Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5429) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish and implement a competitive oil and gas leasing program that will result in an environmentally sound program for the exploration, development, and production of the oil and gas resources of the Coastal Plain of Alaska, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 835 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

House Resolution 835 provides for a closed rule with 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources, waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides for one motion to recommit.

This rule allows this body to, once again, consider important legislation which is a key component of moving our Nation further along towards greater energy independence.

H.R. 5429, the American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act is appropriately titled. It highlights the fact that the United States has within its borders vast untapped natural energy resources which have been locked away largely because of surreal political rhetoric battles, not based on reality, and it highlights the fact that developing this energy would provide many new jobs to our national economy and support our existing domestic economy.

We drive. We use plastics. Our agriculture uses fertilizers. 90 percent of our food is trucked to us. This is indeed talking about our economic health.

I know in the rhetoric that will take place there will be some emotional consideration that will happen. But I think also in the rhetoric, we will find several facts that will emerge.

Fact number one is there is oil in this area. The U.S. Geological Survey, our own researchers have stated with the probability that is higher than any of the pollsters who will be using our campaigns will say, that there is a minimum of 4.2 billion barrels and a mean factor of 8 billion barrels of oil. They have clearly stated this is the largest on-shore source of petroleum we have in the United States. If this were the only source of energy that we were using, my good friend, Mr. Hastings' State, could go for 29 years of energy needs in his State of Florida just with this source alone. My State uses far less air conditioning. We could go for 218 years just from this source alone.

A second fact that will come through. The purpose of this land is for oil exploration. When I first came here, there was a campaign to try and discredit drilling up in this area. They showed pictures of mountains, lush conifers, forests, lakes, meadows. It was a good PR campaign. It would have been a perfect PR campaign if it was true. They were actually using pictures in this area.

Secretary Norton said in the congressional committee in March of 2003, this is a coastal plain. It is called a coastal plain because it is a plain. There are no mountains, there are no deep water lakes, there are no trout streams. The only trout you will find in this area is frozen.

When Jimmy Carter and the Democrat-controlled legislature of Congress at the time created the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area the size of South Carolina. They also created the section known as 10/02. That is not ANWR.

When we were having 10 percent inflation and 10 percent unemployment at the same time, they created an area the size of the State of Delaware if you include the water for the purpose of oil exploration. It was stated at the time that this is where our future energy supply would come. Well, the future is now.

What we are talking about is a million and a half acres, the size of Delaware, with a displacement potential of around 2,000 acres to capture the energy in this particular area. That is roughly the size from the Capitol down to the Air and Space Museum on the lawn, out of an area the size of the State of Delaware. Mathematically, that comes to about .13 percent of the land that is available. Those are like finger clippings that we are talking about.

Fact number three: The locals who live on this land, who know the land and who love the land, are almost in unanimous support of this proposition.

Fact number four: When we created the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and this 10/02 section for oil exploration, we also made other decisions that increased our oil dependence on foreign sources, specifically from countries who do not like to play nice. What we have done by doing that is limit our diplomatic options. We have limited our independence. We have limited our freedom of action, and the only way to reverse that is to by creating clear oil independence, and that is an important step to do it.

So, for 11 times since 1995, we have passed in this body with a bipartisan vote of support drilling in this 10/02 section of land, and that was when the price of gas was cheap. We are now coming together for a 12th time with, once again, I hope bipartisan support to pass this effort. After all, it took Jacob 12 times to produce Joseph. I am convinced that we today on our 12th try will produce something as noble as that.

Now, there are some reasons for some people who do not want to do this. I consider it somewhat of an attitude issue. Sometimes we oversimplify our life. We think of the world as either black and white, yes or no, right or wrong, left or right, and do not recognize the shades of differences that are in between.

What our constituents want us to do is to reach across the aisle and in a bipartisan way try and solve an energy problem, understanding there are

shades. There is not one right or wrong answer, and understanding also there is no silver bullet to solve our energy needs. Jed Clampett will not go out there, shooting at some food, and up through the ground will come a bubbling crude.

We need conservation efforts. It is good. It should be encouraged, but that alone will not solve our problems. We need alternate energy sources. It is good. It should be encouraged. That alone will not solve our problems. We need oil exploration in this country. It is good. It should be encouraged. That alone will not solve our problems. But if we do not do the oil exploration, there is no hope of ever satisfying our problems. It has to be part of the equation.

There are some people who will also oversimplify the fact of saying you cannot have energy exploration and environmental protection. That is another attitude situation there because indeed you can have both. We have produced the technology to accomplish that. What used to take 60 acres to produce can now be done in 6 acres.

