and say, Oh, 
you're causing a disease by these emissions. Carbon, it's naturally 
occurring, but there are some people who have problems with that.
  So the best way to address that is to go back to technology that was 
developed in World War II. It's Fischer-Tropsch. Franz Fischer and Hans 
Tropsch. It's almost like kind of a joke. It's Hans and Franz, Fischer 
and Tropsch, who developed the technology to take coal, synthetically, 
and gasify it or turn it into liquid fuel. And when you gasify it and 
you burn it, you burn it cleanly. And in that extreme, you can pull off 
the carbon in a more economic manner.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. If the gentleman will yield.
  You always make this point so beautifully. And the point is the 
technologies are there and available and ready to be used that would 
allow for clean coal usage.
  So it really adds to the point that we all make, all-of-the-above: 
Short, mid-range, and long-range projects. That's what we need to 
address the energy issue. Making good use, being wise stewards of all 
of our natural resources, whether it is oil or gas or coal, whether it 
is switchgrass and waste that we can use for biodiesels and renewables. 
Whether it is the engineers and their ability to develop new nuclear 
that is safe and will help power our electric power. Looking at wind, 
looking at hydroelectric, depending on what those God-given natural 
resources are that we have at our disposal to you.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I have got a lot of other colleagues that want to talk. 
I will finish with my last poster here.
  We've talked about the coal-to-liquid. But here is what the current 
debate here is on the floor. What about the Outer Continental Shelf? We 
have all of these available locations. We only explore off of 15 
percent of our Outer Continental Shelf. That means 85 percent is off 
limits by a legislative fiat by us.
  If we explore there and when we recover oil and gas, those companies 
pay royalties to us, and those royalties can go to solar and wind, they 
can go into renewable fuels. My colleague from Tennessee mentioned 
cellulosic and the debate on biofuels.
  What we want is American-made energy creating American jobs, an all-
of-the-above position, so that these energy events compete, and that's 
what I like about it. They compete for our attention based upon 
offering lower prices. When you have a one-fuel policy like we have 
today, you have no competition. You're held hostage to the imported 
barrel crude oil, and we need to break away from that.
  I want to thank my colleague from Texas and make sure that my other 
colleagues have plenty of time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. Clearly he is 
one of the great leaders in this institution in allowing the people to 
know that American energy developed in America for Americans can make a 
huge difference.
  Now I would like to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) 
for his comments on that.
  Mr. GINGREY. This really gives me an opportunity to segue into what 
the gentleman from Illinois was just talking about in regard to the 
American Energy Act and, of course, he started his discussion about 
coal liquefaction and some of the many things we can do as part of that 
bill, a comprehensive approach.
  But in concluding his remarks, he talked about the fact that we have 
this resource of natural gas and petroleum off the coast of our 
country, both east and west coast, Outer Continental Shelf, eastern 
part of the Gulf of Mexico, that 10 billion barrels of fuel is 
estimated in ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.
  I took an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, today to write a letter, an e-
mail, to my constituents in the 11th District of Georgia, northwest 
Georgia, both the Republicans and Democrats. Now, I won my last 
election with about 71 percent of the votes. So it's a highly 
Republican district. But listen to what I said to them and the response 
that they gave.
  ``For months now I have spoken on the House floor almost daily in a 
concerted effort to convince the Democratic leadership to bring forward 
legislation that would allow us to drill here and drill now so that we 
could all pay less at the pump. Last week, I joined my House Republican 
colleagues to introduce the American Energy Act, a comprehensive bill 
which would increase our domestic energy supply while also harnessing 
renewable and alternative energy technologies and improving 
conservation and efficiency. However, as Congress prepares to adjourn 
for a 5-week recess, Speaker Pelosi continues to prevent a vote on 
increasing the amount of domestic oil produced in this country from 
reaching the House floor.
  ``As I work to represent your interest in Washington, it is vital 
that I know your feelings on this issue. Would you take a moment to 
quickly answer the survey question on the right of this page so that I 
can take your opinions to Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership 
and let them know how you feel about this crucial issue.
  ``Sincerely, Phil Gingrey.''
  Here is the question: Do you think Congress should adjourn for a 5-
week recess even if no vote is taken to allow offshore drilling on our 
Outer Continental Shelf for oil and natural gas?
  Mr. Speaker, so far, with several hundred responses already in, the 
results are overwhelming: 94 percent do not support Congress adjourning 
for recess without legislation that would allow increased drilling. 94 
percent.
  Now, as I say, I won my last election with 71 percent. This tells you 
that a lot of good, red-blooded, conservative, hardworking Democrats in 
my district feel the exact same way we do tonight, Mr. Speaker, as we 
do this hour in this colloquy. And I know that there are a lot of my 
colleagues on this floor, Mr. Speaker--and you do, too, I would 
imagine, who, given the opportunity to have a bill to vote to increase 
our domestic source and end our dependency on these foreign countries 
that hate us, would gladly vote. And maybe they will stay here with us 
come Thursday or come Friday, a sit-in, and say, ``We are not going 
home until we have a bill to vote on.''
  With that, I yield back to my colleague from Texas who is managing 
the time.

