Tim Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think it's important that we realize that this is not going to be some kind of very narrow solution to the problems that the country is in now. The point is that when President Bush came into office, there was a pretty good economic forecast, a lot of things were stable, it was time to make some key investments. That did not happen, and the situation got dramatically worse. The middle class has continued to get squeezed, whether it was energy costs, health care costs, tuition costs, everything in the 6 years in which the President was pushing all of his agendas. I've said this more than one time on this House floor. There is no need to wonder about what the neoconservative Republican agenda would look like, because we are living in it today. All you have to do is go to the gas pump, get your health care bill, pay your kids' college tuition, deal with the global environment, look at the foreign policy of this country, the destabilization of the Middle East, unable to deal with China. We deal with a lot of trade issues, with China, with Wheatland Tube that has a facility in my district, a facility in your district, in imports coming in from China. It's tough for us to advocate the administration to be hard on China, to take a firm stance on China, because the administration at the same time is borrowing money from China to finance the $12 billion a month for the war in Iraq. So the foreign policy of the United States has destabilized the region where a lot of the oil is, and that has not helped the situation. Our domestic problems continue to exist because we are living under the President's current economic policies. The debt burden that has been placed on our children and grandchildren over the next generation was put in place, the $3 trillion borrowed, this is the conservative Republican agenda currently implemented. We are trying now to take the Congress in a new direction and to move into alternative energy so we don't have this dependency which would relieve the pressure for a lot of the foreign policy issues that we are dealing with, to use PAYGO to pay for what we are spending here in Washington D.C., to try to repair this debt and eventually pare down the debt so that we can have a firm negotiating stance with China, these all fit together. We can't continue to go down this same road. At every instance, the New Direction Congress has changed course from the current administration. But that did not stop the President from coming before the American people today and asking the American people to continue to go down a road that is a dead end, and that's drilling. It's amazing to me, whether we are dealing with the supplemental, or dealing with the regular order of business here in Congress, when we try to push an agenda of helping the soldiers, for example, we are trying to get the GI Bill, which would pay for 4 years of college for our soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, for free. They have served this country. We need an economic recovery, we need brain power. These young men and young women should have 3, 4 years of college. But the President says, we don't have the money and turns around and asks for $140 billion in the supplemental to continue the war at $12 billion a month. Now, I don't think anyone is saying tomorrow, we are going to be able to pull out of Iraq. I think everyone knows that this would be a process. But what we are saying is why do we always have money for war, and then when our soldiers come back and we want to put them through college and reward the effort, all of a sudden the President says we don't have the money when he has just got done borrowing $3 trillion. I yield to my friend.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Well, we have other illustrative charts here. This is the Outer Continental Shelf: The acres that have been leased and the acres producing. So this is in the Outer Continental Shelf already, 44 million acres, and only 10.5 million acres are being utilized. That's in the Outer Continental Shelf. It just helps. You read it, but it helps. These are statistics that are coming from the Energy Department. These aren't things that we're making up.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Absolutely. One of the issues is we have in this country only 300 million people. We are now competing in a globalized economy with China and India and a variety of other rising economic countries. So we have to make a point that all of our 300 million citizens, a major disadvantage in human capital, are educated. You've probably had a similar experience as I have had dealing with interns and staff members and people you have met back in the district. The benefits that a soldier brings to your organization, because of the discipline, the focus and the organizational skills, the ability to deal with situations that are very challenging, and you add to that a college degree or a master's degree or a Ph.D. or a law degree, you are talking about someone who is prepared to really contribute value to whatever organization they are joining, whether it is government or business. There can't be a better investment to make. And why is it that we have enough wherewithal to borrow the money for the $12 billion a month, but when these soldiers come back, the President says I'm going to veto that bill. We don't have the money for that bill. I think of all of the issues that you mentioned earlier, it is important for us to recognize that last year under a Democratic Congress, led by Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid, we made the largest increase for veterans' benefits in the 77-year history of the VA because as Democrats, we are committed to the soldiers. Whether you are on one side of the war issue or another, we all say we are behind the soldier. And when the soldier comes home, you will have the health care and the benefits you deserve. And we want to add onto that this GI bill. So we have made that commitment and will continue to push for that commitment for this GI bill so we can reward the soldiers. It is important for us to deal with this issue. All of these posters with all of the information can be found on the Speaker's Website, the 30-Something Website that we have. You will be able to find, you will be able to get all of these. All of these are available for Members to look at and analyze and to get a visual of what we have been talking about over the last few minutes.