[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 57 (Wednesday, April 24, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H2277-H2283]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special 
Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it's good to be in the people's 
House this afternoon to talk about a topic that is of utmost concern to 
the American people--energy. What does it mean for America? We all put 
gas in our cars, we all heat and cool our homes, businesses across this 
country power their manufacturing processes. So what does energy mean 
for today and for the future of our country?
  I'm proud to be a member of the House Energy Action Team because we 
understand the critical role that domestic-energy production plays not 
only today, but in the future of our country. Let me give an example of 
why this is so important.
  I remember one of the very first memorable events that occurred in 
March of 2011 in my first term. We were addressed here in this Chamber 
by the Prime Minister of Australia. And in her remarks she commented, 
she said: ``I remember being a young girl, sitting on the floor of my 
living room, watching Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin land on the 
Moon.'' She went on to talk about how America and Australia had stood 
side by side, how America had actually stood in front of and protected 
Australia during some of the darkest days of World War II in the 
Pacific.

                              {time}  1530

  At the end of her speech, she said, ``Back when I was a little girl 
and when I saw that Moon landing, I thought to myself, wow, those 
Americans can do anything.'' She wrapped up her comments by saying, 
``Today, as Prime Minister of Australia, with a lot of experience under 
my belt, I still believe that Americans can do anything.''
  When you stop and think about the Moon landing--and I know you're 
going to say, Well, what does that have to do with energy? I'm getting 
to that. President Kennedy gave us a vision of putting a man on the 
Moon in 10 years. We didn't make it in 10 years. We made it in less 
than 10 years. The reason that we did was that every fabric of our 
society bought into the idea--academic institutions, the scientific 
community. Industries cropped up overnight. Millions of jobs were 
created. Young people lined up to get into academic programs in which 
they could major in degrees that would prepare them for careers in 
space exploration.
  At the end of the day--actually, we're not at the end of the day--
we're still benefiting from the innovation and the technological 
advance that came out of that era. It was a time when America's 
imagination was captivated by what many thought was impossible and by 
what the rest of the world didn't really think we could do. You look at 
what has happened since we started that journey--at all of the 
technological innovations that have occurred: cell phones, flat-screen 
TVs, GPS, even arthroscopic surgery. We had to learn to perform medical 
procedures on space travelers in a way that was noninvasive, and 
medical experts began to think about ``how do we do that in outer 
space?'' So we learned how to dream, and that goal to put a man on the 
Moon captivated America's imagination.
  I want you to think for a second about what would happen if America 
once again embarked on a journey of that magnitude. I believe a journey 
to become energy independent and secure in America is just such a 
journey that we could embark on. A vision of energy independence and 
security would not only captivate the imagination of the American 
people but it would put America back to work at a time when our economy 
is in such desperate need of private-sector economic growth. Imagine 
what would happen if we had a national energy vision that sounded 
something like this:
  We're going to go after the vast volumes of oil and natural gas that 
we have. In many experts' opinions, we've got more of it than anyone 
else has in the world. We're going to expand our nuclear footprint 
because nuclear energy is one of the safest, most reliable forms of 
energy on the planet. We brought that to the world, and we know how to 
do it. We're going to continue to mine coal, and we're going to learn 
how to use it environmentally soundly because we've got enough coal to 
fuel our energy needs for generations yet to come.
  We're even going to embrace alternative forms of energy--biofuels, 
wind and solar. Now, they're not going to meet our heavy lifting energy 
needs for the foreseeable future, but there is a role that they play in 
our overall energy profile. We're going to back that up with action 
with the regulatory community and tell the regulators at the EPA and 
the Department of the Interior and at the Army Corps of Engineers: 
effective today, you start being partners in progress with America's 
energy industries. Rather than being the department of ``no,'' learn 
how to find a way forward. If a particular project or if a particular 
technology presents concerns, then let's address those concerns, but 
``no'' should not be the final answer.
  We've learned through the lessons of putting a man on the Moon that, 
when Americans are allowed to dream, when they're allowed to innovate, 
when they're allowed to compete, there is nothing that we can't solve.
  Why is energy independence and security so important? First of all, 
it's important because of national security. Right now, today, we are 
beholden to some countries that don't like us very much for our energy 
resources. Why do we want to continue to do that when we have the 
resources right here at home to be able to solve that problem?
  In order to captivate the imagination of the American people, we've 
got to help the American people understand why this is so important to 
them. We talk about energy in terms of very important projects like the 
Keystone XL pipeline of which the President, himself, said that the 
environmental concerns were overexaggerated, so let's get the project 
approved.
  Yet we talk about it in technical terms--pipelines, hydraulic 
fracturing, oil rigs, nuclear reactors, uranium enrichment. What does 
all of that mean to American taxpayers--to working Americans who are 
just struggling day in and day out to make ends meet?
  Here is what it means:
  Take a manufacturing process, the manufacturing of cereal, Pop-
Tarts--you name it, whatever our children consume today. When domestic 
energy costs are reduced, those manufacturing costs to produce those 
goods are also reduced. When the price of diesel fuel goes down and 
when the cost of the transportation to transport those goods from the 
manufacturers to the

