Today I introduced the Promoting New American Energy Act to accelerate tax depreciation for renewable energy investments and other energy technologies.

Specifically, this bill would accelerate tax depreciation to 3 years for investments in newer, cleaner, and more efficient energy technologies. By encouraging greater investment in solar, wind, geothermal and more, these alternatives become a bigger part of our arsenal of energy options more quickly. And a diverse arsenal of solutions will decrease our dependence on foreign oil and curb our gas costs.

According to a study by the nonprofit, nonpartisan American Council for Capital Formation, investments in alternative energy experience less favorable tax depreciation rules in the U.S. compared to many other countries. My legislation will put America on better footing globally and take us one step closer to increasing our domestic energy production.

The fact of the matter is that our nation is in an energy crisis and Congress needs to do everything in its power to increase domestic energy production and exploration. By establishing new tax incentives to encourage purchases of energy production equipment and technologies, this bill provides American businesses with the tools needed to increase production and lower our current sky-rocketing energy costs.

I also had the privilege today to attend and address the 11th Annual Congressional Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency EXPO Forum.

At the forum, I got to speak a little bit about this new piece of legislation, and I have a little clip here you can check out:

The event brought together nearly fifty businesses, sustainable energy industry trade associations, government agencies, and energy policy research organizations to showcase the status and potential of the broad cross-section of renewable energy (biofuels/biomass, geothermal, solar, water, wind) and energy efficiency technologies.

This bill is a vital piece of my All-of-the-Above energy strategy that calls for an increase in the production and exploration of America’s own energy resources, but improves conservation and energy efficiency and promotes new and ever-improving energy technologies to help bring gas costs down.

Today, the Democrat majority in the House of Representatives got their wish. By a mere one vote (213 to 212), the Democrats will be able to sneak out of Washington for the entire month of August without doing anything to address our nation's sky-rocketing energy prices. Just 17 Democrats broke ranks with Speaker Pelosi and joined the 195 Republicans in voting against this measure, but we still fell one vote short.

With gas prices over $4 a gallon, the Democrats have voted to give themselves a vacation at the same time gas prices are preventing Americans from taking vacations of their own. And some around here wonder why Congress' approval rating is at 9%. 

The July 28th issue of Time Magazine showcased a rather scathing essay lambasting the inaction of the 110th Congress entitled, Throw the Bums Out.

"The 260 laws passed by the 110th Congress represent a 30-year low, and they include the naming of 74 post offices, not to mention the nonbinding resolutions designating July National Watermelon Month and recognizing dirt as an essential natural resource. Approval of Congress has sunk to a record low: 9% of people in a Rasmussen poll think lawmakers are doing a good or excellent job. The happiesth news in this for the Democrats running the place is that about 40% of voters think the Republicans are still in charge."

Let me tell you something:  If the Republicans were in charge, we’d be taking action to tap into American energy resources and cut the price of gas now. 

The Democrats are demonstrating politics at its worse. Rather than acting now on crucial issues like energy reform, they're simply going through the motions, pointing fingers and playing political games.  And, they’re skating by unscathed:  As this essay points out, most Americans wrongly believe that Republicans are still in charge.

We can act now to bring energy costs down, but sadly the Democrats have chosen political posturing over political action.

Yesterday, I wrapped up the second leg of my American Energy Tour. It started with a heated debate against four of my Democrat colleagues in regards to American energy policy at Tulane University in New Orleans, LA. On the Democrat side were Rep. Earl Blumenauer (OR), Rep. Jay Inslee (WA),  Rep. Hilda Solis (CA), and Rep. Bart Stupak (MI). Joining me on the Republican side were Rep. Denny Rehberg (MT), Rep. Fred Upton (MI) and Rep. Zach Wamp (TN).

Here are a couple of articles that provide good accounts of the event:

• Congressional debate in N.O. focuses on U.S. energy policy

• Lawmakers clash at energy debate

In sum, Republicans advocated an All-of-the-Above strategy that not only pushes for increased oil and gas production here domestically, but improves conservation and energy efficiency and promotes new and ever-improving energy technologies to help bring gas costs down. Democrats, on the other hand, were still talking about the 68 million acres that oil companies have leased and are "selfishly sitting on," ignoring the reality that companies are not yet able to tap these lands because of the bureaucratic mess of a permitting process Congress has created.  The Democrats offered nothing.

If Democrats were really concerned with our energy costs, they would advance legislation to fast track the permitting process like my Emergency Energy Cut the Red Tape Now Act (H.R. 6463), and open up those areas like 10-02 of ANWR, which contains at least 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil and is located within 75 miles of the Trans-Alaskan pipeline already in place.

