[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19627-19634]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 ENERGY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank the Speaker for his recognition, and I thank the 
minority leader for yielding the time for me to speak on such an 
important issue this evening.
  Of course, that is the ongoing problem with the crisis as to our 
price of energy, as to the price of gasoline at the pump, as to the 
price of heating oil, particularly as we get into the winter months 
approaching in the northeast, and people are continuing to struggle.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it's important in any discussion about energy to 
let the American people know this through the Members of this great 
body on both sides of the aisle, at the end of this 45 minutes to 1-
hour period of discussion on the issue, who hopefully will be able to 
go back home and in a very frank, honest way discuss with their 
constituents what exactly we've been doing up here in the people's 
House over the last couple of months. I'll tell you, from my 
perspective--and I think it would be hard for anybody to disagree--the 
answer is not very much, not very much, indeed.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, in the first week in August, we left 
Washington for that traditional August recess, which actually was more 
than a month. It was actually 5 weeks when you included the Labor Day 
weekend. So we were going to be out of here for 5 weeks. At the time, 
people were paying $4, more in some places, a little less in some 
places, but on average, it was $4 a gallon for regular gasoline; for 
diesel fuel, it was even higher than that. People certainly couldn't 
afford to take a vacation.

                              {time}  1815

  We didn't see nearly as many people here in the Nation's Capital 
during month of August because of this.
  The Republican minority party had introduced a bill actually a month 
before that, and it was called, as you recall, Mr. Speaker, the 
American Energy Act, or the all-of-the-above act, which included 
certainly as a cornerstone drilling, and a lot of people picked up 
different mottos like ``drill, baby, drill,'' ``drill here, drill 
now,'' ``save money.''
  The point of all that was to try to emphasize the fact that we do, 
even though we have this tremendous dependency for our fossil fuel 
needs, particularly petroleum and natural gas from other countries, 60 
percent of what we use, our daily utilization is being imported from 
other countries, and they don't all like us very much, unfortunately, 
and that gives them sort of a stranglehold on our economy.
  So this bill does have a strong component of going after our own 
natural resources, be they natural gas or petroleum products, or 
converting other things, unconventional things like shale rock or coal-
to-liquid petroleum or to natural gas.
  We kept asking and saying to the leadership, the Democratic 
leadership, look, let's don't go home on August 1st. This August recess 
is a 5-week period of time. Members certainly want to get back in their 
districts, and all of us really are up for reelection. Some have tough 
reelects, both Democrats and Republicans, and we all understand the 
need to get back and be in the community. But if we are not doing their 
work, if we are not solving their problems, if we are not making sure 
that when the school doors open the day after Labor Day, or in fact 
mid-August in most places, that the kids are going to be able to go to 
school five days a week and not four, that they are going to be able to 
ride the school buses and they are not going to be shut down at the 
school barn because there is no gasoline or diesel fuel to put in them, 
so let's stay here another week if it takes it, three days, whatever, 
we are smart people, and let's get this done. Then we can go home.
  It is kind of like you don't want to leave campus until you have 
passed your last exam. How can you go home for, say, Thanksgiving or 
Christmas and relax, knowing that when you get back you have still got 
your work to do? It just made no sense. But, anyway, as you know, Mr. 
Speaker, the Democratic majority made the decision and moved for 
adjournment basically that day, that Thursday or Friday afternoon, cut 
off all debate.
  So what the Republican minority decided to do, it was kind of a 
spontaneous thing, really, it wasn't planned

[[Page 19628]]

