John Peterson

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Yes.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I rise to support the Secure Rural Schools Act. My district in Pennsylvania is affected by this and many districts in the west are affected by this Act. Over the years, timber harvesting and other mineral resources harvesting provided a huge resource for local governments, and, specifically, schools. When those who chose not to continue the wise management of our forest by allowing the mature trees to be harvested, America's most renewable resource, we had school districts and governments in tremendous financial crisis. Several years ago, Congress had the wisdom to pass the Secure Rural Schools Act that helped stabilize the ability to educate our young people and give them the chances of an adequate, good education, because these rural communities did not have the infrastructure, because most of the property and land and resources was owned by the Federal Government. This Act has helped in immense ways, and this chance, this amendment, will continue that funding. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, as we talk about the production of energy and as we talk about oil being so devastating and gas being so devastating, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all known for being environmentally sensitive countries. They all produce offshore. All of them. We are the only nation in the world that has chosen to close up our energy supply. We are dependent on unstable, unfriendly countries who control our prices and control the future of our economy. The working people of America are counting on us to give them affordable energy that they can heat their homes with and drive their cars and have a decent competitive job. That is what this is about. And I wish we could do it with wind. I wish we could do it with solar. I wish all of those things were bigger and could grow faster. Folks, we need to produce energy if we want to compete in the new global economy.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Do you realize how long it has been since we have actually done a modern seismographic on the OCS? It has not been done in 40 years. We didn't have good seismographics then. We don't really know, but we know there is a lot out there. If we had modern seismographics, it is usually three to four times what we thought.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. This amendment, I believe, is one of the most important issues that we will deal with in this Congress. It's about having affordable, available, clean, green natural gas, the fuel that we take for granted. It's the fuel that heats about 60 percent of our homes, 70 percent of our businesses, and is the major building block to all the industries that are left in this country. The petrochemical industry, 55 percent of their operating cost is natural gas. The polymers and plastic industry, 45 percent of their operational cost is natural gas. And fertilizer can be as high as 70 percent of their cost is natural gas because they use it as a fuel and they use it as an ingredient to make their product. It's an ingredient in all those products. Clean, green natural gas now generates about 20 percent of our electricity. That didn't used to be. Biodiesel consumes huge amounts of natural gas in the production cost. Ethanol, 96 percent of the plants that make ethanol use huge amounts of natural gas. We are consuming more natural gas in this country than we're able to produce. The chart on the left with the red, that's the gap that's growing, because we as a country, 26 years ago, Congress decided that we shouldn't produce energy offshore. Every country in the world produces both oil and gas offshore. Now, they have setbacks. But they all use offshore production because it's the cleanest, best, safest way to produce energy, and there's huge amounts out there. Now, for this country to have the highest natural gas prices in the world almost is insanity, because we have lots of it, but we have chosen to lock it up and not produce it. This is the clean, green fuel. It's greener than biofuels. It's what we use to generate electricity when the wind doesn't blow. It's what we use to generate electricity when the sun doesn't shine for solar. It's what we use to make hydrogen for the hydrogen vehicles that are oncoming. It's the bridge to our future because it's clean, it's green. No NOX, SOX and a third of the CO2 that all other energies project. For this country not to open up its Outer Continental Shelf to natural gas, my amendment opens it up from 25 miles on out. That doesn't mean it's going to be drilled. It would still have to be in the 5-year plan, but it would open it up. Let me tell you, folks, we're going to do this sometime. It depends on whether we do it in time to save the millions of jobs that are leaving. Dow Chemical's energy bill went from $8 billion in '02, natural gas bill, to $22 billion in '06. They came to our committee the last 2 years and begged for release. Produce natural gas. We didn't. They just invested $30 billion that they wanted to invest in America for working men in America and working women in America to have a good job. They're putting it in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Libya, because natural gas is a fraction there of what it is here. It is absolute insanity for America to starve itself of the clean, green fuel that has never foiled a beach. California, New Jersey and Florida will protest the most. It will never foil a beach. A gas well has never foiled a beach. It has never washed up on a shore. It's a gas. And they are the three States that are the largest consumers and who have switched their electric generation to gas and helped cause the problem that have protested the production of clean, green natural gas. My amendment is the amendment that can keep America competitive. It can keep us strong as a nation. It can keep American working people working in their jobs, in their factories. But if we don't pass my amendment, we will lose millions of jobs in this country; in fact, all of the manufacturing jobs. I lost a plant this year that made clay tile. Natural gas prices. I got a letter the other day from a guy who re-formed steel, and he said if it continues to go up, it has went up three times in the last 2 years, 300 percent. He said, if it goes up any further, I am out of business. I can't make sign posts. I can't make bed rail anymore out of recycled steel rail. Folks, clean, green natural gas is more America's fuel that can keep this country strong and growing and environmentally green.