After the debate, I visited a deep sea oil rig with officials from the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS).  The MMS, which manages our nation’s natural gas and oil resources on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), estimates that there could be about 3.6 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico and even more natural gas.

What was most impressive was how much more advanced our technology has gotten since we first banned offshore drilling almost three decades ago.  Just as technology has made big advances in the way we communicate (from cell phones to blackberries to text messaging) and the way we care for ourselves (from in utero heart surgeries to liquid bandages), it has made vast improvements in how environmentally safe offshore drilling can be.

This week, I plan to offer a discharge petition to force action on legislation that will open up the energy reserves in ANWR to exploration and production.  And, I am working on legislation to provide tax incentives for renewable energy sources.

Here is the video of my appearance on Fox Business this morning discussing the fall-out sure to come if the Senate passes and the President does not veto H.R. 3221, the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008.



I was extremely disappointed that the House passed the housing bail-out bill. This legislation misses the mark and does nothing to address the foreclosure problems our nation is currently facing. Instead of making it easier for America’s hard working taxpayers to make their monthly mortgage, this bill forces them to pay more to fund a misguided, massive housing program.

At a time when so many families are struggling to pay skyrocketing food and gas costs, the last thing they need is another bill from Washington.

While rewarding irresponsible lenders and borrowers, and propping up the overextended, financially unstable Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it does absolutely nothing to ensure that we don’t get into this situation again sometime down the road.

Washington should be concerned about helping families that can’t pay their mortgages, but increasing government and taxes doesn’t help them – it hurts them. Congress should truly consider the consequences of this action before it makes matters worse.

Energy has clearly been the focus of this blog for the past several weeks, and with gas prices where they are, for good reason. People want to know what America has for energy resources and how we can access them to lower the cost of gas.

Recently, I did my best to debunk the sham "Use it or Lose it" legislation that failed in Congress with a bi-partisan majority.

I'd like to once again set the record straight about some claims that have been cited in a few recent newspaper articles. More specifically, claims made by Philip Budzik of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) that can mislead many readers against the benefits of drilling in ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), and of accessing our enormous oil shale supplies to help lower the cost of gas.

For instance, here's an exert from Sunday's Star Tribune:

"Bachmann was expected to visit ANWR today to underscore her desire to drill there. But opening the refuge to drilling 'is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices' or the price of gasoline, said [Philip] Budzik of the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Tapping the refuge could cut the cost of a barrel of oil by perhaps 2 percent and shave 1 cent to 3 cents off the pump price of a gallon of gas, he said. As for the Outer Continental Shelf, the EIA said it 'would not have a significant impact" on oil prices before 2030.'

Here's what false assumptions Budzik makes in order to justify saying this:

Assumption #1: Current bans that have prevented American consumers from accessing American energy will remain in place until at least 2012 (exactly what Republicans are working to reverse – right now, not 4 years from now): “Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017.”

Assumption #2:  Once we finally get to the OCS, we’ll only be able to find a fraction of the oil and gas that the Minerals Management Service (MMS) – like EIA, also an agency of the Dept. of Energy – believes is out there.

• What Budzik says: “With these assumptions, technically recoverable undiscovered resources in the lower 48 OCS increase to 59 billion barrels of oil and 288 trillion cubic feet of natural gas."

• What MMS says: “The mean estimate for undiscovered technically recoverable resources (along our nation’s Outer Continental Shelf) totals 85.9 billion barrels of oil and 419.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.” (http://www.mms.gov/PDFs/2005EPAct/InventoryRTC.pdf)                            
  

Budzik should be distributing accurate energy information, not just using whatever numbers he feels.

Here's what actual economists have to say about the positive impact an increase in energy supplies will have on the cost of gasoline. This is from last week’s Financial Services Committee hearing:

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA): Is there any way to give a numerical answer? Would half a million barrels [of oil] a day affect the price, a quarter million?

Fed. Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke: The short-term elasticity is … that a 1 percent increase in supply could lower prices by 10 percent.

Here are the facts:

• A one-percent increase in world oil supply represents 870,000 barrels of oil a day.

• Area 10-02 of the coastal plain of Alaska, constituted as an energy reserve by Jimmy Carter three decades ago, holds the capacity to yield more than 1,000,000 barrels of American oil a day.

• Shale reserves in America’s Mountain West region may hold as many as 2 trillion barrels of American oil.
  
  

We have the resources to bring down the cost of gasoline. Those are the facts.

