[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5897-5902]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                THE STATUS OF ENERGY IN THE WORLD TODAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, it was a pleasure to be down here 
listening to the special orders of my friends from the various States, 
and especially my friend from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney, and I 
understand his compassion and concern. But I will tell you that if we 
don't get a handle on these energy costs, people aren't going to have 
the money to do the things they want to do with their families on a 
day-to-day basis. So we have this time tonight to talk about energy and 
our energy status in the world today.
  We started doing this last week on a bill that came to the floor that 
we are going to finish this week, the Beach Protection Act of 2007. We 
took that opportunity to talk about that. But we ought to be addressing 
some of the pressing concerns of this country today.
  We hear the term that America, and rural America, is bitter. It is a 
big phrase today and over the weekend. They are bitter. They are bitter 
about high energy costs, and they are bitter about the fact that this 
Congress is not doing anything to address the supply part of this 
debate.
  More supply means lower costs. That is basic economics 101. Anyone 
who has gone to have a bachelor's degree, and even some good high 
school programs teach economics, it is a simple supply and demand 
equation. So we are going to talk about energy tonight. My focus is 
going to be on supply, how we need more supply.
  We also hear a lot this year about change. We want change, and 
everybody wants change. But, you know, change is not always good. Here 
is an example of change.
  Since the Democrats got in the majority, when they first got sworn 
in, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $58.31. Today, the price of 
a barrel of crude oil is $111.15. I would say that is bad change. That 
is not good change. So change is not always good. This is negative 
change, and it flies in the face of promises from my friends on the 
other side of the aisle.
  The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi said on April 24, 2006, about 
2 years ago, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down the 
skyrocketing gas prices.'' Well, that was almost $60 a barrel less ago, 
and $1 and change per gallon of gas less.

                              {time}  2000

  Majority leader Steny Hoyer said, October 4, 2005, ``Democrats 
believe that we can do more for the American people who are struggling 
to deal with high gas prices.''
  Well, they did. They did. What did they do? They raised their gas 
prices. You want to talk about not being able to pay for dental care? 
People are using their money to get to work.
  In rural America, we drive long distances. Rural America doesn't have 
the access of buses. Rural America doesn't have the opportunity to take 
the Metro or light rail.
  Those who are driving distances to get to work are harmed 
exponentially greater. Democrats proffered lower gas prices. What do we 
have? We have higher gas prices. All we are asking them to do is keep 
their prices. Help them lower the price of gasoline, but they won't do 
it. Do you know why they won't do it?
  They won't do it because they really hate fossil fuels in this 
country. They hate crude oil, and they hate coal. They hate crude oil, 
and they hate coal.
  They hate fossil fuels, so to address high prices, what we have to do 
is bring on more fossil fuels to the market, and they won't do it. 
That's why we are not going to have any relief on gases.
  Constituents ask me, what are you going to do to lower prices? What 
are you going to do, Congress? I just shake my head, and I said the 
only thing that's going to happen is prices are

[[Page 5898]]

