Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, we realize that we need to start looking at every source of energy that we can come up with; solar, wind. Every kind. We need to move toward new forms of transportation; hybrid cars and other vehicles, maybe hydrogen-powered cars.

But in addition to that, while this transition from fossil fuels is taking place to these new technologies, we need to drill for oil. We need to be energy independent. We need to use such things as coal shale and offshore drilling, and drilling in Alaska, the ANWR, in order to get the oil that is necessary for us to move and become energy independent, and we can do that. But this Congress and the Senate, this House and the Senate, really needs to get together and come up with a plan that covers all of these things. If we don't start drilling for oil and using fossil fuel more efficiently in this country, we are going to have a severe problem.

The Iranians just fired some test missiles the other day. They did that in response to the Israelis flying about a hundred war planes down the Mediterranean for a distance that was pretty close to Tehran's distance from Israel. I think they are both sending signals. The head of the air force for the Iranians said that if there was any kind of an act of war toward them, they would sink ships in the Persian Gulf.

Twenty percent of the world oil goes through the Persian Gulf. You sink two ships in the Gulf of Hormuz and you're going to have chaos. We get as much as 40 percent of our oil from that region. If anything like that occurs, and as long as Iran keeps working toward their nuclear goals of building a nuclear weapon, the threat of war is definitely there.

Israel has been threatened with extinction by the Iranian leaders, Ahmadinejad, the President, and so the threat of a conflict is definitely there. The United States economically would be devastated if we weren't prepared for that eventuality because we don't have the energy here necessary to keep this economy moving.

The best way to make sure that doesn't happen is to use every source of energy we can come up with. While we are transitioning to these other forms of energy like air, wind, like solar, like hybrid cars, like coal shale, like hydrogen-powered cars, all those things, while we are moving toward those, which is going to take probably at least 10 years, or longer, some people say as many as 20, we need to have the energy to keep this country afloat without depending on Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, Venezuela and the Communist leader down there, Mr. Chavez. We need to move toward energy independence. The American people are paying between $4 and $5 a gallon for oil.

The Fourth of July parades just took place and I know that all of my colleagues heard from their constituents: Do something about the price of gasoline. The best thing we can do is start

drilling and looking for energy in America. I believe, and I think many experts believe, that if we start drilling in America and make a movement toward energy independence, you will see the price of oil drop very rapidly and, along with it, the price of gasoline.

But as long as we stand around here and don't do anything, we run the threat of a real economic chaos in this country because we aren't prepared to be dealing with our own energy problems if we can't get the oil from Venezuela and from other parts of the world, like Saudi Arabia. We are just not prepared for it.

We have the energy in this country and we are not drilling for it. We are sending as much as $500 million a day, a day, to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela for oil that we have right here in this country. We could keep that money at home, we could create more jobs while we are coming up with alternative sources of energy. But we are not doing it.

So I say to my Democrat colleagues again tonight, and I will be down here day after day and week after week saying, Let's get together and solve this problem.

I saw that the popularity of the Congress is now down to 7 percent. You know why? The American people are fed up with us not doing anything. We need to get together and solve this energy problem. We need to have energy independence. And we need to start doing it right now.

Remember what I said. If a conflict breaks out over there, all of us are going to be sorry that we didn't do something about it, about dealing with energy here at home.

Energy independence. Drill in America.

Madam Speaker, I would like to say to the gentlewoman who just spoke that I sure share her admiration for Jesse Helms. I had the honor to work with him on legislation known as the Helms-Burton law, and I want you to know he was a wonderful man, a titan and a real conservative, and the kind of man that everybody in America could be proud to say that he was a Senator in the august body on the other side of the building.

Let me just say briefly today that we just celebrated the 4th of July, known as Independence Day, and we celebrate that because we became an independent Nation after the Revolutionary War by winning that war and becoming not a colony of Great Britain, but a United States of America, an independent country. Our Declaration of Independence.

Now we are faced with another problem. It is called energy dependence. We are dependent on Saudi Arabia, we are dependent on other countries in the Middle East, we are dependent on countries in South America like Venezuela that are not friends of ours, and we ought to be moving toward energy independence.

