Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6052, the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008.

The purpose of the bill, very simply stated, is to promote energy savings for all Americans by increasing use of public transportation throughout this country, a fact that has been a need, let us say, that has been driven home dramatically by $4 a gallon oil and gasoline prices since Memorial Day, and I thank the Speaker and majority leader for making time for us to bring this bill to the House Floor.

Basic law of economics is that the price of gas is a two-part equation: Supply and demand. Demand is a critical factor in the cost of oil, and decreasing demand is one of the most immediate ways we can attack the high cost of gasoline prices. And our fellow citizens understand this. They are making choices. They have been making choices for several years.

Over the last 3 years, in particular, there has been growth of 1 million new riders a day on public transportation systems across America, for 375 million new transit trips nationwide last year, a total of 10.3 billion transit trips throughout the country.

There was a time when New York City accounted for 60 percent of all transit trips in the United States, but no longer. In the last 3 years, New York's share of transit ridership nationwide has slipped to 38 percent, not because New Yorkers are riding transit less; they are riding more. But more Americans have found their way to public transportation, and increasingly in droves since the skyrocketing price of gasoline.

Transit systems throughout the United States have found every new transit project, every new light rail project has more than tripled its original projections of ridership nationwide.

Innovative cities like Denver under then-Mayor Wellington Webb, said: Ride our transit system free in the center city. Keep your pollution out of the center city. Ride the transit system free. And it has been an enormous boost and benefit to the city of Denver.

I can and I will cite some very specific ridership improvements in my own State. In Minneapolis, the Hiawatha light rail, 20 years in the waiting, finally was constructed; ridership opened, and 9 months later, 10 months ahead of schedule, they achieved their 10 millionth rider. Dramatic improvements.

Seattle, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Francisco all have similar increases in transit ridership. The Charlotte Area Transit System recently opened a new light rail line. They have increased ridership 34 percent from February of last year to February of this year.

CalTran, the commuter rail line that serves the San Francisco Peninsula and Santa Clara Valley, set a record for average weekday ridership in February of this year with a 9.3 percent increase over last year.

The South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, my good friend, the ranking member, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) knows well, posted a rise of more than 20 percent ridership from Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach in March and April of this year as compared to last year.

Americans are making the choice. They have decided. We need to help them with that choice. And the bill before us will make a huge step in that direction.

This legislation provides substantial support for States and public transportation agencies increasing incentives for computers to make their choice to ride transit: 1.7 billion, 2 years for transit agencies that are reducing transit fares or expanding the services to meet the needs of growing transit commuters. We increase the Federal share for clean fuel and alternative fuel transit bus, ferry, and locomotive related equipment or facilities, helping transit agencies become more fuel efficient.

In fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the increased Federal share for these activities will go from 90 percent to 100 percent of the net capital cost of the project.

We also provide authority to extend the Federal transit pass benefit program which has operated over the past few years on a pilot basis in the National Capital Region and in a few selected areas throughout the country. After evaluating the transit pass program, the U.S. Department of Transportation recommended that it be expanded nationwide. We do that in this legislation. There was an executive order signed by President Clinton in 2000 that launched this initiative. It was supported in the SAFETEA legislation. The 3-year pilot program under our legislation would be substantially expanded nationwide.

The Department of Transportation says that expanding this program will implement their own department recommendation by giving more Federal employees incentives to choose transit options. And we also create a pilot program to allow the funding expended by private providers of public transportation for van pools to acquire the vans to be used as their non-Federal share for matching Federal transit funds in five community pilot projects. Under current law, only public funds can be used as the local match. This pilot program will induce private funds to participate in the van pooling initiative.

I would observe we had a very successful van pooling program in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area in the mid-1980s when companies like 3M, Control Data, and Minneapolis Honeywell bought the vans for their employees and provided a fuel subsidy and encouraged their employees to join together. The vans were full. The program was successful. It cut down on congestion in the greater metropolitan Twin City area, and reduced cost for all of the riders. We should do that nationally, and we provide further authority to make that change and to take that initiative.

There are other provisions in this bill that are important, and I will submit those for the Record, but I want to close this part of my remarks with an observation by Paul Weyrich in a very thoughtful publication, Free Congress Foundation. ``Does Transit Work: A Conservative Reappraisal.'' It begins, ``The first recorded example of mass transportation was the movement of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. At that time, 100 percent of the population was moved at once in a single trip; a record never equaled since.'' Then he says, ``According to most studies of mass transit, it has gone straight downhill from there.''

Well, we are on the way up and we are going to lift mass transit and speed its acceptance and its use by the public with the legislation that we bring before you today.

Toward that purpose, I express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Florida, the ranking member, Mr. Mica, for the partnership he has engaged in with us and for the thoughtful, constructive suggestions he has made every step of the way. I appreciate very much the gentleman's participation.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6052, the ``Saving Energy

Through Public Transportation Act of 2008''. This bill promotes energy savings for all Americans by increasing public transportation use in the United States.

As gas prices have skyrocketed past $4 per gallon since Memorial Day, everyone is talking about how we need more oil. I thank the Speaker and the Majority Leader for scheduling today's bill, H.R. 6052, so that we can also talk about using less.

Let us all remember the basic law of economics that the price of gas is a two-part equation: supply and demand. Demand is a critical factor in the cost of oil, and decreasing demand is one of the most immediate ways that we can tackle the high cost of gas.

Americans understand this. They are making choices today that are decreasing our global demand for oil. We're seeing record ridership on public transportation all across the country, as well as decreases in the number of miles traveled in cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks. Without doubt, many Americans are making these choices based on the economic hardship caused by the high price of gas. However, in my discussions with constituents in my district and people across the country, Americans are also considering transit alternatives because they're sick and tired of knowing that our great nation imports 60 percent of its oil, much of it from the Persian Gulf.

As a result, across America, public transportation has experienced a renaissance in big cities, suburban communities, and small towns. In 2007, Americans took more than 10.3 billion trips on public transportation, the highest level in 50 years. In the first quarter of 2008, commuters took more than 2.6 billion transit trips nationwide, an increase of 3.3 percent over the first quarter of 2007.

Now that the price of gas has surpassed $4 a gallon, even more commuters are choosing to ride the train or the bus to work rather than drive alone in their cars. Public transit systems in metropolitan areas are reporting increases in ridership of five, ten, and even 15 percent over last year's figures. Light rails saw the largest jump in ridership with a 10 percent increase to 110 million trips in the first quarter. Some of the biggest increases in ridership are occurring in many areas in the South and West where new bus and light rail lines have been built in the last few years.

In Denver, for example, ridership was up eight percent in the first three months of 2008 compared with last year, and Minneapolis, Seattle, Dallas-Fort Worth, and San Francisco all reported similar increases. The Charlotte Area Transit System, which recently opened a new light rail line, has increased ridership more than 34 percent from February 2007 to February 2008. Caltrain, the commuter rail line that serves the San Francisco Peninsula and the Santa Clara Valley, set a record for average weekday ridership in February with a 9.3 percent increase over 2007. The South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, which operates a commuter rail system from Miami to Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, posted a rise of more than 20 percent in ridership in March and April as compared to the same time last year.

Madam Chairman, Americans are proving that riding transit is an easy, immediate, and important part of the solution to decreasing our demand for foreign oil. However, meeting this impressive new demand for public transportation services is no small task for our transit agencies. With these record-breaking numbers of commuters riding transit, many of our nation's transit systems are busting at the seams. In addition, the cost of fuel and power for public transportation providers has sharply increased, compounding costs of serving all of these new transit riders.

Currently, public transportation reduces gas consumption by 1.4 billion gallons a year (3.9 million gallons per day), which equates to more than 33 million barrels of oil. It's equal to 108 million fewer cars filling up year.

Although those fuel savings are incredible, we can do better, and we must.

H.R. 6052 provides much needed support to states and public transportation agencies and also increases incentives for commuters to choose transit options, thereby reducing their transportation-related energy consumption and our nation's reliance on foreign oil.