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Several things have been said that I think must be responded to. Oil and gas spills. Could someone here show me a gas spill? A natural gas spill? There is no recorded history of one. Natural gas comes out of the ocean floor and bubbles into the air all over the ocean all the time. But there is no spill. The fact is you can't drill for gas without oil. I grew up around it. I have never made money in the oil business. I have never invested a dime in it. But I grew up around it. You drill a hole in the ground. You put a steel casing in the ground. You register every place you go through, coal, gas, oil, rocks. It is actually rocks that have oil and gas in them. Then you notch the pipe where you want to produce. In Pennsylvania, there were three or four oil sands, and the gas is way below the oil in most places. There was a little bit of gas in the oil, but not a lot. You notch the pipe where you want to produce it. So if you want to produce gas, you notch the pipe and you produce the gas, and that is sand. Natural gas is the future of America until we can grow our renewables. I am for wind. I am for solar. I am for biofuels. I am for hydrogen cars. But let me show you how small that is; 86 percent of our energy is fossil fuel; 40 oil, 23 gas, 23 coal. That is 86. Eight percent is nuclear. We are now at 94. Six is percent renewables. Listen closely, 6 percent renewables. Five percent is biomass and hydro. Wind, solar, hydrogen, and geothermal, our future, is 1 percent. If we can double it every 5 years, it will cost a lot, but I am for it. But we are still then at 2 percent. How do we fuel this economy that is growing a need for energy by 2 percent, and we have countries like China and India that are growing at 15 to 20 percent, and their energy consumption is sucking up the world's supply? When the moratorium was put on, we had $2 gas and $10 oil. We were awash in it. It didn't matter. Oil and gas is scarce today. There is a world shortage. Right now, they are predicting $79 oil this summer, which will be $3.50 gas without a storm in the Gulf, without a country being upset. The Wall Street Journal on Friday reported that if we have a storm in the Gulf and we have a country that gets upset that produces a lot of oil, we could have $85 to $89 oil. Do you know what that will do to home heating this winter? Do you know what that will do to travel costs? Folks, it is crisis time. Clean, green natural gas is the best alternative for a healthy America.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with 100 miles offshore. When we had the debate last year, I wanted to clarify something. Everybody kept talking about a compromise. We passed a major bill in the House that opened up the OCS for both gas and oil. The Senate passed what I call a little small bill in little pieces of the Gulf that President Clinton actually had in the 5-year plan, but never leased it. In my discussions with the other body, we were always hoping to have a compromise, but we never had one. We never had a conference committee. We reluctantly agreed to take the Senate bill because it was something, and America needs something, so we took this small piece in the Gulf because it is some additional energy for America. We will soon be 64 percent dependent on foreign, unstable countries. I hear on both sides of the aisle here that people are distressed about that. These are not our friends. These are countries that are not democracies. They are not real stable. We often lose energy when they just have their government topple or be out of favor for a while. We are dependent on undependable countries of the world who are not our friends. They now set the price. OPEC is back in charge. OPEC turns the spigot and lets big oil make a lot of money. I said to somebody one day, big oil's best friends are Congress and OPEC. Collectively, we have slowed up the ability to produce oil and gas. And when we slow up the ability to produce oil and gas, the price rises. And if you owned it when it was worth $30 a barrel and were able to produce it and make money, and government restriction of supply and OPEC's restriction of supply raises the price to $70, are you going to make money? You betcha. If you want to drop prices down, open up supply. Wall Street traders run the price up. They set the price of gasoline, fuel oil, natural gas, oil. Wall Street. Why? Strategizing on it if they can buy it and sell it and make money today or tomorrow. We often pay 15 or 20 percent of our energy prices to Wall Street as they play with it because there are shortages. When it is plentiful, they don't monkey with it. Folks, we need a plentiful supply of gas and oil for this country. Cuba is going to be producing with China and other countries 35 to 40 miles from the Keys, our most precious Florida parks. And we are going to stay completely 200 miles offshore. Folks, this is insanity for this country to not utilize its resources, to be dependent on undependable countries who control our destiny. And as we grow the renewables, as we get more wind and more solar and more geothermal, it is going to be years, if not decades, before we have in sufficient quantity, and in the meantime we are going to need fossil fuels, and we need to produce them. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their bonding of bipartisanship. We could use a lot more of that around here. I think it has been great. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for accepting my amendment in full committee that was a GAO study on the implications of changing our fuel source from coal to natural gas. That's a symbol for America to listen to our carbon imprint, so we will go to the clean, green fuel, natural gas. I see universities doing it. I see State governments doing it already. As our symbol, if that happens in all agencies, State, local, education, we will have a huge impact on the need of affordable, clean natural gas in this country. My concern is we have a body here who is very much opposed to the production of clean, green natural gas. One point, on Green the Capitol, I have not been able to find a window that was Energy Star. I have not been able to find a window that was not a single-pane glass that is a great transfer of heat out and cold in. It seems like we ought to be using fuel-efficient first. Maybe that's our next objective. We're going to be accepting an amendment in a few minutes, and I am not going to protest it, I will not debate it, on light bulbs. It's going to mandate energy-efficient Star-rated light bulbs. I have them in my home. I have a large home. We have a lot of lights going, and I try to put them where I burn them all the time. But they are not very bright. They are not good for reading. My wife has replaced the one in her reading chair. They buzz sometimes, they just buzz like a transformer, so they are not exactly what we are used to. Oh, by the way, next year at this time, every light bulb in the Capitol will be made in Communist China, will have mercury in it, and the incandescent light bulb industry that's left in this industry, and I have two plants, those good union jobs will be leaving quicker, not later. I am not saying Americans shouldn't switch, but we need to know what we're doing. I believe we need to have a much more thoughtful approach and look at where the jobs are in America in that we are transferring jobs to China. We're putting mercury into the workplace, and we're eliminating some of the best jobs that we have back in our districts. We need to think about that.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I think this is one of the more important amendments we're going to deal with today. America needs available power, and especially electric power. We have a system that has not worked. The legislation doesn't give the Federal Government the right to usurp States rights. It only gets involved when multiple States can't get their job done. I was in State government for 19 years, and I wouldn't bet the farm on four PUCs adequately performing on a time basis so we could connect our grid. Here's what Bill Richardson said in 2001. ``The United States has a first-rate economy. We're the Superpower of the world, the best military, a booming technological economy, but we've got a grid that is antiquated, that is Third World, that needs beefing up. We've got very weak power transmission lines to connect our generation capacity.'' And here's what Sam Bodman said in 2006, a year ago. ``The Nation is currently facing serious near problems in adequately delivering electricity to its customers.'' It means we have to fix the grid. And we've been unable to get States to work together collectively. This is a process that only kicks in when the States can't get their job done. Connecting this country is a national issue. I don't want my State in charge of the national grid. I had a Governor's person come into my office protesting a power line that was proposed. It had been off of the table by the PGM for a year and a half and they didn't even know it. It wasn't even up for consideration. And the three States that were involved in the little piece that was left was not that State. Folks, there's a lot of disinformation out here. The connectivity of our electric system is vital to our economic future and we need a process. This was put in the energy bill because it wasn't working, because we couldn't upgrade our grid. And two Secretaries of Energy and leaders across this country, the Edison Institute, all say, don't pass this amendment.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Dr. Warren F. Witzig, of State College, PA, who died on June 13, 2007. Dr. Witzig, who was born on March 26, 1921, was one of the pioneers of nuclear power. Indeed, the Penn State Nuclear Engineering Society recently honored him as a ``visionary and innovator in the establishment of the United States nuclear power industry.'' The Penn State community, his friends and colleagues, and most importantly, his family, will miss him. Dr. Witzig received a B.S. in electrical engineering in 1942, from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, in Troy, NY; an M.S. in electrical engineering in 1944, from the University of Pittsburgh, and a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Pittsburgh. From 1942 to 1960, Dr. Witzig was employed at the Westinghouse Research Laboratories and Bettis Plant in Pittsburgh, PA. During World War II, he worked on the Manhattan District program on high vacuum systems, heat transfer, mass spectroscopy, and ionic centrifuge. He served as the first experimenter in the Materials Testing Reaction and later as engineering manager of in-pile tests for the naval reaction program in Hanford, Chalk River, and the MTR-ETR complex. Dr. Witzig took the reactor of USS Nautilus, the world's first nuclear-powered ship, critical