or Login to see your representatives.

Access Candidates' and Representatives' Biographies, Voting Records, Interest Group Ratings, Issue Positions, Public Statements, and Campaign Finances

Simply enter your zip code above to get to all of your candidates and representatives, or enter a name. Then, just click on the person you are interested in, and you can navigate to the categories of information we track for them.

Public Statements

Video: Newt Responds to President Obama's Energy Speech

By:
Date:
Location: Unknown

CALLISTA GINGRICH: Thank you, for that kind introduction and warm welcome. It is great to be here with you. And I would like to take a moment to thank all of you who have been so supportive throughout this campaign. Your heartfelt prayers and encouragement have made our lives richer and our campaign stronger. Over the last few months, this campaign has been wild. We have been on a roller coaster as front runners to come and go.

One of the things I've enjoyed most is campaigning throughout this country is the chance to meet so many wonderful people, to learn about their lives, concerns, and helps for the future. As I listen and learn, it is evident that most Americans are still optimistic of the future of this country. It's been encouraging to meet so many people who generally believe in the greatness of our country and work tirelessly every day to pursue the American dream.

Newt and I have engaged in this race because we believe America is at a crossroads and care deeply about the future of our country. Our only opponent is Barack Obama and we are committed to removing him from the White House.
(Cheers and applause.)

Newt is the only candidate with the experience and knowledge necessary to rebuild the America we love. He has a successful national record of creating jobs, balancing the budget, and reforming government. Today we need a leader who clearly articulates why president Obama and his policies are wrong for America. We need a leader who understands that we must contain and defeat our enemies and we need a leader with bold solutions to create a better future for all Americans. I believe that leader is my husband. Please welcome former Speaker of the House and the next president of the United States, Newt Gingrich.

(Cheers and applause.)

NEWT GINGRICH: This is a wonderful moment. I have no idea when Aaron first asked me several months ago to come that it would be such a great opportunity to respond to president Obama's Friday speech on energy.
(Laughing.)

And I want to thank the president for the timing of this.

(Laughing.)

But I want to start by thanking, first of all, Callista for introducing me and for everything she does on the campaign, which is a really very exhausting job

(Applause).

I want to thank Michelle Steel, who has been a great state-wide leader for us and I'm thrilled that she is chair of the campaign.

(Applause).

And also by the way, she is not up here, but I want to mention Teresa Hernandez, who has been a great help with the Latino groups. I want to thank Michael Reagan, who has been a great friend since his father's administration. We have done so many things over the years. And he and Rush Limbaugh are the two people who became honorary members of the class of 1994. So Michael has been around and done great things for a long time.

(Cheers and applause.)

Finally it is great to have my fellow Georgian here, Herman Cain. He's a remarkable person and a remarkable leader. I can think of at least nine positive things to say.

(Laughing.)

(Cheers and applause.)

The reason, when Aaron first asked me if I could come do this that I wanted to come here even though I knew you would not have your primary until much later is I want to make a clear statement about a Gingrich candidacy. I am running for president. The president of all the people, to reach out to other campaigns, while I seek the Republican nomination, I want to run an American campaign.

(Cheers and applause.)

And an American campaign has to be designed to reach every American to give every American the choice of which future they want and you cannot have the recent Republican practice of writing off our largest state and imagine that you are going to run an American campaign.

(Cheers and applause.)

My commitment is that if you help me in your primary, and I do believe that the nominating process in Texas, which is going to come at the end of May, and in California, which is going to come in the end of June, are going to be vital. And I think they guarantee coming that late with the two largest states in the country that there will not be any lock down before we get to California. This will still be a very important campaign.

(Cheers and applause.)

I want you to know that as the nominee, I will campaign consistently in California. And I think there are five basic themes that will enable us to appeal to the vast majority of Californians. The first that I'm going to be spending a good bit of time on today is choices. There's always a question of choices. In the end it always comes down to choices. If you would like to have a national energy and American energy policies, never again bow to a Saudi King, and pay $2.50 a gallon, Newt Gingrich would be your candidate.