To increase public transportation use across the United States, H.R. 6052 authorizes $1.7 billion in funding over two years for transit agencies nationwide that are temporarily reducing transit fares or expanding transit services to meet the needs of the growing number of transit commuters. It is important to note that the funds authorized by this bill will be distributed to States and local communities in the same manner as they currently receive Federal transit urban and rural formula funds. However, in an effort to provide transit choices to smaller urban and rural areas, which may not currently have any transit service, this bill specifically increases the relative share of the transit funds that will be going to the rural areas.

H.R. 6052 also increases the Federal share for clean fuel and alternative fuel transit bus, ferry, or locomotive-related equipment or facilities, thereby assisting transit agencies in becoming more fuel efficient. In fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the increased Federal share for these activities is 100 percent of the net capital cost of the project.

H.R. 6052 also extends the Federal transit pass benefits program to require that all Federal agencies offer transit passes to Federal employees throughout the United States. Current law requires that all Federal agencies within the National Capital Region implement a transit pass fringe benefits program and offer employees transit passes.

Data from the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority covering the first three years of the National Capital Region transit pass program show that more than 15,500 automobiles were eliminated from roads in the Washington, DC area as a result of Federal employees shifting their travel mode away from single occupancy vehicle (``SOV'') use to public transportation use for commuting to work. DOT estimated the energy savings from this mode shift included the reduction of more than eight million gallons of gasoline for each of the three years that they studied. DOT also studied the results of a nationwide pilot program and found that, within the three agencies, 11 percent of the participants shifted their travel mode away from SOV use to public transportation use for commuting to work, again producing marked energy savings.

The Department of Transportation has determined that both the National Capital Region transit benefits program and the nationwide pilot program produce marked energy and emissions savings, congestion reductions, and cleaner air, and recommends that the transit pass benefits program be extended to Federal employees nationwide. This provision will implement the Department's recommendation by providing more Federal employees the incentives to choose transit options, thereby reducing their transportation-related energy consumption and reliance on foreign oil.

H.R. 6052 also creates a pilot program to allow the amount expended by private providers of public transportation by vanpool for the acquisition of vans to be used as the non-Federal share for matching Federal transit funds in five communities. Under current law, only local public funds may be used as local match; this pilot program would allow private funds to be used in limited circumstances. The Department of Transportation will implement and oversee the vanpool pilot projects, and will report back to Congress on the costs, benefits, and efficiencies of the vanpool projects.

Finally, H.R. 6052 increases the Federal share for additional parking facilities at end-of-line fixed guideway stations. This provision increases the total number of transit commuters who will have access to those facilities.

Public transportation use in all of its forms--bus, rail, vanpool, ferry, streetcar, and subways to name a few--saves fuel and reduces our dependence on foreign oil. As such, increasing public transportation use by providing incentives for commuters to choose transit options is a priority of this Congress.

Given the price of gas, Americans are more focused on the costs of commuting than at any time in recent history. And they want choices. We need to provide them. With passage of this bill, we have an opportunity to provide transit choices that will change the way that Americans travel.

The impact of such changes on our nation's dependence on foreign oil would be extraordinary. According to a recent study, if Americans used public transit at the same rate as Europeans--for roughly 10 percent of their daily travel needs--the United States could reduce its dependence on imported oil by more than 40 percent, nearly equal to the 550 million barrels of crude oil that we import from Saudi Arabia each year.

That's the difference this bill can help make.

I strongly support H.R. 6052, the ``Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008'', and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Congress of the United States, House of Representatives,

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

Washington, DC, June 3, 2008.

Hon. James L. Oberstar,

Chairman, Committee on Transportaiton and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Oberstar: I am writing to confirm our mutual

understanding with respect to the consideration of H.R. 6052,

the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008,

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform on May 14, 2008.

In the interest of expediting consideration of H.R. 6052,

the Oversight Committee will not separately consider this

legislation. The Oversight Committee does so, however, with

the understanding that this does not prejudice the

Committee's jurisdictional interests and prerogatives

regarding this bill or similar legislation.

I respectfully request your support for the appointment of

outside conferees from the

Oversight Committee should H.R. 6052 or a similar Senate bill

be considered in conference with the Senate. I also request

that you include our exchange of letters on this matter in

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Report on

H.R. 6052 or in the Congressional Record during consideration

of this legislation on the House floor.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman,

Chairman.

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, June 3, 2008.

Hon. Henry A. Waxman,

Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House

of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Waxman: I write to you regarding H.R. 6052,

the ``Saving Energy through Public Transportation Act of

2008''.

I appreciate your willingness to waive rights to further

consideration of H.R. 6052, notwithstanding the

jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform. Of course, this waiver does not prejudice

any further jurisdictional claims by your Committee over this

legislation or similar language. Furthermore, I agree to

support your request for appointment of conferees from the

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform if a conference

is held on this matter.

This exchange of letters will be placed in the Committee

report and inserted in the Congressional Record as part of

the consideration of H.R. 6052 on the House floor. Thank you

for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding

this matter and others between our respective committees.

I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass

this important legislation.

Sincerely,

James L. Oberstar, M.C.

Chairman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to just remind my good friend that the bill before us is not ANWR or the other subjects. It is about moving people more efficiently with lower costs and lower energy consumption. I think we do ourselves service by sticking to the subject matter at hand.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) who as chair of the Surface Subcommittee has held 22 hearings on the future of transportation in America and has done a superb service for the Nation.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Chair of the Subcommittee on FEMA and Economic Development and other related subjects, the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentleman made a thoughtful observation, and I'm sure the gentleman is aware that there already is a tax exemption in Federal code for private sector employers and employees. But that doesn't apply to the Federal government or to other governmental agencies because they don't have a tax. So the transit benefit for Federal employees is a matter that we could do within the context of the current bill.

In the longer term, next year, when we consider the longer-term authorization, the gentleman's suggestion would be an appropriate matter for consideration. We will have better figures which we're requesting now from public agencies for those matters.

I yield to the gentleman.

I wish we could have, too, but we didn't have good numbers to see what those costs might be.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a representative of the beautiful Sonoma Valley.

How much time remains on both sides, Madam Chairman?

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon, a long-time proponent of and advocate for and practitioner of public transportation, a man who saves 8 barrels of oil a year by consuming 86,000 calories on his bike.

We have several speakers, Madam Chairman, who have not arrived yet, and does the gentleman from Florida have other speakers?

If the gentleman will yield back the balance of his time, we will yield the balance of our time.

We do have a speaker on the transit subject, and I'm very

pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, with great appreciation, and thank him for making it possible for us to bring this bill to the floor today.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Madam Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 2 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I listened with great interest to the gentleman's ruminations on a wide range of subjects. I won't comment on those that reach beyond the subject matter at hand, our transit bill. I do reaffirm my appreciation for his partnership in bringing this bill to the floor.

This is an important piece of legislation. In the larger scheme of the billions of dollars, $125 billion a year, that we need to be investing in all levels of government in our surface transportation system, this $1.7 billion is a relatively small step, but it moves us in the direction of a mode shift in transportation to 10 percent of all trips by transit. If we made just that little step in America, we would save the equivalent of all the oil we import from Saudi Arabia. That is what we can do. It's within our grasp now. We don't need a research program. We don't need a man-on-the-moon program. We just need the funding to invest in what is already at hand: solid, responsible, reliable, effective transportation systems for the public to use instead of getting in their private vehicle.

Had the administration in 2003 concurred in a $375 billion transportation program for the next 6 years, as its own Department of Transportation recommended, and as Mr. Young, then-chairman of the committee, and I introduced, we would have been far better positioned today than we are now.

Instead, that administration proposed only a $5.5 billion funding flat out over the 6 years for transit. We wound up with $10 billion in the SAFETEA legislation over the 5 years of the legislation. But we have to do far better than that, and this bill moves us in the right direction.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The amendment clarifies that transit agencies may use these new grants to offset the increased cost of fuel to transit agencies. Every penny additional to the cost of diesel and gasoline fuel, public transportation faces a cost of $7.6 million.

