Energy Markets Emergency Act of 2008

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.

The gentleman is an alumnus of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, a refugee who has been taken in by the Ways and Means Committee; and he will be most welcomed at further hearings of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee to elaborate on this very thoughtful proposal that he has set forth. We welcome that contribution as we shape the next transportation legislation.

I rise in support of the amendment which I am certain arises out of the experience of the New Hampshire Department of Transportation which has a program helping commuters find alternatives to riding alone. The State of North Carolina has created RIDE NC to do the same thing.

I just want to observe that this bill pending before the House now is the 110th bill reported from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to the House, 110th bill in the 110th Congress. We have completed action on 63 bills and resolutions including 29 bills enacted into law; in addition to that, eight concurrent resolutions and 26 House resolutions. That's a remarkable record of bipartisan participation for which I express my appreciation to the gentleman from Florida. On all of these, we've had bipartisan support.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Yes, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, in the introductory paragraph of the motion, to strike the word ``promptly'' and substitute therefor the word ``forthwith.''

I ask unanimous consent.

I made a unanimous consent request dealing with the motion of the gentleman, not the extraneous items the gentleman has now proposed.

If the gentleman is serious about his motion to recommit, we're serious about accepting it where it's forthwith and bringing that language immediately back to the House.

Did the gentleman object? I could not hear.

Then the gentleman is not serious about this motion, and this is a sham motion.

Under the language ``promptly,'' we would not be able to consider this legislation again until well after the 4th of July recess of the Congress, which the gentleman fully understands.

The substance of the motion is well-intentioned. However, under title 23 and title 49 of the U.S. Transportation Code, school buses are specifically not eligible for public funds out of the Highway Trust Fund, nor would they be under the provisions of the bill that is before us.

Since the gentleman from Oregon objects to accepting his language and making that change in Federal law to make school buses eligible, then I would suggest that he come back to the committee at an appropriate time, we're going to continue hearings--we've had 22 hearings already in the Surface Transportation Subcommittee last year and this year on the future of transportation--and make the case for such a provision to be included in the authorization that we will have next year. We would certainly be delighted to hear the gentleman's case for this provision and to perfect it. But as it stands, this ``promptly'' simply kills the transit expansion funding that we provide in the underlying bill.

Therefore, because the gentleman objected to my unanimous consent request, I say the motion is not offered in good faith, not offered with good intentions. It is a sham motion, and we should defeat it.

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

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.

Madam Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition.

Madam Chairman, we are pleased to support the gentleman from New Hampshire's amendment. And it will also, I think, encourage commuters to find other ways other than single occupancy vehicles to get to and from work. He has the support of the American Association of Commuter Transportation.

Again, it is a small piece in the larger puzzle. We only have jurisdiction, as I said earlier, over transportation issues; we can't resolve all the other problems we have with energy. But I commend the gentleman, and our side supports the amendment and urges its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I don't want to take the time, but we are concluding debate on this amendment, the Hodes amendment. I urge its adoption. I urge those who feel it is appropriate to support the measure, as I said it does have an increased authorization, not appropriation, of $1.7 billion. It does expand some of the transit grants to transit agencies that are hurting across the country. It does expand the transit benefits that are now restricted to those within the Beltway to Federal employees outside.

It does not solve the problem. It is a small piece of the solution, and I have been pleased to work with Mr. Oberstar in a bipartisan fashion to do our small part.

I must conclude, however, by saying that the House and the Congress can do a better job. My side of the aisle does not control the Congress this time. We have heard that there is a larger energy plan. We need to bring that energy plan forward.

I didn't have the time that the majority leader had in his remarks, and this isn't a blame game situation nor should it be. People are suffering in this country with $4-plus a gallon gas. I just saw this $5.25, which must be from California. That's not why our constituents sent us here. They sent us here to solve problems. In the same bipartisan spirit that Mr. Oberstar and I are bringing forward this little piece, we need a much larger piece.