Any of my colleagues who were out marching in parades during the 4th of July recess ought to know that the people they were talking to on those parade routes were saying, hey, we don't want gasoline at $4 or $5 a gallon. We don't need to have gasoline at $4 or $5 a gallon, because we can drill right here in the United States and get

enough oil or gas or other energy products so we can be energy independent. All we have to do is start.

The problem is in this body and the other body on the other side of the building, they will not move, the majority will not move on drilling here in the United States. We could drill in the ANWR in Alaska and get 1 to 2 million barrels of oil a day. We could drill off the continental shelf and get 1 or 2 million barrels of oil a day. We have about a 400 or 500 year supply of natural gas. And we are not doing anything. We are not drilling.

We are sending $400 or $500 million a day over to Saudi Arabia and to Venezuela and South America for oil that we could produce right mere in America. It is costing us jobs, it is costing us energy, it is causing food price hikes, the price of anything else that you buy that is transported by truck in this country, and the people going to and from work or paying $4 or $5 a gallon or $70 or $80 or $90 for one tankful.

They can't survive. The economy will continue to go down if we don't do something about these energy prices. And we are not going to do it until we allow this country to drill, this government to drill in places like the ANWR and off the Continental Shelf, and use the coal shale that we have here in abundance to produce our own energy. We can do it. The people of America by about an 80 percent margin say drill now, drill in America, lower those gas prices. And we are not doing it.

We just celebrated our declaration of independence from Great Britain. It is high time we had a declaration of independence regarding our energy. We need to drill here in America, we need to drill in the ANWR, we need to drill offshore and become energy independent. It is time. And I hope all of my colleagues will sign my good friend, Mr. Westmoreland from Georgia's petition over here that will let everybody know in this country, all of their constituents know that they are committed to drilling in America to get energy prices down.

He is going to take a one-hour special order here pretty quick telling everybody why we should be drilling here in America. So if I were talking to people across this country, Madam Speaker, I would say call your Congressman, call your Senator, and tell them to sign Mr. Westmoreland's petition so we can move toward energy independence. It is high time. We should do it now.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to honor the bravery and courage of American and Korean servicemen; and to celebrate the bonds of friendship between our two great countries. Fifty-eight years ago yesterday, forces from Communist North Korea launched an unprovoked invasion of their neighbors to the south, initiating what we now remember as the Korean War.

Over the course of the following three years, millions of people were killed, wounded or forced from their homes and many more captured by the enemy. American troops of all colors and backgrounds gave their lives for freedom alongside thousands of Koreans. But ``The Forgotten War,'' as it is too often called because it was sandwiched between World War II and Vietnam, was necessary to stem the Communist tide in Asia and preserve the spirit of freedom for millions on the Korean Peninsula.

The battle for Korea likely spared Japan from the threat of Communist invasion and showed the Communist world that the United States and its allies were prepared to vigorously resist Communist aggression. America and South Korea paid a dear price in blood and treasure but those who fell contributed much to the better world the people of South Korea enjoy today.

Since the end of the War in 1953, South Korea has grown both economically and politically and has led as an example of democracy in East Asia, demonstrating our shared values of democratic governance, free enterprise and the rule of law. South Korea is a strong, unwavering ally in the U.S.-led Global War on Terror, having dispatched the third largest contingent of troops to Iraq, and to Afghanistan (where a South Korean soldier was killed during hostile action), and to Lebanon in support of peacekeeing operations there. In fact, South Korea has been one of only four partners and allies that stood with us through all four major conflicts since World War II. In addition, South Korea demonstrated her great friendship and generosity in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, pledging over $30 million in aid for relief and recovery efforts--the fourth largest amount donated by any foreign country.

In contrast, Communist North Korea is in dire straits, unable to even feed its people. Like the struggles we see today in the newly liberated countries of Iraq and Afghanistan, when people have the freedom and will to determine their own fate, they will embrace democracy and freedom and the right of self-determination.

I firmly believe that South Korea may be the premier success story of U.S. foreign policy in the post-World War II period. Having assisted South Korea in transforming itself from a war-torn, impoverished economy into a successful democracy with a free enterprise economy (the world's 11th largest), South Korea is now an indispensable partner with the United States in promoting democracy, a free market economy and respect for the rule of law around the world. Our economic relationship with South Korea is crucial as the seventh-largest trading partner with the United States. And almost sixty years later, the relationship between the United States and South Korea continues to be a very special one that builds upon a foundation of a friendship first laid in the 1882 Korean American Treaty of Peace, Amity, Commerce and Navigation.

