Mary Fallin

Ms. FALLIN

Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), our chairman.

Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), our minority leader.

Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in unhesitant opposition to this misguided and uninformed legislation. I hope today's debate will allow the American people to see this legislation for what it is, and that is, a sham, a shallow attempt of the majority to hide that they lack any solutions for the American energy crisis facing our Nation. Let me start by just stating one simple fact: 97 percent of our Federal offshore areas and 94 percent of our Federal onshore areas are not leased. Now, let me just say that one more time. Ninety-seven percent of our Federal offshore areas and 94 percent of our Federal onshore areas are not even leased. The Democrat leadership has done everything it could for the last several decades to stop the leasing in 97 percent of offshore areas and 94 percent of onshore areas since they think America's energy needs can be supplied by just 3 percent of offshore areas and 6 percent of the onshore areas. It is no wonder that America is facing an energy crisis. Let's talk about the legislative process, too, that brings this issue to the floor today. We are debating legislation that hasn't had a hearing, it hasn't had a mark-up, no committee report, it hasn't even been opened up for an amendment, and no Member of this House but for its author has had more than 5 hours to consider this bill. The Rules Committee even had to pass a special rule to allow this bill to come to the floor today, a rule that effectively waives all points of order against the bill, including PAYGO and earmark bans. The bill will also cost the American people not only additional energy domestic production, but reduces revenues to the Federal Government. Yes, America, in one fell swoop, Congress will increase energy costs for American consumers and steal from the pocketbooks of American taxpayers. Is this a way to go into Independence Day and to celebrate the birth of our country? The legislation before us is based on the premise that American oil companies are sitting on resources that they should be developing. The majority will make claims that millions of acres are not being produced. However, the reality is that every leased acre is undergoing some form of exploration, is in the process of getting permits, facing a legal challenge, or in development. They are all going through those processes for every acre. The supporters of this misguided legislation are not offering any solutions to these challenges. There is no proposal to speed up development by reducing the waiting times for permits, limiting public challenges of leases and applications for the permits to drill, or reducing the frivolous lawsuits. In fact, last year, the Natural Resources Committee was fighting against, and I quote the chairman, ``rapid oil and gas development that has taken place on our Nation's public lands in recent years,'' and focused on an agenda to slow, again quoting the chairman, ``the rampant, nearly unfettered energy development on Federal lands.'' Last year, oil companies were developing too fast. Today, Congress is attempting to punish any company that can't squeeze a 10-year exploration and permitting process into a time frame that suits the majority. We simply can't have it both ways. One additional fact: Most of the majority leadership, including the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, voted in 1992 to give oil companies more time to drill on onshore leases. That was done at a time when the industry actually had a higher percentage of leases in non- producing status. The majority didn't seem to mind and didn't seem to be interested in complaining about stockpiling then. To the contrary, there was a bipartisan recognition that companies needed longer terms on their onshore leases to get more production. But these days, as production rates are higher, these same Members think that companies are stockpiling. We have had a number of experts in this area come forward and present expertise on this issue. I would reference a letter from the Department of Interior which highlights the lengthy, complicated, and often unsuccessful process a company must undergo to develop oil and gas on Federal lands and waters. In addition, I would like to submit for the Record a letter from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, America's scientific experts on exploring for oil and gas. And their letter states, ``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.'' That policy to restrict development and reduce exploration is exactly what this legislation before us will do. What America must realize is that the true source of most non- producing acres in America is the U.S. Congress, which restricts access to almost 600 million acres of the Outer Continental Shelf. We could produce more oil from opening up 2,000 acres in ANWR than would likely be produced from all the onshore acres currently leased but not producing today, especially when you understand that much of the onshore resources are natural gas and not crude oil. If we were to open but a fraction of these acres held up by the congressional majority, we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create jobs right here in America. However, the majority has decided time and time again that we should limit our access to our onshore and offshore domestic resources. The American public is up in arms against the frivolous restrictions which Congress has placed on domestic energy production. People recognize the simple fact that opening up more Federal lands and waters could lead to lower gasoline prices and they're calling on us to lead America in this direction. Congress should open up this debate and this process today and allow each side to present their very best proposals. And that's what this debate is about today. June 23, 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 this 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 it conforms 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 this data improves 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 and Energy Office in Washington,

Ms. FALLIN. Equally divided.

Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Sali).

Ms. FALLIN. I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, what time remains for each side?

Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) in bipartisan opposition to the bill.

Ms. FALLIN. I would like to ask how much time remains.

Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the minority whip.

Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of our time to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Ms. FALLIN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. FALLIN

Ms. FALLIN. Madam Speaker, today I would like to share with the Chamber a very significant moment in our history. Eighty-seven years ago today, on June 20, 1921, Congresswoman Alice Robertson became the first woman to sit in the chair and preside over this body. She was a pioneer, an educator, a public servant, and only the second woman ever elected to Congress. She is a testament to the power of the 19th amendment and a symbol of the full participation that women have enjoyed in government ever since its passage. Today, women occupy many seats in this Chamber, even the Speaker's Chair. So we owe much to Alice Robertson, and I ask that you join me in celebrating her legacy and giving thanks to the memory of this wonderful Oklahoma woman.