A week from tomorrow is Independence Day, and that is a day we should be celebrating, not lamenting that we are not independent of foreign oil. We can work our way out of this. We can't tax our way out, we can't regulate our way out, but we have the means of moving forward and increasing the supply and lowering the price for the American people. We haven't done this, this Congress hasn't done this, and I am sorry that I have that to report at the end of my remarks, both in favor of the Hodes amendment and in favor of this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just wanted to start out by saying that I know that I can't talk directly to the American people, but I hope that if anyone is out there listening that they would listen to my comments that I make to you.

Madam Speaker, I guess about 2 weeks ago probably I started getting some phone calls about different petitions on the Internet and other places about the prospects of America becoming more energy independent, that we would not be dependent on foreign oil sources, and that we would be able to use our own natural resources to meet our energy needs.

And people began to ask if I had gone and signed them or had seen them. One was on americansolutions.com, which offered to increase domestic oil drilling. There was one about a gas holiday. There were several about developing alternative energy sources. But there were some interesting petitions against drilling by Democratic Senator Ms. Boxer, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace.

As I walked into a service station in my district, there was a petition on the counter, Madam Speaker, that said: Sign here if you want to let your representatives know that you're for lowering gas prices. And I'm assuming that the proprietor of that station had it there to keep people from talking bad to him about the price that was on his pump.

But what I decided after looking at all these different petitions is that I would come up with a petition so the American people could understand where their representative was at. We know where our constituents are. I think on the American Solutions petition they are at like 1.7 million people. So we can kind of understand where the American people are at. They want us to be independent. They want us to increase our U.S. oil production.

So what I decided to do was come up with a petition, and what this petition says is: American energy solutions for lower gas prices. Bring onshore oil online; bring deepwater oil online; and bring new refineries on online. Realize, we have not built a refinery in this country since the late 1970s.

And you may not realize this, because we're always talking about crude oil, but you might not realize that the United States imports 6.2 billion gallons of gas and 4.6 billion gallons of diesel every year. We import these from the United Kingdom, U.S. Virgin Islands, France, Canada, Netherlands, Norway--which, by the way, Norway is now the third largest exporter of crude oil, and back in 1965 they were energy dependent on foreign oil and they decided that they would open up to drilling in the North Sea. They are now the third largest exporter of crude oil. But we import refined gas from them--Germany, Russia, Italy, and of course the OPEC countries, which don't even really have that much refining capacity, Madam Speaker, but yet we buy refined gas from them.

So I got a petition, I've had it over here on the wall, Madam Speaker, for probably about 2 weeks now. There are 435 spaces for the Members, and then there are seven spaces for the delegates from the U.S. territories. And I'm happy to say that we've had 191 signatures. Now, this may be too simple for some people because all it says is, ``I will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower gas prices for Americans.'' And so we need your help, Madam Speaker. We need you to sign. I don't think you're on it, Madam Speaker.

But we've got a Web site, and it's our Web site at house.gov/ westmoreland. And on there we have everybody that has signed, and we have everybody that we've talked to that said they would not sign. So we've got two columns, we've got a signers and a non-signers. And then also, just to let you know, we have notified every office here at least once, we will do it again next week. And some people said have, well, Congressman, they ask me how long have you been working on this? And I say, well, about almost 2 weeks. Well, how come you only have 191 signatures? Well, Madam Speaker, I'd ask people that ask me that question, Sunday, when they're at church, try to talk to 450 people on a Sunday, it's almost hard to do, especially when you get in different conversations with folks. So if you want to understand, house.gov/ westmoreland, Madam Speaker, that's where somebody would go if they wanted to see where their Congressman was at on this simple petition that basically just says, ``I will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower gas prices for Americans.''

I would like to yield some time to my friend from Indiana.

I want to thank my friend from Indiana. And I want to get 300 signatures because I would like for the American people to know that way more than just a simple majority is behind them for making sure that, not necessarily those of us that are our age, but our children and our grandchildren will not have to go through the things that we're going through today. Because in 1995, this Congress passed drilling in ANWR and President Clinton vetoed it. And by all estimates today, 13 years later, we would be getting one million barrels of oil a day.