On Sunday, my colleagues and I got to see firsthand the remote North Slope of Alaska where America needs to be increasing our production of oil to help bring gas costs down. It was quite an educational experience for all of as we got to take an in-depth look at current and emerging gas and oil technologies in the region.


The day began north of the Arctic Circle at Prudhoe Bay where we got to view the oil production processes at the Endicott Production Facility located in the Arctic Ocean. We also visited Mile Marker Zero at Pump Station #1, the starting point of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline.

From Prudhoe Bay we took an aerial tour of Alpine Field, where oil and gas production is underway, and parts of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) currently being explored for potential oil production. We also took a flyover of offshore oil production facilities operating in the Arctic Ocean.



Heading into the trip, I was most excited to see and learn about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), but more specifically, the “10-02 area” of ANWR. Officials in the North Slope confirmed for us that this area could provide an incredible amount of petroleum (10.4 billion barrels) with a minimal environmental footprint. ANWR in its entirety measures 19 million acres, but this one oil-rich location where we are interested in drilling is a mere 2,000 acres. To give you a better picture of what that means, the area for drilling is the size of a postage stamp on a football field.  



Couple that fact with the convenient proximity of the 10-02 area to the Trans-Alaskan pipeline, and this area would provide us with the most convenient and efficient route to get more petroleum to the continental United States.

We were also warned by local officials that at its current rate of declining oil supplies, in 10 years the pipeline would be processing less than 300,000 barrels of oil per day, a sharp decline from the 720,000 being produced today. Without adding new supplies of oil to the pipeline, it would stop operating in just over 10 years because there aren’t enough supplies in the areas we’ve already tapped into to maintain its viability.



Although many have been skeptical about the relationship between oil production and the surrounding wildlife and environment, we were given evidence that the two can co-exist. The best piece of evidence was the documented increase in size of a herd of native caribou near the Prudhoe Bay facilities. Since the facilities began its operations in the 1970s, the heard has increased its size from 5,000 to around 30,000 today.

This trip validated for all of us America’s urgent need to increase its supplies of oil to help drive costs down. This needs to happen not only in the areas we are currently exploring and operating in, like Prudhoe Bay and the NPR-A, but also in the 10-02 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. ANWR was set aside by President Carter for future oil development, so to keep it locked up makes no sense whatsoever.

If we couple increased oil production with the emerging technologies we witnessed at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado, then our nation will be the world’s leader in energy innovation and no longer left to the whim of foreign exporters who often wish us harm. This is the All-of-the-Above strategy that Republicans have put forth to the American people. The only thing we’ve heard from the Democrats is “Drive Less, Pay More.”

We have two weeks left until our August recess and the Democratic leadership continues to play games while gas costs rise throughout the nation. If we move to increase supplies here domestically, prices will begin to come down on that fact alone. If we have it, we better use it, and the majority of Americans agree.  

This afternoon my House colleagues and I toured the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado. Essentially, we got to take a stroll through our nation’s energy future and I’ve got to say, the lab is doing absolutely incredible work.



The lab’s purpose is to find fresh renewable ways to power our homes, businesses, and cars, a key component of the Republicans’ All-of-the-Above energy plan. They are developing cutting edge methods to use wind, solar, biomass, and fuel cell technologies more efficiently.

What I was most impressed with was the work that the lab is doing with a variety of vehicles run by renewable energy including: Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles, Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles, and Solar Hybrid Electric Vehicles. We also investigated the programs of Wind to Hydrogren Technologies and received an overview of the Lab’s Biomass Technologies.

America's priority must be to lessen its dependence on foreign sources of oil. They only way we will achieve true energy independence is to combine the latest technologies from NREL and similar government and private sector labs throughout the country with increased domestic exploration of our own natural resources.

We’ve got a long plane ride ahead to Alaska. I’ll be sure to check in again to share with you what I learn in ANWR.

Today my House colleagues and I are starting our trip to ANWR. On the way, we’ll be stopping in Golden, Colorado to tour the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The lab’s purpose is to find fresh renewable ways to power our homes, businesses, and cars, a key component of the Republicans’ All-of-the-Above energy plan.

Hopefully we’re able to take some pictures there so I can share them with everyone. After that, we’ll be off to Alaska. I’ve got my video camera with me so I’ll be sure to take some good footage to share with everyone when I return next week. In the mean time, here are some facts from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) about the estimated amount of recoverable oil we have in ANWR.

According to the USGS, the mean estimate of technically recoverable oil in the Coastal Plain of ANWR is 10.4 billion barrels – all of which is now economically recoverable.