The simple fact is God has given us the resources to solve our problem. He has also given us the intellect to come up with the technology to solve our problem. Now what we must do is move forward in both areas to solve our problem, rather than sitting back and cursing the darkness.

When I first came here, there was a concerted effort to send e-mails to legislators, congressmen, in an effort to try and say not to do any kind of drilling up in this area set aside for that drilling purposes. I am perhaps different than my predecessor because I called those form e-mails back, and I just talked to many of them, realizing many of them had absolutely no clue about this area or what it was doing.

I remember specifically talking to a woman in Centerville, and in the course of the conversation saying that the people who live in this area and know it and who love this land are almost unanimously in favor of it, and her response was simply: Of course, they are. They do not know what is best for them.

It is that elitist, paternalistic attitude that has frustrated our efforts to solve this particular problem. It is now time for us to learn from our mistakes in the past and move forward and at long last do it with this particular legislation.

With that, Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule. I urge adoption of the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just in deference to the Rules Committee defending their actions note that there was only one amendment that was sent as a potential amendment to this rule, and that was nongermane. It is very difficult to put amendments in order that have never been submitted to the Rules Committee in the first place.

Madam Speaker, with that, maybe even to verify that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize for the purpose of talking about, once again, this area set aside by the Carter administration for future oil exploration, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for 2\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

Madam Speaker, I am always sometimes amazed or reminded by our friends from the oil- or energy-consuming States that don't understand the size of those in the West.

It is true that ANWR is a small percentage of Alaska, but I would remind you that the wildlife refuge of ANWR is still the size of South Carolina. The 1002 land we are talking about, which is not ANWR, which was set aside for exploration, is the size of Delaware; and that is still significant in that process.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Madam Speaker, I don't want to try and change any kind of factual data, especially from my good friends from the Pacific Northwest, but actually this is the 12th, not the 13th time we have voted on this issue.

And, unfortunately, the Dulles Airport is actually five times bigger than the area we are talking about drilling. That is 11,000 acres. This is only 2,000 acres.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman also from the Pacific Northwest from the State of Washington (Miss McMorris).

Miss McMORRIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 5429. America deserves and needs American energy, and this legislation is an important step in achieving that.

The American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act would open, as we have heard, just 2,000 acres of nearly 20 million acres. If it were a football field, it would be equivalent to the size of a postage stamp. If it were the front page of the New York Times, it would be equivalent to the size of a lower case letter ``a.'' This leaves 99 percent of the land in its natural condition.

However, these 2,000 acres would recover 10.4 billion barrels, more than double the proven reserves of Texas, increasing America's total proven reserves by almost 50 percent.

This legislation is even more important in lessening our dependence on foreign oil and establishing a safe domestic supply that will entirely go to Americans. No longer should we rely on oil from countries that are not necessarily friendly or democratic. In fact, ANWR has the possibility of delivering an amount of oil equal to the amount we import from Saudi Arabia. A strong domestic energy supply, both oil and renewable, is vital to our economic and national security.

Right now, we face the challenge of high oil demand. To meet that demand, we need to establish a supply to meet it. Energy is important to Americans. Fifty years ago, America was an exporter of oil. A lot has changed, and today, we import over 60 percent of our oil. Yet since the 1950s, little has been done to prepare for our country's current or future energy needs.

When it comes to energy, we need a U.S.-based system that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation. Just as we brought the best minds and innovative companies together to put a man on the moon, we need a national organized effort to explore ANWR in an environmentally safe manner. Twenty-first century technology and advanced engineering now exists that allow us to explore for oil and natural gas with minimal impact on the surrounding environment.

Our energy policy must include a broad mix of options: From clean coal and natural gas to nuclear energy and hydroelectric power, to wind power and solar power to biodiesel. Drilling in ANWR is just one component of this comprehensive strategy.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

MR. HERGER. Madam Speaker, my constituents in northern California are paying some of the highest gas prices in America. While prices continue to rise, ironically, the single-most promising untapped source of American oil in gas, ironically, remains off-limits to production.

This restriction does nothing to protect the environment. It simply ensures that Americans will continue to rely on foreign sources of oil. None of these foreign countries share our commitment to the environment, and many even have ties to terrorists. Madam Speaker, America has the most stringent environmental laws in the world, and we have the most advanced technology ever invented. This legislation combines our commitment to the environment with state-of-the-art technology to produce a commonsense plan for a secure energy future.

I urge support of the rule and for H.R. 5429.

Madam Speaker, I would like to make just a couple of points in closing. One of the issues that was brought up at the last moment was on a potential court challenge based on a potential 90-10 demand by the State of Alaska rather than 50-50 in the bill. Such an issue is a question. However, on a separate piece of legislation in a separate court system, the Federal court has rejected the 90-10 argument, so even if there is anything, 50-50 will be the reality of it. That is the precedent that has already been established.