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That's exactly correct. That lets the facts speak for themselves. That's why we always have third-party validators and, as we stated earlier, go back to the war. Now you have the President's former press secretary talking about what really happened: ``We're going to be able to use the oil for reconstruction.'' ``We're going to be greeted as liberators.'' ``We had nothing to do with outing a CIA agent.'' ``If we just keep cutting taxes for rich people, the middle class will at some point benefit, and we will stimulate the whole economy.'' ``The tax cuts lead to more revenue.'' Is that why we borrowed $3 trillion over the last 3 years? And now it's if we just drill more, we're going to reduce the cost of gas, which is not the case. Or if we just drill in ANWR, we're going to significantly reduce the cost of gas. Then it was in the last week or two, China's right off the coast of Cuba stealing it from us. We should be there. Not true. All of these have not been true, and now the same gentlemen who provided all of those arguments and used the bully pulpit to provide all those arguments are now saying, let's just keep going down the wrong road. I yield to my friend.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I just want to share, because this is third-party validation. Mr. Speaker, I would ask to have this submitted for the Record, all these quotes in order. Vice President Dick Cheney: ``Oil is being drilled right now 60 miles off the coast of Florida. We're not doing it. The Chinese are in cooperation with the Cuban government.'' That was June 12. Minority Leader Boehner: ``Right at this moment, some 60 miles or less off the coast of Key West, Florida, China has the green light to drill for oil in order to lower energy costs in that country. Do Congressional Democrats really trust the Chinese that much more than Americans?'' That was from June 11 of this year. Minority Whip Roy Blunt: ``Even China recognizes that oil and natural gas is readily available off our shores; thanks to Fidel Castro, they've been given a permit to drill for oil 45 miles from the Florida Keys. U.S. energy producers can't go there, and that's because our Congress won't let them.'' That was also on June 11. But then, as you stated earlier, Congressional Research Service says, facts, third-party validator, nonpartisan Congressional Research Service: ``While there has been some concern about China's potential involvement in offshore deepwater oil projects, to date its involvement in Cuba's oil sector has been focused on onshore extraction in Pinar del Rio province through its state-run China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation (Sinopec).'' From the Miami Herald, they had a quote from Jorge Pinon, an energy expert at the University of Miami: ``China is not drilling in Cuba's Gulf of Mexico waters, period.'' This gentleman, from Miami's Center for Hemispheric Policy, who supports oil and gas exploration, said he met with several congressional offices Wednesday about the China-Cuba connection. He said he told them: ``If you guys want to use this as a scare tactic to lift the moratorium on drilling off the west coast of Florida, at least be factual, be correct. They didn't do their homework.'' June 12, 2008 Republicans Use Scare Tactics To Promote Failed ``Drill & Veto'' Energy Policies of the Past; GOP Claims China Is Drilling for Oil Off Florida's Coast Proven False American families and businesses are struggling to keep up with skyrocketing gas prices--now averaging a record high of $4.06 per gallon across the country. Instead of working with Democrats to pass legislation addressing high energy costs and moving America to energy independence, Congressional Republicans are spreading scare tactics and proven falsehoods to push their failed ``drill and veto'' energy policies of the past. Republican leaders--including Vice President Cheney--have recently claimed that China is drilling for oil off the coast of Cuba ``60 miles off the coast of Florida.'' But the facts show China does not have a deepwater drilling contract in Cuba. From the Congressional Research Service: ``While there has been some concern about China's potential involvement in offshore deepwater oil projects, to date its involvement in Cuba's oil sector has been focused on onshore oil extraction in Pinar del Rio province through its state- run China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation. (Sinopec)'' [CRS, 2/29/08] From today's Miami Herald: ``China is not drilling in Cuba's Gulf of Mexico waters, period. . . .,'' said Jorge Pinon, an energy expert at the University of Miami's Center for Hemispheric Policy. . . . ``Pinon, who supports oil and gas exploration, said he met with several congressional offices Wednesday about the China- Cuba connection. He said he told them: `If you guys want to use this as a scare tactic to lift the moratorium on drilling off the west coast of Florida, at least be factual, be correct.' They didn't do their homework.'' [6/12/08] The New Direction Congress is committed to bringing real relief to those feeling the pinch from high gas and diesel prices and ensuring the needs of families and businesses are put before the interests of Big Oil. The American people