going to go up because demand is going to continue to go up, supply is 
going to stay the same, and you are going to have higher prices.
  Democrat Whip Jim Clyburn, Democrat from South Carolina, said ``House 
Democrats have a plan to help curb rising gas prices.'' Jim got it 
wrong. ``No'' is not an energy plan. They had no plan, and when you 
have no plan, you plan to fail, and what do you get? You get higher 
prices.
  We know we are going to have $4 a gallon gas this summer sometime. We 
know it. In fact, the newspapers are starting to raise this issue, ``$4 
gasoline seen possible this summer,'' the Buffalo News, April 9, 2008; 
price at the pump likely to reach $4, the Washington Times, April 9, 
2008; ``$4 Per Gallon Gas Creeps Closer,'' Fox News, Denver, Colorado, 
April 9.
  We know we are going to have $4 a gallon of gas. How do we stop that 
from happening? We have to bring on more supply. I have some friends 
here to join me, but I am going to finish with one solution that has 
bipartisan support, and that's coal-to-liquid technologies.
  There are a lot of ways we can address this debate and this issue, 
but let me just pitch one to you. The Illinois Coal Basin, and I am 
from Illinois, I am biased, the Illinois Coal Basin is basically the 
State of Illinois and the southwestern part of Indiana and the western 
part of Kentucky. That's all a big coal field.
  Under the ground there is as much fossil fuel energy in coal as Saudi 
Arabia has in oil, 250-year's worth. We have been mining and using it 
for generations. In fact, I am fourth-generation Lithuanian American. 
My great grandfather immigrated to my home town of Collinsville, 
Illinois, where I still live. What did he do? He worked in the coal 
mines. My grandfather worked in the coal mines.
  In southern Illinois, we have coal mines and we have mine workers. We 
have an abundant natural resource.
  Now, we know coal can be used to generate electricity, but I am not 
talking about generation of electricity right now. What I am talking 
about is liquid fuels, the stuff that we need to put in our cars so we 
can get to work. How do we lower the price of gasoline in this country? 
That's where coal-to-liquid technology comes in.
  We also had these budget airlines, three of them went bankrupt, one 
is on the verge. What's one of the problems? The high cost of aviation 
fuel.
  All those people are unemployed. They don't have a job. They are 
going to be a burden to the safety net. They are not going to have 
dental care which was provided by their employer. But now they are 
unemployed because of the high cost of jet fuel.
  How do we bring liquid fuel back to the arena that the budget 
airlines and the soccer mom, who is shepherding those kids around in 
the minivan, can afford to do that. We bring on more supply. One option 
is to use our vast resources of coal in this country and use that 
technology that goes back to World War II, the Fischer-Tropsh 
technologies.
  Synthetic fuel, Sasol, the South African oil company has been using 
it for decades. It just got permission to use synthetic aviation fuel 
for the British commercial air fleet.
  We have not a single coal-to-liquid plant in this country. The 
premise is simple, you have a coal mine. This is surface mining, mostly 
western coal here. In Illinois it would be below surface.
  At that location you build a coal-to-liquid refinery. First of all 
you have jobs, jobs in the coal mine. Then you have jobs that build a 
refinery. Then you have jobs to operate the coal mines and jobs to 
operate the refinery, good-paying jobs with good-paying benefits and 
dental care. Then you have a pipeline so you don't have to address the 
transportation of this fuel, and you pipe it to the major metropolitan 
areas of this country, or you pipe it to the air base.
  You know the number one aviation fuel user in the world, you know who 
it is? Our United States Air Force. They are begging for this 
opportunity. They are held captives to imported crude oil and the high 
cost of jet fuel.
  We can do it here. We know what Katrina did to the refineries in the 
gulf coast, it shut a couple of them down, causing price spikes, 
causing dislocations.
  Well, what's the benefit of this technology? You don't have to have 
it on the gulf coast. You are not importing the crude oil. You can 
build one in southern Illinois. You could build one in Wyoming, in 
Montana. You could build one in Kentucky or Ohio or West Virginia, 
right where the coal is located, close to the pipeline that connects to 
our major metropolitan areas, available, low-cost fuel to turn into jet 
fuel, gasoline, aviation fuel, diesel fuel, things that are causing 
great concerns and problems in our country today.
  We have got bills to do this. Many Members do. My bill, I am the 
primary cosponsor with Congressman Rick Boucher, a Democrat from 
Virginia, on a price-collar provision. There are provisions for long-
term contracting. There are some other marketing provisions out there 
where we could do this, we could send a signal to industry.
  We want to do this, we want to have these up and running in 5 years. 
We want to help decrease our reliance on imported crude oil. We want to 
lower the cost of fuel. This Congress could do it. I guarantee you if 
we did it, this administration would sign the bill.
  It's up to Democrats who made promises in 2006 that they had a plan 
to lower the price of gasoline. You read the quotes. I read the quotes 
to you, Madam Speaker.
  You know the promises that were made. You know the promises that were 
not kept. In fact, not only were the promises not kept, we have done 
worse. You didn't lower the cost of fuel, we raised the cost of fuel. 
We didn't lower the price of a barrel of crude oil.
  When Speaker Pelosi got sworn in, the price of a barrel of crude oil 
was $58.31; today, $111. Now I did this part of the speech last week, 
it was $110. It has gone up $1 just since Wednesday.
  With that, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from New Jersey, 
Congressman Garrett. I thank him for joining me. I yield you some time.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman.
  As I so often say when I come to the floor, in looking back 16 
months, this country has been under the control of the Democrat-led 
Congress. What has those 16 months wrought? We have higher food prices, 
a recession now in the economy with which almost everyone agrees, even 
former Chairman Greenspan, housing prices basically in a free fall down 
and, of course, energy prices going through the roof.
  You made a comment about gasoline prices being up to almost $4 a 
gallon by the summer. Of course, diesel fuel already, in my neck of the 
woods, the great State of New Jersey, is at $4 a gallon.
  It amazes me each time I drive past the pump. I don't use diesel. 
Truckers most often do. Farming equipment on the farms do. Of course, I 
am amazed that people are still able to make a living.
  But 16 months under a Democrat-controlled rule here in the House of 
Representatives, what has it wrought? We have higher food prices, a 
recession in the economy, free fall of the housing prices and energy 
prices through the roof, causing hardships for all Americans.
  I come from the State of New Jersey. When I go home, I just went home 
for the weekend, and I talked to my friends and constituents back home. 
They are paying the price, at the pump, at the food store, everywhere, 
and it's creating a real hardship for the American family.
  When the American family sits down each week and pays their bills, 
gets out their checkbook, and say how are we going to pay this month's 
mortgage payment, this month's rent payment, first they have to pay all 
of these other expenses.
  At the end of the week, they realize the money is just not in the 
checkbook anymore. One of the root causes is the price of fuel. They 
are probably scratching their heads saying what is the Democrat-led 
majority in the House doing about it? Where is that plan that you were 
referring to that

