American-Made Energy Act of 2008

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk, a lot of rhetoric about energy. We have heard a lot of partisan talk about energy.

You know, Congress has never been in session in August, in recent memory. It is a traditional district work period. And all the Republicans that complained about Congress adjourning for August, as it does each August, if the truth be known, if you were to look at their schedule, they had public events scheduled throughout their district in August. Why? Because they knew that Congress is traditionally not in session in August.

And, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, if we had stayed on the floor the whole month of August, we would be hearing a lot of the stuff we are hearing tonight. We would be hearing all this partisan bickering about energy. But instead, all 435 Members of Congress went back home to their respective districts during the month of August. And if you listen to the national press, it sounds like we were all laid up on the beach somewhere for 5 weeks.

The fact is, most Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle did what I did; I began the break by making a trip to Iraq to visit the 3,000 members of the Arkansas National Guard. Regardless of how we feel about what is going on in Iraq and what we should or should not be doing, it is important, not as Democrats and Republicans, but as Americans, that we remain united in support of our men and women in uniform.

So I made the trip to Iraq to visit the 3,000 members of the Arkansas National Guard. It is their second deployment in 33 months. They have gone above and beyond what has been asked of them. When that National Guard recruiter showed up, they said, ``Sign here, son, and the most you will be out of the country is once every 5 years.'' This is the Arkansas National Guard 39th Brigade's second deployment in 33 months. And I felt like the least I could do is make the trip to Iraq, let them know we support them, thank them for their service, and to make sure that some of the $16 million an hour of your tax money that is going to Iraq is being spent on the equipment and supplies that they need.

Then I came home to Arkansas, and during the month of August I visited something like 40 towns across my district. Most Members of Congress did the same thing during August; they were visiting their constituents. And if they did, I am sure, like me, they got an earful about the high price of gasoline. And I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress going home to their districts and getting an earful on high gasoline prices will go a lot further toward getting a commonsense energy bill passed on the floor of the United States House of Representatives than having all of us sit here and fight and bicker and act like a bunch of school-aged kids for a month.

And because we were home in our districts in August and because we did get an earful, I predict that we will see a commonsense energy bill passed on the floor of the House this month. The question is whether the Republicans really want to pass an energy bill, or whether they just want to try and blame the Democrats. The irony of this is they have been in control of this for the last 6 years of the White House, House, and Senate. And during that time, of course, I don't have to tell anyone what has happened with the price of gasoline.

So this month, I predict, on the floor of the House the Republican Members of this body will have an opportunity to help pass a bipartisan, commonsense energy bill. The question is, will they do that, or will they not do it and try to continue to use this issue and the American people as a political football?

I can tell you that people in my district, they work hard, they get up, they go to work, they work hard for a living, and many of them live in rural areas and they travel great distances to and from work and they are sick and tired of being a political football. They don't see this as a Democrat or a Republican energy crisis. They see it, as I do, as an American energy crisis.

Here is what I do know. When I was born in 1961, our Nation was 19 percent dependent on foreign oil. By the time I graduated from high school in 1979, we were 45 percent dependent on foreign oil. We are now approaching 70 percent dependency on foreign oil.

Mr. Speaker, when we go to the gas pump and when we tank up, we are indirectly putting money in the hands of the terrorists who want to harm us. That does not make any sense at all.

Here is what else I know. There is going to be 100 million new cars on the road in the next 8 years. 100 million new cars on the road in the next 8 years; not here; in China and India. And I don't care who tells you what, no President, no Member of Congress can change the expansion of the middle class in China and India or anywhere else in the world.

The second thing that I want to point out is 3 weeks ago Kurdish rebels went into Turkey and blew up an oil pipeline, halfway around the world, and yet the next day in South Arkansas we were paying more per gallon of gasoline. No President, no Member of Congress can do anything about that.

We can't change world demand and world circumstances, but I will tell you what we can change. We can change our domestic supply here at home. And that is why a number of us that are Democrats believe that we have got to drill here at home.

The Republicans say, drill and your problems are solved. Not so. The fact is, that because demand is going to continue to increase, if we do all the alternatives and renewables that are in the science lab today and bring them to the marketplace, our oil needs will still be just as great in 20 years as they are today because the demand is going to continue to increase.

So some say drill and your problems are solved. They are not leveling with you. Others say do alternative renewable fuels and your problems are solved. They are not leveling with you, either, Mr. Speaker. I contend it is going to take all of these things. And I have a plan to accomplish that. It is called the American-Made Energy Act, and here is how it works.

Number one, to get us the oil we need short term we drill here at home in ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is real controversial with some, and I understand that. The truth is, there is 19 million acres in ANWR, and using new technology we only need 2,000 acres out of the 19 million to recover the oil we need. 19 million acres in ANWR at issue; the land area we need in order to drill and recover the oil that is there is 2,000 acres. Put it another way, one- sixth the size of the airport near Washington, D.C.

We need to drill off the coast. We need to drill where it makes sense, in the 48 continental United States, not using 1940 or 1950 technology, not even 1990 technology. My bill says that we will do it utilizing 21st century technology that can allow us to recover the oil we need and be good stewards of the environment all at the same time.

Here is what else it does. It generates $80 billion in lease and royalty payments to our government. $80 billion. When President Kennedy set out to put a man on the moon, in today's dollars it was a $90 billion investment, and we did a lot more than put a man on the moon. We grew a new generation of innovators in this country that went on to create many of the jobs and technologies that we enjoy today.

You contrast that with energy. Everybody is talking about alternative and renewable fuels, but the truth is we will spend more money in Iraq in the next 10 days than we will spend this year on research and development of new and exciting alternative and renewable forms of energy, and that is wrong.

I want to take the revenue from the lease and royalty payments, $80 billion, and I want to put every dime of it into making a President Kennedy ``let's go to the moon'' size investment in alternative and renewable fuels.

We can take automobiles that run on gas and run them on natural gas. We have a lot of natural gas in America. We have a plentiful supply of natural gas, and new areas are being found all the time. In Arkansas now we have got something called the Fayetteville Shale, and a lot of people who used to not have very much are now finding

themselves in the middle-class or even better. A lot of poor farmers, a lot of poor working families are now discovering some wealth because of the Fayetteville Shale, which is where they are recovering natural gas.

