[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12046-12053]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walberg) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  And just to make sure that my constituents know that I have not 
changed States, it's Michigan. It starts with an ``M,'' it's up north, 
it's cold, generally. I can understand that. But I'm sure proud to 
represent Michigan, and more importantly, the Seventh District of 
Michigan in this great House of Representatives.
  Tonight I am committed to talking about an issue that is of extreme 
importance to my constituents, and in fact from what we read, 
constituents of all of our districts all over this great United States 
because we are in a time and place and setting right now that, frankly, 
we aren't used to.
  And may I submit tonight to all who would listen that, frankly, I 
don't think we should ever get used to it for America is too great of a 
Nation and has been the ambassador of great blessing to the rest of the 
world in many cases. It has set the course, has charted the way toward 
greater economic achievement, standard of living, advances in 
technology, business, industry, education, medicine, and 
transportation.
  I happen to come from the district where Henry Ford had his home, 
made homes and schools for his employees in a great part of my 
district, used the resources from that district, including during some 
wartimes some Sassafras trees just three miles from my house that were 
used to make a light but strong frame for his motor cars with the 
absence of steel at that point in time because of the war effort.
  I come from the State that has been known as the Motor Capital of the 
World, Michigan. Detroit has set the standard that the rest of the 
world has followed, emulated, copied, and sometimes even expanded upon, 
and yet still America, Michigan, the Motor Capital, charts the way.
  Just the other day--I tell this story for a purpose, but just the 
other day I had something of an experience happen to me that has never 
happened before, nor did I expect it to happen. I filled the tank of my 
Harley Davidson motorcycle, which has a 5-gallon tank, and it

[[Page 12047]]

cost me over $20. Now, for those of you that have ridden motorcycles, 
it is almost unbelievable to think that a vehicle that gets great gas 
mileage, that has a small tank like that would ever cost double digits, 
let alone over $20 to fill. But that's the place we're in right now 
with gas today on average across the United States at $4.04 a gallon. 
My Harley happens to take premium. So I paid $4.27 a gallon for that 5-
gallon tank fill.

                              {time}  1930

  Less than 2 years ago, very seldom, if ever, would I double-digit 
fill my tank, even if it were on empty. Now, I don't ride my Harley 
Davidson for transportation anymore.
  It's primarily for recreation, but 38 years ago when I started riding 
my first motorcycle it was for transportation, to get to and from my 
work. Over the course of successive years, I would use my motorcycle in 
the better seasons of the year, the warmer time, to ride to work and 
enjoy that experience but also as commuting. I don't do that anymore, 
but we're paying gas prices now that should not be part and parcel of 
what America is.
  We talk a lot about energy independence and being willing to compete 
and make sure that the rest of the world has to compete with us, as 
opposed to the other way around. And yet, up to this very day, in the 
outcome of what has gone on in Congress, it has been just talk and no 
action.
  Last week, I heard the governor of our great State of Michigan 
announce on a major radio talk show that she was now riding a bicycle 
to the Capitol from her governor's residence each day, and when the 
host expressed concern about her safety, she said, oh, no problem, my 
security detail are following me on their bicycles as well.
  Now, that's a nice story. I don't give any negatives toward our 
governor for being efficient in her use of energy resources, but you've 
got to understand that, when I heard that, it shocked me. And in fact, 
if not angered, it frustrated me to think that the governor of the 
motor capital of the world was riding a bicycle to work, even though 
she has an energy efficient, flex-fuel vehicle that I've seen her use 
and seen her actually fill the gas tank with fuel.
  Right now, more importantly, getting to the real world of real 
people, people who pay those gas prices each day, people who pay their 
taxes, that includes supporting this Congress in what we do, right now 
most Michigan families that I know of, as I go back to my district each 
weekend, are giving up things like nights out eating at restaurants or 
family vacations or traveling to family events in order to cover the 
rising cost of gasoline. If Congress does not take action soon, 
families will be giving up much more than that. They will be giving up 
very specific needs, necessities in their life. And in fact, what I've 
heard in many town hall meetings, some are already giving up even 
necessities of their life in order to pay for the gasoline to get to 
their workplace the next day in order to sometime hopefully pay for 
some of these necessities.
  Just this past weekend, AAA announced that the nationwide average gas 
price finally reached over $4 per gallon. It's been much higher in 
Michigan for several weeks. High gas prices are affecting families, 
truckers, farmers, small business owners. I met a small business owner 
in my office today who said the cost of transporting copy machines, 
office equipment to and from her client is getting almost prohibitive. 
Emergency services, public safety, and numerous other entities in 
Michigan's Seventh District and all over this U.S. are being negatively 
affected by the high cost, and I say the unnecessarily high cost, of 
fuel.
  Despite fuel costs at levels previously only seen in Europe, 
leadership in this Congress refuses to increase American energy 
production. Instead, Speaker Pelosi and leading House Democrats would 
rather increase taxes on domestic energy production and increase our 
reliance on OPEC or, as suggested last week, sue OPEC for what all 
that's worth.
  On a related note, the United States Department of Commerce recently 
announced the U.S. trade deficit reached its highest level in 13 months 
in April. Our trade deficit also increased by $4.1 billion between 
February 2007 and February 2008.
  This is why our country is facing a rising trade deficit, even though 
American-made exports grew by 12 percent in 2007. The issue related to 
energy and the cost of energy has a direct influence on this. This is 
why we need to provide incentives to increase America's investment in 
alternative energy and overall production of energy.
  The United States imports around 12 million barrels of oil a day, and 
a barrel of oil has gone from $70 to $140 over the last year, 
dramatically increasing our trade deficit. Our reliance on imported oil 
and increased oil prices means we are sending even more money to 
foreign countries and some that don't like us very much at all and 
certainly don't share our interests.
  For both economic and national security purposes, and again, I want 
to reiterate that, national security purposes, Congress needs to 
finally get serious about an energy plan that truly lowers prices at 
the pump, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and makes real 
progress towards energy independence. Instead of increasing our 
dependence on OPEC, America needs to return energy production to the 
United States. Doing so will create American jobs and provide needed 
economic stability and transportation that's efficient and usable to 
our American taxpayer.
  The answer to our current energy crisis must be multi-pronged, and I 
have cosponsored legislation to provide incentives along those lines 
for solar, wind, cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel and other green 
alternatives. We must increase domestic energy production through 
carbon-free nuclear power and clean coal technology as well. I'm also 
cosponsoring legislation that would encourage conservation with tax 
credits for green buildings and legislation that would spark a 
revolution in clean hydrogen technology.
  There are many sources where we can move toward if we're willing to 
dig down deep and do what's necessary and walk away from those 
unnecessarily strong, critical, excessive environmental forces that 
don't speak to the welfare of this great country.
  Today, I introduced a discharge petition, something that isn't done 
regularly in Congress, something that isn't successful regularly but 
has been. I trust that this discharge motion will be. As of this point 
in time, with just a few hours with that discharge motion being on the 
floor, 93 of my colleagues have signed on, moving toward the 218 that 
are necessary.
  This petition, if effective with 218 signatures, will force a vote on 
Congressman Mac Thornberry's No More Excuses Energy Act, an Act 
suitably entitled, legislation to increase U.S. energy production and 
invest in alternative sources of energy as well.
  This appropriately named legislation would impact the price at the 
pump and lower electric bills. It would encourage the construction of 
new refineries, boost alternative energy, supplemental energy 
development by extending the wind production tax credit for 10 years, 
giving some certainty that if I were to invest in wind energy 
production, I would have a reasonable amount of time to see a return on 
my investment.
  It would increase American oil production by allowing environmentally 
sound drilling in Alaska, the Outer Continental Shelf and the Gulf of 
Mexico, and it would help increase our supply of electricity by 
encouraging the construction of new nuclear power plants. Even leaders, 
in fact, one of the founders of Greenpeace, have come out strongly 
encouraging the use of nuclear power as being clean, green energy, not 
given over to continuing production of greenhouse gases.
  Rather than increase taxes on domestic energy production, as some in 
Congress have proposed, I'm working to pass sound legislation that will 
bring down the price of gas and reduce our dependence on Middle East 
oil. Legislation like the No More Excuses Energy Act of Mac Thornberry 
would increase the supply of American energy and increase the number of 
good paying jobs in this country and in my district, the Seventh 
District of Michigan.