for the first time in 1954 while serving as senior engineer. He was integral in the development of nuclear submarines used by the U.S. Navy, developing engineering that was vital to the Skipjack and George Washington series of nuclear submarines, which have been the backbone of the U.S. nuclear navy. After leaving government service, he traveled worldwide in his consulting practice, NUS Corp., which grew into one of the country's largest independent groups of nuclear consultants. He became professor and department head of Nuclear Engineering at the Pennsylvania State University in 1967. While at Penn State, Dr. Witzig was responsible for one of the earliest student programs in nuclear engineering in the United States. He established the undergraduate and associate degree programs and initiated the continuing education Program on Radiation, Nuclear Safety and Environmental Effects for Public Education. Dr. Witzig conducted research in areas of reactor design and safety, fuel cycle, nuclear safeguards, rad-waste disposal, emergency planning and radiation monitoring. Retiring from the university in 1986, he served on multiple public and private nuclear safety and oversight boards. Dr. Witzig chaired the Westinghouse GoCo Sites Nuclear Safety and Environmental Institute board of directors from 1988 to 1993. In 1979, Governor Richard Thornburgh called him into the service of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania during the emergency shutdown of Three Mile Island II. In June 1992, Witzig presented the paper, ``The Value of a Nuclear Safety and Environmental Committee,'' at the Ukraine Academy of Science at Chelyabinski State University. He toured the site of the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Dr. Witzig had been a life-long advocate of nuclear energy as a clean, safe, and efficient source of energy and also for the training, accreditation, and oversight of nuclear operators. Among Dr. Witzig's honors are Fellow, American Nuclear Society; Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Sigma Xi, Sigma Pi Sigma, and Eta Kappa Nu honor societies; Special Citation for an Engineering educator in Excellence in Engineering Education, EEl Power Engineering; Who's Who in Engineering and America; and Penn State's Outstanding Service Award for retirees. He was also a leader in his community, serving Ferguson Township as a financial auditor and working 6 years on the Planning Commission, establishing the township's first comprehensive zoning ordinance. A member of the State College Presbyterian Church, Dr. Witzig was an ordained elder of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. He served on the Christian Education committee, and was a Sunday School teacher. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our deepest sympathy to Dr. Witzig's family, especially his beloved wife Bernadette, his children Eric, Leah, Marc, and Lisa, his grandchildren Heather, Sean, Christie, Monica, Mallory, and Alicia, and his great grandchildren Madeline, Ava, and Miles. Our Nation owes a debt of gratitude to Dr. Witzig for his contributions to nuclear engineering. His leadership and ingenuity have saved lives, developed new technology, and advanced our knowledge of nuclear science.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky, Ranking Member Rogers, for yielding time and for the leadership he and Chairman Price have given this committee. It has been a pleasure to serve. I rise today to speak about an issue of vital importance to me, the infrastructure protection and our energy delivery system protection. This bill has $532 million to protect the infrastructure of this country. Our transportation system has been a very high focus because that is how we were attacked, the use of our transportation system. But in my view, the vulnerability of America is very much its infrastructure on energy. We lack oil refineries and cannot afford to have any refineries offline from a terrorist attack. We now import 13 percent of our gasoline from foreign countries and often have to bid for it when it's in the ship. Our natural gas system is struggling to furnish adequate and affordable natural gas for us to heat our homes and run our businesses because we are using huge amounts of it now to generate electricity. We are using large amounts of it now to make ethanol because it is a fuel. Ninety-six percent of all the new ethanol plants use natural gas. We are finding that natural gas is the mother's milk of this country, and any disruption in our pipeline system, because we are not able to produce adequate amounts of natural gas without any disruption in the current delivery system. Our electric grid, in my view, we were short on generating capacity; that has been beefed up because we have built a lot of natural gas electric generators. But we have not adequately invested, or in some cases have not been able to build the grid that connects our country. We need to have all of our country criss-crossed with a stronger grid, so that if any portion of it goes down, another portion, we can come in the back door with electricity. Our dependence on electricity and our use of electricity is growing every day. And in my view, with wind and solar slowly coming online, those are often in areas that we don't have a good hookup to the grid, and we need to build transmission lines to bring that capacity to the system. I believe the Department of Homeland Security must be more stringently identified as a priority within the Department of Homeland Security. I have said throughout the process of marking up this bill that the vulnerabilities of our electric grid, our pipeline system and our refinery system need to be a higher priority. I am thankful for the language that was accepted in this bill to require the Department of Homeland Security, with input from the Department of Energy, to provide a report on the most critical capacity limit segments of the North American electricity transmission and distribution network. And we probably ought to be doing the same for all of our other energy infrastructures. It is critical that we identify these segments and also identify if disruption of any of these segments would generate a cascading affect that could cripple the economy of our country. It is vital that we protect our energy infrastructure. I want to thank Mr. Rogers and Mr. Price for their dedication on this bill and their willingness to work with me on what I believe are the vulnerabilities that need to be beefed up to make sure this country has the energy it needs.