Now, not too long ago, they didn't know it existed. And then they knew it existed, but they didn't have the technology to recover it. And then they had the technology to recover it, but it was too costly. And then the price of natural gas went up, and, guess what. Now we are seeing this great explosion of this natural gas find in Arkansas known as the Fayetteville Shale. There is another one in Louisiana. They are both going to rival what is known as the Barnett Shale in Texas.

New and exciting technologies are allowing us to possibly move to natural gas powered cars. Biofuels, ethanol, cellulosic ethanol where we take the treetops and the tree limbs, add value to the land owner, and we can turn them into ethanol. The first ever cellulosic ethanol plant is being built right now in Georgia. The people building it I recently had on the panel when I hosted the first ever Arkansas Biofuels Conference at the University of Arkansas at Monticello, a forestry school located within my district.

Batteries, a lot of promise with batteries. Now, battery powered cars, plug-in electric cars probably won't make a lot of sense for those of us in rural areas. Last Thursday, I traveled 450 miles in my district. I represent about half of Arkansas. That is a lot of miles. Obviously, plug-in and battery powered doesn't make sense for a lot of folks that live in rural areas and drive 20 or even 50 miles each way to and from work. But you know what? For those folks in the urban areas, for those folks where we have a lot of people living, if we can transition them into battery and plug-in electric cars where they spend an hour getting 6 miles to work each day, that will reduce our Nation's need for oil and, therefore, it will reduce the price that we pay at the pump in areas where we will continue to have automobiles that run on gasoline, which comes from oil.

There is a lot of promise. Hydrogen fuel cell. I have test driven a hydrogen fuel cell car. It sounds like an electric golf cart, it runs like a regular car, and no pollution. And when you stop, if you take an empty cup and run to the tailpipe in time, it will pour you a half a cup of water that you can drink. This is not Star Wars stuff. This is not stuff that is even in the science lab anymore. These are ideas that are out of the science lab and ready for the marketplace. The problem is, we do not have an energy policy in this country that embraces them.

So that is what my plan does; it drills, it gives us the oil we need short term; it reduces the price we pay at the pump; it makes a President Kennedy ``let's go to the moon'' size investment in alternative and renewable fuels that can create hundreds of thousands of new jobs here at home.

Ironically, high gas prices helped get us in this economic recession, and having a President Kennedy ``let's go to the moon'' size investment in alternative and renewable energy, growing a new generation of energy innovators in this country can also help get us out of this recession. I call it my Common Sense Energy Plan for America's Future. And I am going to talk more about it a little bit later this evening, because we don't just address the high price of gasoline, we also address electricity. Because I can tell you, we have a gasoline and diesel crisis today, but we are going to have an electricity crisis as early as 2030, and it is going to be far greater and much worse than the gasoline crisis we have today, and my bill speaks to that. It is H.R. 5437, the American-Made Energy Act, and we are going to talk about it in more detail a little bit later this evening.

But at this time, I have got a number of Democrats that have joined me that are for new energy, they are for drilling, they are for alternatives, they are for renewables. They are for American-made energy. Again, this is not a Republican or a Democratic energy crisis, it is an American energy crisis, and we are here to say that we want to make a difference.

I am pleased at this time to introduce my good friend, my colleague from California, the Honorable Jim Costa.

I thank the gentleman from California for his insight, his commitment to finding a common sense to this energy crisis facing America today. And the Member from California, Mr. Costa, talked about the Blue Dogs.

The Blue Dog Coalition is a group of fiscally conservative Democrats that come from all over this country. There's 49 of us. And we're about trying to restore fiscal discipline, common sense and accountability to our government.

We're sick and tired of all the partisan bickering that goes on up in Washington. We don't care if it's a Democrat or a Republican idea. We want to know is it a common sense idea. Does it make sense for the people that send us here to be their voice at our Nation's Capital.

Tonight you're hearing from various members of the Blue Dog Coalition. It's not necessarily a Blue Dog position. It's Democratic positions. It's individual positions from individual Members within the Blue Dogs.

But you know, to listen to the Republicans tell it, you'd think Democrats aren't for drilling. We're for drilling, we're just not for giving the big oil companies a free ride to go along with it.

And tonight, I have got a number of my colleagues, Democratic Members of Congress, that, like me, believe that we need to drill, and we need to drill now, here at home in America to reduce the price we pay at the pump.

But we're not so short sighted that we stop there. We also say, take the revenue from the lease and royalty payments, and let's make the single largest investment in the history of America in alternative and renewable fuels.

At this time I'm pleased to yield to my colleague from Ohio, Charlie Wilson, for as much time as he desires. Not to be confused with the other Charlie Wilson. Charlie Wilson from Ohio.

I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio for joining us. And if you are able to stick around, we'd love to visit more about coal with you.

We've got at least a 225-year supply of coal here in America. Instead of saying it's bad and turning our back on it, doesn't it make sense to invest some of this $80 billion from the lease and royalty payments from drilling here at home and trying to find ways to clean it up? Coal-to-liquid.

We're so close to getting coal-to-liquid figured out that if we could, we wouldn't need to import another barrel of oil for 300 years in this country. I look forward to visiting more with the gentleman from Ohio about coal. In fact, I've got a coal plant being built in my district right now. Coal is not the cleanest form of energy. We all recognize that. But I can tell you this: with new technologies when this plant comes on line, it will be the cleanest new coal plant in America today. It will be plumbed, outfitted for carbon capture and sequestration, another promising technology that's currently in the science lab but getting close to being ready for the marketplace.

At this time, I would like to yield to my dear friend, a real leader in the United States House of Representatives from the State of Texas, and that's Nick Lampson.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

And Mr. Speaker, when I committed to doing this hour this evening on our need for energy, including drilling here at home as well as investing in alternative renewable fuels, I wasn't sure if I would be spending an hour here by myself or not. The reality is that we've got Democrats that keep filing on to the floor of the United States House of Representatives, so many so that we may not be able to get to them all in this hour.