(Applause).

You want $10 a gallon gasoline, an anti-energy secretary, and weakness requiring us to depend on foreigners for our energy, Barack Obama will be your candidate.

(Crowd booing.)

If you think creating jobs and having paychecks is a good future, Newt Gingrich ought to be your candidate.

(Applause).

If you think food stamps and dependency are adequate, Barack Obama ought to be your candidate.

(Crowd booing.)

If you believe that America was created based on religious liberty and that no government can come between us and God, Newt Gingrich ought to be your candidate.

(Cheers and applause.)

If you believe that the ninth circuit courts' anti-religious bigotry and the Obama anti-religious bigotry are appropriate, Obama should be your candidate. It's that clear.

(Crowd booing.)

If you believe in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Federalist papers, Newt Gingrich ought to be your candidate.

(Cheers and applause.)

And if you believe Saul Alinsky radicalism ought to replace all that, Barack Obama ought to be your candidate.

(Crowd booing.)

Finally, if you believe the world is dangerous and America should be strong, then Newt Gingrich should be your candidate.

(Cheers and applause.)

If you think the United States is inevitably weak and guilty and we should run around the world apologizing and appeasing, then Barack Obama is your candidate.

(Crowd booing.)

And let me say -- I for one find it very offensive that the president of the United States, the commander-in-chief faced with a situation in which an Afghan soldier kills two Americans and wounds four others, faced with another situation the last 24 hours when more Americans were killed, I find it very offensive as commander in chief that he is apologizing to the Afghans when in fact, he should be demanding an apology from Karzai.

(Cheers and applause.)

(Crowd cheers Newt! Newt! Newt!)

If we are going to have a serious effective policy in the Middle East, one of the pillars of that policy has to be an American energy program that makes us independent of Saudi Arabia and independent of Iraq and Iran and independent of Venezuela, producing enough oil, not only for the United States but to ensure that should the Strait of Hormuz be closed we frankly would not care.

(Cheers and applause.)

I am not a newcomer to the energy issue. In 2008, we launched "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less." With Sean Hannity's help, we got 1,600,000 signers. The House Republicans picked up the theme. Ultimately, Governor Palin picked up the theme. The fact that is that prior to the collapse of Wall Street, John McCain was ahead by three and Republicans and the House were ahead by five because the Left had no answer on the issue of energy.

We wrote a book called, "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less." And Callista and I did a documentary called, "We Have the Power." And the purpose was really simple: We have the power. We have more than enough energy in United States that we do not have to rely on foreign countries. But we have an anti-American energy government, and anti-American energy bureaucracy, anti-American energy regulations and now, we have a president who has decided to engage us on this issue.

After I came out for a program to get to $2.50 a gallon gasoline, Obama decided he had to make a speech on energy. I believe and hope every American will read his speech in Miami. It is a very revealing speech. It is factually false, intellectually incoherent, deeply conflicted on policy, and in some places just strange.

(Laughing.)

But imagine the challenge for Obama. Obama is a genuine left-winger. That is his world. He believes in the stuff. And really what is dangerous about him is not what he doesn't know; it is what he knows that isn't true. He believes in small cars. He believes in an anti-American energy policy. He believes in high prices. He believes in government control. Now, his challenge is he is running for reelection. The American people actually want the car and truck that they like. The American people are pro-American energy by about 79 to the 16. The American people like low prices. The American people believe individual citizens should decide what car they want to buy.

So Obama makes this energy speech, but you have to see it in its context. This is what is making it so hopeless for him to go around and pretend that he is for American energy. In 2007 as a Senator, Obama was the only sponsor of a bill which would have eliminated an inventory of offshore oil assets. I want you to think about this. This is part of the Left's great problem today. They really believe in "Peak Energy." They really believe that we're going to run out. We have to ration. The government has to be in charge. Jimmy Carter was right. We ought to have gasoline rationing. We ought to do something in some way to make sure we don't use this all up.

