Floor Statements

I would ask the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), is it your intention to continue the discussion that we are in right now, or are you waiting on a different subject?

So, Mr. Speaker, here for the next hour, this is where we would like to lead this: We will continue talking about the domestic production issue; then we will transition into the issue of speculation in the market.

But at this point I will yield to my friend from Connecticut for continuing this discussion, and then we are going to start the transition. So for those of you on that side of the aisle who want to wrap up that discussion, please feel free to talk as long as you want about that. But it's our intention to then move into the market speculation issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I see several of my friends from the other side who would like to speak.

I will yield first to Mr. Burton.

I thank the gentleman, and I know Mr. Westmoreland and Mr. Price want to speak on this issue. I yield to Mr. Westmoreland.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I yield to Mr. Murphy.

We have approximately half an hour remaining in the debate.

At this time I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

I thank the gentleman. With approximately 15 minutes remaining, my friends on the other side, to achieve balance, have about 10 of that remaining 15 minutes.

I would yield at this point to the gentleman from Texas.

Okay, 12 minutes to the remaining 15. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I appreciate the gentleman from Texas.

On the point that the gentleman just made, I would yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) and then to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

I thank the gentleman.

With approximately 6 minutes left, to achieve balance, the Republicans can control the rest of the time. We will certainly answer any questions, but I will say to the gentleman from Georgia: Have at it. The time is yours or it is that of the gentleman from Texas.

I would yield to Dr. Burgess at this point.

I thank the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland). I especially thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for these 2 hours.

This, I think, was very productive, very eventful. We had a good debate. Hopefully, this is not the last time that we will do this. I thank the Speaker for the time, for both this hour and for the previous hour.

At this point, I would yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 10 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, July 15, 2008, at 9 a.m., for morning-hour debate.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. William T. Muns, a native son of Beaver County, Pennsylvania who is an outstanding champion for veterans.

From 1965 thru 1968, Bill proudly served his country as a member of the United States Army. This service included a one year tour in Vietnam, serving as a Financial Liaison Specialist with the 709th Maintenance Battalion in the Mekong Delta Area. Upon his return stateside, he completed his enlistment with the 82nd Airborne Division, Ft. Bragg, North Carolina.

In September 2001, Bill accepted his current position as Beaver County Director of Veterans Affairs. Since taking this position, Bill and his staff have increased the federal benefits for county veterans from $14 million to $42 million. This exceptional service has been recognized by the Pennsylvania State Adjutant General.

As a charter life member of Vietnam Veterans of America Chapter 862, Bill has served as treasurer and was recognized as Vietnam Veteran of the Year for 2002. In addition to this prestigious award, Bill has also received a number of honors from the community, including being named Beaver County Jaycees Man of the Year 2003, the State Veterans Service Officer Award for 2005-2006, and the Vietnam Veterans of America Chapter 862 Distinguished Service Award for 2001.

Bill is also a husband, father, and grandfather. He is married to Virginia Martin Muns and together they have three children--Laura Evangelista, Ted Muns, and Jenn Basinger. Bill and Ginger also have five grandchildren--Rebecca, Gabriella and Adam Evangelista, and Mason and Ethan Muns.

Bill and Ginger will be missed and treasured by the Beaver County veterans' community for years to come. I want to commend them for their long and distinguished commitment to helping America's heroes. I wish them a wonderful retirement in their new home of Sarasota County, Florida and thank them for the tremendous service that they have provided to our community.

Madam Speaker, nobody can dispute that this Congress has a record to be proud of in support of our troops and our Nation's veterans. When we learned of the disgraceful treatment of our servicemen and women at Walter Reed, we took immediate action to provide the funding and oversight necessary to hire more case workers and improve the setting and treatment for our brave wounded warriors.

We acted quickly and decisively to provide the largest funding increase in the 78-year history of the VA, and we provided for increased screening and treatment of traumatic brain injury at every VA health care facility in this country.

We modernized and increased the benefits for the GI bill, and we provided additional loans and capital for small business owners who serve our Nation through the Guard and Reserve.

Madam Speaker, this Congress has a record to be proud of in supporting our troops and assisting our Nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, Congress continues to take action and do everything we can to reduce the price of gas at the pump. Because of legislation this Congress passed last week, as of last week there are over 70,000 more barrels of oil per day every day that are going into the market instead of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And during the last week, the price of oil per barrel went down.

We also approved legislation that gives U.S. authorities the ability to prosecute anti-competitive conduct committed by international cartels like OPEC that manipulate the price of oil.

We passed legislation that would invest in biofuels rather than corporate welfare for Big Oil. Energy experts estimate that biofuel blends are keeping the price of gas approximately 15 percent lower than it would otherwise be right now.

This Congress has taken action to address the skyrocketing price of gas, and we will continue to find real solutions rather than pointing fingers and casting blame.

I thank the gentleman from Florida.

And on the subject of Iraq, before we move on to some other things, I did want to discuss a little bit the fact that the Iraqi Government this week announced that they support the creation of a formal timeline, a date certain at which the American involvement in Iraq would wind to a close.

