Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act of 2008

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided, misdirected legislation. After seeing this bill defeated just 2 weeks ago, I quite honestly am surprised that we are back for one more attempt at it. It is really heartwarming to find my colleague from West Virginia, the chairman of my committee, saying ``drill America now.''

The only thing is I am wondering why the chairman did not allow us to have amendments that would allow us to drill now. If he would allow us the amendments that would stop the litigation that is stopping us from drilling now, maybe we could work through some of those 68 million acres, if he would allow us to have amendments

which would stop the regulatory process that is delaying unnecessarily and is of no benefit to the American consumer, maybe we could drill now. But I find the chairman's comments just hard to believe.

In the context of the discussion today, I would invite the chairman to sign on to a letter with me. The letter is from myself and several other Members asking just in one area, one area where we find bureaucratic delays, 7 years in Utah, the BLM has not issued the resource management plans that are required in order to develop just that.

If the chairman of the committee is intent on drill, drill, drill, as he says today, let him just put his one signature beside mine, and we will send it to Nancy Pelosi and send it to the President of the United States from Nancy Pelosi and us in the House and the Members of the Senate.

One place where we have some of that 68 million acres, 1 million of the 68 million acres, and let's just work one block at a time to figure out exactly what the roadblocks are because I believe, I believe in my heart that the majority does not want to drill today.

I believe that they understand that it is not the oil companies who lack the diligence, but it is instead roadblocks by people who have hijacked the energy policy of this country.

In my section of the debate we will talk about the reason the 68 million acres lie unused, and it will go from regulatory process to litigation. It will go into the problems of seismic that are being blocked up along the northern end of this country. We will talk about the delays one step at a time.

But let's talk just a little bit about the bill before us today. It is several sections.

The first section I want to talk about directs the sale of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, the NPR-A. Now that is curious that the Democrats on the floor of the House today do not want to open up ANWR, 2,000 acres. They have been concerned about the environmental degradation of the 2,000 acres of ANWR, and yet today they are saying that they are going to open up 23 million acres to environmental degradation. There is not one bit of infrastructure. There are no roads. There are no drilling pads. There are no pipelines. They are hundreds of miles away from where they need to be for the market. Yet with ANWR, with a 74-mile pipeline, it is sincerely believed that we could get production down to the continental United States within a year.

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline, 800 miles long, took 3 years to have it built and full of oil because this Congress, at that point in time, realized that they could make a difference and they did make a difference by saying that this pipeline is not going to be delayed by litigation.

If the gentleman from West Virginia says drill and drill now, then let him make the equal commitment that we will not allow our production to be delayed by litigation which is going to come from every sort of environmental group, either in the NPR-A or ANWR or the Outer Continental Shelf.

It is really difficult to believe that the majority is sincere when they say drill today, and on the other side of the spectrum we see all sorts of delaying mechanisms from people who contribute money to them.

I was interested in the last debate to find that oil companies contribute money to Republicans and therefore there is some scheme. When I look at the bill in front of us today, I see groups, I see an alliance with groups that contribute a lot of money to Democrats. I see over $670 million in the last several years from trial lawyers. There is new language in this bill which will be litigated probably for decades.

I see a section in this bill, section 5, that requires project labor agreements, and I see that the unions have given to the Democrats over $1 billion.

And then I find the continuing language which says that there are going to be protections in place that satisfy environmental groups; and again, environmental groups have invested over $1 billion in Democrat candidates.

So when I hear from the other side their observations about the special interests, I think we should look at the bill. Section 2 requires again the direction that any leases be environmentally responsible. That is new language.

Sections 3 and 4 deal with pipeline requirements that companies tell me that they have to currently comply with already, so it appears to be a duplication.

The project labor agreements are brand new. These are things where private companies are directed that they will, before they can work on any private project, have labor agreements in place.

Then we have a ban that is reinstated on exporting Alaskan oil. Keep in mind that it was Democrat President Bill Clinton that opened up the Alaskan oil to be exported. So again, we find now the flip-flop in that position on their part. The ban was originally in place, and President Clinton decided he would relieve that ban. And now we find it being put back in place.

The issuance of new leases, use it or lose it, frankly is already in place in law. There is language that currently states that if you do not use a lease, you lose it.

So either this bill is simply to try to convince the American people that we are doing something when we are actually not, or it is even worse than that. I believe that we have no purpose for this bill. I believe that this bill is not going to increase the amount of domestic energy one bit. I think that what it is going to do is to start anew, it is going to start new processes and are going to delay even by months the process in place for the NPR-A.

So while it is telling us we are going to drill now and drill in the NPR-A, actually it is doing the exact opposite. It is instituting new rules that will have to go through a completely new process.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the debate.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, July 17, 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.

Hon. Roy Blunt,

Minority Whip, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Speaker, Minority Leader Boehner, Majority

Leader Hoyer, and Minority Whip Blunt: In the last month,

through various legislative proposals and public comments,

Majority leaders in Congress have accused oil and gas

companies of refusing to drill. We think many times idle

acres are caused by factors beyond these companies' control.

In many cases, Congress and the bureaucracy create roadblocks

that shut down companies' access to the lands.

Your rhetoric over the last few months leads us to believe

we have finally reached a consensus in Congress. In order to

start drilling on idle acres where regulatory burdens exist,

we request Congressional leaders act now to remove these

obstacles on a case by case basis. We also request that you

join us in sending a joint letter to the President urging him

to issue an Executive Order systematically removing barriers

on a case by case basis from lands under development that,

due to regulatory burdens, remain blocked from development.

We suggest starting with the permanent delays and lawsuits

preventing drilling in Utah. Please join us in sending a

letter to the President asking that he open drilling in Utah

by issuing the final Records of Decision (RODs) on this

state's Resource Management Plans (RMPs)--Vernal, Price,

Moab, Richfield, and Monticello--which authorize oil and gas

activities in Utah. These plans were to have been underway

for over 7 years. In our letter we will ask the President to

order the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to issue the RMPs

by August 31, 2008.

Additionally, we ask you insist that the RODs authorize the

Preferred Alternatives in each RMP without the adoption of

new Wilderness Characteristics Areas (WCAs). Removing

bureaucratic roadblocks to these 955,000 idle acres will

ensure that development starts immediately. This would enable

the oil and gas industry to effectively tap into over 5.2 Tcf

of natural gas and 334 million barrels of oil. This energy

would heat 72.9 million homes and power 24.5 million cars.

Clearing the regulatory roadblocks in Utah is one simple

step to lower the price of energy for the American people. It

is only by acting in a bipartisan manner that we can move our

nation out of this national energy crisis. We have prepared a

letter and await your approval. Additionally, we stand ready

to assist you in bringing legislation before the House of

Representatives that will eliminate the roadblocks to energy

development in America.