[[Page 12048]]

  Policies such as a 23-year moratorium on exploring and developing 
offshore production of clean and green natural gas need to be lifted in 
order to lower prices and reduce our dependence on foreign gas. Natural 
gas provides 23 percent of our Nation's energy. It should be more. And 
America is the only developed Nation that prohibits offshore production 
and exploration of this clean, green, clean burning resource, and 
Americans are paying higher electricity and heating bills as a result 
of this.
  Like all of you, I'm tired of paying these high prices. Whether it's 
for my motorcycle, whether it's for my car or whether it's for my pick-
up truck, I'm tired of paying this because it's unnecessary, as we've 
done nothing to change that except talk, and it's time to put action 
into place.
  I know high prices are affecting all of us. This is unacceptable. It 
is unacceptable for America to put up with this. The good people of 
south central Michigan, the good people of Michigan, the good people of 
the rest of the States in this wonderful country who depend on gasoline 
or diesel to get to work, drive their kids to baseball practice and 
visit family members deserve better.
  The volunteers who offer to drive veterans to VA hospitals in my 
district and other districts in other States deserve better.
  The volunteers who offer to drive Meals on Wheels to needy senior 
citizens deserve better than this.
  Our churches and synagogues, our places of worship all across this 
great country that will be looking at looming fuel bills that many will 
be unable to pay this coming heating season deserve better than this 
because America doesn't need to be in this situation.
  So I'm delighted that tonight I'm joined by a number of my colleagues 
who will add to what has been stated already, probably more eloquently, 
with points of experience that come from all over this country. I 
appreciate their commitment to doing something more than talking about 
energy independence, doing something more than talking about resuming 
America's position of leading the world in all areas, including the 
area of energy production and usage.
  We have blessed the world with our standard of living, with our 
technology and with our energy, and it is time to get about that 
project again.
  So at this time, I would like to ask my good friend and colleague 
from Georgia, Dr. Paul Broun, to add to what has been said. I 
appreciate you taking the time to be with us this evening.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank my colleague.
  According to AAA, the average American is paying over $4.04 per 
gallon of gasoline today. Meanwhile, Communist China and Fidel Castro's 
Communist Cuba are moving forward with drilling for oil and gas just 45 
miles off of the coast of Florida and Key West.
  We cannot even drill for oil or gas 200 miles off our own shores; yet 
congressional Democrats continue to refuse to allow access to American 
gas and oil supplies. The average price of gasoline has gone up $1.71 
per gallon since Speaker Pelosi's promise, promise, to lower energy 
prices at the beginning of the 110th Congress, this Congress.
  What have the Democrats done to try to help hardworking Americans? 
They're simply seeking political gain from America's pain. Democratic 
Presidential candidate Barack Obama said he wants to impose more taxes 
on U.S. oil companies. Is that really a smart solution? This will only 
drive up prices on Americans, not just for gasoline but for every 
product or service purchased. Even worse is that foreign oil companies 
will not be subject to this joke of a solution.
  The liberals propose raising the Federal tax on gasoline and diesel 
by 50 cents per gallon. This is on top of the already existing Federal 
tax of 18.4 cents per gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon for 
diesel. Under this proposal, you will be paying at today's prices $4.54 
a gallon for gas.
  Liberals also suggest mandating ethanol and renewable fuel production 
and selling it as the answer to America's energy needs. The 2007 lack 
of energy bill has already proven that the Democratic solution is 
wrong. Mandating the production of renewable fuels has only led to an 
increase in world food prices.

