[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 93 (Wednesday, June 26, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H4061-H4068]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1450
BUILDING AMERICA'S ENERGY SECURITY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bentivolio). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from North Dakota
(Mr. Cramer) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the
majority leader.
Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity for the next
hour to bring to the attention of the House of Representatives and to
the American people some very important issues pertaining to America's
potential to be energy secure.
This is an interesting week that we would have this discussion. This
is a week when the House Committee on Natural Resources is bringing
forward two bills for consideration that will tear down some of the
barriers and remove some of the regulations that have gotten in the way
of tapping into the vast resources of oil and gas off our shores.
We know that there's been growth in oil and gas development in our
country, but not offshore. And yet we know there are vast resources
that would be very, very important to America's energy security.
At the same time, this week we also have our President, who made
official his declaration of war against coal, stating, once again, that
fossil fuels are the bad guy somehow. At a time when we're looking to
create jobs, create wealth, create opportunity, he puts up yet more
barriers to the development of these vast resources of fossil fuels.
Since coming to Congress 6 months ago, I have heard our President and
his allies in this Chamber often reference the fact that since Barack
Obama was elected President, America's oil and gas production have
actually increased. They brag about this increased production and the
jobs that it creates as though they had something to do with it.
Well, on behalf of the citizens of my State of North Dakota, let me
just say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you're welcome
because the fact of the matter is that, yes, production of oil and gas
in this country is up. It is up, except where the Federal Government is
the landlord, because the large reserves under Federal lands and
offshore resources are going untapped because of Democratic opposition
to using the incredible opportunity that
[[Page H4062]]
new technologies have created to get us more jobs, more opportunity,
and more energy secure.
I want to illustrate a point today by reading one sentence from a
recently released State Personal Income Growth Analysis put out by the
United States Department of Commerce. Here's the sentence. It's very
profound:
State personal income growth ranged from a -.2 percent in
South Dakota to 12.4 percent in North Dakota.
That's right. Two rectangles in the center of the North American map,
two Dakotas, side by side, two States that basically have the same size
and land mass, the same size in population, the same climate, same
cultures, they grow vast amounts of food to feed a hungry world.
We're similar in nearly every way. And yet the Dakotas differ in one
significant way, and that is my State of North Dakota has fossil fuels
that South Dakota does not have.
I point to this distinction because I believe it represents the
possibilities of America. It represents what can be done in much of our
Nation if the Federal Government would just get out of the way and
allow the unleashing of American ingenuity and the development of
American energy.
Instead, what we get from our President is more restrictions on the
use of fossil fuels and more fantasizing about unproven, uneconomical,
unreliable alternatives. And while billions of tax dollars get wasted
experimenting on whimsical dreams of a carbonless future, American job
opportunities are lost and our debt rises.
Our President continues to pursue an energy policy based on an old
model, an old model of resource scarcity, rather than on the new
reality of resource abundance.
According to the Institute of Energy Research, underneath Federal
land and offshore, that is to say, Federal oil and gas reserves, at
today's prices, the United States taxpayer has $128 trillion worth of
fossil fuels that we're not tapping into.
Resource abundance: abundance based on the application of new
technologies is transforming our economy and has us on the path to
security. And North Dakota is evidence of what can be done in our
country.
But there are a lot of speakers today that have a lot to offer in
this discussion and this debate, and right now I'd like to yield to my
good friend from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota. And I'm excited
about the opportunity that we have in this country in a bright energy
future. I can think of few areas that have held so much promise for job
creation, for a new opportunity to impact so many areas of our economy
as energy. And it really is energy policies that we're discussing this
week that could create over a million jobs around the country, and the
policies that we continue to pursue in committee meetings, through
legislation and the work that we do to help bring a brighter energy
future to this country.
And I'm pleased that the gentleman from North Dakota is leading
today's discussion on energy. You know, I've actually seen in my
district the benefits of the Bakken Development in Colorado.
Sixty miles away from my hometown is a brand-new business that
located in Colorado because of so much activity in North Dakota. They
were actually seeing so many people working in North Dakota that they
moved to Colorado to expand their operation because they couldn't find
enough people to work in North Dakota.