And as Senator Schumer said over in the Senate about 2 weeks ago, if we could get OPEC to increase oil production by one million barrels a day, it would lower the price of gas 50 cents a gallon just like that.

We don't need to be sending our President over to foreign countries-- and especially those that are not that friendly to us--with hat in hand on bended knee asking them to use more of their natural resources to provide us with oil when we won't use our own natural resources.

In talking about that, because this is the one thing that gets people fired up, Madam Speaker, and really gets those lines hot, that they want to find out if their Congressman has signed this very simple one sentence, is that it says, ``In a recent interview on al Jazeera, Chavez''--now this is Hugo Chavez from Venezuela--``Chavez called for developing nations to unite against U.S. political and economic policies. What can we do regarding the imperialist power of the United States? We have no choice but to unite,'' he said. ``Venezuela's energy alliances with nations such as Cuba, which receives cheap oil, are an example of how we use oil in our war against neoliberalism,'' he said. Then there was another date, on March 15, 2005, in the Washington Post, Mr. Chavez says, ``We have invaded the United States, but with our oil.''

Now, that would make your blood kind of boil, Madam Speaker, but this is what really gets people off is the fact that every day American families and businesses in this country write Hugo Chavez a check for $170 million. That $170 million could be going to our country. It could be going to provide energy independence. It could be going to provide jobs and build an industry, put into infrastructure; $170 million a day to Mr. Chavez.

Now, what we've been doing this week with the Democratic majority-- and let me remind you, Madam Speaker, that it was back in April of 2006 that then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi made a statement, and she said, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to bring down the skyrocketing price of gas.'' And at the time it was about $2.06 a gallon. We are waiting on that commonsense plan to be unveiled. We're waiting on it. And we heard that there were going to be about four energy bills this week. And Madam Speaker, the energy bills that were brought out this week was kind of like putting lipstick on a pig.

H.R. 6377, the speculation bill, this is what it says, ``to direct the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to utilize all its authority.'' In other words, we passed something that's already existing law. That's what we did, we passed something that was already existing law.

I want to read to you what happened in some quotes from H.R. 6. H.R. 6, Madam Speaker, was a bill that the new majority passed in January--I believe it was January 18, 2007--shortly after taking over, after they had promised the American people that they were going to lower gas prices. And I do want to read this one quote before I start reading these others. This is from Paul Kanjorski, and this was about 2 weeks ago. It said, ``A man was trying to question Mr. Kanjorski about his remarks that Democrats had overpromised during the 2006 congressional elections by implying that they could end the war if they controlled Congress.''

``Now, anybody who is a good student of government would know that that wasn't true,'' Mr. Kanjorski said at an Ashley town hall meeting in August, ``but you know the temptation to want to win Congress back. We sort of stretched the facts, and people ate it up.''

Yep, they ate it up. And right now they're paying a price for it.

I want to read you some quotes. These are from January 18, 2007, when we were debating H.R. 6:

Mr. Peter DeFazio: ``It is sad to see the Republicans come to this. Now they laughingly say that this will lead to higher gas prices.''

Well, gas was $2.23 a gallon on the day Mr. DeFazio made his statement. It's about $4.08 today. So we were probably right. This was no way to lower gas pries.

The same day, January 18, 2007, Mr. Jim McGovern said: ``What we are doing today really is responding to the outcry of the American people who are outraged by the fact that in the midst of being gouged by Big Oil . . . ''

Well, we have had seven investigations into price gouging, and it hasn't lowered the price of gas. In fact, it has gone up almost $2 a gallon since that statement was made.

The same day, John Hall: ``Today we are going to take back the tax giveaways to Big Oil so we can give the American people a break at the pump.''

January 18, floor statement, Kathy Castor: ``Instead of giving away billions of dollars to big oil companies which made multimillion dollar profits last year, the new Congress intends to

chart a course in a new direction by investing in alternatives for the American people. This will help America become energy independent and ultimately lower the utility costs for average Americans.''