deserve the truth and a cleaner, greener, more energy efficient future. Republican Scare Quotes: Vice President Dick Cheney: ``[O]il is being drilled right now 60 miles off the coast of Florida. We're not doing it. The Chinese are in cooperation with the Cuban government.'' [6/12/08] Minority Leader John Boehner: ``Right at this moment, some 60 miles or less off the coast of Key West, Florida, China has the green light to drill for oil in order to lower energy costs in that country . . . Do congressional Democrats really trust the Chinese that much more than Americans?'' [6/11/08] Minority Whip Roy Blunt: ``Even China recognizes that oil and natural gas is readily available off our shores; thanks to Fidel Castro, they've been given a permit to drill for oil 45 miles from the Florida Keys. U.S. energy producers can't go there, and that's because our Congress won't let them.'' [6/11/08] Rep. George Radanovich (R-California): ``Florida, for example, has objected to U.S. oil exploration off its coast. But China, thanks to a lease issued by Cuba, is drilling for oil just 50 miles off Florida's coast. America's offshore drilling policy amounts to a government handout of U.S. natural resources to foreign countries in the name of environmental protection.'' [6/10/ 08]

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I'm sure the oil companies spent a good deal of money to identify the area. They hired a lot of geologists whom, I'm sure, they have working for them. They spent a lot of money and used a lot of technology to identify this. But this is the area that is underdeveloped, and the President comes out and says ignore all of this, and go to ANWR or do this, which is not even being done now, and then go to ANWR. There are 4.8 million barrels of oil that would come out of this per day at maximum production and, in ANWR, 800,000. This is the Outer Continental Shelf and this is onshore. It's the same kind of situation: 47 million. Only 13.2 acres that are actually in production right now. Again, there is the number of permits. It's interesting because we kind of went through this a few years back. You'd hear testimony from executives, and you'd hear about supply and demand. Then with the situation dealing with Enron, all of a sudden, it was not supply and demand. All of a sudden, it was all this manipulation that was going on. Our job here is to oversee what is going on in the markets and figure out how we can make sure that everything is above board, that everything is legal. Now, a few weeks ago on a Friday, the increase in the cost of a barrel of oil was more than a whole barrel of oil cost 10 years prior to. Something funny is going on here, and I think we need to move with the commodities issue. We've already done the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We've already passed out of the House that which deals with the cartels. These are steps that we are taking, but if we don't move into the alternative energy category, we're going to be sitting here 10 years from now, dealing with the same, exact issue that we're dealing with today.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity. I want to immediately yield to my friend. There were a lot of facts thrown out here, and the folks who are paying attention here in the Chamber may want to hear the response. I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Now here, does drilling lower gas prices? Okay. So the red here are drilling permits that have been issued from 1994. The blue are the wells that have been drilled. So you see that the permits have increased, especially in the last few years. The red are the permits. The blue are the wells that have been drilled and the wells that have not been drilled as to the permitting. So with all of this going on, the price of gas has skyrocketed, commodities issues and a lot of other things going on here. But what we are saying is, you have all of these permits to drill where the executive branch, President Bush's executive branch, is telling us that this is where the oil is, and the oil companies have found the oil there and got the permits and did the studies as you have pointed out earlier. And they have all this room here to dig, to drill, to pull the rigs up and to do everything that they have to do. And this is where you could pull out where these leases are, 4.8 million barrels of oil a day. In ANWR, it is how many barrels of oil a day?

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And that would save you 2 cents.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. So that's what we're saying, and that's what the whole new direction of Congress has been about, which is, when you're making these decisions, you have to base your public policy decisions on the facts. When the facts say this, that no matter how much you're drilling and you're not keeping up for whatever reason and you only have not even 2 percent of the total oil in the world that is in the United States, 1.6 percent, and you're consuming 25 percent, any businessperson who is sitting in our seat here, looking at these facts, would say we've got a problem. We can't keep drilling. You know, maybe we need to drill now and do what we can in the short term, but this is no long-term solution. This is clearly a problem that we have for our country. So, nuclear, biodiesel, wind, coal to liquid, whatever the case may be, those are the directions in which we need to move. Now, a lot of folks are talking about refining capacity, so I think it's important to realize that our refineries are currently running at 88 percent. We are not at full capacity with our refineries. Everyone keeps saying, ``Build more refineries. Build more refineries.'' In 2005, there was a 50 percent tax credit for any company that wanted to build a new refinery, and they have not. All of the big dogs over the last 20 or 30 years have said we have no interest