So they moved to my district to create jobs, and they're hiring.
They're manufacturing. They've bought a manufacturing business because
of energy development in North Dakota.
But the energy success in Colorado isn't reliant on other States
around us because we have it in our State as well. In my district, the
Fourth Congressional District, it is truly an all-of-the-above energy
district. Not only do we have a coal mine in the Fourth Congressional
District, but we have wind manufacturing, we have wind turbine
manufacturing, wind blade manufacturing, we have solar manufacturing.
We have biofuels and are home to one of the Nation's premier oil and
gas plays anywhere in the world, the Niobrara shale play.
In fact, in Colorado, over 100,000 people are directly employed or
indirectly employed by the oil and gas industry. The average pay of a
worker in the oil and gas fields of Colorado is almost $100,000 a year.
Average pay of almost $100,000 a year, with benefits. People are able
to stay in their home towns to have jobs that they never thought were
possible just a decade ago.
I come from a very small town in eastern Colorado; 3,000 people, 67
kids graduated in my high school class. And I can tell you, when I
graduated there are only two or three of us that stayed there to work
in our hometown. Everybody else moved away to find work elsewhere
because they couldn't find work in that small, eastern plains
community.
But thanks to natural gas development, thanks to the development
that's taken place around the State, they're moving back, they're
bringing their families back. They're actually finding those high-
paying jobs with good health care benefits, and they're building our
communities and making stronger places to live for themselves and their
families; $10.2 billion in labor contributions, and contribution to the
labor force as a result of oil and gas development in Colorado alone.
In Weld County, we've seen the impacts firsthand of what it means to
have an all-of-the-above energy policy. Just two of the over-30 oil and
gas companies that are operating in Weld County, just last month paid
their 2011 property taxes. These two companies paid a combined property
tax to Weld County alone of $150 million. Two checks, $150 million to
one county; 40 percent of that $150 million went to the school
districts and the community college. That's money that we're investing
into the next generation of workforce in this country. That's money
that is building a stronger education future for our children.
But it's also developing affordable energy opportunities for this
country; and so I hope that as people participate in this discussion
around the United States, that they go to Twitter and send their
suggestions on energy affordability with the #affordable energy,
#affordable energy to participate in a discussion about the future of
energy in our country.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I think the opportunity that we have, really,
today is to join a discussion about what we're going to look like as a
Nation, how to encourage manufacturing, how to encourage new job
creation, how to bring companies back to the United States who've left
because of the cost of doing business. They can now afford to do
business here because of our energy production and energy opportunity.
So join us at #affordable energy on Twitter, and I just appreciate
your leadership and the opportunity to be here with you today.
Mr. CRAMER. Thank you for sharing that, and for the invitation. I
very much appreciate your referencing the cost of energy. Affordable
energy, after all, really is a driving factor in many other investment
decisions and job opportunities. And I think we'll have much more on
that as we work through this important hour of discussion.
With that, I would like to yield some time to my friend from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Rothfus.
Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota for yielding,
and I thank the gentleman from Colorado for bringing this important
discussion on energy and jobs.
And it's not just the folks out west who are excited about energy. We
in Pennsylvania are very excited.
In fact, I'm from the southwestern part of Pennsylvania, and
yesterday I was driving through the city of Pittsburgh around the same
time that President Obama was renewing his war on coal from behind a
podium in Washington, D.C.
Our coal miners and steel workers built Pittsburgh. However, if the
regime that President Obama and the unelected bureaucrats at the EPA,
that regime that they're planning for the next 20 years, if that regime
had been in place in the 19th century, Pittsburgh might not have become
the great American city that it is today.
The regulations introduced yesterday by President Obama are only the
latest salvo in his war on low-cost American energy. These new
regulations will result in more shuttered coal mines, power plants, and
more lost jobs.
[[Page H4063]]
{time} 1500
When our coal miners and power plant workers lose their jobs, we lose
people vital to our communities and we lose wages and tax revenues
critical for supporting local small businesses and schools. These new
regulations will also raise energy prices and significantly impact moms
and dads sitting around the kitchen table paying their monthly utility
bills.