And I think that that's a monumental moment in what we're facing in Iraq because we have, for years now, going on 6 years, been engaged in this conflict in Iraq. And the military men and women, the brave service men and women who serve us over there throughout this conflict have done their job, they have done everything that has been asked of them. We could not ask any more from the men and women, they have done what they were called to do. And that's something that every American can see in the results on the ground. And now, thankfully, the Iraqi Government themselves have recognized that that is the case by announcing their intention to ask the United States for a formal date certain at which point we would wrap up our involvement.

So I find that to be good news. Moving forward, we need to go to the Iraqi Government and say, look, this is your country and we cannot continue to hold your hand and run your affairs for you. It's time for you to step up and administer your own government, administer the affairs of state, and take the reins of power. And I think that by the statements that we heard today, the Iraqi people and the politicians in Baghdad have seen the light on that issue, and I feel like we are moving towards resolution and agreement that it is time to wrap up our involvement in Iraq.

And I would yield to my friend from Ohio if he wants to continue on that, Mr. Ryan.

I thank the gentleman. This is exactly what we need to talk about tonight. You have the chart there. The gentleman has the chart talking about turning a projected 10-year surplus--when President Bush put his hand on the Bible and took the oath of office, the projected surplus over the next 10 years was $5.5 trillion.

Now we're in a presidential election year. Mr. Meek referenced it earlier. Let's think back 8 years. Vice President Gore was running against then Governor Bush. What was the debate about? The debate was about what are we going to do with this enormous surplus? That was the whole thing. Remember Vice President Gore had his lockbox idea. Are we going to shore up Social Security? Are we going to pay down the debt? And with that $5.6 trillion surplus, we could have nearly paid off the entire Federal debt by now, 8 years later. We would have it almost completely paid off. Instead, because of the decisions that have been made by this administration and previous Congresses, we have a $10 trillion debt. So instead of having it paid off, it's at its highest level in history, nearly $10 trillion.

We could have, as the gentleman suggests, invested in alternative energies and research and development on alternative sources of energy. We didn't do that. We could have done any number of things with a projected $5.5 trillion surplus.

Well, instead, because of the economic policies of this administration, we have not had that $5.5 trillion to the good; we've had $3.5 trillion in debt. And I would suggest, and we have talked about this before, if you had said to any economist in America, no matter what their political persuasion, in the beginning of this administration, what would it take over the next 8 years for us to have a $9 trillion swing in the projected surplus to the deficit that we would then encounter? What would it take? What type of economic policies would we have to put forward? Any economist you asked would have said, well, that's impossible. You can't possibly mismanage the economy to such an extent that that would be the result, a $9 trillion swing. Well, unfortunately, this administration and the previous Congresses did the impossible, and we are faced with the situation that we are.

Now, pay-as-you-go budget scoring, as Mr. Murphy talked about, is not the only answer, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. And it was President Bush's father, President George H. W. Bush, in 1990 that came to the agreement with Congress to put in place the pay-as- you-go budget scoring that led to the record surpluses of the 1990s following the all-time record deficits to that point of the 1980s.

So this Congress has taken a step to put our fiscal house in order. We can't dig ourselves out overnight. But all of this has led to the decrease in the value of the dollar. And the decrease in the value of the dollar, anyone would agree, is one of the major factors involved in the price of gas today, the price of petroleum in the worldwide market. And we're going to talk about that tonight.

I yield to my friend from Florida (Mr. Meek).

I thank the gentleman. I was going to comment on the fact that there is a slogan that you see rolling around these halls, and it is ``drill here, drill now.'' You hear it everywhere we go, drill hear, drill now.

Well, how could we accomplish that goal? Because the Democrats want to drill here and they want to drill now. The way we drill here and the way we drill now is by using the 6 million acres that are already leased and permitted and available for drilling. We need to be doing that now. They are ready to go.

Now, there is exploration that needs to take place, I understand that. But the territory that has not been leased and permitted is 10 years away before the first drop of oil comes out, and it is 20 years, 20 years, before it is fully on line at peak capacity. That is not drilling now. So I would suggest to those who want to pursue that policy, maybe they ought to change their slogan. Just to be more accurate, it should be ``drill here, drill in 10 years or 20 years,'' because that is what they are talking about.

What we are talking about is using the land, the territory, the parts of the Outer Continental Shelf, 75 percent of which is leased and permitted, allowed to drill, and they are not drilling. The oil companies who have the land leased and ready to go on the Outer Continental Shelf are using a quarter of it, 25 percent.

So you will hear people say, well, there is no oil there. Well, that is factually incorrect. Eighty percent of the known oil in the Outer Continental Shelf is located in areas where the oil companies are already allowed to drill. It is already leased. It is already permitted. It is already ready to go. Go to it. Drill here, drill now. That is what we are talking about. Have at it. We want you to do that, big oil. Do it.

Now, if you want to talk about drilling here in 10 years and drilling here in 20 years, that is a different ball game, and we can have that discussion after they have used the land and territory already available.

Mr. Speaker, last weekend marked the 64th anniversary of the signing of the original GI bill by President Franklin Roosevelt, which

honored the service and sacrifice of our World War II veterans and launched millions of families on a course to prosperity.

Last week, this House supported a new GI bill for the 21st century that will provide the same hopes and dreams to our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This bill is long overdue because the current GI bill fails to cover the full cost of a public education. The new GI bill restores the promise of a full 4-year college scholarship for veterans, and at a time when many of our troops are in the midst of multiple redeployments, we must keep our commitment to provide them the very best educational opportunities when their service is completed.