[[Page H2278]]

grocery stores goes down, those savings are passed on in the costs of 
the products to the consumers. When working mothers and single moms and 
single dads who are trying to make ends meet--who are trying to figure 
out how they're going to put kids through college, how they're going to 
buy the next pair of tennis shoes--are balancing the checkbooks and 
when they see that their energy costs to heat and to cool their homes 
are going down and that they're paying less to fill up their cars to go 
back and forth to work, that translates into economic confidence to do 
the kinds of things that we were able to do during that remarkable 
period of putting a man on the Moon.
  Today, we've got a lot of naysayers out there who simply don't 
understand how important this is, this idea of energy independence and 
security to the American people, and they're trying to frighten the 
American people.
  Hydraulic fracturing, my goodness. We've been doing hydraulic 
fracturing in America for over 60 years, over a million such 
operations. A former EPA administrator, herself, acknowledged there has 
not been a single incident in which hydraulic fracturing has 
contaminated the water table. Yet the EPA is working hard to try and 
insert itself into a process that many, many States are already doing 
and are already doing very well. Take, for example, the State of Ohio 
where I come from. Literally, my district sits on top of the Marcellus 
and the Utica shales, one of the world's largest reservoirs of oil and 
natural gas.

                              {time}  1540

  The State of Ohio has been regulating the oil and gas industry since 
1965. We're among those States that have done a lot of hydraulic 
fracturing, and yet again there is not one proven instance where that 
process has contaminated drinking water, yet you've got those that sit 
on the sidelines and try to frighten homeowners, try to frighten those 
people that live in Appalachian Ohio that their water is going to be 
contaminated. It's not. It's a proven process.
  And just over the last 5 years, we've developed technology called 
horizontal hydraulic fracturing, where we can go down a mile and then 
go out horizontally another mile, sometimes more, and have much more of 
that vital resource of oil and natural gas flowing to the surface, 
resources that are going to move America one step closer to energy 
independence and security.
  Mr. Speaker, we've got an opportunity to put America back in charge 
of our economic destiny and an energy vision that is a real all-of-the-
above energy vision for this country. It's what America needs.
  At this time, I'd like to yield time to my colleague from South 
Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Folks in South Carolina are concerned 
about where we are with energy in this country. Energy independence is 
something that's on the minds of folks back home.
  You know, I drive a diesel truck, and the gentleman from Ohio was 
talking about diesel fuel just recently. When I was at the fuel pump 
recently fueling my truck with diesel fuel, I was paying about $3.85 a 
gallon. It dawned on me, as I watched the 18-wheelers roll by coming 
from the pumps where they filled up, that if we were able to really 
achieve American energy independence and we were able to lower the cost 
at the pump for America's truckers and all of America's families--but I 
use trucking as an example. If we could truly lower the cost of diesel 
fuel for America's truckers by just $1, if we could produce enough 
American energy resources to lower diesel fuel from that $3.85 a gallon 
that I was paying down to $2.85 a gallon--those 18-wheelers that were 
rolling by I believe had 400-gallon diesel tanks.
  Think about that, America. Think about if that truck or that trucking 
company was able to save $400 per fill-up for that 18-wheeler, and 
think about the number of trucks you pass on America's interstates and 
highway systems. If we could save that, think about the trickle-down 
effect that that would have for consumer products.
  We're not just talking about gasoline and diesel fuel. The American 
hydrocarbons that are produced when they're refined, they're refined 
into a lot of different products. And I would ask folks to research 
what a barrel of hydrocarbon or fossil fuel, oil, when you put that 
under extreme pressure, the heat created, how it separates out and all 
the different products that come from a barrel of oil. It's an amazing 
component that God has given us.
  In South Carolina, we understand that the Nation can achieve American 
energy independence; but we also understand that if we can't have 
American energy independence, why not an all-American energy strategy 
where we work with our neighbors to the north, our largest and best 
trading partner, the Canadians, or we work with the Mexicans and the 
folks to the south with a transboundary agreement; allow that area 
where the boundary between Mexico and the United States is, that we can 
drill in that area and we have an agreement for revenue sharing on the 
oil produced there.
  But let's go back to our neighbors in the north, our largest and best 
trading partner. The former speaker of the house from South Carolina, 
David Wilkins, was Ambassador to Canada under the Bush administration. 
I spent a lot of time with Speaker Wilkins, Ambassador Wilkins, and we 
talked about Canada and we talked about the oil sands. This was before 
the Keystone XL pipeline.
  But let's focus on the Keystone XL pipeline to bring that Canadian 
oil to American refineries that are sitting there with the capacity to 
refine that Canadian oil. What do I mean by capacity? It's idle 
capacity. It's capacity that could be utilized to refine American 
resources or Canadian resources coming down to those refineries, 
refining that into the products that we enjoy as America.
  That's why the Keystone XL pipeline is so important. Let's put 
Americans to work. We hear a lot about job creation and putting 
Americans to work. Well, this truly would. Mr. Speaker, this Keystone 
XL pipeline would put Americans to work in those refineries, refining 
that oil into all the chemicals and gasoline products and everything 
that we use out of a barrel of hydrocarbons or a barrel of oil. The 
Keystone pipeline is something that should happen in this country.
  The opponents on the other side say: Well, that oil is just going to 
flow from Canada. It's going to flow through the United States. It's 
going to go to our refineries. But those contracts have been let, and 
that oil and those gasoline products are going to be used in other 
markets. It will not do anything to affect the price at the pump here.
  That's what the other side says.
  Here's a simple economic example:
  It's supply and demand. Global demand is high right now, and the 
supply is low. The supply is low for a lot of reasons: the OPEC cartel 
and other things. Policies, moratoriums, and other things from this 
administration keep global supply down.
  Let's assume that the oil from Canada does flow through the United 
States, refined at our refineries, and does flow out of this country. 
So what? That increased supply will meet the increased demand. And by 
meeting that demand, that will drive the price down, not only for 
Americans, but for everyone across the globe.
  It's the right thing to do to put Americans to work to refine that 
oil into those products at American refineries. It's true job creation.
  While we're on the subject of job creation, Mr. Speaker, and the 
gentleman that's heading up the House Energy Action Team, which is 
focused on an all-American energy strategy and American 
energy independence, while we're talking about job creation, let's talk 
about my State of South Carolina.