Long story short, this war on coal is a war on the livelihoods of
millions of hardworking middle class men and women in western
Pennsylvania and around the Nation. It's a war on good-paying American
jobs, a war on American opportunity, and a war on American prosperity.
And it must end.
President Obama and unelected Federal elites must be held accountable
for the negative impact these regulations will inflict on hardworking
moms and dads. The REINS Act, which I support, would hold them
accountable by requiring that any regulation with an annual economic
impact of $100 million or more must be approved by Congress. Any
regulation that has that much impact on our country should be voted for
in Congress.
Low-cost American energy is a major factor in economic growth and job
creation. Every business and family uses fuel and electricity. The
Federal Government needs a commonsense, straightforward, all-of-the-
above energy policy to spur growth and get our economy booming again.
The House Energy Action Team is a great group of Members dedicated to
that goal. Coal, wind, natural gas, solar, nuclear, thermal, hydro, and
oil must all play a part in powering our economy. Western Pennsylvania
offers unparalleled opportunities and is benefiting economically,
thanks to the development of our plentiful energy resources.
The economic benefits are not limited to the energy sector. Lower
energy prices resulting from increased domestic production would
benefit the entire economy. For each new energy job, three or more
additional new jobs are created across the economy. These are good-
paying American jobs.
This week, the House will consider legislation that would create over
1 million new good-paying American jobs, bring more domestic energy to
the market, reducing costs for families and businesses, and reduce our
dependence on foreign oil. President Obama and the Senate need to get
serious about an all-of-the-above energy approach to domestic energy
exploration and development so that we can grow these jobs. By safely
and responsibly developing all of our Nation's natural resources, we
can re-light our economy, add jobs, and move towards North American
energy independence. In short, this will improve the quality of life
for western Pennsylvania and all Americans.
Mr. CRAMER. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I appreciate
his raising the point of the war on coal and talking about the economic
benefits of coal in Pennsylvania.
I don't know if anybody noticed, but deep in that 21-page declaration
of war on coal, or the climate change document, the President actually
talks about another important fossil fuel that Pennsylvania is tapping
into--and that's gas--in the attack on methane. So those that think
perhaps natural gas will be the next great fuel to replace coal ought
to think again, because as soon as they have their way shutting down
every coal plant, they'll be after the gas plants as well. We truly
need an all-of-the-above.
At this time I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).
Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota for yielding and
bringing this important issue to us today to have a conversation on.
I am a firm believer in the all-of-the-above approach to our energy
needs of America. Making energy in America domestically will lead to us
being energy secure. It's about energy independence. It is about
developing our resources, both fossil fuels in the short term and mid
term, but always keeping an eye on the alternatives and renewables for
the long term so that we create a portfolio of an all-of-the-above that
will ensure that America's national security is taken care of when it
comes to our energy needs.
Being from New York, I spent a lot of time dealing with the issue of
natural gas development and the Marcellus Shale and Utica Shale
formations. I can share with you many stories from farmers as I went
through the northern tier of Pennsylvania, which is just over the
border from my district in Corning, New York. And I remember one story
in particular. I went to a family farm that I was invited to go to by
an individual in my district who was opposed to natural gas
development. However, when I arrived at that farm, I met with her
father, and I sat at her father's living room table and had a
conversation about what this meant to that family farmer.
I can tell you what I heard really resonated with me. Because what I
heard was, I know that my daughter is opposed to this. She's concerned
about the impacts on our farm and that type of thing. But I can assure
you I've owned this farm for generations, and I'm going to make sure
that my land is protected and it's done right and it's done safely. But
what I'm also doing is I'm taking the royalty payment, the cash payment
from that resource, and I'm putting her daughter through college.
Think about that, ladies and gentlemen across America. We have spent
trillions of dollars on the war on poverty and hardworking taxpayer
dollars to try to get people out of poverty--most of the time by
educating them. And here you have a gentleman who is going to use a
resource that he owned, a property right that he owned, and was
empowering the next generation with a college education that that
individual did not have to pay for and didn't come out of college with
$50,000, $70,000 worth of debt. That's a game-changer when it comes to
the war on poverty, in my opinion.