in building a new refinery. They're making $130 billion in profits a year. Now, all of a sudden, we feel bad for the oil companies? The President basically came out today and said I know we're running down a dead end, but let's run faster. Let's put the juices on. Put on your new tennis shoes. You know, put on two pairs of socks so you don't get any blisters, and keep running down the wrong road until you just smack your head right into the wall. What we're saying is we know how that movie ends. We know. We don't have enough oil to drill our way out of this thing. That's how that ends. So let's, please, go in another direction, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It would be very little impact. I tell my constituents this all the time when we are chatting, if there is a politician that has one silver bullet, if we just do this, that all of these problems are going to go away, be very, very, very skeptical. We grow up learning, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The oil companies are spending a lot of money, I'm sure, through Internet traffic, through advertising and TV about how they're going green. So ExxonMobil, Mr. Speaker, has spent--the industry totally--$52 million on advertising about how they're going green and everything else. ExxonMobil, of their $40 billion in profits, has spent $10 million on alternative energy research and development. That is not the direction. So, when we say that it is important for us to shoot the Moon like we did in the 1960s and get into the alternative energy, that's why. That's what we have to do. I yield to my friend.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time, you are exactly right. We could sit here, Mr. Speaker, and blame each other about whose fault it is. I say that as a point of clarification, because one is now you have solutions that you didn't implement while you were in, they didn't implement while they were in, Mr. Speaker. So I think that is an important point to make. But the discussion here today is look at what the Democrats have done. We are trying to repeal the $14 billion in corporate welfare. We are trying to crack down on the commodities futures trading. We are trying to make sure that oil companies can't just hold leases and not develop them, and not develop them and diligently pursue the natural resources that are there. That is what we are saying. The other side is saying, go to ANWR. Now, that is not a solution. So the discussion that we are having here is that your side is saying, go to ANWR and drill, and we are saying there is 68 million acres, 8,000 leases, and they are only using a quarter of them. The oil companies are holding them. They could get 4.2 billion barrels a day, and they are not doing it. That only leaves one conclusion. I guess we are kind of blaming each other. But if you put up drilling in ANWR or drill in what we have now and focus billions of dollars on an alternative energy policy and strip the $14 billion from the oil companies and make sure that if they get leases they got to use them and make sure that there is not all kinds of monkey business going on in the commodities market, that is our solution, which your side votes against. We are going to have an election. You guys are going to say drill in ANWR, we are going to say alternative energy, and the people are going to decide. So we can blame each other all we want, but the people are going to hear our position, they are going to hear your position, and they are going to hear the presidential candidates' positions, and they are going to decide who they want to vote for. I believe and our caucus believes that when we get the message out that there are already 68 million acres to be developed, there are 8,000 leases being held by the oil companies, that they are only using a quarter of them, that it will look like our friends on the other side are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the oil companies. And we are going to have a vote at some point on Mr. Rahall's bill that will allow and force the oil companies that if they have leases to use them, that you may fall on the one side of that and we may fall on the other, and then the people will have that vote to decide on. I am getting a bit redundant, but we want to make sure our friends who are just kind of passing through the debate catch both sides. The gentleman from Indiana, I know he is a busy man, but if you have time tonight, me and your partner in crime there will be on Fox TV, on Hannity & Colmes, to further this discussion, and I very much look forward to it. I think my partner in crime, Mr. Meek, is not here, will not be here, and I will take your thank-you's later, because you had more of my special order than I had.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Well, you are going to get the next hour.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield back the balance of my time. I will wait and listen to you.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time. I have a great deal of respect for my friend from Indiana. I wanted to give him an opportunity to speak his peace. It's not up to us, and that is the point I was going to make. This is already available. It's the oil companies that are not pursuing this. They have the leases. They have the space. They have the okay, but they're the ones that aren't doing the drilling, and that's the point. One of the reasons is that there is a difference between the certifications. When you have to mine for coal and you get one of these permits and you get the ability to lease, there's a 20-year lease for coal companies, but you have to show that you're diligently developing your mining with coal. Under oil and gas, it's only a 10-year lease that is renewable, but you don't have to show that you're diligently developing the leases and that you're diligently developing the mining in trying