ahead, we said, well, we are not going home. We are not going to take 
recess until we have done our homework.
  So there were, I don't know, 40 or 50 Members just kind of mulling 
around. And, lo and behold, the lights got turned off, the microphones 
got turned off, the C-SPAN cameras weren't showing no video. But these 
brave men and women, all on the Republican side, but we kept asking for 
our colleagues on the Democratic side, Mr. Speaker, to join us, because 
we know, we know full well that there is like-mindedness on this issue 
on both sides of the aisle, but for the stranglehold that they have 
with their leadership.
  So we came back. We would fly, go home, go work a couple of days, 
jump on a plane, come back up there, stand right here. We would bring 
people in from the gallery. Not just this gallery, but out in Statuary 
Hall. People were taking tours through the Capitol. They marched in 
here in droves and sat in our seats and listened to us. And Members 
would speak 10 minutes, 15 minutes, a tag-team approach, trying not to 
be partisan, but just say, look, we have a job to do and we are not 
doing it. And when you go back home, particularly if you are a Democrat 
from the Midwest or the Northeast or you are a Republican from the 
Southeast or the Far West, or just an independent voter, let your 
Congressmen and Congresswomen know, let your Senators know that you 
want something done about this, that you are suffering, your grocery 
prices are through the roof.
  So this is how it all got started. We kept thinking, I kept thinking 
that any day people would ask, how long are you Republicans going to 
keep this up now? How long can you go? Is it going to be 5 weeks? I 
said, well, I sure hope not. I hope that Ms. Pelosi is listening, Mr. 
Hoyer is listening. They are intelligent people, no question about it. 
They wouldn't be in these positions of leadership if they are not.
  I thought, well, the force of public opinion, these polls taken all 
across this country, Mr. Speaker, are saying that 85-88 percent of the 
American people want us to do this. They don't want us to be dependent 
on Venezuela and Iran and Russia. They don't mind us importing a little 
oil from Canada and a little oil from Mexico, but they fully agree that 
if we have got this product, this natural resource right here in River 
City, why wouldn't we use our own? So if you believe in the law of 
supply and demand, you increase that supply from anywhere in the world, 
in fact, and you will help balance some of that demand and bring down 
prices. But even better, if you increase your own domestic supply, then 
you are a player. Then you are a player. So that is what we were all 
about.
  Well, as we came to the end of the August recess, we began to hear 
little tidbits of sound bites from Ms. Pelosi, and it sounded like 
maybe that she finally was getting the message, either from the 
Republicans in Washington or maybe some individual late-night phone 
calls from her own conference, particularly the Blue Dog Members who I 
felt may have wanted to come up here and join us and speak. So Ms. 
Pelosi said, well, we will maybe look at drilling when we get back.
  Lo and behold, we get back now, we had three weeks, three weeks, we 
thought 15 days, but as it turns out it is only going to be at the most 
13, because they cut us short Friday of last week, they are cutting us 
short Friday of this week, and maybe we will go 5 days next week. But 
13 days working out of five months, from August 1st. There are no plans 
that I know of for any kind of session after we end here next Friday. 
We won't come back to this body, Mr. Speaker, until after the new 
President, the new administrative team is sworn in.
  So to think we are working full time for the taxpayer, and that by 
definition is what we do and we are not really permitted to go back 
home and have another job, and here we are working 13 days in five 
months, there is something wrong with that math, something very wrong 
with that math.
  So I cannot tell you in strong enough terms, Mr. Speaker, how 
disappointed I was when I got back and looked at this bill, this none-
of-the-above energy bill, not all-of-the-above, but none-of-the-above, 
that none-of-the-above, the acronym is NOTA, NOTA energy bill that was 
presented to us on this floor that we voted on this week, and it does 
very, very little in regard to drilling.
  I tell you, I feel blessed tonight to have with me one of my 
colleagues from Tennessee, a Member that has been here probably twice 
as long as have. He is twice as young as I am. He is not nearly as good 
looking. But he is a very good member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee and he knows this subject inside out and backwards.
  I am happy at this point to yield to my friend from Tennessee, Zach 
Wamp. Then we will kind of do a colloquy and further discuss this 
issue.
  Zach, take it away.
  Mr. WAMP. Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I even come over 
to the Democratic side to begin my commentary tonight, because in my 14 
years here, I have developed extraordinary relationships across the 
aisle.
  I actually grew up a Democrat. Ronald Reagan made me and many people 
in my family members of the Republican Party. And I constantly say here 
that I don't think either party has an exclusive on integrity or either 
party has an exclusive on ideas, and at different times both parties 
have really let the American people down. But I think it is important 
right now to analyze where we are and what the important issues are 
that are not adequately being addressed here in the United States 
Congress at a real critical time for a whole lot of people.
  This is not just talk. This is a fair assessment and analysis about 
where we are. As a matter of fact, National Public Radio interviewed me 
today and asked for my honest analysis about this new Democratic 
Congress that took over 2 years ago, because I was very blunt and 
candid and critical about the Republican majority of which I was a part 
over the last few years of our majority, because I felt like, and I 
stated it, that we were more interested in protecting ourselves for a 
period of time than the fundamental principles that brought us into a 
majority in 1994, and I knew we were sinking and I knew, frankly, we 
were going in the wrong direction.
  Sure enough, we lost. The voters really didn't vote for the new 
Democratic majority as much as they voted against us. So I gave a fair 
assessment today of this new Democratic Congress that we have been 
under now for almost 2 years.
  The success formula in life is sometimes defined as preparation and 
opportunity meeting each other. You hear a lot of other definitions of 
what success is. One definition of success in politics and public 
service might be to under-promise and over-deliver. And I have to tell 
you that what I really have seen here in the last 2 years is over-
promising and under-delivery.
  This new majority, and I am not a critic, I am rarely critical, and I 
am not a blamer, I rarely blame, but I have to tell you, it is 
unbelievable how bad things have gotten here in the Congress in the 
last several months.
  The tradition of bringing the appropriations bills to the floor, 
taking them through the committee, having an opportunity to amend them, 
has basically just been thrown out the window. They came in ballyhooing 
that they were going to have the most ethical Congress in the history 
of the country; that no earmarks would ever be dropped in straight on 
the floor that weren't properly vetted and gone through the committee; 
that nothing would come to the floor straight from the Rules Committee 
under a closed rule that is not an open process where the people who 
are rightly elected would have access to offering substitutes; that 
they wouldn't strong-arm their own Members to vote against things that 
they had actually cosponsored.
  I have to tell you, all of those things that I just said they had 
promised were violated, not just in the last 2 years, but this week. 
Every single thing that I just mentioned was violated by the majority 
this week, and it was an ugly week here in Congress when we finally got 
to the most important issue of the year, which is energy.
  I want to tell a couple of stories. Three years ago, after Katrina 
hit, I

[[Page 19629]]

was on two appropriations subcommittees that had jurisdiction to the 
aftermath of Katrina, the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and the 
Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee.
  When Rita was bearing down, the second hurricane, on Galveston, they 
called an emergency meeting of our two subcommittees and called us into 
a room and they said, if Hurricane Rita continues on the track it is on 
and it hits Galveston head-on, we need to inform the committees that by 
next week we will not have gasoline across the eastern seaboard in some 
places. And it was an emergency crisis kind of a call.
  I have to tell you that after Ike last week, in a small way, but in a 
very meaningful and unfortunate way, that happened in Tennessee. Prices 
spiked to $4.99 a gallon. In some stations there was no gas whatsoever. 
And that was from Ike, that did less damage than was feared, and it 
just proves how vulnerable we are as a nation because of energy.
  This issue is now bringing us to our knees economically. So many 
people on fixed income are hurting so bad. And even the markets. You 
wonder about Wall Street and what has happened and the mortgage 
industry.
  Listen, credit has been overextended, and those people ought to be 
held accountable and the government shouldn't come in and bail out the 
private sector. But I can tell you one reason why the credit is not 
being honored and the bills are not being paid, is because the cost of 
energy for American consumers has soared so much that they can't meet 
their obligations and people are being foreclosed on, credit is not 
being paid on time. And these big institutions like AIG and Bear 
Stearns and Lehman Brothers, they have all consolidated and they have 
overextended credit. But it is a huge problem, and most all of it is 
driven by energy. And if we don't diversity our supply, if we don't 
increase our domestic production, if we don't throw the ball deep on 
energy, we are going to continue to come to our knees economically.
  Now, you might ask, why would the refineries not be able to give the 
output if one or two of them are down or if there is a hurricane that 
comes in? Let me just say that all of the new permit applications to 
explore for oil and gas or bring on new refineries face litigation from 
these extreme groups that are lined up with lawyers 10 deep to stop new 
oil and gas production in this country.