  We've been excluded in the next 5-year plan, the plan that would 
allow offshore drilling off our coast on the Outer Continental Shelf. 
Right now, folks, the whole Atlantic shelf is off limits to drilling, 
with the exception of a very proactive State of Virginia, which has 
been able to include Virginia's offshore area in the next 5-year plan. 
We'll see if that comes to fruition.
  But South Carolina is sitting there saying, with a lot of the other 
Atlantic States, We believe we have some resources off our coast. We 
believe there's natural gas off the coast of South Carolina. Let's 
allow South Carolina's offshore area to be included in the next 5-year 
plan.

[[Page H2279]]

  What does that mean? Does that mean we're going to rush right out 
there and punch a hole in the Earth and start producing? Maybe; maybe 
not. What it does mean is that it allows that exploration. It allows 
those energy companies to say: You know what? That area is going to be 
opened up. We haven't explored out there in 30 years. It was 30-year-
old technology when we went out there before. Let's go out there with 
new technology. Let's find out what sort of resources might be off the 
coast of South Carolina on the Outer Continental Shelf of the Atlantic 
seaboard. Let's go out there. Let's find out what might be there, and 
let's start producing that.
  You know what happens when we do start producing? I just ask you to 
drive down to Louisiana and get on Highway 90 from Lafayette down to 
New Iberia and down to Houma and Thibodaux and those areas. You get on 
that four-lane highway, Mr. Johnson, and you ride down that highway, on 
both sides of the four-lane highway, business after business after 
business after business after business--and I could go on and on. These 
are businesses that aren't out there actually doing the drilling 
because those lease sales were to ExxonMobil or Halliburton or some of 
those companies. These are the service companies that are servicing 
offshore drilling.
  Think about this for a minute. Think about the guys that are using 
the barges and the offshore boats that carry the service boats that are 
taking the drilling mud and the casing and the piping and the diesel 
fuel for the generators and the food and the personnel and everything 
else that goes offshore out to the platform. Then think about this: 
they're companies on shore. They're running trucks up and down the road 
that need truck repair; they need body repair. We need pipe welders and 
pipe fitters.
  Like I said, business after business after business there in 
Louisiana is helping the offshore industry.

                              {time}  1550

  And South Carolina is sitting there going, Well, you know what? If we 
allowed drilling offshore and we allowed this to happen on the Outer 
Continental Shelf, then maybe those businesses would come to South 
Carolina--the service boats, the drilling mud, the providers of the 
onshore pipe fitters and pipe boilers. And you know what? Those guys 
have to eat. And so they fill up the local restaurants and they shop at 
the local Piggly Wiggly. And guess what. They give to the United Way 
and they give to the local church, and it's a trickle-down economy when 
you've got people working and you've people creating businesses and 
providing income to an economy.
  When we think about an all-American, energy-independent energy 
structure, we need to think about all of the jobs that are created 
through that American energy independence; and it's not just the guys 
that are doing the offshore drilling, and it's not just the guys that 
are doing the hydraulic fracturing here. That is a tremendous 
component, and it's working in Pennsylvania, and should be working in 
southern New York. It's working in Ohio. It's producing resources.
  When we talk about energy, we focus a lot right now on North Dakota. 
North Dakota, my gosh, it's a microcosm of what we could be in this 
country if we truly pursued an American energy policy. North Dakota, 3 
percent unemployment or less. Some say it's a negative unemployment. I 
say, when you get off an airplane in North Dakota, they give you a job 
whether you need one or not. You talk about a lack of housing; they 
don't have housing for people coming up there to take the jobs. If you 
need a job in America and you're willing to travel to North Dakota, you 
can go up and get $70,000 a year driving a water truck. Jobs are 
created.
  North Dakota, a microcosm of what we could be in this country if we 
truly pursued an all-American energy policy, and that includes 
hydraulic fracturing. That includes drilling on Federal land that is 
currently off-limits to energy exploration, energy production, but it's 
also off-limits to wind and solar. Federal land that you own--America. 
The American taxpayers own this Federal land, and it ought to be 
utilized to the maximum benefit for American taxpayers.
  Folks, we can reduce our fuel prices at the pump. We can reduce your 
prices for electricity at home, and that's through an American energy 
policy that's truly all of the above.
  And so I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio leading this leadership 
hour, giving me an opportunity to speak about something that I am very 
passionate about, and that is an all-American energy policy that 
produces resources here, lessens our dependence on the Middle East, 
lessens our dependence on the OPEC cartel, truly trades with our 
neighbors to the north and the south, and approaches true independence.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank my colleague from South Carolina, and at 
this time I yield to our chairman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio 
for yielding me time.
  As chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I would 
like to focus my remarks on the role of science and technology in 
Republicans' all-of-the-above energy strategy.
  The Science Committee has oversight responsibility in two relevant 
areas. The committee oversees $8.5 billion of the Department of 
Energy's research and development funding.
  If we want to ensure that Americans have access to the affordable and 
reliable energy they need, we must strengthen DOE scientific research 
programs and EPA scientific integrity principles. And that is what we 
intend to do this Congress.
  As part of this process, the Science Committee expects to reauthorize 
the America COMPETES Act. A central component of that legislation is $5 
billion to the Department of Energy Office of Science, which maintains 
world-class research facilities through the National Laboratories. The 
office also supports innovative research that will help transform how 
we produce and consume energy.
  We will also pursue energy legislation that improves prioritization 
and management of specific programs, from energy efficiency and 
renewable energy to nuclear, coal, oil, and natural gas.
  The Science Committee recently received testimony that highlighted 
the massive costs and duplication of Federal subsidies for alternate 
forms of energy. The administration should not pick winners and give 
subsidies to favored companies that promote uncompetitive technologies. 
This too often leads to waste and bankruptcy, as we witnessed with 
Solyndra and other companies. Instead, we should focus our resources on 
research and development that will produce technologies that will 
enable alternative energy sources to become economically competitive 
without the need for subsidies.
  Finally, we need to fix the EPA, which continues to levy numerous 
regulations that burden employers. Under the Obama administration, the 
EPA has aggressively sought to regulate nearly every aspect of the 
energy industry. It implements rules that burden employers and kill 
jobs. Insulting the taxpayers who fund the EPA, the administration 
refuses to release the scientific data upon which these burdensome 
regulations are based. This is entirely inconsistent with the 
President's stated commitment to lead the most open and transparent 
administration in history. The committee will continue to work to 
ensure that the EPA lives up to the President's transparency standard. 
The American people deserve to know all the facts, particularly since 
EPA regulations on the energy sector have a direct impact on their 
daily lives.
  For example, the EPA has opposed a technological innovation that 
provides good-paying jobs for many Americans. The fracking revolution 
is changing the nature of American energy production. Hundreds of 
communities directly benefit from the economic turnaround due to energy 
production made possible by the fracking technology. These locations 
range from North Dakota to Pennsylvania to Texas. These States' 
household income growth and low unemployment is a direct result of 
revolutionary technology developments combined with sound energy policy 
and oversight at the State level.
  Madam Speaker, on the Science Committee, we aim to ensure that 
Americans reap the benefits of this current energy technology 
revolution, and the Science Committee will do its part.