And the problem is they are wrong. Now, their fear is if they actually show us how much energy we have, we will actually want the energy. So they want us to not see the energy because then we can't ask for it because we don't have it. And so he literally introduced a bill that was in favor ignorance. And it is fascinating because when what North Dakota has done is that it has blown apart their worldview.

In North Dakota in the Bakken formation today has 25 times as much oil. That is 2500 percent more oil than they thought. The Bakken formation is now at 3.5 percent unemployment in North Dakota and that overstates the case because they have 16,000 unfilled jobs in oil fields. The people who are unemployed don't have the skills to do the jobs. The people who have the skills, they basically have zero unemployment. And they generated so much revenue for the state government that they have had seven straight tax cuts and they have a multibillion-dollar rainy day fund.

Now, all of this just drives the Left crazy. And by the way, there is one reason this was developed. It was on private land and the Obama administration could not stop it.

(Cheers and applause.)

Now, let me let you understand the framework in which these folks think. Even in North Dakota, and I believe by the way the Judiciary Committee should look in to this, should subpoena documents and should hold hearings. Even though it was on private land, they did still decided to harass the oil industry.

So the U.S. attorney, Obama's U.S. attorney in North Dakota filed a lawsuit against the oil companies based on eight migratory birds. Now, wind kills about 33,000 birds a year. So wind turbines, they are substantially more dangerous for birds. But wind is green, so it is good; so therefore, it really didn't kill the birds because if it killed the birds, that will be bad, but it can't be bad because it is good.

(Laughing.)

On the other hand, they managed to find eight birds, and they filed a lawsuit. The judge threw it out. It is an egregious abuse of prosecutorial power, and I think the House Judiciary Committee should, first of all, find out the decision documents in North Dakota and then find out if the decision documents of the Justice Department that allowed such an egregious abuse of power.

So they really hate the idea that this is all working. But now, remember this is a long history. I'm going to read several things-- those of you that know me well -- know I usually just speak off the cuff but and I want to share stuff with you that I think is really important.

Here in San Francisco, January 2008 campaign -- see an example that adds to the price of energy. Quote, quoting Barack Obama, talking to the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board. "Under my plan of cap and trade, electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket and power plants, natural gas, you name it, whenever the plants were, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations and that will cost money and they will pass that money on to the consumers."

So if someone wants to build a coal powered power plant, -- is just that it will bankrupt them because they are not going to be charged the huge amount for all that greenhouse gas that is being lifted.

So it is really open. Higher prices are good. They are necessary. Companies will be bankrupt. This is the true Left. They also come up with silly solutions. Now, I am going to get to algae later on.

(Laughing.)

And by the way, I am pro-research into algae. I am a very pro-science guy. I knew a guy in Texas A&M who is working on algae. And I think somewhere down the road algae may well be a useful asset, but it is a little bit like Solyndra. The president keeps finding these things, which would work someday if only they worked, but they don't work, but they should work if only they worked. You really feel much better about them working. He doesn't want the things that do work because those things make you feel bad so we can't have the things that do work because he wants to do the things that don't work.

(Laughing.)

So here's Barack Obama during the last phase of high gas costs and I was advocating "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less." And here is what he was advocating. Quote. This is July 30, 2008. "Here are things you can do individually to save energy. Making sure your tires are properly inflated."

(Laughing.)

"Simple thing. But we can save all the oil that they are talking about getting on drilling if everybody would just inflate your tires."

(Laughing.)

"And getting regular tune-ups. You guys can save that much."
Now, you know how weird your worldview is to believe that inflating your tires equals drilling?

(Laughing.)

It is a little scary when you have a president that is this out of touch of reality. Let me go on. I recently got in a little bit of trouble with Volt owners because I made the comment that one of things the left doesn't understand is that you can't put a gun rack in a Volt.

(Laughing.)

I am not anti-Volt. I am not anti-any particular choice that you make. You should be allowed to drive what you want to drive.

But here's -- and I first got onto this when Obama went to campaign for the Democratic candidate for the Senate, Teddy Kennedy's seat in the special election. And he did this entire riff on Scott Brown's truck.