                              {time}  1830

  That's the truth. That's the truth. That is a special interest that 
has a foothold in the Congress with this new majority. That's the 
truth. They score their votes, they rate them, and this week they 
pressured them to vote against a new capacity bill that was bipartisan, 
created by dozens of Members from both parties and, frankly, they voted 
against the bill that they actually wrote.
  Now, how can you get Members to do that unless those special 
interests, the radical environmental groups that file suit over all 
this new oil and gas supply that we have access to, but we have locked 
it up, and we want to unleash it, this is the critical issue of our 
time. Our way of life is at stake.
  This is that important, and you are seeing a sinking of our economy, 
a loss of our competitiveness. Without natural gas resources, our 
manufacturing base is leaving this country, without the ability of our 
people to move around and make a living. Let me tell you, Dixie 
Produce, Lee Pittman, a small businessman and an excellent 
entrepreneur, pays his bills on time, works hard. He can't make a go of 
it because gasoline is too high for him to make a profit. He has 
nowhere to turn.
  I feel for these people. I want this Congress to respond. I want us 
to throw the ball deep on energy.
  Now the Democrats typically say all you all want to do is drill, and 
we want renewables. Listen, I am the cochairman of the Renewable Energy 
Caucus. I have been for 8 years. I have promoted more than anybody on 
our side, maybe Roscoe Bartlett and I, the expansion of tax credits and 
incentives for renewable investments, but they are not quite ready for 
the marketplace.
  The total percentage of all energy is only 6 percent, and you can't 
increase it to 20 overnight. I would ask the new majority, if they 
really believe that much, why have they not extended the renewable tax 
energy credits and incentives all year long. We are still waiting for 
that. It's supposed to come up next week, they say.
  Now today we hear they want to adjourn next Friday and put that off 
until after the election too. They are also talking about a new 
economic stimulus, which they say means unemployment compensation and 
other social-type programs. I know we have got to help people that need 
relief, but the most important economic stimulus we can do is pass the 
American Energy Act, creating thousands and thousands of new production 
jobs in manufacturing and energy technologies for the whole world, for 
our country and the world. That's throwing it deep and going after it 
for all the right reasons.
  Listen, this place is broken down to where for months now, this 
Democratic majority has been in retreat over this issue of energy 
because the radicals, the extremists, have basically convinced them 
that the higher the price of gas goes, the better off we are. People 
will quit driving and quit using fossil fuels if the prices go that 
high.
  We don't believe that's in America's best interests. We believe we 
have got to build a bridge to the future by bringing on some new oil 
and gas supplies, diversifying our supply, go after the renewals in 
hydrogen and the new advancements and build nuclear plants, but we 
believe you have got to do it all.
  This week they watered down a bill so bad that it has very, very 
little, if any, oil in it, even if you could do it. They passed it so 
the Members could go home and say we voted to drill. Please re-elect us 
and keep us there.
  That's not really what the American people deserve or expect. I am 
not saying that Republicans are smart and Democrats are dumb, or we are 
good and they are bad. I am saying that they are not doing a good job 
representing what our country needs. They are not bringing the 
legislation to the floor, and they are playing politics with this 
thing, and we have got to have a bill soon to the President, because we 
can't put this off for any longer time.
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
  You know, Representative Wamp made one statement, there are actually 
people, I know this is hard to believe, I know it is, in these trying 
economic times, that want the price of gasoline to be high, that want 
to make it so high that we eliminate all fossil fuel. Look at this 
quote from Carl Pope, the executive director of the Sierra Club, a 
strong environmental club. ``We're better off without cheap gas.''
  I mean, it's not just him. Ms. Pelosi herself has said many times 
that any bill that includes drilling is a hoax, and that she is more 
concerned with saving the planet. That is a direct quote on the 
national news network, my passion is to save the planet.
  Then Harry Reid, the majority leader of the Senate says, and this is 
almost a verbatim quote, fossil fuel is poison. Fossil fuel is poison, 
and it needs to be eliminated completely by the year 2020. That's the 
kind of thing that Representative Wamp was talking about, and the 
nonsense that we are hearing from the other side.
  Before I yield to one of my other colleagues, I just want to make 
this comment. When the 110th Congress began in January of 2007, I 
happened to sit on the Science Committee as well as the Armed Services 
Committee. But our first Science Committee hearing of the year, our 
witness was--and this is pretty unusual, I have been up here 6 years, I 
have never seen this happen before, that the Speaker of the House would 
be a witness, or the sole witness before a standing committee--Ms. 
Pelosi.
  It was all about global warming, and it was all about her plan to 
save the planet from carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases. She told us 
about the fact that she was going to create a commission of Congress, a 
bipartisan commission, I think. Ultimately she did, and

[[Page 19630]]