I appreciate the gentleman's comments from before. Because when we
talk about this issue, we also have to look at it from many different
aspects. And it's not just about being an economic resource in regards
to the resource itself but being a resource that re-powers America, as
I cochair the Manufacturing Caucus here in Washington, D.C., that gives
us the power to start building things here in America again and selling
it overseas. That's the America I want to stand for.
If we're going to melt steel, if we're going to have that industrial
revolution of the 21st century that I believe we can have, we're going
to need power sources to do that. And you can't melt steel, in my
opinion, with just windmills and geothermal and solar panels. They have
a role in our energy portfolio but you need those fossil fuels that we
have been blessed with to come online to provide the power, the
utility, and the energy to do what needs to be done in order to build
it here and sell it there. So I appreciate the gentleman bringing this
issue to the forefront.
And one last point I will stress. As I represent the 23rd
Congressional District in New York, we are going through the process of
seeing two main coal-fired plants be shut down. And I'm hopeful. We're
doing our work in Dunkirk, New York, and Lansing, New York, on the
other side of the district, to stand for repowering those power
generation facilities with natural gas, as the applications are pending
in Albany.
With this war on coal that just came out yesterday from the White
House, if you shut down those plants, what I'm concerned about is my
taxpayers that I care about in Dunkirk and Tompkins County and Lansing
are going to see their real property tax bill go up anywhere from 50 to
60 percent. Those are hardworking Americans that are already under the
burden of a tax burden that comes out of Washington, D.C., by way of
income taxes. But there are also tax burdens in our States. And one of
those primary tax burdens is the real property tax bill.
I'm hearing from seniors, I'm hearing from people across the district
who say, Tom, I can't afford it anymore. And you shut down a power
plant, and you take away that tax base from my people, the remaining
taxpayers, who most of the time have been there for generations, will
see their real property tax bill go up 60 percent. That's thousands of
dollars. And in this day and age when people are struggling, why would
we commit ourselves as a Nation to a policy that would put a higher
burden on their back? I don't get it.
I think we should have an open conversation about doing all of the
above,
[[Page H4064]]
recognize where those energy sources are in the portfolios, and then we
join hands, we come together, and we develop that comprehensive energy
policy that we say, This is good for America, both short term, mid
term, and long term. And let's get it done. And that's where those of
us on this side beg our colleagues on the other side to join us in this
effort. And we want to do it safely, we want to do it responsibly. We
respect our environment. But we're going to do it in a commonsense way,
looking at it from the perspective of hardworking taxpayers of America,
not through the lens of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.
With that, I appreciate the leadership that the good man from North
Dakota has exhibited on these issues.
{time} 1510
Mr. CRAMER. Thank you so much. Thanks for your stories. I think they
illustrate so beautifully the importance of an all-of-the-above energy
policy that keeps prices rolling.
You know, one of the things I thought about as you were talking about
jobs and this cascading impact of this war on coal and war on fossil
fuels, there is a survey every year that's taken by an area development
magazine, it's called Site Selector Survey. It asks site selectors,
What are the characteristics, what are the factors that you look at
when making a determination of where to put a manufacturing facility or
some other business?
When I was an economic development director 15 years ago, the cost of
available energy was somewhere between 15th and 20th on the list. It's
moved up to the top five. Our competitive advances in the global
marketplace rest with our ability to keep energy costs low.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan),
who has provided real leadership on some of the issues we are going to
be taking up this week.
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman.
I have stood on the floor many times in my short service in the
United States Congress to talk about this very topic, and that's
American energy independence.
We hear terms like all-of-the-above energy approach and energy
policy. I like to think about an all-American energy policy where we
utilize American resources to meet our energy needs in this country.
I applaud the House Republicans, and specifically the House Energy
Action Team, for focusing on three things--jobs, energy security, and
national security. And they go hand in hand.
By pursuing an all-American energy policy, we're putting Americans to
work. Whether you're talking about voting the Keystone pipeline or
talking about offshore drilling, putting Americans to work is what's
important.
