[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 59 (Tuesday, April 24, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2056-H2062]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         WESTERN CAUCUS ON JOBS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to be on the floor tonight 
speaking on behalf of the Western Caucus. We, in the West have been 
working for 2 years now--for a year and a half--to help the Obama 
administration out with their tasks.

[[Page H2057]]

  In September of last year, September 11, President Obama said that he 
would keep trying every new idea that works and listen to every good 
proposal, no matter which party comes up with it. And so 4 days later, 
on the 12th of September, last year, we in the Western Caucus, Senator 
Barrasso and myself, sent a letter to President Obama outlining the 
``Jobs Frontier Report''; but, to date, we have not yet heard from the 
administration.
  In that jobs report we have, basically, 40 different pieces of 
legislation that create American jobs, utilize American energy, and 
also stop regulations that are in the process of killing, during this 
year, 3 million more jobs.
  So at a time when the Nation is faced with 8.2 percent unemployment, 
continuing over 8 percent, month after month, for one of the longest 
periods of time in our history, the administration seems pretty flat-
footed on ideas, and so we in the Western Caucus felt like we could 
assist in that. That's our business. Many of us are familiar with the 
industries, we're familiar with the job creation that can go on in the 
Western States. And so we felt that we were offering help to the 
administration but, to this point, they've been completely 
unresponsive.
  If you go on our Web site, you would be able to see the ``Jobs 
Frontier Report.'' We've got the cover of it depicted here, and it 
simply describes in that report the 40 exact pieces of legislation that 
have already been written and submitted in order to create these jobs.
  Now, it would be important to understand that all of these jobs, not 
one of them requires Federal input, no Federal expenditure, no Federal 
stimulus, no tax to the American people. And, instead, we're simply 
trying to solve the problem with the free market that has caused this 
country to be so great in the past.
  We are faced with unemployment in the West that is actually much 
higher. It's 10.1 in percent in the West, which tells us that the 
accusations that there is a war on the West, a war on jobs in the West 
by the administration are verifiable in the unemployment figures.
  We have other documentation. Gas prices have doubled since 2009. The 
public lands are facing increasing restrictions.
  The President has recently stated that the oil production is up in 
the U.S. Well, he stated a correct thing; but what he should have been, 
from his perspective, talking about is it is all produced on public 
lands. And when we analyze that, we find out, in 2011, that oil based 
on public lands, produced on public lands, actually decreased by 14 
percent, and that the gas production, natural gas production, decreased 
by 11 percent.
  And so when Secretary Salazar levies his charge that the facts don't 
speak for what our position is, maybe we could redirect the Secretary 
to go to the Web pages for the government that would describe exactly 
what we're showing here, that the oil production that is occurring to 
increase our total production is occurring on private lands. It is not 
occurring and is, in fact, decreasing on public lands.
  That's because the government is slowing down the permitting process. 
They're finding new and restrictive ways to implement requirements on 
people who would be creating jobs, who would be drilling for oil; and 
each of these processes simply strings out our investment.

  We had testimony earlier today, the House and Senate Western Caucus 
came together, had testimony from two different panels; and one of the 
panelists explained that they had bought--they had paid for these 
leases on public land, but they, in fact, then turned them back because 
the requirements turned it into a proposition that they had not bid on 
at all.
  So we continue to find these case examples of too much interference, 
too much regulation, causing the energy sector to slow down in certain 
areas on public lands therefore creating more unemployment and creating 
a bigger gap.
  I'll finish one thought, and then I'm going to yield time to my 
friend, Congresswoman Lummis from Wyoming, who is a member of the 
Western Caucus and is the vice chairman of that. We were in the hearing 
together earlier today.
  But at this time in our Nation's history, almost everyone agrees that 
the greatest threat that we face is the continuing debt and the year-
after-year deficits.
  There are only three ways that you can solve deficit. If you're 
spending more money than you're bringing in, as a family, well, you've 
got a couple of choices. Number one, you can go out and get a second 
job or retraining to where you make more income so you can increase 
your income.
  Number two, you can cut your expenses down; or, number three, you can 
borrow money to make up the differences.
  The Federal Government is faced with the same conclusions. It either 
needs to increase revenue, that's by raising taxes; or you can increase 
revenue by growing the economy, that's creating more jobs.
  Secondly, you can cut spending. Thirdly, you can borrow.
  Unfortunately, the Federal Government goes one extra step that most 
families, some families actually resort to, but it's against the law 
for families. It's perfectly legal for the government. But the fourth 
thing is to print money. And it's that printing of money, that debt 
which is not being able to be repaid that is the great threat to the 
country.
  If we were to look across the West and see where we've choked off 
jobs and put those people back to work in the hundreds of thousands of 
jobs, then each job would do two things. First, they would cut the cost 
of the government because those people come off unemployment, welfare, 
food stamps; but then, secondly, they go to work and start paying 
taxes. So you have a squeeze from both the cost end, because the 
government is spending less money; but you also have an increase in 
revenue so your costs and revenue move together when we create jobs.