Mr. Markey assumed chairmanship of that committee, even over the 
objection of the most venerable, distinguished long-serving member of 
this body, John Dingell from Michigan, who chairs the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  But that was the kind of focus that Madam Speaker had at the time, 
when, of course, the price of gasoline was about $2.33 a gallon.
  A couple of weeks later, our second hearing in the Science Committee, 
who did we have again, a single witness. Guess who it was, former Vice 
President Al Gore just after he had gotten his Oscar award for that 
documentary film, ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' about global warming. 
That's all they wanted to talk about was Kyoto Protocol and cap and 
trade and how we were going to eliminate the carbon footprint from this 
country.
  It's a little hard, I mean, as we sit here tonight, talking, we are 
expelling, we are breathing out carbon dioxide. There are greenhouse 
gases all over the environment that are not necessarily created by what 
human beings do.
  But, again, I think that certain people had drank all of the Kool-Aid 
in regard to global warming. Maybe when gasoline prices are low and $2 
a gallon, you can afford to do that. Do you remember the old 
expression, I can't be worrying about draining the swamp when I am up 
to my elbows in alligators?
  Well, I think that's kind of the analogy of where we are right now. 
They are still worrying about draining the swamp, and we are up to our 
elbows in alligators with these prices that are literally killing the 
American people. They can certainly starve to death a whole lot quicker 
than they can choke to death from greenhouse gases over the next 100 
years. I think it's important that we put that into perspective.
  At this time, I see I have been joined by a couple more of my 
colleagues that do such a great job on the floor, one of our newest 
Members, but you would never know it by hearing him speak and the level 
of participation that he engages in, and that's my good friend from 
Ohio. I yield to Bob Latta, Congressman Bob Latta.
  Mr. LATTA. Well, I thank my friend from Georgia for hosting this 
tonight because, once again, energy is the number-one topic on 
everyone's mind in this country. It has been a number-one topic since I 
have gotten here, and I think it's going to be topic for years to come. 
It's really important for me.
  My district, as a lot of you already know, I represent the number-one 
agriculture district in the State of Ohio, and I also represent one of 
the top 10 manufacturing districts in Congress. If we don't have energy 
in my district, we are not going to survive. If we don't have energy 
for those farmers, they can't get out there and plant those crops.
  To tell you a couple of examples that have been going on, I have had 
meetings across my 16 counties, talking with farmers all over the 
entire district. Right now I have talked to many a farmer that when 
they go out with their tractor in the morning, and by the time they get 
back at night, they have put $800 to $1,000 of diesel fuel through 
their equipment in 1 day.
  They talk about their fertilizer, they talk about the chemicals that 
they have to put on that land and make that land productive. They are 
coming back, and they are saying, you know, we are paying two and a 
half to three times more than we did 2 years ago for the same product.
  The question is, well, these farmers are all getting rich right now. 
No, they are not, because they are out there having to pay all these 
high prices for diesel. They have to pay all these high prices when it 
comes to fertilizer. They have to pay all these high prices when it 
comes to chemicals, and they can't afford it.
  What is happening, of course, is when people go to the store, and 
they buy that loaf of broad, when they buy that gallon of milk, they 
are saying, gee, why are prices going up? I can tell you why prices are 
going up, because these energy prices are out of control in this 
country. These energy prices are out of control because this Congress, 
this Democrat-controlled Congress, is not acting today to make sure 
that we can put food on the table and keep this price cheap for 
Americans.
  We were able a few years ago, and up to this year, say that most 
people within 42 to 43 days were able to pay for all of their food in 
those first 42 to 43 days of the year. That's what we need to do in 
this country, because if we don't, it's the same thing that is going to 
happen on manufacturing side, we are in that same situation where right 
now the United States is the number one manufacturing country in the 
world.
  Well, guess what, next year we drop to number two, and we all know 
who number one will be, and that will be China. They have been out 
there making sure they have that supply, but also they have that supply 
of energy that they have for the future.
  So it's very, very important for not only the Fifth Congressional 
District of Ohio, but it's also important for this country of ours, 
this great country, to make sure that we can meet the energy needs of 
the future. I know that one of our Members not too long ago told us a 
story about a trucker, a long-haul trucker in his district. He said he 
got a load to go from Texas to California and back.
  He was paid $1,700 for the entire load. Well, it cost him $1,500 in 
fuel, so by the time you figure the cost of insurance, buying that 
truck and everything else, it would have been cheaper for him to let 
that truck stay at home and just leave the keys in it. Now, I have had 
truckers call me, independent truckers, saying you know what, Bob, we 
have got real problems out here. We are actually turning our keys back 
over to the finance company because we can't afford to even run our 
trucks anymore. We can't afford to do our job.
  In Ohio, when we have 80 percent of all products being delivered by 
truck, how are we going to get things to the consumer, how are we going 
to get the product to market? So that's what we have got, massive 
problems right here, not only in Ohio, but across this country.
  As has been mentioned a little bit by the gentleman before from 
Tennessee, we are talking about renewables. I am 100 percent behind 
renewables, because it is kind of interesting in my district, we 
already have one solar manufacturing plant in business right now. We 
have another one that's going to be online next year.
  We also have a company working on a hydrogen engine, we have the only 
four wind turbines. I can see from them from the backyard of my house 
in Bowling Green. We also have two ethanol plants in my district.
  The one thing is a lot of people like to think on the other side of 
the aisle, and some of the environmentalists, all this is going to 
happen overnight. It's not.
  I was privileged to be one of the Members that went up to ANWR not 
too long ago, but we stopped in Colorado first at the National 
Renewable Energy Laboratory. When we were there, it was interesting, 
because I was fascinated because everything I just mentioned from solar 
to wind to hydrogen to ethanol, that's what they are doing out there 
right now.
  Every time that we talked about something, they showed us something, 
for instance, we were talking about on the hydrogen side. They said 
this is what we would like to do on the hydrogen. It was kind of 
fascinating, because, well, we could create the hydrogen, because we 
could take a wind turbine and break down that electricity, break them 
into hydrogen, and we could run it down to like a hydrogen filling 
station so you could fill your car up right there.
  But the same question I always asked every time we got through a 
subject is how long and how far are we? They said, we are not there 
yet. We are not there yet. We are off for quite a ways. It's just like 
the electric cars, they showed us electric cars.
  A lot of us in northwest Ohio, and I know across this great country 
of ours, a lot of people have to drive more than 50 miles one way to 
work. Well these cars, you can only go 60 miles before you have got to 
plug them back in. Well, that's a real problem.
  You can't just go 60 miles in my district because you would never get