Unfortunately Madam Speaker, there is a question mark hanging over our relationship with South Korea. Monday, June 30, 2008, will mark the one year anniversary since representatives from our two governments signed the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement here in Washington. If implemented, this agreement could potentially be the most commercially- significant free trade agreement signed by the United States in more than a decade. How we dispose of that Agreement will determine whether we are serious about enhancing the strong partnership between our two great democratic nations, and willing to open the door wider to the exchange of science and ideas that help us both to prosper.

South Korea is already the United States' seventh largest export market and sixth largest market for U.S. agricultural products. In fact, according to the latest statistics, our annual bilateral trade totals nearly $80 billion. Koreans have invested nearly $20 billion in the United States, and have created American jobs through companies like Hyundai Motors, Samsung Electronics, and Kia Motors.

As the largest investor in Korea, the United States already has a leading presence in that country. Any agreement that can open up more Korean markets to U.S. goods and services can only have a positive effect on the American economy by creating more and better jobs, enriching consumer choice, and boosting U.S. industry and manufacturing.

But this FTA is more then simply a debate over economics; it is also recognition of our special relationship with South Korea and a strong statement that we will continue to stand with our allies, especially as we face continued uncertainty in regards to the nuclear ambitions of North Korea.

No agreement or treaty is ever perfect, as it is always a product of compromise. And I agree that Congress has a legitimate right to debate the merits of the agreement; so let's have that debate; let's take this agreement out of legislative limbo, bring it to the House Floor, have an honest up or down vote, and let the chips fall where they may, Madam Speaker. I think we owe our South Korean friends that much respect.

On the occasion of these twin anniversaries--the somber but proud commemoration of the beginning of the Korean War, and the forward- looking commemoration of the signing of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement--I ask my colleagues to join with me to salute our veterans and to celebrate the strong and enduring friendship and alliance between the good people of the Republic of Korea and the United States.

I'd just like to say to my colleagues who oppose drilling for oil and natural gas in the United States, go home this weekend, this next week during the recess and talk to your constituents. Go to the gas stations and ask them if they would rather have the price of gasoline be as high as it is or start drilling for oil in the United States.

We have the supply. We have the ability. And we're not doing a darn thing about it, and the American people and our economy is suffering. It is not just gas prices. Food prices and everything else is going to go up because it has to be transported across the roads.

We need to move toward energy independence. We talked about it back in the seventies during the Carter years. We haven't done a darn thing in 30 years. It's time we started drilling here in the United States. The minute we start doing that the price will drop. Mark my words.

I'd just like to say to my colleagues, use a little analogy. Nero started fiddling while Rome burned. We're fiddling right now with the energy of the United States and the economy of the United States. This body and the other body has the ability to do something about the prices of gas and other commodities in this country, and we're not doing anything about it.

Another week has gone by. We're going to go back home. We haven't done a darn thing, and the American people are suffering.

So, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have reservations about drilling here in the United States and give me all this environmental stuff, this is the time to do it. We want to move toward other forms of energy. We want to be concerned about the ecology of this country and other forms of transportation, but at the same time, it's going to take time for that to happen.

We have to start drilling now. We can't wait. The American people want

us to do it, and if you don't believe me, ask them when you go home this week. They're signing petitions by the thousands. The people of this country want to move toward energy independence. They want their gas prices to come down. They want other prices to come down, and they won't until this Congress and the other body starts moving toward energy independence by drilling here in the United States.

General Leave

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have been sitting down here and listening for about a couple of hours to the debate on the whole question of energy, and I would like to, from my perspective, tell you what I have gleaned from this debate.

First of all, Americans are suffering. That is a fact. The price of gasoline is too high. Another fact is that everything that is associated or has anything to do with transportation is being affected, and the prices are going up for groceries, for everything. And the American people are suffering.

I'm very concerned about the future of our economy if we don't get more oil and gas to market.

Now, a while ago, the chairman of the previous committee said that we're importing 61 percent of our oil, up from about 48 percent some time ago. This was the chairman on the Democrat side. I would agree with that. We are importing 61 percent, up about 13 percent from what we did a couple of years ago. The reason is we're not drilling enough here in America. We're not producing enough in America, and we're buying it from Saudi Arabia, from Venezuela and other parts of the world.