•    That’s more than twice the proven oil reserves in all of Texas.
•    That’s almost half of the total U.S. proven reserve of 21 million barrels.
•    That represents a possible 50 percent increase in total U.S. proven reserves.

What does 10.4 Billion Barrels of Oil Mean?
10.4 Billion Barrels produces:

•    436.8 Billion Gallons of Gasoline
      o    12.6 Billion Tanks of Gasoline (based on a 16 gallon tank)
      o    93 tanks of gas for EVERY registered passenger vehicle
•    10.4 Trillion Gallons of Diesel
      o    320 Million Tanks of Diesel (with Two 150 gallon tanks on a semi)
•    4.3 Trillion Gallons of Jet Fuel
      o    5.7 Million Tanks of Jet Fuel (on fully fueled 737-600s with 6,875 gallon tanks)

Let’s be clear about this. The Coastal Plain of ANWR, also known as the 1002 Area, is neither wilderness nor refuge. It was set aside by Congress and President Carter in 1980 for future oil development. Development would be limited to 2000 acres of the Coastal Plain or 0.01% of the entire 19.6 million-acre refuge. These lands were set aside for America to produce its own energy resources. What are we waiting for?

Today, the Democrats are bringing to the floor their supposed “drilling” bill. The Drill Responsibly in Leased Land (DRILL) bill was pushed through committee yesterday where Democrats voted down every pro-production amendment offered by Republicans.

This bill essentially does 3 things that the Democrats want to use to mislead the American people into thinking they support increasing domestic energy production.

SHAM 1
It once again brings back the “Use it or Lose it” idea that was defeated a few weeks back by a bipartisan coalition because of its worthlessness. The 68 million acres that the Democrats say are in need of “use” are, in fact, being used. They are in some stage of exploration right now but are caught up in a bureaucratic maze of approval. As far as the “lose it” portion of the proposal, energy companies are already required to utilize acquired leases within a five to ten year period or the Interior Department Secretary has the right to revoke the lease.

SHAM 2
It says we can’t export oil from Alaska. Not a bad idea, but the problem is we haven’t
done that for the past 10 years.

SHAM 3
It “opens up” land to drilling in Alaska. While they’re on the right track, if they really
cared about opening up land for drilling, they’d do so in ANWR and not in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA) that has (1) already been open for 25 years, (2) is 250 miles away from the nearest pipeline, and (3) isn’t all that serviceable in that it only has 53 workable days a year of thaw.

Conversely, ANWR is close to the Trans-Alaskan pipeline that is already in service. More importantly, ANWR has more production potential on a much smaller piece of land. If the Democrats’ key fear about drilling is the damage it causes to the environment, what sense does it make to use a much bigger piece of land for a substantially smaller return?

Democrats know the vast majority of the American people want to drill here, drill now, and pay less – but this bill will not hide 30 years of shutting off access.  

This bill is more of the Democrats’ same failed policies. It’s simply cover for doing nothing to produce energy and it’s the Democrat Leadership’s excuse for blocking votes on real oil and gas production.

Just yesterday, at a Financial Services Committee hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke stated “…a 1 percent increase in supply could lower prices by 10 percent.”

Enough smoke and mirrors. If the Democrats want to drill in Alaska, ANWR is sitting there waiting. 

To give you an idea about what tough issues Congress is tackling this week, here’s one resolution we’re discussing that sums it up:

H.Res. 984 - Expressing support for the designation of July 26, 2008 as "National Day of the Cowboy" (Sponsored by Rep. Giffords / Oversight and Government Reform Committee)

Another week, and the Democrats still aren't addressing the nation’s energy concerns by bringing any legislation to the floor to help struggling Americans - unless you consider H.R. 415 an energy policy:

H.R. 415 - To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers (Structured Rule) (Sponsored by Rep. Frank / Natural Resources Committee)

Take a look at this picture at let me know if this looks wild and scenic to you:



The Democrats are designating this simply to block the construction of a Liquified Natural Gas Facility. Never mind that right across the river is a Coal Power Plant already in use. Once again, the Democrats are doing everything in their power to stop production of American Energy.

Today, as a Member of the House Financial Services Committee, I'm hearing testimony from the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson regarding the U.S. economy and the potential government bail-out of mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

While the mortgage market is already precariously balanced and this added instability is cause for concern, it is imperative that Congress wait and examine all the facts before jumping in to assist Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Far too often, the government over-reacts and involves itself in market matters, preventing the free market from correcting itself and making things much worse.