[[Page 19631]]

home that night. If you are driving 100 miles one way, you have got a 
problem there. You know, but those are things we are working on for the 
future. As my friend from Tennessee mentioned earlier, these things are 
down the road, we are not there yet.
  It's the same way when we talk about the wind side. You know, we have 
seen a lot of commercials on TV, from T. Boone Pickens and how much we 
would like to have, in the near future, by wind power. Well, the 
problem with that is it's going to take maybe 150,000 to 200,000 wind 
turbines to get us to that point. We are not there, next year or the 
year after, or the year after that. We are talking maybe 2020 or 2030.
  We have got to have energy now. If we are not going to have energy 
now, we are not going to be able to manufacture. We are not going to 
have farmers in the field. This winter we have people telling me right 
now that we are not going to have the fuel to put in their tanks at 
home to make it through the entire winter when it comes to home heating 
oil.
  We have a lot of work we have got to get done, and we have got to get 
it done now. When we went to ANWR, it was really fascinating in that 
when we were up there we flew up by Fairbanks into Prudhoe Bay. When 
Prudhoe Bay first came on line, they were talking about it might only 
produce around 9 to 10 billion barrels of oil. Now they have revised 
that, it could be up to 13 to 15 billion barrels.
  The pipeline up there, you know, it's 800 miles long. That brings 
that lifeline down to the lower 48 to make sure that we have fuel. At 
its peak it was bringing down about 2.1 million barrels a day. Today 
it's only bringing down 700,000 barrels a day.

                              {time}  1845

  The thing that really concerns me when I hear that, when that number 
gets down to 300,000 barrels a day, and we are losing about 15 percent 
capacity every year up there, when it gets down to 300,000 barrels a 
day, that pipeline won't be able to flow any more. If there is oil in 
the pipeline, it will clog it up and they won't be able to go back in 
there and clean out the pipeline. That means that the pipeline is 
finished. When we are importing 70 percent of our oil every day into 
this country, we can't afford to shut that pipeline off.
  It has also been demonstrated why we need diversification from where 
we get our oil in this country. When you have a hurricane and you have 
to shut down oil rigs in the gulf, and the refineries are out there, we 
have a problem. We have to diversify. We have to be up in Alaska. We 
know there is a known source of about 10.3 billion barrels.
  So we have to drill and make sure that we have that oil for the 
future. Just real briefly in summation, when we are talking about what 
we want to do up there, we are talking about ANWR which is 19 million 
acres, the size of South Carolina. Section 10.02 land is about 1.5 
million acres, and we need 2,000 acres to get this oil out. We have to 
make sure that we can get this done so we have a future for this 
country.
  I applaud my friend for having this all-important special order 
tonight to bring up this subject about why we need energy for this 
country.
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank my friend from Ohio. As Representative Latta 
described, he and a number of Members did go up to Alaska in August and 
had an opportunity to meet the governor of Alaska, Governor Palin, and 
see what she had done in regard to getting that natural gas pipeline 
and that natural gas flowing down to the lower 48.
  I feel refreshed and energized, not to use a pun, to think that 
Senator McCain and Governor Palin understand this issue very well and 
have the wisdom and the strength of character and the force of 
leadership to deal with big oil, to deal with the environmentalists and 
to help us solve this problem as we go forward. So my colleagues, Mr. 
Speaker, I truly believe that hope is on the way.
  Before I turn to my good friend and colleague from Louisiana, I want 
to say one other thing about this bill that Speaker Pelosi finally 
brought to us when we got back from this August recess, and certainly 
not by the regular process, not by going through the Energy and 
Commerce Committee and listening to the wisdom of John Dingell and Joe 
Barton and others who have worked so well in a bipartisan manner to 
come up with a bill that we could all be satisfied with and that was 
good for nobodies' politics, or maybe everybody's politics, but more 
importantly, good for the American people.
  It wasn't done that way. Unfortunately, the bill was drawn strictly 
by the Democratic leadership behind closed doors. If any of my 
colleagues can remember the song ``The Green Door,'' behind the green 
door, and it was a 290-page bill and no Republican had any input. 
Indeed, no committee of jurisdiction.
  But the ironic thing about that was that Ms. Pelosi, when she was 
trying to lead her troops to the majority, to the promised land back in 
the fall of 2006, she made some rather outstanding quotes, very 
attractive quotes like ``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,'' that would be us 
Republicans, we Republicans, ``the right to offer its alternatives, 
including a substitute.'' This is Speaker Pelosi, a new direction for 
America.
  How quickly we forget.
  Another quote from Madam Speaker, ``Members should have at least 24 
hours to examine a bill and a conference report text prior to floor 
consideration. Rules governing floor debate must be reported before 10 
p.m. for a bill to be considered the following day.'' A quote from Ms. 
Pelosi back in 2006.
  We have far more important things to talk about than process, so I 
yield to a physician colleague of mine from the great State of 
Louisiana. And if anybody knows about energy and refineries and what 
goes on in hurricane alley, Congressman Charles Boustany does. And he 
probably spent a lot of time in his home in St. Charles after Ida and 
Gustav and the destruction and probably working in one of the Red Cross 
shelters trying to help victims of the hurricanes. But he did not lose 
sight of the ball in regard to energy. It only strengthened his 
resolve, and I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank my friend and colleague from Georgia. A little 
bit about my district. My district is the 7th Congressional District of 
Louisiana. It is southwest Louisiana. So I am on the border with Texas. 
I am on the gulf coast, and we have been a long time leader in the oil 
and gas industry.
  We have about 3,800 drilling platforms out in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Most of those are located off the coast of my district. I have one of 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserves in my district, and it accounts for 
one-fourth of the oil that we hold. I also have a confluence of 
pipelines called the Henry Hub which is the pricing point for natural 
gas for the entire country.
  We have a number of refineries along the Calcashoe ship channel 
located throughout southwest Louisiana, so we have a significant amount 
of the refining capacity that supplies refined products to this 
country.
  The oil and gas industry is about jobs. Every time I fly back and 
forth to my home in Lafayette, Louisiana, I run into four or five 
gentlemen typically who work in the oil and gas industry, and when I 
ask them where they are working, they are telling me that they are 
coming from or going to countries all over the globe, Angola in Africa, 
Equatorial Guinea, Thailand, Vietnam, and countries throughout the 
Middle East.
  I ask them why is that? Why are you out there?
  They tell me I used to work in the oil and gas industry off the gulf 
coast, and after the imposition of the windfall profits tax in the 
1980s which devastated the oil and gas industry, they lost their jobs 
in the gulf coast area and they ended up going off and working all over 
the globe.
  We have expertise all over the world in the oil and gas industry, and 
every one of these gentlemen when I talk to them wishes they could come 
back home and work in the United States, to be close to their families, 
to work in an