We need to move towards energy independence, and if we don't, I predict we're going to have severe, severe economic problems over the next few years. We could have a major economic recession or depression if we don't get control of our energy prices because it's going to spread into every other area of our lives. And the American people, I think, sense that. And that's why I said to my colleagues, Go home and talk to your friends and neighbors at the gas station and ask them, Do you want to get the gas prices down, or do you want to make sure that we don't drill in America, that we're more concerned about environmental concerns than we are of taking care of our economy?

Obviously we want a better economy or better environmental situation. We want to go to alternative fuels. We want to do all of those things. Clean air, clean water. But at the same time, we don't want the entire economy of the United States to go down the tubes. And unless we get that energy independence by drilling here at home, that's a very real risk. We could have a real severe economic downturn.

Fact: Prices are too high. Fact: It's hurting our entire economy. Fact: We have enough oil and gas in oil shale to make us energy independent if we get it out of the ground and out of the ocean into the market. Fact: 68 percent of oil well explorers are small companies. That's been brought out here today. And 87 percent of gas producers are small businesses. We talk about these permits. Why would they not want us to drill? It's their livelihood.

Why would these oil producers and gas producers not want to drill?

So I think it's a bogus argument to say, Hey, they're holding these permits and not drilling. They want to make money, and if they don't drill, they're not going to make money.

In fact, 97 percent of the Continental Shelf and 94 percent of onshore areas are exempt from drilling, and the oil's there, the gas is there, and the coal shale is there; and we're not doing a darn thing about it, and we are arguing about it. There has to be a bipartisan move to solve this problem. It ain't gonna solve itself, and the American people continue to suffer.

So I would like to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, let's sit down and work this out because if we don't, everybody is going to suffer, and this blame game ain't solving anything.

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.

If the gentleman will yield just for a minute, I would like to say I agree with my colleague. These new forms of energy, these new technologies, are extremely important. I am kind of awed by the fact that you have taken the lead in Nebraska in getting this done.

But while we are doing that, the one problem that I think we have is we have to realize the transition to the new technologies is going to take time, and while that is taking place, we are going to have to have energy. That is why we ought to be able to drill in the United States, and do it in an environmentally safe way, so we can produce natural gas and oil here at home. And while we are doing the transitioning to the new technologies like you are talking about, we won't have to depend so much on foreign oil and what might happen in another part of the world.

I want to thank the gentleman for taking this time. I know you have to catch a plane tonight. I think it is important that the people who are watching in their offices and maybe Americans who might be paying attention, that they realize that we are not just talking about oil and gas, we are talking about all forms of energy, and we want to get to that.

But, as you said and as has been said many times, that is going to take a transitional period, and during that transition, while we are trying to encourage more innovation, that we don't sink the ship by not having enough energy to get the job done.

Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry. Have a nice trip back, and tell the people of Nebraska we said hi.

Madam Speaker, we are about to wrap this up. I just want to say to my colleagues, I see my colleague from down south is waiting patiently for us to end our Special Hour, I just want to say that we all want to work together. We want to solve this problem for the American people. We want to get the price of gasoline down and we want to go to new forms of energy. But it is going to take time. And during that time for transition, it is extremely important that we start moving toward energy independence. And a main cog in that wheel is drilling here at home for oil and natural gas.

So I hope, if I were talking to the American people, that they would talk to their Congressmen and Senators over this July 4th break. They are going to be there for parades and everything else. And I would say to the American people, if I could talk to them, talk to your Congressmen and your Senators. Tell them you want to be energy independent, you want to move toward energy independence, and we ought to drill here in the United States wherever we can.

Madam Speaker, as a proud co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Swaziland, I rise today to educate my colleagues about the history of Swaziland and strong but unfortunately too often overlooked relationship between the United States and the Kingdom of Swaziland.

The Swazi nation has a long and rich history going back to the 16th century when, according to tradition, the Swazi people migrated south from what is now Mozambique. Following a series of conflicts with people living in the area around modern day Maputo, Mozambique, the Swazi people settled in northern Zululand--part of present day South Africa--in about 1750. Unable to resist the growing power of the Zulu nation in the region, the Swazis moved gradually northward in the 1800s and established themselves in the area of modern Swaziland. From 1894 to 1902 South Africa administered Swazi interests with the British assuming control of the country in 1902. On September 6, 1968, the Kingdom of Swaziland became officially independent from the British crown.

