[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 52 (Tuesday, April 1, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H2567-H2569]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY POLICY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida.) Under the
Speaker's announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Cannon) is recognized for the remainder of the leadership hour,
which is now 20 minutes.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from New Mexico
yielding his time back so that we can take a few minutes to talk about
energy policy issues. I would like to immediately turn the time over to
our colleague, the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for
yielding to me on an issue that is so very important.
There is an old Chinese proverb that says, the best time to plant a
tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is today. Just think back
to 1979 when we were standing in line to buy gasoline, and some of us
from energy-producing States said, what happened? Will this ever happen
again? It happened again in the 1980s. We continually find that energy
prices are going up. We find that OPEC ministers are holding us
hostage, and yet this Congress and this country does not have an energy
policy. Oh, it may not be the most sexy of issues, because every time
the gasoline price in this country goes down, people go, whew, we
solved the problem; now we do not have to deal with it.
But we do. Because there is one thing that will create a problem more
than any other problem in this world in the future, and it is not the
national debt that we talk about, and that is very serious; the
national debt can either be solved through increasing revenue or
decreasing expenditures. No, the most serious problem this Nation faces
is an energy shortage. One day we will not have an opportunity to drill
one more well or dig one more shovel full of coal. If we have not done
the things, if we have not put in place the environment to create the
next generation of energy production, then we have done more damage to
the next generation, far surpassing anything else that we could have
done with our financial debt.
Montana, my home State, is known as the Treasure State. Why? Because
of the natural beauty, but also the natural resources that we can
provide to the rest of this Nation under an energy policy. ``Oro y
Plata'' is our motto: Gold and Silver. We have gold and silver, but
beyond that, we have many of the things that this energy policy that we
are discussing in this Congress have to offer.
A couple of the ones that are most important to my State are clean
coal and clean coal technology. The energy policy talks about the
opportunities. Think about the native Americans in our country. We have
reservations in Montana that need economic development. Just in the
Crow reservation alone, they have the potential for 1 billion tons of
coal, or the Cheyenne reservation, 1 billion tons of coal.
One of the President's priorities was hydrogen fuel cell technology.
We need electricity to put through the hydrogen fuel cells. How can it
be created in America? Through coal. I traveled to Iceland last year. I
watched them want to become the first nation to be entirely fossil-fuel
free. How do they create the electricity for their hydrogen fuel cell
technology? They use water, hydro, their dams. We certainly cannot do
that. We need a source, whether it is natural gas or coal. Montana can
fit into that, but we cannot without the incentives that are created in
this energy policy. We need this bill.
Marginal well tax credit. Mr. Speaker, in Montana alone, we have
2,700 shut-in marginal wells. Why? Because they cannot afford to open
them because the price of oil is so unstable that they do not know that
if they open it, they will have to shut it down immediately or they
will lose them. We are not talking about the major oil companies here.
We are talking about independents; we are talking about Montanans,
individuals who pay their income taxes that need the help. Within the
energy policy there is a tax credit for marginally producing wells. It
could replace as many as 140,000 barrels of oil a day, oil that we will
not have to bring in from places like Iraq.
Energy debt. That is what we are looking at in this country. I
brought along a picture that I want to show my colleagues real quickly.
This is my home State of Montana in the year 2000. These were the fires
that burned a million acres of properties, a lot on Federal ground.
Unfortunately, along with that, animals burned, pastures burned. We
created an unhealthy environment and rather than doing that, we ought
to do what other countries and, in some cases, States that are so far
ahead of this Nation are doing.
I took a delegation over to Sweden last year to look at biomass. They
have cogeneration facilities where they put wood products through those
generation facilities to create energy for schools and hospitals. It
can be done in America. It is not being done to the extent that it
could be, because we do not have an energy policy.
When is America going to wake up? When are we going to say we are not
going to let the opponents stop this plan because of one issue or
another? And energy policy has a never-ending, expansive environment of
creating an opportunity to become energy independent to fuel the
economy and to fuel ourselves into the 21st century and beyond. Without
it, we are creating an energy debt, and that is not fair to the next
generation; and shame on us if we do not solve the problem.
I thank the gentleman from Utah for his leadership in the Western
Caucus and for giving me an opportunity to speak today.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Montana for his
interest, intensity, and clarity on this issue that is so important to
the American people right now.
I could not help but think as he spoke that, in fact, in America, the
cost of energy is as regressive as any tax could be. That is that poor
people drive cars and rich people drive cars. Sometimes the cars that
are driven by the rich, though the car may cost more, uses the same
kind of gas or even less gas than an old beater uses. The fact is, the
cost of energy is significant to the people, even in a regressive way,
to all segments of our society.