In coming together to encourage the President to take steps

and reduce the regulatory burden on companies developing

resources, we will show the American people that the

Federal government is serious about lowering the price of

gasoline. If we support the President as he removes

regulatory roadblocks, we will see increased development on

the acres sitting idle and lower energy prices.

Sincerely,

Stevan Pearce,

Member of Congress.

Rob Bishop,

Member of Congress.

Chris Cannon,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that is not dealt with in the drill now bill, DRILL, someone said maybe that means Democrats Reinventing the Inconvenient Liberal Lies instead of drilling now, but we just have a process that takes a long time. This process is part of what creates the 68 million acres.

The 68 million acres of idle land are not idle at all. They are involved in this process. This process is not changed one bit by the bill in front of us. Again, if the bill had come through committee, if we would have had hearings, we could have made these points in committee.

It's rather inconvenient because we don't have the ability to amend the bill today. We do not have the ability to offer a substitute bill, no motion to recommit. So we are tasked with simply explaining why the bill should receive a ``no'' vote.

But the process today has not changed at all, and you cannot read every single element in this block, but you can just see, as we move the chart toward me, what the steps are that are required to drill any single well. Litigation can occur at many different points. Again, this bill does absolutely nothing to stop any of this regulatory process that exists today.

There is not really such a thing as a third-world country. There are only overregulated countries, and when we look at this chart, we see why America is moving towards the status of a third-world country, because we are overregulating to the extreme, and it is winding up with millions of idle acres. Our friends want to say take it away from those companies that are not using it.

Either it is because of bureaucratic process, external litigation, but there are very good reasons why acres are idle. I think that our friends on the other side of the aisle are simply avoiding the real question of why we are not drilling in this country, why we are preferring Hugo Chavez oil, why we are giving preferential treatment to oil from OPEC, rather than this country.

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

Would the gentleman yield?

I really appreciate and respect what the gentleman says, but when you give the figure 68 million acres are idle, I wonder how many of those acres are, in fact, in this bureaucratic process.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to Mr. Brady, I would point out that this is the area we are talking about leasing, it is not some area up in Alaska that doesn't have any infrastructure, no pipelines. The majority is still avoiding the real question that is in front of this country, why we have $4 gasoline is because we can't get access to supplies that have an effect on the market today.

I would recognize Mr. Brady for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the Perdido lease in the Gulf of Mexico was sold in 1996. Twelve years later, over $2 billion has been spent before we even produce one drop of oil. That is 34,000 acres that, according to our friends, are idle. And yet, $2 billion has been spent. Another billion dollars has to be spent before that can be produced.

And what is going to happen with this bill is that people are going to say, I am afraid I might lose my lease. 12 years to produce one, not even 1 drop of oil on 34,000 acres, and people are going to stop buying leases. This bill is going to kill production, not assist production.

I would like to recognize Mr. Westmoreland of Georgia for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman of the committee pointing out that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was supposed to speed up the delays. And, in fact, we did.

You would remember, sir, that it was in our committee that we established the five categorical exclusions. Those are the categorical exclusions that were dropped out in your energy bill earlier this year that slowed the process down.

You also remember that we established the pilot offices. The pilot offices were established in several places across the country, and your legislation stopped those too.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I was simply addressing the questions that were addressed to me by the gentleman from the floor. I would thank you for that reminder, and would point out that, in fact, what we are doing here today, we are saying that people have been laying on these leases, that they are letting them lie idle.

But it was actually the Democrats of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 that passed, Democrats in the majority. And you notice that we have many of the gentlemen on the floor of the House today. Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Miller, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Rahall all voted yes in saying that we need, not just 5 years, but 10 years to produce these wells. And now we are having the finger pointed by the same people today, saying that it is irresponsible oil companies who are delaying too long. So the flip- flopping that we are seeing across the country right now is absolutely amazing.

We would love to hear the Democrats say that they want to drill and drill now. The only problem is that I have heard Democrats say that drill is a four-letter word. Well, either they can't spell or they can't count; I don't know which.

But let's yield 2 minutes to Mr. Carter of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentlelady from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin) for 2 minutes.

The gentleman asks a question whose fault is it. Let's read down through a list of observations: Wilderness Society v. Wisely, 16 leases, 11,000 acres stopped; Montana Wilderness Alliance v. Fry, stops three leases, limits additional 9; Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Norton, injunction covering 93 percent of the resource area; Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership challenges total of 127 APDs, applications for permits to drill; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Kempthorne stopped 60 wells; Potash Association stopped 72 wells; Biodiversity Conservation Alliance suspends leases; Wyoming Outdoor Council v. BLM, 11 parcels BLM stopped; National Audubon Society challenging the Resource Operational Division, and then we have Pennaco Energy v. U.S.; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

The reason that oil and gas exploration is stopped, the reason that we have 68 million acres is because of litigation and excess regulation, many of which do nothing, nothing to improve the environment. Most are bureaucratic delays.

I would suggest that the gentleman should--maybe if he thinks that he can produce oil more cheaply and more effectively than the people who are producing it, maybe he should be there and actually be drilling some wells and find out for himself the difficulty of producing.

Mr. Speaker, I would recognize the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, before I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, again we would just look at one area. This is the Powder River Basin, and 86 percent of the leased land is idle because of the fear of lawsuits. It is lawsuits that are stopping much of the production, and yet the gentleman's bill does nothing. It does nothing to stop the lawsuits.

If we are serious about drilling and drilling now, then let's put something substantial in this bill, let's take it back to committee, let's amend it like we should have, let's put things that restrict the litigation that is stopping Americans from receiving the oil that they deserve and the lower price of gasoline.

Mr. Speaker, I would recognize the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter) for 1 minute.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that oil companies are very rarely sitting on it. They are delayed by regulation. They're delayed by litigation, and if we were serious about drilling and drilling now, drill today, we would do something more than recommend a Black and Decker drill. I was surprised to hear our chairman of the committee say that because it takes billions of dollars to build these rigs out in the middle of the gulf, and to suggest that it is quite as simple as grabbing a Black and Decker and going and drilling with your hand, simply just, I think, intentionally understates the difficulty in providing low-cost gasoline for consumers in today's market. I was surprised.

Yes, I would yield.

Reclaiming my time.

I would just point out to the gentleman that the 34,000 acres with the Perdido lease has got no production coming from it yet. It's declared as idle according to your specifications. And I would just remind the gentleman that there are always reasons why production is not occurring. No one is withholding oil at $140 a barrel.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert two documents that show a history of litigation in the NPR-A. If the gentleman from West Virginia is unaware of those, maybe that would help.