The gentleman from Colorado, who was speaking towards the end, talked about the need to diversify, diversify on his agricultural endeavors, diversify on what we are doing with our energy needs, and I agree totally.

As I said earlier, it is important, it is sufficient that there is not one sole silver bullet to solve our energy needs. We need conservation programs. We need alternative energy programs. We also need to drill the oil that is available in the United States to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It is true that we cannot solve our energy problems if we do not do that other leg of the situation.

It is important that we can do this also in an environmentally sensitive way. Once again, don't take my word for it, but once again the Energy Department, during the Clinton administration, in their Report on Environmental Benefits of Advanced Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Technology, established an entire chapter to the fact that our technology has advanced to the time where we can do this production and maintain environmental sensitivity at the same time.

No, let me just finish. I apologize. Let me finish, if I may.

That was in 1999. In the year 2000, once again, the Argonne National Laboratory study dealing with an area just 80 miles from the proposed drilling site, once again, concluded there were no impacts on any wildlife species that have ever been documented in that particular area.

We are not dealing with the wildlife refuge, the so-called pristine area. That has already been set aside, as well as 100 million acres of other pristine area within Alaska and the Lower 48. But this ANWR, the wilderness refuge, is still the size of the State of South Carolina, which will not be impacted.

What we are talking about is potential drilling in the 1002 lands, the size of the State of Delaware, that was set aside by the minority party when they were in power back in the 1980s as an area for future exploration. That was its purpose. That was its goal.

We are asking that simply to fulfill the purpose of this particular land and do it in the proper way, and do it in a way that will be smaller than Dulles. Actually it is more like the size of Reagan Airport, which is far less encompassing than the Dulles Airport.

We can do this. We need to do this. We need to move this country forward.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 5429 pursuant to House Resolution 835, the Speaker may postpone further proceedings on a motion to recommit as though under clause 8(a)(1)(A) of rule XX.

Finishing my time here, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary procedures that my good friend from Florida knows and does extremely well here. It is true, that was part of the amendment deemed nongermane to the issue at hand. And, once again, I think the precedent is there that that problem is solved and is a moot issue.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would urge our support of this rule, I would urge our support for the 12th and final time of passing this needed piece of legislation as a significant part of our energy independence in this country.

Madam Speaker, I yield back my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), my good friend, for yielding me the time.

You know, it is not often that I find myself quoting the distinguished President Ronald Reagan, but this morning, I just cannot help myself. I feel like I must say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, ``well, there you go again.''

It was just 1 week ago today that Mr. Bishop and I were discussing the merits of drilling for oil and natural gas on the beaches of Florida or California and elsewhere. Thoughtfully, the House rejected that shortsighted and ill-conceived plan and left my Republican colleagues looking elsewhere on the map to score political points while doing absolutely nothing to help consumers or develop sound energy policy.

Of course, should ill-conceived ideas and shortsighted plans ever start selling for $75 a barrel, I would like the drilling rights to the Republican party platform.

Madam Speaker, there are so many things wrong with this bill, it is almost like I do not know where to start. So much to criticize, so little time. For starters, let us take a look at how this bill might benefit our country, using the most wildly optimistic predictions of how much extractable oil there is in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Using the Bush administration's own estimates, which are probably inflated like some of the other Bush predictions we have heard over the past 5 years, there are 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil in ANWR. If this is accurate, then in 20 years, our reliance on foreign oil would be reduced from, get this, Madam Speaker, reduced from 60 percent to 57 percent and would likely result in gas prices being reduced by, again, using administration estimates, one penny per gallon. Well, on behalf of the American people, let me just say thank you for the relief at the pump in the year 2025.

Using less optimistic predictions, being more conservative if you will, there may be only 3.2 billion barrels of recoverable oil in ANWR or roughly 6 months of oil based on our current consumption. This is the silver bullet to our Nation's energy concerns?

Once again, like with the immigration issue, this administration and this Congress seem to only be moved to action when an issue becomes a political crisis. Both of these issues obviously have been a public policy crisis for years, but it is election year, isn't it? Some pay more attention to the needs of the American people when their jobs are on the line in 5 months from now.

You know what I find most interesting, Madam Speaker? It is the tepid support by energy companies for this proposal. Most of the major oil companies have recently pulled up stakes in Alaska. They have already come to the conclusion that this Congress will probably come to, I would think, in maybe 5 years and another 24 votes. It just does not make economic sense to drill in Alaska. BP, Amoco, Texaco and Chevron, among others, are examples of companies that are questioning their former commitment to drilling in the ANWR.

Here is one of my favorites, Madam Speaker, and I would advise my colleagues on the other side to pay attention because I am about to mention one of the most hallowed names from your point of view.