                              {time}  2010

  That's the reason that the Western Caucus is concentrated on jobs 
rather than a taxation policy or a borrowing policy and especially not 
on the printing-of-money policy.
  So at this moment, I will yield time to my good friend, Cynthia 
Lummis, from Wyoming. We welcome you tonight and thank you for being 
willing to speak on behalf of the Western Caucus.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your work as 
chairman of the Western Caucus.
  The western States are roughly the 17 western States and three island 
governments, but they also include Members from States who have very 
similar problems, but who happen to be east of the Mississippi, such as 
some of the southern States along the Gulf of Mexico that have enormous 
energy reserves and face some of the same regulatory burdens. Also, 
people from coal-producing States that are east of the Mississippi, 
such as West Virginia, where a heavy attack on coal has jeopardized 
jobs and the future of coal in this country as a contributor to our 
energy future.
  As we see from the chart next to me and from what Congressman Pearce 
has previously told us, even though energy production is up, oil and 
gas production is up on private land. This is the bar to my far right. 
Over closer to me to the left, it shows that energy production, oil and 
gas production from Federal lands has declined--11 percent in the case 
of oil and 6 percent in the case of natural gas.
  Now, why is this affecting gas prices? Why does President Obama say 
that drilling more now on Federal land will not affect oil prices now 
or the price of gas at the pump?
  Well, there's two ways to look at that. One is he's correct that it's 
not going to affect the price of gasoline today or tomorrow. But the 
fact that we're not drilling now and that permits are not being issued 
now--we know of about 22 projects for the proposed 44,000 new oil and 
gas wells on private land that are being held up. That's going to be 
gas production and oil production that will be available in the future, 
anywhere from 3 to 7 years, that because of these regulatory burdens is 
not going to be produced.
  That not only drives up the price of gasoline and power of all kinds, 
energy of all kinds, in those future years long after President Obama 
is out of office, but it does affect today's futures market because the 
people who are looking

[[Page H2058]]

at the price of gasoline are looking at whether production is 
continuing to go up in this country. That is a factor that is 
considered when futures pricing occurs, and because it's very obvious 
that the government policy in the United States for the last 4 years 
has been away from oil and gas and coal and in favor only of solar and 
wind energy because we subsidize it so heavily and promote it so 
heavily at the United States Department of Energy, it does affect the 
price of oil, gasoline, and eventually gasoline at the pump.
  Now, another factor related to the coal issue that I mentioned is, 
are we going to hurt our environment if we don't quit using coal? The 
answer is to look at our regulatory work that was done prior to 
President Obama taking office, and it's represented on this chart.
  Let's look from 1970. The population in the United States is up 48 
percent since then; coal-fueled electricity up 184 percent since then. 
The gross domestic product of the United States up 200 percent since 
the 1970s in part because we have had affordable, reliable, and 
abundant electricity. So much of what we've done in this country in 
producing job growth is based on the fact that we have been able to 
rely on affordable, abundant electricity. Half of that has come from 
coal.
  Now, in that same time period, emissions from power plants had 
declined 60 percent. Look at all of this growth. Look at even the 
growth in coal-fueled electricity and the decline in emissions down 60 
percent. And that's due to the Clean Air Act and compliance with the 
Clean Air Act.
  The point here being regulations can be valuable when done properly, 
and the Clean Air Act was a regulation that had the desired impact. It 
dropped emissions 60 percent by 2008. The problem has been since 2008, 
the efforts to overregulate have stifled our ability to create more 
energy from coal. It has reduced the number of jobs from coal. It has 
reduced revenue from coal, and it has reduced the affordability of 
electricity going into the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I have some other points that I want to make about 
this. But for now, I'd like to just point out that the people who are 
bearing the brunt of our policies on energy in this country for the 
last 4 years have been people of very modest income. Because when 
gasoline prices go up at the pump, when your electric bill goes up, it 
is the people who are in the lower- and middle class population or in a 
category of workers who make very little money and struggle to make 
ends meet, especially single mothers, who are really bearing the brunt 
of these policies.
  These policies are choices of this administration. They are conscious 
decisions that they are willing to see prices go up for coal, oil, gas 
generated power in order to make them more competitive with higher-
cost, higher-priced wind and solar energy.
  These are bad policies for the average, everyday American. These are 
bad policies for America's working mothers.
  Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity.
  Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentlelady from Wyoming for her presentation 
and the facts that she presents.
  One of the things that people constantly say who are opposed to oil 
and gas, to energy coming from America, is that it's impossible to 
drill and remain environmentally sensitive and safe. I think that those 
people are simply not looking at current technology.
  It is possible with today's technology to drill up to 7 miles 
horizontally. That would be like drilling from here in this room here 
across the Potomac River somewhere out into Crystal City and putting a 
drill bit through a window that's maybe this large.