Today, Swaziland is a full fledged member of the United Nations, the African Union, Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), and Southern African Development Community (SADC). Ten accredited ambassadors or honorary consuls are resident in the country and Swaziland maintains diplomatic missions in Brussels, Copenhagen, Kuala Lumpur, London, Maputo, Nairobi, Pretoria, Taipei, the United Nations, and Washington, D.C.

The United States has maintained good bilateral relations since the kingdom became independent in 1968 and these good ties have developed substantially over the years through talks of trade and assistance to fight the HIV/AIDS epidemic that plagues the Kingdom.

Approximately five years ago, the United States began negotiations to launch a Free Trade Agreement with the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) made up of Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland. While the negotiations are currently on hold, the United States is still engaged in cooperative efforts to launch a program to intensify the trade and investment relationship in preparation for a Free Trade Agreement that would eventually eliminate tariffs, reduce non-tariff barriers, liberalize service trade, protect intellectual property rights, and provide technical assistance to help the five African nations, including Swaziland. To compound these future goals, the U.S. supports small enterprise development, education, military training, and development of institutions and human resources, and agricultural.

In addition to promoting economic reform and improved industrial relations, the United States has worked closely with many organizations within Swaziland, and through U.S. agencies, to develop HIV/AIDS initiatives and programs. The U.S. is also the largest bilateral donor to the Global Fund, Swaziland's principal HIV/AIDS funding source. Through this source, many Swaziland groups such as the Hope House, Anglican United Against HIV/AIDS, World Teach, Salvation Army etc, have received funds to help in the scourge against AIDS. As exhibited in this year's large reauthorization amount for Presidential Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the United States is committed in the fight against AIDS, and will stand alongside any country willing to join us in this serious fight.

The Peace Corps has made substantial contributions to this common fight as well. In 2003, Peace Corps volunteers returned to Swaziland after a nine-year absence. The current Peace Corps program in Swaziland focuses on HIV/AIDS and provides assistance in the execution of two components of the HIV/AIDS national strategy--risk reduction and mitigation of the impact of the disease. Volunteers encourage youth to engage in appropriate behaviors that will reduce the spread of HIV; they work with children orphaned by the HIV/AIDS pandemic; and they assist in capacity building for nongovernmental organizations and community-based organizations.

I was also pleased to learn that the U.S. Government sends, on average, four Swazi professionals to the United States each year, from both the public and private sectors, primarily for master's degrees, and about five others for three- to four-week International Visitor programs. Such programs are vital to continuing substantial progress between our two countries' common goals. Given the great potential for progress and development between the United States and Swaziland as outlined above, I am excited to co-chair the Congressional Swaziland Caucus with my friend and colleague Representative Edolphus Towns of New York. I urge my colleagues to learn more about the Kingdom of Swaziland and to consider joining the Congressional Swaziland Caucus to help us bolster the long standing ties of friendship between our two great countries.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this country are pretty smart. They watch television and they listen to all of the political rhetoric and the hot air that comes out of this place, and they listen to all the press conferences, but they know, they know gas prices are too high and they know we ought to be energy independent and they know that we ought to drill in the United States so we can be energy independent. They know that it is affecting their prices at the grocery store and everything that they buy. They want us to be energy independent. They want us to drill in the ANWR and they want us to drill offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf. They want us to do what is right in this body. And we are not doing it.

I want to say to my colleagues who are giving all of this hot air out about we shouldn't be doing it and about permits and everything else, the American people know they want us drilling in America. They want energy independence, and you guys had better get with the program.

Madam Speaker, due to inclement weather and aviation delays some 86 Members, including myself, were unable to be on the House Floor for rollcall votes.

Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 438-- Honoring the life, musical accomplishments, and contributions of Louis Jordan on the 100th anniversary of his birth; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 439--Supporting the goals and ideals of Black Music Month; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 440--Congratulating James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia, for 100 years of service and leadership to the United States; and ``nay'' on rollcall vote 441--a Motion to Adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 353 and I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. I want to thank Chairman Dingell and Ranking Member Barton for bringing this resolution to the Floor today. I am proud to be a sponsor of this resolution and I was honored to work with my friend and colleague from Maryland, Representative Elijah Cummings--the Democrat sponsor of the resolution--to bring some critically needed awareness to this issue. Representative Cummings has been a true leader on this issue, and today is the culmination of a two-year effort to shine a public spotlight on this national tragedy. This resolution sends a strong signal to the National Institutes of Health and the private sector that Congress is prepared to help them move prostate cancer detection and treatment into the 21st Century.

Prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer, other than some kinds of skin cancer, among men in the United States, affecting at least one in six American men, a rate comparable to breast cancer which strikes one in seven American women. In fact, prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among men in the United States, after lung cancer, and the seventh leading cause of death overall for men in this country. The National Cancer Institute estimates that in 2007 alone approximately 218,000 new cases of prostate cancer were diagnosed and roughly 27,000 American men died as a result of this disease.

Medical experts do not know what causes prostate cancer. Medical experts do not know how to prevent prostate cancer, but they do know that not smoking, maintaining a healthy diet, staying physically active, and seeing your doctor regularly contribute to overall good health.

While all men are at risk for prostate cancer, some factors increase risk:

Family history. Men with a father or brother who has had prostate cancer are at greater risk for developing it themselves.

Race. Prostate cancer is more common in some racial and ethnic groups than in others, but medical experts do not know why. Prostate cancer is more common in African-American men than in white men. It is less common in Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, and Native American men than in white men.

It is important for men to take advantage of prostate cancer screening exams in order to detect the disease at the earliest opportunity, when it is still curable. Unfortunately, a recent study funded by the National Cancer Institute demonstrated that the most common available methods of detecting prostate cancer, the PSA blood test and Digital Rectal Exam, DRE, the only preinvasive indicators available for the detection of prostate cancer, are not particularly adept at detecting prostate cancer. The study showed that many PSA blood tests that screen for prostate cancer result in false-negative reassurances and numerous false-positive alarms (15 percent of men with normal PSA levels still have prostate cancer). Even when PSA levels are abnormal, 88 percent of men end up not having prostate cancer that would require surgery but undergo unnecessary biopsies. As a result more than 1,000,000 U.S. men have prostate biopsies annually--costing our health care system approximately $1.44 billion--many of which could be eliminated if we had advanced diagnostic imaging tools.

Today, neither the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services nor the Department of Defense devotes substantial resources to prostate cancer imaging research. I have been told that the National Institutes of Health spent only $10 million on prostate cancer detection research last year out of a total prostate cancer research budget of $350 million. In short, there is no concerted Federal effort to bring the equivalent of mammography to prostate cancer detection.

Breakthroughs in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer resulted from the development of advanced imaging technologies led by the Federal Government and I am convinced that Federal leadership could lead to similar breakthroughs for prostate cancer. That is why we introduced, along with my colleague Elijah Cummings of Maryland, H. Res. 353--Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that there should be an increased Federal commitment supporting the development of innovative advanced imaging technologies for prostate cancer detection and treatment.

We owe it to ourselves, our fathers, grandfathers, brothers, sons, husbands, and friends to make this effort. I urge my colleagues to support H. Res 353.

Well, Mr. Speaker, another week has gone by, and the American people are paying over $4 a gallon for gasoline, and it's going up because we're getting into vacation time. And we're going home. We're leaving this body. This Congress, our majority party, hasn't done one thing or hasn't even made an attempt to lower the gas prices in this country.

We have the oil here in America. We have it off the Outer Continental Shelf and in Alaska at the ANWR. We have coal shale. We can develop it. We can get oil to the market within 2 or 3 years if we could lower the price of oil immediately once we address the issue because competition around the world will see we're going to drill for oil, and they will start lowering the price, and gas prices will come down, but we have to act.

Here we go with one more week. We're going home with nothing having been done, and the people of this country continue to pay these exorbitant prices for gasoline at the pump.

So, if I were talking to the American people, I would just say to them today: Contact your Congressman, contact your Senator, and tell them you want something done quickly because this is not only an energy crisis; it's an economic crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for Ms. Kaptur, who just spoke. She and I have been friends for a long, long time, and I agree with much of what she just said.