A former petroleum engineer from Halliburton, a company that heretofore has not seen a patch of land they did not want to exploit, said recently, ``The enthusiasm of government officials about ANWR exceeds that of industry because oil companies are driven by market forces, investing resources in direct proportion to the economic potential, and the evidence so far about ANWR is not promising.''

But you know, Madam Speaker, I am not as naive as some of my colleagues may think. I know this bill is not as much about Alaska as it is about Florida and California's outer continental shelf. I said it last week, and I will repeat it again today, this bill is simply trying to get the nose under the tent and using that approach.

It has been widely reported, without much argument, that opening up ANWR to oil drilling is simply a political ploy to opening the door to areas that allegedly have more promise, which brings us right back to where we were last week until our colleagues Adam Putnam, Lois Capps and Jim Davis helped to straighten things out.

Finally, Madam Speaker, to add insult to injury, the Rules Committee Republicans have shut out the American people from offering thoughtful alternatives to their risky scheme in the ANWR. Despite having no legislative business on the House floor tomorrow, none, no legislative business tomorrow, yes, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, Congress is taking another Friday off. Despite this fact, the leadership brings this bill to the floor under a closed rule. That means no duly elected Member of this body, Republican, Democrat or Independent, will have the opportunity to amend this bill. You heard me right. If any of 300 million Americans had a different idea about what to do about this bill, their elected representative in this House of Representatives is prohibited from offering an alternative, a change, a better plan. And we call this democracy?

Madam Speaker, for the reasons I have already articulated and for so many others that I am sure many of my colleagues will point out, we are prescribed by time constraints and, therefore, cannot discuss them all, but I urge any Member of this House who has any other idea about sound energy policy to oppose this closed rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Madam Speaker, how much time remains?

Before yielding to my distinguished friend, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a March 20th report in The New York Times, byline reading ``North Slope Oil Spill Raises New Concerns Over Pipeline Maintenance;'' and equally from yesterday's Wall Street Journal, the ``EPA and the FBI Check Allegations of Improper Repair Work on Two Big Storage Tanks.''

For all my colleagues that talk about all this environmental protection, I would like for them to read these two articles.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have listened to this debate rather repeatedly over the years, and I still am trying to determine how it is that my colleagues on the other side persist in having politics triumph over geology.

I know of no substantial study that demonstrates that there would be a sufficient amount of oil that would cause substantial price decreases in gas at the pump. Given its wildest potential, even the most optimistic, it would be well into the future, probably as late as 2012 before a single drop of oil would go into a refinery and then a gas tank.

There is so much to be said for the fact that this Arctic reserve, in its pristine form, is among the last natural habitats that the United States has preserved. Unfortunately, in my State, every day that I pass on a road, I see more and more ecosystem destroyed so that we can build more and cause substantial damage to the environment.

Those of us who speak of environmental degradation do so with great passion, recognizing the significant need that we have as a country to produce alternative energy sources and to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. That is a real concern that I believe my colleagues and the majority and those of us in the minority share.

How you get there is not through a ruse, in the final analysis, and that is what ANWR is, because no one has been able, with the exception of one drilling action that took place in 1998 that has been a closely held secret, no one has been able to really tell any of us how much oil is there.

Given the best amount, it would be 10 billion barrels, which doesn't come close to what the problem is, and that is of the significant amount of coastal oil that exists off the shore of California and Florida in the gulf, and that is over 70 billion barrels by scientific estimate.

So, basically, what my colleagues want to do and what the administration wants to do is stick its nose under the tent and drill in a pristine area and then lift the moratoria that exists in California and Florida for offshore drilling.

I don't know how long many of us have been in Congress or will be here, but I don't believe that it is wise policy for us to damage our environment for political gain and to do so in a political season, when, in fact, we know that what we do, even if this were to pass, and I call on my colleagues to defeat this rule, even if it were to pass, we know full well that it will not provide what is needed for us all.

I might add that the administration seems to be going in a different direction than many of the oil companies. Significant numbers of them, ConocoPhillips, for example, has stopped its financial support of Arctic power; Chevron, Texaco, BP, long active in Alaska, moved their executives to Houston from Alaska for the reason that they no longer feel that they are going to be able to produce the kinds of results that had been predicted. ExxonMobil has shown little public enthusiasm for the refuge.

