Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I noticed on the chart there that the gentleman has the current Alaskan pipeline that is there. How far is that from the area we would be moving into to provide this new domestic security?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. As I said, it does not take a rocket scientist to realize that is the way of protecting the future economic and energy needs of this country.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), once again, is absolutely correct. It has a huge impact, and that small fraction is estimated somewhere in the neighborhood between 5 and 16 billion, with a B, barrels of recoverable oil.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Utah is absolutely correct, and it clearly illustrates the potential we have to make life better for Americans if we just use what we have in a common- sense approach to a domestic energy policy.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Of course, I would.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I thank my senior colleague from Utah. Mr. Speaker, when we entered this body a couple of months ago I was a high school teacher. And I have to admit it is somewhat difficult trying to raise 5 kids on a high school teacher's salary. One of the things that was most significant, most difficult, was always dealing with those essential energy costs that were coming to us, the higher utility rates, increased gas, always seeming at the whim of foreign changes that took place, and always without a comprehensive energy policy that this country vitally needs. Those costs were ever escalating. And it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out, if you would just look at the chart we have here and follow the green line which is simply gasoline prices or gasoline production versus the red line which is prices. And you simply know as the green line goes down, prices go up. Now the inverse would also be true. If we could increase the supply, the cost would also go down. There are those who claim that there is no way we can possibly increase our energy source without totally destroying our environment. Mr. Speaker, I have to reject that failed philosophy of the past. It is possible for us to secure our environment. We all want to drink clean water, to breathe clean air, to secure the land. But we can secure our environment by relying on modern technology to also provide us with the energy source we need and a domestic energy source that we desperately need. And we can do so not by dealing with foreign powers, but on land that we presently own and control. In a minute, Mr. Speaker, I think one of my colleagues will go into detail about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge which has potential that is there on land that was put aside for that very purpose. A common sense approach for providing for our energy needs could be easily accomplished. If we do nothing as a country, my bill worsens, my situation becomes more desperate. We can easily balance our political policy needs for energy with good environmentalism both for today and for tomorrow by simply putting politics aside and simply doing what is right to provide for my family, as well as for millions of people on a fixed income who need a stable and predictable domestic energy source, and if we reject what modern technology can do to provide that and provide for our environmental needs, we are moving this country's policy back 20 years.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, in reading the letter of the mayor, it clearly illustrated what we sadly lack here in Congress, a common sense solution balancing the needs of the future and today with the heritage that is already there. They know it, they understand it. Using technology, they are ready to move forward if we just allow them the tools to do it, and they all can win. It does not have to be a lose/ lose situation. It is a win/win. They understand that, and we need to gain that same insight.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Yes.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. That is ANWR, yes.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The gentleman is correct. And these are once again what we assume to be the average daily oil productions in these areas. The gentleman is correct in pointing out how much we receive from Canada. If my colleagues would simply note what the Canadians are doing in providing that oil is simply the area on the other side of this region that we want. That is the production lines that they are having. They understand the purpose of it. And the Canadians are able to use modern technology to produce the oil and not to spoil the environment. It does not have to be one or the other, where we either have the energy source or we have the environment. We can have them both. We have the technology to make it possible to protect our environment and protect a domestic energy source at the same time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The gentleman is correct. Iraq plays almost an insignificant role in the energy sources for the United States. But the other countries that we have here, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, and especially Venezuela, they are key elements in our foreign policy dependency. When changes take place there, when problems develop in those countries, we receive the brunt of it with higher costs for utilities, higher costs for gasoline.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman one more time, and if I could reiterate what the gentleman from Arizona started by just pointing out that this entire refuge is about the size of South Carolina. The only area we are talking about is the area in green, which from the beginning was set aside for the purpose of oil exploration. That was part of the common sense approach we had when we preserved this land. The only part we are talking about, as he so brilliantly put it, and the closeness of the original pipeline, is this small little red dot. That is the entire area. If we view the second shot, we can see that that small dot is only about 2,000 acres. That is the footprint, which is smaller than Dulles Airport, which services Washington, D.C. The amount of area we are talking about is less than what is Dulles Airport compared to the size of the State of South Carolina. And as the gentleman from Arizona said, this could be a significant find in giving us domestic security with the domestic source of energy we need. And as we see by this particular chart, the amount of oil that is recoverable in the ANWR area is second only to what we receive from Saudi Arabia. If we want to eventually solve problems in the future and have some kind of independence with a domestic source of energy, this is a significant piece of the puzzle.