[[Page H2280]]

  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time we 
have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Black). The gentleman has 31 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to 
yield to my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Thank you so much for yielding as we talk 
about the importance of American energy independence and using all of 
our fuels and all of the above. I know that we all want to use all of 
the above, but there are a lot of people who want to put regulations so 
strict on coal that you can't use it anymore.
  I hold up for you tonight the commemorative scissors that I used to 
cut the ribbon, along with a number of other people, at the Dominion 
Resources power plant in Virginia City, Virginia. And it wasn't 10 
years ago; it wasn't 5 years ago. It was last September.
  That plant would not be able to be built today if the regulations 
proposed by the EPA are actually adopted. Those would be the 
regulations relating to greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide.
  When that plant was opened, they were so proud, and rightfully so. 
They had spent a lot of money, and they had the best technology 
available--the best technology available in the world--one of the 
cleanest plants ever opened to create electric power at a reasonable 
cost using the natural resources that God gave the United States of 
America, to use our coal supply in an appropriate, efficient manner.
  Now, everybody says coal is dirty and we shouldn't use it; but we can 
use it in clean ways, like they're doing in the Dominion plant. I would 
also point out to you that as we send jobs away, are we really making 
any progress?
  I note from one of the reports we've gotten from the Energy and 
Commerce Committee that at one point in time not too long ago the 
United Mine Workers estimated that job losses with the EPA targeting 
coal units due to utility MACT and tighter greenhouse gas standards 
could cost us more than 50,000 direct jobs in the coal, utility, and 
rail industries; and indirectly, a figure costing us jobs of more than 
250,000 jobs lost.
  That doesn't make a lot of sense because what we're doing is we're 
making it impossible to use our coal, where we, in fact, have the 
largest reserves of anyplace in the world. We are the Saudi Arabia of 
coal, and we don't want to use it, but many of the other nations of the 
world, including China, do want to use coal, and they are using coal. 
What's interesting about that is, when you look at that, looking at a 
report from the Sustainable Use of Coal and Pollution Control Policy in 
China, dated 2009--and this was a group of folks looking at what they 
can to do to continue to use coal in China; it's an international group 
trying to figure out what to do--they point out that, in China, the 
fraction of power capacity with unit scale smaller than 100 megawatts 
is 24.8 percent in 2007, while it is only 7 percent in the U.S. in 
2007. The average coal consumption per unit powered electricity supply 
in China is 11 percent higher than that of Japan.