I don't know if this enthusiasm that is coming from the other side is motivated by reality, but I do know this: It has a lot to do with politics and very little to do with geological realities. Let us defeat this rule and defeat this substantive measure for the 12th time and be prepared to do so the 13th, because I am sure my colleagues will bring it back.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, Madam Speaker, but I do want to point out to my colleague, in light of the fact that he did not yield to me and that is why I reserve the right to object, that the 90-10 royalty reality was in the form of an amendment that my colleagues chose not to make in order so that we could settle that issue. You point to it rightly as a very significant issue, and the 50-50 split would enhance the opportunities of the American public.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 835, I call up the bill (H.R. 5429) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish and implement a competitive oil and gas leasing program that will result in an environmentally sound program for the exploration, development, and production of the oil and gas resources of the Coastal Plain of Alaska, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 5429.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it was brought up during the debate on the rule that this is not a new bill coming before the House. In fact, it is a bill that the House of Representatives has addressed many times in the past. It deals with opening up a small part of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration.

Mr. Speaker, during the debate today we are going to have the opportunity to hear a lot about the pros and cons of opening up ANWR and the 2,000 acres that are included in the bill. We will talk about supply and the mean estimate of 10.5 billion barrels of oil that are available to Americans today. We will talk about jobs and the number of those in organized labor who look at between 250,000 and a million jobs, good paying family wage jobs that will be created by opening up this area. We will talk about revenue deficit reduction.

CRS recently did a study where they estimate that between $111 and $170 billion will come into the Federal Treasury as a result of opening this up. But one thing that we will talk considerably about is the environment and new technology. And to start today's debate on this, I would like to discuss that, because I believe this is probably one of the most important parts of this entire debate. Many times those that oppose new energy in this country, new energy of any kind whether we are talking about ANWR or alternative energy, they consistently vote against it no matter what it is. And what we are trying to do is open up these new energy sources so that we become less dependent on foreign energy instead of more dependent every single year.

When it comes to environmental protection, we have taken that into consideration and have debated this legislation for 25 years. And during those 25 years we have put in more and more in terms of environmental protection. Technology, obviously, has advanced over the last 25 years to the point today where the footprint has been reduced to the size of less than 2,000 acres. They talk about roads, the roads that will be built will be ice roads that will melt away in the summertime. In fact, over half of the bill, over half of the pages in the bill are dedicated to environmental protection. There is nowhere in the world that would have as much in terms of environmental protection and regulation as opening up this area. I do believe that is important. I do believe that it should be included in the bill. That is why it is in the bill.

But I will say that the false choice that we will hear from the other side today is either environmental protection or economic progress and economic development. That is not an option. The option that is in front of us is to protect our environment and to have a healthy, strong growing economy.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the estimated oil that would result out of ANWR would be enough to fuel the entire State of Massachusetts for 75 years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the man that has been entrusted to represent the entire State of Alaska.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. Speaker, I rise just to point out that the estimated oil from ANWR would fuel the State of Connecticut for 132 years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Speaker, opening up ANWR would give the State of Wisconsin 83 years of supply; and with that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have had this debate before many, many times with all of my colleagues that had an opportunity to come to the floor today and voice their opinions.

Quite frankly, this is about a lot more than just opening up ANWR. We have narrowed this down to a couple of thousand acres out of an area nearly the size of 100 million acres, and that is what this bill actually deals with. But, obviously, we have heard a lot about energy policy in general.

Unfortunately, our energy policy in this country for the last 30 years has basically been to become more and more and more dependent on foreign energy sources.

Every time an idea has come forward about opening up a new area, about creating more domestic energy, about keeping jobs here at home, those on the minority side have voted against it. We have heard them talk a lot today about alternative energy and renewable energy, and they are right. We need to invest in renewable energy and alternative energy. They are absolutely correct on that.

In fact, last year, we had a vote on alternative renewable energy, and almost every single one of them voted against it. They are not consistent in terms of their arguments and their votes. Quite frankly, we do need to adopt an energy policy that really does reflect the future of America.

But unless we have people that are willing to create domestic energy, whether that be from increased fossil fuels or whether it be from renewables, we need to have a policy that creates

increased domestic energy. Right now we don't have that policy.

ANWR is not the answer. ANWR is a small part of the answer. All of the things that you have heard about today are things that we have to do. But we cannot get them through Congress. We cannot get them through the other body unless you are willing to support them.

So far, your response to everything has been ``no.'' And you have this pie-in-the-sky that we are going to invent a 100-mile-per-gallon carburetor and all of a sudden our problems are going to go away. They were talking about that the last time we had an energy crisis under Jimmy Carter, and it never happened.

I know, somebody bought the patent to that carburetor and it is hidden away in a safe somewhere. Well, you know, your arguments hold about as much water now as they did 30 years ago when you started making them.

We need to develop energy here at home. That involves more fossil fuels, because that is what powers our Nation. But it also involves renewable energy, and it involves alternatives. You have got to come up with something better than ``no.''