[[Page 5899]]

the Democrats campaigned on 18 months ago before they took over the 
majority? Where is that plan during these last 16 months now that they 
have been in the majority?
  My constituents wait. You and I wait.
  In the meantime, let's take a look at the facts. Democrats make all 
sorts of claims about the price of energy, about the price of gasoline 
prices. I would like to address just three or four of them.
  First of all, one of the most frequent things, and you see hearings 
on this over and over, Democrats will say, well, it's because of 
America, it's because of those American oil companies that we have 
skyrocketing prices. Let's get into the facts a little bit about that, 
though. U.S. energy companies are not even in the top 10 when you look 
at total proven oil reserves and gas reserves in the entire world.
  For example, ExxonMobil has less than 5 percent of the stock held by 
Saudi Aramco. A full 53 percent of the price we pay for gasoline when 
we go to the pump is related to the price of the crude oil that goes 
into it, a world commodity.
  Can Democrats really accuse American oil companies of so influencing 
prices when they own such a marginally small amount of the total world 
supply? When we think about it, this is a part and parcel of the 
Democrat blame America first doctrine here too in energy.
  Secondly, Democrats say that the U.S. needs to decrease demand for 
oil. We have to live more modestly, I guess, is what that really 
translates out to be.
  It turns out the facts are this, in recent years U.S. American 
families' demand for oil and all its uses has actually begun to 
stabilize, and we have seen over a period of time an actual decrease in 
the amount of use. Meanwhile, world demand for oil has actually 
increased to 84 million barrels a year. That's an increase of 16 
million barrels just over the last decade.
  While we are willing and able and want to work with the other side of 
the aisle to come up with ways to conserve fuel, the facts point to the 
fact that we should not be blaming America first with regard to 
increased use of oil. But it's the rest of the world that is just 
increasing their consumption, which is a supply and demand factor.
  Thirdly, Democrats are off to say that the Americans already have 
reliable access to energy supplies. Well, when we get into the facts, 
it refutes what the Democrats are saying.
  The U.S., as a matter of fact, is the only, the only industrial 
Nation in the entire world that locks up 85 percent of its open 
available deep sea energy reserves. Let me repeat that number again, 85 
percent of our reserves offshore and elsewhere are locked up. We can't 
get to them. You and I can't use them today, our children can't use 
them tomorrow, grandchildren in the future, they are locked up under 
their plan.
  Even worse, we have not even built a new refinery in this country for 
the last 32 years. As a result of these factors, 63 percent of our 
energy supplies that we should be able to use right here in this 
country are obtained from foreign sources instead. The Democrat plan 
makes us even more reliant on foreign sources, those same foreign 
sources that are unreliable, unstable and oftentimes hostile to the 
United States as well.