I would like to tell the gentlewoman that the price of natural gas is twice what it was.

I yield.

Reclaiming my time, evidently taking these tax breaks away is not lowering the price of oil either.

I thank you for saying that because that's exactly true, and the petition is actually so simple, one line: ``I will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower the price for Americans.'' And you can go to house.gov/westmoreland and see if the Congressman is there.

Madam Speaker, you would really have been intrigued at some of the things that I heard about why they couldn't sign it.

But I want to continue on. These are quotes from the H.R. 6 debate, which was on January 18 of 2007, after the new majority, the Democrats, had overpromised the American people, as admitted, and now they were coming up with something that was satisfying that radical environmentalist base of theirs, whom they felt like they owed their victory to, at least in part. So they were going to take away the tax breaks and other things.

I'm not a big fan of Big Oil. Don't get me wrong. But I had a high school economics teacher, and I didn't pay that much attention in school, but Colonel Wofford at Therrell High School there in Atlanta taught us that taxing manufacturers or producers does not lower the price to consumers. So for whatever that's worth, I will give that to the majority.

Thank you.

January 18, and these are quotes from H.R. 6, which was their mantelpiece legislation. This was their commonsense plan, I guess, for bringing down the skyrocketing gas that at the time was $2.23 a gallon:

Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee said: ``The price per barrel of oil is $50 plus.'' Today I think it's about $140.

She goes on to say: ``And so what is this Congress and this leadership doing? It is doing the right thing.''

January 18, floor statement by Steve Israel: ``This dependence on foreign oil, Mr. Speaker, is a glaring threat to our national security.''

I could not agree with you more. But we are more dependent today than we were when you made that statement.

Mr. John Lewis, my colleague from Georgia: ``More than ever we need to get our priorities straight. We need to stop dancing while Rome burns and reverse the damage we have done to our environment. The American people need relief from energy costs.''

And I couldn't agree with you more, Mr. Lewis, but the problem is that gas has almost doubled since you made that statement.

Rahm Emanuel: ``Mr. Speaker, let's review the score: ``Big Oil, one; taxpayers, zero. Now the score is tied, and we are just getting warmed up.''

Well, I hope you're about as warm as you're going to get, Mr. Emanuel, because I don't know if we can stand any more of this.

January 18, 2007, floor statement from Allyson Schwartz: ``The United States imports 65 percent of the oil we consume. We spend $800 million every day on foreign oil-producing countries. This threatens our economic stability, our environmental security, and our national security, and today we say `enough.'''

Well, I say ``enough'' too, but if we had said ``enough'' then and started producing our own oil and started using our own natural resources, maybe oil wouldn't have almost doubled since then.

The chairman of the Democratic Congressional Committee, Mr. Chris Van Hollen, said this: ``This is the time to change direction, to set a new course on energy policy, to say to the country we're not just talking rhetoric, we mean what we say.''

Mr. John Yarmuth: ``Mr. Speaker, my constituent, like yours, paid over $3 a gallon for gas last year. Isn't that enough?''

Absolutely it's enough. But today we are paying over $4 a gallon, and the reason we are is because we refuse to use our own natural resources for the health of this country and, like so many of these other statements said, for the national security of this country.

Stephanie Tubbs Jones: ``Critics of H.R. 6 argue this measure will place an undue burden on oil companies which will lead to higher gas prices.''

Okay. We must have been right because what happened was after H.R. 6, with gas being $2.23 a gallon, today it is $4.08.

What we are trying to do, before I yield to some of my colleagues, we have that petition that my friend from Indiana and I have been talking about, and what it says is ``I will vote to increase oil production to lower the price of gas.'' And what that means is bringing onshore drilling online, offshore drilling online, deepwater oil online, and bring in more refineries online.