We are speaking today as the Western Caucus. I want to thank the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), a member of the caucus who
spoke earlier, and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce). I hope
we can get back to him. We also are joined by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), who is the communications Chair for the
Western Caucus and also by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), who is
the secretary of the Western Caucus. I would like to yield to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
[[Page H2568]]
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is great to join my
friends from the West. I come from western Pennsylvania where the
energy crisis started. I live 5 miles from Drake's Well, the first oil
well ever drilled.
The question is, do we need an energy policy? In my view, it is the
number one need of this country. There is no issue that makes this
country more fragile economically or in our defense than availability
of energy.
Why do we need to have a policy? We need a policy that will provide
us with ample sources of all types of energy. There is no silver bullet
in the energy issue. Every time we have an energy spike in this
country, we then have a downturn in the economy because of the cost
that takes out of our economy.
I want to share with my colleagues some numbers that are a little
surprising. These are world numbers. We all think that we are just days
away from new energy sources that are going to replace fossil fuels.
Currently in the world, we consume 39 percent, which is oil, 23 percent
of energy that is natural gas, and 23 percent that is coal. Now, when
we add those three together, that is 85 percent of our energy is fossil
fuel.
We have 8 percent nuclear and 7 percent renewable. Now, renewables
are the ones we all hope and support and hope will be the supply of the
future. But let us look at those numbers. Hydro is almost half of that
7 percent, or 3.22 percent. Wood is .0266 percent, or just under 3
percent. Wood waste is about a half a percent. When we add wind and
solar together, we have just over a half a percent of the energy
consumed in this country. Yet, we have a lot of people who keep talking
like if we would just stop holding back wind and solar. Folks, nobody
is holding back wind and solar. When the wind does not blow, we have to
have a redundant source. When the sun does not shine, we have to have a
redundant source. And it only blows about 38 percent of the time in the
areas where wind power works. So those are not as quick a solution as
many people would like to think.
Now, transportation is where we use our oil. Thirty-nine percent of
our energy is oil, and the vast majority of that is an oil-based
economy: our transportation system. We have a little bit of ethanol
which is growing, and we have a little bit of natural gas in there.
Sixty percent of the oil we purchase will soon come from foreign
countries, unstable parts of the world.
Hydrogen fuel cells, I applaud the President. I have been supporting
hydrogen for all of my 6 years in Congress. Hybrid cars is another one
that has hope. But they are a long ways from solving the energy
problems in this country.
If we quickly look at natural gas, which is 23 percent of our energy,
that is home heating, commercial, industrial, and mass transit. Eighty-
five percent of that is produced in this country and creates wealth
from the ground to the source of use. Many of our best fields, though,
in this country, and we were really putting a lot of horses on natural
gas because we have added it to electric generation, are locked up.
Most of the west coast shoreline is locked up, most of the east coast
shoreline is locked up. Under the Great Lakes where we drilled down, do
not even drill down through the lakes is locked up. Canada drills under
the lakes and sells gas to us, and many of our best fields in the
Midwest and all around Florida are locked up.
Electric generation is today 52 percent coal, 20 percent nuclear, 60
percent natural gas, 7 percent hydro, and 3 percent oil. So the
electric that we supply in this country has basically, in recent years,
all the new electric plants have been natural gas. Now, I have never
been a fan of that, because we have always kind of held natural gas
back for home heating, for commercial and for industrial. And we found
this winter what has happened. Now that we are hooking up these big
generating plants, we had natural gas prices just a month or two ago
that reached $9 and $10 a thousand, which is devastating to those who
depend on it for home heating.
We should be using natural gas for mass transit and short-term
transportation, in my view, not for future electric generation.
I will conclude my comments with the following: every downturn in our
economy has been preceded by high energy prices. Home heating and
transportation, when those two costs spike, it comes right out of the
family budget. Seventy percent of our economy is from commerce, and
that is the same family budget. When we have energy spikes for driving
our cars and for heating our homes, it will hurt our economy every
time. We must have an energy policy so that we have ample energy supply
in this country.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I could not help but
think today about some of the things that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania just pointed out. When one of my staffers came in and told
me that gas prices today are up to $5.70 per therm, this is an amazing
amount and an amazing jump in the springtime when energy demand is down
for households, but forced up by this steady demand from large
production, energy production facilities.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, there is not ample wells
being drilled in this country to continue to hook up power plants to be
produced by natural gas, from all of the experts I have talked to.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, that appears to me to be the fact of our
life today, that we do not have the gas coming out of the ground.