This bill is a promise to our veterans today and tomorrow that their service to this country will continue to be honored.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, there are over 90 million members of America's credit unions, including more than 168,000 in the district I represent. Each of them will benefit from passage of this bill, which I strongly support. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation that is an excellent first step towards improving the regulatory framework for our Nation's credit unions and banks.

Credit unions serve a broad and diverse membership, including many low and moderate-income individuals who would otherwise be unable to access the services provided by financial institutions. This bill will allow Federal credit unions to better serve consumers and provide them with greater access to financial products and services.

I ask my colleagues to support this commonsense and long-overdue legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as prices at the pump continue to hit record highs, the time has come to put partisanship behind us and come together to work and solve the problems to help American people who are struggling to make ends meet.

We enacted legislation to inject into the market an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day by suspending shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve beginning two weeks from today. We raised auto fuel efficiency standards for the first time in 30 years. And we are nearing completion of a bill to regulate the speculators who manipulate the price of oil in the worldwide market.

This Congress has been proactive in doing everything we can to address the problem. Rather than pointing fingers, casting blame and trying to score cheap political points, I hope the minority in this Congress will join us in our effort to take swift and decisive action to address the rising price of gas.

I appreciate it.

We are going to continue to tell the story of gas prices, what we've just heard. And to keep on the message and to pick up where it was left off with the previous speakers, we're talking about the 68 million acres, here's the key point--a couple of key points: One is, there's 4.8 million barrels of oil per day every day that would be available underneath those 68 million acres. That's the number, 4.8 million barrels per day every day. And we'll talk later about that in comparison to ANWR and other issues, but just to keep on the message. These are not 68 million acres that the Federal Government just said we're going to give you the deserts in Arizona and we're going to give you a bunch of areas that are not productive. These are 68 million acres that are currently leased to oil and gas companies.

Now, presumably the oil and gas companies would only choose to purchase a lease if there was some possibility that there was oil and gas underneath there. And as I've said, the estimated oil and gas--or oil, at least--that's under there is 4.8 million barrels per day. But that's the key point; these aren't just 68 million randomly chosen acres, these are 68 million acres that the oil and gas companies themselves chose to enter into a lease agreement so that they can drill for oil and gas. That's the key point. And they're not doing it.

As we talked about a few nights ago, there are a variety of reasons why they're not doing it. One of the reasons is that they're stockpiling these leases to put on their balance sheet, declare them as assets and raise up their profits and help their stock price. That's part of it. Part of it is that the geological work and the surveying and the construction takes a lot of time. And that's being done on some of these acres, 68 million acres. So we're going to get there, in some cases, but we're not there yet, which gets to what we're going to talk about later.

There really is a difference of opinion among the two groups that we are hearing tonight, but there is no difference of opinion that we have to do something about gas prices. Now, we're talking about long-term solutions. I would hope there's not going to be a difference of opinion on some of the short-term solutions. We're talking about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 70 billion barrels per day beginning 2 weeks from today. The manipulation that takes place in the market, the commodities market by these commodities traders, we're going to deal with that issue. There are short-term solutions.

But what is in this dispute tonight and what we're debating in a friendly way is the difference of opinion that we have about what we're going to be as a country 10 years from now and 20 years from now. Are we going to remain dependent on oil? And yes, we're talking in this case about domestic oil. About 65 percent of the oil we get in this country is from overseas. We import it from countries that do not have good will towards Americans in many cases.

So what happens if we drill in ANWR and the 20 percent that remains of the oil that's known in the Outer Continental Shelf where we're not allowed to drill? Eighty percent is already in areas where we are allowed to drill, so what happens if we allow and get to peak capacity 20 years from now? We might be down to 55 percent, we might be down to 52 percent. We're still going to have a majority of our oil that we import from other countries. We're going to feed the beast for the next 20 years and we're going to be in the same place then as we are now.

So is that where we want to be? We have a decision to make as a Nation on how to spend the next 10 to 20 years. How do we want to use all the resources of this Nation and all the brain power of this Nation? Do we want to focus it on continuing our dependence on oil, or do we want to focus it on alternative sources of energy? We're going to talk about that, but I know the gentleman wants to continue along this track, so I will yield back to him.

Can I talk about the $2 billion figure?

Because I don't want you to lose the train of thought on that one.

The $2 billion figure includes the surveying and the geological work to actually find the oil in the first place, which it's not just drilling, the $2 billion is from start to peak production.

The point of the 68 million acres is we already know there's oil there. We already know where it is. They purchased the lease specifically because there is oil known to be in those lands, and they're making a conscious decision not to drill there. So the $2 billion actually supports our argument. It doesn't hurt our argument, it supports it, that there is work that needs to be done in any new lands that we make available that we've already done in the current 68 million acres that are available. That's what that $2 billion does.

It is instructive to look at the acreage of ANWR that we are talking about. We are talking about 200,000 acres of land in ANWR that they want to make available for drilling. So we would go from 68 million acres that are currently available for drilling to 68.2 acres. That is the significance of ANWR--68 million to 68.2 acres.