I think about North Dakota and an energy-driven economy in North
Dakota, your great State. They give you a job when you get off an
airplane up there whether you need one or not; that's how many jobs
they have available. If you're looking for work, America, go to North
Dakota. But let me tell you, that's a microcosm of what we could be in
this great Nation if we truly pursued an energy policy utilizing
American resources, putting Americans to work. That's really what it's
about. And that's one thing that I think the House Energy Action Team
is focused on.
The second thing is energy security: lessening our dependence on
foreign sources of energy, utilizing the resources that we have in this
country. God blessed the United States of America with the resources
that we have here: oil, natural gas and coal.
We heard just this week that the Obama administration is going to
wage a war on coal--not that they haven't already been waging a war on
coal. But I think they're waging a war on American energy independence.
Because by utilizing the resources that we have in this country, we
could lessen our dependence on foreign sources and make certain parts
of the world that seem hostile to American interests not so important.
So American energy independence is the second thing.
The third thing segues right into that, and that's national security.
In fact, I think it was Admiral Mullen that said there is no national
security without energy security. Think about that for a minute. Energy
security means that we do have national security, that we can meet our
energy needs, not just to drive our economy and the engines of our
economy, but also fuel the engines of our United States defense.
Putting those airplanes in the air and the ships in the oceans and the
tanks in the desert or in the forest, that takes energy. If we can meet
our needs through American resources, then we do have true American
independence. An all-American energy strategy is the right thing for
this country.
Just this week, we're going to take up two very, very important
bills. One of them deals with opening up all of the Outer Continental
Shelf areas that are currently off-limits under the Obama
administration moratorium--the moratorium that George Bush lifted. He
said, you know what, we need to be energy independent; we're going to
lift the moratorium for offshore drilling, and we're going to open up
those areas for more utilization. And so we're going to do that.
Off the coast of my State, South Carolina, and Virginia and other
places, we're going to go after those resources that we believe to be
there. We're going to allow exploration. We're going to allow
production. And we're also going to allow revenue-sharing back to those
States whose economies are struggling now just like the U.S. economy
when we're $17 trillion in debt.
Our State economies are struggling as well, But we can utilize and
bring back revenue to the States through revenue-sharing. An example is
Wyoming gets $1 billion a year in revenue-sharing for production on
Federal lands. The Gulf Coast States get revenue back to those States.
South Carolina would love to benefit from that as well.
The second thing--and I'll end with this--is a bill that I have on
the floor that I authored that would implement an agreement that was
signed by the Obama administration. Hillary Clinton--Secretary Clinton
at the time--entered into this agreement with Foreign Minister Espinosa
of Mexico that said, you know what, we have a maritime border, a border
between the United States and Mexico. Out in the Gulf of Mexico in the
water is a maritime border and, guess what, there are resources
underneath that border. Who owns those? Does Mexico own those
resources? Do we own those resources? They're shared resources.
So they entered into this agreement and said we're going to go after
those in the Western Gap, not over near Cuba, but closer to the western
side of the gulf. We're going to go after those resources, and we're
going to allow exploration of those resources, production of those
resources. And we're going to share those revenues with each country
because we are co-owners of those resources.
They got this one right with this agreement. We're going to implement
that because we waited a year on Ken Salazar with the Department of the
Interior to send us the implementing language so that we can go forward
with a lease in that area of the Western Gap, but he failed to do that.
So we took the bull by the horns in the United States Congress, and we
authored this legislation and said we think this is important to
American energy security; we think this is important to national
security; and we're going to work with our southern neighbor in Mexico,
and we're going to develop those resources in that transboundary area
with a hydrocarbon agreement, and we're going to go forward with
implementing that. That's what this bill does.
America understands that we've got the resources. America understands
we can work with Mexico and safely and soundly harvest those resources
using American safety standards and regulation standards. It is the
right thing for America, and that's H.R. 1613. I look forward to
passage of that.
I thank the gentleman from North Dakota for his leadership on the
House Energy Action Team.
Mr. CRAMER. I thank the gentleman for his leadership today and his
leadership on this important legislation coming out of the Natural
Resources Committee.