Now, the fact is, we have lots of gas. I mean, we could probably
drill 50,000 gas wells in Wyoming alone today on where we know those
reserves are; and between Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, in known
reserves, we could probably drill a total of 100,000 wells that would
make gas available to everybody and reduce that cost so we are not at
$5.70, but back to $2 or so per therm that has been typical of the last
10 years.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. But so much of those best gas fields
are locked up.
Mr. CANNON. Yes. They are locked up by policy. I might just point out
that the Constitution gives this body the control of policy. Anything
the administration does is based on delegation from this body to the
administration; and that is what we need to look at, and that is what
this bill does. It takes great strides in turning that around so that
we get that locked-up gas flowing to the homes of people who only
should be paying $2 per therm instead of $5.70 per therm.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, we only can import gas
from Mexico and Canada. We can import it from ships, but we only have
two ports that can take liquefied natural gas, so we are really
limited. We are dependent on what we can drill.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I think we are in fact dependent for heating
our homes with gas on the gas we produce here incrementally in America.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
{time} 1815
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I thank my senior colleague from my
home State of Utah for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I have been here 3 months. In that
time, I have found nothing more exciting than what I wish to speak
about today, the potential of an Energy Security Act of 2003.
This country has been for far too long without a comprehensive energy
program. With energy prices rising and our dependence on foreign oil,
we need to find a domestic source of our potential future energy. What
this Congress needs to do to solve this problem and also to eliminate a
future crisis is to look to the lands that are already controlled by
the Federal Government.
In the coming days, Congress will have the opportunity to debate the
Energy Security Act of 2003. Within this critical bill is the
authorization allowing drilling in Section 1002 of the Alaska National
Wildlife Refuge.
Now, contrary to popular belief, this is not the pristine cathedral
of the wilderness or the last great unexplored frontier; it is
thousands of acres of frozen tundra, uninhabitable, with its greatest
summer crop being mosquitoes.
More importantly, when Congress created this ANWR, we realized that
within that there was the great potential for oil. We specifically put
a portion of it, the portion in green on this map, aside for future oil
exploration for the needs of this particular country.
[[Page H2569]]
This section, known as 1002, it is noted, is not all to be used for
oil development, only 2,000 acres within it. Let me try and explain
what that means.
ANWR is approximately the size of the State of South Carolina, yet,
within the northern portion of that, the area in red is the only
portion we are talking about, a grand total of 2,000 acres, about the
size of the footprint left by the airport in this city.
If we did another analogy, if we can consider a large conference
table, we are talking about drilling in an area the size of a postage
stamp. That is not, that is not an area that is going to despoil the
future. Its disturbance is negligible.
This area does not have, as some critics have said, only 6 months'
worth of oil. We are looking at an area that has between 5.7 billion
and 16 billion, B, with a B, billion barrels of recoverable oil within
ANWR. If Members consider that within every day we import 10 million
barrels, we can recognize that clearly this would go a long way as we
compare the potential of ANWR to our other sources of foreign oil in
providing the kind of natural domestic security that we desperately
need.
This cannot be minimized, it cannot be brushed aside. This is a
crucial element of the puzzle. It is a crucial element for the long-
term viability of our Nation and our energy.
One last point, very quickly. In addition to oil for the future
energy needs of this country, we are producing spinoff jobs in almost
every State of this Nation. These statistics are somewhat old, I have
seen them elevated by as much as 20 percent, but we could produce
between 500,000 and 700,000 jobs in this country. Can Members imagine
what 500,000 to 700,000 jobs would do to spur this economy, well-paying
jobs, in addition to the energy independence?
There are two elements we need, stability and predictability of our
source of energy. That is what will spur the future. That is what will
give us our independence, our independence from foreign oil and our
security at home.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Utah,
and I would like to thank all my colleagues from the Western Caucus for
the relatively short time we have taken on the floor today. I can
assure my colleagues we will be back in future special orders, trying
to flesh out for the people of America these issues and how important
they are to the future of America, to the future of jobs, half a
million jobs based on a decision made by this body whether or not we
will open up a small area in Alaska for drilling. I think that is an
important issue.
The gentleman from Utah did a little magic trick with the chart and
made it disappear for a moment. There is no magic, there is no magic
for solving this problem of energy in America. We need to deal with the
realities of these policy issues. We need to get away from demagoguery
and toward the very important issue of the price of gasoline for our
cars, the price of gas for heating our homes, the price of energy for
running our factories and creating jobs for the American people.
____________________