Scott Brown was campaigning around the state in a pickup truck. And you could tell -- you go back and read the speech that Obama gave in Boston just before the election. You can tell he was fixated on this pickup truck and how inappropriate it was to have a pickup. Actually, it was a Prius back then because the Volt did not exist. And I said at the time, "Obama doesn't realize you can put a gun rack in a Prius." And you could just tell that this was the Harvard academician at work. Why do you need a pickup truck? You could be bicycling to the campus?

(Laughing.)

So you may think I'm making this up. Here is the president in 2011 in Pennsylvania, "I know some of these big guys, they are all still driving their big SUVs, you know, they have their big monster trucks and everything."
And there is a certain weirdness to the whole notion. This is a guy who flew in on Air Force One.

(Laughing.)

You would think that at some level, he would be secure. People are allowed to have an SUV. And he goes around with an entire fleet of SUVs. Have you ever watched the presidential motorcade? 19 SUVs driving around and then telling you, you shouldn't have one because the Secret Service needs it.

(Laughing.)

Some guy made a motion and Obama says, "You are one of them? Well now, here is my point. If you are complaining about the price of gas and only getting 8 miles to the gallon, (laughter) you may have a big family, but it is probably not that big. How many do you have? Ten kids you say?" The guy said he had 10 kids -- it was hard to get in a Volt.

(Laughing.)

"Ten kids. Well, you definitely need a hybrid."

(Laughing.)

Now, this is my point, which I think our friends on the left don't get: We are for freedom. We don't think politicians should dictate to the American people the size of their car or the type of their car or --
(Cheers and applause.)

Now, let me walk you through the background inside the administration. In fact, the Speaker, John Boehner, put this out. And it is really helpful. He took the speech and on late Friday afternoon they put out a step-by-step example. On February 4, 2009: Just months after president Obama anti-energy secretary said quote, "Somehow we have to figure out [how] to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe."

I want you to remember this. Obama picked somebody as Secretary of Energy who believes that the natural price of gasoline should be European, which is nine or $10 a gallon.

So when they tell you this is all an accident, baloney. This is a deliberate strategy of the Left to punish the American people into driving vehicles they want.

(Cheers and applause.)

In February 2009, barely in office, the Obama administration begins scrapping leases for oil and shale development and cancels 77 leases for oil and gas production in Utah. Gasoline, at that point, was $1.91 a gallon.

In March 2009, ABC news says, "The White House is closely monitoring the expedited Solyndra loan project even as it was delaying new American energy production that would help make us less dependent on foreign energy." Gas at that point was $1.91.

Remember, Solyndra was -- the last time Obama had an answer to why we didn't need any fossil fuels because rather than the oil companies have the tax break he wanted the money so he could give it out to his friends so that they could run companies that go bankrupt.

(Laughing.)

Gas at that time was $1.94 a gallon. The Obama administration in January 2010 announced this new bureaucratic hurdle to American energy production and the Secretary of the Interior Salazar admitted, quote, "Could add delays to the leasing and drilling process." Gas at that point was $2.67 a gallon.

March 2010, instead of opening new areas to energy exploration and development, President Obama blocks deep ocean energy production on 60 percent of American outer-continental shelf. And I want you to remember this because in his speech, he explicitly is dishonest with us. President Obama blocks the ocean energy production on 60 percent of America's outer-continental shelf. Gas was $2.80 a gallon.

December 1, 2010, the president re-opposes and expands the moratorium on offshore energy production. Gas was $2.86 a gallon.

On November 2011, the Obama administration releases a plan for a five-year moratorium on offshore energy production placing quote, "Some of the most promising energy resources in the world off-limits," according to the House Natural Resources Committee. Gas is $3.42 a gallon.

January 18, 2012, President Obama rejects the bipartisan Keystone XL pipeline and thus kills more than 20,000 jobs. Gas was, at that point, $3.39 a gallon.
Now, I give you all this background before the speech. And of course what happened was his advisers came to him and said, "Great, price of gasoline is rising before we even get to summer when it goes up even more. You had better find a way to be pro-gasoline instead of anti-gasoline." And so, despite this entire background, he decided to go, and he basically gave a speech in Miami, which can be summarized quote, "Why I didn't mean to do everything I did."