  So what we're able to do is drill down 3,000 or 4,000 or maybe 5,000 
feet, turn horizontally and drill and hit the zones of production. It 
is possible in today's technology to preserve almost the entire 
footprint of whether we're wanting grass lands or forest lands or 
whatever. We almost don't have to disturb those because the drill bit 
actually will be so far beneath the surface, we don't have to go in and 
clear locations like we did 15, 20, and 30 years ago.
  You can also take one well, drill it straight down and then come off 
that and put multiple well bores so that what used to be spread on a 
quarter-acre or quarter-mile spacing or half-mile spacing might now 
today be one well for any number of the distributed wells.
  So the environmental impacts of drilling today are probably less than 
in any other technology.
  Wind energy, for instance. Wind is very large in New Mexico. They've 
got these miles and miles of wind generators standing in the air. Very 
large footprint. New Mexico is very capable of producing a lot of wind, 
but one of the problems is that the wind doesn't always blow and the 
sun doesn't shine all the time.
  We had in Arizona recently--one of the operators of a wind farm said 
that they get about 12\1/2\ percent reliability, that is about 12\1/2\ 
percent of the time they're getting generated power out of the wind, 
and it's somewhat higher in Arizona for solar, about 25 percent of the 
time.
  So when people are talking about converting from oil and gas to wind 
and solar, and I think every one of us believes that we ought to be 
using all of those forms of energy, but we have to understand that if 
we go to 12\1/2\ percent reliability, that's the amount of time that 
when you flip the switch that you're going to have power.

                              {time}  2020

  I think most of us are living lives that we demand and need power 
immediately for use of home appliances, for use of our computers. In 
manufacturing, you don't want power that is just available part-time. 
Generally, manufacturing is expensive and competitive. We're trying to 
keep our manufacturing jobs here, and the last thing we want to do is 
tell manufacturers you've got to shut down for 10 hours today because 
the wind is not blowing. The modern economies absolutely demand the 
predictability of good power when you flip the switch to turn on 
equipment or to turn on things in your home.
  It is possible to provide those energy resources at the same time 
that we protect the environment. In my father's generation, there were 
lots of problems. In my generation, I watched as major companies began 
to clean up things that had originated back in the twenties and the 
thirties. So it's necessary for us to say that every single one of us 
wants to see the environment clean. They want clean water. They want 
the soil to be clean and clean air. And it is possible to achieve both 
because of the technologies that we have today.
  I would draw our attention next to the fact that this administration 
has been saying that they want an all-of-the-above energy policy. At 
the same time, then, they're increasing restrictions on public lands 
and access to public lands. They're making it more difficult for the 
producers of both coal and electricity generation. They're making it so 
much more difficult that everyone in the West is struggling under the 
load.
  The reason that the West has to deal with the problem more than the 
East is that the Western lands are so much more owned by the 
government. State government and Federal Government own such a large 
proportion of the land in the West that it's incomprehensible to States 
back East exactly about the problems that we face. But whether it's 
endangered species, whether it is restrictions, whether it is EPA, all 
of the agencies play a part in slowing down the process.
  Recently, our administration--through Mr. Abbey at the BLM--said that 
we really want the BLM across the Nation to lower the time required to 
give permits. In fact, that time is still abysmally high at over 200 
days.
  I see my friend from Utah (Mr. Bishop) standing ready to speak. At 
this time, if he is ready, we'll yield time to Mr. Bishop, and we 
appreciate your presence on the Western Caucus.
  Mr. Bishop is the past chairman and still a respected person on the 
House Western Caucus. Thank you for being here tonight, and we 
appreciate your participation on the caucus.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentleman from New Mexico's 
introduction, which is far more fluent than my presentation will be.
  I share what the gentleman from New Mexico, as well as the gentlelady 
from Wyoming, have said on this particular issue, that we in the West 
seem to have a unique situation in which there is an

[[Page H2059]]