                              {time}  1600

  So what we're looking at is a situation where they're using more coal 
to produce the same power than we are, by about 24.8 percent for them 
and 7 percent in the United States. And when you get down to the 
pollution, you're looking at 30 percent to 150 percent higher than that 
in the United States.
  Further, they go on to talk about the boilers, related to the maximum 
achievable control technology in boilers. And it says normally the 
thermal efficiency for boilers is between 72 and 80 percent, which is 
close to the design level of developed countries.
  But, in reality, most of the actual thermal efficiencies are between 
60 to 65 percent, which means they're 10 to 15 percent lower than the 
identified thermal efficiencies of boilers, which means, in effect, 
they're 30 to 40 percent less efficient, 30 to 50 percent less 
efficient than boilers in most of the developed countries.
  So here's what we're doing, folks. We're taking the jobs from the 
United States; we're sending them over to China and other countries 
like India and so forth. They're producing the electricity to produce 
the goods that we used to produce in the United States. They're doing 
it less efficiently; they're creating more pollution. And, as a NASA 
study showed, it takes 10 days to get from the middle of the Gobi 
Desert, for that air to transport across the Pacific, 10 days from the 
middle of the Gobi Desert in China to the Eastern Shore of Virginia.
  Folks, we have to be careful with the policies we make here. We all 
want clean air. We all want clean water. But we also want jobs, and we 
have to recognize the United States cannot solve this problem by 
itself. We must solve it with others working with us; and when they're 
not willing to start down that path and to make a good-faith effort, we 
have to recognize that we should be as efficient as we can be.
  But we shouldn't be killing American jobs based on American energy 
when we know we can do it better and have less pollution than they can 
do it in other parts of the world.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank my colleague. I yield some time now to 
our colleague from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Speaker, I rise today to point out that 
affordable American-made energy is the key to economic growth, economic 
development, and bringing this country out of the grips of the tough 
economic types that we're in.
  I'm blessed to represent south Texas. The district I represent covers 
some land that's part of the Eagle Ford Shale. There's a big oil and 
gas play going on there.
  You know, it's not just the oilmen that are doing well. It's the 
restaurateurs that are doing well. I've never seen so many brand-new 
white pickup trucks. Some of this Texas oil and gas money is helping 
out the folks in Detroit: General Motors, Dodge, Ford. Some of these 
guys are even buying the Toyota trucks made in San Antonio, Texas.
  It's an economic boom where we're actually struggling to find people 
to work. You can go to work in a fast-food restaurant for $15 because 
they're competing with the oil and gas industry.
  And you know what else is happening?
  The low-cost natural gas that's abundantly available, they're saying 
100 years' supply in Texas is creating new factories for manufacturing. 
In Corpus Christi alone, we've got two different steel mills coming in 
and using that gas to fire their plant. We're looking at a new plastics 
facility coming in.
  And numerous other industries throughout the entire Texas coast, and 
even further inland, are realizing that affordable, American-made 
energy makes the United States competitive again. Even with the higher 
wages that we pay our employees in countries like China, with our low-
cost energy, we can beat that.
  Natural gas in the United States, especially in south Texas, we're in 
the $4 range. If you were to buy that same natural gas and have it in 
Japan, it's $18. We've got a huge opportunity here. We've got a huge 
economic advantage.
  House Republicans, myself included, we support an all-of-the-above 
energy, and the technology is going to come. We're going to get the 
technology for wind. We're going to get the technology for solar. We're 
going to get the storage technology in batteries.
  All that stuff Chairman Smith was talking about that's going on with 
the Department of Energy and the Science and Technology Committee, 
those technologies are coming. But as we've seen with things like 
Solyndra and the tax credit that goes to wind farms, they're not 
economical today.
  We have low-cost fossil fuel that will bridge us until those 
technologies are ready for prime time and ready to go. We need to take 
advantage of it. We need to open up the infrastructure with things like 
the Keystone pipeline. We need to open up Federal land so we can charge 
a royalty to the oil and gas companies for producing that on Federal 
land. That will bring money into the Federal budget that we could use 
for a wide variety of things: lowering the deficit, repairing our 
decaying infrastructure needs.
  We need to be a country of ``yes'' to all-of-the-above energy, and it 
will solve our economic crisis, and we will have a better life for 
every single American.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the gentleman. At this time, we'll go to 
my colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).

[[Page H2281]]