And the gentleman makes a good point about the political argument. Many Members of Congress are not like this, but I think it is fair to say there are a number of people that would draw the conclusion that they want to return home, and they want to give good news to their constituents about what they are doing on gas prices, and if there were a quick fix, if there were a way that we could return home to our constituents and say, we found the magic bullet, we are going to lower gas prices by 40 percent or 50 percent. I think it is pretty safe to say we could round up a majority in Congress if there were an immediate fix to this problem that we would do it. There is not an immediate fix. So what we have here is a discussion, a friendly debate, on what the future is, and again whether to stick with oil, or whether to go to alternative energy.

In speaking about the leadership that has been taking place over the last 8 years, we can talk about the impact that the low U.S. dollar has had on the price of oil per barrel which is a direct result of the economic policies of this administration and the three previous Congresses. Perhaps we will get to that later in the evening.

But as we talk about what the President said today, I think it is a little disingenuous, to be honest, to say that it is Congress' responsibility to open up, after 28 years of the moratorium, to open up the Outer Continental Shelf when there are two things at work here. There is the moratorium, and there is the executive order that was put in place by President Bush's father, the first President Bush. Now that moratorium has been in place since 1990. And President Bush came before the Nation today and said, ``Well, I want Congress to take away the moratorium, do away with the moratorium.'' He could right now say, By executive order, I am going to allow the leases to be purchased, the Department of the Interior to start making available these leases in the remaining portions of the Outer Continental Shelf where there is no leasing available and has not been.

Now in the past 28 years since the congressional moratorium has been in effect, we have had three Republican Presidents, one Democratic President, and we have had long terms of Democratic Congresses and long terms of Republican Congresses. And we have had times when both the legislative and the executive branch were the same parties on both sides and times where it was mixed as it is now. There have been opportunities in the past 28 years, no shortage of which for any combination of those Congresses and administrations to say, ``Let's do away with the moratorium.'' It has not happened.

The Republicans seem to be the ones who now are pushing this. They had 6 years where they controlled the House and the White House uninterrupted. They did nothing, as the gentleman said, to do away with that moratorium. And if the President is so unhappy with the inability of oil and gas companies to purchase leases to begin the process of surveying and then eventually drilling in the remaining portions of the Outer Continental Shelf, this is a key point, he could, today, as we speak, do away with the executive order that his father put into place by his own executive order and begin that process. Because that is the first step in the process, no matter what Congress does. We can't start drilling until all the initial leasing has been done. And that is what the executive order pertains to. So I think it is disingenuous for someone to criticize Congress for not taking action when they themselves have not.

And the two areas that we are talking about, the two areas that are in dispute where drilling is not allowed today are the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, those 200,000 acres that we are talking about, and the 85 percent of the geographical reach of the Outer Continental Shelf on which drilling is not allowed. So we will hear people on the other side say, ``Well, there's 85 percent that we are not drilling in that the moratorium exists and we are not allowed to survey and do the drilling.''

Again, 80 percent of the known oil in the Outer Continental Shelf is already in areas where we are allowed to drill. So don't be swayed by the fact that people will throw out the geographical reach. It would be as if we were to say ``the entire geographical reach of the United States'' when we know that there are only certain areas where there is oil. And to that point, we talked about the 200,000 acres in ANWR.

Now, as we move forward on drilling on those 68 million acres, if we get to the point where the oil and gas companies have drilled on them all, which is going to be a long time, and if they do the surveying work and they come to the conclusion that there is not going to be any oil or any gas there for them to take up from the ground, then that is fine. Then we will say, ``You've done your part.''

But we are certainly not excited about giving them 200,000 more acres in Alaska and further development opportunities in the Outer Continental Shelf when they have those 68 million acres still available, there is oil underneath them, and we know that they are consciously making a decision not to pursue that oil.

If I can clarify what this chart is, it's not quite accurate. It's even a more telling story. This chart shows where the known oil is in those 68 million acres that we are talking about. So that specific that they own the leases, they are able to drill there, and they are making a conscious decision not to do it. That is what that chart shows.

Right. And the Department of the Interior is part of the executive branch run by President Bush.

In 20 years it will be 800,000 barrels per day. In 10 years it will be 40,000.

In a worldwide market of 86 million barrels a day, less than 1 percent of the worldwide market.

I had not seen that chart before, Mr. Ryan. I knew the numbers, but then you see the chart graphically where it shows a very clear trend.

What is amazing about this is that's the whole thing, and I'm going to recommend that others take a look at this chart. If there is one thing people who are viewing this tonight could look at it is the argument that we hear most often, which is simple economics: The more you drill, the more the supply, and the less it's going to cost; the numbers are going to come down.

This chart, which is using numbers from this administration, does not lie. It's exactly the opposite. Gas prices continue to skyrocket despite the fact there has been an exponential increase in the number of wells that have been drilled and in the number of permits that have been issued. This is really an amazing chart, and I hope that the gentleman will leave it up there so folks can look at it while he talks, but it completely dispels the argument on the other side that this is totally about drilling for more oil and that that's

going to guarantee that prices will come down. We are drilling for more oil. We are issuing more permits by the thousands. Gas prices continue to skyrocket and to be at an all-time high.

Because that was one of the prongs of the President's plan that he put forward today, to continue on refineries, the gentleman mentioned that the CEOs of the oil companies, who annually come before Congress and tell their stories and justify their exorbitant profits--and this is not a slight on them. This is just what they say--say they are not interested in building more refineries.