effort to try and stifle--hopefully by simple incompetence and not out 
of planning--but stifle the economic growth that we need so desperately 
in the West for our kids and for our future.
  There are two things that were said today that I read in the paper 
that come from this administration, which tells us that we're obviously 
in a campaign season and that the words are simply being used in a 
unique and different way.
  The President once said that the party to which I belong is currently 
engaged in a war on the poor, which I find unique because, to be 
honest, when you have overriding and ever-increasing energy costs, 
that--as the gentlelady from Wyoming said--is the real war on the poor.
  Somebody who is in the bottom portion of our economic sphere, our 
economic stratus, will pay three times as high a percentage of their 
income for increased energy prices as those who are in the top will. If 
you have a nice urban job, you may have an inconvenience as energy 
prices go up. But if you're one of those struggling working families 
trying to make ends meet, this becomes a unique situation.
  When gas prices go up to $4 or more, climbing towards $5, they may 
dip down again, but they will certainly rise one more time. It hurts 
the poor far worse than it does any other sector of our country. They 
are the ones who have the least likely chance of actually having some 
kind of fuel efficient automobile, and yet they probably have the 
greatest chance of needing desperately that car simply to go to work, 
and have no other options whatsoever. They are the ones who will have 
the most difficult time trying to heat their homes in the middle of 
winter with the increased cost of fuel. They are the ones who will 
recognize, first of all, that whenever the cost of gasoline goes up, 
the cost of food will also go up, simply because it takes money to send 
that food to market so that you can buy it. All of that hits those who 
are in the lowest sector of our economy harder than those who are in 
the upper sector of our economy.
  One of the estimates we used a couple of years ago said that for 
every $420 a family has to pay in increased energy costs, it will 
equate to 6,000 jobs that will be lost in the economy. That's one of 
the problems that we simply find ourselves in. The sad part about that 
is we don't have to do it. This is not an energy-poor country. In fact, 
it is an energy-rich country.
  We should be using the resources that we have here in the country to 
enrich ourselves and to help each other to have a better lifestyle, not 
getting worse. And the competition for energy is going to increase as 
time goes on. There are 6\1/2\ billion people in the world; 2 billion 
of those 6\1/2\ billion have no electricity today. They're going to 
want that in the future, which means our energy needs will be 
increasing, not diminishing. It doesn't matter what kind of efforts you 
put in there, our energy needs worldwide will be increasing. We have to 
be able to plan for that.
  I have a good friend who is one of the CEOs of an energy company 
today who said when he was in college back in 1973, the word went out 
there that we were in an energy crisis, we were running out of oil, and 
we had to come up with a way of solving that problem. That was still 
the Shah's era, and so we did.

  In 1977, we came up with a national energy plan. It was a colossal 
failure. It was an effort to do centralized planning here in Washington 
to come up with a way of solving our problem in the future, and it 
failed miserably. Thirty years later, we have people in the 
bureaucracies of this administration who want to try and reinvent a 
very bad wheel that didn't work back in the 1970s.
  Someone has to tell this administration and this city that back in 
1988, the Berlin Wall fell down and the idea of centralized planning 
was discredited throughout the entire world, not only in government, 
but also in industry. Everyone learned that lesson except the 
bureaucracies here in Washington, where a solution of this 
administration and far too much that takes place in this city is still 
the same idea: let's get a Big Government plan and let the government 
control everything. We want energy security, but we don't want to drill 
anywhere. We don't like $4 a gallon gasoline prices, but we're not 
ready to increase any refineries anywhere. We don't necessarily want 
more coal or hydro or nuclear, but we're not ready to come up with any 
kind of alternative. We actually do want to have more gas coming in 
here, but we're not ready to put any pipelines in place to try and make 
sure that actually happens.
  The end result is we lose. The Western Energy Alliance made the 
prediction that because of our lack of energy development on public 
lands in the West, we have lost 16,000 jobs and almost $4 billion of 
infrastructure investment that comes in there.
  The Secretary of Interior made a speech today where he called a lot 
of things we talk about here in Congress the ``imagined energy world.'' 
I think this administration believes in that imagined energy world.
  It's very easy for this administration to list all of their 
alternative energy projects by name, because they have very few of 
them. They're not moving ahead with solar power. They're not moving 
ahead with wind power. They're not moving ahead with anything else, and 
they're not moving ahead with alternative forms either. And this hits 
us in the West specifically.
  Mr. Pearce, I don't want to consume too much time. You may want to go 
in another direction. But I'm an old school teacher, and this is one of 
the areas that is of concern to me.
  This map is obviously the United States. Everything in red is what is 
controlled by the Federal Government.

                              {time}  2030

  You notice that we in the West have the unique opportunity of having 
one half of everything in the West controlled by the Federal 
Government. The Federal Government controls one out of every 3 acres in 
the Nation, and in some of our States it's like 90 percent, 70 percent, 
60 percent of all the land is still controlled by the Nation.
  Now, one of the things that you may say is, Well, is that bad? I want 
to contend to some of my good friends who live in other parts of the 
Nation that they have an interest in all of this red stuff over there 
because my good friends who live in the East are shelling out $8 
billion to $9 billion a year in order to control the West, to pay for 
all this land. Every year, in their efforts to make sure this map stays 
the same, that's $8 billion to $9 billion that comes out of their 
pockets.
  What do they get for that investment? They get this map. The States 
that are in red are the States that have the hardest time funding their 
education systems over the last several decades.
  Now, notice once again the States in red. The area in red is the 
Federal Government's own land. The States in red are the ones that have 
a hard time funding. You notice there is kind of a correlation simply 
between the two? This is what the United States is getting for its $9 
billion investment to control the West. We are harming our schools.
  Now, even in this land that's in the West, we have a huge backlog in 
maintenance issues. Our National Park Service is hundreds of millions 
behind in their maintenance system.
  There are some States like mine that simply said, you know, this is 
ridiculous. Our kids are being harmed in their education funding. We 
can't generate the money we need for our own infrastructure. Why don't 
you just let us take control of the land, and we will save those 
pristine areas that need to be saved. We will ensure there is access 
for recreation and multiple use, and we will develop those resources.
  The Secretary of the Interior today said, simply, that concept defies 
common sense. The idea that only the Federal Government has the ability 
and the intelligence to control this kind of land and that people who 
live in the States obviously can't do it defies common sense.
  What this means is the Federal Government that wants to spend more 
money for land acquisition, that cannot maintain its own land right 
now, that harms kids in the West with their education funding, that 
underfunds all the projects that are there right now and simply wants 
more and more, that's the common sense. If that, indeed, is the future, 
then we have a long, long way to go.