Litigation History: Oil and Gas Leasing in the National Petroleum

Reserve--Alaska

In 1980 Congress amended the Naval Petroleum Reserves

Production Act (Public Law 96-514), directing the Secretary

of the Interior to carry out ``an expeditious program of

competitive leasing of oil and gas'' in the 23 million acre

National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. Pursuant to this

directive, BLM developed an expedited leasing program.

In 1983, BLM completed an environmental impact statement

(EIS) and issued a record of decision (ROD) opening all but

1,416,000 acres of NPR-A to leasing. The ROD called for five

annual lease sales of approximately two million acres each.

Soon after the release of the ROD a lawsuit was filed by two

Inupiat Eskimos in U.S. District Court for Alaska. The

plaintiffs, together with amicus State of Alaska and North

Slope Borough, sought a preliminary injunction blocking the

lease sale. They contended that BLM failed to make certain

subsistence-related determinations required by Section 810 of

the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA),

16 U.S.C. Sec. 3120. After a trial on the merits, the

district court held in favor of BLM, finding that such

determinations were not required. However the court issued an

injunction precluding execution of the leases pending appeal

of the matter to the Ninth Circuit. The district court's

decision was affirmed on appeal in Kunakana v. Clark, 742

F.2d 1145 (9th Cir. 1984), thus allowing issuance of the

leases. By 1998, all leases issued under the 1983 ROD had

expired without a significant discovery.

In 1998, BLM completed an ElS and issued a ROD addressing

the 4.6 million acre Northeast Planning Area of NPR-A. The

ROD opened 87 percent of the area to leasing, excluding an

area that included most of the submerged lands of Teshekpuk

Lake and lands to the north and east of the lake. Several

environmental groups filed suit in U.S. District Court for

the District of Columbia (Wilderness Soc'y v. Babbit, Civ.

No. 98-2395), alleging violations of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and seeking an injunction to

preclude lease sales under the ROD. In an unreported

decision, the court ruled in favor of BLM as to the

plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, thus

allowing the lease sales to move forward. BLM held lease

sales in 1999 and 2002, which resulted in the issuance of

several leases near Teshekpuk Lake. However, the court has

yet to issue a final decision on the merits, and the case

remains pending without any action having been taken by the

court for several years now.

After completing an EIS, in 2004 BLM issued a ROD

addressing the Northwest Planning Area. The ROD opened all

8.8 million acres of the planning area to leasing, but

deferred 1,570,000 acres near the village of Wainwright from

leasing for ten years. Several environmental groups filed

suit against the Department of the Interior in U.S. District

Court in Alaska. The plaintiffs argued that BLM acted

arbitrarily in violation of NEPA by authorizing leasing in

the entire planning area without considering reasonable

alternatives and without doing a site-specific analysis of

each of the areas affected by the proposed action. The

plaintiffs further argued that the biological opinion was

arbitrary in violation of the Endangered Species Act,

alleging that it was insufficiently thorough, not co-

extensive with the ROD, and paid insufficient attention to

the uneven distribution of eiders within the affected area.

The district court ruled in favor of BLM on all counts, N.

Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. Norton, 361 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (D. AK

2005). The decision was upheld on appeal in its entirety in

N. Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. Kempthorne, 457 F.3d 969 (9th Cir.

2006).

Seeking to open additional areas of the Northeast Planning

Area to oil and gas leasing pursuant to a 2002 recommendation

contained in the President's National Energy Policy, BLM

completed an amendment to the 1998 EIS in 2005 and issued an

amended ROD in 2006. The amended ROD sought to open for

leasing all lands in the planning area except the submerged

lands underlying Teshekpuk Lake. In doing so, 389,000 acres

that had been unavailable under the 1998 ROD would be

available. Several environmental groups filed suit against

the Department of the Interior in U.S. District Court in

Alaska, alleging violations of NEPA and the Endangered

Species Act. Holding in favor of the plaintiffs in part, in

National Audubon Society v. Kempthorne, No. 1:05-cv-00008-JKS

(Sep. 25, 2006), the court vacated the ROD. The court found

that the amended EIS failed to adequately analyze cumulative

impacts associated with the adjoining Northwest Planning

Area, and that for similar reasons the biological opinion was

inadequate as well. The Department chose not to appeal the

adverse decision, but instead proceeded to correct the

deficiencies noted by the court by supplementing the amended

EIS and revising the biological opinion accordingly. BLM

issued the final Supplemental EIS on May 23, 2008. Under the

Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, potential plaintiffs

have 60 days from issuance of a final EIS to bring suit

(i.e., until July 22, 2008)

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend debate by 10 minutes, equally divided.

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

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule which is a cynical attempt to cover political Members of this body who have chosen to elevate partisanship and politics above a real energy solution for American consumers and this economy.

Let me start by answering my good friend regarding the issues that he brought up and the things that he said.

First of all, the bottom line is that there could be 10 million acres or 20 or 50 million acres that could be, quote, ``given to or leased'' by oil companies. They don't want to drill every bit of acreage they have; they only want to drill where the oil is. Dry holes are not good for anybody.

Secondly, when you look at what the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is all about, it is there to protect this country. We should view that ANWR is also a strategic petroleum reserve here for the United States. There are 19 million acres in ANWR. Oil companies aren't after all 19 million acres, they are only after 2,000, just 2,000. That's where the oil is.

And perhaps number three, the gentleman needs to understand this, that energy companies are there to be in the business of providing energy. They are not there for any other reason. They are there to help the American consumer, to support our economy, and to

make sure that America is the greatest Nation on the face of this earth.

I am proud that we have the largest economy in this world and we use energy to make us more successful. We should not apologize or say it is a mistake that America utilizes energy. We simply need to make sure that what we are doing is having a comprehensive, across-the-board view, and not allowing drilling here in America and offshore is a national security issue. That's the side of the story that my friend did not tell this morning. That's why this bill is something we should oppose.

For the last 5 months, everyday consumers and our national economy have been suffering because of this Democrat majority's stubborn and mind-boggling unwillingness to increase the supply of domestically produced oil to reduce prices at the pump. And for over a year and a half, Republicans have been unified in a commonsense approach and a comprehensive approach to bringing down the price of gasoline for consumers, only to have that plan ignored by the new Democrat majority in favor of agenda that prioritizes scapegoats over solutions.

Rather than taking this opportunity to work in a constructive, bipartisan way to address the real domestic energy supply issues, they have let sky-high energy prices stand and continue for consumers.

Today, we are being asked outside of regular order and with no opportunity for Members to offer their own good ideas to bring down the price of gasoline, and we are spending only 40 minutes to debate a fig- leaf piece of legislation that releases 3\1/2\ days' worth of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The gentleman is correct, when there is more oil supply that is available, the price does go down. The gentleman is correct, there have been previous orders by the President to reduce the supply that is in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve directly for consumers. But 3 days' worth is all we are talking about. That is not a long-term fix. We need a strategic petroleum reserve that is called ANWR to make America competitive.