We really need to move toward energy independence, and we need to use alternative methods of getting our independence. The problem is it's going to take time. If we use solar, if we use wind power, if we use all of these alternative sources, it's going to take time. It isn't going to happen in 1 year, 2, 3, or 4 years where we can not rely on oil or gas any longer. It's going to take time. In the meantime, Americans are paying $4-plus per gallon of gasoline because we don't have the oil necessary to keep the cost of gasoline down.

She is absolutely correct. We depend too much on foreign sources of oil. We depend on Saudi Arabia. We depend on Venezuela, which is not a friend of ours. We depend on Canada, on Mexico and on other countries throughout the world. We ought to be drilling right here in America. We have enough energy in this country to become energy independent.

Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, well, that's going to take time. It may take 10 years, if we get oil out of the ground today, to get it to market. Well, if that is the case, we still should do it, but experts whom I've talked to who have geological backgrounds say that we can start getting that oil to market within 1 or 2 years, and we could force the price of oil down very quickly if we decide we're going to drill here because it's going to put pressure on those who are producing oil that we're using around the world. It's going to force them to reevaluate the cost that they're charging us for the oil we're getting from them.

Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, oh, these oil companies have all of these permits, and they ought to be drilling where they have those permits now. Those permits run 5 to 10 years. If they don't drill in those areas, then those permits expire, and they're bid on by somebody else.

So why would an oil company not want to drill if they have a permit?

It's because, when they get that permit, they don't know how much oil is down there, and they're certainly not going to invest millions or billions of dollars to drill for oil when they know it's not there. Once they get the permit, they do a geological study, and they do seismic studies to find out if there's oil down there. If there is no oil there, they don't drill, and so they don't utilize their permits. That's why we need to get more land available for drilling.

Right now, on the Continental Shelf, we're using 3 percent of the available area. Ninety-seven percent is not being explored. We can do that in an environmentally safe way, and we ought to allow these oil companies to drill in those other areas and get permits to do it. If there's oil there, they're going to drill there.

Why don't they drill in some of these other areas where there might be some oil?

Well, it costs $2 billion to explore and to build an oil derrick, a platform, out in the Gulf of Mexico or out on the Continental Shelf. If they can't make $2 billion back, they ain't going to drill there. That's why these permits, many times, are not useful, and that's why we need to explore in other areas.

Now I'd like to also talk really briefly about the ANWR. They have done geological studies up there, and they know that there are billions of barrels of oil up there. If we drill there, we can get 1 million barrels of oil a day to help lower the price of gasoline in this country.

So, Mr. Speaker, if I were talking to Americans tonight instead of to my colleagues--and I can't do that because we can't address Americans-- I would say this: You ought to contact your Congressman and Senators and say, ``I want my gas prices reduced, and I want you to drill in America. I want you to move this country toward energy independence.'' We talked about it 30 years ago under the Carter administration, and we never did it.

If I were talking to them, Mr. Speaker, I would say that you ought to tell your Congressman to get with the program, to drill in America, to make us energy independent, and to bring down the price of energy, especially that of our gasoline.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that happens when you come to the well and you debate somebody, a lot of facts get distorted and they're really not very accurate. So tonight I would like to quote some accurate figures for my colleagues in their offices. And if I were talking to the people of America--I know I can't, but if I were talking to the people of America, I would ask them to listen to these figures as well.

We import 4.3 million barrels of oil a day, that's for gasoline, we import that much per day. We actually use 21.5 million barrels, but we have to import 4.3 million barrels of oil because we only produce about 17.2 million barrels of oil. So we're short 4.3 million barrels of oil a day.

We have an emergency stockpile, but that would only last a short period of time. In April of 2008, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that an estimated 3.65 billion barrels of oil and 1.85 trillion cubic feet of untapped natural gas exists in Montana and North Dakota. If we could go after those reserves, we could start reducing the price of gas at the pump and energy for people all across this country.

In the ANWR, it holds the single largest deposit of oil in the entire United States. It's 10.4 billion barrels of oil, and it's more than double the proven reserves in the entire State of Texas. And according to the Department of Interior, there is an estimated 8.5 billion barrels of known oil reserves and 29.3 trillion cubic feet of known natural gas reserves along our coastlines, with 82 percent of the oil and 95 percent of the gas located in the Gulf of Mexico.