[[Page H2060]]

  We in the West simply have a simple situation. We can do it just as 
well, if not better, and my argument to you is we can actually do it 
better. That's what should be common sense. Our kids are being harmed 
by this system. We are not producing jobs for our kids because of this 
system. What I think we need to do in the West is realize this is a 
country that has energy potential, energy ability, job potential, job 
ability, and we have kids that definitely need that.
  We in the West pay more taxes than they do in the East when you add 
everything up. We put a higher percentage of our State budgets into 
education than they do in the East. We actually have higher class sizes 
than those in the East. We have more kids than those in the East.
  We need to have the ability of actually meeting our particular needs. 
Part of that is for this administration to simply realize you've got to 
help develop the resources that we can. We can control it. We can fund 
it. We can do it if you give us the opportunity just to move forward.
  This administration says that we are producing more oil now than ever 
before because it's all being produced on private property where they 
can't control it, try as they might to. If they simply unleash the 
potential in all this red area, this country would move forward in a 
growth spurt that is almost impossible to imagine. That's the 
commonsense plan.
  I am very happy to be a part of this issue because I'm excited about 
what my colleagues are saying in a much more refined way than I have 
been able to do that, and I'm excited about hearing some more of my 
westerners who realize, hey, listen, there is a war on western jobs and 
it needs to stop. We need to have help in creating western jobs, not 
hindrance in stopping western jobs.
  Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for his comments and would, again, 
accentuate both his points and the gentlelady from Wyoming's about the 
administration's current war on the poor. We have heard repeated 
comments from the administration and their representatives that we need 
to get the price of gasoline up so that people will consume less, that, 
yes, the price of electricity by our policies will necessarily increase 
dramatically. The price of electricity increasing, the price of gas 
increasing, punish the poor terribly. Why would we have policies that 
are so unfair to the poor? It defies imagination.
  Also, following up on my friend's comments about the Secretary saying 
that it is impossible, just not feasible, even unimaginable that people 
in the States would take better care of the property than the Federal 
Government has, I would simply direct the Secretary's attention to 
those massive forest fires in the West. They are managing our forests 
in order that they would burn down. They and the Federal Government 
have choked the bureaucracy full of people in order to manage these 
resources, but, instead, they manage them in a process that ultimately 
sees that they will burn down. It's not a question of if but when.
  The final comment I'm going to make, and then I'm going to yield to 
my friend from Colorado, but the President recently asked for $52 
million to crack down on speculators, which he claims are the cause of 
high gas prices. $52 million to crack down on speculators.
  Now, speculators, you have to understand that they make their money 
by guessing which way the market is going to go. Right now they see a 
government that is choking down access to supplies, so they scratch 
their head and say, We think maybe the price is going to go up and so 
they speculate and buy on the assumption that the price of gas is going 
up, the price of oil is going up, and lo and behold, they're making 
money.

  But if the President were to announce today that he was going to 
open--and people sincerely believed him, that he was going to open 
access to Federal lands, those same speculators who today think the 
price is going to go up would begin to say, Oh, I better buy down, 
because if I bid up and the price falls, I'm going to lose money. So 
those speculators would begin to drive the price down.
  But he doesn't need $52 million. All he needs to do is give one 
sentence from the White House that the war on the West is ending and 
we're going to open the West oil production up again. That would do the 
trick; no $52 million putting us deeper into debt. It simply makes 
sense to us from the West because we see it day in and day out.
  We're joined tonight by our good friend, Doug Lamborn, from Colorado, 
and welcome here. It's nice to see you, and we appreciate your 
participation in the Western Caucus. We appreciate you being here 
tonight.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Representative. You do such a great job 
representing New Mexico, and you know so much about energy issues and 
financial institutions, issues like that as well. But this is a great 
forum. I thank you for organizing this and your leadership on energy 
issues.
  I want to quickly address an issue that is of great concern to many 
people, myself included, and that is: Who should be regulating things 
like hydrologic fracking, fracturing--or fracking, for short--here in 
the United States? We have about 10 different Federal agencies that 
have their hand involved one way or another in regulating fracking, or 
at least trying to do so, from the EPA all the way to the Securities 
and Exchange Commission, if you can believe that.
  I'm concerned because in my work on the Natural Resources Committee, 
along with Rob Bishop that you heard from earlier, we have been hearing 
that the Bureau of Land Management, one of the agencies that our agency 
oversees, is proposing rules regulating fracking on public lands. The 
concern about that is that right now, in a State like Colorado, my own 
State, those State regulators are already doing a great job regulating 
fracking. They know the local geology. They know the water, the water 
aquifers. They know the things that someone in Washington is not really 
going to know.
  If you add a second layer of bureaucracy onto what the States are 
already doing, you have the potential--in fact, the certainty--of 
crippling job production, crippling energy production, because you'll 
have twice as many regulations to have to deal with if you're an energy 
producer. Why in the world do we need to, when the States are already 
doing a good job, add another layer of red tape and bureaucracy? I'm 
really concerned about that.
  The subcommittee that I'm the chairman of on Natural Resources, 
Energy and Mineral Resources, is having a hearing in Denver next week 
on Wednesday, the 2nd of May, at the State Capitol in Denver. We're 
going to get right into this very issue.