These are Democrats that are demanding a new energy policy for this country, and we can only hope the Republicans will join us in passing one in a bipartisan way. We're here to reach out to the Republicans and say, This is not a Democrat or Republican energy crisis, it's an American energy crisis. Let's solve it together.

I'm pleased now to yield to a brand new Member of Congress, all the way from Mississippi, who's brought a good dose of commonsense and fresh air to Washington with him, and that's my friend Travis Childers.

I thank the gentleman from Mississippi, and at this time, I will yield to the gentleman from Georgia, David Scott, my friend.

I appreciate my colleague from Georgia, my dear friend, for working late on a Tuesday night here to help us address this energy crisis facing this country.

And at this time, I'm pleased to yield to another leader of the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, my good friend from the State of Tennessee, Lincoln Davis.

I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for coming out and joining us this evening.

Mr. Speaker, tonight, you've heard from Democrats from Texas, Ohio, Mississippi, California, Tennessee, Georgia, and yes, Arkansas. They are Democrats who share a common vision, a common plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to create new jobs here at home, to drill here at home, to take the lease and royalty payments to invest in alternative and renewable fuels which will create new jobs here at home, all of which, of course, will lower the price we pay at the pump.

We invite Republicans to join us. It's H.R. 5437, the American-Made Energy Act. It's a bipartisan bill. I hope Republicans will support it as well as they will support these other bills mentioned this evening.

I would yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

The gentleman from Tennessee is absolutely correct.

Mr. Speaker, we don't have a Democratic energy crisis. We don't have a Republican energy crisis. We've got an American energy crisis, and we're here asking Republicans to join us, the Democrats, in passing a bill that includes drilling here at home and in investing in alternative and renewable fuels. If the Republicans will do that, if they will come to the table and will sit down and will talk to us and with us instead of at us, I promise you, Mr. Speaker, we will pass a commonsense energy plan for America, a plan that will reduce the price we pay at the pump.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to organize a special order this hour on the part of the Blue Dog Coalition. The Blue Dogs wanted to take advantage of this opportunity tonight to speak about energy policy issues.

I think that there is no doubt that when it comes to domestic policy issues that this country faces, that energy policy is right at the top of the list. I think it is clear that this country should be looking for a comprehensive balanced energy policy, and I think that represents the type of politics the Blue Dogs in the House of Representatives have often supported.

We have a number of issues that we really want to work through tonight, and I have a number of my fellow Blue

Dog colleagues who are going to join me during this hour to talk about various energy policy issues. And I would like to start right now by recognizing my colleague from the State of Louisiana, one of the newest Members of the House, and someone who is prepared to really contribute on this issue, Representative Cazayoux from Louisiana.

I thank my colleague. And I appreciate the fact that my colleague from Louisiana highlighted the notion that there is not a single action that we need to take; that in fact we need a comprehensive effort, we need to look at a series of different opportunities to try to address both the supply and the demand side. And I appreciate his leadership on the issue and want to thank him for joining us in the Blue Dog hour.

Right now I recognize my colleague from Kansas, a long-time Blue Dog, Congressman Moore.

(Mr. MOORE of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Well, I thank the gentleman from Kansas for his thoughts, and I appreciate again the introduction of the notion that we need a comprehensive approach.

There is just not one silver bullet that's going to solve this circumstance. It really is consistent with what the Blue Dog energy principles that were adopted at the start of the 110th Congress say about fuel diversity, the recognition that long-term U.S. energy independence is going to come from putting everything on the table, everything from conventional oil and gas and from alternative sources such as oil shale and tar sands, nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, coal, and biofuels. If we're really going to take this issue on, we've got to look at it in that comprehensive manner.

Again, the Blue Dogs have adopted a set of principles that recognize the value of a diverse fuel mix within this country as a long-term solution of creating energy security for this country.

With that, I now would like to welcome another fellow Blue Dog to speak, who is a fellow member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and who is cochair for communications for the Blue Dogs in this Congress-- Congressman Ross from Arkansas--who has in his years in Congress been a real leader on trying to address energy issues in this country. I welcome him to participate in this discussion.

With that, I will yield to him as much time as he would like to consume.

Well, I thank my colleague from Arkansas for spending time with us this evening but also for trying to take a thoughtful and comprehensive approach. That's really what Blue Dogs are about. I think we really try to discuss items in the context of policy.

I'd just like to introduce one other factor into this discussion about the high gas prices that we face today and what we can do in terms of the price of oil, and it's consistent with what Blue Dogs talk about a lot. People probably didn't think I'd raise the issue of fiscal responsibility relative to oil prices, but it turns out that there is a significant relationship here. It has to do with the fact that, during the current administration, so much more money has been borrowed.

When our current President took office, the national debt was around $6 trillion. We're approaching $10 trillion now. $4 trillion just in the last 7\1/2\ years. Do you know what that has done among many other things? It has created a weaker dollar. Now, oil is a global commodity. It's traded all over the world, and it's traded under one currency, and that's the U.S. dollar. That weaker dollar means that oil costs even more for us in this country than it does for other countries with stronger currencies.

I've brought with me tonight this chart to graphically demonstrate the relationship, according to the Energy Information Administration, between the lower dollar--the weaker dollar--and how much the price has gone up in terms of dollars per barrel. It's pretty self-evident that we had a strong dollar for a number of years. Then in the early part of this decade, as the debt started to increase, the value of the dollar dropped precipitously, and the price of oil went up at the same time.

It's not the only factor associated with how expensive oil is in the world today, but clearly, in all of the discussion that we've been having about why the oil price is so high in the world, in my opinion, this particular issue has not received much attention.

The Blue Dog Coalition has this fundamental principle about balancing budgets and about living within our means. We tell people that you may not see the impact of this debt right away, but here is an impact because, with all of that increased debt, we've had to borrow so much money as a country that we've weakened our currency relative to the rest of the world. Therefore, because that's how it's traded all over the world, the price of oil on a dollar-per-barrel basis has gone up a lot.

So I wanted to introduce this concept, which is very appropriate within a Blue Dog Special Order hour here on the floor of the House of Representatives, to talk about the linkage between the need for fiscal responsibility and how it affects energy prices, which is something that, I think, ought to be part of this debate as well.