  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 
importance of natural gas production to America's energy security.
  Natural gas production is a critical part of a new economy, a new 
economy where energy costs are lower. In fact, there have been several 
articles lately that talk about manufacturing plants in Europe moving 
to the United States because of lower energy costs, because of the 
lower cost of manufacturing products using low-cost natural gas.
  And, also, recent studies have shown that our greenhouse gases in the 
United States are lower because of more natural gas use.
  My home State of Arkansas is an energy-rich State, and the 
Fayetteville shale play has helped fuel our State's economy. It's one 
of the biggest deposits of natural gas in the United States. It spans 
approximately 4,000 square miles. It's estimated to contain up to 20 
trillion cubic feet of natural gas. It's considered one of the most 
productive shale plays in the country.
  But what does that mean for everyday Americans? What does it mean, 
what has it meant for Arkansans?
  Well, natural gas production is providing high-paying jobs for folks 
in my State and my district. According to the University of Arkansas, 
the average annual pay in the oil and gas extraction industry was 
$74,000 in 2010. That's good pay. That's money that pays for food on 
the table, for a kid's education. That's twice the average pay of all 
industry in the State of Arkansas.
  Further, the Fayetteville shale play supports over 20,000 jobs. It's 
added $12 billion to Arkansas' economy since 2008. That impacts 
families.
  Across the country, though, you've heard some detractors. These 
individuals have spread exaggerations, in some case, falsehoods about 
the environmental impacts of natural gas extraction through fracking.
  And I want to point out that President Obama's own U.S. Geological 
Survey recently produced an important report that highlights the safety 
of natural gas production in Arkansas. Now, you're probably not hearing 
a lot about it, but it's an important study that was done in 
conjunction with Duke University and the University of Arkansas.
  In January of this year, they published a study entitled ``Shallow 
Groundwater Quality and Geochemistry in the Fayetteville Shale Gas 
Production Area.''
  What's the point of this study? The point of this study is that they 
tested groundwater, and they found that what's going on in the 
Fayetteville shale is environmentally safe.
  The yearlong study examined the water quality of 127 shallow wells in 
the Fayetteville shale play. The report concluded there's no indication 
of systemic regional effects on shallow groundwater. This supports the 
understanding that natural gas production is safe for our environment 
and communities.
  And as the father of two young children, I recognize the importance 
of ensuring that our air's clean and that our water's clean.
  We must always seek to ensure that energy development is undertaken 
responsibly, but this report is an inconvenient truth for many out 
there who oppose fracking, which has given us so much natural gas and a 
competitive advantage.
  Mr. Speaker, we must support the continuation of environmentally 
sound natural gas production in the United States to ensure our energy 
independence and further decrease our reliance on foreign sources of 
energy. It is absolutely critical to grow our economy so that families 
across the country can put food on the table and pursue happiness in 
this great country.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank my friend.
  Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about how much time we have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 28 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I would like to now yield to my colleague from 
Texas (Mr. Olson).
  Mr. OLSON. I thank my colleague from the Buckeye State. Ohio has 
always been a coal State. Now, with the Utica Shale plate, it's an oil 
and gas State.
  Mr. Speaker, the HEAT Team is back for the 113th Congress. I'm proud 
to be joining the HEAT Team--the House Energy Action Team--as we talk 
about a dream: American energy independence. As part of that goal, I'll 
be talking this afternoon about power generation and grid reliability.
  In Texas, bigger is always better. Texas got bigger than any State in 
the last 10 years. We did it for simple reasons: no state income tax; a 
right to work State; commonsense regulations; and cheap, reliable 
energy. To sustain that growth, we need five new large power plants in 
the next 2 to 3 years. It could be a matter of life and death. If we 
have a power crisis such as the heat wave like we had in August of 
2011, when the entire State was over 100 degrees for all 31 days of 
that month, if that happens again, in the next 1 or 2 years, power may 
go out over the State, with rolling brownouts, rolling blackouts. That 
could be life and death for the elderly, the young, the poor.
  The Obama administration's obstacles to fossil fuels is our greatest 
challenge. Radical environmentalists have killed two new, large power 
plants. One is the Las Brisas power plant near Corpus Christi, and the 
second is the White Stallion Power Plant, a coal plant, near Bay City, 
where we have two nuclear reactors. Las Brisas was like coal. It used 
petroleum coke to refine that to make it energy. Now we'll export that 
energy source overseas.
  We need options to make sure that mothballed power plants can come 
back on line if we need them in a crisis. But as we've seen in the 
past, these power plants run the risk of being sued for exceeding their 
environmental limitations from the EPA. I have reintroduced a bill, 
H.R. 271, in this Congress. It passed in the last Congress unanimously 
in the Energy and Commerce Committee, of which I'm a member. It passed 
unanimously on this floor last Congress. It's coming back in committee 
sometime in the next couple of weeks.
  By passing this bill, we send a simple message: if the person or 
entity that runs the power grid tells you to keep that power plant up 
and running, and you exceed the EPA limitations, you cannot be held 
liable for exceeding the limitations when some government agency has 
told you to keep the power plant up and running. That's common sense.
  I thank my colleague. I'm glad to be here because we have a chance 
again to make our country energy independent.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I yield now to my colleague from California (Mr. 
Valadao).
  Mr. VALADAO. In addition to our rich agricultural land, California's 
San Joaquin Valley is also blessed with an abundance of oil, natural 
gas, and renewable energy sources. These resources should be utilized 
to create jobs, lower energy costs for American families, and reduce 
our Nation's dependency on foreign energy. Instead, misguided public 
policy and overreaching Federal regulations have cost the Central 
Valley thousands of jobs and increased the price at the pump for all 
Americans.
  Over the last several years, there have been dramatic changes in the 
energy policy of the United States. And as result, energy prices have 
significantly increased. Cap-and-trade legislation failed to pass the 
House in 2009. However, Washington bureaucrats have already implemented 
several parts of cap-and-trade through erroneous EPA regulations. These 
regulations put limitations on carbon emissions, diminishing oil and 
gas production in my district.
  Since 1976, the number of environmental regulations in the Code of 
Federal Regulations has increased 25-fold. Regulations developed and 
enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency have had a devastating 
effect on energy production in the Central Valley as the EPA and other 
members of the Federal environmental bureaucracy continue to wage war 
on energy producers, costing California thousands of high-quality, 
good-paying jobs. By taking advantage of the natural resources in 
California, we can provide Americans with quality jobs, restore our 
economy, and reduce the struggle families face every day due to high 
energy costs.
  The most efficient path toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil 
and lowering energy costs is an all-of-the-above approach that includes 
conventional sources of energy as well as renewable energy sources such 
as