If we bring onshore oil online, it will save anywhere from 70 cents to $1.60 a

gallon. To bring deepwater oil online, the Outer Continental Shelf, 90 cents to $2.50 a gallon. To bring new refineries online, and not one has been built since 1976, would save anywhere from 15 to 45 cents. The gas tax holiday, 18 cents. To halt oil shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a nickel.

Now, I have got some more quotes on that, and, of course, this was passed in the House probably back in May. We stopped those shipments in July, and so we should find out if it's going to bring it down a nickel a gallon. But if you look at what the Democrat plan was, and this is that commonsense plan, I'm assuming, but ``sue OPEC,'' we have had a lot of success with that. ``Launch the seventh investigation to price gougers.'' ``Launch the fourth investigation to speculators.'' Now, we put that lipstick on that pig today with the speculation bill, that we just really passed something that's already on the books.

``Twenty billion dollars in new taxes on oil producers.'' I can hardly wait to see what that does to lower the price of gas. And we've seen that just not even putting the new taxes on them but just taking tax relief away from them has caused gas to almost double.

And then of course they've got ``halt oil shipments,'' which is a nickel.

You can see that if we put our policies in place that gas today would be somewhere around $2.10, and that's using very conservative savings over there. And you can see that if this works, and we don't even know that this is going to work, it would be about $4.03.

So we hope that we will get 300 signatures on this petition to show the American people that we are not going to lie here in a fetal position or just keep doing repetitious things to make you think we are doing something. So if you could just go to the house.gov/westmoreland and look at it. We had 45,000 hits on it, Madam Speaker, last night. And we have had a couple of Members that have come to us and said, We have heard and we want to go from the ``would not sign'' to the ``sign.'' So we can't do it, Madam Speaker, if people aren't going to be involved with us because we don't have that much influence over the majority.

I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, my classmate (Ms. Foxx).

Well, what I wanted to point out, this is what ANWR looks like. It's kind of a frozen tundra. I had some young people up here the other day from a school, and one of them asked me a question, said, Are you for drilling in ANWR? I said, Yes, I am. She kind of frowned. I said, Why? She said, I don't want you to ruin all the beautiful trees up there.

I tried to find a tree. I couldn't find a tree on the place. So there's a lot of

misunderstanding out there about what it is. Then you can look at the size of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and then the ANWR part as compared to the whole State of Alaska. A lot of people don't understand that Alaska--we have got a map of it somewhere--it's bigger than Texas. I know Mr. Conaway is here from Texas. Three times the size of Texas.

In fact, I will let Mr. Conaway talk about Texas and ANWR and other things, if he would like.

Let me say this, that it is a shame that we are having to limit so much of the travel. We need to conserve, but we can't conserve our way out of this. The real shame of this is when winter comes and natural gas is twice what it was. Mr. Peterson from Pennsylvania was down here the other night and really opened my eyes to it. Not only are people not going to be able to leave their home, they are not going to be able to stay warm in their home when the winter comes and the price of natural gas.

To another one of my classmates and colleagues, Mr. Conaway from Texas.

Not only that, reclaiming my time for a minute, did not the Democrat majority in 1992 extend that lease period to 10 years? Was it prior not 5 years or 7 years what it was?

I thank my friend. Now I have got to go catch a plane, but I hope that everybody will go to House.gov/westmoreland, Madam Speaker, to find out who is for drilling and who is for not just drilling, but like the gentleman from Texas said, for producing more of our natural resources to lower the price of gas.

Now I want to yield to my good friend from Nebraska, from the heartland of this country, from one of the corn-producing States, another one of my classmates that came in, and that is Mr. Fortenberry.

Mr. Burton will dialogue with you.

Let me just say to my good friend, Congressman Westmoreland from Georgia, I am so happy that you are going to all this trouble to get all of our colleagues to sign this petition. And if you're at 191, you're not too far short of 218. And when you get 218, I will join with you to go to the Speaker and show her that we have 218 signatures--or you do--and that they ought to bring this to the floor for a vote because a majority of the House wants this done.