So rather than doing something that would be long term, all they are trying to do is something that would be a political, short-term fix.

Madam Speaker, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is intended to deal with natural disasters and national security crises, not preventable, man-made political disasters like the short supply of energy that we have today in America because of the Democrat Party no-energy strategy.

The world understands it. As a matter of fact, I was out on the west side of the Capitol just yesterday as Republicans were talking about our ability to go drill here in America and offshore. And whole loads, bus loads of Democrat staffers and others are out front saying, No drill, shame on the Republican Party. My gosh, I do understand that that is the policy of the new Democrat majority. We're working their plan. That's why gasoline is at $4 a gallon. We simply disagree in the Republican Party.

However, there is one small bright spot associated with this legislation, and it is by bringing it to the House floor today, the Democrat leadership is finally admitting there is a supply-side component to addressing America's energy concerns. My colleague was very plain and forward when he said: When we dump oil into the marketplace, the price goes down. Unfortunately, seriousness of purpose in dealing with the problem has not accompanied this long-overdue revelation--which is why we are here debating this do-nothing cover vote today instead of real solutions to our problems.

Yesterday I joined my Republican colleagues when we proposed a smart, innovative and comprehensive approach to addressing our Nation's energy independence solution, a problem whose guiding philosophy can be summed up by one simple principle, use less and find more.

Rather than just releasing over a weekend's worth of energy and calling it a day, like the Democrat proposal does, the Republican plan is to increase the supply of American-made energy in an environmentally sound way. This is what Republicans are pushing on the floor of the House of Representatives yet again today.

We believe our deep-water oil resources, ocean resources, could provide an additional 3 million barrels of oil per day as well as 76 trillion cubic square feet of natural gas. These are proven reserves. We should open the Arctic coastal plain, which could provide an additional 1 million barrels of oil a day. We should allow development of our Nation's shale oil resources, which could provide an additional 2.5 million barrels of oil per day, and we would increase the supply of gas at the pump by cutting bureaucratic red tape that hinders the construction of new refineries.

To improve energy conservation and efficiency, our legislation will provide tax incentives for businesses and families to purchase more efficient vehicles. It will provide tax incentives for businesses and homeowners who improve their energy efficiency. To promote alternative and renewable energy technologies, this legislation will spur the technology of alternative fuels through government contracting by repealing the section 526 prohibition on government purchasing of alternative energy and promotion of coal-to-liquids technology.

We will establish a renewable energy trust fund using revenues generated by exploration in deep ocean and on the Arctic coastal plain. We will extend permanently the tax credit for alternative energy production, including wind, solar and hydrogen, and we will eliminate barriers to the expansion of emission-free nuclear power production.

Speaker Pelosi and this new Democrat majority have the power to bring these already-developed commonsense solutions up for a vote at any time. Trust me, Madam Speaker, the Republicans are here to help. But what we want is real solutions. We want to drill now to save America.

Speaker Pelosi should choose to be with Republicans in a bipartisan answer, but, instead, this Speaker is choosing to ignore the American public in favor of a radical environmentalist agenda. I will be giving every Member of this body the opportunity to show where they really stand on energy independence during the vote on the rule's previous question. I encourage every single Member who agrees with me that this country needs to increase its supply of safe and reliable American energy to force this Democrat leadership to finally act by rejecting the cynical rule and the meaningless underlying legislation so that this House and the American people will be prepared for real legislation that will have a real effect at the pump.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, you know, I would love to cut a deal with the gentleman right now and say Republicans would be completely for this bill if you would do something for more than the 3 days' supply if we would really approach the emergency that the American people are talking about, and let's do something long term. We have already had President Clinton 12 years ago sign the pen that said we are not going to go after ANWR. We would have had that online now.

Why do we assume that in 5 or 6 or 7 years we are not going to need this energy? We are going to need the energy.

This new Democrat majority, to a Member, is withholding from the American people the opportunity to get prices down now. To say that we would raid the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for 3 days' worth of gasoline is laughable. It's laughable because the American people understand that what this new Democrat majority is all about is having the energy prices stay where they are. They see that the Democrat plan evidently is working, the Democrat plan to squeeze American interests out and to send the money overseas.

We have seen that now for 18 months. That's the Democrat majority's plan. They want to keep building Dubai. They want to keep giving the money to countries who do war against the United States and don't hold us in favor. They want the money and the business to be done overseas. They want the jobs to go overseas. That's really where this new Democrat majority is.

If it were the Republican Party and reversed, it would be about all the special interests that we're trying to give. But in this case, it is about the American consumer that sees that their prices are at a high level simply to make sure that this Democrat majority sends the money overseas because they really don't like the energy companies here in America. That's anti-American.

Madam Speaker, the Republican Party has great alternatives that are on the table today. We want a long-term comprehensive fix for energy, and we will continue to tell the American people, just as we are here telling our colleagues here today, that we recognize who has the capacity and the ability to bring a bill to the floor today to answer the problem. The problem is the lack of resources of supply in the gasoline marketplace, and it's extending also to high fuel prices that will be paid in the Northeast this winter, and it is the new Democrat majority that is responsible for that. This is their plan. They're getting what they wanted, and we will keep building Dubais and keep sending our money overseas as long as we cut off American jobs and American energy companies.

I think it's a bad thing for policy for this country. That's why the Republican Party has an alternative. I wish that it would be heard today on the board to where we could vote for it.

Madam Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, let me agree with the gentleman. Psychology does have a lot to do with this. That's why Republicans, instead of trying to fall victim for a 3-day fix or for a long-term fix--so let's get into the psychology for just a second.

How about if somebody brought legislation to the floor that said, you know what? I think we ought to open up American deep-water oil resources, ocean resources, because we do understand there are war games that bipartisan Members of this House go attend to where we do understand that if international shipping where oil was concerned, if there was a bad mistake or a problem, that we would be in trouble.

So why don't we, as just a good idea, let's open up America's deep water ocean resources, which could provide an additional 3 million barrels of oil per day, but it doesn't end there, and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Why don't we also bring to the table, let's open up the Arctic Coastal Plain, which could provide an additional 1 million barrels of oil a day. But there is more.

How about allowing the development of America's shale oil resources for an additional 2.5 million barrels a day?

So instead of having just a 3-day fix and arguing all these new issues that we bring up would take 10 to 20 years to bring to the consumer, not true. It can be done tomorrow. We could decide, and we should have decided 12 years ago. We should have decided last year. We should decide that today, what we want to do is to make available the resources of this country in the event, in the future, there really is a big problem.

So the Republican Party is here on the floor today with real live answers to real live problems that are happening every day.

And so once again, we will give this new Democrat majority credit. The energy prices are the way that the Democrat Party wants them to be. They do want prices to be high. They do not want a supply unless it is paid for by the government. And they are not for a long-term solution because it would mean that we would be using those big oil companies resources.