                              {time}  2040

  Should the States be regulating fracking, or do we also want to have 
the Federal Government regulating as well? I hope that the evidence 
shows--and I believe it will--that the States are already doing a great 
job. We can only lose by having another layer of regulation.
  This is an issue that affects energy in the West on public lands, and 
I'm really concerned that we have Federal agencies getting involved 
when the States are already doing a fine job and it's only going to 
hurt the production of energy and the creation of jobs.
  Mr. PEARCE. That is absolutely true. One point that is often omitted 
by the opponents of fracking is that the people who most want fracking 
not to communicate with the fresh water are the oil companies 
themselves. They drill this million-dollar well bore, then they run 
casing in the well bore. They put cement outside that casing in order 
that they can have a nice tight well bore in order to produce the oil 
that allows them to pump the oil out expeditiously. And when they 
frack, they frack thousands of feet below the water zones. They're 
usually right up at the surface. And for contamination to occur, that 
pressure that is pumped down in the thousands of feet lower in the well 
would have to come outside the well bore, outside the cement around the 
casing, all the way to the surface, and then contaminate the water up 
there. In doing that, they have ruined the entire well bore.
  So the companies themselves are watching to see if there's any drop 
in pressure. That's when you know that you've got something bleeding 
off. They shut everything down. They patiently look at it. The oil 
companies, again, are the best custodians of the

[[Page H2061]]

water because they don't want to ruin the well that they have spent 
drilling and a lot of money in completing.
  I notice that my good friend, Mrs. Lummis, is back at the podium, and 
would yield more time to her at this point.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I would like to point out what States are experiencing in relation to 
our Federal budget. So let's start with the Federal budget. Here we 
have all our revenue for 2011 in this column. Here we have just our 
entitlement programs that we spend money on in this column. So we're 
spending all of the tax revenue we take in in this country just on our 
entitlement programs. That is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, 
other mandatory programs such as food stamps and school lunches. And 
then, of course, interest on the debt. Which means every other 
discretionary program and the global war on terror and our national 
defense is all borrowed money--borrowed from China, from Saudi Arabia, 
from Japan, and from American companies and the American people. That 
would never happen in the State.
  On the front page of my State's statewide newspaper today was an 
article that our Governor, Wyoming Governor Matt Mead, is asking all 
State agencies to budget for an 8 percent cut in spending, and the 
health department, a 4 percent cut in spending. This is because natural 
gas prices in the United States have dropped below $2 in MCF, which is 
extremely low, and my State is the second largest producer of natural 
gas in the Nation, and we're heavily reliant on natural gas for 
revenues.
  So what do we do when our revenues decline? We cut spending. We 
budget differently. We don't hire people to sit in vacant positions. We 
leave those positions vacant or, better yet, make them completely go 
away. That's what States do to manage their problems. But an 
interesting source of revenue for the State is income off State lands. 
And it's a very important source of revenue.
  Now, Mr. Bishop from Utah pointed out earlier this evening that the 
American taxpayers are paying $8 billion, Mr. Bishop, to pay for 
administering public lands in the West. In my State of Wyoming, we 
could be managing those lands. And if you went and looked at the 
quality of our State lands, you would be thoroughly impressed. They are 
beautifully managed. The stewardship is well done. We are producing oil 
and gas. We're producing livestock, cattle, and sheep. We're producing 
timber. We're producing recreational opportunities, open space. We're 
creating, because of all that open space, places where clean air, clean 
water, and clean living can really work together. It is a wonderful 
system with much smaller administrative costs than the American people 
are paying for the Federal lands in the West. We've proven that as 
States who received land when we became States, we can manage all of 
the land in our State that's not private land.
  Consequently, I agree with what Mr. Bishop said earlier. The fact 
that we have NEPA, FLPMA, SMCRA, CERCLA, and lots of other laws that 
are managed from the Federal Government's level that could be managed 
at the State level would make it much less expensive, would make the 
land stewardship closer to home where the people who really love and 
thrive on these important lands live and work and want to recreate and 
want to participate in the management of these lands.