[[Page 19632]]

area that they are comfortable with rather than being off in foreign 
countries and having to do all of that travel that oftentimes takes 2 
or 3 days of their time, often at their own expense.
  So getting a comprehensive energy policy is about good, high-paying 
American jobs. It is about keeping jobs in the United States. It is 
about growing new jobs. It is not just about the oil and gas industry.
  What we have been advocating is a comprehensive, all-of-the-above 
energy approach, an energy approach that looks at oil and gas because 
we are dependent on oil and gas for most of our transportation needs, 
much of our electricity, and really for a good part of all of our 
energy needs. Oil and gas are a critical part, but at the same time we 
also have to look at good, tried and true methods of conservation. And 
we have to look at alternative fuels and renewable energy and nuclear 
power and clean coal technology. All of the ideas that are out there, 
we should be unleashing individual American genius because that is what 
has made this country great and has helped to solve problems of the 
past, and is what will help us pull out of this energy crisis that we 
are seeing. Families and seniors and small businesses and our schools, 
our local governments are struggling with the high cost of energy.
  I talked to a senior not long ago who told me it was getting 
difficult for her to afford gas and make the usual runs to the grocery 
store. And she was paying high food prices on top of that, so she 
teamed up with folks in her neighborhood and they are still struggling 
with the cost of gas. This is just unacceptable. In a country that has 
the brilliance that the American people have and the entrepreneurship, 
we shouldn't be struggling with this. The sad thing is that the only 
thing blocking it is good policy, and this Congress has it within 
itself to move forward on a good, comprehensive energy policy. It 
distresses me it has been blocked. We have not had an opportunity to 
bring a comprehensive energy bill to the floor of the House.
  This country has had one energy shock after another. There have been 
about six of them since the end of the Second World War. A number have 
caused significant price spikes, when you talk about 1973 with the Arab 
oil embargo, 1979 when the Iranian problem came up, the 1990 gulf 
crisis, the windfall profits tax thrown on top of the oil industry in 
the 1980s, and of course recently what we have seen with real high 
price spikes.
  Mr. GINGREY. Dr. Boustany, please address the issue in regard to the 
refineries and the run up in prices just because of the recent 
hurricanes, and what a problem it is to have all of those refineries 
located in one area.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I am glad you brought that up. Clearly, having a whole 
lot of refineries concentrated on the gulf coast, in Texas or on the 
coast of Louisiana, we have a very soft underbelly. We have a true 
vulnerability with key energy infrastructure. Many refineries, while 
they were not damaged, they had to be shut down for a period of time. 
We don't have large inventories of gasoline in this country. We don't 
have it. So when you shut refineries down, particularly a large number 
of them, you end up with shortages of gasoline and this country has had 
to start importing gasoline to a much greater extent than we used to.
  Mr. GINGREY. So the refined products?
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Diesel as well, and other refined products. So this a 
significant problem. If we had true destruction of those refineries, 
which could have easily happened, we are talking about a real 
vulnerability, real price shocks at the pump, and a long time before we 
can get this infrastructure back up and running.
  The point is with a comprehensive energy policy, we are going to 
diversify our sources of energy. We need to expand refining capacity 
and build out in other areas of the country. We need to invest in the 
alternative fuels that will give us alternatives to gasoline, but it 
takes time for those investments. Clearly, it is important that we 
start the process.
  In my district, a large oil company has just recently put a 
significant investment into an alternative fuel company that is going 
to be making cellulosic ethanol. It is the first cellulosic ethanol 
facility in the entire country. They are ramping up and there is a lot 
of excitement about it, and it offers great possibilities, but we have 
to develop this and we have to develop the infrastructure. That is 
going to take time. So what we have to do is strategically manage our 
dependence on fossil fuels right now as we transition to the next 
energy economy which will involve alternatives and renewables.
  Mr. GINGREY. That is exactly right. I think you used the key word, 
and that is ``transition.'' We are talking about transition. It is just 
that some people want to transition just a little too quickly.
  I wish you would speak a little bit and reference this slide that I 
am showing right now in regard to the revenue-sharing issue. This goes 
back to the Energy Security Act of 2006 regarding the gulf coast States 
and the energy sharing. And I know that you have talked with me and 
other Members of the conference about what Louisiana does with that 
revenue sharing and how important it is to the State.
  As I close out, I will talk about this ``NOTA'' energy bill. I like 
to call it a ``nota,'' none-of-the-above act that we passed this week, 
and one of the key problems was the lack of any revenue sharing for the 
States on the east and west coast. If you don't mind addressing that, I 
appreciate it.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. First of all, as we try to transition, we still need 
oil and gas, and we should be investing in this country and in the 
United States, looking at our own natural resources. A large part of 
the oil and gas that is available is off our Outer Continental Shelf, 
in the gulf coast area, as we have seen off the coast of Louisiana and 
Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, but also east coast and west coast. We 
ought to be taking advantage and using those resources as we 
transition.
  One of the key features that we fought for, I say ``we,'' the 
Louisiana delegation, for 50 years we fought to get revenue sharing 
whereby the tax revenue that comes to the Federal Government, some of 
it is shared with the States.
  For instance, in Louisiana now with new production, we have the 
opportunity to share in 37.5 percent of revenue that will go to the 
State to help the State do environmental repair along the gulf coast. 
It will help us invest in infrastructure, and it also provides an 
opportunity to invest in alternatives fuels. That provision was enacted 
in the Energy Security Act of 2006, something we fought very hard for 
and it is a very good bill.
  It is critically important that States along the coast have that 
revenue-sharing option available to them. That is the incentive for 
them to allow drilling off their coast.