My gosh. We are going to hold the American consumer hostage. We are going to hold people in the Northeast who use and need this oil this winter hostage, when, in fact, when it is 100 degrees outside, we are saying, do this now; let's prepare. Let's be prepared for the future.

And instead, this new Democrat majority argues, time in and time out, not going to drill, not going to put any more supply in, and prices will simply continue to rise.

Madam Speaker, somebody will have to face up to the day of reckoning, and that day of reckoning is going to be when American consumers, in the dead of winter, are not only paying high prices at the pump, but also high prices to heat their home.

We are trying to do something today. We have been trying to do something for 18 months, and this new Democrat majority refuses, refuses to see the facts of the case.

We reserve the balance of our time.

We reserve our time.

You know, it's great to hear about this private meeting that took place in the year 2000, and to now learn about all the attributes of the meeting.

I would speculate, since I am sure the gentleman did, that ANWR would have been in that list of things that the President of the United States would have wanted, the consumers want, that ANWR would have been on there, that every place that we would drill economically, and ecologically, in a sound way, that that would have been on the table too. That is exactly probably what the President had in mind and probably what the energy companies had in mind.

Let's put American resources, jobs and national security to the advantage of the American people, instead of the plan to send all this money overseas to build Dubai. That is a mistake.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany .

Madam Speaker, could I please find out how much time is left on both sides.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I believe I heard the gentleman say he has no additional speakers; is that correct?

Madam Speaker, we will reserve our time.

Just so the gentleman from Massachusetts has an opportunity to call my bluff, I'll take him up on it. I'll take him up on it.

We do believe there is something immediately that can be done, and we've been asking for this for years and years and years because the fact of the matter is, as we've already heard, there is a lot of psychology. The gentleman from the State of Washington talked about psychology just a few speakers ago. Well, here is the psychology. If you bring your own oil to the table, the other side sees what you're willing to do and their oil's worthless because they cannot hold you hostage.

So what the Republican Party does want to talk about today is today, tomorrow, Labor Day, and moving forward. And that's why we're talking about bringing 3 million barrels of oil per day, 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, 1 million barrels of oil from the Arctic coastal plane, and 2.5 million barrels a day from the shale that's in this country. Darn right we want to talk about today.

But the fact of the matter is that we've been talking about this for years, and now they make it seem like the debate just started today. The debate did not start today. The debate started back when President Clinton was in office. We asked for and passed a bill at that time, and the President said, ``No. You cannot have ANWR.''

And now we get to today and they act like, ``Well, it just started. But Republicans don't want to talk about today.'' Darn right we want to talk about today. We want to talk about what has been talked about, that is the psychological effort as well as a today's efforts; and that's why the Republican Party is here yet another day.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask how much time remains on my side.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman from Vermont is through with his speakers and wishes to close.

I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Speaker, today I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider real solutions to rising energy costs.

If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for the additional consideration of H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act.

I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of our time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule which is a cynical attempt to provide political cover for Members of this body who have chosen to elevate partisanship and politics above American consumers and our economy.

Today, both everyday consumers and our national economy are suffering. Mr. Speaker, we are suffering because of this Democrat majority's mind-boggling unwillingness to increase the supply of domestically produced oil to reduce prices at the pump. That's why we are suffering. We are suffering because the policy here in this body in Washington, D.C., and you can read about it in articles in virtually every single paper across the country, and that is the leadership of this House of Representatives does not want to get the right thing done so consumers can have more energy and oil at the pump.

For weeks now, Republicans have been unified in a commonsense and comprehensive approach to bringing down the price of gasoline for consumers, only to have every single one of those plans and votes on the floor of this House of Representatives ignored by the Democrat majority in favor of an agenda that prioritizes legislation like naming historical trails and gaming the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to prevent the development of increased energy production in New England alone.

They are going out of their way to make sure that commonsense legislation that will help the free market and the energy companies, who should be our friends, to provide what consumers need and to produce a better economy.

These priorities completely ignore the wishes of the American people and will do absolutely nothing to bring relief to millions of Americans who are really suffering as a result of high energy prices. I think that if the American people knew that the plan, or part of the plan, was to sue OPEC, they would laugh just like Members of this body have done.

Rather than taking this opportunity to work in a constructive, bipartisan way, to address these domestic energy supply issues that have led to sky-high energy prices for consumers, today we are being asked outside of regular order, and with no opportunity for Members to offer their own good ideas to bring down the price of gasoline, to spend a whopping 40 minutes debating a fig-leaf legislation that wasn't even released to Republicans until late last night.

Republicans have already put forth a number of smart, innovative ideas to bring down gas prices like H.R. 3089, the No More Excuses Energy Act of 2007, which would reduce the price of oil by opening new American refineries, investing in clean energy sources such as wind, nuclear, and captured carbon dioxide, and making available more American energy through environmentally sensitive exploration of the Arctic energy slope and America's deep sea reserves.

But, of course, we know we can't get close to that. We also have H.R. 2279, the Expand American Refining Capacity on Closed Military Installations Act, which would reduce the price of oil by streamlining the refinery application process and by requiring the President to open at least three closed military installations for the purpose of setting new and reliable American refineries in place.

H.R. 5656, which would reduce the price of oil by allowing the entire Federal Government, not just the Department of Defense, NASA and our intelligence community, to procure advanced alternative fuels derived from diverse sources such as oil shale, tar sands and coal-to-liquid technology.

H.R. 2208, the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Act, which would reduce the price of oil by encouraging the use of clean coal-to-liquid technology by authorizing the Secretary of Energy to engage and enter into loan agreements with coal-to-liquid projects that produce innovative transportation and fuel; and, H.R. 2493, the Fuel Mandate Reduction Act, which would reduce the price of oil by removing fuel-blend requirements and onerous government mandates that contribute to unaffordable gasoline. In other words, red tape.

Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership have the ability to bring each and every one of these already developed commonsense solutions up for a vote at any time, but they have chosen to ignore the American public in favor of a radical environmentalist agenda, and each one of these bills is also the subject of a discharge petition that would force their consideration. Every single Member of this body, even though they may agree or disagree with Speaker Pelosi on whatever her agenda might be, can take a commonsense approach and come down and sign a discharge petition that would bring this legislation to the floor of the House of Representatives.

I encourage every single Member of this body who agrees that this country needs to increase its supply of safe and reliable American energy to force this Democrat leadership to finally act by joining me in signing each and every one of these.

It's simple, by the way, for the new Members, as you hear this, all you have to do is walk down to the very front, sign these discharge petitions, and we could, this afternoon, be debating and voting on commonsense ideas to bring down the price of gasoline.