The President and Members on the other side will say, well, we haven't built a new refinery in 30 years.

That's absolutely true, but what we have done a lot is expand the existing capacity of current refineries because that's what these oil executives have said in their testimony that they're a lot more interested in doing. It's a lot more cost effective for them to expand the capacity of already existing refineries than to build new ones and to go through all that's necessary to do that. So we have increased refinery capacity in this country over the last 30 years. That has gone up--that has not decreased--while the number of refineries has gone down.

So, for the President to say, well, we've not built a new refinery in 30 years, there are a couple of things. One is we've increased capacity, but more importantly, as the gentleman has said, 88 percent of the current capacity of the refineries is being used. Why would we look at building more refineries? Why would that be such an important part of the plan if we're only using 88 percent of the current refineries' capacity? So it makes no sense for that to be the major part of your plan that you put forward.

I would suggest to anyone who is listening that, if you are expanding the capacity of refineries and you're still not operating at full capacity--you're only at 88 percent--it's probably not the best time to talk about building more refineries. It's probably not where you want to go.

So, as we continue to talk about this issue moving forward, I would suggest to the gentleman from Ohio that we talk about facts, because you hear the slogan many times: You're entitled to your own opinion. You're not entitled to your own facts.

Remember the facts: There are 68 million acres where we're currently allowed to drill where we know there's oil. The price of gas has skyrocketed despite the fact that we have exponentially increased in the last several years both the number of drilling permits that have been issued and the number of wells that have been drilled. We have greatly expanded our drilling in this country, and gas prices continue to skyrocket.

There are 200,000 acres in ANWR that we're talking about that are in dispute. If we made that available to come on line in order to drill for more oil, that would bring up the total number of acres in this country that are available for oil drilling from 68 million to 68.2 million. In 10 years, we would get approximately 40,000 barrels. In 20 years, it would be 800,000 barrels, which, according to President Bush's own Department of Energy, would reduce the price of gas by less than 2 cents. So, when you add all of these factors up, I would suggest that we can't drill our way out of this problem.

I know the gentleman is going to move on to talk about the Outer Continental Shelf, and at this point, I would yield back to him.

Before the gentleman moves on and if he could keep the acres chart up, if the other side were here, they would certainly say, well, we're talking about 44 million acres, but if you're drilling dry holes, you're not going to continue to do that; you're only going to drill where there's oil.

These are acres the oil companies and gas companies, themselves, purchased. Nobody forced them into it. Nobody twisted their arms. They sought these acres because they knew there was oil and gas underneath them. They're not randomly chosen. There are 44 million acres where we know there's oil and gas. That's why the oil and gas companies made a conscious decision to purchase the leases, so that they could have them because they know there's oil and gas underneath. These are not lands and parts of the Outer Continental Shelf where there is no oil or gas. That is simply incorrect.

Because these are 10-year solutions that we're talking about when we're talking about creating new areas where we can drill.

I think we've exhausted the topic about the number of acres that are available for current drilling. They want to increase the amount of acres.

So what, I think, is instructive to look at and what we should discuss is how we got where we are today. Some would say, well, there's no point in looking back. We have to move forward and start the process from where we are right now because we can't do anything about the decisions that were made in the past. Certainly, that is true. There are a number of factors that affect the price of gas that have led to the skyrocketing prices that families all across this country are forced to pay. We can do nothing about the increased demand in growing nations like China and India. It's a huge problem. It's going to continue, and it's going to greatly impact the price of gas moving forward. There's not much we can do about that.

The speculation in the market is something we can do something about, the manipulation that takes place in the commodities market, and this Congress is going to be bringing forth legislation to deal with that very complicated issue about how the oil commodities are traded and what the sources are of that manipulation. Congress is going to try and figure out a way that we can regulate that in an effective way.

The estimation is that that will lead to a decrease in the price per barrel of oil of up to $30 per barrel. That's a significant chunk. It's not everything. It's going to have a real impact, though, for families all across this country.

When you hear people discuss what the options are moving forward, I think it's instructive to look at the judgment of the people who are making those arguments and what the decisions they've made in the past have led to. One of the issues that has led to the increased price of oil and price per barrel on the worldwide market is the decrease in the U.S. dollar. So what is the cause for the decrease in the U.S. dollar?

Well, two of the largest reasons are the trade deficit, that the gentleman talks about, where we've added $1.5 trillion in foreign-held debt. This is only debt held by foreign nations. $1.5 trillion. That's over the past 7 years. To put that in perspective, when President Bush took office in 2001, his 42 predecessors in the 220 years up to that point had accumulated a foreign-held debt in that entire time of $1 trillion.

So the President has gone $1.5 trillion in 7 years, equaled, and then by half again what his 42 predecessors did.

The $3.5 trillion in debt that has been rolled up over the past 7\1/ 2\ years, $3.5 trillion debt that this country simply cannot afford, so I think it's instructive to take a walk down memory lane for what the economy looked like, what the debt looked like when President Bush took office. The 10-year projection was for a $5.5 trillion surplus over 10 years, $5.5 trillion surplus. That's what we were supposed to see.

Well, it's not what we saw. We saw a $3.5 trillion deficit over only 7\1/2\ years with more to come, unfortunately, because we can't dig ourselves out overnight from the huge hole that we've been given.