to get the oil and the gas out. So the oil companies have the leases--they have the ability to do it--but the law does not require them to show a diligent developing of a particular resource. That is the problem. So they're holding the leases and are, in our minds, driving up the cost. Now, I think there are some other things going on, too, with commodity markets and whatnot, but this is the gist. There is a bill that is coming out of Mr. Rahall's office from the Natural Resources Committee, the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act of 2008. I will be happy to share with my colleague and have my staff get to your staff the proper information here because there is no reason why they're not developing it, and that's the problem that we have here. So look at what is going on in the commodities market. We have passed a bill out of this House of Representatives to try to address that problem. If we soon pass Mr. Rahall's bill that will deal with the lease issue and the oil companies' being able to hold onto these leases, I think then we can force these folks to either get rid of the leases and get them in the hands of somebody who will actually do the drilling or they will have to drill it themselves, but you have to show diligence in developing that particular resource that you're going after. So that's really the main issue here, and I appreciate the opportunity to bring that up and to further expound on that point because it puts the ball right back in the court of the oil companies'. So, on all of these prongs, whether it's futures or whether it's the leases or whether it's the $14 billion in subsidies that the taxpayers have given the oil companies, on each of these issues, we're trying to change the policy, and we want to join with the Republicans to help us to do that because a lot of this oil and gas is available to be developed, to be explored, to be used here in the United States of America. Not only that, there is a bill that we passed, I think, in 2005 that would allow a 50 percent tax credit to build refineries. That is one of the other points that has been made, which is of the refineries. Why aren't there more refineries? Refineries now are only working at 85 percent capacity.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would be happy to yield. I'm going to yield to you because you're my friend, but I'm going to have to leave, so I'm not going to get a chance to rebut you guys, but go ahead, because Mr. Westmoreland and I are going to be on Fox later, so we'll be glad to take that up over there.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Well, regardless of how we develop it, I think this is what we have done. We put billions of dollars into research and development, and we will continue to put more into research and development, maybe even over the protests of some of the folks on your side of the aisle. But you could talk about oil shale and you could talk about all of these the other issues. We have 68 million acres right now, there are 8,000 leases, and you folks keep talking, Mr. Speaker, the other side keeps talking about going up to ANWR, when we have 68 million acres already to be tapped, 8,000 leases ready to develop this. They are only using a quarter of them. Go ahead and drill. But why do we have to go up to ANWR, when we already have the ability to do it now? That is all we are saying. So, yeah, we should use technology to figure out other ways to develop oil and the coal-to-liquid. As long as you are sequestering the CO2, speaking on behalf of myself now, I don't have any problem with it. You have nuclear plants that are going on and permits and leases for moving that process forward. So this is going to be a comprehensive bill and a comprehensive approach to all this. But when you have the oil companies getting $14 billion, you have the commodities problem that you have, and you have them buying leases and holding them because they don't have to diligently develop, like they have to do for coal, you get skyrocketing gas costs, and that is what we are trying to fix here. The oil companies have more incentives than they could ever possibly need. They have been getting $14 billion in basically corporate welfare. They get a 50 percent tax credit to develop a refinery, and they still haven't done that. So these issues are hanging around here, and we are trying to change it and the rhetoric from the other side is we got to go to ANWR, when we already have the ability to address these problems here. So I think we have a comeprehensive approach on how to fix this problem. It is much different. And, again, to just say, you know, Mr. Speaker, it was the other side. They were in charge for 6 years, had the House, had the Senate, had the White House, and we are currently living under their energy policy and the Bush economy.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We are happy to. You guys are going to have more time on my Special Order than I am.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time. I'd like to chat with you about it. I think it would be important to have Mr. Rahall involved in that conversation. Our argument on this side, and I think it is not a prima facie case here, these are the facts that have been explored. They have the leases, they have the land, there is nothing preventing them from doing it. You have a 50 percent tax cut on refineries. They still haven't done that. And we are giving them $14 billion to help develop this stuff. I mean, how much more do you need? And you are the most profitable industry in the country. So it leaves folks like us to say, you know, you are obviously not doing things properly, because the price of oil is going up. And I agree, obviously China and India are a major component of this. No one is saying it will be $20 a barrel if we implement this stuff. But if you talk about it, most people are