                              {time}  2015

  Fourthly, Democrats claim that the Federal Government, the 
bureaucrats here in Washington, must micromanage, if you will, and 
regulate these American oil companies. Again, what are the facts. The 
facts are that in 2007, these very same American oil companies and 
themselves spent $183 billion in new investment. What does that do, 
that leads to the development of more efficient environmental fuels on 
the market.
  Meanwhile, the Democrat majority has voted to raise taxes four 
separate times just during the 110th Congress. I began my remarks 
asking what has 16 months under Democrat control wrought when it comes 
to this country, well, one point there is four separate times taxes 
have gone up during this Congress. And where does that end up being 
paid from? Well, tomorrow is April 15, tax day, and we know who pays. 
It comes down not on the corporations and big business, it is comes 
down on the consumer.
  So soaring prices are the result of supply and demand, and the best 
approach to energy efficiency and cost reduction is one that is market 
based. The worst approach is no plan whatsoever, which is what we have 
seen by the other side of the aisle, and a lack of a plan that engages 
in such rhetoric as blame America first, restrict the development of 
efficient energy resources that are American based, and the worst plan 
is to make the United States and the citizens of this country even more 
reliant on those unstable and hostile regimes.
  I thank the gentleman for coming to the floor tonight and reminding 
all of America about the dilemma that we face going in, both in the 
short term with the family budget today and the future, and the great 
need we have to have a plan put in place and implemented. I look 
forward to working with you to achieve such.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague for coming down to the floor. As he 
was speaking I was thinking, and of course I started by talking about 
two buzz words that are out there because of this politicized season. I 
think we need to merge them together.
  What we have from the Democrat majority on energy policy is bitter 
change. Bitter change; $58 a barrel for crude oil to $111 per barrel of 
crude oil; $2.40 for a gallon of gasoline to $3.50. We have bitter 
change, not good change, bitter change because there is no energy 
policy.
  First there are the grand promises made by the Democratic leadership 
which I quoted earlier and will probably quote again. No change, bad 
change, bitter change. It is unfortunate because it is our citizens who 
are feeling the burden.
  I started this last week again during the healthy beaches discussion. 
It is amazing as I was looking at the stories over the weekend flying 
home and flying back today, a whole bunch of articles. ``Truckers feel 
the crunch of high diesel prices.'' This one is better. ``Independent 
truckers join strike.'' It has tractor-trailer rigs, shut them down, on 
strike. Try $4 a gallon; bitter change to the independent truck driver. 
There is no energy policy. When you have no policy, you have a failed 
policy.
  Another article, ``High fuel prices mean high costs.'' There is a lot 
of blame being given to the agricultural sector because of the high 
cost of food, but the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City said over the 
past three decades, rising labor and energy costs have boosted that 
share steadily from 67 percent in the 1970s to 80 percent today.
  The Federal Reserve Bank also estimated that a 10 percent gain in 
energy prices could contribute to 5.2 percent increase in retail food 
prices. And, John Urbanchuk in an article ``The Relative Impact of Corn 
and Energy Prices in the Grocery Aisle'' on June 14, 2007, said rising 
energy prices had a more significant impact on food prices than did 
corn.
  Bitter change; no energy plan. The Democrats failed to bring supply 
into the energy debate. We can pass efficiencies and renewables, but 
the reality is it is only nibbling around the edges. The Energy 
Information Agency projects a 30 percent increase in demand in 
electricity by 2030, a 30 percent demand increase. And we are nibbling 
around the edges. People think we are going to do it with solar panels 
and wind turbines. They can help. We would like to have them. In fact, 
I just heard Illinois is one of the largest States to try to employ 
wind power. But it is not going to meet our demand. Energy prices are 
going to go up, and when they do, the average American citizen, 
especially in rural America, pays a disproportionate burden because we 
have to travel long distances to go to work. We don't have the commuter 
rails and the bus services. What we have is our truck. And we like our 
trucks.
  I am going to talk about electricity generation. I have spent a lot 
of time