Ms. FALLIN

Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, families and businesses are being hammered by the high cost of fuel and gasoline. This issue is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue, it's an American issue. It's an issue that our families and our consumers and our businesses want us to address, and that is the rising cost of gasoline. A CNN poll recently stated that more than half of Americans are being forced to cut back significantly on their household spending. Another news report stated that 10 percent of the American companies are expecting to cut back their workforce. One other national company stated that it was cutting 15 percent of its white collar jobs over the next 2 months. Families in my district can barely afford to commute to work. I had one family tell me that between the father commuting to his job, and the mother to her job, and the two children back and forth to college and high school, that they are spending $700 a month on gasoline. Parents are struggling with buying groceries, food costs. Family farms are struggling. They are trying to get their products to the market with the high cost of fuel, which has tripled. Small businesses are struggling with their services and their products and their customers that have decreased. The question we have to ask ourselves is what kind of future will our children and our grandchildren have if this Congress takes no action to produce more U.S. energy. The lack of production of sufficient U.S. energy is dangerous for our national economy and dangerous for our U.S. national security.

Ms. FALLIN

Ms. FALLIN. If I told you that a loaf of bread was $4, and there was plenty of wheat growing right here, but you said I could not harvest it, then I would be right to call you illogical. If I told you that you could bake more bread with a new oven, except that your rules say we can't build it, then I'd be right to say that your rules are hurting consumers. If I told you I needed to keep my bakery profits to expand my production, and you tax them away to ``punish'' me for market forces beyond my control, then you would be the one to blame for the rising bread prices. Sounds silly, doesn't it? Unfortunately, this pretty much sums up our current energy policies. Just substitute gas for bread. Bad policy has banned drilling offshore in Alaska where there are huge oil reserves. Bad policy has curtailed refinery construction. Bad policy taxes productivity, reduces the capital needed for new production, and the same basic rules of economics apply to bread and energy. When bad policies block production, you have shortages, and prices go up and people get hurt.

Ms. FALLIN

Ms. FALLIN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With Memorial Day right around the corner, now is the time to reflect upon the courage, the dedication and the patriotism personified by the men and the women in our Armed Forces. I know many Americans will stop this weekend and will thank a veteran in their family or in their community for their service to our Nation. They may meet a young soldier back from a tour of duty in Iraq and may quietly just thank God that we are born in a Nation where freedom is valued and fought for. In our modern military, it is becoming increasingly likely that a returning soldier is a woman, and while men still outnumber women in the Armed Forces, military service is no longer a career choice for men only. Today, there are more women than ever choosing to serve their country. They are pilots, engineers, commanders of ships, military police, and nurses. Deployed in two different theaters, women are playing a vital role in our war efforts. Now more than 185,000 women have been deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom and in other missions since 2001. Since its inception, women have played a vital role in defending our Nation and its freedoms. Whether it is in a hospital, in the tents of the revolution, in the shipyards of World War II or in the strategic combat positions they hold in our modern military, the contribution of women to our national defense is undeniable. Tomorrow, I will be honored to join several of my colleagues from this chamber as we lay a wreath at the Arlington National Cemetery to honor the more than over 350 women in uniform who have died defending this great Nation since World War I. In a few hours, we will be given the opportunity to honor these women and their significant contributions to our military when we vote on House Resolution 1054: Honoring the service and achievements of women in the Armed Forces and female veterans. By supporting this resolution, we can send a clear message to our women in the military and to our women veterans that your service is not forgotten nor is your courage, your patriotism nor your sacrifice. Today, we honor you all.

Ms. FALLIN

Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of House Resolution 992.

Ms. FALLIN

Ms. FALLIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed from H.R. 5534, the Bear Protection Act of 2008.

Ms. FALLIN

Ms. FALLIN. Madam Chairman, I support the Beach Protection Act. However, while we are debating this legislation, millions of Americans are wondering why, in large parts of this country, they are having to pay $3.34 a gallon for gasoline, and even 70 cents more for diesel fuel. They're struggling to cover their costs of their daily commute, and they're wondering, why is Congress debating beach protection when I can hardly afford to drive my children to school and even to go to work? American families and businesses are being hammered by the rising fuel costs, and it is clear that the inaction of this Congress will come at an expense to both drivers, small businesses and consumers. The cost of our inaction was outlined yesterday when we had a hearing in our Small Business Committee about the rising cost of gasoline. We heard from five different businesses that testified how their businesses are being squeezed with the rising cost of fuel. One business, in particular, was a trucking company who said that his fuel costs had tripled in the last several years, and he was really struggling to make ends meet. Small businesses operate on razor thin margins and they are faced with dilemmas. Do they cut costs? Do they cut their business? Do they raise their prices, or do they just go out of business? Some of them are even having to cut the salaries of their employees. Well, Madam Speaker, fuel costs that are on the rise are making small businesses feel the heat, and consumers are feeling the heat too. Today we need to address the issue of rising fuel costs and help our consumers and our small businesses. Either way, the American worker is suffering, small businesses are suffering, and this is a very important issue to our Nation. Let's show the people of America that we care, and address this issue.