(Laughing.)

Remember this administration which ran in 2008 on "Yes, We Can" and is going to run in 2012 on "Why We Couldn't". Now, there are parts that I agree with.
(Applause).

I mean, some of the language is wonderful even if said by him; it is a little bit funny. He says, quote, "We don't have the luxury of pretending. We got to look at the facts. Look at the science. Figure out what we need to do."
Well, as an historian Mr. President, I take up your challenge. So the next few minutes I'm going to take your speech and we're going to look at the facts.
He goes on to say that quote -- I want you to think about this now in context of everything else he is going to say later -- quote, "We do have in this country limitless sources of energy."

Well, if he believes that, why doesn't he unleash the American people to develop the limitless sources of energy that he claims we have?

(Cheers and applause.)

He says, and I think this tells you why he is giving the speech; somebody in his political shop came to him and he had the following quote. "When gas prices go up, it hurts everybody."

(Laughing.)

It is true. Gasoline prices and diesel prices affect the truckers that delivers the groceries and that affects the agriculture and that affects the cost of manufacturing and that affects the cost of driving to work that affects the cost of transportation to see your grandchildren. Everywhere you turn around.
But Mr. President, if you understand that when gas prices go up, it hurts everybody, why have you not fired Chu, who is specifically dedicated to raising the price of gasoline to European levels?

(Cheers and applause.)

And he further gets it. He says, quote, "High gas prices are like a tax straight out of your paycheck." So you can think of gasoline prices when you pump your car as the Obama tax. This is the new Obama tax straight out of your pocket. I've just quoted the president's own words.

He cites letters. He says he gets letters every day and they pull out some for him to read and last night he happened to read some. Two of them said quote, "I'm not sure I'm going to be able to keep my job if gas prices keep going up so high."

Now, first of all, that is probably true. There are probably people who write that. I ran into a lady in Las Vegas who lives in rural Nevada and she said she is now limited to two trips a week because the price of gasoline bites into her family budget.

But as I read that and reread that, something occurred to me. He didn't have to be quoting somebody else. Let me read this sentence as though Obama had said it by himself. QUOTE "I'm not sure I'm going to be able to keep my job if gas prices continue to go up."

(Laughing.)

(Cheers and applause.)

(Crowd cheers: Newt! Newt! Newt!)

So let me assure you, Mr. President, you are not going to be able to keep your job.

(Cheers and applause.)

The president has decided to pick a fight with those us who believe in drilling. This is almost -- I hope you don't mind me saying this. [This is almost Herman Cain quality.]

(Laughing.)

He said you can bet that since it is an election year, talking about Republicans, they are already dusting off their three-point plan for $2 gas. And I will say this to you this is fact. Step one is to drill. Step two is to drill. And then step three is to keep drilling.

(Cheers and applause.)

I tell you what. If I hear the president say, "999," I believe we have to worry. But then the President said the following. As an historian, this is a great place for small history lesson. He says, "We hear the same thing every year. We've heard the same thing for 30 years." He goes on to say a little bit later, quote, "You know we can't just drill our way to lower gas prices."

Well, let me give the president a brief history lesson. In 1976 gasoline had reached $2.46 a gallon. By 1980, with Jimmy Carter's failing economic policies, it had gotten to $3.30. You will remember Jimmy Carter had gas rationing. How many of you remember you bought gasoline every other day based on your license plate. Sort of the ultimate government intervention.

A good friend of mine Dave Bossie of Citizens United was 13 that year and he remembers so vividly. Every morning his father sent him out back with a screwdriver (Laughing.)

And his job was to change the license plate so that the car could get gasoline that day.

(Laughing.)

True story. And I'd tell you this because it is a great test for liberals and conservatives. Ask your friends and neighbors back home. If the government adopts a policy that 13-year-olds are being taught that they had to cheat, conservatives say we should drop the policy. The liberal says this is proof we need license plate police at every gas station.