                              {time}  1945

  It is, at best, disingenuous, and at worst, an outright lie to say 
that renewable fuels can meet America's needs in the near future. As a 
good southerner, I love my corn bread and grits. It makes no sense to 
put corn in the tank of my truck.
  The Department of the Interior estimates that there are 112 billion 
particles of recoverable oil beneath U.S. Federal lands and coastal 
waters, enough oil to fuel 60 million cars for 60 years. The United 
States is the only nation in the world that forbids any production on 
its Outer Continental Shelf. Despite a decades-long record of 
environmentally responsible offshore production, over 80 percent of 
America's oil and natural gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf 
are completely off limits to exploration and production.
  The OCS, Outer Continental Shelf, is estimated to hold at least 419 
trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas resources and 86 billion 
barrels of oil. To put it in simple terms, this is enough natural gas 
to heat 100 million homes for 60 years, and enough oil to drive 85 
million cars for 35 years, and enough oil to completely replace current 
Middle Eastern oil imports for 59 years.
  We've heard time and time again about how drilling off the OCS will 
harm the environment. This is hogwash. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 
destroyed or damaged hundreds of drilling rigs without causing a single 
drop to be spilled, yet congressional Democrats continue to pander to 
far left environmentalists instead of mending the pains of hardworking 
Americans.
  Liberals also prevent any access to billions of barrels of oil 
located in ANWR. The entire area of ANWR is larger than the combined 
areas of five States--Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New 
Jersey, Delaware--yet the proposed drilling area is equal to one-sixth 
the size of Dulles Airport here in Washington, D.C.
  Energy prices are soaring. And the financial pain that families are 
feeling at the pump is forcing them to decide what they can and cannot 
spend. Congressional Democrats act as if they have been living under a 
rock by continuing to ignore the demands of the American people and 
refusing to do anything to lower these burdensome prices.
  Skyrocketing gas prices and a risky dependence on fuel supply by 
volatile foreign nations highlight our need for an American energy 
policy that emphasizes production and decreases our reliance on Middle 
Eastern oil.
  The United States is the only nation on Earth that forbids 
development of its own natural resources. Right now, America is 
drilling for ice on Mars, but we cannot drill for oil in America. This 
makes no sense. It's crazy. It's idiotic. We must drill on our own 
lands, and we must drill now. We must streamline the permitting process 
and the refinery processes to get new refineries online, and we must 
end our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
  Mr. Walberg, I greatly appreciate your doing this tonight; it is 
absolutely critical. I'm a medical doctor, as you know. I have patients 
who have to decide whether they can go to the doctor or not because 
gasoline prices are so high. I have patients who have to decide whether 
they can put a tank of gas in their car or they can go buy medications. 
This has to end. And we can do something about it. We can do something 
about it now if we have a responsible energy policy.
  Our conference, as you know, has put forth a plan, a reasonable plan, 
an economically viable plan, an environmentally sensitive plan, a plan 
that will end this dependence upon Middle Eastern oil. It's a plan 
where we can provide the energy sources, not only our oil resources, 
but provide electric resources by permitting nuclear energy.
  We have not built a new refinery in America for 30 years. We have not 
built

[[Page 12049]]