Now, what does that do to the price of the dollar? Well, we have seen what that does to the price of the dollar. It's almost at historic lows and oil is traded by the dollar in the worldwide market. That has had an enormous impact on the price of oil, and that has had an enormous impact on the price of gas at the pump.

So when you hear people give their opinion of where to go from here, what are the strategies we can use in both the short-term and the long term, I do think it's instructive to look at some of the ideas that those individuals had and those groups had in years leading up to the crisis that we now face.

The gentleman from Ohio may want to continue along these lines. I would yield back to him.

The gentleman is correct. For those who may be entering the chamber at this point or joining the debate, it may seem like this is a partisan argument. It's not. What we are discussing here are simply the facts of how we got to where we are today.

I won't dwell on that argument. I think we have talked about it, but it is definitely something to consider, as we move forward, that the reason we are where we are today is the direct result of the decisions that were made in public policy over the last several years.

When you hear people advocating ways to dig us out of the enormous hole that we are in, I would suggest it is worthwhile to look at what the outcomes have been of the policies that they have put forward over the years.

Lastly, and then we can move on to the GI Bill, because I think that's a very important discussion as well, we talk about the facts of the gas price issue. I would hope, maybe it would be helpful for us to get together with our friends on the other side and do one of these Special Orders one night.

I am sure Mr. Peterson from Pennsylvania would love to join us that night. I have a world of respect for him and his knowledge on this issue, and he certainly knows it as well as anybody. Maybe we could get together one day with a group and have a debate, not a debate, a discussion on the issue and let the American people hear the arguments on both sides.

I think we certainly would be willing to do that on our side.

But when you hear the discussion, I think we need to look at the facts. You can have your own opinion. You can't have your own facts. We talked about the fact, the chart that is next to the gentleman.

As the number of wells and the number of drilling permits have gone up, gas prices have gone up right up along with it. It is incorrect, it is false, and don't let anybody get away with saying that as you increase the amount of oil that we are drilling for in this country, the price of oil is going to go down. That simply has not happened. We have experience over the past 4 and 5 years, as you can see on that chart.

But another fact that came up time and again, over the last couple of years, I heard it in the 2006 election from people in the State of Pennsylvania where I am from, I continued to hear it over the past couple of years, that China was drilling off the coast of Cuba in waters that were 60 miles from the shores of this country in Florida. I heard it time and again. China is drilling 60 miles from our shores, and that is alarming. That's an alarming fact. Or is it a fact?

What we found out is that China is not drilling off the coast of Cuba, and those on the other side who had been making that claim, some who hold extremely high office in this country, had to retract what they said and acknowledge that, in fact, they were mistaken on that. It may be an honest mistake in some cases.

I would.

That's the point that we are talking about. We are talking about facts. We can have a debate. We can have a discussion. There are clear differences of opinion. We are all on the same side. We all want to see gas prices lowered both in the short term and the long term. There is no animosity. This is not a game of gotcha.

It's unfortunate what happened to some of the individuals that you mentioned who put forward with great confidence a fact that turned out not to be true. But the point we are making is not gotcha. The point we are making is consider the history of the commentary that you hear from people, consider the factual basis which does not support their argument and consider the outcomes of the policies that they have put forward over the past 7 and 8 years, and that's leading us to where we are today. That's what we are talking about.

Well, that's it. I think the gentleman hit the nail on the head. I don't know what more we could add on this issue.

Could I inquire to the Chair how much time we have remaining?

Well, if we could talk for a minute about the GI Bill, as the gentleman mentioned, there is no group that should stand ahead of our Nation's veterans when it comes time to making policy decisions, plain and simple. I think most people in this Chamber would agree with that.

So what has this Congress done recently to help our Nation's veterans? Well, last year we had the largest increase in the 77-year history of the VA, health system funding increase. We have increased screening and treatment of traumatic brain injuries at every VA health care facility.

We have extended family and medical leave to cover our military Guard and Reserve. We have covered small business entrepreneurship opportunities for returning veterans. We have increased the capital and the grants and loans that are available to small business owners who served, themselves, in the Guard and Reserve. We have a tremendous record of achievement on veterans in this Congress.

What we are taking up this week, probably, is the GI Bill. As the gentleman said, the GI Bill has not been updated since 1944 and not modernized.

So we are talking about more than 60 years since the GI bill has been modernized. This Congress took a step to say if you serve in the military for 3 or more years since September 11, you will qualify for the new GI bill which says you will be allowed to attend a State institution, State university in your State and we will pay for it because we want to thank you for what you have done for this country. You have earned that benefit. We can never thank you enough for putting your life on the line and the sacrifice that you have made and that your family made. So we are going to offer you something in the long run that will benefit all of us, educating people.

There is a continuing benefit to society of educating our veterans and giving them a step up so they can get out into society and continue their own careers, which helps everybody. And so we took that step in this Congress of modernizing the GI bill because it had been less than $10,000 that were available under the current GI bill.

I think anyone who has kids who are going to college or had to pay for their college themselves realizes $10,000 in today's world doesn't get you very far with regard to higher education.

We not only pay for the tuition at the State university rate in the State where the veteran lives, we also have a stipend for housing costs and ancillary things like books. We will not pay for everything, but we will help. And certainly the veterans who have earned that benefit deserve every penny of that, and I am sure the gentleman agrees.