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 445 to H. Res. 465, I was mistakenly recorded as an ``aye''. My intended vote was ``no''.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 237 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Stated against:

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, today I rise to acknowledge the 125th anniversary of the Garfield Masonic Lodge in Dubois, Pennsylvania. Established in 1882, the Garfield Lodge has selflessly served the DuBois community with high distinction for 125 years. I commend the Freemasons for their work and for instilling in its members the virtues of charity, benevolence, brotherly love, and practicing the moral principles of life. Again, I extend my best wishes to the Garfield Lodge and to all of the individuals that continue its good work, as they celebrate 125 years of service in my district on May 4, 2007.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, the situation we are facing in Iraq right now is serious. The resolution we are debating here tonight, unfortunately, is not. Everyone agrees the situation on the ground is unacceptable. To make it right, we need leadership, resources, and resolve. What we don't need is 36 hours of time trading speeches on a nonbinding measure, a measure that imparts no new policy, offers no new alternatives, and commands no real effect. Most of the speeches I have heard this week are about the war. On that subject, there is plenty of room for disagreement. But the resolution before us isn't about the war, it is about a specific tactical question: the number of troops we need to deploy to finish the job. I can't think of a group that is less qualified to make strategic and tactical decisions on the ground than 535 Members of Congress, sitting 6,000 miles away on Capitol Hill. Congress shouldn't be in the business of micromanaging war tactics. Should we debate the war in Iraq? Certainly. Can we disagree about its goals and purpose? Absolutely. But decisions on the ground need to be determined by our military commanders on the scene, and not public opinion polls. Of course, the other responsibility of Congress is, when it comes to wars, the power to fund them. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I take that responsibility seriously. But if my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee and in the full House think the war is a lost cause, if they think that sending more troops to help secure Iraq is the wrong strategy, they shouldn't hesitate to cut off the funding for the operation. I wouldn't support that measure, but at least it would be a measure of genuine intent, not a two-paragraph statement on military tactics we have on the floor this week. Mistakes have been made. But this is a mission that is consistent with our vital interest and worthy of our support. I don't believe President Bush has prosecuted this war flawlessly, and, frankly, I don't believe he has always particularly been well advised. But this strategy of reinforcement is not always supported by the President, it is supported by the military and the political leadership of Iraq. People have to understand something. We are facing an enemy like no other we have faced before, an ideological enemy driven by hate, not reason; an enemy for whom there can be no rest until the freedoms and values that define our civilization are destroyed. Victory is the only outcome that can be accepted. But the resolution we are debating on the floor this week was not written with ultimate victory in mind; it was written in expectation of defeat. And, unlike some of my colleagues, I am not willing to concede to defeat. So many families have sacrificed so that we can be successful in Iraq, and they are willing to sacrifice even more. To cut support for them now would be unforgiveable. You know, Mr. Speaker, watching the debate on the floor this week, my thoughts keep going back to the Loudon family who live in my district. Their son Christopher, a member of his college ROTC program, was deployed to Iraq after graduation and came home this fall in a flag- draped coffin. Their son Nicholas is a West Point graduate I nominated to the Academy, who served with his brother in Iraq, and he is heading back to Iraq this weekend for another tour of duty. Their son Jonathan, their youngest, and another one of my Academy nominees, is going to West Point this fall. The Loudon family had great concern over whether to send their third and youngest son to West Point. In the end, they were swayed by their son's commitment to serve his country and their shared belief that his mission is one worth fighting for. If the Loudons can remain strong and committed in the face of the most difficult circumstances any family can endure, why can't Congress? I have gotten other calls from families in my district. One mother called this week to tell me that her son, a young man named Nathan Stone whom I nominated to West Point in 2001, is currently serving in south Baghdad, sweeping the city, going door to door, risking his life so the Iraqis can live their lives with a basic security. And