[[Page 5900]]

on liquid fuels, but I am joined by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Sullivan) and so I yield to him at this time.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. I thank Congressman Shimkus, and I appreciate your 
leadership today and also on the Energy and Commerce Committee where 
Congressman Shimkus has worked hard on issues to help solve the 
problems in this country.
  Congressman Shimkus, you are right. I didn't realize until you showed 
the chart, how much under Democratic leadership oil prices have gone 
up. It is staggering. And gas prices have gone up, too, under 
Democratic leadership in this Congress.
  Congressman Shimkus knows, too, that we have tried very hard on the 
Energy and Commerce Committee to have rational, comprehensive solutions 
in this country. We had a bill recently where Congressman Shimkus tried 
to get some of his legislation into this bill that would have helped a 
great deal, the coal-to-liquids technology, and it was stifled. They 
wouldn't allow it in.
  What kind of bill did we get. Congressman Shimkus is right, ``no'' is 
not an energy policy. We got no energy policy. We got a bill that was 
energy policy in name only.
  What they did was they had those curly light bulbs with mercury from 
China in them and everybody is going to put the bulbs in their homes, 
and that is really going to help our energy solution. That is a step in 
the right direction, I guess, but it is not going to solve our problem.
  Also they looked at efficiencies in our appliances, which is a good 
thing, but we need to go much, much further.
  One of the things that Congressman Shimkus talked about is supply and 
demand, and that is what this is all about. We haven't built a refinery 
in this country in the last 30 years. Congressman Garrett was talking 
about that. That is a problem. When all of our refineries are operating 
at maximum capacity, you can only get so much fuel out of them. We need 
more refineries in this country, and we can do it in an environmentally 
sound way.
  Also, we need to spur domestic production, getting more oil, gas and 
coal in the United States instead of relying on countries, particularly 
in the Middle East, that we have been at war with recently. That is not 
a good idea. If it is in our backyard, let's get it here. Nobody wants 
to hurt the environment. Everybody wants to have clean air, water, and 
land. The oil, gas and coal companies do, too.
  We also need in our energy policy to start looking at other energy 
sources as well. That is important, getting away from oil, gas and 
coal, but it is not going to be in the near future. It is a pure 
technology-driven issue. And we need alternative sources of energy. We 
need solar and wind. We need nuclear. We need alternative fuels. We 
need all of those things, but it is going to take time. You can't do it 
immediately. We need to develop those technologies to where they can be 
brought to the public, like batteries in cars developed to where people 
can afford them, and develop and use alternative energy sources. And we 
need to develop more gas and oil here in the United States.
  You know, Cuba allows China to drill off the coast of Florida. Yet in 
the United States, we can't drill in a lot of places offshore here in 
the United States. We can't do it.
  Also here in the United States there are areas where we can't explore 
in. We hear a lot about the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve. Let's develop 
that here in the United States. There is a vast quantity of oil in the 
Alaskan Wildlife Reserve. We can develop it in an environmentally sound 
way where it is not going to hurt some caribou or anything like that. 
The Alaskan pipeline, they said that was going to happen there, yet the 
caribou actually like the pipeline. They use it for shelter.
  But if we develop the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve, let's put it in 
perspective. If ANWR were the size of a football field, the area we are 
talking about drilling in would be the size of a postage stamp on the 
football field. The footprint we drill in would be relatively small. 
Oil and gas companies want to do it in an environmentally sound way. 
And some experts say we could produce at least 2 million barrels a day 
out of ANWR. We were importing almost that much from Saddam Hussein and 
Iraq before the war happened. We could lessen that.
  It is ridiculous that we depend so much on countries that have been 
hostile to the United States on something that is so important.
  But when we look at energy policy, we need to look at it from a 
multi-pronged approach. We need to look at all of the oil, gas and 
coal. They are here to stay for the time being. But we need to look at 
alternative energy sources as well. I think everybody agrees that is 
important.
  We need real solutions. We need real energy policy in this country, 
and we are not getting it from the Democrat-controlled Congress. We 
have worked hard and Congressman Shimkus has worked hard in the 
committee to get these things done, but they stifle them every time. We 
need real solutions to real problems, and this is a problem that if we 
don't address relatively soon, it is going to come home to roost. It is 
a national security issue. We are putting ourselves in jeopardy, and it 
is wrong. It is the wrong thing to do.
  Again, I commend Congressman Shimkus for all he does on the Energy 
and Commerce Committee and for doing this special order tonight.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague, and especially for again returning 
the focus to the national security dynamics of this.
  The United States Air Force is the number one consumer of aviation 
fuel in the world. What are they asking for? They want a safe, reliable 
supply of aviation fuel. Reliable. The only way they are going to get a 
reliable supply of aviation fuel is if that aviation fuel is produced 
by a commodity product where we are not relying on importation. That 
goes back to this debate on coal-to-liquid technologies.
  Again, just in the Illinois coal basin alone, 250 years worth, as 
much energy as Saudi Arabia has in crude oil, just the Illinois coal 
basin alone. We are not talking about the Wyoming-Montana coal basin or 
the West Virginia, Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky region. We are talking 
about the Illinois coal basin has as much energy as Saudi Arabia has in 
oil.
  So as we go back to the coal-to-liquid debate and we are talking 
about national security, and we need to have the fuel to fly our war 
machines, coal, locally discovered, developed, brought to the surface, 
with a coal-to-liquid refinery, built by the building trades, operated 
by organized labor and our boilermaker friends, high-paying wages, good 
benefits, not on the coastal plain, in the Midwest, pipeline to, and 
this chart just happens to show an F-18 Tomcat, a United States Air 
Force fighter plane.