a new nuclear reactor in 25 years. This is nuts, it's absolutely crazy. 
And we've got to end this idiocy of this current policy.
  I applaud what you're doing here tonight. I look forward to further 
discussion from our other colleagues. I know that we have colleagues 
that want to ask questions and want to engage in a colloquy, if that's 
agreeable with you.
  Mr. WALBERG. Well, Congressman Broun, I think we want to do that. And 
I think you've brought up some points that are interesting to think 
about. Not only do we have a governor riding a bicycle to the Capitol, 
we are exploring for ice on Mars, but not doing exploration for oil--
that we know is there----
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. That's right, it's just nuts.
  Mr. WALBERG. In Alaska, in ANWR.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Anywhere. We've got oil under South Dakota, 
North Dakota and Montana. Those three States evidently are just 
floating on a sea of oil. There is supposed to be more oil, from what I 
understand, than is in the Middle East.
  We can end our dependence on these foreign nations that want to 
destroy us, that want to destroy America. They hate us. And we're 
fueling the insurgency in Iraq. We're fueling these people who hate us. 
They hate our freedom, they hate America, they hate everything that we 
stand for.
  Mr. WALBERG. And for those nations that love America and appreciate 
America, we're not standing in a strengthened position that we can 
afford to them the assurance that America will be there when necessary 
because we can take care of ourselves, we're independent. And I think 
those are issues you bring up.
  I'm delighted that we have the Dean of the Michigan delegation here, 
Congressman Fred Upton, who has been here through a lot and I'm sure 
has taken a lot of grief on this issue.
  And Congressman Upton, before I turn to you, let me just, for the 
record, state, as you and some of my longer serving Republican 
colleagues are chastised for not getting this done in the House, you 
have attempted to get it done on numerous occasions. If we look back at 
the last decade, by the numbers, votes on ANWR exploration: House 
Republicans, 91 percent support it; House Democrats, 86 percent 
opposed.
  Coal-to-liquid: House Republicans, 97 percent support it; House 
Democrats, 78 percent opposed. Oil shale exploration: House 
Republicans, 90 percent supported every vote on that in the House; 
House Democrats, 86 percent opposed.
  Moving to the Outer Continental Shelf exploration, where right now 
foreign countries like Japan, China and Mexico are within 44-50 miles 
of our shores, and they are drilling and taking out natural gas and 
oil. On these votes, House Republicans, 81 percent support it; House 
Democrats, 83 percent opposed.
  And then finally, refinery increased capacity, and now that we're 
offering the ``no-more-excuses'' Energy Act, the opportunity to put 
them on abandoned military facilities, government lands, House 
Republicans, 97 percent support it; House Democrats, 96 percent 
opposed.
  Who is willing to take action? Who has evidenced that by their votes 
in this great body, this House of Representatives? Republicans, 91 
percent, when you put it all together, of House Republicans have 
historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and 
gas while 86 percent of House Democrats have historically voted against 
increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.
  And so why do we see an ``energy-less'' energy bill that you talked 
about that gives incentives for bicycle riding and not energy? I think 
we have to say it's a leadership problem. So I thank you for bringing 
up those points.
  Congressman Upton, from my home State of Michigan, I want to turn it 
over to you as well for a little perspective.
  Mr. UPTON. Well, I thank my good friend from my neighboring district. 
And I am pleased to join you tonight and my colleagues from Georgia 
here and Texas now as well. I'd like to just make a couple of points.
  First of all, I'm not on your list of 93 that signed that discharge 
petition, but that's because the line was too long. I hope that I can 
be there tomorrow when we're on the floor for votes, because you have 
to do that, of course--as any student knows of this Chamber--you have 
to sign the discharge petition in the well of the House. And when I was 
available to do that, the line was way too long. So hopefully tomorrow 
I will put you over 100 and get closer to the 218.
  I want to say just a couple of things that perhaps haven't been said 
yet and enter into a dialogue with my good friend, Dr. Gingrey.
  First of all, when we talk about Alaska, I did support drilling in 
Alaska multiple times over the last couple of years. It was adopted, 
actually, in the House and in the Senate with some bipartisan votes, 
and sadly, President Clinton vetoed that bill 10 years ago saying it's 
10 years away. Well, here we are today.
  We had a couple of very good provisions in that bill that were 
important; that all of the oil drilled in Alaska had to stay in the 
United States. It couldn't go to China, couldn't go to Korea or Japan, 
it had to come here. Of course that meant we would have to have the 
refining capability to do it as well. We also made it so that we 
limited it to no more than a couple thousand acres. And as the 
gentleman from Georgia indicated, that's about the size--for me, it's 
the size of Western Michigan University, not Dulles Airport--in an area 
that's the size of the State of South Carolina. So that's pretty small.
  And of course what we know, too, is that if that oil can be drilled 
successfully, we can just build that tangent a little bit to the 
spine--you know, those of us from Michigan, you put your hand up like 
this. I can't quite do that with Alaska. But if this was Alaska, you 
only have to drill that pipeline to the spine, and then it comes down, 
and it's economical to do that. So that's number one.
  Number two, you know, right now President Bush and other world 
leaders are talking to a number of the nations in Arab lands talking 
about what they can do to increase production. Because we all believe 
in supply and demand. And as the demand continues to rise, because the 
supply has stayed relatively stable, the price has only gone up over $4 
in my district and yours, and now across the country.
  Well, how can we ask the Arabs to increase their production and we 
won't do it ourselves? We've said no to Alaska. We've said no to the 
offshore drilling off our west and east coasts and even parts of the 
Gulf of Mexico. Eighty-five percent of our coastline is off limits, and 
yet we know oil is there.
  Let's look at different alternatives. One of the alternatives, of 
course, is the development of oil shale out west, where it's 
anticipated that there could be as much as 1.5 trillion barrels; don't 
quite have the procedures down right, it's a couple years away, but 
you've got to begin that process, to begin the permit process. Much of 
it is on Federal land. No, I'm not talking about Yellowstone Park and 
our national parks, but in BLM land. And yet, on a vote that we had in 
this House last summer, by six votes we failed to allow the Department 
of the Interior to allow the first permits to be approved to allow the 
private sector to go out and explore for this oil shale--which we could 
develop, I would like to think, within a couple years, four to six, 
something along that line. But, in fact, a trillion and a half barrels 
are available.
  We have to do more on conservation. I was one, coming from Michigan, 
a tough vote was increasing CAFE. You know that. We have to have the 
R&D, the research and development to help our auto companies develop 
the technologies that we, the consumers, want. And Joe Knollenberg from 
our State has a great bill that does that that he unveiled just a 
couple weeks ago.
  We have to do more on conservation, and a number of different steps 
that I know can be taken along that front.
  But the bottom line is this: If we want the price to come down, we 
have to increase the supply. That means we

