John Shimkus

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, it's a curious debate that we have in these 1-minutes. Democrats are bringing to the floor unemployment insurance and they will bring to the floor helping people with heating costs and cooling costs. The real job creation engine would be American-made energy with a couple of provisions. Since 1994 on votes on the floor of this House, on ANWR exploration, Republicans have supported 91 percent of the time, House Democrats have opposed ANWR exploration 86 percent of the time. On coal-to-liquid technologies, House Republicans have supported that 97 percent of the time. House Democrats have opposed taking American coal, American energy, turning it into liquid fuel. They have opposed it 78 percent of the time. On oil-shale exploration, House Republicans have supported it 90 percent of the time. Democrats have opposed 86 percent. OCS, Outer Continental Shelf, House Republicans have supported it 81 percent of the time since 1984. House Democrats have opposed it 83 percent of the time. On refineries, building new refineries, House Republicans have supported 97 percent of the time, House Democrats have opposed 96 percent of the time.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate Congresswoman Matsui managing the time. We've worked very hard on clean diesel issues and the like, so this is really appropriate to this debate though, because Amtrak uses big diesel engines. And what's happened in the Amtrak debate that we haven't heard yet, hopefully we'll hear it later on is, like, one of the biggest threats to Amtrak is the high cost of diesel fuel. In fact, the fiscal year 2007 budget for fuel was $125 million for Amtrak. The fiscal year 2008 budget for fuel for Amtrak is $215 million. Now, how are we going to pay for that? I know how they're going to pay for it. They're going to raise prices on these commuters. And there are some commuters who use Amtrak. But again, I'll quote the New York Times article that says ``the counties where motorists spend the highest percentage of their income on gasoline tend to be in poor, rural areas.'' Amtrak doesn't go there. We don't have commuter rails. We have working trucks. We have big trucks. We haul feed. We haul beef. We haul pork. We need working trucks and they drive a large distance. That's why this energy debate is critical. And here's the problem. All we're trying to do is bring, what's the problem, what's the solution. What's the problem. What's the solution. Here's the problem. January 2001. $23 a barrel. January 2006, after the Democrats took control and promised to lower fuel prices, that's right here, where are we today? $123 a barrel. What does that do for gas prices? From $1.45 to $2.33 to over $4 a gallon for gas hurts rural America, hurts my district. Don't come to the floor without a solution. The Outer Continental Shelf, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, billions of barrels of oil. We have in this Congress and Congresses of the past said ``off- limits.'' We're not going to explore this area. We're not going to recover. Very similar to our position on ANWR. A position a size of the State of South Carolina. A drilling platform the size of an airport. And we are not going to drill there for billions of barrels of oil. President Clinton vetoed that in 1995. Had he not, that oil would be flowing to our country today. 1995 he vetoed the bill. President Carter put it off-limits for oil and gas exploration. That's why ANWR was originally set aside, but, no, we have that off-limits. What is another solution? Coal-to-liquid technologies, diesel fuel that could help lower the price for Amtrak can be produced by taking U.S. coal, American energy, and turning it into fuel. We're going to come to this floor talking about, oh, unemployment compensation.

Mr. SHIMKUS. We're going to come to this floor saying, Oh, we've got to do something because energy heating costs are high; oh, we need to do something because people are losing their jobs. I will tell you how we can get jobs back into the economy. Let's use American-made emergency. Let's open up the coal fields. Let's get mine workers the jobs. Let's build a coal-to-liquid refinery. Good building trade jobs. Let's have high-paying jobs operating those refineries. Let's build pipelines to get this fuel to the Amtrak station to put in the diesel engines, and let's help our budget airlines not go bankrupt because of the high cost of fuel. Not just our budget airlines. Here is one on Continental: Continental joins cut-back frenzy. Soaring fuel prices. Why do we have a job problem in this country? Because we have an energy problem. Until we come to this floor to debate on bringing more supply to the American public, our economy is always going to be struggling. We're the only country that looks at energy resources not as an economic advantage but as an environmental disaster.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I feel sympathy for the folks paying these high gas prices. Here is a problem: On average, $3.98, take in climate change 50 cents and we'll be paying $4.48 a gallon. Here is the solution: Outer Continental Shelf, which is off-limits by appropriation bills; moving coal-to-liquid technology, which has been blocked here on motions to recommit; expanding renewable fuels, which has been helpful, but still is not the panacea. The New York Times, which is not one of our best supporters, says the counties were motorists spend the highest percentage of their income on gasoline tend to be poor, rural areas, which is what I represent. That is why I am on the floor monthly now talking about gas reaching $4 a gallon, refinery expansion delayed because of environmental attacks, the clean gas, $4 increase in price of natural gas bills. Our consuming public cannot stand these high prices any more. Our manufacturing base cannot. We have to bring on more supply.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. I would be happy to.