The amendment clarifies that intercity bus service is an eligible activity under the bill. The intercity bus provision was included in the version of the bill that passed the House last year, but through a drafting error, was left out when we reintroduced it. We correct that mistake.

Many transit agencies, rural and small urban centers alike, contract with intercity bus providers for more mobility. So it's important that these services are eligible for the new grants created by this bill.

We clarify that transit agencies may use the new transit grants to offset the increased cost of maintenance as they struggle to cope with recordbreaking ridership increases. I have been to transit agency maintenance centers and found very skilled workmen welding new pieces of steel in the support structures of buses that have rusted out over years of use.

Transit buses are now, on average, 12 to 14 years. They should be replacing them every 7 to 8 years. We are seeing a million miles of ridership on a bus a year. They need to upgrade and improve and continue their maintenance.

Many transit agencies are reporting surges in ridership and, at the same time, difficulty maintaining existing services because of higher fuel prices. So we are providing funding to all those transit agencies to respond to their current needs.

I want to thank several of our colleagues for agreeing to have their amendments incorporated into the manager's amendment to expedite consideration of the bill: The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) whose amendment helps transit fleets become more fuel efficient by providing more funding for clean fuel or alternative fuel vehicle-related equipment or facilities; the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) whose amendment creates a national consumer awareness program to educate the public on environmental, energy, and economic benefits of public transportation; and the Jackson-Lee amendment that clarifies that public transportation stakeholders should engage and involve local communities in the education and promotion of public transportation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further speakers on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman from Florida yield a minute of his time?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I do so simply to express my support for the amendment, on which Mr. Mica and I have agreed, but also to point out that in the body of the bill there are protections and safeguards for the proper use of the transit pass authority provided in the additional funding increase in the monthly limit for the transit benefit. There have been reports of abuse of transit passes in the past year. An investigation by the Office of Inspector General revealed that there are some abuses.

We have provided protection against such abuses in the base of the bill underlying this legislation. I wanted to point that out for those who may have been concerned to assure that the committee has taken appropriate steps to assure that transit passes are used by the person for whom intended and for the purpose for which intended.

I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the amendment, though I do not intend to oppose it.

First, a point of order, Madam Chairman.

I observed the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) ask unanimous consent to include an article in the Record. That request must be made in the House under the rules of procedure, not in the Committee of the Whole.

I have no objection to it, but I just want the procedure to be proper.

The amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington was very thoughtfully expressed and explained, and I commend the gentleman on his statement, very thoughtfully done, to increase the Federal share for parking facilities that serve commuter bus routes.

The Transportation Research Board has addressed this issue and evaluated the accessibility of transit services to suburban commuters, and they have found that acceptance and use of transit services are clearly influenced by the availability, convenience, and cost of commuter parking at transit stations and park-and-ride lots, quoting from the report.

States that have successful long-distance suburban-to-central business district commuter bus operations found that increasing the use of commuter bus services and park-and-ride facilities is directly influenced by the availability of those park-and-ride services.

Increasing the Federal share to 100 percent would create additional incentives for transit systems to build more of these facilities to serve the communities, and I really appreciate the initiative of the gentleman.

In his reference to Microsoft, I know that Microsoft in past years has purchased in the range of 13,000 fares a year for its employees to ride the Sounder and other transit options in Seattle. It is very commendable of a company to engage in that kind of service to its workers, to encourage them to get to work in a better frame of mind, to help the environment, and to serve the public need.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

If the gentleman would yield.

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

Madam Chairman, I want to thank our chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, my Democrat counterpart, Mr. Oberstar, for his work on this piece of legislation that does deal with some of the issues that we are facing right now and follows some of the discussions that we have had on the floor relating to energy and energy conservation.

The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has a very small piece of the puzzle, but it is nonetheless an important piece and we have tried to exercise our jurisdictional responsibility in coming forth with this, again, small piece of the puzzle.

This bill does provide for expansion of some of the transit grants around the country, and I think that there are some beneficial provisions for those in rural areas, suburban areas, and for much of the public that relies on public transportation.

This bill further does allow sort of an unprecedented ability to use some of the money traditionally used for projects to assist some of the local transit authorities that are suffering now with high fuel costs. Just like the average family is suffering with high fuel costs, transit agencies have also experienced the same problem. They are cutting back on services, sometimes when people really need to have an option and don't have that option, by cutting out routes, and that has been announced even in my area. So I think we are doing a responsible thing.

This is a 2-year authorization. It is an expansion of the authorization of $1.7 billion that does give some of the folks on my side some hiccups, but it is authorization, it is not appropriation and each Member is going to have to judge their support or opposition based on the final product. But I have joined Chairman Oberstar in support of this authorizing bill. I think again it fills our small piece of the puzzle.

I did want to take just a minute or two, I didn't get a chance to speak on the rule or on the energy legislation that was before the House earlier, and there was quite a bit of banter. And some people were bashing the President and this administration for not having a plan. In fact, someone said he didn't recall a plan, which is kind of funny.

I am very fortunate to have outstanding staff, but this summer I also have some outstanding interns. They come from all over the country to Congress, and I have gotten some from my district and elsewhere. So you have a little more staff to do research rather than just keep on the track that we are on here every day. I said wasn't there a Bush plan? And all be darned, there was a Bush energy plan. So I had a little research done on that.

Lo and behold, very shortly into his term, it was May 17, 2001, the President of the United States, George Bush, just a few months into office, he set two major priorities, one being education. You remember on 9/11 he was in a Florida classroom talking about his plan to improve education. But even before that, in May as one of his first priorities, he announced his plan. He announced his plan actually in the home State of the chairman, in St. Paul, Minnesota. On that day when he announced it he said, ``If we fail to act, our country will become more reliant on foreign crude oil, putting our national energy security into the hands of foreign nations, some of whom do not share our interests.''

On that same day when he announced his plan, he said regarding part of his plan, ``We will underwrite research and development into energy- saving technology. It'll require manufacturers to build more energy- efficient appliances. We will review and remove obstacles that prevent business from investing in energy-efficient technologies.''

Furthermore, President Bush said, ``The second part of our energy plan will be to expand and diversify our Nation's energy supplies. America today imports,'' and now this is May of 2001, ``America today imports 52 percent of all of our oil. If we don't take action, those imports will only grow. As long as cars and trucks run on gasoline, we will need oil, and we should produce more of it at home.''

The President called for burning coal more cleanly, expanding nuclear power, and drilling for new oil in new places, that included the Arctic area in Alaska. The President said that is banned now, but the President said it can be done safely.

Listen to this one. This is the President in St. Paul. ``ANWR can produce 600,000 barrels of oil a day for the next 40 years. What difference does 600,000 barrels a day make? Well, that happens to be exactly the amount we import from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We're not just short of oil; we're short of the refineries that turn oil into fuel. So while the rest of our economy is functioning at 82 percent of capacity, our refineries are gasping at 96 percent of capacity.''

That was part of the President's plan, and how prophetic could you be. This was before 9/11. This was in May of 2001, announcing his plan.

I can't take up all of the time, but I have Mr. Gephardt's response: Congress will take action to stop them. Mr. Kerry vowed to filibuster, and the Sierra Club is already running ads against it. Those were some of the responses.

It is interesting how quickly we forget that there have been plans, and those plans could have made a big difference.

Here today we are trying in a bipartisan fashion to make a small difference to give some of our Federal employees outside the Capital Beltway the opportunity to have the same transit advantages and payments that we give within the Beltway to Federal employees outside, expand some of the grants for transit, and also help some of those transit operations that are suffering like the American family is with cutbacks because of high fuel costs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) 2\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the T&I Committee, the gentleman from beautiful southwest Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time at this time.

Madam Chairman, I'm in the same situation that the gentleman from Minnesota is.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Well, again, I have to compliment Mr. Oberstar, and folks have to look at what we're doing here this afternoon. This is the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. We can't solve all the energy issues. We have a very small piece, and we're trying to take care of that small piece here today.