[[Page 12050]]

have to get away from where we're drilling today. We have to look at 
new sites, new techniques, and in fact we can do something, I think, 
about that $4 plus gasoline that all of us are pained to pay.
  And if I could, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Georgia 
to talk a little bit about an issue that I know a little something 
about as well, and that is Section 526 up in Canada.
  Mr. GINGREY. And I appreciate my colleague from Michigan--both of my 
colleagues from Michigan--and my colleague from Georgia. We've got a 
number of other Members here as well tonight.
  But this issue that Mr. Upton is talking about is Section 526, 
Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Now, 
this is the bill, Mr. Speaker, that the Democratic majority passed back 
in February of 2007 that had in it this Section 526. It basically said 
this, my colleagues--and I hope that you all will listen very carefully 
to this because it's so crucial. Section 526 will not allow, it 
prohibits any agency of the Federal Government, our Federal Government, 
including our Department of Defense and including NASA, from utilizing 
any fuel source other than conventional fuel if it results in one 
nanogram increase in carbon footprint.

                              {time}  2000

  I am not talking about tonnage of CO2. I am talking about 
any increase. So what my good friend from Michigan was talking about in 
regard to shale, s-h-a-l-e, shale is a solid product. It is a granular 
product. And we have, as Fred Upton pointed out, Mr. Speaker, an 
abundance of that product out in the West. There are about five States. 
And I think Mr. Upton said that it is estimated that you can get 
something like one and a half trillion, with a T, one and a half 
trillion barrels of petroleum from that source.
  But this section 526 that the Democratic majority put in their ``no 
energy bill'' back in February of 2007 means that we can't utilize 
that. We can't get that source increase of supply so that the prices 
will go down. And the reason I am so outraged about that, Mr. Speaker, 
is that tomorrow, on the floor, we will be doing the rule on the NASA 
reauthorization bill of 2008, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration. Well their price of fuel in the last 5 years, my 
colleagues, has gone up 400 percent from something like $4.5 million to 
$18.3 million. That is what NASA is having to pay on an annual basis 
for jet fuel.
  And yet they are the very agency of the Federal Government that is 
doing research. A lot of the research that NASA has done, we all know, 
we have utilized in the private sector. There are many things. I can 
name several. But they are doing research on shale. They are doing 
research on tar sands. They are doing research on coal to liquid and 
carbon sequestration and sharing that information with the Department 
of Defense and the Department of the Air Force, which could save us a 
tremendous amount of money.
  So I yield back to my colleague for a colloquy on this issue because 
it is so important and so timely.
  Mr. UPTON. Well the gentleman is exactly correct. And let me just say 
one quick thing. When you look at oil shale and you look at tar sands, 
it takes a little bit of energy to then derive that oil from those 
bodies, the shale, the tar or the sand. Basically you have to heat it 
up. And for tar sands, the Canadians are producing literally one 
million barrels a day up in Alberta. And they are going to make that 
whether we are the buyer or not. To use the analogy of the Clampetts, 
and maybe they still have that technique back in Oklahoma and Texas, I 
see some of my colleagues, and I'll be careful, but the Clampetts, they 
put that pipe down and the oil came up. And it didn't take any energy 
to get it out of the ground.
  Well it is different today. That easy energy is gone for the most 
part. So we have to do a lot of things. We have to inject carbon to 
bring it up. But in essence in Canada they have to have the heat to 
separate the oil from the sand, and then you have to refine it. And 
that takes a little bit more energy than the Clampetts, just to use 
that analogy.
  Mr. GINGREY. This is just the kind of research, and the colleague is 
absolutely right, we all remember the movie, most of us have seen the 
movie.
  Mr. UPTON. I am looking at the pages. I don't know if they know about 
the Clampetts or not. Do you know about the Clampetts? Have you heard?
  Mr. WALBERG. As long as my colleagues don't yield and sing them the 
theme song.
  Mr. UPTON. I am glad I didn't date myself.
  Mr. GINGREY. Reclaiming your time. I am sure the pages don't remember 
the movie ``Giant,'' but we all do, and how that oil just came bubbling 
up out of the ground. I believe that was in Texas. It may have been 
Oklahoma.
  In any regard, what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) is saying 
is that these tar sands and shale, shale has to be mined. And then you 
have to go through a process, as he is saying, and you have to extract. 
And it is a little bit more difficult.
  Again, we're about to reauthorize NASA in the next day or two. They 
are doing research on that very process now where they can get that 
petroleum, and I said to you 1.5 trillion barrels probably from the 
shale in our West, western part of the United States, and Mr. Upton 
pointed out that these tar sands in Canada, it is estimated that it is 
probably another 1.5 trillion barrels of petroleum that we can get from 
that. And they are producing it in Canada. And they are selling it to 
somebody. And yet we can't utilize it. It absolutely makes no sense. As 
my colleague from Georgia said earlier, I think he used the word 
``idiotic,'' ``insanity'' or ``crazy.'' He is right on all three 
points. But I will yield back to my colleague.
  Mr. UPTON. If the gentleman would yield just briefly. The Canadians 
have said that they are going to increase production up in Alberta. 
They want to go to four to five million barrels a day. And they have 
the buyers. Let's face it. Wouldn't we rather have that pipeline come 
down to the Midwest and have us refine it here and be able to sell a 
cheaper product to Americans than have it come from overseas some place 
else? And if we're not going to buy it from them, and the Canadians 
told me this, they are going to build a pipeline out to the Pacific. 
They are going to put it on one of those big freighters. They're going 
to spend a lot of carbon going up into the air shipping it to someplace 
else, China, Korea, Japan or some place else. Let's have it come here. 
We'll actually save energy. We will help pollution wise in terms of 
reducing greenhouse gases from where it otherwise would have gone. And 
our consumers will be a lot better off.
  And with that, I yield now to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WALBERG. If my colleague could yield just a moment here on one 
point that ties into that. We heard yesterday from one of our Senate 
colleagues from a northern State, a northeastern State, say that what 
we ought to do is buy one million barrels a day from Saudi Arabia. That 
would reduce the cost at the pump by about 50 cents. Well 50 cents 
right now would be great. But why not take that from ANWR? We can get 
one million barrels per day from ANWR right now, we are told, at least 
that, if we are to take it from there, and not have to buy it from any 
other foreign country, have it shipped to us from any other foreign 
country, and use it exactly like you said down here to make this great 
country run on its own fuel as opposed to buying from someplace else.
  Mr. GINGREY. If my colleague from Michigan will yield, the whole 
issue here is when the Democrats passed this Energy Independence and 
Security Act some 17 months ago, the price of regular gasoline, as all 
my colleagues know, was about $2.60 a gallon. Now, if Speaker Pelosi, 
at that particular time, or Leader Hoyer felt that the price of 
gasoline at the pump was going to drop $1.50, then maybe I could 
understand their emphasis on protecting the environment from any iota 
increase in carbon dioxide footprint or greenhouse gases.
  But what has happened with their ``no energy plan,'' unfortunately 
the