Ms. FALLIN

Ms. FALLIN. Madam Speaker, it has been well over 20 days since the Protect America Act expired. For 3 weeks and counting, this Congress has allowed the quality of our surveillance programs to erode. As a result, our intelligence agencies have lost critical tools in the war on terror and are left potentially blind to lethal terrorist plots. In light of these dangers, Democrat leaders are facing a chorus of Members demanding action on the bipartisan Senate-passed surveillance bill. Madam Speaker, it is time that we bring this bill to the floor. The Democrat chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee has said that passing this legislation is the right way to go in terms of the security of our Nation. In the House, over 20 Democrats have publicly urged Speaker Pelosi to bring the bill up for a vote. In fact, it seems that the Democrat leadership will not bring this bill up precisely because they know it will pass. Madam Speaker, enough is enough. We have floated temporary patches and Band-Aids for months. It is time to get serious about our national security. It is time to bring a permanent fix to FISA and to a vote on this floor.

Ms. FALLIN

Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I'm here today to speak in opposition of H.R. 1424. This bill, although well intended, comes with a long series of unintended consequences. And while I fully support the bipartisan efforts to bring parity between mental health and medical benefits and employer-sponsored health care plans, I cannot support this bill as it is currently written. In fact, in my mind, this legislation will diminish care for patients, will increase costs, will restrict access to care, will restrict access to specific hospitals and doctors, along with hurting the financial investments made personally by doctors and specialty hospitals. Oklahoma has one of the highest concentrations of specialty hospitals in the Nation, and I've had the opportunity to visit a large percentage of them. These specialty hospitals offer very good quality care with physicians who are trained specifically in areas of expertise to deliver to their patients. These facilities offer specialties anywhere from hip and bone replacement to gynecology, to cardiology, to heart hospitals, spine hospitals, and they do provide some of the best medical care possible in the whole Nation. In fact, some of our hospitals have grown by leaps and bounds because they have people coming from all over the Nation, and they've even been rated as some of the top hospitals in the Nation. By interfering with the ability of physicians to refer their patients to specialty hospitals, this bill will throw up a legal barrier to good medical treatment. I personally believe that competition is good in a marketplace. It improves the delivery of services. It improves the quality of services and delivery of care. It also offers greater transparency of pricing. We talk a lot in this Congress about patients knowing the price of medical care. It also offers greater transparency in the quality of care, the outcomes of the care so patients can make better choices about their treatment and become more informed about their treatment. Specialty hospitals and medical specialties also allow doctors new ways for innovation and treatments, new techniques. They bring new techniques and innovations to the marketplace that might not always be there in our regular hospitals. And they've also shown in many cases to have better health outcomes because their doctors specialize in these particular medical practices. This legislation would restrict patient choice to not be able to choose doctors who would specialize in a heart procedure and a hip replacement or maybe even delivery of babies. Specialty-owned hospitals have also documented that they can have shorter stays, that they have lower infection rates, sometimes up to 50 percent lower infection rates, lower infection rates of staph infection and lower risk of illness. When you take a person who is going in for a hip replacement and you put them in a hospital with someone who has the flu, you put that person at risk of getting another illness. And when you have a specialty and they're going in for a hip replacement and that's their illness, there's less risk of another illness coming upon that patient. We also find that a large portion of our medical specialty hospitals take big portions of Medicare patients. I know that that's been a big concern. They are Medicare certified. In fact, many of the hospitals take up to 65 to 70 percent Medicare patients in their facilities. And many of them are required to have the emergency rooms. McBride Hospital, for instance, in Oklahoma City is the third largest hospital in the whole Nation for hip and bone replacement, and people come, as I mentioned, from all over. They're also required to meet all the procedure requirements of a full-blown hospital. We find that the other hospitals in our community often refer their patient to our specialty hospitals. If you look at other systems that have rated specialty hospitals and these practices, HHS, MedPac, GAO have studied physician-owned hospitals, specialty hospitals, and found no negative impact on general hospitals. In fact, I heard one speaker say today that 3 percent of our Nation's hospitals are specialty hospitals. It also has found that there's no evidence of increased utilization by physicians in facilities in which they own, which they have ownership. And, of course, specialty hospitals have created jobs and investment in our community and have some of the best rated services in our whole Nation. So today, Mr. Speaker, as we are considering this mental health parity bill, which is an important subject, I find language that I believe will be a disservice to patient choice, patient quality of care in our Nation.