[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 69 (Wednesday, May 6, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5170-S5171]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       DOMESTIC ENERGY PRODUCTION

  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss some of the 
energy issues currently facing the American economy. First among them 
is our dependence on foreign sources of energy.
  Last summer, we all experienced the consequences of serving the 
foreign masters who control most of the oil we consume. In July, oil 
prices climbed to just under $150 per barrel. Policymakers wrung their 
hands and scrambled while Americans tried to control their frustration. 
What did Americans see? They saw prices rising uncontrollably on the 
global petroleum market. That was especially painful for families. At 
the same time some at least started to realize that we have abundant 
reserves right here at home. But these reserves have been actively 
blocked by Federal policy for over 20 years.
  Just how import dependent are we as a nation? Last year we imported 
about 4.7 billion barrels of oil. Based on an average price of $100 per 
barrel, Americans shipped about $470 billion overseas, nearly half a 
trillion dollars. That was just for calendar year 2008 alone.
  We need to address this problem by expanding every domestic energy 
source in an environmentally responsible way. This strategy should 
include clean and renewable sources. I believe in that.
  But one might ask: Why raise this issue now? That was last summer, 
and this year prices are down some. I raise this issue now to note to 
Nebraskans and to my Senate colleagues that even though prices have 
relented, our exposure to foreign oil markets has not changed. That 
alarms me, and it should alarm my colleagues.
  I fear the American people are getting set up again. Unfortunately, 
United States policy on domestic sources of energy hasn't changed much. 
For too long our Federal policy on domestic energy sources has 
consisted of three words: No, no, and no. Unfortunately, since this 
administration has taken office, we have seen evidence of more of the 
same tired no, no, no policies. First the administration in February 
canceled 77 leases for natural gas development in the State of Utah. 
Can we turn our backs on a domestic resource as critical as this one? 
We know that natural gas is clean relative to other fossil fuels. We 
know demand for natural gas is only going to increase. We need look no 
further than the Capitol's own power plant. The Speaker of the House 
and her own majority leader announced on Friday that we will no longer 
burn coal to heat the Capitol complex buildings and water.
  What is the alternative? It is natural gas. Most troubling, perhaps, 
we know that natural gas is not easily transported. So increasing 
demand translates very quickly into increased price where additional 
supply is not available. This is not only true for heating; it is 
especially true for fertilizer and other industrial uses of natural 
gas. Fertilizer affects my State immensely. For the good of our 
farmers, for the good of manufacturers, for the good of the Nation, we 
need to find more domestic sources of natural gas.
  If the administration says no to Utah, what about energy exploration 
in the Outer Continental Shelf, known as the OCS? Since the early 
1980s, there has been in place a Federal moratorium of one sort or 
another on exploration in the OCS. Essentially, most of the Federal 
waters of the Atlantic and California coasts were off limits to energy 
development. This is worth repeating. For more than 20 years, Federal 
policy blocked energy exploration in many of the OCS areas.
  Finally, last year, in the face of $4 gasoline and very angry 
constituents, the moratorium on OCS exploration was lifted. 
Unfortunately, it appears to have been a short-lived victory.
  In February, the administration announced a delay in the rules for 
exploration and utilization of the natural gas and crude oil off our 
shores. The administration assures us that the delay is only to pave 
the way for ``wise decisions.'' But to a savvy American public, it 
sounds like more of the same. It sounds like a policy of no, no, and no 
or at least delay, delay, delay some more, especially when they hear 
that the same script was used for oil shale leases. That is right. The 
administration in February also withdrew leases for research and 
development of oil shale on Federal lands in Colorado and Utah where 
our oil shale resources are equivalent to 800 billion barrels of oil.
  The reason: According to the administration, the leases had ``several 
flaws.''
  So what is the promise? The administration would offer a new round of 
oil shale leases for research and development. I will take the 
administration at its word but, again, it does sound like a broken 
record: Delay, delay, delay. So Americans, Nebraskans, and this Senator 
cannot be faulted for being a bit skeptical, for thinking that the most 
recent delays are simply more of the same. The day will return--
unfortunately, perhaps in the not too distant future--when fuel prices 
will shoot up. Promises that the administration is doing everything it 
can may very well ring hollow. Americans will know that 77 leases for 
natural gas exploration were canceled. Americans will know that OCS and 
oil shale development and exploration was delayed again. Meanwhile 
their commutes are not getting any shorter. Their electricity bills are 
not going down. Fertilizer and food prices are continuing to increase.
  There has been a lot of talk from the administration about ending our 
dependence on foreign oil. I welcome that. I want to be a partner in 
that.

[[Page S5171]]

But so far the actions don't match the promises. The administration's 
only comprehensive policy document, which would be the budget outline 
to date, contains no effort to increase domestic production of critical 
oil and natural gas resources. Instead, the proposal raises taxes on 
the consumption of energy, spends a small fraction of the revenue on 
energy research, and claims that it is a strategy to end our dependence 
on foreign oil. Again, we see a policy of saying no to domestic energy 
sources.
  Research and development in this field--don't get me wrong--is a good 
thing. It is a great thing, as a matter of fact. But we need to be 
candid with the American people. This should not be about bait and 
switch. We cannot promise a plan to end our dependence on foreign oil 
but give them the President's proposal to reach in the back pocket to 
take control of more of their money. With an abundant, largely untapped 
supply here at home, surely the administration can do better than to 
say their best idea is to restrict demand through an energy tax. That 
is essentially telling the Americans, your best bet is to buy a sweater 
because it is going to be costly to heat your home.
  I am going to end my comments where I started. I am worried. 
Nebraskans are frustrated by a policy of saying no to American energy. 
I am in favor of the expansion of domestic sources of energy of all 
sorts--wind and solar, wave and tidal and geothermal, alternative 
biofuels and nuclear--a policy of doing all we can to end our 
dependence on foreign oil. But I am also for expanding domestic sources 
of natural gas and crude oil. We need them. It simply makes no sense to 
buy from abroad, indeed to beg for more oil at times, when we have made 
it a matter of Federal policy to place our resources off limits. I, as 
one Senator, will be watchful. The President will send up his budget 
this week. We will see if the President demonstrates a commitment to 
bringing on line American natural gas and oil resources. I hope he 
does. I will be anxious to support that. We will watch and see if the 
administration continues, though, the policy of no when it comes to 
energy that is right here at home.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________