We don't get into some of the other issues that have been raised, but I must say that I'm going to be going back to Florida tomorrow, and I'll be talking to folks. And you know, it doesn't take you long to talk to folks at home and have them get your attention. And they are getting our attention by saying, what are you doing about $4 a gallon gasoline, what are you doing about energy costs that are soaring, what are you doing about the price of food and other things that are being affected by energy costs.

The people who are on a limited income, God bless them. I don't know how they're making it, or a fixed income, with the prices that they see both at the pump, at the store, in their lives. They want answers.

I'm sorry that some of the other committees are not acting and the Congress is not acting like the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, because when I go home I have to tell them that how things are left in their Congress was that we took care of a small piece. We provided transit grants for those Federal employees working outside of the Beltway. We provided additional grants through eight transit companies who are hurting because of increased fuel costs and trying to expand transit service that people are becoming reliant on now because of the high cost of fuel. But I can't tell them that I've done anything about supply, that, again, the supply has been cut off.

I even agree with the child that's crying in the gallery. People are not happy about this. They want a response from this Congress, and this Congress has the ability to act to increase the supplies so we're not reliant on reliable friends like Venezuela, the sheiks and leaders in the Middle East, and that dependable source of energy, Nigeria.

Folks, that isn't going to cut it for an answer when we get home, and this isn't complicated. It's a question of Economics 101. This is a question of supply and demand. Right now, in the short-term, we need to increase supply. If we had worked together over the past 7 years from that introduction by President Bush some 7 years ago, one of his first plans--and I cited his rollout statements, and let me just read also what he said on May 17.

President Bush said: ``Too often, Americans are asked to take sides between energy production and environmental protection--as if people who revere the Alaska wilderness do not also care about America's energy future; as if the people who produce America's energy do not care about the planet their children will inherit. The truth is energy production and environmental protection are not competing priorities. They're dual aspects of a single purpose--to live well and wisely upon the earth. Just as we need a new tone in Washington, we also need a new tone in discussing energy in the environment, one that is less suspicious, less punitive, less rancorous. We've yelled at each other enough. Now it's time to listen to each other and act.''

Again, these are the words of our President before 9/11 on the energy issue.

You know, again, if you want to look at the Record, and I will be glad to submit for the Record how many Republicans and how many Democrats opposed each of the proposals, all that's history, folks. What the American people want is now us to act as the President said 7 years ago.

So, today, Mr. Oberstar and I don't bring an answer to the whole energy problem. We bring our little piece. We ask the rest of the Congress, I ask the rest of the Congress, to come forth and to act, and that needs to be done because when we get home, those people are going to ask you, what did you do about the high cost of energy, the high cost of food, the businesses that are closing, the lives that are being impacted by high energy costs, and we need to be able to give them an answer.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve.

Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time?

Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Again, this is an important debate. It's a little piece of the big national debate that's going on now. Mr. Oberstar and I lead the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. We came forward with this measure. This measure is within our jurisdiction, as I said earlier, and it is just a small piece of the puzzle.

Many Members come to me on my side of the aisle and ask me how I am going to vote, and I am going to support this legislation. It does increase the authorization. That's a fairly substantial piece of change by any estimate, $1.7 billion over 2 years, and it does make some significant changes in policy, in opening up authorization to spend money to help transit companies and agencies that are suffering like the American public is suffering with high fuel costs, and I think that's a good thing. It expands some services for mass transit, which is also a good thing. And it also expands from just within the beltway to other Federal employees the benefits of using public transportation, and that's a good thing too.

This is general debate, and we have gotten into general debate, and I have heard the distinguished majority leader speak and he quoted George Soros. I don't use him as a quote too much or rely on him for my opinion seeking, but I did just happen to have some sources that quote the American public and their opinion.

The Los Angeles Times Bloomberg Poll said when all registered voters are asked whether they support increased exploration for oil and natural gas, 68 percent respond in the affirmative, and that was just within the last 2 days. Rasmussen reports, according to them, 67 percent of the American people support oil drilling off the Nation's coasts and 64 percent think it will lower gas prices. Now, they seem to get it. The other committees with jurisdiction and the rest of Congress don't seem to get it.

Now, don't tell me you can't do it. I mean this is an incredible institution

and can do anything. We represent the greatest ingenuity, the greatest people that ever walked the face of the Earth. God blessed this Nation so much, and we are the custodians of coming here and doing things.

Now, Mr. Oberstar and I on a Monday introduced a piece of legislation. We worked together on it, and within the same week on a Thursday night, we had the President of the United States at 7 o'clock at night sign the legislation as is. So we can do these things that the American people want.

Now, 1 week from tomorrow, people are going to try to celebrate Independence Day in this great country, this great country for which so many people made so many sacrifices, and I have to go back home and tell them I increased transit grants for Federal employees outside the beltway and I also helped transit agencies who are suffering like they are to pay their fuel bill, but I don't have an answer for them. That's not what they want to hear, folks. This is the Congress of the United States, and we can and we must do better.

I have been here going on my 16th year, not as long as Mr. Oberstar. He knows transportation inside and out and he's an expert renowned on a whole host of issues, but the good thing about being here just half as long as he is that you hear some of these things.

First, we're going to solve this problem; we'll tax it. So what do they do? They say, windfall taxes for the oil companies that are taking advantage. Windfall taxes, that's it. So first we'll tax it.

Well, that didn't work. People come up to me, did you ever hear of a time when you tax something and the price goes down for consumers? Duh. Well, that didn't work.

So now there's speculation; so we'll get 'em. We'll regulate. We're going to regulate those speculators. That'll take care of it.

Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have left.

Oh, good. So I can tell this story, Madam Chairman.

This reminds me of sitting on a committee coming here, and this took over some time. We always hear about high drug prices, and I sat on the committee, and everyone was railing about the price of vaccination drugs. So we dragged in the drug companies to sit them down, and I remember this guy who represented a drug company, and this was an investigative hearing. And he showed a little vial, and he said, this vial of vaccine, this medicine, only costs about $2 to produce. So we hammered him. It only cost $2 to produce, but he said that the liability on it was reaching $30, so $30 and increasing.

So then we dragged in the insurance company. ``You're charging them $30 for this vaccine?'' We hammered them. So they left.

And then the next thing we knew was we weren't producing any vaccine in the United States because no one would insure it. So the next hearing we held--remember this, now, folks--the next hearing we held was on its now being produced in Great Britain and we had some bad batches. Well, we hadn't sent enough FDA inspectors over to inspects the batches there.

Folks, these aren't the answers: additional taxation, additional regulation, chasing business off our shores. And the same thing isn't going to happen with energy. The American people get it. I just read the poll. It doesn't take a lot, folks. They know if you increase the supply, the price will go down. And we have the capability of doing that. We built the Alaska pipeline in 3 years.

Next Friday is Independence Day. It's going to be a sad Independence Day because instead of America's being independent, we will be dependent on energy. That's affecting all of us, and it's not right.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I claim the time in opposition, but I do rise in support of the manager's amendment. I particularly find most attractive in this measure the provision that would allow grant funding to subsidize increased full costs for some of our transit systems in the country.

My support is not based on some lobbyist from a transit agency in New York or Washington or Orlando. My support is based on probably a little lady whose face I have never seen, but she wrote me and said, Mr. Mica, she said, They are going to cut one of the routes and I have no other way to get to work, and I am a constituent in your district. They are going to cut off those routes because of the higher fuel cost.

So the reason I support this is because someone in my district is being dramatically affected. It may not be a big deal here in Congress, but I can assure you in that lady's life, if she can't get to work and make a living, it's a big deal to her. So that is why I support this manager's amendment and this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute.

I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). As has been explained, this does provide the Federal employee transportation benefit program, which has been so successful, is expanded in its usage, and for that, I think that our side agrees, and this is a bipartisan amendment and has our full support.

On behalf of Mr. Davis, I urge adoption of that.

I reserve the balance of our time.