With that, I'd like to yield time to another one of my fellow Blue Dogs, another individual who is very thoughtful and measured in his approach, and that's the type of approach we need for a comprehensive energy policy. He is my colleague Mr. Scott from the State of Georgia.

Well, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his thoughtful comments tonight. And it is no surprise. He's always been someone who tries to understand issues well. His comments really reflect a couple of the basic principles. You know, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the Blue Dog Coalition published a set of energy principles at the start of this Congress, and I think my colleague, Mr. Scott, really touched on two of the important components of those principles.

The first is that the Blue Dogs believe in the value of technology development, and energy policy should build on American strengths. One of the great things about this country is its ability to innovate. Research and development capability of this country surpasses any place in the world. Whenever this country has applied itself to solve a problem, it succeeds so well. And that type of innovation is what is going to allow technology to take us to a different place than we are today.

And I think Mr. Scott discussed some of those potential technologies in which he's familiar, and there is no question in the long run, if we are going to get to a position where this country is not as dependent on foreign oil, we need technology to take us to a new place in terms of particularly how our transportation and infrastructure are going to operate.

And the second Blue Dog energy principle I think Mr. Scott touched on very well is this notion of efficiency. You know, if you can do more with less, we all win. We use less energy, we save money, it's good for the environment. Energy-efficient technologies and energy conservation are other pieces to this puzzle.

I think an overriding thing we've said throughout this discussion tonight is that there is no single option here. There is no silver bullet. We, as Blue Dogs, support the furtherance of energy-efficient technologies. We think that we can continue to make progress and push the envelope and that, again, as a country that leads the world in innovation, we can also lead in terms of continuing to be more efficient in how we use energy.

Again, I thank Mr. Scott for his comments. As usual, very consistent with Blue Dog principles, and again, it helps further this debate about how we ought to move ahead in our national energy policy.

With that, I would like to recognize another of my fellow Blue Dogs, someone who has invested a lot of time and effort to develop an understanding of the energy issues and is a real substantive contributor to the policy debate, and that is my colleague from South Dakota, Representative Herseth Sandlin.

I will yield her as much time as she may consume.

Well, I want to thank my colleague from South Dakota who is always a very substantive participant in any public policy discussion we have here in Congress, and I know she's invested a lot of time and effort when it comes to the energy issue. I really appreciate her participating in this Blue Dog discussion.

There are a couple of points that were raised by my colleague from South Dakota that I think merit one more mention. The discussion of what we've done in this Congress, there have been some actions that have been taken, and one of them is going to bear fruit in the long run. We're not going to see a result right now. It's a process that came out of the Science Committee, of which I'm a member.

The chairman of that committee, Mr. Gordon, another Blue Dog, pursued a really aggressive effort to invest in basic research, in R&D, tried to put Federal funding out there to really get things going in a more aggressive way than it has in the past. He created a program called ARPA-E. It's designed after a previously created program within the Defense Department that's called DARPA, which created a lot of research that's helped us with technology advancements in the defense arena. And this legislation created a comparable effort in the energy policy arena, and our Blue Dog colleague, Mr. Gordon, has been a real leader on that. And that is another action this Congress has taken that is an important step to take. And I know we're frustrated by $4 gas today, and that program, the ARPA-E program, is not going to reduce the price of gas next month. I understand that.

But the point is there are a series of steps we need to take. There's some short-term, some mid-term, some long-term strategies, but we need to put them all on the table now. We need to do what we can do to make progress on this issue.

The second point that my colleague from South Dakota said--and I just want to emphasize--is she talked about opportunities and activities that we can work with our partners, including in Canada. When she mentioned Canada, it reminded me of the fact that as a country Canada has placed a tremendous emphasis on developing their tar sands resources.

Now, I represent the State of Utah and a significant amount of the oil that is refined in refineries located right in the Salt Lake City area comes from Canada. It comes from the tar sand resource in Canada, and it is piped to the United States.

Now, we can do that here, too. We can maybe take a page out of the Canadian book on how they, as a country, made efforts to develop that resource. It's an unconventional resource, and they took the steps and they made a significant commitment. It has not been without costs. It has not been without setbacks. There are lessons to be learned there, too, which we as a country should do.

And I understand that the tar sand resource we have in the United States--and we have it in my own State of Utah--is a little bit different composition than the Canadian tar sands. I understand that there are differences, but there's so much that we can learn from that, and it's a viable source of production today in Canada.

And so I appreciate the mention of how we can learn from others and learn from our partners, and I don't know if you had something you wanted to add to that point.

I appreciate that. I'd like to hear from Mr. Scott.

I again thank my colleague for his comments. I think that he has helped describe the global picture. We haven't discussed that enough about we're part of a global market. And it's important for us to take the lead and develop fuel diversity and try to develop some level of greater independence, because outside of that, in some respects our actions are the tail wagging the dog. And we need to get beyond that as a country. That's not a comfortable position for this country to be in.

The first sentence of the Energy Principles Document that the Blue Dogs created at the start of this Congress is that energy independence is a matter of national security and economic security. This country faces so many great opportunities if technology does take us to a new place. We will be in such a better position in terms of our economy, in terms of our foreign policy, in terms of our position in the world. And we can make the world a better place with that technology development, too. That's the exciting opportunity for beyond our borders as well.

Blue Dogs supports promotion of a forward-looking, market-based comprehensive national energy strategy. As we've discussed many times tonight, there are short-term, mid-term and long-term issues. It's a complicated issue. In fact, each of the sub-issues on their own are complicated in their nature. And sometimes in the world of politics the rhetoric gets really simple. But on this one, it's time for us to roll up our sleeves and act in a way this body is supposed to act, in a deliberative, thoughtful way to generate comprehensive legislation that truly tries to solve problems and achieve progress. That's what we're elected to do. I think the Blue Dog Coalition approaches most issues in that way. I think we really don't care about if it's a Democratic idea or a Republican idea, we're trying to make progress.