I would like to speak specifically to some more economic opportunity
as illustrated from my home State of North Dakota just to get a sense
of it.
[[Page H4065]]
North Dakota's gross domestic product increased from $34 billion in
2011 to $38.7 billion in 2012. That's a 13.4 percent increase,
representing the most significant growth of any State in the country
last year. Texas is second with a growth rate of 4.8 percent, where the
national average during the same time was 2.5 percent.
So it can happen. It happened in my State because the vast majority
of the oil and gas in North Dakota is not under Federal land. The vast
majority--like over 90 percent--is under private land, where the only
landowner is the guy that farms and ranches the land, the person whose
sustainability demands good stewardship. We can show the way in how to
do it around the country as well as offshore if you just unleash
American ingenuity.
I suspect that my good friend from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) might have a
thing or two to say about this week's declaration of war on coal, and
so I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
Mr. BARR. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate the opportunity to
address the President's Climate Action Plan that he unveiled yesterday
and what this really means to my fellow Kentuckians and my fellow
Americans all around this country.
As you see from the exhibit right here, this is the quote from the
President's climate adviser:
A war on coal is exactly what's needed.
While Kentuckians and Americans all around this country are suffering
from high unemployment--in large part due to the 5,700 coal jobs lost
over the past 2 years--yesterday, the President of the United States
re-declared the war on coal.
We know that 1 year ago, the President, through his New Source
Performance Standards regulation, imposed an effective moratorium on
coal-fired power plants coming online in the future. Yesterday, the
President said that he wants to apply that moratorium to the existing
coal-fired fleet.
Mr. Speaker, my fellow Americans, the President's Climate Action Plan
reveals a leader of our country who is woefully out of touch with the
economic realities facing the American working family. Unemployment is
still at 7.6 percent across this country; 5 consecutive years of
unemployment higher than 7.5 percent. Five years in a row where the
workforce participation rate--where the percentage of Americans who are
of working age population are actually in the workforce--is only 58
percent. Fifty-eight percent of all working-age people in this country
have jobs. That's all. That's 5 percent below the historic average of
63 percent.
{time} 1520
Twelve million Americans struggling to find work, wages falling for 5
consecutive years, three-quarters of Americans' paychecks are
insufficient to get them by each and every week--they're living
paycheck to paycheck. What does this President do? He declares a war,
not just on coal, but the working families of America. And worse, he's
doing it by making an end run around Congress. His own Democrat-
controlled Congress in 2009 refused to pass his radical energy
rationing scheme, cap-and-trade, through legislation. So now this
President says, Well, Congress doesn't matter, and so I'm going to
impose this on the American people through bureaucrats in the executive
branch.
Mr. President, you are not king. The Congress of the United States is
the law-making body, and the unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats in
the executive branch cannot do this without proper statutory
authorization. That's why we need the REINS Act. That's why we need to
rein in burdensome regulations. That's why we need to make sure that
unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in the executive branch don't seek
to impose by fiat a regulatory apparatus that commands and controls the
American energy future.
This is a question about American energy freedom, a top-down command
and control approach versus American energy diversity. The President
wants to impose energy rationing, and we say let the American people
decide what their energy sources should be.
Half of all energy production in the United States in 2008 came from
coal. Ninety percent of all electricity in my home State of Kentucky
comes from coal. In 2012, however, only 37 percent of our electricity
came from coal. This President wants to take that number down to 0
percent. So when the President's climate adviser says that he wants a
war on coal, he means it.
This is what I want to conclude with. This is not just about
statistics about coal jobs lost or energy freedom or the fact that
we've lost nine power units, coal-fired power units, in Kentucky in the
last several years. This is about human beings. This is about people
who have lost their jobs. This is about the President of the United
States attacking a way of life.
President Obama and his administration display a stunning lack of
compassion. Not once in his remarks yesterday did we hear any
recognition, any understanding of the suffering the administration's
new proposals will inflict in the communities of central Appalachia, in
the suffering of the communities that have already endured a
disproportionate share of pain during the last few years. The
President's climate action plan substitutes numbers and theories for
flesh and blood. It presents climate change as a perpetual crisis
justifying one regulation on top of another without any consideration
of the cost to real people.