Right now gas in my district is almost $3.50 a gallon. We need to do something about providing energy here at home. You can't continue to say ``no'' on everything.

I encourage my colleagues to finally step up and begin to pass a domestic energy policy that creates energy here at home. ANWR is the first step in that. We will have the opportunity to continue to vote on new technology and new renewable resource issues, and we will see how many of you will step up to the plate and actually vote for the things that today you are saying you are in favor of, because your past history has shown you are not going to vote for it.

So as your constituents continue to pay more for gasoline and more for electricity and more for products because the cost of energy has gone up, as they continue to lose their jobs because the cost of natural gas has gone up, at what point will you step up and say ``yes'' to something?

Support the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I do agree with one thing that my colleague and neighbor from California said, which is that this motion to recommit has absolutely nothing to do with ANWR, because it has absolutely nothing to do with ANWR. It is, again, a cynical attempt to try to kill the bill.

While I have to share his concerns over a so-called mistake that was made by the Clinton administration, that they forgot to put price triggers in when they were signing multiple leases with oil companies, they somehow forgot to put in those triggers that said when oil did reach $55 a barrel that they wouldn't get royalty relief anymore. In the bill that they are trying to recommit, there is no royalty relief in the bill.

Again, the motion to recommit has absolutely nothing to do with the bill that they are trying to recommit.

What does concern me is that at this point, trying to kill the chance of creating 250,000 to 750,000 new American jobs, somehow that is okay for political gain, I imagine. It kills the chance to increase the amount of money to our Treasury by CRS' estimate of between $111 billion and $170 billion, which far exceeds any royalties they would collect under this scheme that they have cooked up. It kills the chance to lower our dependence on foreign oil.

As I said in my closing, at some point they have to say ``yes.'' At some point you have to say ``yes'' to new American energy. At some point you have to be for something. Being against everything is not an energy policy.

A cynical attempt to try to kill this bill again is not going to win this time. It hasn't won the 11 times before this, and it is not going to carry this time.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit and to support the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill.

It wasn't long ago that President Bush stood in this chamber and rightly said we need to end our addiction to oil. But instead of working to break our fossil-fuel habit, today the Republican leadership of the House today is calling for one more fix.

Instead of putting together a prescription that will treat the underlying problem, they are trying to get us to swallow their favorite nostrum of drilling on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

That would be bad enough if what they are peddling was just a harmless placebo. But it is not only ineffective, it is harmful to many important resources and values.

Any doctor will admit that any drug can have side effects, and that writing a prescription involves weighing the potential benefits against the risks.

Here, we are being asked to take a chance that there is a significant of economically recoverable oil on the coastal plain. So, we first must decide what stakes we are willing to risk, and then weigh the odds.

The stakes are the coastal plain. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says it ``is critically important to the ecological integrity of the whole Arctic Refuge'' which is ``America's finest example of an intact, naturally functioning community of arctic/subarctic ecosystems.'' In fact, because of the abundance and variety of its wildlife, the refuge has been compared to Africa's Serengeti. This area is a habitat for caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, snow geese, 135 species of migratory birds, eagles, wolves, sheep, and muskoxen.

And what are the odds? Well, as anyone in the oil business knows, unless a well is drilled it is impossible to say whether even the most promising location actually has oil or gas. But the best estimate of the potential of the coastal plain is by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In 1998 they estimated that if the price of oil drops to less than $16 per barrel (as it did a few years ago) there would be no economically recoverable oil in the coastal plain. At $24 per barrel, USGS estimated there is a 95 percent chance of finding 1.9 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil in the refuge's coastal plain and a 50 percent chance of finding 5.3 billion barrels. And at today's prices, presumably the odds are better for economically recoverable amounts.

But when you compare that with the amount of oil America uses each day, it is clear that at best there is a chance of finding several months' supply of oil in the coastal plain.

On the other hand, there is one thing that is a 100 percent sure bet--drilling will change everything on the coastal plain forever. According to the Department of the Interior, oil and gas exploration and development in the Refuge would permanently and irreversibly: Destroy the unique wildland values of a world-class natural area; disrupt ecological and evolutionary processes in one of the most pristine conservation areas in the North American arctic; diminish the Refuge's scientific value as a benchmark for understanding these processes; damage the biological and ecological integrity of the entire Refuge.

I do not think we should take that bet. We do not need to trade one non-renewable resource--the wilderness qualities of the coastal plain-- for non-renewable oil.

There are less-sensitive places where oil may be found. And there are even better alternatives as well, including steps to conserve energy and greater use of renewable resources such as solar and wind power.