Instead, this Democrat majority, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has chosen to bring up redundant legislation that has been overtaken by events before it can even be considered. The Bush administration has already announced that a new round of leases will be held for the National Petroleum Reserve, making today's restatement of current policy as useless as the restatement of the current ``use it or lose it,'' or, said another way, making energy companies drill dry holes. So, what we need is commonsense activities that would bring commonsense prices down for the American public.

Perhaps the most galling of all is the inclusion of section 5 of today's legislation, which forces cumbersome requirements and restrictions on the construction of any new pipeline from Alaska to the rest of the United States simply on behalf of big labor bosses. While the inclusion of this requirement is no surprise coming from the Democrat majority that wants to take away a worker's right to a private ballot so that big labor bosses can more easily manipulate the outcomes, it is disappointing that this Democrat majority would blatantly include this requirement at a time when we can see that it should be addressed to make life easier for bringing down the cost of gasoline for all Americans.

Today's bill is being brought forth by the Democrat leadership in a weak attempt and effort that does nothing more than restate current law and restate existing requirements that oil production on lands be developed while adding new restrictions to pipeline construction for the benefit of big labor bosses. I challenge anyone on either side of this aisle to produce a study other than the partisan and logically challenged report developed by the Democrat staff of the Natural Resources Committee that reapplying the so-called ``use it or lose it'' provision to the National Petroleum Reserve will create even one additional barrel of oil. This is a supply-side problem. This is a problem that the new Democrat majority has made happen, and this is a problem that the American people are asking each of us to solve.

So, the Republican Party is here on the floor of the House of Representatives on behalf of the American people asking all the Members of this body to please understand what we are doing. I think it's a cynical rule that we are debating now, as well as the underlying legislation. We need real legislation. We need to put the American people first. We are not just some country, we are America, and we can win.

Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's interesting, he says ``drill now,'' but we can't drill where the oil is. ANWR is 19 million acres. We need less acreage than is the size of one-ninth of Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport. We don't need the 19 million acres. We need one- ninth the size of DFW International Airport, or only 2,000 acres.

Oil companies would go drill in all these places, except they are dry holes. They want to drill where the oil is, and that's where the Republicans want to give them that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is left on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield for such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California from the Rules Committee, our ranking member, Mr. Dreier.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the favorite son of the Volunteer State, Mr. Duncan.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, it seems like the Democrat Party has an argument with themselves on this one. They're arguing with themselves.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished second baseman from the Republican championship baseball team, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to let the gentleman from Vermont know that our time allocation is out of balance now, and I would appreciate if the gentleman would use up that time and make it more equitable between us.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have one additional speaker, and I believe that the gentleman from Vermont has about twice as much time as we have. So I would like to inquire about his opportunity to utilize more of his speakers or to ask where he is in this process.

We reserve our time.

Mr. Speaker, English economist John Maynard Keynes said, ``When the facts change, sir, I change my mind. What do you do?''

Well, it's obvious today that the facts have changed, and our friends in the new majority don't change their thoughts or ideas to adjust to the facts of the case.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).

Mr. Speaker, I will take from those words that the gentleman from Vermont has no further speakers and would be interested in me closing at this time.

Mr. Speaker, since taking control of Congress in 2007, this Democrat Congress has totally neglected its responsibilities to do constructive things to address the domestic supply issues that have created today's skyrocketing gas prices, diesel prices, and energy costs that the American families are facing. And today, once again, they are proving to Americans that they have a failure of leadership and vision.

Mr. Speaker, we'll see what happens when the August break comes around and our friends in the new Democrat majority head home to find out how much home fuel prices are going to spike with home heating fuel, and we will find out what happens in September when we come back from the break.

So to avoid that, Mr. Speaker, today, I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider in July, as opposed to September, real solutions to the rising energy costs. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for this House's consideration of H.R. 5984, H.R. 2208, H.R. 3089, H.R. 2493, H.R. 5656, and H.R. 2279.

Mr. Speaker, these may not be household understood names of bills, but in September, the new Democrat majority, after spending August at break, is going to find out they should have done something, rather than doing nothing.

Yesterday afternoon in the Rules Committee, hours before Republicans were even given a copy of today's legislation, the same amendment was defeated by the Democrat majority by a party-line vote.

While I do not have a great deal of hope that this Democrat majority will provide a better outcome than the one provided by my Democrat Rules Committee colleagues, the vote on this previous question will allow every single Member of this body, especially those Members of the much- and often-reported bipartisan working group on drilling, to stand up for real solutions to this energy crisis--it's easier to do it in July than it will be in September--not just ineffective restatements of current policy that do absolutely nothing to increase the production of American energy for consumers.

I encourage everyone that believes that a comprehensive solution to solving this energy crisis and achieving energy independence includes increasing the supply of American energy to join me and to defeat this rule and the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place this motion and extraneous material in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6515) to amend the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an expeditious environmentally responsible program of competitive leasing of oil and gas in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that time for debate on the pending measure be expanded to 60 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our freshmen Democratic members and in concert with the Democratic leadership, I am pleased to bring to the floor today the Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act, the DRILL bill.

Let there be no mistake about it. As Democrats, we are pro drilling. I repeat that for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We are pro drilling. We are for drilling now. And we are for drilling in areas that bring near-term relief to the American public.

As others put forth bumper-sticker energy policies, today, House Democrats are bringing forth prudent legislation aimed at unleashing the vast potential of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, this section to the far right on the map behind me. That is to be distinguished very clearly and separately from the ANWR, over on my far left.

Where better to drill than in the National Petroleum Reserve? That is what it's for. The National Petroleum Reserve. That is why it was set aside. The National Petroleum Reserve.

Now, my colleagues, the National Petroleum Reserve, situated on the North Slope of Alaska--this reserve is no pipe dream like ANWR way over here, which is a bumper sticker approach to our energy woes--the National Petroleum Reserve is open for leasing. It has been. It will be. Twenty-three million acres. The National Petroleum Reserve is open for leasing, open for business, now, today, 23 million acres containing an estimated 6.6 billion barrels of recoverable oil. There is more than over here in ANWR, which is not even open for leasing at this point in time. It is a pipe dream over here in ANWR.

Far more than ANWR, the National Petroleum Reserve, as I said, has much more recoverable oil than ANWR. And if ANWR were fully open, we still would be 20 years before we could have any oil in production. The Energy Information estimates show that the only effect on the price at the pump would be 1.8 cents 20 years from now.

As opposed to that, we have the National Petroleum Reserve set aside for drilling. In Alaska, 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas has been stranded. Think about that: 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas stranded over in the National Petroleum Reserve because there is no pipeline available to bring it to market over here being the major pipeline. For oil only, I might add.

Elsewhere, there are 68 million acres of land onshore and offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf in the lower 48 under oil and gas leases that are not producing. They may be subject to speculation. They may be purely being warehoused. We don't know.