We will close it out now, and we want to thank the Speaker for the opportunity to address the Chamber tonight.

Any of the charts that we have talked about, and I really would encourage Members to take a look at them, can be found on www.speaker.gov/30somethings.

I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio.

I do hope those who are interested in this topic--and everybody in this country, I think, is interested in the issue of gas prices and is certainly interested in alternative sources of energy--have heard what the gentleman has just said.

There was a poll taken which somebody talked to me about today. Fifty-four percent of the American people think that we should drill for more oil domestically. Well, I don't think there is anybody in this Congress who disagrees with that statement. What does that mean?

As the gentleman said, there are 68 million acres. That is not a typographical error. I'm not misspeaking. The gentleman was not misspeaking. There are 68 million acres of Federal lands that are currently available and permitted to drill for oil. Well, why aren't the oil companies drilling for oil there? There are a variety of reasons.

Some of it is the construction. The permitting, the geological, the surveying work that needs to be done takes a long time. That's the issue with ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If we said today we were going to allow the oil companies to drill for oil in ANWR, it would be 10 years before the first drop of oil came, and it would be 20 years before ANWR was at peak capacity. I'll return to that momentarily.

Part of that 68 million acres that isn't being utilized is going to be developed at some point, but they're not there yet. Part of it is that the oil companies buy up these leases and stockpile them because that looks good on their assets, and they file their financial reports, and it helps their bottom line because they hold the futures on stockpiled assets that are leased acreage for oil drilling. But we have in the Outer Continental Shelf already identified where 80 percent of the known oil is. It is within the area where the oil companies are already permitted to drill and where 8,000 leases already exist. So 80 percent of the known oil in the Outer Continental Shelf is already within an area in which we're able to drill for more oil.

So those watching tonight might say, ``Well, how much of that 80 percent are we drilling on?'' Well, we're drilling on about a quarter of it. About 75 percent of the leases that are held in that area where we know that there is oil is not being used for oil drilling right now. It's the same situation. Some of it is being surveyed, and the geological work is being done, and they're going to do some construction, and they'll get there. Some of it is just being held by the oil companies.

Then you have the coast of Florida, where the gentlewoman is from, and you have the coast of California, and you're getting into those issues. It's the same thing. We have identified places in this country where it's already available to drill for oil.

You might say, ``All right. What are we talking about? How much oil are we talking about?'' How about 4.2 million barrels of oil per day that we could get from those 68 million acres if we were drilling right now where the leases are already held. 4.2 million barrels.

By comparison is ANWR, which we're talking about. The first drop of oil arrives in the pipeline in ANWR 10 years from the time that we say you're allowed to drill there. 40,000 barrels of oil per day that first year from ANWR. 40,000 barrels per day. Currently, the worldwide oil market is about 80 million barrels per day. So we're talking infinitesimal on the worldwide market.

When ANWR is at peak capacity, according to the experts, it's going to be approximately 800,000 barrels a day. It's going to be 800,000 barrels of oil a day in a market that's 80 million barrels a day, a worldwide market. Let's think about that 4.2 million barrels that we could get from the 68 million acres, and I know we're talking about a lot of numbers right now.

The point is this: We already know where there is oil to drill in this country. The oil companies already own the leases where they could drill for that oil. They're making a conscious decision, for a variety of reasons, not to drill for oil in places where they're already permitted to do so.

Lastly, on refineries, people will say, ``Well, let's build more refineries.'' Well, we have half the number of refineries today that we had 30 years ago because the companies have shut them down, and the refineries that we do still have are operating, as the gentleman said, at 85 percent capacity.

So what is the point of spending the time and the effort to build more refineries, and what is the point of spending the money if the refineries that we have aren't even operating at near full capacity? There are other ways we could spend our time. There are other ways we could spend our resources. There are other ways we could spend our money.

So what, I think, every Member of our side of the aisle agrees on is we have a crisis regarding gas prices in this country right now. I don't think anybody would disagree with that. We're paying over $4 a gallon. It's

going to continue to go up in the foreseeable future. We have to make a decision. We've arrived at a crisis point. We have a decision to make. There are no short-term solutions.

Now, we can put a Band-Aid on it and do the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which we did, which is going to have some impact. It's not a long-term solution. We're going to talk about manipulation in the market and about the speculation that goes on, and that drives the price per barrel up. We can do some short-term things there, but in the long term, we have to make a decision.

There are one of two ways we can go. We could either continue our dependence on oil--and yes, we're talking about domestic sources of oil when we talk about ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf and the coasts of Florida and California. That's domestic oil. But there is not nearly enough oil there to produce that would bring down the percentage that we get from foreign nations. So, even if we were done and if we were pumping all of the oil from those 68 million acres and from the new land in ANWR and from the other locations, we still would get more oil from foreign nations than we would produce in this country. There's no way to get around that.

So the question is: If it's a 20-year process until we get to peak capacity at ANWR and in the Outer Continental Shelf, isn't there a better way that we could spend the next 20 years if we're going to pour money into it and have a national commitment to say we're going to find an alternative source of energy?

What I advocate and what I'm sure my colleagues would agree with is we need to put our best and brightest on the job and give them all of the resources that they need. We need to take everybody from our eighth grade science students on up to our Nobel Prize winners and say, figuratively, ``You go in the same room. We're going to give you all of the money that you need, all of the resources and all of the support this Nation can provide. This is our number 1 priority. Figure out a way to make a car run affordably on something other than gasoline.''