For example, consider that two-thirds of our oil consumption is for transportation. Experts agree that fuel-efficiency standards for new cars and light trucks could feasibly be raised to more than 40 miles per gallon by 2010. That would save 10 times as much oil as would likely be extracted from the Arctic refuge over the next 30 years. It also would mean a net economic gain for consumers of $69 billion over the life of the vehicles, according to a 1998 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy study. And it would be accompanied by a reduction in carbon dioxide pollution of more than 450 million tons per year--about a quarter of the reductions needed for the United States to meet the emission reduction goals established by the Kyoto Protocol.

In short, when it comes to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, I think that the stakes are too high and the odds are too long. I do not think we should gamble with the future of the refuge-- especially since we have better options.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, some other speakers in this debate made statements about the legislative history of the current law that governs management of the coastal plain portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I think those statements deserve a brief response.

As we all know, relevant current law says the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is off-limits to drilling, and that only Congress can change that.

That relevant law is the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act--often called ``ANILCA'' or just the Alaska Lands Act.

My father, Mo Udall, was the chief House sponsor of that legislation.

During the time I have served in Congress, there has been some discussion about the history of the Alaska Lands Act and how its authors might vote if they were still Members of this Committee. And in particular, there have been suggestions that my father, if he were voting with us today, would oppose this amendment and support opening the coastal plain to drilling.

That's an interesting thought. Of course, all we really know is that if things were different, they would be different. But I think that claim is not based on history.

I think that my father fact would oppose this legislation, because the law as it stands represents a compromise between two positions.

On the one hand were those who opposed drilling on the coastal plain because they thought it should be left alone. That was my father's view, and that was what was provided in the Udall-Anderson bill passed by the House.

On the other hand, there were then, as there are now, people who thought oil and gas exploration and development should be permitted on the coastal plain.

The final compromise required a special study of the area's energy potential to be followed by a recommendation about whether Congress should open the area to drilling. And, in the meantime, no drilling was allowed.

This compromise was worked out in the Senate. It passed there and came over to the House in the summer of 1980 but the House did not act on it until after that year's elections. Then, in a lame-duck session, my father moved that the House concur in the Senate-passed bill--which the House did, on a voice vote. That sent it to President Carter, who signed it into law on December 2, 1980.

I have no doubt that my father and the other House champions of the Alaska Lands Act considered the compromise the best that could be achieved at that time.

I also have no doubt that they considered it acceptable only because there would not be any drilling in the coastal plain unless and until Congress specifically approved it. My father did not support drilling there in 1980. I do not think he would support it now.

Of course, the real issue here isn't what happened in the past, but what will happen in the refuge in the future. That is up to us--not our predecessors--to decide. And as we do so, we are deciding not just for ourselves but also--and more importantly--for our children and their children.

But if people do want to consider some words from the past, I would direct their attention to the Interior Committee's original report on the Alaska Lands Act, dated April 7, 1978.

On page 149, the report points out that ``the Committee has noted the eloquent statements of a number of prominent Alaskans'' about the idea of building a pipeline across the coastal plain.

And the report quotes the words of the senior Senator from Alaska, who ``told the Council on Environmental Quality that `Some have appropriately compared [that idea] with slicing a razor blade across the face of the Mona Lisa.' ''

I am not saying that the senior Senator from Alaska would oppose this legislation--on the contrary, I know he supports it. But I think that years ago he aptly described what will happen if the coastal plain is opened to drilling, and why I oppose letting that happen.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue.

We have, as many have said, been through this issue before, but we have never been here in this situation. The suggestion is by those individuals that somehow, if we just drill ANWR, that we will have lower gasoline prices in the United States. Maybe they do not know it, but they should know it, that there is only now one price of oil. It is the world price of oil. The last time we had lower prices in the United States, the oil companies drilling in ANWR sought to export that oil to Japan rather than sell it into the United States.

So these are not benevolent societies. These are profit-making organizations. And if the world price of oil is $70 a barrel, it will be $70 a barrel in ANWR. If it is $100 a barrel it will be $100 a barrel from ANWR. So the idea America is going to get this fix out of ANWR just isn't true. By the time ANWR comes on line, it may be 4 percent of imports. We should not ignore that, but the fact of the matter is, as so many people have pointed out, there is much more that we can do.

Many people have referred to the fact that the President stood here and told us we were addicted to oil. Well, the supporters of this legislation and the President of the United States are acting just like addicts. What they are doing is looking for one more quick fix. One more fix and then they will get religion tomorrow. One more fix and they will get well. One more fix and they will go into treatment.

What they are telling us is that they have postponed conservation, they have postponed new technologies, and they have postponed new sources of energy. This is the most oil-friendly administration in recent times, and we still find that we cannot meet the demands of this country. Because rather than deal with our demands, rather than deal with the technologies and the innovations that are available to us today, they have put all of their money on the oil companies. They put it there with royalty relief. They put it there with incentives. They have put it there with bonus bid systems and they have put it there with drilling in ANWR. It is a bankrupt policy.