                              {time}  2030

  Our Air Force is asking for this for national security, a reliable 
source of jet fuel, and we continue to delay.
  What's the other world doing? What's the other countries, other world 
doing?
  Well, Russia is attempting to grab a vast chunk of the Arctic to 
claim to its vast potential oil, gas and mineral wells to fuel that 
country's economy. Russia's going after fossil fuels.
  Well, what's our other friends doing?
  Brazil, Russia, India and China have overtaken the United States in 
dominating the global energy industry, according to a study by Goldman 
Sachs.
  What's the Chinese doing? China is building 40 nuclear plants in the 
next 15 years. 40. We'll be lucky to have one. One. No carbon emissions 
in a nuclear power plant. Zero.
  I think that's the biggest frustration that a lot of us have from our 
friends on the environmental left. They don't like nuclear power. They 
don't like coal. They don't like crude oil. We're trying to find out 
what they like.
  China is planning 40 nuclear power plants in the next 15 years, and I 
pray that we have one. I would be ecstatic to have four. There's no way 
we'll have 15. There's just no way. The United States has not licensed 
one nuclear power plant in 30 years, not one, due to my friends on the 
other side's continued opposition to nuclear power.
  We could bring nuclear power legislation to the floor in this 
Congress. And

[[Page 5901]]