do you know what he told his mother to relate to me? He told her that they are making a difference, they are seeing progress. They need help, they need these troops, and they will be excited when they get them. If First Lieutenant Stone believes that these additional troops are vital to him completing his mission in Baghdad, that tells me a lot. And if the Loudons can send their youngest son to West Point knowing that he may some day be called into service himself, that tells me all I need to know. Mr. Speaker, no one likes war. No one wants our troops to be in Iraq one minute longer than they have to be to ensure the mission is accomplished. Reasonable people may disagree on strategy, but this resolution is not about alternative viewpoints. There are no different courses offered, no suggestions, and no responsibility taken. I stand with the Loudon family and Lieutenant Stone, and vote opposed to this resolution.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. To those that propose this bill, I want to tell you I support a large fund for renewables. I am for all renewables. But why did you choose to tax American-produced oil and gas and not tax foreign oil and gas? When you tax our production, you will have less of it, when you tax their production, you would have less foreign. You have stacked the deck. It is already cheaper to produce foreign energy than it is American energy. We have locked up so many of our fields, and where in old tired fields the cost of producing has increased, the incentive to go in deep water because it cost so much companies wouldn't go there, and we couldn't even get there. In 10 years since I have been here, we have increased foreign oil from 46 percent to 66 percent. Why is foreign energy taking over? Ninety percent of the land in this country available for oil production is government land, and this Congress has been locking so much of it up. I totally agree with a large renewable energy fund, but instead of increasing the cost of producing energy in America, open up new fields. The Outer Continental Shelf is our greatest untouched area. We are the only civilized country in the world that doesn't produce there. Everybody produces there. It makes no sense for us not to be there. We haven't even allowed seismic testing to find out what is there because we might produce it. Locking up supply by this Congress in the past, by Congress and by those proposing this bill, is why four of the oil companies are making huge profits. When energy usage is increasing more than renewables can increase, you need more oil and gas. And when you need more oil and gas and you lock it up, you give those who have purchased the rights to it all over the world, their $30 oil becomes $60 oil becomes $70 oil, that is where their huge profits are. It is the Congress of the United States that has rewarded Big Oil with increased profits.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask again: Why did we start the new energy independence with taxing domestic production but not taxing foreign oil? We are going to lead us in the wrong direction. In your anger against Big Oil, I understand that, but you are penalizing everybody. Eighty-two percent of natural gas is produced by independents; 68 percent of oil is produced by independents; 50 percent of refined products is from independents. My little refinery in Warren, Pennsylvania, will get taxed harder because of your new bill. And I have watched them struggle to fund clean diesel; I watched them struggle to fund clean gasoline units, very expensive. The use of foreign oil under your bill will continue at the same rate of increase, and I predict in 5 years will be 76 percent dependent. I am for all your renewables, I want to fund them all. But if we produce the energy, took the royalties from the new energy that keeps us alive in this country, we could fund them adequately. If we don't open new fields, we will not have a fertilizer industry, a petrochemical industry, a polymers and plastics industry, and we will make bricks and glass in South America.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership and knowledge that he has brought to this committee. It will be missed. The most important part of this bill was just discussed, the energy portion of this bill. This starts, for the first time, opening up some energy for America. It is interesting, Mr. Markey has talked about $170 billion thievery of our resources; 12.5 percent, or $55 million will go into the land and water conservation fund, if we produce it; and $225 billion will go into the treasury, if we produce the energy. America, for the last 5 years, has had the highest energy prices in the world. And our homeowners are paying more to heat their homes than Canada, South America, Europe. Our small businesses are paying the highest energy prices in the world, and our corporations are leaving this country. Petrochemical is moving. The best jobs we have left. Why? They use huge amounts of energy. Fertilizer. Fifty percent of the fertilizer industry has left in the last 2 years, and our farmers will be buying Russian fertilizer to grow corn to make ethanol. Does that make sense? Energy is the linchpin of the future of America's economy and the working people of this country having jobs. And the reason oil companies make excessive profits, when you shorten the supply of energy, the price goes up. And Congress is the reason we don't have adequate energy in this country. And many that we have heard today are the main speakers. And when you shorten the supply, the price goes up. And the oil companies who already own the inventories all over the world, the cheapest place to produce energy is in other countries, but when you produce it here, you create wealth in America for Americans and make it affordable for businesses to stay here and grow.