And so as I close this hour and this discussion of energy issues, I suspect

that we will be back talking about this again. This issue is not going away. It's something that we all need to learn more about and we all need to work together. None of us have all the answers, but we need to work together as a Congress to try to find solutions as best we can.

With that, I thank all of my Blue Dog colleagues for joining me tonight.

Thank you very much, Mr. Matheson. I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Utah for allowing me to share a few thoughts on what, I think, is the most urgent issue facing, really, the survival of the world, not just that of our country. I'd like to talk about this from an additional perspective.

This issue is rolling along on about four or five major legs. One is supply. Another is the weakened dollar, of which you spoke. Another is do we do more drilling. Then this other of which we have not dealt as we should, of which I believe is that leg of which we have to deal if we are going to really address the issue facing the American people, is the high price of gasoline. That leg is called demand. We've got speculators who certainly need to be reined in, and we're doing that.

I serve on the Agriculture Committee. We've had the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under Chairman Lukken to come before our committee. We want to make sure that we give him the resources and all that he needs to bring title regulation and transparency. We need to look at issues like swapping where these traders use others' pension funds to trade among themselves with little oversight. We need to close the Enron loophole. We need to make sure that everything trading with oil is done in the light and not in foreign exchanges that have very little regulation. All of that needs to be done.

Speculation and speculators play a vital role as well. So that we have to make sure that whatever approach we take there, that's a part of the infrastructure. And still we're not addressing the issue facing the American people until we address the issue of demand.

The only way we're going to bring down the price of oil, and subsequently the price of gasoline, is to reduce our demand and our dependency on oil. Oil's not in our future if we're going to have one. If we continue with oil, this earth is going to eventually burn up. We're getting to that point now. It is the oil and other matters that are causing global warming at such an epidemic rate that even if you drill for more, that creates more demand. And drilling is where we are now. That is not where we need to go for the future.

We have got to erase the high demand or else we're going to be in a footrace with China and India. If we continue at our pace on our current demand for oil, it will go up 22 percent in the next 10 years, China's will go up 160 percent, India 110, and developing countries in the Middle East will go up 125. Increase. The more oil you drill for, the more the demand, the higher the price.

Let me tell you something that happened. Just before we left, in Jidda in Saudi Arabia they had a conference. And at that conference, Saudi Arabia said, Okay. I tell you what. We're going to increase during the month of May by 300,000 barrels per day. Then in July and June, last month, they added another 200,000 barrels a day, increase, because we felt the more the supply, then we'd lower the price. No, no, no. Less than 24 hours. That happened on a Sunday. That very Monday, when the first market opened in Singapore, the price went up from $134 a barrel to $137, and now it's rolling along at $145. Does more oil, does more production, does it drive it up? It creates the demand.

So what do we do? We've got to move forthrightly on getting off of oil, getting off of dependency on it. We've got a great chance to do that. We have the means to do it. There is no country that has the technology, that has the smarts to be able to get alternative sources of energy to survival.

If Brazil can do it, why can't we? I went down to Brazil last year, spent a week down there going into the factories, into the production plants, and 85 percent of their automobiles are running on what is called flex fuel. In other words, ethanol made from sugarcane. Why can't we do that? No. We blindly want to go with ethanol, but we want to go make it on corn.

For every unit of energy that it takes to produce a unit of ethanol from sugarcane, they can only yield less--they yield 8 units of energy. That's a great yield. With corn, for every energy it takes to produce it they can only produce less than 2 units of energy. It's not efficient. Plus, it drives up the price on food because corn is the basic for livestock. So corn ethanol is not the future. Nor should it be on any basic food.

But now our technologies say we can make ethanol from kudzu, from pine straw, from pinecones, and yes, sugarcane.

Now I ask you, here is a question that we need to ask and the American people need to ask Congress. Why can't

we begin to offset our demand for gasoline to run our automobiles, offset, removing our demand bit by bit from importing oil from the Middle East and on oil to making up for that by pouring in ethanol? And why is it that we have a 54 cents-per-gallon tariff on every gallon of ethanol we would import from Brazil? It doesn't make sense. Why would we not want to import ethanol made from sugarcane, the most energetic, the most productive kind of ethanol, into this country from Brazil to offset the loss from importing oil from there as we build up our own capacity for ethanol?

And let me just share with you what we're doing in my great State of Georgia. Georgia is at the leadership--and I would like to say, Mr. Matheson, in my own district in Clayton County, for example, we have in Clayton County in Ellenwood, a plant that makes biodiesel fuel. And you know what they make it from? Not oil, not petroleum. They're making it from the fatty parts that you throw away from the chickens and from pork. And they're taking it. And this year, this plant, it's called the BullDog BioDiesel--you can tell we're from Georgia because it's the ``Bull Dog''--but it's the BullDog BioDiesel plant in Ellenwood. They will produce 18 million gallons of biodiesel fuel.

And it is not going to have to go on the world market like oil would. That's another thing we need to clarify because people think if we were to drill and get oil, that that oil will come straight on back here and it stays in this country. No. That goes to the world oil market and comes out at $145 a barrel if it was today. The price is there.

So my point is this: We need to understand that we are at a critical point in our history, quite honestly, as a civilization, and America must lead in this direction, and that leadership means cutting this demand and dependency on oil and moving to renewable areas. We're already moving with the battery cell automobile. Why can't we put greater emphasis on those things and those items?

And as I said, we certainly have to look at ethanol as a future because it would make up for the shortfall we would get once we are able to cut our dependency on oil, especially from the Middle East.

So I think that among all of the other things that we've got to do, and there are many things we've got to do, but essentially it comes down to the bottom line: You want the price of gasoline to go down? You want the future of the world to go up? Then what you do is you've got to cut the demand on that petroleum as a base of energy and move to another base of energy that does not threaten our economy or our environment.

Absolutely. And I just wanted to complement what my colleague from South Dakota, Ms. Herseth, has said because I serve on the Agriculture Committee with Ms. Herseth.

And this agricultural farm bill, in my estimation, in my 6 years here I've dealt with many bills, but as far as our future and our domestic and international needs, this farm bill is by far one of the absolute, most impactful bills we've had that touches on this. And I think we would do well to share with the American people--and you have alluded to so much of that already, very eloquently I might add--but let me just also point out that what's in this bill because this is so important.