May I inquire as to how much time we have.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Let me say that the only problem that I have with this amendment as offered from my colleague from Florida is the amendment does not go far enough in correcting or addressing all of the problems caused by section 526 of the energy bill that prohibits the Federal Government from using coal derived, oil shale and other non-petroleum- based alternative fuels regardless of existing procurement rules or what is actually cost efficient or practical.

I am not going to vote against his amendment, but I do have some concerns I wanted to express against the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield myself such time as I may consume just to point out, again, I am not going to object. I have concerns. I would like to have gone further.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

I thank the gentleman so much, that we have a distinguished member of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee offering this well thought out amendment. It is going to clearly provide availability, convenience, and assist the cost of making eligible again these bus end-of-the-line parking facilities. Well thought out. There was a gap here, and I am glad the gentleman from Washington filled that so adequately, and we support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record the letter from Assistant Secretary Allred relating to this bill that my colleague from Oklahoma referenced in her remarks.

Department of the Interior,

Office of the Secretary,

Washington, DC, June 25, 2008.

Hon. Don Young,

Ranking Republican Member, Committee on Natural Resources,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Young: Thank you for your letter of June 19, 2008,

to Secretary Kempthorne regarding a recent report on oil and

gas by the House Committee on Natural Resources. Secretary

Kempthorne has asked me to reply.

In your letter you asked that the Department of the

Interior (Department) address the report's claim that oil

companies hold non-producing leases on 68 million acres which

could produce 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 of natural

gas each day.

The report does not reference specific locations for much

of the data and therefore we cannot ascertain where each of

the numbers was derived. It appears the report took raw data,

some of which can be found on the Department websites, and

then used various formulas to reach certain conclusions. The

report does not disclose the assumptions or formulas used.

The views contained in the report are based on a

misunderstanding of the very lengthy regulatory process. The

existence of a lease does not guarantee the discovery of, or

any particular quantity of oil and gas. To

truly determine this, lessees must develop data and

eventually explore their leases which requires numerous

permits involving compliance with various environmental laws

and regulations. This process often takes months or years. In

addition, lessees undertake a vast array of business steps

prior to making a decision to move a lease into production,

and must obtain another set of Federal and State permits to

do so. I would like to provide some background on both

points.

Obtaining a lease is just the first step. The lessee must

first obtain the myriad of permits and approvals for

exploration activities and development plans that are

required before production can occur. Exploration, which

occurs after the issuance of the lease, is critical. For

example, after an operator acquires an onshore lease they

must obtain Geophysical Permits, Permits to Drill, Sundry

Notices, and permits that may be required by State

government. In addition to all necessary permits being

obtained, an operator must also file a plan of

development.

Development offshore is equally complex. An operator must

obtain Geological and Geophysical Exploration Permits,

Environmental Protection Agency National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System Permits, an Army Corps of Engineers

Permit, Permits to Drill, and Marine Mammals/Endangered

Species Permits. If a lessee makes the decision to move to

development, in addition to the myriad of required permits,

an operator must file numerous plans, including Deepwater

Operations Plans, Oil Spill Response Plans, Hydrogen Sulfide

Plans, Development Plans or Development Operations

Coordination Documents.

While these lists are not exhaustive, they illustrate the

efforts that must be undertaken before a lease can be

explored and developed and production comes online. A more

comprehensive list of the various permits, approvals, and

other legal and regulatory prerequisites that may be required

based on site specifics for both onshore and offshore

production is attached for your information.

In addition to the processes mentioned above, other factors

affect potential development and subsequent production. These

factors include capital investments and equipment such as

drilling rigs and platforms.

In shallow water, approximately one in three wells results

in a discovery of a quantity of oil and/or natural gas

sufficient to produce economically In deeper water, one well

in five is economical. Shallow wells cost approximately

$200,000 for just the drilling. In deepwater, the drilling of

one well may cost $100 million to $200 million. A full

development project, including a platform or floater,

involves multiple blocks and has cost as much as $3.5

billion. Onshore development is less expensive. A well cost

10,000 feet or deeper well will $2 million to $3 million. A

shallow well runs about $200,000.

To illustrate further that a lease does not mean the

discovery of oil and gas, it is important to look at the well

success rates. For onshore leases, the well success rate is

about 10 percent for new areas. For areas already developed,

it is much higher--about 95%. For offshore, in shallow water,

the success rate is about 33 percent. In deepwater it is

about 20 percent.

In the Gulf of Mexico, 1132 new deep water exploration

wells have been drilled since 1995, with over 170 new

discoveries. While the government does conduct activities to

determine resource availability, it is the private sector

that funds exploration activities for more refined data and

analysis on a site specific basis that can lead to

production. The lengthy processes we have in place can lead

to more production but it takes time to find the exact

location of those resources.

In today's market, it does not make business sense for

lease holders to defer or forgo pursuing production and

continue to pay rental fees. In addition to the bonus bid

paid at the time of a lease being issued, lessees are

required to pay rentals for leases. In Fiscal Year 2007,

$267.2 million in rental fees was collected as rent for

oil and gas, coal, and other mineral leases.

If a lessee determines that leased acreage does not contain

sufficient resources to produce economically, it will

typically relinquish the lease, and the Federal Government is

free to offer the tract at a subsequent lease sale. However,

only after numerous steps are taken, and leased acreage is

determined to contain economically and technologically

producible oil and gas, can a lessee justify the significant

investment required to bring leased acreage into producing

status.

While increasing the productivity of already leased land is

important, to ensure our country's future security and

economic well being we need to open new areas for

development. The lengthy processes we have in place, which

can lead to more production, means that we need to look to

new areas. We cannot ignore that the world's demand for oil

has grown dramatically. Meanwhile, the supply of oil has

grown much more slowly. As a result, oil prices have risen

sharply, and that increase has been reflected at American

gasoline pumps.

Sincerely,

C. Stephen Allred,

Assistant Secretary,

Land and Minerals Management.

Attachments.

Plans and Permits Required on OCS

The number of required plan and permit approvals is on the

order of 25 to 30. The reason for a range is that the

specific lease holder may not file for certain permits on

their own. For example, they may not file for a G&G

(geological/geophysical) permit but it is certain that no

lease holder will move forward without geophysical data to

guide them. They may obtain sufficient data from a third

party that acquired under their own speculative permit with

the intention to sell the information to successful lease

bidders. Additionally, there may be supplemental plans filed

to cover changes in assumptions based on newer information

and other steps that not all lessees will need to file. The

overview of MMS regulations is at http://www.gomr.mms.gov/ homepg/regulate/regs/reg_sum.html with a discussion of the

plans and permits at http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/ regs/laws/env safe.html_#perapp. Following is a fairly

complete list of the plans and permits that a lessee may have

to file to bring a lease to production:

List of Typical Plans and Permits Required to Bring a Lease to

Production

Oil and Gas Lease.

Geological and Geophysical Exploration permit.

Exploration Plan.

Coast Guard Compliance review for mobile drilling units.

Oil Spill Response Plan.

Oil Spill Financial Responsibility.

Hydrogen Sulfide Plan (some locations).

Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination

(Exploration).

Army Corps of Engineers Permit (Navigation and National

Security).

EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit.

EPA Air Emissions Permit (some locations).

Marine Mammals/Endangered Species permits from NOAA or FWS

(some locations).

Application for Permit to Drill (exploratory wells).

Application for Permit to Modify (any changes in drilling

program).

Application for Permit to Modify (to plug and abandon

exploration wells).

Deepwater Operations Plan (for some locations).

Conservation Information Document (for some locations).

Coast Guard Structural Review (for floating production

systems).

Certified Verification Agent Review (for some locations).

Development Plan or Development Operations Coordination

Document (depending on location).

Pipeline Right-of-Way. Coastal Zone Management Consistency

Determination (Development).

Application for Permit to Drill (development wells).

Application for Permit to Modify (any changes in

development drilling program).

Application for Permit to Modify (to plug and abandon

development wells).

