[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 10984-10985]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        DEVELOP AMERICAN ENERGY

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. BILL SALI

                                of idaho

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 22, 2008

  Mr. SALI. Madam Speaker, ``if we open a quarrel between past and 
present,'' Winston Churchill reminded us, ``we shall find that we have 
lost the future.''
  Mr. Speaker, I fear that Sir Winston's words are applicable to the 
House today. We are pondering questions about the imprudent decisions 
of our past, and not acting wisely in the present. And we are thus at 
risk of losing America's energy future.
  For the 15th day in a row, the average price for a gallon of gas set 
a new all-time high at $3.83 a gallon. Many of my constituents in 
Idaho, and many Americans will spend more than $50 every time they fill 
up at the gas station--in fact, for those who drive some of the most 
popular vehicles sold in the United States, filling their tank will 
cost more than $98.
  This should be no surprise. Today the United States imports a little 
less than 1/3 of our crude oil from OPEC nations and another roughly 1/
3 from non-OPEC nations who gain the benefit of OPEC price increases 
from production restrictions and we produce a little more than 1/3 of 
from American sources. OPEC is essentially dictating the high prices we 
are paying at the pump.
  Yet American families are being faced not only with record high fuel 
prices but also rising food prices with each passing day. In only two 
years, the price of a gallon of milk has risen by nearly 70 cents. The 
price of bread, in the same period, is up more than 15 percent. And on 
it goes.
  When food staples and gas are both going up in price, the family is 
hit hard. In other words, it's not just family vacations that are being 
cancelled. These high prices also affect the ability of Idahoans to 
afford to get to work, drive their kids to the doctor and buy some of 
the simple necessities of life.
  The implications of rising fuel prices on education are also becoming 
apparent with media reports that some school districts are planning 
four-day school weeks in large part because of the rising cost of 
busing children to school. The costs of transporting school children 
will also affects field trips and other extra-curricular activities.
  Similarly, American senior citizens and low income households have 
been disproportionately affected by higher energy costs. In 2006, 
before the skyrocketing and record breaking fuel price increases we are 
seeing today, low-income households in America spent nearly 20 percent 
of their income on energy-related expenditures.
  This is a moral issue--an issue which for many low income families, 
senior citizens and hardworking families affects their access to 
education and even to their doctors, particularly in a rural state like 
Idaho.
  Congress is and has been in control of the solution. To lower the 
price at the pump and to break our addiction to foreign oil, we must 
increase production of American energy, while in the short term 
conserving and encouraging innovation to increase renewable energy.
  At her press briefing last Thursday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) 
acknowledged one of the universal truths of supply and demand when she 
said ``certainly more supply lowers the price.'' I am relieved that the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California appreciates this elemental 
economic truth.
  In recognizing the truth that supply lowers the price, Democrats 
followed Speaker Pelosi, supporting a bill to halt shipments of crude 
oil from being put into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. They estimated 
that the resulting increases in supply of a mere 70,000 barrels per day 
would decrease prices by 5 cents a gallon at the pump. Although 
recognizing this truth, my Democrat colleagues continue to oppose the 
production of American crude oil.
  Today, 73 percent of every dollar we pay for gasoline at the pump is 
the price of producing crude oil. Increasing the supply of crude oil, 
and thereby reducing the price of crude oil, is the single most 
effective thing Congress can do to lower gas prices.
  And yet while my colleagues across the aisle understand that 
increasing supply is necessary, they consistently have opposed 
increasing the supply of American-made energy

[[Page 10985]]

through increased production of American crude oil.
  I find this stunning in large part because our dependency on foreign 
oil is so unnecessary. As far back as 1980, the then-Democrat 
Congress--under then-President Jimmy Carter--set aside a specific 
parcel of land in Alaska for oil and gas development. In 1996 Congress 
voted to explore and produce crude oil from those lands, but president 
Clinton vetoed that bill. Since then, Congress has failed the American 
people in not pursuing the domestic exploration and production of oil. 
It's that simple.
  Congress has continued to erect huge roadblocks to exploration and 
development of oil on federal lands and has prohibited deep water 
exploration and development of oil and natural gas resources.
  If we are to remain prosperous, America needs energy--American energy 
from every source possible. This means that we must develop and produce 
oil and natural gas, but it also means we must be innovative--
innovative in conserving energy and innovative in producing alternative 
and renewable sources of energy.
  Electricity is just as vital as gas. It is estimated that our demand 
for electricity will increase by 25 percent over the next 20 years or 
so.
  For example, there is great potential for woody bio-mass as an 
alternative and renewable resource. This would allow us in Idaho to 
remove hazardous fuels from the forest and seek ways to use it to 
produce energy.
  In the Northwest, whenever we talk about renewable and clean energy, 
we cannot forget traditional hydropower, which provides 60 percent of 
all power supply to the Northwest.
  Hydropower is renewable and for America means no greenhouse gas 
emissions. Hydropower offsets more carbon emissions than all other 
renewable energy resources combined. It's a viable, clean and potent 
source of energy.
  Similarly, nuclear power will be essential for our future. It is safe 
and clean and affordable. There are 104 reactors in the U.S. at 
present, and licenses for 30 more nuclear power plants are being sought 
by a variety of companies and groups. Nuclear power is environmentally-
friendly and cost-efficient for producers and consumers alike.
  In sum, we have substantial energy supplies available on the lands 
within our own nation.
  Tragically, due to the policy changes encouraged by the majority 
party, Americans across this country have only continued to see higher 
and higher gas prices.
  Congress must not, in some sad tribute to the cramped ideology of an 
extreme agenda, fail to allow the use of the resources we possess 
within our borders and within our technological and economic grasp.
  America needs a sound energy policy that develops domestic energy 
from every source available, including crude oil, natural gas, clean 
coal, hydropower, nuclear power and every alternative source of energy.
  To put it another way, we need all the energy we can get from all the 
sources we can afford to access. Period.
  Madam Speaker, let's not lose our future because we dawdle in the 
present. Let us summon the courage and fortitude to act, and act now. 
As Winston Churchill, a man greatly honored by our country would, I 
believe, agree, the American people, and the future they hope for, 
deserve no less.

                          ____________________