We've mentioned ethanol, but it's so important that the people of America know that we have $4.2 billion in loan guarantees in this bill for the construction of ethanol plants, and we are putting the emphasis, as you said, on cellulosic. This is why it's particularly, in my part of the Nation, in Georgia, we are so excited about this bill. We not only have the biodiesel plant in Ellenwood in Clayton County, but over in south Georgia, in Soperton we have a cellulosic ethanol plant that is producing energy off of wood chips, just what you talked about.

We have scientists and engineers and chemists working right now at the University of Georgia and Georgia Tech fine-tuning how we extract cellulosic ethanol from pine straw and pine trees. I mean, these are renewable areas, and we're putting the incentives in.

Also in the farm bill what we've done, we recognize, as she spoke so eloquent, too, about the corn pressure, that we wanted to also give some emphasis to the cellulosic ethanol. So we have increased the tax credits for ethanol made from cellulosic means, while we slightly decreased it from corn to take some of that pressure off.

So I did want to talk for a moment about the leadership of the Agriculture Committee in the future of our energy needs, particularly when it comes down to our renewable fuels, but I also wanted to talk for a moment about this is a world issue, and it's a complex issue.

The question that I'm pondering with and I think we all should is this one. Fifteen years ago, just 15 years ago, the price of oil was less than $15 a barrel. Now here we are, 15 years later, and it's busting at about $150 a barrel. Somewhere, somehow we need to ask the question, how and why, because clearly if we're going to find our way out of this mess we have got to examine how we got into this mess.

Well, I did a little bit of examining, and it comes down to this. Right now, the world uses 85.4 million barrels of oil per day. Now, I ask Mr. Matheson, you might want to know, that's good, well, how much does the world produce? They produce 85.6 million barrels per day. And as I mentioned earlier, Saudi Arabia just like that said we can increase production just like that, 500 barrels a day.

Now, what I'm talking about here is that a lot has happened, but one of the most significant things that has happened has been China and India and the underdeveloped world that is putting tremendous pressure here and an OPEC cartel that tends to want to play like Russian roulette with us.

So this is why I am saying and I am concerned that if we move towards drilling, wherever it may be, I am just one voice here. There are all areas of leadership, and my leadership is going to be in trying to get alternative energies on the market, trying to bring down the 54-cent tariff that we have for keeping ethanol out so that we can have some competition.

Even as we're speaking, I believe the world is listening, and they're listening to what America is saying. And if America is saying we're making moves to get you out of the back pockets of the American people and we're going to move into a situation where we don't need you, we're going to bring that price down. You watch what we say. If it takes drilling, if it takes a threat of drilling, if it takes moving it and getting the oil companies finally to move on the 68 million acres that we've already leased to drill on--and that is the other question, Mr. Matheson. Not only the other question about what happened in the 15 years, but why is it that we've given the oil companies 68 million acres to drill on and everybody is saying drill, drill, and not one drill has hit the ground in those 68 million acres?

The American people ought to get an answer to that. If they want more drilling, why haven't the oil companies drilled on the 68 million acres that's there to drill? Those are some very serious questions that I think we need to ask and examine thoroughly.

But I will say this, this Congress is speaking with a loud, precise voice. And I believe the more energetic we speak with this voice, the more precise we speak with it, the more action-oriented we speak with it, both Democrats and Republicans, all of us speak in a loud voice together, saying enough of this, we're not going to take it anymore and move forward with some alternatives, that will get these oil folks out of our back pockets. That's what the American people want. And that's what is going to bring down these oil prices, shaking the demand.

I thank my dear friend, Congressman Mike Ross from Arkansas, for his leadership not only in the Congress but among our fellow Blue Dogs.

I rise this evening to speak on behalf of a comprehensive effort to really address America's energy needs.

We have certainly heard a lot of political posturing that has taken place over the last year about various types of energy proposals, and I think the sad fact is that the American public is not looking for a Democratic nor are they looking for a Republican-Democratic energy package; they are looking for an American energy package, one that addresses our near-term needs with the energy crisis that we are experiencing today, one that focuses on our interim challenges that we face, and one that focuses on the long term, over the next 20 years, because Americans realize that it has taken a number of decades to put us in the hole that we are in today, and that certainly overnight we can't a la Harry Potter wave a magic wand hoping that our energy challenges will simply be wished away. It simply is not possible, and the American public knows that.

What they do expect is their elected representatives, Democrats and Republicans, to come together, put partisan differences aside, and sit down and try to figure out how we reduce our dependency on foreign sources of energy, as Congressman Ross mentioned a moment ago, reaching almost 70 percent now of the energy that we consume in America each year; almost 70 percent imported from foreign sources.

To put it another way, this year, Americans will transfer in excess of $750 billion. Let me repeat that. We will transfer in excess of $750 billion of American wealth to purchase our energy needs. Talk about digging a hole.

And where does that wealth go? It goes, in the form of petro dollars, in some cases, to sometimes friends of us, and then sometimes into the pockets of petro dictatorships which certainly wish us no good in the world of the geopolitics that we live in today.

We have certain countries in the Middle East that are playing both sides of the terrorist aisle. So, in that sense, we are really financing both sides of the war on terror. We're trying to, obviously, eliminate terror in our world, but yet we have countries in which we are purchasing our energy from who play both sides of the fence and use that, almost like the Mafia did in terms of protection money.

So, Americans want us to put together the kind of comprehensive energy policy that I think our Nation deserves, an Apollo-like program that really sets goals over the course of the next 10 years, short-term goals, interim goals, and long-term goals that will not just reduce our dependency on foreign sources of energy, but on fossil fuels, using all the new technologies that are out there that, in fact, will create more American jobs; that will create cleaner air, that can also be exported in terms of technologies around the world.

So is there such an effort going on? I'm pleased to tell you, tonight, yes, there is. There is such a bipartisan effort. It began back in early June with a group of Republicans and Democrats sitting together, one night a week, for 6 weeks, talking about what we thought was the art of the possible, the common sense that Americans expect us to use when we're here on the floor of the House and we're in committee. And as a result of that, we produced the National Conservation, Environmental and Energy Independence Act, introduced with 28 Democratic cosponsors and 28 Republican cosponsors on the day that we left session in July. Today we have over 120 cosponsors.