You know, we passed another week. A week has gone by since you and I, I think, last were on the floor. And everybody's going home for the 4th of July recess--they're going to be in parades, they're going to be on radio, they're going to have town meetings--and we haven't done anything about reducing the price of gasoline or moving toward energy independence. And so I, like you, if I were talking to the American people right now, I would say, when your Congressman or your Senator is in that parade, I want you to talk to them strongly and say, we want you to drill in America. We want you to move us toward energy independence. We've been talking about it since Jimmy Carter was President 30-something years ago, and we aren't doing anything. And that's why we're dependent on foreign oil and that's why gasoline prices are over $4 because we aren't producing the oil here, we're sending it overseas.

We're sending over $400 million a day to Saudi Arabia to pay for oil that we're using. We could use that money right here in America, and it would help create jobs and expand our economy. We're sending $125 million a day to President Chavez in Venezuela, who's trying to move every country in this hemisphere toward communism and who is a good friend of the Castro brothers, Fidel and his brother Raul.

We have big problems here because we aren't drilling in America. And we need to have everybody in this country contact their Congressman and Senator and say, hey, listen, get with the program, it's time for us to move toward energy independence. We can't have this economy of ours suffer anymore.

I would like to enter into the Record, Madam Speaker, if I might, a

letter that was sent by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. These are the experts that say there is oil here, we ought to drill here, and here's how we ought to do it and here's how we ought to explore. And when you read this letter--which is now going to be put in the record--it tells very clearly that drilling costs for one well onshore costs a half a million dollars, and offshore it can cost up to $25 million. And so these geologists, when they get these permits to drill in a certain area, they go out to make darn sure that there's oil there before they sink a well that's going to cost $25 million. And that's an exploratory well. And it's a half million dollars if you drill onshore. So we're talking about big money. And when you realize that 68 percent of the people who drill for oil are independent drillers, they're not the big oil companies, and 87 percent of the people who drill for gas are not the big oil and gas companies, they're individual people who have small companies, and if they find oil they're going to get it, and if they find gas they're going to get it. And so this idea that these permits are not being researched and looked at is just crazy.

And when you read what the American Association of Petroleum Geologists said, and the President is a Mr. Willard Green, you realize that these people want to get oil and gas out of the ground, they want to get it out of the offshore sites on the Continental Shelf, and they can't do it simply because they don't have the ability to pursue these permits.

Only 3 percent of the area offshore is available for permitting and for drilling for oil; 97 percent of the Continental Shelf isn't being touched. And we have about 80 percent onshore that's not being touched. We ought to explore every place we can to move this country toward energy independence. We ought to remove ourselves from being dependent on Saudi Arabia, who isn't really a friend of ours, and on Venezuela, which really isn't a friend of ours, and other countries that aren't friends of ours. We ought to really move towards energy independence. And the minute we announce we're going to do that, we're going to drill on these sites, I'm sure the American people realize the price of oil is going to go down. The competitive nature of the free enterprise system and supply and demand will force the price of oil down, and it means the price of gasoline will go down as well.

June 3, 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 these 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 they conform 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 these data improve 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 & Energy Office in Washington, D.C.

at 202-684-8225 or 202-355-3415.

Sincerely,

Willard R. (Will) Green,

President, American Assoication of Petroleum Geologists.

And when they talk about these speculators, there are people that speculate in gas futures and oil futures, there is no question about that. But the minute we say we're going to drill here in this country, you watch those prices drop; you watch those speculators start getting out of the market and selling what they have. And that will force the price

down on oil, it will force down the price of gasoline, and it will help this country.

And let me just say to my colleague--and I really appreciate him yielding to me--if we don't get with the program, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the Senate and the House don't work with us on this side of the aisle, we're going to end up with gasoline prices being $5 or more per gallon. And if we have a conflict in the Middle East, as we've heard talked about here tonight, it could go much higher than that. That will put extreme pressure on this economy.