[[Page 12051]]

price of gasoline has gone up about $1.55 a gallon, and here we are 
looking at $4, $4 and a nickel now, and so we have to ask ourselves, 
what is the crisis? Is the crisis global warming? Or is the crisis 
bankruptcy of our country because of the price of energy? And people 
can't afford to buy gasoline. They can't afford to buy food. We are 
losing jobs to other countries. I think it is time to say to our 
majority party, for goodness' sakes, at least make in order the Gingrey 
amendment which would allow the administrator of NASA to have a waiver 
of section 526 and utilize some of these sources that Mr. Upton and Mr. 
Broun and others are talking about, getting that shale oil product from 
Canada. It just flows right down the pipeline. It is an easy flow, easy 
obtaining it. There is not a lot of hard work. It is the same thing 
with tar sands. And let NASA continue to do their research. Share it 
with the Department of Defense.
  And I will make this one point to the gentleman from Michigan who is 
controlling the time, and then I will yield back so that others can 
weigh in, but do you know that in the year 2008 the Department of 
Defense is going to spend an additional, a delta, of $9 billion on fuel 
because of price of gasoline right now? And I yield back.
  Mr. WALBERG. I thank you for that and the points you make so clear.
  I would like to yield back for a moment to my good friend from 
Georgia, since we have two Michiganders here and two Georgians now 
speaking, Dr. Paul Broun, for some additional comments, I know you have 
a point to make, before I go on to my good friend from Oklahoma.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Thank you, my friend, Mr. Walberg. I just 
wanted to ask Mr. Upton something before he left. You were mentioning 
that it takes some energy to produce this energy. And the people on the 
other side, the leadership on the other side has been promoting these 
alternative sources of fuel. Ethanol has been one. And you are on the 
Energy Committee I think, isn't that correct?
  Mr. UPTON. Yes. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Well tell me if it is true. I understand that 
to produce ethanol today, particularly corn-based ethanol, it actually 
takes more energy to produce that corn-based ethanol than the ethanol 
itself produces. Is that correct?
  Mr. UPTON. Well, there have been different studies showing different 
things in terms of what to count. One of the bills that I have 
cosponsored, it is actually a bipartisan bill, is to look at increasing 
ethanol from nonfood source, or noncorn, and there are a couple of 
bills to do that using switch grass and a number of different things. 
We are not quite there in the technology, but we are not too far away, 
within a couple of years. And I think we ought to be investing more on 
that type of technology so that we can take some of the pressure off 
these rising food prices. I represent Kellogg's as well, as does the 
gentleman in the well, Mr. Walberg.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I am talking about corn-based ethanol because I 
am excited about switch grass and other sources of potential, and I 
believe we need to investigate any source of energy anywhere.
  Mr. UPTON. Now that the price of oil has gotten up to $135 a barrel, 
there is a lot of things that 1 month ago weren't economical to do. And 
that is why by putting more alternative fuels in the mix, we can have 
some downward pressure on the overall price of gasoline. And obviously 
ethanol is part of that mix, whether it be corn-based or nonfood items, 
and we need to explore those and see what we can do to put downward 
pressure on the overall price of gasoline.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I agree with that totally. The other thing is 
propane is a byproduct of the refinery process of gasoline as well as 
natural gas. And we already know that propane is an environmentally 
protective agent. And we have had, in the past, fleets of cars fueled 
by propane. I know at my hunting camp down in rural southwest Georgia, 
I have fueled my house down there in my hunting camp with propane. And 
I know a lot of people heat their homes with it. And most propane, from 
what I understand, is produced here in America and sold here in 
America.
  So tapping into our oil sources would give us an additional source of 
energy that we are not getting today if my understanding is correct, 
and so we can further protect the environment by having more propane 
utilized in our own energy, as well as stop the production of carbon in 
the atmosphere that the environmentalists are so bent that it is 
causing global warming. And I am not so certain about that. I don't 
really think that is so.
  Mr. UPTON. The gentleman makes a very good point. And I know there 
are other Members waiting patiently to speak. So I am going yield 
whatever time I have left to the gentleman from the great State of 
Michigan.
  Mr. WALBERG. Congressman Broun, you point out the fact that we have 
all sorts of energy sources. And we ought to be using them and 
developing them.
  I want to move to a good friend, colleague and leader in our 
conference from Oklahoma. Congressman Cole, I appreciate your joining 
us tonight. I know you have taken some ribbing already about Oklahoma. 
I know you can handle it, but certainly I know our people would like to 
hear what you have to say about this issue.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I thank my good friend from Michigan for 
yielding. And I thank him even more for conducting what is an important 
and enlightening educational experience for the people of our country 
about the reality of high fuel prices and what is behind it. You do 
take a little ribbing occasionally if you're from Oklahoma. But we 
think that is generally jealousy, except from our friends from Texas, 
who have a very similar view of the world to us.
  But let me talk a little if I can about what the current state of 
play is in energy prices. Today as you have had up on your sign, the 
national average price for a gallon of gasoline is $4.04. That is 
something I never thought I would live to see, and frankly, no American 
should have ever lived to see. You can now buy a barrel of light sweet 
crude for July delivery at $131.31, a nice round number, nice even 
alliterative number. Currently in my State, Oklahoma's price at the 
pump, and we are producers, in some ways we will we feel it even worse 
because we have been producing for over 100 years much more than we 
consume and exporting it to the rest of the country. And we are 
delighted to do that. But it is pretty tough when people in Oklahoma, a 
producing State that sacrificed, that frankly are delighted to have 
exploration and production, but they are paying $3.83 a gallon.
  In January of 2007 when this majority, this Democrat majority took 
office, the price per gallon was $2.08 a gallon. That is a rise of 
$1.75, an increase of over 80 percent.