saying anything between a 10 and 100 percent increase because of the commodity trading, which probably puts it somewhere in the middle at 40 percent, which would be 40 or 50 bucks a barrel. That alone would reduce it to about 90 bucks a barrel. Now, drilling has increased by 66 percent since 2000, so there is more drilling going on to try to keep pace with that. But the prices have increased. Last Friday a barrel of oil increased more in one day than it cost 10 years ago. That is a significant increase, and you can't say there are some shenanigans going on here. All we are asking is, I think if we pass something like the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Relief Act of 2008, if we say that you have to diligently develop those leases that you have, I think that would be a piece of this argument, to say you got the lease, you are not allowed to sit on it. Either develop it or give it to someone else. No one here is saying we are going to be off oil tomorrow. What we are saying is we don't want to be in the same situation a decade from now or two decades from now because we opened up ANWR and saved 2 cents a gallon. That is not going to get us where we want to be. And the sooner we take the brain power here in the United States of America and put it to work to develop some of these alternative energies, the better off we are going to be. So, 68 million acres, 4.8 million barrels a day, 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas, this is the direction we need to be going in. This is the direction that I think Americans want us to go in, Mr. Speaker. This is the direction that the Speaker and the Democrats want to lead this country in.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I'd be happy to yield.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be on the floor of the House of Representatives here in the United States of America to talk about issues that are pressing, representing the 30- Something Working Group. I will be joined shortly by my friend, Congressman Meek of Florida, who will join us through this discussion. I want to talk about a couple of issues that are pertinent to what has been going on in our country. I think the most pressing issue that we've been dealing with in this Congress and that, I think, most of our constituents are dealing with every single day is what is going on with our energy policy here in the United States of America. We have heard, as Democrats have come into office with Speaker Pelosi's leading this House of Representatives, is that one of the key issues that we're trying to deal with is to make sure that our country is energy-independent and to reduce our dependency not only on oil but especially on foreign oil and to move off of oil in general, into renewable energy, into biodiesel, into solar, into wind, into nuclear, into a lot of these other areas that will allow us to be energy- independent, that will provide for renewable energy and that will provide a stable supply of energy here in the United States. One of the issues that keeps coming up is: Why don't we keep drilling? Why don't we drill in ANWR? That will solve our problem. I'm sure, in the next special order, the folks who are paying attention to this debate will get the other side of this. But from our perspective and from what the analysts are telling us, if you begin drilling in ANWR and if you start the process today, it will be 10 years from now before you get one drop of oil out of ANWR. If you continue, in 10 years, you will get 40,000 barrels of oil a day in a market that has 80 million barrels of oil. In 20 years, you will get yourself up to about 800,000 barrels of oil a day, and you will reduce the cost of a gallon of gas by 1.8 cents per gallon. Now, that is 20 years from now. So, if we start today, in 20 years, we will have a savings of 1.8 cents per gallon of gas. From our perspective, that is not a long-term strategy. One of the reasons that it is not a long-term strategy is that we have now currently 68 million acres of land on the continental shelf, onshore, that is eligible to be drilled upon. There are 8,000 leases for drilling on these acres of land, 8,000. Of these 8,000 leases, there are only about a quarter of them that are actually being used or that are being pursued. What we are saying is, if you have 68 million acres of land and if you have 8,000 leases already to drill on those acres of land, why do we need to go somewhere else up in ANWR--up in Alaska--when we're not even drilling in the areas that we have now in which the oil companies have permission to go and drill? That is the question. So we have this available to us now, and if we got into the 68 million acres of land, that would produce 4.8 million barrels a day.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Before we were even born. But they have been dealing with this issue of oil and gas and the Middle East and dictators and how do we do this and prop up this one and try to figure it out. In this whole scheme, I was watching a thing on Darfur last night. The only reason we couldn't get things done in Darfur is because China has oil in Sudan and we couldn't go in there because they were blocking things at the UN. Oil has become a major, major geopolitical and domestic problem in the United States of America. It has come to a head, and it is Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the Democrats who are trying to move us off the dime and say long-term alternative energy is the investment. If we drilled in ANWR today, in 20 years you would save 1.8 pennies per gallon of gas. We can't drill our way out of this thing. So if we don't start getting innovative and having a NASA-shoot-the- moon project for alternative energy, we are going to be in the same spot a decade from now, two decades from now. Our constituents did not elect us to come down here and play politics with this.