And I hate to predict this, but I really believe that if we don't get control of this situation and start drilling onshore and offshore in our territory, I think we could have a severe economic recession in this country. And when I say severe, I mean severe. The price of food is going up rapidly, the price of gasoline is going up rapidly. The price of products that are shipped across this country, which is almost--everything is going up very rapidly, and we're not doing a darn thing about it because we're depending on the Saudis.

We had Senators go over to the Saudis just recently and ask them to open up more oil fields so we can buy more of their oil. Why are we doing that? Why aren't we drilling in America so we don't have to depend on foreign oil? It makes absolutely no sense to send billions and billions and billions of dollars overseas and to other countries that don't even like us when we won't even drill here in the United States.

And so I am so happy that my colleague has taken the time and the effort to get the message out to our colleagues that they ought to sign onto this petition. And I know he feels like I do--and we come down here night after night talking to each other--that we would like, if we could talk to the American people, to put pressure on their Congressmen and Senators to sign onto this policy of drilling in America, to sign this petition so we can move toward energy independence. If we do that, and I would say this to my American friends all across this country, if we do that, you watch the price of gasoline go down. It will go down like a rock. You will see gasoline below $3 before you know it. But we have to say that we're going to drill for oil in this country, onshore and offshore. The minute we do that, America, just watch these prices go down. But first of all, we have to get this body and the other body, the House and the Senate, to get together and say, okay, we're going to drill. And we can't do that unless the American people put pressure on their Congressmen and Senators to sign on.

You have done yeoman service to this country, Congressman Westmoreland, because you've got 191 Members that have already signed that. And I'm going to work with you to get 218. And as I said before, the minute you get 218, I will walk with you to the Speaker's office and say, hey, it's time to bring this to the floor.

You're doing good work. I'm proud of you.

Will the gentleman yield for a moment?

I just want to follow up the train of thought that you have.

These taxes that they want to put on Big Oil, if there are excessive profits made and there is collusion or something like that, if there is criminal behavior, obviously everybody wants to make sure that doesn't take place. But whatever they're promising, everything that I have seen the opposition party promise, is that they are going to hit Big Oil with more taxes. That isn't going to get one more drop of oil to the-- --

No. That's right. They want to take tax breaks away. They want to increase taxes. And when you pass a tax increase on to a business or industry, oil or automobiles or whatever it is, it's passed on to the consumer in the form of price increases. So if they raise taxes, it won't give us one more drop of oil, which we ought to be drilling for right now, but it will make more expenses for the companies, and unless they can prove wrongdoing, those expenses will passed on to the consumer in the form of another price increase. So raising the taxes on the oil companies is only going to exacerbate the problem and make the cost of oil go up more. And I don't understand why my colleagues don't understand basic economics and the law of supply and demand. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

We need to pass legislation that will get more oil to the refineries, build more refineries, as you've said, and start getting the price of oil down because we are energy independent. And just talking about, okay, we're going to hit Big Oil, that may resonate with a lot of people. Some people say, oh, my gosh, they are not paying enough taxes. They ought to be taxed more. They are making too much in profits. That's not going to bring any oil to the market, not a drop.

So I just say to my colleagues, quit beating on a dead horse. We have got to become energy independent. We have to drill here in America. And I hope everybody in the country who may be looking at this, and we can't talk to them, but everyone in the country who is looking at this tonight ought to ask their Congressmen and Senators, Is what you're talking about in Washington going to bring one more drop of oil to the marketplace? Is it going to move us toward energy independence? And if it isn't, they ought to sign that petition. They ought to get on with the program in making us more energy independent.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

If the gentleman would yield, let me just elaborate on that really quickly.

I hope everybody who may be paying attention to this, our colleagues in their offices, realize that business and industry have a certain margin of profit that they have to make to keep the doors open, whatever it is. And as you have just said, if they are taxed and they have a margin of profit of 8 percent and you raise their taxes, they're going to pass that cost increase on to the consumer in the form of a price increase. And that's what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, your colleagues, don't understand.

We really need to do what's necessary to move toward energy independence, and raising the price of gasoline by taxing these companies is not going to solve the problem.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

So you have to settle for me.

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.