[[Page 16916]]


  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership 
on this issue, his leadership on health care issues, his contribution 
to the Republican Study Committee which is sponsoring this special 
order, Mr. Speaker.
  Again, this is the number one issue, Mr. Speaker, that our 
constituents write about, call about. They're concerned about. I hear 
from them every day.
  I just recently, Mr. Speaker, heard from the Forist family in 
Mesquite, Texas, that I have the honor of representing in Congress. And 
they have a small business. They wrote in.
  ``My husband is an owner operator and the cost of fuel is $1600 a 
WEEK. We're not making a profit. We can't continue to operate this way. 
We have now cancelled our life insurance policies, cancelled our cable, 
scaled down our automobile insurance, and buy the necessities at the 
grocery store.''
  Mr. Speaker, I'm getting letters like this every single day, and yet 
the Democrat majority will not support legislation to produce more 
American energy in America for Americans.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we agree with the Democrats on many things. We 
believe that there should be more conservation, and most Republicans 
have supported the various tax provisions that do that. Mr. Speaker, we 
agree on renewable energy. I was an officer in a renewable energy 
company prior to coming to Congress. There are very exciting 
technologies, and most Republicans have supported those programs.
  But where we go in different directions, Mr. Speaker, is that the 
Democrats want to make illegal the production of energy in 85 percent 
of our offshore resources and, effectively, 75 percent. They don't 
believe that producing more oil and natural gas has anything to do with 
the cost of price at the pump. They're trying to repeal the laws of 
economics.
  Well, in fact, Mr. Speaker, what the Speaker of the House has said 
recently, ``This call for drilling in areas that are protected is a 
hoax. It's an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this 
administration.'' Speaker  Nancy Pelosi
  Well, Mr. Speaker, for those who are listening to this special order, 
they may have a different opinion. Public opinion policy shows that 85 
percent of Americans want to produce more American energy in America 
for Americans. Maybe they may want to call 202-224-3121 and register 
their opinion with the Speaker of the House.
  Now, again, I don't know how they feel about the high cost of energy 
in the salons of San Francisco, but I can tell you in the small 
businesses and the farms and ranches of the Fifth District of Texas, 
those people are hurting.
  And now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield time to another great 
Member of this institution who has been a leader on the issue as well, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hensarling, 
for his leadership on this issue and his legislation, including 
leadership in the American Energy Act just introduced last week to try 
to force this Congress to finally get serious about taking 
responsibility for our own energy needs in this country.
  I have been in Congress a while, but one of the best decisions my 
wife and I made was not to move to Washington. We live at home in Texas 
with our two young boys, six and nine years old. I commute to work each 
week here in Washington. We do that so I can stay closer to the 
families and neighborhoods in Texas that I represent.
  Flying up today to Washington, I just was glancing at some of the 
headlines in our local papers. They read like this: Fuel costs forcing 
county to rethink current budget; county gives food banks a break at 
gas because they're getting fewer and fewer volunteers who just can't 
afford those high prices; trash companies increase rates to cover fuel 
costs so families will pay more for their trash pick up; fuel costs 
cause schools to raise food prices. So our children and the parents of 
children will be paying more for school lunches because of energy 
costs.
  I just met with a number of our law enforcement agencies, our 
constables and Sheriffs and police forces, and they are not cutting 
their emergency response but they are cutting back on their community 
policing. They're patrolling within our neighborhoods to try and 
stretch their fuel budgets. Frankly, their fuel budgets are gone for 
the year. Small businesses, so many are telling me that they are 
working essentially for nothing these days.
  What has this Congress done about it? Nothing really but gimmicks. I 
call it the Democrats' Jed Clampett Energy Plan. They shoot at a bunch 
of targets and hope that energy is going to come bubbling up from the 
ground just like old Jed found.
  And look at the gimmicks they proposed. Democrats in Congress have 
said, ``Let us sue OPEC and we will lower your gas prices.'' Well, has 
anyone seen their gas prices lowered? They said, ``Let's force 
companies to use it or lose it,'' which frankly, every independent 
geological group in America just started laughing at. Did you see your 
gas prices go down?
  They said, ``Let's stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve,'' 
our nest egg for a rainy day in energy. Did your prices go down? Last 
week they said, ``Well, it's drawn some of that down.'' Of course, gas 
prices aren't going down significantly, certainly not because of these 
gimmicks.
  The truth of the matter is as the speaker tonight, Mr. Shimkus, the 
gentlemen from Texas, Mr. Hensarling and Mr. Gohmert, have talked about 
is that three-legged stool of energy: more conservation, because we can 
all be more efficient in our homes in our daily use; bring those 
renewables on line--renewable energy not from food but from non-food 
sources; and then, of course, the third leg, we've had votes on 
conservation and we've done it. We have had votes on renewable energy, 
and we are achieving it. We've just not had a single vote on more 
exploration, more American-made energy.
  Now, I think the first goal America should set is that we are going 
to take responsibility for two-thirds of our daily energy needs. Today 
we rely upon the rest of the world for that. We ought to take more 
responsibility for what we need here in America, and to do that is what 
the speakers in the Republican party are talking about tonight, all-of-
the-above.