Now, this isn't a Blue Dog proposal. This isn't a Democratic proposal. This is not a Republican proposal. This is a bipartisan work product of like Members doing what Americans expect us to do, and that is, sit down and figure out solutions and compromises to some of the most difficult challenges we face as a Nation.

Now, what's this bill do? It's a simple bill. It's 34 pages long. It's three titles. The first title is offshore and onshore leasing and other energy provisions. It basically opens up the Outer Continental Shelf within 25 to 50 miles, giving States an opt-in provision, that could be modified in other ways, that we believe, over a course of the next 20

years, will develop $2.6 trillion. Conservative estimates. These are based upon what the Mineral and Management Services estimated the last time they surveyed Federal lands, both on and offshore. When they last surveyed lands on and offshore in the 1980s, using old technology, not the new technology that has 3-D seismology that we use today to determine carbon footprints of oil and natural gas, in those days, what they determined existed in the Gulf of Mexico today, as a result of literally hundreds of leases that have been let in the gulf, we have developed, in that time period of over 20 years, 3\1/2\ times more energy resources than was estimated to be there by Mineral and Management Services in the 1980s. Using those same conservative estimates we base this $2.6 trillion that would be realized as a result of opening up these Federal lands, both on the Outer Continental Shelf and on land.

Now, what would we do with this money? Well, we have the same royalty program that exists today, in which energy companies bid for leases that come up on a regular basis, and then, of course, these energy companies pay a lease, if they successfully bid on a parcel of leases; and then after they do their due diligence and determine if it's worth, in fact, drilling and utilizing the oil and the natural gas, then they pay a royalty. So we get monies three ways. We get monies when the energy companies first bid on the leases, then we get money when they lease the land that they have successfully bid on, and then, if they decide to determine to drill for oil or natural gas, we get the royalties. $2.6 trillion, we think, is the conservative estimate.

Where would we spend that money. We'd put 30 percent of it in the general fund. That would, over the time period, amount to $780 billion. For States that decided to participate they would receive an equal 30 percent or $780 billion. How many of our States could use that money to invest in the infrastructure? That $780 billion could be so helpful in dealing with our national debt.

We would also put 8 percent for the conservation reserve. We'd also put 10 percent for an environmental restoration reserve account. We'd put 15 percent for renewable energy reserves.

We all want to get off of our addition to fossil fuel. Even the President here said that in his State of the Union speech. But we can't wish our way from fossil fuel. We have to be able to finance the renewable fuels. This would do that.

It also would provide 5 percent for carbon capture sequestration and to regenerate nuclear waste. We shouldn't be storing it at Yucca Mountain. We ought to be regenerating it like other countries do. There is energy in that waste, and it could be utilized on those plants.

And, also, we need to look at conservation. We need to apply energy standards in residential and commercial buildings that is low-hanging fruit, and provide also support for low income home energy assistance programs for those people who are on fixed incomes, those who are working poor, those who most need the support for to conservation. That's the first title.

The second title would provide funding for cleaner energy production and energy conservation incentives. In other words, we would provide continuation of tax credits for existing renewables, for solar, for wind, for the cellulosic fuels, for the new technologies, like, that we think will be so important in creating the new American industries of jobs and energy; and to include bio diesel and other renewable fuels that include the hybrid vehicles that our colleague, Congressman Ross, spoke of that he and I and others have actually had the opportunity to drive.

This is what we ought to do. This is taking existing innovative efforts in renewables and funding them, financing them, because that's how you get there from here. This is the interim strategy.

The third title of the bill is a portion of the bill that I am going to let my colleague and good friend, Congressman Nick Lampson discuss, because it's an important part that deals with the near-term issues. It involves the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and it dedicates some of those revenues and the conservation to energy research programs. This will have an immediate effect in lowering the prices of the existing gasoline, diesel and other fuel oils that we are, currently Americans are hard hit with.

Let me close by saying that this measure has the support of 18 Blue Dogs as cosponsors. Certainly, a large percentage of my Blue Dogs colleagues are supporting this, or they are supporting Congressman Green's proposal or Congressman Mike Ross' proposal. But the Blue Dogs share a common desire to put the partisan politics behind us and really do America's business in addressing our long-term, interim and short- term energy needs.

Be sure of one thing. This energy crisis that we are in today will be with us for the foreseeable future. We are just one international crisis away from rationing fuel in America. We saw what happened in Russia's invasion of Georgia just a week ago and the implications on that for energy policy.

Nigeria provides 10 percent of some of the sweetest, cleanest crude that we import in America. You would think, well, maybe 10 percent's not too much; we could live without Nigeria's oil.

Well, let me tell you something. That 10 percent of the oil we receive from Nigeria provides 36 percent of all the gasoline consumed on the East Coast. We know the problems that we have in Nigeria today and the Delta and the instability there, as in other parts of the world. So, Americans expect us to look at a short-term, interim and long-term energy policy.

Ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues, my Blue Dog friends understand that we must use all the energy tools in our energy tool box, and that's what these series of proposals attempt to do, to use, as my parents taught me, a long time ago, Jim, use just some good common sense. You know, Jim, if you use good common sense you can get a lot done and you work with people and you don't care who gets credit. Well, that's what these proposals are all about, to use all the energy tools in our energy tool box for the near-term, the interim and the long-term energy needs of our country.

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time to my colleague, Mike Ross and my fellow Blue Dogs. Thank you very much.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership on the Energy and Commerce Committee and in other capacities and with the Blue Dog Coalition on energy issues.

And in citing our energy principles that the Blue Dogs stand by, we have a number of those that have been addressed already this evening, but fuel diversity is certainly one that I think deserves emphasis.

The representative from the State of South Dakota, an at-large district, a very rural district, as many of the Blue Dogs represent rural districts, the impact of these high gas and oil prices are having a disproportionate effect in many respects on my constituents who have to drive great distances to work, who have to drive great distances to get children to school, who have to put nitrogen fertilizer on crops, and who have to use great amounts of diesel and gasoline to plant and harvest those crops to maintain a safe, abundant cheap food supply.