it would have bipartisan support. All the Republicans would support it. 
Well, we might lose about three. And I bet we could grab 40 Democrats 
that would support it. I bet we could have a bipartisan majority vote 
on coal-to-liquid technologies. I'd bet it'd be the same. We'd have all 
the Republicans minus a handful, and we'd get about 40 Democrat votes. 
But this Democrat leadership will not bring a bill to the floor that 
addresses the supply debate.
  China opened new domestic energy reserves in 2004 and has planned to 
increase production by about 8 billion barrels by 2010.
  Democrats refuse to allow American workers to produce American oil. 
In fact, in the energy debate last year, not the final bill that 
passed, but the two that didn't get signed into law, they put another 
area of natural gas off limits.
  We need increased supply. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know 
that if you want lower prices, you have to have more supply. We don't 
get any help.
  China's increasing offshore energy production to reduce its own 
dependence on foreign oil. Let me say that, because I've got some 
friends over there who live on the coast. China is increasing offshore 
energy production. In fact, we know just 50 miles off of Florida, 50 
miles, it's not a U.S. energy company or a U.S. energy exploration to 
go after the oil in the Gulf 50 miles off Miami. It's China. China has 
better access to our oil reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf than 
we have. Isn't that crazy?
  China's increasing offshore energy production to reduce its own 
dependence on foreign oil, growing that production at an average of 
15.3 percent per year, with plans to make offshore oil production 
China's largest source of oil by doubling production by 2010.
  And we know what happens any time we talk about offshore exploration, 
a counting of gas and oil reserves, just trying to figure out what's 
there we have a fight.
  China invested $24 billion in large scale coal liquification 
technologies. Oh, that sounds familiar. Coal-to-liquid technologies.
  The United States, what are we doing? Zip, zero, nada, nothing.
  What's China doing? China invested $24 billion in large scale coal 
liquification technology. We can't get a vote on that on the floor. 
China's expanding its natural gas infrastructure by constructing 
pipelines. We can't get a pipeline bill moved.
  China rapidly is expanding its refining capacity. Democrats have 
repeatedly voted against expanding American refinery capacity. In fact, 
one of the huge problems we have, which I find is really--I think 
people understand that we import crude oil. We're relying on imported 
crude oil and that's bad.
  What the public, I think, would even get angrier at is we import 
refined product. We import gasoline. So not only, we lose the refining 
jobs. It would be better for us to import the crude oil and refine that 
crude oil, or at least we'd have our friends in the refining industry, 
many of those bargaining unit employees would have jobs. But we are 
importing refined product. Criminal negligence.
  China is ambitiously developing its nuclear power industry with plans 
to spend approximately $50 billion on 30 additional nuclear reactors 
within the next 15 years. China is planning on constructing many new 
large scale hydroelectric projects over the forecast period, including 
the 18.2 gigawatt Three Gorges dam project, which is scheduled to be 
operational by 2009.
  In fact, we're tearing down dams. We're not expanding hydroelectric 
power. 50 percent of the electricity we use is produced by coal in this 
country. 50 percent. 20 percent by nuclear power, 20 percent by 
hydroelectric, and the rest the others.
  I'm going to move to the concern. With no plan to address this 
problem, which is the escalating costs of crude oil, again, when 
Speaker Pelosi took over, $58 a barrel, crude oil.
  I'll be honest. Bush took over it was $27. I always say that. Bush it 
was $27, Pelosi, $58, now $111. With all the promises, and maybe I'll 
just read those one more time as I end.
  But the basic premise is, under Democrat leadership of the House, the 
average American is paying more. We're paying more. We're going to pay 
more in taxes. We know that. But this isn't a special order on taxes. 
This is a special order on energy.
  We're paying more at the pump. Here's the reason why. The high cost 
of a barrel of crude oil, we're relying on imported crude oil. One 
solution would be technology. Another would be to move into electric 
cars. But guess what? Electric cars need an electric supply. They'll 
need nuclear power plants. They'll need coal generating, coal, then the 
electricity generation plants buy coal. There's going to be, we have to 
have something to charge the batteries to allow these battery-run cars 
to run.
  Let's talk a minute about global climate change. We know that the 
public is paying more at the pump when the Democrat majority promised 
lower prices. That's a given.
  We had a hearing in the subcommittee last week. My issue to the 
panelists was, the American public, they need to understand that if we 
address global climate change there is going to be a cost.
  Of course, some on the environmental left said no. We're going to 
have all these efficiencies. We're going to have all these new jobs. 
It's going to be a wash.
  Well, it's funny, flying home, an AP story on the 12th, the State of 
California is going to put on the electrical bill, a 25 or 30 percent 
surcharge on customers' electric and gas bills for global climate 
change. So your electricity bills are going to go up. Gas prices are 
up. Electricity prices are up. You're going to pay more in taxes.
  This is bitter change, bitter change, not good change. Bitter change. 
Bitter change for the average American who all they want to do is go to 
work and pay their bills, take care of their family, try to save some 
for the future. They can't save with these high energy prices.
  And you saw the independent truckers, the article I held up.
  If we could have effective change, let's assume that we do all we can 
as Americans to lead the way, go through all this pain. Do you really 
believe that our Chinese friends, after I gave all the stats on what 
they're doing, are going to comply with an international agreement? Not 
only do I not believe it, they've told me no. And I've mentioned this 
in many committee hearings.
  In fact, the senior Chinese official said twice to two of my 
Democratic colleagues' questions when they said, if the United States 
led, would you agree to an international agreement to coal carbon?
  And their answer was, you all have had, well they didn't use you all. 
That's kind of a Southern Illinois thing. They said, you have had 200 
years to develop a middle class in your country using fossil fuels, and 
it's our turn. That doesn't sound like a country that wants to address 
carbon debate in an international arena.
  So should Americans, should we go through all this pain on global 
climate change, and have no gain? Do we go through all this exercise, 
all these job dislocations, all this pain, for not one single benefit?
  And if we do, you know, I just want us to be transparent with our 
citizens. Intellectually honest. Chairman Dingell said, you know, if we 
want to be honest with the American people, what we should do is put 50 
cents additional tax on gasoline and take that money, and address our 
carbon debate.
  Well, that works great. That now takes $3.50 a gallon of gas, which 
people are outraged about, and brings it up to $4. And it's going to 
get to $4 without the additional 50 cent tax. But at least it's 
intellectually honest, saying that there's going to be a cost.
  The California Public Utility Commission is honest. 25 to 30 percent 
increase on your energy bill for climate change. Great.
  Well, it wasn't a front-page story. It was, I don't know, I ripped it 
up. I think it was, like, the Business Section, like D6, way in the 
back. So I'm not sure if it made the front page of the California 
papers, but that's what