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Reclaiming my time. But all those issues that you addressed, if we had American-made energy, if we weren't relying on imported crude oil, you know, why does the cheap dollar affect our price? Because we're buying crude oil overseas. If we were producing our own crude oil in our country, the dollar wouldn't matter. The speculators, you know the speculators. What are they betting? I love this debate. They are betting that we're going to do nothing. You want to go after the speculators? Bring on more supply. They're betting that this barrel is going to go up, not go down.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I would be happy to yield to my friend from Oregon.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank the gentleman. American jobs to build the pipeline. American jobs to operate our aviation industry. In fact, this plane here is a fighter plane, because the United States Air Force is the number one purchaser of aviation fuel in the world. For every dollar increase in a barrel of crude oil, you know what it costs our Air Force? $60 million. That's $60 million that doesn't go to training. That's $60 million that doesn't go to equipping. That's $60 million that doesn't help in meeting the budgetary demands. Let me just finish on this point. Let's assume we access these and we have oil and gas. Or let's assume we're in ANWR and we're getting the oil and gas and we're getting the royalties. At today's prices, do you know how much money would come to the Federal Treasury at today's prices from ANWR? $192 billion. Do you think that would help the nanotechnology budget? I think it would help extremely. Move us from a decrease in our reliance on imported crude oil, American-made energy, new science and technology, green power; and that's kind of what this debate is all about.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I want to thank the chairman for the time. With a minute left, I may not be able to yield to you, David. I would be happy to most times. This is the problem. $23 to $58 to $123. You only address that by bringing on more supply. We have oil and gas in the Outer Continental Shelf, and we need to be there. I've got margin oil wells. I've got oil all over the State of Illinois. Do you know why we don't drill on every acre? Because you're not going to find oil on every acre. Why are leases not put out? Because there may not be oil there. In fact, on the Outer Continental Shelf on the Atlantic coast we won't even inventory it. Last Congress we said no to inventory what we might have on the Eastern Seaboard. All I want to do is bring down crude oil prices. The only way you do it is bringing on more supply. It's clear from the votes over the past 12 years, Republicans want to bring on more supply. Democrats, the vast majority of them, do not. All we're asking is that we have some that want to do that.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me reclaim my time, and just go over, since 1994 and talk about this debate. In ANWR, which Clinton vetoed in 1995, we would have that oil today. House Republicans support ANWR 91 percent of the time on votes. House Democrats 86 oppose. Clear difference.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I come in support of this legislation, and have come to learn that this nanotechnology has great opportunities to help us in the whole energy debate. I think nanotechnology can help in the solar powered cells. I understand that nanotechnology might be able to help taking light energy and turning it into hydrogen, which is important. It can be very important in addressing the long-lasting battery issue debate which will move us to plug-in hybrids sometime in the future, which we all realize is an important aspect of what we need to do to get to energy independence. And, green nanoenergy, which is important in this whole climate debate. I also hope that nanotechnology can address some of the other pressing scientific needs: The issue of maybe reprocessing nuclear spent fuel. Maybe taking the carbon dioxide and splitting the carbon from the oxygen and addressing the climate change so we can use fossil fuels in a process that is going to be helpful. But we are still in the Buck Rogers era. We need to move in that direction. The question is, what are we going to do now? The question is, at this time, in this debate, what are we really going to do to immediately affect the high cost of energy on our constituents? I have been on this floor quite a bit, as we all know, debating this. I have heard my colleagues on the other side, and I am softening my rhetoric out of respect for my friends and I have actually changed some of my charts to address issues raised in the debate. So what is the primary problem that we have today? The problem we have is the escalation of crude oil prices in this country, from $23 when this administration came into the office, to $58 when the new majority came into the House, to $123 today. Now I am not trying to be partisan, I am just trying to be factual. That is what has happened to the barrel of crude oil prices and what has happened to the cost of gasoline. Well, it has gone up similarly in this response. So the question is, how do we address this problem if we believe in economics 101 and supply and demand? One way we could do it is opening the Outer Continental Shelf to oil and gas exploration. We have legislatively put off-limits through the appropriation process a prohibition, in some areas not to even do research to see if there is any natural gas or oil there, but we have said ``no'' to all these areas in red, that we are telling our public we do not want to look for oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf deep sea floor exploration 50 miles off the coast. We are saying ``no.'' Our debate is pretty simple. At a time of high costs of a barrel of crude oil, $123.85 a barrel, how can we not? How can we not go and look for our own resources? What we