Now, a lot of my colleagues have said, well, my gosh, the oil companies can go ahead and drill off the coast on the Continental Shelf. Well, let me just talk about that for a minute. Only 3 percent of the Continental Shelf has been given to the oil companies in the way of permits, and those permits run 5 to 10 years. Now, during that period of time they have to decide, with seismic tests, whether or not there's oil down there. If they think there's some oil down there, they drill a test well. And if they drill the test well and it doesn't show enough oil to make a profit, then they don't go ahead with it.

So most of these things that they have there right now are not being explored because there is not enough oil to make a profit. Those permits are not allowing them to make a profit, so they're not building those derricks. Those oil derricks cost as much as $2 billion. Now, if you're going to invest $2 billion in an oil derrick, you want to make darn sure that there's oil down there. And only 3 percent of our Continental Shelf is being used, 97 percent is not being used. And we could explore for oil all along that coastline, but we aren't able to because of the rigorous position that this Congress has put the oil companies in. And I'm not saying that the oil companies are totally free of any blame. You know, they have made an awful lot of profit. And my colleagues want to tax them on the windfall profits that they have been getting. If that's what they want to do, that's fine, but that's not going to give us one more drop of oil. The only way we can get one more drop of oil is to drill for it.

The Department of Interior estimates that there are untapped resources of about 86 billion barrels in the Gulf of Mexico and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico.

As I said, on the Outer Continental Shelf they have 1.76 billion acres of untapped resources and not leased on the Continental Shelf. And since the 1980s, the United States has prohibited oil and gas drilling on most of the Outer Continental Shelf, except for a limited area in the western Gulf of Mexico.

We could be energy independent if we just looked at our own resources. Approximately 121 companies own the rights of the Continental Shelf, but they lease only 3 percent of the Continental Shelf. And about 15 percent of the U.S. natural gas production and 27 percent of our oil production comes from that area.

They invest billions of dollars to acquire and maintain their leases, and unless there is oil down there that they find from seismic tests or a test well, they're certainly not going to build a $2 billion oil derrick unless they can make a profit.

I would just like to say to my colleagues, the problem is that we're buying oil from the rest of the world; we're importing oil from the rest of the world. We're dependent on them. And the appetite for energy is growing very, very rapidly: China wants more oil; Taiwan wants more oil; countries all across the world that are expanding want more oil. So we're in competition with them for oil. We could be energy independent and not have to lean on countries like Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, but we aren't doing it, we continue to import.

One of my colleagues tonight said, you know, we want to clean up the environment. Well, if we import gas and oil, you think that's not going into the atmosphere? Why should we import Saudi oil when we can get our own? If we want to clean up the environment, we can do that the same way.

Whether or not we import the oil or use our own oil, it makes no sense not to drill. We could bring down the price of gasoline and energy in this country very rapidly if we announced tomorrow that we were going to start drilling in the United States of America.

Let me talk about one other thing that is very important. In 1981, we had 324 oil refineries in this country; today we have 148. We haven't built a new refinery in 30 years. And that's one of the problems, you've got to get the oil to market. You've got to produce gasoline and other energy products from the oil, and you have to have refineries to do that. And we haven't built a new refinery in over 30 years. And we had the refineries that we did have cut by more than 50 percent.

This country ought to move toward clean energy, but in the process we should make sure that we use our reserves to create gasoline here in America and not have to import all that oil. We ought to be drilling. We could be energy independent if we really wanted to.

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

Madam Speaker, let me just say to the young lady who just spoke in the well, the new Representative, that if you are going to drill you have to have a geological study done that shows that there is oil there. Those leases are 5 to 10 years, and if there is no oil there, they are not going to put up a derrick.

On the Continental Shelf, they have to do seismic studies to make sure there is oil down there. If they think there is oil down there, they drill a test well. If there is not enough oil down there, they are not going to build a $2 billion derrick. Those platforms cost as much as $2 billion.

Unless it's profitable, they are not going to drill there. They have to drill where they know there is oil. That's why we need to expand beyond the 3 percent of the Continental Shelf we are talking about and get the other 97 percent involved. If we did that and they got those leases, we could become energy independent.

Drilling in the ANWR, which is the size of Dulles Airport, is not ecologically dangerous. We should go ahead and drill there and get the oil. We could get 1 to 2 million barrels of oil a day.