  They would also produce more revenue for the States, making States 
like Utah, like my own State of Wyoming, where we prioritize public 
education above all other expenditures of government, we would make 
more money available. Because as you know, in most States, the property 
taxes go largely to the education system. Well, when the land belongs 
to the Federal Government, the Federal Government doesn't pay taxes. 
Consequently, that money is not available to us.
  Now, States do get something called PILT payments--payment in lieu of 
taxes--but they're not the same as if that land were on the tax rolls 
of the States in which those lands reside. Consequently, look at what 
we've summed up. We're producing less jobs off Federal lands with more 
regulations, more cost to the American taxpayer, less revenue to the 
States, less revenue to the Federal Government, and less potential for 
job creation. The job seekers end up being on unemployment instead of 
paying taxes because of the salaries that are paid. And when you have 
great-paying jobs like in the oil and gas industry, where the average 
job pays $72,000 a year--a much higher wage than the average wage in 
our States--we really are hurting ourselves terribly by not 
prioritizing jobs, not using Federal lands to their fullest 
capabilities in a way that provides great stewardship that those in the 
West value and seek and yearn for and want and would never compromise 
in order to have a robust State and a robust economy.
  I want to thank Mr. Pearce once again for his leadership.
  Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentlelady.
  Before I yield time to my good friend Mr. Bishop again, I'm reading 
in today's quotes that Interior Secretary Salazar said that House 
Republicans live in an imagined energy world. I appreciate his concern 
and his criticism. I consider it as constructive. But think about this 
imagination.
  The President in March of 2012 said: We can't just drill our way to 
lower gas prices. We can't drill our way to lower gas prices. That's a 
viewpoint that could be considered legitimate, except that about the 
same time he's calling for Brazil and Saudi Arabia to increase their 
drilling in order to get the prices down so that people in America 
don't have to pay as much at the pump.

                              {time}  2050

  Now, I'm not sure what imagined energy world says that it will cause 
the price of gas to go down if they drill in Saudi Arabia and Brazil, 
but it won't cause the price of gas to go down if they drill over here. 
That, to me, argues that it is that that is instead an imagined energy 
world.
  The Secretary goes on to talk about that these members of the 
Republican Party are members of the Flat Earth Society in a demeaning 
term. Now, in my county, you can see from one end to the other, miles 
and miles; and if you turn and look east, you can see all the way to 
Dallas 300 or 400 miles away. I do live in a flat part of New Mexico 
and can see across the line into Texas. And so he speaks in demeaning 
terms about flat Earth, and yet he's very happy to have all the 
production of oil and gas that comes from there.
  So the flat-broke administration is criticizing the Flat Earth 
Society. And of the two, I would rather live on flat ground than be 
flat broke. And so I would yield to my good friend, and then I will 
close out.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico, and, once 
again, I do agree with you. I enjoy your image of the world much better 
than this particular administration. It reminds me of ``Back to the 
Future'' when they had the two movies, what happened if Biff got the 
sports sheets and what happened if he didn't? It's almost what we're 
doing here. There are two actual visions of what the future of this 
America will be; and, I'm sorry, this administration keeps taking us 
down the road in which Biff actually does have the sports sheets and he 
is able to win all those bets and get control of everything.
  I just want to add one other thing to what the gentlelady from 
Wyoming also said here. When we talk about the Federal Government and 
what the Federal Government does on public lands, I just want you to 
realize it is not only related to public lands itself.
  We find that this administration is not satisfied with just living 
within the boundaries of public lands, but is coming up with policies 
that impact private property that is next to those public lands. When 
this administration took over, in the State of Utah there were 77 oil 
leases that had gone through a 7-year review. They had all the public 
hearings, they did everything, they were ready to be let for sale to 
try and develop those resources in the eastern part of my State.
  The very first thing this administration did was recall those 77 
leases. It didn't matter that the process had gone through, they had 
done the work. They recalled them for the purpose of special interest 
groups for their satisfaction. What happened in the eastern part of my 
State is the unemployment rate simply skyrocketed not only for

[[Page H2062]]

