[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 5]
[House]
[Page 6621]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Quigley) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, in the great debate over oil and gas 
prices, there are actually many things we can all agree on. We agree 
our dependence on foreign oil endangers our environment, hurts our 
economy, and weakens our national security. Our disagreement lies in 
potential solutions.
  I believe that in order to lower gas prices, we can and must crack 
down on oil speculators, end Big Oil handouts, invest in public transit 
and electric vehicles, and increase corporate average fuel economy 
standards. The other side of the argument would have you believe that 
all we need to do is increase our domestic oil resources and remove 
regulations--regulations that purportedly forced us to look outside our 
Nation's borders for oil.
  Our answers do not lie in more oil. Our answers lie in conservation 
and smart investments.
  Talk about smart investment--every increase of 1 mile per gallon in 
auto fuel efficiency yields more oil than can be found in two Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuges. An improvement right now of 2.7 miles per 
gallon would eliminate our need for all Persian Gulf oil.
  But it's not a question of simple domestic supply and demand either, 
another argument the other side of this issue will use. Oil prices are 
set on a global oil market. Historically, such small increases in U.S. 
production have had little or no impact on world oil prices.
  The U.S. Energy Information Administration, or EIA, states in a 2008 
report that Arctic Refuge oil production ``is not expected to have a 
large impact on world oil prices,'' noting that OPEC ``could neutralize 
any potential price impact of ANWR coastal plain production by reducing 
its exports by an equal amount.''
  Again, our answer does not lie in increased domestic oil production. 
Our answer lies in conservation and in a solid commitment to investment 
in renewable energy resources.
  Recent increases in conservation and use of alternative technologies 
has cut our Nation's projected need for imported oil between now and 
2050 by more than 100 billion barrels. That's 10 times more benefit 
that we might be able to get during the same period from the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge, without sacrificing one of our Nation's most 
valued wilderness ecosystems.
  In the past few years, we've taken small steps to focus on 
conservation rather than production. In late 2007, corporate average 
fuel standards, commonly known as CAFE standards, received their first 
overhaul in more than 30 years. This was a huge step in the right 
direction, but there remains much work to do.
  The bills we will consider in the coming week will endanger our 
environment, hurt our economy, and weaken our national security. It 
seems to me these are the very same concerns we have with an 
overarching reliance and addiction to foreign oil.
  H.R. 1229 and H.R. 1230 supplant our national environmental policies, 
tell residents along our coasts we don't care how they feel about 
drilling in their waters, damage the ecosystems the industries along 
our coasts rely on, and go against what military experts have been 
saying about drilling.
  Just weeks ago, several former military officers shared their 
thoughts and concern. ``America's dependence on oil constitutes a clear 
and present danger to the security and welfare of the United States.'' 
And they continue to say they are concerned with congressional efforts 
to undermine the agencies charged with overseeing extraction. What they 
are saying is it's important to reduce our dependence on foreign oil 
for our national security's sake, and it's important to retain 
regulatory authority to oversee drilling and extraction of oil and gas. 
Then, you follow that it's important to regulate our extraction in 
order to protect our Nation.
  These bills do not offer solutions. And what is worse, a full year 
following the disaster of the Macondo/Deepwater well, we have yet to 
reform our Outer Continental Shelf policy. But, again, you don't need 
to take my word for it.
  The U.S. Energy Information Administration put out a 2009 report 
comparing the difference between full, unrestricted offshore drilling 
and restricted offshore drilling. EIA found that in 2020, restrictions 
on drilling versus unrestricted access had no impact on cost. The cost 
per barrel was identical. In 2030, indiscriminate drilling would lower 
our gas prices by just 3 cents.
  Take the calls for drilling in the Arctic Refuge as another example. 
Even at peak production in 2030, Arctic Refuge oil would account for 
six-tenths of 1 percent of world oil production and only 2.4 percent of 
U.S. oil consumption.
  We can proactively move our Nation toward reducing our dependence on 
foreign oil so that we can take control of our energy future, protect 
our Nation, our economy, and our environment. And we must.

                          ____________________