Platform Removal Application.

Pipeline Decommissioning Application.

Permits, Plans, and Surveys for Development of an Oil and Gas Lease On-

Shore

BLM Permits, Plans, and Surveys

Geophysical Exploration Permit--Notice of Intent; Notice of

Completion--(Required if the operator chooses to conduct this

optional activity) Purpose: Allows exploration for oil and

gas resources on Federal lands.

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) Review--Environmental review may consist of review and

documentation through a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA),

Categorical Exclusion (CX), Environmental Assessment (EA), or

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). (May be completed by

the BLM or the Operator to BLM standards. The BLM signs the

Decision).

Land Use Plan Conformance--Project evaluated to ensure it

is in conformance with the BLM's land use plan.

Surveys--(Completed by the BLM or the Operator.)

Cultural Survey--Almost always required. Almost always

completed through an operator-funded contract with a cultural

survey contractor that has been approved by the BLM. May

involve consultation with the State Historic Preservation

Officer.

Wildlife Surveys--Frequently required. May be completed by

the BLM or the operator to BLM standards.

Endangered Species Act Consultation--only required when

endangered species may be affected by the project.

Tribal Consultation--May occur at the Planning or

Permitting stage in areas where Indian tribes have

historically used an area or have expressed an interest in

proposed projects.

Oil and Gas Lease--(Required) Conveys a basic right to

develop oil and gas from Federal Mineral estate pending

approval of additional site-specific permits.

Land Use Plan Conformance--The proposed lease is evaluated

to ensure it is in conformance with the BLM's land use plan.

Tribal Consultation--May occur at the leasing stage if not

current in the land use plan.

Endangered Species Act Consultation--May occur at the

leasing stage if not current in the land use plan and there

are endangered species present.

Communitization/Unitization Approval--(Some Locations)

Creates management units to improve development efficiency.

Plan of Developent--(If operations are located within a

unit agreement) Creates a development management plan for the

Unit.

Application for Permit to Drill (APD)--(Required) Contains

the operator's proposed

drilling and surface use plans and any additional permit

requirements added by the BLM. The BLM may also require

Cultural and Wildlife surveys.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review--

Environmental review may consist of review and documentation

through a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA), Categorical

Exclusion (CX), Environmental Assessment (EA), or

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). (May be completed by

the BLM or the Operator to BLM standards. The BLM signs the

Decision.)

Land Use Plan Conformance--Project evaluated to ensure it

is in conformance with the BLM's land use plan.

Surveys--(Completed by the BLM or the Operator.)

Cultural Survey--Almost always required. Almost always

completed through an operator-funded contract with a cultural

survey contractor that has been approved by the BLM. May

involve consultation with the State Historic Preservation

Officer.

Wildlife Surveys--Frequently required. May be completed by

the BLM or the operator to BLM standards.

Endangered Species Act Consultation--only required when

endangered species may be affected by the project.

Tribal Consultation--May occur at the Planning or

Permitting stage in areas where Indian tribes have

historically used an area or have expressed an interest in

proposed projects.

Sundry Notice--(Required) Notifies the BLM of the

operator's proposed changes to the APD.

Approval and/or Review--In limited cases may involve NEPA,

Cultural, Wildlife, ESA reviews and consultation.

Hydrogen Sulfide Plan--(Required if the poison gas may be

encountered) Plans for protection of public health land

safety in the event of a hydrogen sulfide leak.

Right-of-Way Grant--(Required for any development that

occurs off the lease area.) Provides legal access for roads,

pipelines, and powerlines.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review--

Environmental review may consist of review and documentation

through a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA), Categorical

Exclusion (CX), Environmental Assessment (EA), or

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). (May be completed by

the BLM or the Operator to BLM standards. The BLM signs the

Decision.) Usually completed in conjunction with the APD

NEPA analysis.

Land Use Plan Conformance--Project evaluated to ensure it

is in conformance with the BLM's land use plan.

Surveys--(Completed by the BLM or the Operator.)

Cultural Survey--Almost always required. Almost always

completed through an operator-funded contract with a cultural

survey contractor that has been approved by the BLM. May

involve consultation with the State Historic Preservation

Officer.

Wildlife Surveys--Frequently required. May be completed by

the BLM or the operator to BLM standards.

Endangered Species Act Consultation--only required when

endangered species may be affected by the project.

Tribal Consultation--May occur at the Planning or

Permitting stage in areas where Indian tribes have

historically used an area or have expressed an interest in

proposed projects.

other federal. state. or local permits and plans

Air Emission Permit--(May be required by State).

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit--

(May be required by the State or EPA).

Section 404 Permit--(May be required by the Army Corp of

Engineers if the project would potentially dredge or fill

waters of the U.S.).

Storm Water Prevention Plan--(Required in some States).

UIC Permit--(Required for Class II wells--water disposal or

reinjection).

Spill Prevention Countermeasure Control Plan--This is a

permit required by EPA when oil and gas activities have the

potential to impact waters of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the justification for this legislation is a report from Democrats on the Natural Resources Committee, and in that report the conclusion is reached: ``We can estimate that the 68 million acres of leased but currently inactive Federal land and waters could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day.''

Mr. Speaker, may I ask that the gentleman controlling the time on the other side be yielded time to respond to a question?

I understand that the Department of the Interior has issued a letter saying that they don't agree with the assumptions of your report.

Can you name a single professional organization or government agency that has told you that they agree with the assumptions or calculations used to reach the conclusion that I have just read from the report?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is ``no.'' There is no professional group or government agency that agrees with those assumptions.

In his opening remarks, the good chairman said we must ``increase our supply'' of crude oil and that the answer to our energy needs in the short term is to increase American production.

Then why aren't we voting on that today? The fact is that the assumptions that this bill is premised on are false and that there will be no increased production from this bill.

Congress is to blame for the shortage of American production today, and this is having a real impact on people. There's a gal who is a certified nursing assistant in Boise, Idaho, who's taking care of my mother and my younger sister in a nursing home.

Mr. Speaker, this young lady, who's a CNA, last week took her husband's bicycle and a few other items to a pawn shop to get $37 so she could put gas in her car to go to work at this nursing home to take care of my mother and my sister. This is having a horrendous impact on real life people.

Mr. Speaker, it's time for partisanship to be put aside. It's time for Congress to get to the real answer, which is increasing American production.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in unhesitant opposition to this misguided and uninformed legislation. I hope today's debate will allow the American people to see this legislation for what it is, and that is, a sham, a shallow attempt of the majority to hide that they lack any solutions for the American energy crisis facing our Nation.

Let me start by just stating one simple fact: 97 percent of our Federal offshore areas and 94 percent of our Federal onshore areas are not leased. Now, let me just say that one more time. Ninety-seven percent of our Federal offshore areas and 94 percent of our Federal onshore areas are not even leased.

The Democrat leadership has done everything it could for the last several decades to stop the leasing in 97 percent of offshore areas and 94 percent of onshore areas since they think America's energy needs can be supplied by just 3 percent of offshore areas and 6 percent of the onshore areas. It is no wonder that America is facing an energy crisis.

Let's talk about the legislative process, too, that brings this issue to the floor today. We are debating legislation that hasn't had a hearing, it hasn't had a mark-up, no committee report, it hasn't even been opened up for an amendment, and no Member of this House but for its author has had more than 5 hours to consider this bill. The Rules Committee even had to pass a special rule to allow this bill to come to the floor today, a rule that effectively waives all points of order against the bill, including PAYGO and earmark bans.

The bill will also cost the American people not only additional energy domestic production, but reduces revenues to the Federal Government. Yes, America, in one fell swoop, Congress will increase energy costs for American consumers and steal from the pocketbooks of American taxpayers. Is this a way to go into Independence Day and to celebrate the birth of our country?

The legislation before us is based on the premise that American oil companies are sitting on resources that they should be developing. The majority will make claims that millions of acres are not being produced. However, the reality is that every leased acre is undergoing some form of exploration, is in the process of getting permits, facing a legal challenge, or in development. They are all going through those processes for every acre.