So much has been made in recent weeks of high commodity prices. We just recently passed the farm bill. Overrode the President's veto twice to pass a farm bill that preserves the safety net. And as people point to those high commodity prices and think that farmers and ranchers have never had it better, one thing that I would hope that my colleagues, Madam Speaker, would keep in mind is that nitrogen fertilizer, which depends on natural gas, is an essential ingredient, and the high cost of gas and diesel are the input costs that are dramatically higher than they've ever been, that cuts into any profits, dramatically, that farmers and ranchers may be experiencing now that they're finally getting decent commodity prices that are saving taxpayers dollars because those are higher than the target prices and loan rates that we've set into law. And therefore we aren't making countercyclical payments and loan deficiency payments to farmers across the country because they have another buyer for that grain rather than just one buyer putting it on the export market at a lot less than the cost of production.

That other buyer is the local ethanol plant. And as my colleague from Georgia pointed out, we know that we're just maybe less than 2, 3 years away from the technology available to make commercially available not just corn ethanol and the dramatic increases we've seen in the improvements and the production process to make the efficiencies in the production process even better, but cellulosic ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol that can be developed in every region of the country given biomass sources, given other nonfood and feed crops that can be grown in every region of the country. And it's the importance of those technologies that can only be facilitated by the financing and some of the loan guarantees that we've recently passed, but the financing and the private market that are essential.

Which is why I strongly argue that, Madam Speaker, that it's not corn ethanol that should be blamed for high

food prices; it is the high cost of energy, which is the focus of our discussion here tonight, and the transportation and the production and the marketing of the food to Americans across the country. We need corn ethanol as a bridge to cellulosic ethanol. And that is where the financing will follow, that's where the capital will follow to get us to second-generation ethanol production.

And we also have to look at other sources that currently aren't available. For example, woody biomass off the national forests which, in my opinion, should be able to be used for cellulosic ethanol production. It not only reduces the wildfire hazard based on the hazardous fuels that are lining the bottoms of our forests, but it is a proven technology for a use for cellulosic ethanol. If we don't use it, it sits there and rots and releases methane into the atmosphere, which is worse than carbon, or it burns and releases carbon into the atmosphere.

So the bottom line--and I think this is back to the Blue Dog principle of diversity of fuels--we shouldn't be so quick to take energy sources available domestically off the table. We shouldn't be reluctant to reevaluate long-held positions on a particular energy source in light of new technologies that can help us extract resources in an environmentally sound way; new technologies that can facilitate wind energy development, biofuels development, a whole host of other technologies on the electricity side, whether it's clean burning coal, hydroelectric power, solar power; and of course, in the transportation side, with vehicle technology and engine technology for flex-fuel vehicles and hybrid vehicles.

Already this Congress we've taken a number of important steps, not the least of which is the renewable fuel standard that we passed in December that, by many analyses, shows that is moderating the price of gasoline at 15 percent less than it would be otherwise without that increased biofuels production. So biofuels production is saving consumers money at the pump.

But obviously, we know that consumers are suffering with $4 gasoline, higher in some areas. We know that there are ways that we need to get at speculation that may exist in the marketplace for oil and other commodities, that we have the weak dollar that my colleague from Utah pointed out at the top of the hour that is affecting the increased costs per barrel of oil.

We, in addition to the renewable fuel standard, passed CAFE standards that go to the heart of conservation energy efficiency and the additional technologies that we know exist to help maximize those efforts.

We have passed legislation to ensure that the President no longer adds oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and we know that that Strategic Petroleum Reserve is yet another tool that we need to consider using as we move forward to give some relief to consumers at the pump.

We passed a bill that looks at the issue of how many leases are currently outstanding and how many millions of acres perhaps where there is natural gas and oil where we can facilitate production of those sources on public lands.

But we also know, as I stated, that we can't be taking energy sources off the table, and we have to be looking at where else, whether it's in the deepwater gulf or other parts of the Outer Continental Shelf, elsewhere on public lands, where it can make sense both economically and from an environmental perspective to be able to extract those resources, particularly natural gas, which does not pose the same types of environmental problems in drilling on the OCS. Although I think that technology, again, has brought us to a point that can minimize those types of spills. The oil shales that we know exist in a number of States, whether it's in Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, and of course, the other States, working with our trading partners and allies to our north in Canada as it relates to a natural gas pipeline, as it relates to oil pipelines that are being sited and under construction across South Dakota, to be able to get more oil into the Midwest where we oftentimes are at a disadvantage in being at the end of the line.

So I think that it's important tonight that we focus on not only what we've already done but what more we are prepared to do to enhance the diversity of fuels, to enhance the diversity of options both in the transportation sector and the electricity sector to make us less dependent on foreign oil, to create jobs, to enhance technologies that create the jobs for the future, for the young men and women that are looking into careers in science and environmental engineering and mechanical engineering and a whole host of opportunities it affords to every region of the country, if we take the steps that we need to take, reevaluate those long-held positions, look at information with a fresh look and glance, and be willing to take some risks because that's what it's going to require to do right by our constituents.

And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Well, not specifically to that point, but I did want to mention--and I know you have the gentleman from Georgia who wants to make another point, too, so I will be quick.

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) and I are both on the Agriculture Committee, and you may have mentioned this. One of the bills that we'll be taking up tomorrow is a bill that you have introduced, and so I think it's important for our constituents who, understandably, don't feel like they're getting a fair shake every time they go up and fill up their vehicle, that they understand that we are doing something here in Washington.

We are having a set of three different hearings in the Agriculture Committee this week. There are other committees having hearings. This is a complicated issue, and we are determined to get it right and to do what we can to get the speculation out of the market and to give the Commodities Futures Trading Commission the authority it needs and to understand this problem, whether it's over-the-counter, whether it's swaps, whether it's what's going on with the foreign exchanges, the issue of transparency, and your bill is one of those that we'll be taking a look at which we think makes an important step in addressing that issue.