                              {time}  1900

  And that helps them build their infrastructure. The Democrat bill 
earlier this week didn't allow that. And that's one of the reasons why 
I think this was a sham approach. It was saying, we'll give a little 
lip service to drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, but we're going 
to restrict certain areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, and we're not 
going to allow revenue sharing, which is something the States all want. 
And that's the essence of federalism. That's a great way to do it.
  Mr. GINGREY. Reclaiming my time for a second, that's what I've 
depicted on this slide on the bottom, this new bill that we just passed 
this week. Everyone else, nada, again, zero, nothing, no revenue 
sharing. So where is the incentive for one of these States, Georgia, 
we've got 130 miles of shore line on the Atlantic Ocean. California, I 
mean, there's just not going to be the incentive to do it.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. And I would say for folks back home in Louisiana who 
may be listening to this, our 37.5 percent revenue sharing was also 
jeopardized by this Democratic bill. So after 50 years of fighting to 
get revenue sharing for Louisiana in the 8.3 million acres that were 
opened up in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, we could suddenly lose that if 
that bill were to go all the way

[[Page 19633]]

through the Senate and the President signed it. Fortunately, the 
President says he's going to veto it, but our own Democratic Senator, 
Mary Landrieu, has said this bill is dead on arrival.
  Mr. GINGREY. Well, I'll reclaim just for a second. Let me make sure I 
understand this now. You're saying that currently, under this Energy 
Security Act of 2006, as I point to this slide, again, GOMESA, that 
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, you've said you fought hard for it 
many years, Texas, you get 37 percent revenue sharing, 37.5 percent.
  But are you telling me now that in that area in the Gulf of Mexico, 
when the oil companies go out and build new rigs and purchase new 
leases, then, according to this no energy bill that was passed this 
week, you wouldn't get any revenue on those new sites?
  Mr. BOUSTANY. It is my understanding that that revenue sharing is at 
risk.
  Mr. GINGREY. Well, that's what I'm thinking too. And I'm not glad to 
hear you say that, but I think you're right. I think that's absolutely 
right.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. There is no assurance that that revenue would be 
retained. And that's a very important incentive to get the States to 
play ball with this. And let's take advantage and use those natural 
resources that we're so fortunate to have. We're at a time right now 
where oil reserves are being depleted around the world, and oil 
infrastructure is really in a state of decay in many of these 
countries. It's the free market companies, the big companies that are 
around the world that have the kinds of technology that we need to get 
in there and do this. But with everything else in decline, we need to 
be taking advantage of using our own resources while we transition, and 
increase investment in alternative forms of energy, alternative fuels, 
whether it's biofuels, because there's a whole host of new generation 
biofuels that we're on the cusp of working with. We need to invest in 
that, but it's not going to happen overnight. So that's why it's 
critically important right now to make strategically good decisions 
about how we use our resources.
  We owe that to the American people. This Congress will be 
irresponsible. Our Democratic friends will be irresponsible if they 
don't allow a comprehensive energy reform package to come to the floor 
of the House.
  Mr. GINGREY. Well, I just want to thank my colleague. And of course, 
we're both physicians, Dr. Boustany, a cardiothoracic surgeon, myself, 
an OB/GYN doctor for many years before we had the distinct honor of 
getting elected to the Congress and working in the people's House and 
representing the folks we represent.
  And I, again, Charles, I think about this a lot of times, when I 
started the hour talking about how our leadership, Ms. Pelosi, Speaker 
Pelosi, Representative, I mean Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader 
Harry Reid, former Vice President Al Gore and others were so focused on 
saving the planet and global warming and climate change. And I 
understand there's some concerns there, and I'm not oblivious, although 
all scientists don't agree with that. But, you know, it does really 
become a matter of priority. And you and I, as physicians understand 
that people literally without a job, without a home, without a warm set 
of clothing, they can starve to death. They can die a lot quicker from 
that than they can over maybe a 75- to 100-year period time from 
inhaling a little bit of an environment that's not healthy for their 
lungs.
  So we care about it. We care about childhood asthma. We care about 
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema and lung cancer and 
all those things.
  But it becomes, really, a matter for leadership of the Congress to 
make these decisions and place priorities on things. We don't want the 
planet to increase 1\1/2\ degrees Fahrenheit over the next 75 years 
because there may be a scintilla rise in the level of the water and 
some remote island may get flooded and 50 people lose their lives.
  Now, I understand all that science. But right now what I really 
understand, and I think you do too, is the job loss, the unemployment 
rate, the economy, these wild gyrations that are occurring in the stock 
market, the food prices, the oil prices. This is the crisis of the day, 
the crisis du jour, and I think real leadership should recognize that, 
don't you, Dr. Boustany?
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I fully agree with you. And we in Louisiana know that 
good energy policy can march hand in hand with environmental policy 
that's sensible, and it's also good for the economy and it grows jobs. 
We have seen that. We've seen what happens when bad policy affects an 
industry like the oil and gas industry and you lose jobs. We've seen 
that kind of cycle. And there's no reason for that. Those are policy 
decisions made by those who are truly uninformed.
  What the American public has already very clearly stated is that they 
want a comprehensive energy policy. And we have it within ourselves to 
do that. This is not rocket science.
  Mr. GINGREY. Well, I think, and I want to thank you for your 
contribution tonight because I think you said the key word when you 
said transition. And we are going to transition. And I think that, you 
know, 50, 75, 100 years from now we may not be burning much fossil 
fuel. But you can't do that overnight. You can't, all of a sudden say 
we're going to, by 2020 we're not going to burn any fossil fuel. Coal 
is fossil fuel. Petroleum products, diesel fuel, gasoline. We would 
have no transportation and we have no electricity. We'd be back using 
kerosene lanterns and bicycles and skateboards, I guess, to get around 
in this country.
  Well, Dr. Boustany, thank you so much. I had a few more remarks to 
make as we concluded. I think we have, Mr. Speaker, do we have about 10 
minutes left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GINGREY. Six minutes. Well, I would rather yield to my friend 
from Texas than to use any concluding remarks, because I'll tell you, 
this gentleman from east Texas, again, knows of what he talks about. 
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is located in Congressman Boustany's 
State of Louisiana and Congressman Gohmert's State of Texas. So he's 
been working very hard on this issue. And I want to yield at least 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my dear friend from Georgia for yielding.
  This has been a really difficult week. Having spent the weekend with 
my constituents that were hit by a hurricane in east Texas, and then 
coming here to Congress and figuring, surely we can put party issues 
aside because, frankly, when I was in the district, it was around, I 
don't know, the wee hours, and one sheriff that was helping said, now, 
you know I'm a Democrat. I said, you know I don't care. It doesn't 
matter. And then I get back to Washington and that's all it's about. 
You know, the Democrats have the majority and they were determined to 
shut out any ideas from the Republicans.
  There was a wonderful bipartisan bill, as you pointed out, the 
Abercrombie/Peterson bill had 38 Democratic cosponsors that understand 
the importance of energy. Twenty-four of them voted against their own 
bill when that was made as a substitute.
  And it's just incredible how something is being rammed down on the 
Nation when we can't afford it. People need gasoline. They need diesel. 
Some of those guys pointed out, they've lost power. There are no hybrid 
generators, and that's what's keeping about a third of my district 
going.
  Mr. GINGREY. I'll reclaim my time, Representative Gohmert, just for a 
second and yield right back to you, because what the gentleman from 
Texas is talking about, of course, is this, the bill that was passed by 
the Democratic majority. And I have a little poster up here comparing 
the Republican bill, the American Energy Act, to the bill that was 
actually passed. And I just want to quickly run through this before I 
yield back to my two colleagues.
  In the American Energy Act, real offshore exploration, yes. 
Democratic energy plan, no. Renewables, without tax hikes, our bill, 
yes. Their bill, no. Real oil shale exploration. I won't get into 
details of that, but our bill, yes. Their