It is important that before legislation is considered, Washington carefully looks into the financial situation of Fannie and Freddie. We must ensure that our nation’s taxpayers, who are already struggling because of skyrocketing food and gas costs, are not left shouldering an increased burden due to a massive bail-out bill. We must balance that with care that these taxpayers are protected in case this situation leads our economy to take a tumble for the worst. 

Below is part of a release from Majority Leader Hoyer (D-MD) in response to President Bush’s announcement to lift the executive ban on offshore drilling:

___________________________________________________________

“Drilling in the OCS will do nothing to lower gas prices, but it will mean one more handout to those who are already enjoying billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Let me remind President Bush: If the oil companies wanted more domestic drilling, they could begin today. They could begin on the 68 million acres of land that are already set aside, leased, and available for drilling. And with upcoming Democratic legislation to speed up the leasing process for 20 million more acres in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, they’ll be able to drill there, too.” ___________________________________________________________

I can think of no better example of pure partisan rhetoric. This statement does nothing more than contradict itself. On one hand you have Majority Leader Hoyer saying that offshore drilling in the OCS will do nothing to lower gas prices, but then he promotes Democrat legislation to speed up the leasing process for drilling in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. If increasing supply doesn’t matter as he implies in his comment about the OCS, then why promote legislation about drilling in Alaska? Could it be that the pressure from America to drill is forcing the Democrats to appear like they care about rising energy costs?

Hoyer is reaffirming the Democrat talking point of being against drilling which appeases their base, but being for drilling on lands where leases already exist to assuage the anger of the average American voter. That might be a good policy if these lands where leases already exist actually contain oil and natural gas. However, we know this is not the case -- as do the Democrats who voted to recently defeat the Hoyer-Pelosi so-called “Use it or Lose it” bill.  (That’s what his 68 million acre line refers too.) Nearly 1 in 10 Democrats joined Republicans to defeat that bill because it did nothing to actually increase our energy supply.  

These are the kind of games that explain why Congress’ approval rating hovers at 9%. This statement proves that the Democrats are willing to talk the right talk but not seek out real solutions. Americans want energy; they don’t want political ploys.  

With President Bush lifting today the executive ban on offshore drilling, the Democrat Leadership in Congress in the only barrier left standing in the way of opening up our nation's energy resources.

Until about a month ago, the Democrats' mantra in regards to drilling was "we can't drill our way into energy independence."  But then they noticed the overwhelming support from Americans, regardless of political party, for increased energy production here in the U.S.. The pressure was apparently  too great to ignore so they started to echo faintly the Republican support for drilling.

Don't be taken by the Democrats empty rhetoric. According to The Hill newspaper, "Speaker Pelosi has already shut the door on expanded oil and gas drilling beyond areas that have already been approved for energy exploration."

If Speaker Pelosi was really concerned about increasing America's energy production to lower gas prices, she'd open up ANWR as well as follow President Bush's lead in allowing offshore energy production and further exploration of our enormous supplies of oil shale.

It's all up to Speaker Pelosi. She must make the next move.

Yesterday, CongressNow reported that House Democrats will soon schedule a bill that calls for expanded oil and gas production in Alaska. Strange, because for months we've heard that increasing supply won't drive gas costs down and that actually procuring our own oil resources would be damaging the environment. What gives?

"Turning the tables on daily calls by the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans to expand domestic oil and gas production, House Democrats today said they will soon schedule a vote on an energy bill that aims to expedite drilling on millions of acres of public land in Alaska. 'Democrats support increasing the domestic production of petroleum and other energy resources,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said this morning in announcing the bill, which Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said may be brought up under suspension of the rules as early as next week. An aide later said the debate could slip to a later date but would be 'soon.'"

It looks like the pressure for the Democrat Leadership to actually do something has become too much to handle. While I'm hopeful that the Democrats will push legislation like this forward, I'm not holding my breath and I'll be most interested in seeing their text. Stay tuned...

Nancy Pelosi’s letter to President Bush calling for the release of crude oil from the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve proves that Democrats finally recognize that increased supplies will help bring gas costs down. But that’s where the good news ends.

If we release our emergency reserves, we are putting America at serious risk in exchange for a very short term and limited solution. The reserve is kept for national emergencies and if we diminish our supplies and are then attacked or hit with a serious natural disaster like a Hurricane Katrina, the effects will be catastrophic.  Is selling off these reserves worth the gamble to our national security? To me, it’s simply irresponsible.

If supply does indeed matter as Speaker Pelosi suggests and as Republicans have been saying, then why not lift the bans on offshore drilling, start drilling in the Alaskan Energy Slope, and start exploring our oil shale reserves?

If we want to increase supply, we are sitting on the answer.