                              {time}  2200

  Let's explore offshore and those deep ocean waters that hold so much 
potential, proven reserves for us. Let's tap responsibly into ANWR. 
Let's convert coal to super clean liquid fuels, and let's tap the oil 
shale in America. Let's begin creating more American-made energy and 
more American-made jobs because, at the end of the day, even a 
hillbilly isn't going to buy the thought that we can just gimmick our 
way out of this problem, not with families and with small businesses 
paying what they do today. We've got an abundant supply of energy. We 
need more supply in America. We need to take more responsibility for 
our own energy needs. The good news is that we're capable of it.
  So all we ask, and all of us tonight are asking one thing of our 
Speaker. Just give us a vote. Just let the will of the American people 
prevail. Let the little guy in the door for once. Give him a voice, Mr. 
Speaker. Tell the special interest lobby to stand aside. Let the little 
guy's voice be heard. He doesn't have lobbyists. He probably hasn't 
made campaign contributions to you. He's just paying the freight on 
energy prices he can't afford and that his family can't afford anymore. 
We need to let that voice be heard.
  Before we leave in August, give us a vote, just a single vote. Let 
the American public's and let the little guy's voices be heard in 
Congress again so we can develop more American-made energy here in 
America. That will lower prices.
  With that, I yield back.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for helping 
remind this body--and I think everybody in this body agrees--that we 
need more conservation. Everybody in this body believes that we should 
have more renewable energy and that it's the key to our children's 
future. Where we depart

[[Page 16917]]