(Laughing.)

So gasoline prices had gone up despite rationing from $2.46 to $3.33. The first executive order Ronald Reagan signed deregulated gasoline. The Left was panic stricken. The New York Times thought the prices would skyrocket. Within six months it collapsed. In fact, the collapsed oil price was a major factor in the beating Soviets Empire because it strip them of hard currency.

By 1988 -- remember it is $3.33 when Reagan was sworn in. By 1988 it has dropped to $1.72. Now, Mr. President I know that this math is kind of tricky because there aren't nine zeros behind it.

(Laughing.)

But if you start at $3.33 and after eight years of drilling, you are down to $1.72, that pretty well proves that markets work, and that enough incentives will, in fact, lead people to produce enough energy to, in fact, bring down the price.

(Cheers and applause.)

At the end of his speech he says quote, "We need to sustain all of the above strategy that develops every available source of American energy, yes, gas oil and gas, but also wind and solar and nuclear and biofuels and so on."
Well, this is exactly what John Boehner has been campaigning on for four years. I hope the House Republicans in the near future will move an all-of-the-above energy bill and allow the president to support them instead of trying to get Democratic votes for an all-of-the-above energy bill. And we will see whether or not he really meant this, which by the way he didn't, but it is a great line and it is exactly the Republican policy.

And it is nice to think that in a moment of panic that Barack Obama would briefly, for a moment, sound like he was a Republican and a conservative. And I just want to point out that he literally was siding with what John Boehner is for.
Now, he says, and this is very important. If you listen to him he says, quote, "We are not going to transition out of oil anytime soon."

Well, that is true, which would imply that in order to bring prices down, you probably need oil.

(Laughter.)

He goes on to say, "America is producing more oil today than any time in the last eight years."

It's true because of North Dakota and private land, despite the Obama administration, is developing. Now, in fact, on federal land, production is down 11 percent. So in the area he controls, production is down and the area that is hard at the free enterprise stuff where people get rich, production is up. So he now is claiming credit for the area he can't control in order to have us think he is actually for what he opposes.

(Laughter and applause.)

And let me give you an example of the depth and audacity of this administration. He says quote, "Over the last three years, my administration has approved dozens of new pipelines, including through Canada."

Now, Mr. President, you know how limited your respect for the intelligence of the American people must be. How could you possibly veto the only major pipeline that matters from Canada, the Keystone Pipeline, and turn around and suggest to us that the fact that we have approved dozens of tiny ones ‑‑ this is like saying, "My Navy has 11 new ships; they're all rowboats."

(Laughter and applause.)

I mean, how do you deal with a president who is this fundamentally out of touch with being honest? It would be one thing if he said, "Yes, I vetoed the Keystone Pipeline and here is why."

But to come and say, "I have approved lots of pipelines, why are you mad at me?"

Well, because you did not approve the one that mattered. The Keystone Pipeline is worth 700,000 barrels of oil a day when you use it. That is how big a deal it is. The Keystone Pipeline ties U.S. and Canada together. This president is driving Canada into a partnership with China in order to build a pipeline due west to Canada to deliver the oil to Vancouver. It is a strategic disaster of the first order.

And I commit to you the very first day I am president, immediately after the Inaugural Address, I will sign an executive order, which authorizes construction as of that day.

(Cheers and applause.)

Let me go on to say, quote, "We plan to make available more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources." Sounds good.

This is letting you know he is a lawyer. He has carefully selected out a phrase, which is totally misleading and technically inaccurate because what he will tell you is, is that he is talking about that area that they currently ‑‑ remember, this is the guy who wanted to abolish the inventory of assets.

He is now telling you that in the areas we currently know about that they want to make 75 percent available. What he didn't tell you is under this definition, 85 percent of the offshore acreage is not available.

In other words, all the areas you don't know about or are not going to know about because he won't make them available; therefore, he can say to you, "I am doing the stuff that you know about." It is not his fault we don't know about it except he won't let us find out.

(Laughter.)