[[Page 5902]]

their public utility commission has agreed to do.
  All pain, no gain. The public needs to know the cost and be prepared 
to assume the cost.
  All I see in this debate on energy is bitter change, bitter change 
for the working men and women of this country. This is contrary to the 
promises made.
  April 24, 2006, Speaker  Nancy Pelosi said ``Democrats have a 
commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' Bring 
down skyrocketing gas. They weren't even skyrocketing then compared to 
what we have now. Now we've got skyrocketing gas prices.
  Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, ``Democrats believe that we can do 
more for the American people who are struggling to deal with high gas 
prices.''
  Y'all did more? You raised gas prices even more.
  Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn said, ``House Democrats have a plan to 
help curb rising gas prices.''

                              {time}  2045

  No energy plan is a plan to fail. We go from $58.31 a barrel of crude 
oil to today, $111.
  Now, I got these on little, kind of like a Blue Dog type of thing. I 
got this on a moveable type of a number system here. So that if it goes 
up, I can add. If it goes down, I can adjust. But the reality is, the 
spread, under the leadership of this House, has only gone up. And I 
believe, and the economists today believe, it will continue to go up.
  We can do better. We can do better. I talked to many of my friends on 
the other side. I actually voted for CAFE language. That was a hard 
thing for me to do. Helped expand the renewable fuel standard. Brought 
biodiesel and ethanol into the national energy debate. That's all good 
stuff. Energy Star provisions. Electricity savings provisions. We want 
the deployment of solar cells. We want wind power. As I mentioned 
earlier, Illinois could be at the forefront of electricity generation 
by wind.
  What we do know, Texas had to call their high electricity users when 
their wind turbines stopped turning because the wind stopped blowing. 
That's the challenge of renewable energy. Instead of having a 
consistent base-load energy, and in this country it's undisputed that 
coal is the primary commodity product that produces 50 percent of the 
electricity generation in this country. The electricity we're using in 
the Capitol building tonight is produced by coal. The electricity on 
the Capitol grounds is produced by coal.
  There are some of my friends on the other side that would like us to 
not use another ounce of fossil fuels ever in this country. I am afraid 
of those days because those days will only occur when there's another 
worldwide recession. And you want to see the pain and the agony and the 
frustration on the middle- and the lower-middle class of our country, 
wait till there's no jobs. We won't be putting carbon in the air. That 
will be good for some people, but we won't be employing our citizens 
either. And that will be a shame.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me this time. I want to 
thank my colleagues, Congressman Garrett and Congressman Sullivan, for 
joining me in a plea to my friends on the other side that, as we 
continue to talk about energy, we don't disregard the supply debate. 
That's got to be part of the solution. It just has to be because just 
so much of the electricity that we use today is based upon 50 percent 
coal, 20 percent nuclear, 20 percent hydroelectric. They have to be 
part of the mix. It's my plea that, as we move forward and try to 
address the high cost of electricity and liquid fuel, we remember the 
great resources that we have in this country and have a plan to use 
them.

                          ____________________