                              {time}  2015

  The country as a whole has experienced very much the same thing. The 
average price since the Democratic majority has come into power has 
gone up $1.67, an increase of 71 percent.
  Now, that is not what our friends on the other side of the aisle 
expected to happen at all. As a matter of fact, let me read you a few 
quotes of what they told America as they came into the majority our 
energy future would be.
  Our distinguished Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, said on April 18, 2006, 
``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down the skyrocketing 
gas prices.'' She said a few days later, ``The Democrats have a plan to 
lower gas prices.''
  Our distinguished Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on the 4th of 
April, 2005, ``Democrats believe that we can do more for the American 
people who are struggling to deal with high gas prices.'' I would love 
to ``struggle'' to pay $2.08 a gallon. It would be a nice fight to 
have.
  Our good friend and distinguished whip of the majority party, Jim 
Clyburn, said, ``House Democrats have a plan to help curb rising 
prices.'' That is on the 26th of July, 2006. If this is the plan, we 
want them to go back to the drawing board and reconsider where they are 
at.

[[Page 12052]]

  Four times since they have taken the majority they have voted to 
increase energy taxes; to increase energy taxes. Now, even people that 
don't like the energy industry can usually say, well, gosh, if you 
increase the tax, won't they pass that along to us in the price? It is 
an incredible record.
  Now, every single energy bill the majority wants to reach the floor 
has reached the floor. Most of them have passed this body. Some of them 
have gone all the way to the President and been signed. As I recall, I 
don't remember anybody who actually vetoed any energy legislation that 
has actually reached the President's desk. So what we are seeing really 
is the product of the majority's legislative agenda.
  What haven't they let come to the floor? What commonsense solutions 
that most Americans support haven't come to the floor? I am just going 
to list a few of them, because, as my colleague knows, there are many 
of them.
  Our colleague from Texas, Mac Thornberry, has a wonderful bill, the 
No More Excuses Energy Act, H.R. 3089, that literally covers the gambit 
of things we ought to be doing. Not just oil and gas, but nuclear, 
solar and wind. It incentivizes production. That is the lesson that our 
friends on the other side have forgotten, that supply is really 
important to cost. They simply seem to have no conception of that.
  There is a wonderful bill by Mr. Pitts of Pennsylvania, H.R. 2279, 
that will expedite the construction of new refining capacity on closed 
military installations in the United States. These are installations 
that have been set aside. They are safe. They are secure. Why in the 
world wouldn't we want to refine the product? If we have to import it, 
we at least ought to get the value-added portion of refining it. It is 
a crime that we should ever import a refined product.
  Our good friend Mr. Blunt, H.R. 2493, has legislation that removes 
the fuel blend requirements and government mandates that contribute to 
unaffordable gas prices. We shouldn't have dozens and dozens of blends 
of gasoline. A few is enough.
  Our good friend Mrs. Myrick has H.R. 6108, Outer Continental Shelf 
Exploration, which grants coastal states the authority to grant 
exploration up to 100 miles from their coastlines and allows States to 
share in that revenue. A commonsense solution.
  None of this legislation, and dozens more, have been allowed to come 
to the floor. My friends on the other side love to blame Republicans, 
President Bush and the energy industry for these kinds of problems.
  I just want to conclude quickly with a story. I do represent a 
district that is one of the top 20 energy producers in the United 
States, so we are more than doing our part. I convened about a year 
ago, actually before this extraordinary rise in prices, a group of 
independent energy people that have spent a lifetime trying to provide 
energy to this country.
  I asked them, ``Give me your suggestions. What can we do to increase 
the supply and stabilize and hopefully lower the price of a gallon of 
gasoline or heating fuel or electricity?'' They thought, and they had a 
lot of great solutions.
  They said, ``Let's go drill in ANWR, in Alaska. That would be a 
wonderful thing.'' By the way, my good friend Mr. Young has a superb 
piece of legislation on that, H.R. 6107, that would actually allow us 
to drill there and invest some of the severance revenue in alternative 
energy supplies so we could both meet an immediate need and start 
looking for alternatives.
  But they suggested that. I said, ``Well, you know, I am for that. I 
voted for that. The Republican majority passed it four times in the 
House and couldn't get it through the Senate because of Democratic 
obstruction, so we probably can't get it done.''
  Then they said, ``Let's do more exploration and production offshore. 
We have seen Katrina. That has worked well in terms of no spillage. We 
know we had 25 percent of our supply in the Gulf of Mexico. We could do 
more.'' I said, ``Well, I am for that, but we can't do that either.''