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask this one final question. With the risk of being somewhat of a leading question, I think the gentleman very eloquently stated the position of the people who are there. I guess I would, once again, want to try and somehow if the gentleman could reiterate in his own mind that one of the problems we have had with our failed philosophy in the past that has produced so many problems is trying to have a Washington solution, one size fitting all. Is the gentleman comfortable that the locals who know and understand the land, who know and love that environment, is the gentleman comfortable that they are positive that this is the appropriate thing that they want in their particular area and they know how to control it?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I thank my senior colleague from my home State of Utah for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I have been here 3 months. In that time, I have found nothing more exciting than what I wish to speak about today, the potential of an Energy Security Act of 2003. This country has been for far too long without a comprehensive energy program. With energy prices rising and our dependence on foreign oil, we need to find a domestic source of our potential future energy. What this Congress needs to do to solve this problem and also to eliminate a future crisis is to look to the lands that are already controlled by the Federal Government. In the coming days, Congress will have the opportunity to debate the Energy Security Act of 2003. Within this critical bill is the authorization allowing drilling in Section 1002 of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. Now, contrary to popular belief, this is not the pristine cathedral of the wilderness or the last great unexplored frontier; it is thousands of acres of frozen tundra, uninhabitable, with its greatest summer crop being mosquitoes. More importantly, when Congress created this ANWR, we realized that within that there was the great potential for oil. We specifically put a portion of it, the portion in green on this map, aside for future oil exploration for the needs of this particular country. This section, known as 1002, it is noted, is not all to be used for oil development, only 2,000 acres within it. Let me try and explain what that means. ANWR is approximately the size of the State of South Carolina, yet, within the northern portion of that, the area in red is the only portion we are talking about, a grand total of 2,000 acres, about the size of the footprint left by the airport in this city. If we did another analogy, if we can consider a large conference table, we are talking about drilling in an area the size of a postage stamp. That is not, that is not an area that is going to despoil the future. Its disturbance is negligible. This area does not have, as some critics have said, only 6 months' worth of oil. We are looking at an area that has between 5.7 billion and 16 billion, B, with a B, billion barrels of recoverable oil within ANWR. If Members consider that within every day we import 10 million barrels, we can recognize that clearly this would go a long way as we compare the potential of ANWR to our other sources of foreign oil in providing the kind of natural domestic security that we desperately need. This cannot be minimized, it cannot be brushed aside. This is a crucial element of the puzzle. It is a crucial element for the long- term viability of our Nation and our energy. One last point, very quickly. In addition to oil for the future energy needs of this country, we are producing spinoff jobs in almost every State of this Nation. These statistics are somewhat old, I have seen them elevated by as much as 20 percent, but we could produce between 500,000 and 700,000 jobs in this country. Can Members imagine what 500,000 to 700,000 jobs would do to spur this economy, well-paying jobs, in addition to the energy independence? There are two elements we need, stability and predictability of our source of energy. That is what will spur the future. That is what will give us our independence, our independence from foreign oil and our security at home.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 86, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, one year ago today, the President made a courageous decision to impose a temporary trade remedy against dumped and subsidized steel imports that were causing serious injury to our U.S. steel industry and its workers. This action was taken under Section 201 of the Trade Act, and the international rules of the World Trade Organization Safeguards Agreement. One year later, it is clear that his steel initiative has begun to produce an important consolidation and restructuring of the U.S. steel industry that will benefit our national economic security and our domestic steel customer base long-term. Since the President's decision, prices are recovering, steel supply is generally robust, and the industry has begun dramatic consolidation and restructuring. This recovery is important news for Nucor Steel Utah, located in my district, and for steel producers in other similar communities all across America. The result at the end of the three-year period will be top quality steel, produced in high technology mills in America, which will become an even better value for our nation's steel consumers. The President is also addressing the root cause of the import problems, by negotiating with our trading partners to eliminate global excess capacity and foreign government subsidies. As a result, the world's steel producing nations are for the first time talking meaningfully about reducing unneeded capacity and eliminating subsidies. I thank the President for upholding our trade laws, despite intense opposition from abroad. His decision was the correct one. Thank you, Mr. President, stay the course. Your plan is benefiting my district and the nation's steel industry.