these 77 leases that were on public land; but the private sector that 
was there ready to invest saw the handwriting on the wall, and they 
pulled out of that particular area. They were not ready to go through 
the kind of harassment as well as the regulation that they could see 
taking place. And the unemployment skyrocketed; the investment in that 
area went. Only now is it starting gradually and gradually to come back 
in.
  Here is the problem that we have with this administration's policies: 
Not only do they inhibit energy production and jobs that can be 
generated on public lands; their efforts of increased regulation and 
efforts to inhibit that kind of development take away jobs on private 
property where they see that there is not a future there and they don't 
want to go through the regulatory hassle. So what could have been 
developed in my State basically went to North Dakota on private lands, 
and there they found their ability to make lots of money and to 
increase the energy production here because they simply did not have to 
deal with this administration.
  Unfortunately, it's not just about energy jobs. This administration 
on public lands is doing the same thing for recreation jobs. With the 
number of roads that have been closed on the forest and BLM lands, 
stopping the ability of people to hunt and fish and do other forms of 
regulation, even the kinds of regulation on outfitters that tells them 
what kind of coffee they have to serve when they're on Park Service 
property, that is an impediment to the development of our recreation 
community and recreation jobs at the same time.
  One of the things we have to realize is that this administration's 
effort to try and control everything is producing nothing that is 
helping us create jobs for our kids to keep them at home. I appreciate 
Mr. Pearce for actually starting this process and talking about this 
issue because it needs desperately to be addressed.
  Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman.
  Senator Hatch is going to introduce this week the West Act, which is 
a combined 10 bills that we have previously sent from the House of 
Representatives that are sitting dormant drawing dust in the Senate, 
and so he is going to lump them together and push them out. Those are a 
part of our ``Jobs Frontier Report.'' And those acts do things like 
H.R. 1229, Putting the Gulf Back to Work Act, that's by Representative 
Hastings; H.R. 1230, Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act by, 
again, Mr. Hastings; H.R. 1231, Reversing President Obama's Offshore 
Moratorium Act; H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, and 
that's by Mr. Gardner from Colorado; H.R. 1837, the San Joaquin Valley 
Water Reliability Act by Mr. Nunes of California; H.R. 872, Reducing 
Regulatory Burdens Act by Mr. Gibbs; H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust 
Prevention Act by Ms. Noem; and, finally, H.R. 910, the Energy Tax 
Prevention Act by Mr. Upton.

  Now, just talking among friends, I would feel that the Secretary of 
the Interior exposes a little bit of thin skin. These are credible 
debates that we're having in America right now, whether we should use 
foreign oil or oil produced in this country, whether we should export 
our jobs overseas to produce energy or whether we should get them here.
  I read where Mr. Salazar says that the fact is most of the Outer 
Continental Shelf resources are open for business, he says. Well, then, 
give us the nod, and we'll simply pass those first three bills: Putting 
the Gulf Back to Work Act; Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now; 
and Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium. If it's already 
the case, then just humor us, nod your head, and nothing will be 
changed since it's already open for business, and if the President 
would tell the Senate to go ahead and pass just those three bills, we 
could send them up to the President, and we could have plenty of jobs 
starting out and plenty of American production.
  Again, I would look back at the price of natural gas. When the 
administration says that you can't drill and come up with lower prices, 
the price of natural gas a couple of years ago was in the $12 range. 
Today, the price is about $2.50. Now what caused the price to go from 
12 to 2? When the price is going up, the President says, I need $52 
million to control the speculators that are driving the price up. But 
when the price goes down, somehow he's not saying we need to give you 
$52 million back because now those speculators are driving the price 
down.
  This view of energy in the White House, originating with the 
Secretary of the Interior, somehow doesn't get the fact that the reason 
the price of natural gas has fallen from 12 to 2--and that's a very 
steep decline--is because we have drilled our way into lower prices. 
We've increased the supply enough through more jobs and more production 
that world demand is kind of swamped with the supply. It's, again, an 
economic equation of supply and demand.
  I think that's the greater impact in the price of gasoline today. The 
supply and demand of oil and the supply and demand of natural gas 
controls that. We have drilled our way to success in natural gas 
because companies went everywhere drilling on private lands.
  But now, then, the administration is saying we need to curtail all 
that production here because it's not going to lower the price; we need 
to the control the speculators. These are simply inconsistencies that 
are punishing the American public. They're punishing the American 
public and especially the poor in the American public by higher 
gasoline prices and by higher electricity costs. It's making it to 
where families just can't get by, to where they can't make the payments 
for the month. And poor families everywhere are having to make choices 
to buy energy or to live in cold, live without air conditioning, and to 
not be able to drive and see their grandkids.
  What kind of choices are those? Those are not the choices that I 
think most Americans want. I think most Americans like our lifestyle. 
Our lifestyle is based on two dominant things--the cost of food and the 
cost of energy. And when we drive both of those costs up through 
overregulation and through government limitations, then we're doing a 
disservice to the American public.
  Every single person in America wants to see our land protected, they 
want to see the workers protected, they want to see soil, water, and 
air protected; but they also are desperate to see jobs created. It's 
within the power of this body, it's within the power of the Senate, and 
it's within the power of the President to create those jobs, to create 
the answers for an America that is tired, for an America that is 
scared, and for an America that is worried about its future and the 
future for her children.

                              {time}  2100

  It's within our power in this town to reverse those things, to stop 
the war on the West, to start making sense in public policy, to start 
making decisions that create solutions--real solutions for not just 
jobs, but for careers where people can plan their lives, they can set 
aside to buy a house, or to send their kids to school. That's the 
America that all Americans want across party lines, across racial 
lines. People for generations have come to this country for that 
promise, for that hope, and that opportunity. It starts with us in this 
town. It is time for us to put aside the differences.
  We ask the Senate to pass the West Act; and, Mr. President, we 
respectfully ask for you to sign that act to bring jobs to the West and 
bring prosperity to the Nation.
  God bless this country, and God bless each one of the taxpayers.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McKinley). All Members are reminded to 
address their remarks to the Chair.

                          ____________________