  Then they asked about additional refining capacity, and they asked 
about expedited permitting on non-park Federal lands. They just went 
through a litany of things. Alternative energy. Each one I would say 
yes, I am for that, but we can't get that through, particularly a 
Democratic Congress.
  Finally at the end of this in frustration, one of my good friends 
said, ``Well, why don't you go back and ask those other Members of 
Congress who are opposing these measures just how rich they want 
foreign countries to be? Just how much they want to pay the people 
overseas that we are importing this petroleum from, or this gas, when 
we could actually do the production here? Because they are exporting 
thousands of jobs, billions of dollars, and they are jeopardizing our 
security.''
  Then the guy added in fairness, he said, ``By the way, we are all 
here giving you suggestions about how to lower the price of the product 
that we produce.''
  We have had a shameful exercise, in my opinion, in the last several 
days, particularly on the Senate side, where people that work to solve 
America's energy problems are brought in and interrogated as if they 
are the source of the problems, and the only frankly justification for 
that is the high prices. But when those people respond, they say, ``If 
you would just do the things we have asked you to do year after year 
after year, we could solve this problem.''
  So I am sorry I went on. You have been very generous with your time, 
and I appreciate that very much. But it is a frustrating problem when 
the solutions are sitting here waiting to be acted upon by this House 
and none of them are being dealt with at all.
  Mr. WALBERG. I thank you for sharing that history. It is a good point 
to know what has been attempted and what hasn't been accomplished. But 
it would also give the opportunity for our constituents to voice their 
concerns now with factual information to say there are things you can 
do. Now get it done.
  In the time remaining, I would like to turn a portion of that over to 
my good friend and colleague from Texas, bringing the southern States 
in now, Congressman Randy Neugebauer.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, I thank the gentleman from Michigan. I also 
want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma, because he makes a very good 
point. And when he says we are importing thousands of dollars, actually 
it is billions of dollars. Every day America gets up and writes a check 
for $1 billion-plus to buy enough energy to run this country for 1 day.
  What does that mean? That means that it takes $365 billion currently 
for America to buy enough energy just to run our country on an annual 
basis, $1 billion every day. And do you know what? Unfortunately, some 
of that money is going to some folks that aren't all that friendly to 
the American people. One of those people is Hugo Chavez.
  I want to read you what Hugo Chavez thinks about America. He said, 
``What we do regarding the imperialist power of the United States, we 
have no choice but to unite. We use oil in our war against neo-
liberalism.'' He also said, ``We have invaded the United States, but 
with our oil.''
  So every day as the American people go to the pumps all across 
America, what I want them to visualize is that every day we write Hugo 
Chavez, who calls us imperialists, a $170 million check. That is $62 
billion a year. What would happen if we could invest $1 billion a day 
in America developing America's energy resources, creating jobs for 
Americans? Think about it. Instead of writing Hugo Chavez a check for 
$172 million, that we write America a check for $172 million?
  I think of the people I know in the 19th Congressional District of 
Texas, which is a big district, 29,000 square miles, 27 counties, 
teachers having to drive 60, 70 miles a day to go and teach our young 
people, that now are looking at doubling the cost of making that 
commute across the district.
  I think about the man last night that I was talking to in my 
district. He said, ``Congressman,'' he said, ``I have to drive three 
times a week 30 miles each way to get dialysis so that I can be

[[Page 12053]]

treated for diabetes.'' He said, ``Congressman, I am down to the point 
now of having to choose whether I can afford dialysis, afford gasoline, 
or afford food.''
  Madam Speaker, it is time to say yes. We have heard you say no; no to 
new drilling, no to building additional power plants in this country; 
no to new refineries. America is wanting you to say yes, because 
America is tired of writing checks to Hugo Chavez for $160 million 
every day.
  I thank my friend from Michigan tonight for hosting this hour. I hope 
that somehow the American people realize that there is a willingness on 
behalf of many Members of Congress to say yes and to move forward and 
to do something proactive, instead of doing something that is called 
nothing.
  Mr. WALBERG. I thank my good friend and colleague from Texas for 
ending it on a point that is poignant, that reminds us what this really 
costs. I wish we could go on and on tonight to bring out more points 
like this. This is critical. It is a security issue, as well as a point 
of life, and you made it very clear. I don't want to write a check for 
$170 million to Hugo Chavez. Let's get it done.

                          ____________________