[[Page H2282]]

hydro, solar, and wind power. My district is home to a growing number 
of wind and solar farms. Developing market-based energy sources will 
help the United States meet its energy independence goals. However, in 
order to meet our country's energy demand, we must rely on a mix of 
traditional means while we continue to develop alternative energy 
solutions for the future.
  Promoting energy production from California's Monterey Shale, located 
directly under my district, could bring in 2.8 million jobs and raise 
an additional $25 billion in new revenues by the end of the decade. 
This would not only strengthen the local economy but the State's 
economy as a whole.
  Natural gas is a safe and responsible energy source with high 
economic output. In 2010, over 22,750 jobs were created in California 
alone. Studies show that natural gas production will save each American 
household approximately $926 per year between 2012 and 2015. 
Hydroelectric power accounts for 63 percent of the clean power in this 
country and 8 percent of total electricity. Expanding hydropower 
production would further increase our energy independence from foreign 
countries. The Central Valley has the available workforce to construct 
and operate hydropower facilities throughout the Sierra Nevadas, which 
would not only produce energy to be used by the entire country but also 
provide the Central Valley with the ability to store a clean, reliable 
water supply.
  My home State of California, and the entire United States, has been 
blessed with abundant conventional and renewable energy sources. Our 
constituents should not have to make tough decisions regarding their 
daily energy consumption when our Nation has the ability to produce 
enough energy to meet their needs. They should be able to water their 
yards, cool their homes in the summer, and drive their children to 
school without facing expensive energy bills and high prices at the 
pump.

  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from California for his comments 
today and would point out that in just a little bit we're going to hear 
from one of the sponsors of a hydropower bill that will make a 
significant difference in this State. And something that we ought to be 
doing more of is taking advantage of that clean, renewable energy 
resource.
  I would yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Mississippi, Alan Nunnelee.
  Mr. NUNNELEE. I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding.
  America has been blessed with an abundance of natural resources. 
Because of private-sector innovations, we've seen a boom in energy 
development both on private lands and on State lands. Sadly, due to the 
Obama administration's extreme environmental agenda, in these same 
years we've seen a decline of energy recovery off of Federal lands. The 
most prominent example of President Obama's prioritizing his radical 
environmental base over American energy development is the continued 
failure to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
  It's a sad commentary on the state of leadership in the modern-day 
Democratic Party compared with the record of men like President 
Kennedy. President Kennedy set out bold goals and then laid out ways of 
achieving those goals. He came to this very Chamber and challenged the 
elected representatives that before the decade is out, America would 
land a man on the Moon and return him safely back to Earth. America 
achieved President Kennedy's goals.

                              {time}  1620

  Now, given our resources from our friendly neighbors to the north, 
given American innovation, we should echo the challenge of President 
Kennedy. We should make it the goal of this generation that before this 
decade is out we become North American energy secure.
  Now, there are vastly different undertakings between landing a man on 
the Moon and becoming energy secure, but the spirit required to achieve 
success in those areas is the same. The only thing standing between 
America and energy security for the future is an executive branch 
that's run by environmental extremists that are beholden to the wealthy 
liberal environmentalists.
  Now, residents of Billionaires' Row in San Francisco can afford to 
indulge in fantasies of an economy run on windmills and solar panels. 
Meanwhile, men and women in Mississippi that are struggling to get to 
work know that it continues to break the better part of a $100 bill to 
fill their car up with gas.
  We, as elected officials who serve the people in need of affordable 
energy and a thriving economy, must deal with that reality. That's why 
I support an all-of-the-above approach. It does include renewable 
energy; but it also includes recovering American fossil fuels like oil, 
natural gas, recovering American coal that we can now burn cleanly 
without damaging the environment, and expanding nuclear energy, 
including small modular nuclear reactors used in the production of 
electricity. If we do that, America can be energy secure.
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi.
  I now yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), who has been 
a sponsor of hydropower legislation to make this country stronger in 
terms of energy security.
  Mr. TIPTON. I thank my colleague from Colorado for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a very simple question before us as Americans: 
When we're looking at young families struggling to be able to pay 
bills, senior citizens on fixed incomes wondering how they're going to 
be able to make that next payment to be able to heat their homes, or 
cool them as summer approaches, is it an appropriate time for this 
Nation to seek what Jimmy Carter, in this very Chamber in 1976, 
challenged this country to do--to be able to achieve energy 
sufficiency? The answer can only be ``yes.''
  The time is now for this Nation to be able to act. We see Americans 
struggling to be able to pay those bills. We're seeing Americans right 
now that are worried about being able to hold on to their jobs. This is 
an opportunity to be able to put Americans back to work and to be able 
to achieve that true energy self-sufficiency in this Nation. And it can 
be all-of-the-above.
  In this last year, we passed a bill that I presented, planning for 
America's energy future, that enumerated that all-of-the-above 
strategy--wind, solar, hydroelectric energy, as well as coal, gas, our 
natural resources, to be able to develop them right here in America, to 
put our people back to work, and to be able to create that energy 
certainty.
  When we look at this worldscape in which we currently live, the 
threats that are there, it is appropriate for this Nation to truly 
achieve energy self-sufficiency.
  Through the bill that we just passed through the House of 
Representatives that my colleague noted, in the State of Colorado, 
through the ditches, the pipelines that have been built by the Bureau 
of Reclamation, we can generate as much electricity just in the State 
of Colorado as the Glen Canyon dam with small hydroelectric units. It 
can be that all-of-the-above strategy, but we also need to increase the 
production of our traditional fuel sources as well.
  The time is appropriate. We have the resources and we have the 
technology to be able to do that. The question yet to be answered is: 
Will we rise to be able to actually meet that challenge?
  As Americans, let us be committed to developing American energy on 
American soil, to be able to create American jobs, put Americans back 
to work, and to be able to create our own energy certainty at this 
time. The future of this country, the future for our children rely on 
those commonsense solutions. We're going to be putting them forward in 
this House. We're calling the American people and the Senate and the 
President to join us in that effort.
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
  May I inquire of the Speaker how much time I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bentivolio). The gentleman from Colorado 
has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GARDNER. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), the 
chair of the Natural Gas and Manufacturing Caucus.
  Mr. REED. I so appreciate the gentleman yielding time, my good friend 
from Colorado.
  Mr. Speaker, I join this conversation tonight coming at it from a 
perspective of being the chair of the Natural Gas