Now, my view is very different. ‑‑ I think each state has to make its own decision. I will allow the states to have 50 percent of the royalties, which means Sacramento will start thinking seriously about development.

I will tell you for example, that Senator Webb and Senator Warner, Democrats, have a very good bill for Virginia to develop offshore. And that you will find if we open up offshore ‑‑ it will be amazing how fast things can be developed.

Now, the president goes on to say ‑‑ and here I agree with him but he does not get the meaning. Quote, "The single biggest thing that is causing the crisis of oil is instability in the Middle East; this time around Iran."

I agree with him. But the correct American strategic policy is to have a massive all‑out effort to develop our oil resources so that Iranians don't matter.
(Cheers and applause).

Let me tell you: The long‑term answer is not the U.S. Navy guarding the Strait of Hormuz. The long‑term answer is Americans producing their own energy and telling other people, "You may have a problem but we don't. Because we can be the largest oil producer in the world by the end of this decade, bigger than Russia, bigger than Saudi Arabia. We have vast resources and can produce more oil than any other country in the world."

(Cheering and applause.)

(Crowd cheering: Newt! Newt! Newt!)

One more example that shows how fundamentally dishonest this president is. He says, quote, "We only have two percent of the world's oil reserves."

And what is he is referring to is proven current reserves. But let me give you some numbers. Go back to being a historian for a moment. In 1980, we had 30 billion barrels of crude oil. Since 1980, we have pumped 75 billion barrels.
And I'm walking you through this. I know this is a fairly lengthy speech, but I think it is in the Reagan tradition of facts. Because I want to start demolishing Obama as a person who systematically misleads the American people and who systematically limits our natural resources.

(Cheers and applause).

These are the facts. In 1980, our proven reserves was 30 billion barrels. Since then, because of advancing technology, because of changing prices, because of entrepreneurship, we have produced 75 billion barrels out of the 30 billion‑barrel reserve, and we have more reserve today than we had in 1980.

(Applause).

So if you were being honest Mr. President, what you would say is ‑‑ the lesson of North Dakota is, "We have huge volumes."

In fact, the technical estimate is that we have 1.4 trillion barrels of potentially recoverable reserves in the United States, depending on technology.

That's a trillion, 400 billion barrels; when in 1980, we thought the total reserve was 30 billion. That is the difference.

The reason I tell people I am cheerful ‑‑ I am a technological optimist. I actually think the Wright brothers work every time I get in an airplane.

(Laughter.)

But I also believe we can find new and better ways to get natural gas. We went from a 7-year supply to a 125-year supply because of science and technology. In fact, as we have gone we have dramatically increased supply of oil because of science and technology. So I'm an optimist.

So now, the president then goes on to say, quote, "We are taking every possible action to develop safely a near hundred years' supply of natural gas in this country."

That is fundamentally misleading. They have a task force of eight different agencies trying to figure out how to block fracking, which is the method by which we get natural gas. They are methodically trying to undermine and cripple the natural gas industry, and it is stunningly dishonest for this president to pretend that he favors something that his administration is actively working to undermine. I think that we should be holding him accountable for it.
(Cheers and applause).

He does make a correct point that there will probably be 600,000 new jobs in natural gas by the end of the decade.

My only point is terrific. Why don't we try to get all of it in the next two years so we can put Americans to work now, rather than waiting for the next president? It is a very confused speech. We can't figure out if is he for energy and jobs or he is against energy and jobs? And he keeps changing.

He also lives in this fantasy world of government subsidies. He says, quote ‑‑ talking about fracking and how we get natural gas out of shale. He says, quote, "It was public dollars; public research dollars that over the years helped develop the technologies that companies are right now using to extract oil and natural gas."

Now, it is true there was in the 60s a Department of Energy study of whether or not you could use nuclear explosions in depth. And it is also true that there were some projects done in the 70s. However, just to set the record as a short answer, fracking begins in Kansas in 1947 and it expands to Oklahoma in 1949. It's done in Canada in the 1950s. And George Mitchell and the private sector are regarded as the pioneers in the development of "fracking."