What they are now doing in the 11th hour, while American consumers suffer from $3.00 and $3.50 gasoline, they are buying a lottery ticket. They are buying a lotto ticket called ANWR. And they are hoping to be able to redeem it. When it doesn't work, America will be deeper in debt and more dependent on foreign sources of oil than they are today. Because if they can get ANWR, they can once again postpone the commitments to conservation and technology.

They can scare you by suggesting Venezuela may cut off its oil. Well, let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, they may sell that oil to the Chinese, but it is going to be refined in my district. Because the Chinese can't refine that oil. We know that most oil changes hands from the time it leaves one shore to get to the other shore. It may change ownership three or four times, sometimes as much as a dozen times. And it changes destination. But the fact of the matter is, it is not very attractive oil that Mr. Chavez is trying to sell or put on to the market.

So we have to understand what this means. What this comes down to really is about a sense of the future and our values. This ANWR, and I have been there, I meet the test. I have been

there, I have explored it, I have slept overnight there, I have stayed out and camped out in this area, so let me talk about it. This is about a pristine area that you either make a decision to industrialize or you don't.

The 2,000-acre footprint is a hoax. There is another 69,000 acres under Indian jurisdiction. They can build airports and they can do whatever they want. That is the nature of our relationship with the Indian tribes. So the 2,000 acres is a hoax. It is a decision about the value of this place, this very special place, and whether or not you are going to industrialize it.

Then it comes down to whether or not you believe in the ingenuity and the creativity of America. When we put together our innovation agenda, we met with the CEOs of the most advanced companies in the world. And they said to us, put energy innovation on the table, and you will drive a new generation of technology, a new generation of economic activity, and new jobs in America.

What are they putting on the table? They are putting on the table the old tired policy that somehow America can drill its way out of this problem. No, it can't. There's nobody who believes that is the situation. But you chose to stick with the 1960s, a 1970s policy, a 1980s policy, a 1990s policy. We would like to think about this century and new innovation and new places to go, and the excitement of new technologies, where America once again sells to the world those cutting-edge technologies.

We should not abandon wind energy to the Scandinavians, to the Europeans, and to the Spanish. No, we should have those technologies. We should be making the investments in alternative sources of energy and alternative sources of fuel. That is not what this legislation is about. This is about the one last lottery ticket, the one last gamble that the American people lose with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment to make sure that the taxpayers of this country and the owners of the Federal lands are not shortchanged if in fact ANWR will be opened in the future. Last week we discussed royalty relief, and we made the point that there are companies who have a royalty holiday. They do not pay royalties to the taxpayers of this country for the drilling on the lands that are owned by those taxpayers. In some cases, those companies may be able to escape almost all of the royalties on those lands.

We are simply saying to the Secretary of the Interior, if ANWR is opened, whether you are for it or against it, if ANWR is opened, those companies that continue to exploit the royalty holiday will not be allowed to bid for a lease in the ANWR, should it be leased. This is only fair to the taxpayers. An overwhelming bipartisan coalition voted for this last week on legislation. We seek to have that vote again to make sure.

We all know that oil is at $70 a barrel. We know oil company profits are at record all-time highs. Yet nobody can figure out how to give the taxpayer a break.

The oil companies are not going to lower the price of gas or pay for the research in the bill yesterday, and now they are telling us they won't give back the royalty holiday that they are not entitled to. They are going to continue to exploit this loophole in the law, and then they want to bid on new resources. We simply say, enough is enough. We want to protect the taxpayers.

This is not about whether ANWR is open or whether ANWR remains closed; this is about the ethics and this is about the judgment of this Congress in dealing with these oil companies that seek to not only have their cake and eat it too, but to move on and get new cake from the taxpayers of this country.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Madam Speaker, last week on the Hinchey amendment, where this issue was as straightforward as it is today, 67 Republicans joined 184 Democrats and overwhelmingly passed this amendment.

This amendment is a matter of simple fairness and equity, and it is to make sure that those people at these times of record profits who seek to exploit the loopholes in the law are not allowed to do that and get new leases from the taxpayers of this country in ANWR. That is simple fairness, it is simple equity, and the people of this country are entitled to it.

I would urge people to support the motion to recommit, and then the bill will go forward and people can decide on whether or not they want to drill in ANWR, I hope they don't, or, if they want to not do that, I hope they will make that decision. But that is independent of this fairness to the taxpayers, to the ratepayers, to the property owners in this country who own these lands that will be put out to bid, that we don't get fleeced twice by a couple of the oil companies that think they can have it both ways.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.