[[Page H2283]]

Caucus and cochair of the Manufacturing Caucus here in Washington, 
D.C., caucuses that have cochairs on a bipartisan basis, where we're 
working together to try to figure out how we can become energy 
independent, but more importantly, Mr. Speaker, what this issue 
represents for the average American family.
  What this represents, when we are developing domestic energy sources 
such as the natural gas boom across America that's coming out of our 
shale formations and our tight sands formation when it comes to oil, 
what this represents to manufacturing is it puts American manufacturers 
in a competitive position so that they can invest in manufacturing 
facilities here on American soil.
  So what does that mean? What that means to every man, woman, and 
child out there in America right now is that we are sitting on the 
precipice of a manufacturing renaissance in America. This competitive 
edge that we are getting from developing our natural gas and oil 
resources here in America means that we're going to build plants. 
They're going to be putting people back to work for today and tomorrow 
and for generations to come.
  We need to build things in America. That's what this represents. We 
have a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers: by 2025, we are talking 1 
million manufacturing jobs.
  There should be no dispute in this Chamber to join hands to make sure 
we develop the energy resource in a safe and responsible manner, but 
develop it for the sake of creating those jobs that put food on 
people's tables, put a roof over their heads, and take care of families 
for generations to come.
  I appreciate my good friend from Colorado yielding the time to me 
today. I just have to say, American energy means Americans' national 
security, and it means American prosperity for Americans of today and 
tomorrow.
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. Speaker, the other night when I was driving home from a meeting 
in one of my rural counties--it was about 8 o'clock, 9 o'clock at 
night, it was dark outside--I drove by a field of windmills. At 
nighttime, you can see that red light flashing across 100 wind 
turbines, and then of course the natural gas development that's taking 
place right next to it. So, Mr. Speaker, this Nation has an opportunity 
for energy security. It's not next year; it's now.
  I thank my colleagues for joining this debate on American energy 
today and look forward to continued conversations throughout this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. Speaker, thank you, Mr. Johnson for leading tonight's 
leadership hour on American energy. This is an issue of great 
importance to the people of Montana, and I'm glad we're having this 
discussion tonight.
  1678. That's how many days it's been since the application to build 
the Keystone XL pipeline was filed.
  It took Canada seven months to approve the pipeline. President Obama 
has taken over four and a half years.
  Study after study has shown that not only is the pipeline safe--but 
it said to be the most advanced, state-of-the art pipeline ever 
constructed.
  And the benefits of constructing this pipeline go beyond just 
transporting oil.
  Earlier this month, I was in Glasgow, Montana visiting NorVal 
Electric Co-op. Members of the co-op told me that they are going to be 
supplying electricity to pump stations for the KXL, allowing them to 
spread their cost burdens and hold rates steady for customers.
  If Obama does not approve the Keystone pipeline, their customers will 
see upwards of a 40 percent increase in their utility rates over the 
next ten years.
  This is a great example of how this will impact everyday Americans.
  It will create thousands of jobs--at least 800 in my home state of 
Montana alone.
  And the president still can't make a decision.
  Last month, the U.S. State Department issued its Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Presidential Permit 
application, which confirmed what we already knew.
  The Keystone XL Pipeline will have no significant impacts on the 
environment.
  In fact, this is the fourth environmental review of the Keystone 
Pipeline--with a final report still to come.
  Let me be clear--this project means jobs.
  This project could directly create more than 800 good-paying jobs in 
Montana--and thousands more across the nation.
  It means coming one step closer to North American energy 
independence. The Keystone XL would be able to move up to 830,000 
barrels of oil per day. That's about half the amount that the U.S. 
presently imports from the Middle East.
  And of the oil moved each day, 100,000 barrels will come from the 
Bakken formation, which spreads across Montana and North Dakota.
  This isn't about politics--Republicans and Democrats alike support 
the pipeline.
  This is about our nation's security. This is about lowering energy 
costs for American families. This is about American jobs.
  After four and a half years of waiting on President Obama to approve 
the Keystone XL pipeline, enough is enough.
  The American people deserve action on this job-creating project, not 
more of President Obama's delays.
  That's why today, the House Natural Resources Committee voted to 
advance the Northern Route Approval Act.
  This bill makes it possible for the pipeline to be constructed in its 
entirety by removing the need for a presidential permit for the 
northern portion of the Keystone XL pipeline.
  With this approval, we are one step closer to getting this pipeline 
approved.
  The construction of the Keystone XL pipeline means hundreds of good-
paying jobs created for Montanans, it means millions of dollars 
injected into our economy, and it even means lower utility rates for 
Montanans--we can't afford to wait any longer.
  Enough is enough. It's been 1678 days.
  As a member of the House Energy Action Team, I urge President Obama 
to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. And, if he won't act, we will.

                          ____________________