The supporters of this misguided legislation are not offering any solutions to these challenges. There is no proposal to speed up development by reducing the waiting times for permits, limiting public challenges of leases and applications for the permits to drill, or reducing the frivolous lawsuits. In fact, last year, the Natural Resources Committee was fighting against, and I quote the chairman, ``rapid oil and gas development that has taken place on our Nation's public lands in recent years,'' and focused on an agenda to slow, again quoting the chairman, ``the rampant, nearly unfettered energy development on Federal lands.''

Last year, oil companies were developing too fast. Today, Congress is attempting to punish any company that can't squeeze a 10-year exploration and permitting process into a time frame that suits the majority. We simply can't have it both ways.

One additional fact: Most of the majority leadership, including the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, voted in 1992 to give oil companies more time to drill on onshore leases. That was done at a time when the industry actually had a higher percentage of leases in non- producing status. The majority didn't seem to mind and didn't seem to be interested in complaining about stockpiling then.

To the contrary, there was a bipartisan recognition that companies needed longer terms on their onshore leases to get more production. But these days, as production rates are higher, these same Members think that companies are stockpiling.

We have had a number of experts in this area come forward and present expertise on this issue. I would reference a letter from the Department of Interior which highlights the lengthy, complicated, and often unsuccessful process a company must undergo to develop oil and gas on Federal lands and waters.

In addition, I would like to submit for the Record a letter from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, America's scientific experts on exploring for oil and gas. And their letter states, ``Policies that increase exploration costs, decrease the available time to properly evaluate leases, and restrict access to Federal lands and the Outer Continental Shelf do not provide the American people with short-term relief from high prices and undermine the goal of increasing stable long-term supplies.'' That policy to restrict development and reduce exploration is exactly what this legislation before us will do.

What America must realize is that the true source of most non- producing acres in America is the U.S. Congress, which restricts access to almost 600 million acres of the Outer Continental Shelf. We could produce more oil from opening up 2,000 acres in ANWR than would likely be produced from all the onshore acres currently leased but not producing today, especially when you understand that much of the onshore resources are natural gas and not crude oil. If we were to open but a fraction of these acres held up by the congressional majority, we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create jobs right here in America. However, the majority has decided time and time again that we should limit our access to our onshore and offshore domestic resources.

The American public is up in arms against the frivolous restrictions which Congress has placed on domestic energy production. People recognize the simple fact that opening up more Federal lands and waters could lead to lower gasoline prices and they're calling on us to lead America in this direction. Congress should open up this debate and this process today and allow each side to present their very best proposals. And that's what this debate is about today.

June 23, 2008.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Steny Hoyer,

Majority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, and Minority

Leader Boehner: Given the on-going debate about access and

leasing activity on Federal onshore lands and the Outer

Continental Shelf, I would like to offer some perspective, on

behalf of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,

AAPG, on the science and process of finding oil and natural

gas.

AAPG, an international geoscience organization, is the

world's largest professional geological society representing

over 33,000 members. The purpose of AAPG is to advance the

science of geology, foster scientific research, promote

technology and advance the well-being of its members. With

members in 116 countries, more than two-thirds of whom work

and reside in the United States, AAPG serves as a voice for

the shared interests of energy geologists and geophysicists

in our profession worldwide.

AAPG strives to increase public awareness of the crucial

role that the geosciences, and particularly petroleum and

energy-related geology, play in our society.

Finding and developing oil and natural gas blends science,

engineering, and economics. It has distinct phases:

exploration, development, and production. And it is risky,

because finding oil and natural gas traps, places where oil

and natural gas migrate and concentrate, buried under

thousands of feet of rock is like finding the proverbial

needle in a haystack. Talent and technology increase our

chances of a discovery, but there are no guarantees.

What is exploration? Well, the grid pattern on a block map

makes it tempting to think of exploration as a process of

simply drilling a well in each grid block to determine

whether it contains oil. But because of the natural variation

in regional geology, one cannot assume oil and natural gas

are evenly distributed across a given lease or region.

Rather, exploration is about unraveling the geologic history

of the rock underneath that grid block, trying to understand

where oil or natural gas may have formed and where it

migrated. If the geology isn't right; you won't find oil or

natural gas.

Legendary geologist Wallace Pratt once observed, ``Where

oil is first found is in the minds of men.'' When preparing a

lease bid, geologists use their knowledge to identify the

specific areas in a region that they believe have the highest

likelihood of containing oil and natural gas traps.

Successful exploration begins with an idea--a hypothesis of

where oil may be found.

Since exploration is about developing and testing ideas,

some acreage available for leasing is never leased. That is

because no one develops a compelling idea of why oil or

natural gas should be there. Similarly, some acreage is

leased and drilled repeatedly with no success. Then, one day,

a geologist develops an idea that works, resulting in new oil

or natural gas production from the same land that others

dismissed as barren.

Once a lease is awarded, geologists begin an intensive

assessment. They collect new geological, geophysical, and

geochemical data to better understand the geology in their

lease area. They use this data to construct a geological

model that best explains where they think oil and natural gas

were generated, where it may have been trapped, and whether

the trap is big enough to warrant drilling.

If there is no evidence of a suitable trap, the explorer

will relinquish the lease and walk away. If they see a trap

that looks interesting, they schedule a drill rig to find out

if they are right. Drilling is the true test of the

geologists' model, and it isn't a decision to be made

lightly. Drilling costs for a single well can range from $0.5

million for shallow onshore wells to over $25 million for

tests in deep water offshore.

As the well is drilling, geologists continually collect and

evaluate data to see whether it conforms to their

expectations based on the geological model. Eventually, they

reach the rock layer where they think the trap is located.

If there is no oil or natural gas when the drill reaches

the trap they were targeting, they've drilled a dry hole. At

this point the explorers will evaluate why the hole is dry:

was there never oil and gas here; how was the geological

model wrong; and can it be improved based on what they know

from the drilled well? Depending on the results of this

analysis, they may tweak the exploration idea and drill

another well or decide the idea failed and relinquish the

lease.

If there is oil and/or natural gas, they've drilled a

discovery. Typically, they will test the well to see what

volumes of oil and/or natural gas flow from it. Sometimes the

flow rates do not justify further expenditures and the well

is abandoned. If the results are promising, they will usually

drill several additional wells to better define the size and

shape of the trap. All of this data improves the geological

model.

Based on this revised geological model, engineers plan how

to develop the new field (e.g., number of production wells to

drill, construction of oil field facilities and pipelines).

Using complex economic tools, they must decide whether the

revenue from the oil and natural gas sales will exceed the

past and continuing expenses to decide whether it is a

commercial discovery.

The process of leasing, evaluating, drilling, and

developing an oil or natural gas field typically takes five

to ten years. Some fields come online sooner. Others are

delayed by permitting or regulatory delays or constraints in

the availability of data acquisition and drilling equipment

and crews. Large projects and those in deep water may require

a decade or more to ramp up to full production.

As you can see, oil and natural gas exploration is not

simple and it is not easy. It requires geological ingenuity,

advanced technologies, and the time to do the job right. It

also requires access to areas where exploration ideas can be

tested--the greater the number of areas available for

exploration, the higher the chance of finding oil and natural

gas traps.

U.S. consumers are burdened by high crude oil prices.

Conservation and efficiency improvements are necessary

responses, but equally important is increasing long-term

supply from stable parts of the world, such as our very own

federal lands and Outer Continental Shelf.

As Congress considers measures to deal with high crude oil

prices, I urge caution. Policies that increase exploration

costs, decrease the available time to properly evaluate

leases, and restrict access to federal lands and the Outer

Continental Shelf do not provide the American people with

short-term relief from high prices and undermine the goal of

increasing stable long-term supplies.

I am happy to further discuss these ideas. Please contact

me through our Geoscience and Energy Office in Washington,

Equally divided.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), our chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Sali).

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Speaker, what time remains for each side?

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) in bipartisan opposition to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), our minority leader.