I say here today, drill. Drill. Drill. Drill here in America. Drill now. Let's drill.

The DRILL Act, Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act, would unleash the vast potential of the National Petroleum Reserve by requiring annual Federal oil and gas lease sales and by facilitating the construction of pipelines to connect the NPR-A with the existing central North Slope arteries that will bring it on down to the American consumers in the lower 48. That includes Prudhoe Bay, connecting it over here to Prudhoe Bay, the transportation infrastructure and trans- Alaska Pipeline that comes down here, we do need still a gas pipeline. There is, of course, already existing an oil pipeline.

But it makes as a matter of Presidential priority, the DRILL Act makes the construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline a priority so that stranded gas, that stranded gas in the National Petroleum Reserve, can be transported to the lower 48.

It requires project labor agreements be entered into for construction of these pipelines so they would be good-paying American jobs. It requires that the trans-Alaska Pipeline, the NPR pipeline that connects, that is right here, a 5-mile segment connecting NPR over to the existing oil and gas leasing being done in the Prudhoe Bay area, that they be maintained and operated in an efficient manner to ensure an uninterrupted flow of oil and natural gas. And the DRILL Act reinstitutes the ban of the exportation of Alaskan oil to other countries so that this Alaskan oil, American oil, can be used by Americans for their relief.

It is a commonsense approach to our near-term energy woes. We know very clearly we must transition ourselves from oil dependency. We must wean ourselves from oil addiction. Alternative fuels, coal-to-liquids, carbon sequestration, other noncorn-based alternatives, renewables, all of the above should be on the table. It is the only way to secure America's energy independence from foreign crude.

But in the near term, we need to drill. We are saying in this bill today drill, drill, drill. Drill it now. Drill it here. Drill it where the oil is and where it is already available, not wait 20 years from now, as the President proposes to lift some moratorium on the OCS and up here in the ANWR that, as I have already said, won't affect any near-term relief at the pump for American consumers.

Let me observe that there are those who display a fundamental misunderstanding of parts of this legislation. We do of course incorporate the use it or lose it that has already been passed by a majority in this body which requires the diligent development of Federal oil and gas leases during their primary term, which is normally 10 years. What that means is during that period, we are requesting that the oil companies do something with these leases to explore for energy. If a discovery is made, and we hope that it will be, apply for the permit.

Now, I understand drilling. I think most of my colleagues know I am from the State of West Virginia, by golly, the great State of West Virginia. We know something about energy woes in that State. We are not a NIMBY State by any stretch of the imagination. We do not shirk from our responsibility to contribute to the Nation's need for energy. We have mining. We have drilling.

I understand that complications can take place while trying to develop a lease, environmental challenges, bureaucratic delays, but this constitutes due diligence. This constitutes the development of a lease. This constitutes moving toward meeting our energy woes. Diligent development does not mean the lease is producing, I understand that. It means that a company is doing something with the lease to determine whether it can be brought into production or not. That is a good thing. That is diligent development.

I understand it is a lengthy process, but I am saying to Mr. Big Oil, please do something on these leases. Do something. If you have to go out and buy a Black & Decker drill to drill it to move forward, do that.

Vote for this legislation. A vote for this legislation will mean that we are trying to bring energy immediately to the American people, that we are voting for American good-paying jobs, and that we are voting to prevent American energy from being exported to foreign markets.

As I conclude, I say, drill, drill, drill. Drill here. Drill now. Drill so we can meet our energy supply-side demands here with American resources.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am shocked that the gentleman would even start down the road of campaign contributions in this debate, but I am not going to proceed any further down that road.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall) who has been very active on this issue and very involved in our debate we had the other night.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the gentleman from New Mexico.

If he was listening to my opening statement and my earlier comments on this issue, I fully understand it's a lengthy process. The regulatory framework was put into place in this and many other laws of this land for a very specific reason, to protect the public health and safety and the environment.

It's a lengthy process to go through this leasing. I must tell the gentleman, and he knows it, once you obtain that lease you have overcome most of the hard obstacle of achieving production. The lands we are talking about are mostly lands already under lease. Therefore, a lot of that burden has already been overcome.

Yes.

Reclaiming my time. And under lease. And if they are in that process, that is called due diligence. We don't penalize them. We don't take it away at all.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded by my colleague from Mississippi, Mr. Gene Taylor, and in thinking back over history, when this moratoria was first passed by a Democratic Congress in the early eighties, there was one Ronald Reagan that occupied the White House and signed it into law. My colleagues are attacking Ronald Reagan, His Holiness? I am rather shocked.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from New Mexico, when he brings up all these bureaucratic delays and environmental lawsuits and that big long chart of his, I was here when we passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, when I believe that side of the aisle was in control, as well as their party in control of the White House. I thought one of the purposes of EPAC, as passed by the Republican Congress, was to speed up this whole mess.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New Hampshire, Carol Shea-Porter.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, could you give us the time remaining on both sides.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Would the gentleman yield?

Of course I was being facetious in case you didn't understand my southern drawl.

But in regard to the issue of litigation lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits to which you refer, if I might respond. In regard to the NPRA, the National Petroleum Reserve, ConocoPhillips currently holds 183 leases up there making them one of the largest leaseholders. As of July 16, 2008, I believe that's yesterday, ConocoPhillips has told my staff, ``There are no lawsuits, litigation, on any ConocoPhillips leases in the NPRA nor have there been.''

According to several other sources, there are no lawsuits pending to stop lease sales, exploration, or development of the NPRA, the National Petroleum Reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I am very honored and proud to yield at this time 1 minute to our superb majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I would say to the gentleman from New Mexico, again, we realize this is a lengthy process, leasing and permitting and getting into actual production. But again, a lot of the regulatory framework that's in place is in place for a darn good reason, to protect the public, to protect their health, to protect their safety, and to protect our environment, regulatory framework of which I happen to be proud to have supported over the years and I think should be there for that public protection.

I'd be glad to yield the gentleman from Illinois 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman 30 more seconds.

We're prepared to wrap up, Mr. Speaker. I object.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude our debate on this side, and in order to promote the passage of this DRILL Act, which will bring American energy to American consumers in a responsible way, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentlelady from California, Nancy Pelosi.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to

revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1433 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 6899, the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act. The resolution provides 3 hours of debate on the bill, controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, American families and businesses from every city, town and village across our districts are struggling with the skyrocketing gas prices and ever-increasing energy costs, which have obviously gone over into the cost of food and every other commodity that we use. The American people are calling out for relief, which is why we have this comprehensive energy package before us today.