This would be like suggesting that the Air Force invented the airplane and they don't know who these two Wright Brothers are because, after all, they were private sector guys who were just bicycle mechanics, and how could they have invented the airplane when actually, it must have been the Air Force because everything that was good is done by the government. This is the Obama mind‑set.

Now, the last one he gets into ‑‑ it is almost as good as ‑‑ it is almost as good or better than inflating tires.

(Laughter.)

He explains, "That up to 17 percent of the oil we import for transportation could be algae."

Now, I am a scientific optimist. I have a friend at Texas A&M who is developing algae that eats municipal waste and then uses alcohol as a byproduct, and some point down the road, it will probably be useful.

But this is like Solyndra. The president is for any fantasy that doesn't work today as opposed to any practical thing that works today so as to take your money to prop up something which well might work ‑‑ Solyndra might work in 30 years. Solyndra might even work in 10 years but it won't work now, and it is being given venture capital by the Department of Energy.

Similarly, I am all for investing. You say you want me to do research on algae? Absolutely. Could we have pilot projects on algae? Absolutely. I think that probably if you did all the algae development we could, by the end of this decade, we could probably be actually fueling, you know, 12 airplanes, 20 airplanes, 30 airplanes.

But what are the odds that you're going to ramp up to a commercial price gasoline from algae in the foreseeable future? Not very good.

Now, most of us live in the foreseeable future.

(Laughter.)

What are the odds that if you actually allow people to drill and if you allow people to build refineries, you could get dramatically less expensive gas in the foreseeable future? Really, really high.

So what you have here ‑‑ and this is why I wanted to take this time to review this. This is a very revealing speech.

You have an intellectual left‑winger who lives in a fantasy world in which he very cleverly uses language to say things that aren't true that sound good because he knows that if he tells you what he really wants to do, you will defeat him in a landslide.

One of our jobs, of course, is to make sure that the American people understand what he really wants to do.

The last point I want to make about what he said. He says three or four times, "There are no silver bullets."

There is a pen. Big difference.

The presidential pen could sign today the approval of the Keystone Pipeline. That is 700,000 barrels a day.

The presidential pen could today sign approval to go back to the Gulf of Mexico, and that is about 400,000 barrels a day.

The presidential pen could today approve areas of Alaska that we know have oil. That's about a million, two hundred thousand barrels of oil a day.

Three signatures we would have 2.3 million barrels a day of additional energy in the United States. Three signatures.

So I would say we are not looking for silver bullets. We are looking for presidential leadership.

Our choice is between energy independence and never again bowing to a Saudi King and $2.50 gasoline and about $16 trillion in royalties over the next generation; enough you could literally pay off the national debt just with the royalties for the federal government from development with no tax increase, and at least a million new jobs. That is our side.

His side is a series of fantasies in which your tax money is thrown away on products that are not commercially feasible, while you pay higher and higher and higher prices, and are coerced into smaller and smaller and smaller vehicles. These are the two futures we are going to campaign on this year.

I would ask you to help us. We need your help. If you go to Twitter, you go to hashmark $2.50 gas. Those of you want to support me and help me, you can go to Facebook and you can go to email and I hope you'll put down three quick things: Newt equals $2.50 a gallon.

(Cheering and applause.)

(Crowd cheering: Newt! Newt! Newt!)

And finally, the speech behind the slogan is at Newt.org. And there is a 30 minute outline of making this real. And finally, we are launching a project at Newt.org asking people to give one Newt gallon to the campaign. That's $2.50. We already have 170,000 donors and we thought this was the right price to drive home.

I believe $2.50 a gallon versus $10 a gallon will be a major theme from now until the election. And with jobs and paychecks versus food stamps and dependency as a theme, I believe we can win an historic election.

Callista and I are thrilled to be here. We do need your help. I do think this is the most important election of your lifetime, and I'm very grateful you have allowed me to outline this fairly complex but, I think, really important case about how far wrong Barack Obama was on Friday and how much right we, together, are about America's future.

Thank you very much.

(Cheers and applause.)


Source:
Back to top