I would like to ask how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the minority whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of our time to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

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

I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding.

Jim Oberstar is one of the most knowledgeable people in America on energy issues and on transportation issues. And the two, of course, are closely related. I want to thank him for his leadership and for his service. We are fortunate, as an American people, to have him chairing this critically important committee.

There is no stronger proponent of rail service and mass transit than Jim Oberstar. That service has never been more important than it is today. His vision and his service have put this country in a place where we now have the opportunity to make additional investment which is critically needed so that the demand for mass transit resulting from the cost of gasoline and energy products can be met by our mass transit system. And I thank him for his leadership.

This bill, as well as the other two bills considered on this floor today on drilling and market speculation, is a clear recognition by this House majority that America's energy policy cannot be one dimensional.

We've heard a lot of finger pointing on the floor today, and finger pointing is relatively easy. The fact of the matter is we all need to come together. I don't just mean Republicans and Democrats and the Congress of the United States, but all 300 million of us in this country need to come together and understand that we have 3 percent of the world's oil supply and 25 percent of the demand. It does not take a great mathematician to understand, therefore, that simply drilling for new product will not solve our problem. That is not to say by any stretch of the imagination that that should not be done.

These bills, taken together, and when combined with other actions taken by the majority on energy, are a clear reflection of the alternative to the Republicans' sole focus on drilling, to the exclusion of alternative and renewable sources of energy.

Let no one be mistaken: Democrats do not oppose further drilling, discovery and production of product, period. All we are saying, as I will explain in more detail shortly, is that the oil and gas companies should utilize the 68 million acres--that's 68 million acres--currently available to drill on which contain, according to experts, over 100 billion barrels of oil. And we use about 7.5 billion a year in this country, so that is approximately 14 years of oil. That's what the experts tell us, not Democrats and Republicans, the experts tell us are available on these untapped resources currently available, currently leased. I would tell my friends that, not only that, but they contain hundreds of millions of cubic feet of natural gas.

Now, as to Chairman Oberstar's bill: It promises Americans relief from our $4 per gallon gas prices. Tomorrow? No. Next week? No. Next month? No. Very frankly, we have been too long delaying our investment in alternative energy sources and alternative transportation modes. But it does promise that in the future we will have the capability both to provide mass transit for our people, and to provide for the alternative to lower demand which, therefore, should lower prices as well.

It authorizes $1.7 billion over the next 2 years to provide grants to mass transit authorities to reduce public transit fares and will help transit agencies deal with escalating costs. That is a rational response to increased demand.

In just the first 3 months of this year, Americans took almost 85 million more trips on public transit than in the same period the year before. Surely all of us in this body, faced with 85 million additional trips, will want to respond in a way that provides capacity to accommodate that growth.

Public transit reduces America's oil consumption as well as carbon dioxide emissions. Thankfully, the administration has, very late, come to the conclusion that, yes, global warming is a problem. Unfortunately, for 7-plus years of this administration they denied it was a problem, but coming to the right conclusion late is always timely.

In addition, the legislation on market speculation that was introduced by Chairman Peterson and Congressman Van Hollen is an effort which I hope every Member of this body will support to address this issue, record high gas prices, from another angle.

Oil producers are telling us they believe that a large portion of the price is related to speculation. Can I guarantee they're right? No, I cannot. Am I an expert on this issue? I am not. But I do know that they have said that is the case. If it is the case, it's incumbent upon us to find out, because if it is, and we can reduce prices for the consumer at the pump, they expect us to do so and we want to do so.

The Bush administration, of course, insists that the spike in gas prices is not attributable to market speculation. That may be why the commission that is supposed to oversee this has not acted as vigorously as they otherwise might. George Soros, a very successful investor, has said this: ``The crude oil market has been significantly affected by speculation.''

The legislation that we will vote on shortly simply directs the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to use its full authority and emergency tools to curtail excessive speculation and other practices distorting the energy market. Why would any Member of this body vote against asking this commission to look at that issue to determine whether or not there is validity? If there is not, presumably the commission will so find.

Finally, about Chairman Rahall's bill, let me simply say this: What could make more common sense than saying to the oil and gas companies that they should drill or pursue drilling on the 68 million acres of Federal land currently under lease or simply lose those leases? After all, they are leased for the purposes of us producing more product. If they lie fallow and are not being worked, not being investigated, not being explored, not being tapped, then the American consumer finds a dwindling or short supply. And what happens in that context? Prices go up. And yes, oil companies make record profits, but consumers lose. This bill simply says to the oil companies, be diligent in the development of what you have or lose the lease to someone who will pursue the discovery and production of oil.

Democrats believe that we need to find product. I mentioned the 68 million acres that you've heard a lot about, that's a lot of acres. But there is an additional 23 million acres in Alaska, 22 million of which is under congressional set-aside for oil production and discovery. Nine hundred thousand acres have already been leased for that purpose. And experts tell us there is more oil there than there is in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, but our Republican friends continue to focus on the Alaskan Refuge.

Let no one be mistaken: The oil companies have many acres to look at onshore and offshore. According to the Minerals Management Service and the Bureau of Land Management, these 68 million acres on land and waters, 74

percent of which we have already leased, are not producing oil and gas.

Our Republican friends have also charged that we're keeping the best lands out of the hands of oil and gas companies. That is not the case. They can say it again and again and again and again, but it's not the case. In fact, 81 percent--I hope all of my colleagues hear this, and I hope the American public will read the Record--81 percent of estimated oil and gas resources on Federal lands and the Outer Continental Shelf are presently available for development. And here, perhaps, is the most important fact: These resources are equal, as I said, to 107 billion barrels of oil and 658 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That is 10 times the amount of economically recoverable oil that could be produced from opening up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and more than 14 years of current U.S. oil consumption.

Finally, Madam Chairman, let me say that there is no silver bullet, we all understand that; to pretend otherwise would be dishonest. We need to be honest with the American public. Unfortunately, for over a quarter of a century we have had mostly administrations or Republican control of the House and the Senate which essentially said that drilling more oil and not looking for alternatives was the policy they wanted to pursue.

When we got here, we passed an energy bill that focuses on alternatives. If we only have 3 percent, we have 25 percent of the demand, you can bet your sweet life that those who have the oil all over this world are going to say to us, you pay us what we tell you to pay us. And not until we pursue policies--which this administration has failed to do, which this Republican leadership failed to do--not until that time will we be able to say to our friends and, indeed, some not so friendly, we're not going to pay your price because we have alternatives. We have mass transit provided by Jim Oberstar. We have alternative energies provided by the bill that we passed. We are expecting electricity--which the Republicans oppose--to be produced by alternatives. We have renewable fuel standards passed in this House, sent to the Senate.

Ladies and gentlemen of this House, we have taken significant steps last year, we're taking significant steps today, and we will continue to take significant steps so that America will be energy independent. That's in the best interest of our national security, our economic security and, indeed, it is critically important for our global health.

The bills we are considering on this House floor today are key components of a comprehensive energy strategy that seeks to provide Americans with relief at the gas pump while we wean our Nation from its dangerous addiction to foreign oil. The President said we're addicted to foreign oil. And yet there was a meeting on energy in 2001, just after the President became the Chief Executive, and they convened oil company executives to tell us, what should our policies be? One of my colleagues said, well, whatever they said--because the meetings were secret--their policies failed. Perhaps. Perhaps they failed. One cannot inevitably draw that conclusion, however, because those same companies, 7 years later, are making the greatest profits they have made in the history of their companies. Perhaps their policies failed, or perhaps their policies led to success.

Ladies and gentlemen, we need to pursue mass transit and invest in expanding it so we can meet the demand of our consumers and of our citizens and of our energy independence.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership. And I urge my colleagues to vote for all three of these critically important bills. Are they the sole solution? They are not. Are they the only solution? They are not. Are they the solutions that we will take and then stop? They are not. But they are a step, each and every one of them, in the right direction. Let's take those steps today.

I urge my colleagues to support these three bills.