In considering this legislation, we must ask ourselves: How did our great Nation get into this terrible place concerning energy in the first place? Eight years ago, two oilmen took the reins of America's energy policy, and they never looked back. They held secret, closed door meetings with Big Oil and energy companies at a tremendous cost to the American people. And the Republican Congress supported them every step of the way. To this day, we do not know about the secret meetings that the Vice President held.

Just this past summer, the American people struggled through an excessive speculation crisis when oil prices jumped over $150 a barrel. Of course, when the Democrats threatened to rein in speculators, they pulled over $39 billion out of the futures market. We must address speculation before we leave this session. Because now, the oil prices are hovering over $90 a barrel, and we cannot let that go uncared for.

Just last week, we saw the havoc that the Bush-Cheney energy policies have wreaked when the Interior Department's Inspector General reported that administration employees at the Minerals Management Service, who were supposed to be regulating oil royalties, were literally accepting improper gifts and engaging in unethical conduct, such as having sex at parties, using drugs with persons, employees of the oil companies. They were literally, Mr. Speaker, in bed with each other.

My colleagues across the aisle say they want to change the energy policy, but their record certainly proves differently. The very same Republicans voted ``no'' to the first new vehicle efficiency standards in 32 years that would have saved $1,000 in fuel costs per car per year. They said ``no'' to recouping the royalties that the oil companies failed to pay to taxpayers. They said ``no'' to curbing excessive speculation in the energy futures markets, and ``no'' to requiring the oil companies to drill on the 68 million acres of Federal land that they already control nationwide, and the list goes on and on.

Mr. Speaker, if the other party has its way in energy, we will have more of the same Bush-Cheney energy policy written by and for the oil companies. They would help Big Oil to get more public land owned by every American, more American oil, more taxpayer dollars, and continuing record profits while American families and businesses get stuck paying record prices at the pump and heating prices.

Mr. Speaker, today this comprehensive bill presents the administration and its allies in Congress with a clear choice on energy. Either side with the American taxpayer, side with the people who sent you here to vote and vote for this, or side with the Big Oil companies who have had the largest profits in the history of mankind and certainly do not need more tax breaks from the American public.

Now, there are significant differences between the Bush administration's policy that got us into this mess and the plan before us today. This package is an energy package for a 21st century policy that will help Americans to reclaim a clean energy future.

And the choice is very clear, as I said before, which side are you on? The bill addresses America's energy crisis in both the short term and the long term.

By releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we will immediately lower prices at the pump for American families struggling with high gas costs. And we will replace the oil at the reserve as the gas prices stabilize.

Meanwhile, by investing billions of dollars over the long term in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and mass transportation, we will harness innovation and create good-paying American jobs while strengthening our energy security.

By expanding the access to offshore oil reserves and encouraging responsible drilling, the bill promotes more exploration and will lead to increased domestic energy production.

By promoting energy efficiency and conservation in buildings, through upgraded building codes and incentives for energy-efficient construction, the bill would lead to reduced energy use and lower utility prices.

In light of the Inspector General report from the Interior Department showing that the Minerals Management Service employees were accepting gifts from the oil companies and engaging in unethical conduct, this bill would subject the MMS employees to a higher ethical standard and make it a Federal offense for oil companies to provide them with gifts of any kind.

At the same time, by providing more funding for home heating assistance, we ensure that seniors and other vulnerable populations do not have to choose between food and heating oil.

Under this bill, we would enact our first national renewable electricity standard. The power companies would be required to generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020, reducing the air pollution from power plants and helping address the threat of global warming.

As Americans use more public transportation in the face of high gas prices, this bill will help the transit agencies deal with the added costs of increased ridership by providing $1.7 billion in grants.

And at the same time, with the record-breaking oil company profits, it requires the oil companies to pay their fair share by repealing the tax subsidies they do not need and by requiring that the Federal Government collect the oil royalties due to the American people. That's one of the reasons why reform at the committee is so important.

This comprehensive energy legislation is the result of a serious compromise on the part of this Congress to bring down prices now and to invest in a clean renewable future. It will provide America with the American-owned energy policy that this administration has failed to deliver in the last 8 years.

Mr. Speaker, there are precious few moments in each of our lives where we have a chance to do something that profoundly affects not only our own lives but the lives of future generations.

Today, we do have a choice. Do we want to continue on the same dangerous energy policies of the past or do we want to invest in a clean energy future that will help to ease consumer costs in the short term while putting the Nation on a path to a clean energy future that will create a stronger and safer America?

Our energy choices will not only affect Americans who are suffering at the pump but profoundly affect the future of life on this planet.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford more of the same when it comes to this administration's energy policy.

We are all proud Americans, but it is time we start acting like Americans once again. Our great Nation is known around the world for dreaming big and for reaching those dreams. When President Kennedy set a goal to put a man on the Moon in 10 years, America got to work and did it. It is time to set big goals and work diligently to achieve them, and that's exactly what this bill does.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make history by supporting this comprehensive bill that sets the country back on track to a clean energy future and finally begins to break our dangerous addiction to oil which we have been promising to break for at least the last 30 years. The world deserves nothing less.

[From the Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, July 30, 2008]

The GOP Energy Plan: None of the Above

Republicans may talk a good game, but their actions speak

louder than words. Republicans have voted against the

critical solutions that must be part of a comprehensive

New Direction for Energy Independence. They voted against

renewable energy and conservation, responsible domestic oil

production, short-term measures to bring down prices now and

punish those who are manipulating the oil market, and new

requirements that oil companies pay their fair share.

Instead of working on behalf of American families and

businesses, the House Republicans ``all of the above'' energy

plan simply rehashes failed ideas on domestic drilling or

proposes ideas that Republicans have repeatedly blocked in

the past. Their all-out legislative battle in recent years to

protect the record profits of oil companies earning record

profits has earned them the moniker ``Grand Oil Party.''

Americans paying $4 a gallon thanks to an energy policy

literally written by the oil industry cannot afford this the

GOP's ``none of the above'' energy plan.

The Republican leadership's ``none of the above'' record:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use it, or Price Renewable NOPEC price Public Energy

Free our oil Drill act lose it gouging energy fixing transit security -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Boehner, Republican Leader......... NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Roy Blunt, Republican Whip.............. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ............ Adam Putnam, Conference Chairman........ NO NO NO NO NO ............ NO ............ Thaddeus McCotter, Policy Committee NO NO NO ............ NO ............ ............ NO Chairman............................... Kay Granger, Conference Vice-Chair...... NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO John Carter, Conference Secretary....... NO NO NO NO ............ NO NO NO Tom Cole, Chairman, National Republican NO NO NO NO NO NO ............ NO Congressional Committee................ Eric Cantor, Chief Deputy Whip.......... NO NO NO NO NO ............ NO NO David Dreier, Rules Committee Ranking NO NO NO NO NO ............ NO ............ Republican.............................

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Welch.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida, a member of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Castor.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, the Chair of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Miller.