We can do that, but we can't do both because every dollar we spend drilling for more oil or that we spend building more refineries is a dollar we could have spent getting us off oil and getting us off our dependence on foreign oil.

I would.

I think it is instructive, the gentleman talks about mistakes having been made on other issues. It is instructive when you think about the people who are making the arguments for how to solve the problems that we face today, let's take a look at what the track record is and how we got to where we are today. Who made the decisions that have led us to where we are today?

I know I don't want to be partisan about this, but the facts are the facts. There are three reasons that gas prices have gone up, two of which we can control and one we can't. We can't control the increased demand in China and India and other countries in the world. It is a huge driving force. It is going to continue to get worse over time. It is going to continue to drive an increase.

The other two factors, increased speculation in the market and manipulation of the price in the worldwide oil market. The gentlewoman from Florida talks about what this Congress is doing on that issue in regulating that market and moving towards a more fair system that is going to decrease the price per barrel upwards of $30. We are taking action. That is a second cause.

But perhaps the biggest cause is the weak U.S. dollar. So let's take a look at why the dollar is so weak. Oil is traded in the worldwide market based on the dollar. We are paying more in this country. Obviously our currency is the U.S. dollar and we are paying more because of the weakness of the dollar which is at an all-time low, an historic low.

Well, it is because of the economic policies of the past 8 years that have driven our economy and driven the price of the dollar nearly to the ground. And I would invite anyone to compare where the dollar was based on other worldwide currencies 8 years ago versus today.

We have an enormous trade deficit which the gentleman and I deal with every day in our districts with the jobs that have been lost, and the trade deficit is at almost historic proportions. That has led to a decrease in the dollar.

But mostly the runaway spending of this Congress and the $3.5 trillion in debt that this administration and the previous three Congresses rolled up on the American people have led to the economic conditions that drove the price of the dollar down, that have resulted in sky-high gas prices.

So the exact same people who made the decisions that led to the crisis that we are in today now have their own recommended solutions. And I don't dispute their motives. I think they are in it for the same reason we are. They want to do the right thing. I just think they are wrong. I think that their course of action that they propose is not going to solve the problem, and in fact is going to lead to a worsening of the problem by furthering our dependence on oil, as we talked about.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution establishing Disabled American Veterans Week.

I introduced this resolution to express my gratitude and to allow the entire Nation to express our gratitude to those brave men and women who have given so much in the name of freedom.

I would especially like to thank Congressmen Bilirakis, Boozman, Lynch and the over 100 other original cosponsors who joined me in support of this resolution.

Over 2.8 million men and women who fought for our country have sustained injuries that have forever changed their lives. It is my hope that by establishing Disabled American Veterans Week we will increase awareness of the struggles that America's heroes face every day and encourage more support for our brave wounded warriors.

I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing the great sacrifices made by disabled American veterans and their families. These heroes epitomize the meaning of service and sacrifice, and this is the very least we can do to honor our Nation's disabled veterans.

Mr. Speaker, with gas prices reaching a new record high every day, Congress took strong action last week to bring down the price at the pump by passing legislation to suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through the end of this year.

After initially opposing the proposal, President Bush signed the bill into law yesterday. He had the power all along to stop filling the SPR, but it took an act of Congress to push him to take this commonsense step, a step that could lower gas prices by up to 24 cents a gallon.

While the Bush administration has allowed crude oil to rise from $25 a gallon when he first took office to $130 a gallon today, the Democratic Congress is fighting to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, bring down record gas prices, and launch a cleaner, smarter energy future for America.

Today this House will consider legislation that will retain and create hundreds of thousands of green energy jobs and encourage the use of production of renewable energy. While President Bush continues to call for more of the same policies that have failed for the past 7 years, this Democratic Congress is working for an energy independence plan for America.

Mr. Speaker, in a weak economy it's important for us to take steps to help small businesses create jobs and provide targeted tax relief to middle class American taxpayers.

Today's tax relief package will encourage investment in renewable energy and energy efficient technologies. We help small businesses by extending the R&D tax credit and the State and local sales tax deductions.

Also included are extensions of three tax cuts that I introduced last year, including extending the $250 tax credit to help teachers pay for out-of-pocket expenses for classroom supplies, encouraging companies to donate computers to schools, and investing in the clean-up and development of former industrial sites, commonly referred to as brownfields.

This bill cuts taxes for small businesses, promotes energy independence, and provides targeted tax relief for middle class American families.

I urge my colleagues to support this tax relief package.

Mr. Chairman, I want to take this minute to highlight one particular provision of this bill that is very important to me.

Like many Americans last year, I was outraged to learn that the Pentagon was denying combat wounded veterans their enlistment bonuses, apparently in the belief that they had not fulfilled their obligations to the military because they had been wounded in service to this country. Well, like most people in this House, I think that if you have been injured in service to this country, you have done more than we ever could have asked you to do. You have borne every burden and you have fulfilled your obligation.

So I introduced the Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act to ensure that every combat wounded veteran gets the enlistment bonus that they deserve. That legislation has been included in its entirety in this legislation that we are passing today. I thank Chairman Skelton for including it in the bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support it to remedy this grave injustice.