with the Democrat majority, Mr. Speaker, is we believe that, when 50 
percent of our proven resources--petroleum resources--in Alaska are 
illegal to develop, there's a problem, that when 85 percent of our 
offshore resources are illegal to develop, there's a problem.
  We have decades and decades and decades of American energy laying 
untapped that we could bring to the market to help bring down the cost 
of energy. Yet the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has said, as 
this quote shows, that she believes that it's all a hoax. The American 
people, I believe, Mr. Speaker, disagree, and perhaps they might be 
interested in calling (202) 224-3121 and in just saying, ``Speaker 
Pelosi, at least allow a vote. As, supposedly, the most Democratic 
institution in the history of mankind, at least allow the voices of the 
people to be heard, and let there be a vote.''
  In speaking of voices to be heard, Mr. Speaker, as one of the great 
voices in this institution, I want to yield now to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  You know, it seems like, this late at night, all that's left are 
gentlemen from Texas, but I'm happy to be here as part of this august 
group.
  The gentleman from Georgia mentioned that we're about to go home on a 
5-week vacation. You know, I'd like to say it has been a tough summer 
and that we've been working away on our appropriations bills, but the 
fact is we'll have our very first appropriations bill on the floor of 
the House tomorrow, the Military Construction bill. I'm glad to see it. 
I'm glad we're going to have it, but we're actually not going to have 
an open amendment process, and part of the reason is that the 
Democratic leadership is afraid to have the open amendment process for 
fear that we'll actually bring up something that might expand the 
availability of energy in this country.
  So, Mr. Speaker, there are not a lot of bright spots out there when 
it comes to energy. We've got record high prices. We've got alternative 
energy sources that aren't quite ready for prime time. Our refining 
capacity is limited because we haven't built a refinery since 1976. 
Supplies are tight, and there's an enormous demand. It paints a fairly 
grim picture, but dwelling on the negative is not the American way. 
Exploring the possibilities and capitalizing on realities, that's the 
American way.
  So, today, as we are in a very tough energy environment, let's act 
like Americans. Let's make lemonade out of lemons. We can start by 
seizing the opportunity to find and produce homemade American energy. 
We've heard a lot about exploring and drilling for American sources of 
energy hands down. Hands down, Americans agree on this point. I did two 
town halls over the weekend--one in Keller, Texas and one in Frisco, 
Texas. There was unanimous opinion that we need to be producing more 
American energy domestically.
  Polls show that the vast majority of Americans favor offshore 
drilling for oil and natural gas and, in fact, even in ANWR. In my 
districts back in Tarrant, Denton and Cooke Counties, the numbers are 
sky high. Without question, if we want to produce American energy, we 
should drill domestically.
  You know, we need to refine domestically also, and we can start by 
providing our Nation's largest energy consumer, the military, with the 
infrastructure to do just that. As one of the Nation's largest energy 
consumers, the United States Department of Defense is straining under 
record high prices. We heard Mr. Shimkus from Illinois address this 
just a moment ago.
  In 2007, with operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States 
Armed Services consumed 16 gallons of fuel per soldier per day, about 
$3 million worth of fuel. That's a lot of gas, but it's not just 
regular gasoline. All military planes, vehicles and heavy equipment use 
avgas, or jet petroleum, to avoid carrying different fuel grades or to 
avoid accidentally putting the wrong kind of fuel in the equipment. 
It's a specialized fuel that's produced in the same refineries that 
produce fuel for commercial sale.
  Right now, global refineries are operating at very tight capacity. 
This, in turn, limits the quantities of gasoline and other products 
that they can produce. The squeeze impacts the consumers, and it 
impacts the military as the cost of refining compromises 10 to 20 
percent of the price we pay at the pump. It means taxpayers are hit 
with higher costs twice, and it also leaves supplies vulnerable to 
disruptions ranging from terrorist attacks to political unrest to--oh, 
by the way, did we mention it's hurricane season?
  Then there's the question of importing refined products rather than 
producing them here in America. Because domestic refining capacity has 
declined as industry operates with lower inventories of crude oil and 
of gasoline in order to cut their costs, these constraints mean a 
greater proportion of gasoline demand has to be met with imported 
goods, with imported goods. We hear it over and over again. We're 
buying the supplies from people who in the world don't exactly like us. 
We are funding both sides on the war on terror.
  Four out of five of the top suppliers for military fuel are, in fact, 
foreign suppliers. This poses a serious threat to our national economy 
and to our national security, and it has to be stopped. Investing in 
critical infrastructure and protecting the Nation are some of the 
Federal Government's top responsibilities.
  So, tomorrow, on the Military Construction appropriations bill--and 
we will finally be hearing our first Appropriations bill here on the 
House floor--I plan to offer an amendment, the Joint Defense Energy 
Production amendment. It provides Federal funding for the construction 
and for the design of one refinery for each branch of the military, 
combining these two critical roles for the public good.
  Prices are high and so is demand. Let's try to solve both sides of 
the energy equation. The amendment would provide $400 million to build 
refineries that would produce the specialized types and grades of fuel 
that are used by each branch of the Service for their equipment. The 
refineries will be located on existing or on former bases under the 
control of the Department of Defense, and they will represent the first 
refineries built in the United States of America in 31 years.
  Again, let me stress this is a win-win for America. These military-
specific refineries could produce and protect specialized military 
fuels from capacity limitations that squeeze supply and that increase 
prices for almost everyone. They would free up commercial refining 
capacity and would ensure that we're not forced to outsource a 
significant portion of our refining needs to foreign countries. 
Additionally, they would help ensure a supply chain that would help 
protect from supply chain disruptions whether from manmade or from 
natural disasters like those we've experienced in the past.
  There's a military saying: Bullets don't fly without supply. The Air 
Force is not going to have a fleet of plug-in hybrid fighter jets, and 
our Navy is not going to be relying on a solar-powered, wind-blown 
vessel. They need a stable and secure fuel supply, plain and simple. 
Our national defense and our economic security are simply too important 
to risk on shortages of refinery capacity or on natural disasters. We 
have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We have a strategic oil supply, 
but what good is that if there is no way to strategically refine that 
supply?
  So, tomorrow, I hope other Members will join me in supporting the 
Joint Defense Energy Production amendment that I plan on offering on 
the Military Construction appropriations bill tomorrow. It's high time 
we got to our appropriations bills, and it's highly appropriate that, 
particularly on the Military Construction bill, we offer amendments to 
increase the energy supply for our Nation's military.
  I'll yield back to the gentleman from Texas, and I appreciate the 
time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I appreciate his 
leadership. I look forward to voting on his amendment.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, it's a very simple matter. If you believe in more

[[Page 16918]]

American energy in America for Americans, you will tell Speaker Pelosi: 
Allow there to be a vote on the American Energy Act.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank my fellow colleagues from the 
Republican Study Committee for participating in this Special Order.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________