want, what we are asking for is American-made energy, American-made energy to decrease our reliance on imported crude oil in places that are not stable, in the Middle East, in Venezuela, that are holding us captive. We know there are resources there. Let me talk about another great opportunity that we have. In Illinois, the Illinois coal basin is basically the whole geography of the State of Illinois, and of course the chairman knows a lot and is very supportive of coal use in America. It also is Western Kentucky and the southwestern part of Indiana. We have as much coal in energy output as Saudi Arabia has oil just in the Illinois coal basin. So the question is, why aren't we using it to decrease our reliance on imported crude oil? Why aren't we using coal in turning it into liquid fuel? Look at the benefits we have of coal fields: American made energy. A coal field in America, American jobs mining that coal, American jobs to build the coal to liquid refinery.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, you may. I'm just going to debate. If we had the resources from the royalties on oil and gas exploration in the outer continental shelf or if we had the resources from the royalties from ANWR, we would have the money to be able to segue into a national debate on solar, on wind, on biotechnology, on the nanotechnology. There is a whole pot of money out there. A lot of people in America think that we have no fossil fuels, no energy resources left in this country. So this is the problem. I mean you kind of identified it, but when a barrel of crude oil is $23 in January 2001 and in January 2006 it goes up double and now it's up double again, that's the problem. We have to have a long-term and a short-term strategy. Our debate is the science and technology. That's a long-term debate. But what do we do about easing the cost of the high food prices, which is in direct correlation to energy costs? We're talking about schools. What is the number one problem in schools today? Diesel prices for school buses has doubled. Energy costs for heating and cooling are doubling. That goes to the local taxpayer. So we ought to be talking about this.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield to my friend.

Mr. SHIMKUS. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Reclaiming my time, you all want to do no exploration, no gas, no coal, no nuclear, which brings costs up. We're saying let's bring on more supply. Let's mitigate the cost. Let's plan for the future. We are talking about now. We are not talking about 30, 40 years from now. We need to talk about that debate. Your committee is a great committee to talk about the future, but we have got $123 a barrel of crude oil today. No nanotechnology, no recognizing science and education is going to bring that cost down.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, I will. So we're willing to talk about this, but golly, if we're not talking about energy and the price of gasoline at the pump, then what are we doing?

Mr. SHIMKUS. Reclaiming my time, we want to talk about the future, but what our constituents are talking about is the present. There has been more than $1.68 increase in gasoline prices. How can we even send our kids to the university if energy costs have doubled? We should have both debates, and we should not be afraid to talk about how to get out of this problem.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I apologize to my friend from New Jersey because, if we are not talking about the number one issue in America on the floor of the House, then what are we here for? Science and technology is critical to decrease our reliance on imported crude oil. Science and technology will bring us to a new era where we don't have to rely on the energy supplies of the past. So I concur, and I support this resolution, and I'm glad people are debating it. But you know what the people in America are debating. You know it. Everybody was home during the last 10 days. They're talking about this, and this is what we ought to be doing. You mentioned in your discussion that we don't have the funds. Well, if we went into ANWR, which is the size of the State of South Carolina and had a drilling path that formed the size of Dulles Airport or a football field and put a postage stamp on that, we've got the revenues. Just with the royalties from ANWR we could fund science and technology. In fact, we're going to have a resources bill on the floor that's going to address at least the pay- for, which was a method to address Mr. DeFazio's issue on leases.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I submit the following: Requesting Member: Rep. John M. Shimkus (IL-19). Bill Number: HR 5658. Account: US Air Force Unfunded Requirements List C-40D Procurement Line 58. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: US Air Force, 932nd Airlift Wing. Address of Requesting Entity: Scott Air Force Base, IL 62225. Description of Request: The $88 million is included in the bill to procure new C40D aircraft stationed at Scott AFB, Illinois. This new aircraft will allow US Air Force to be able to support cargo, passenger, humanitarian, Homeland Defense, and emergency relief requirements of the 932nd Airlift Wing. Matching funds: This is a full federally funded project for the US Air Force.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. SHIMKUS. I'm not going to argue. It's my time. I will debate, but I won't argue. It's my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, this short-term extension is important. It's just too bad that we couldn't extend the low cost of energy that we had 18 months ago. Eighteen months ago the price of a barrel of crude oil was $58.31. Today it's $128 a barrel, a $70 increase. What's important to small businesses is the cost of doing business. And the increase in energy cost, the increase in liquid fuel cost, the increase in electricity cost, bears a disproportionate share of the cost today, more so than 18 months ago.