[[Page 19634]]

bill, no. Arctic coastal plain, the ANWR. Our bill, go after that 
petroleum. Their bill, nada. Emission-free nuclear, our bill, yes, 
their bill, no, no, no, can't have nuclear. Clean coal technology, 
coal-to-liquid or coal-to-gas. Yes in our bill. No in their bill. New 
refinery capacity, Dr. Boustany and I talked about that. Our bill, yes. 
Their bill, no. No energy tax hikes, yes for Republicans, no for 
Democrats. No electricity price spikes. Yes for Republicans, no for 
Democrats. Lawsuit reform, yes in the Republican bill. No in the 
Democratic bill.
  So what Representative Gohmert and Representative Boustany are 
probably going to talk about now is when we had one, we had no 
amendments. We had a motion to recommit with instructions with a bill. 
And they've just referred to it, the Abercrombie, Democrat from Hawaii, 
Peterson, Republican from Pennsylvania that had 39 Democrats 
cosponsoring the bill. And when we offered that as a substitute, which 
we felt that each one of them, they had already signed on to the bill, 
surely they were going to vote for it. And I'd like for my colleagues 
to tell the rest of us what happened.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to 
mention to my friend from Texas that we're with you on this. My State 
got hit by four hurricanes, two really devastating hurricanes in 2005, 
Rita and Katrina, and now Gustav and Ike. And folks are suffering back 
home on top of the suffering that they've had as a result of high 
prices at the pump. And I have to say, it frustrates the heck out of me 
to come up here to try to get something done to help folks back home 
and around the country suffering with these high gas prices, and we 
can't get it done. We're playing political games up here because of the 
leadership on the other side. It's very frustrating because folks in 
Texas, my friend's State, my home State of Louisiana, are really 
suffering doubly because we have born the burden of providing energy 
for this country in Louisiana and in Texas. And yet, folks back home 
are saying, what's wrong with the rest of the country? What's wrong 
with the Democratic leadership? Why won't they give us an energy 
policy.
  Give us a vote. We've got the bills. We've got the answers. Give us a 
vote. That's all we're asking. And I yield back to my friend from 
Texas.
  Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. I know we're running out of time. But one of 
the comments that was made about Ike, making it so scary, it was a 
hurricane that was coming in the middle of the night. And when it comes 
in the middle of the night, it is scarier. And that's exactly what 
happened with this Democratic energy bill. It was filed at nearly 
10:00, and it was a hurricane disaster for this country.
  Mr. GINGREY. And it indeed is scary. And with that, Mr. Speaker, 
we'll yield back. We don't have any time to yield back. We'll just shut 
up. Thank you very much, and we'll say good night from this side.

                          ____________________