How much is enough, Mr. President? Where does it all end? By the
Obama administration's own admission, U.S. carbon emissions fell to the
lowest level in two decades. The President, of all people, should read
this statistic and conclude it's time for some breathing room, time to
let the coal industry adjust, time to let people recover. But you don't
offer breathing room in a war.
In yesterday's New York Times, the White House climate adviser said a
war on coal is exactly what we need. But this isn't just a war on an
entire American industry; it's a war on coal miners and their families.
And these coal miners, the 5,700 coal miners who have lost their jobs
in eastern Kentucky over the last 4 years under this administration,
they depend on those paychecks; their families depend on those
paychecks. They don't have the political clout to attract this
President's attention or concern, but they are Americans. What a
dramatic shift from a half century ago when Presidents Kennedy and
Johnson focused so much energy on alleviating poverty in the very same
mountain counties the Obama administration is now ravaging with these
heartless policies.
Mr. President, if you truly care about people, come to eastern
Kentucky. See what happens when $70,000-per-year jobs disappear
overnight because of unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. At
least give us some consideration of that. Better yet, start working
with the coal industry to address climate change concerns and stop
trying to kill it. It's time this administration put people ahead of
its radical ideology.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his
good leadership on this important topic on the importance of coal as a
major player in our energy fleet.
If I could just for a second, Mr. Speaker, inquire about the balance
of time available in the hour.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Dakota has 24
minutes remaining.
Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the gentleman from Kentucky's speaking to the issue of
coal, because like oil and gas, coal is also important to North Dakota.
It's an industry that's been around for decades. In fact, we really
learned about energy development in North Dakota on coal. We have a
little better than 17,000 folks that are employed either directly in
the coal industry or in one of the service industries that service the
coal industry. It contributes about $3.5 billion to our State's
economy. That's a lot in our little State.
We've been mining coal for decades. We've been mining 30 million tons
a year for decades. We use that coal right in North Dakota, burning it
to generate electricity at seven power plants in our State, and we
generate some of the lowest priced electricity in the country. Again,
getting to the issue of affordable energy, very important in terms of
our competitiveness in the global marketplace.
So it's not just about the jobs, as important as those are--high-paid
jobs, I
[[Page H4066]]
might add--but it's also about the competitive edge it gives us with
lower cost electricity.
But in North Dakota, under our beautiful prairies, there's an 800-
year supply of coal. To wage war on it today and leave 800 years' worth
of a product that provides wealth and jobs and opportunity and low-cost
electricity in the ground makes no sense whatsoever.
With that, I want to yield some time to my neighbor and good friend
who knows a fair bit about the energy industry himself--in fact, I have
to admit the Bakken was actually discovered in the State of Montana--
the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines).
Mr. DAINES. Mr. Speaker, I'm grateful for my good friend from North
Dakota, Kevin Cramer, for this time to talk about what is really
important to the people out in the heartland, which sometimes is a very
different set of values than what we find right here in the beltway of
Washington.
I was also struck by my good friend from Kentucky, Andy Barr, as he
shared his comments. It reminds me that we are the party, we are the
leaders back here standing for the working middle class in this
country, standing for jobs, for revenues that go to our schools, and
the tax base for low-cost energy. This President says one thing, but
the consequence of this policy is something that will only ultimately
benefit the elite and the wealthy in this country instead of the
regular working families in this country.
I want to thank my friends here today for organizing this Special
Order and bringing attention to the importance of an American energy
sector to our economy and to the daily lives of all Americans. In
Montana, we know the importance of a robust energy sector.
Whether it's oil, gas, coal, wind, water, biomass, it's all needed to
create jobs and keep energy costs low for the people of our country. In
fact, one of my priorities in Congress is to fight for the all-of-the-
above energy plan that helps grow American jobs, lowers energy costs,
and helps us fight for North American energy independence, energy
security.
Unfortunately, President Obama does not seem to share this goal. In
fact, yesterday, President Obama unveiled his latest energy plan, a
job-killing agenda that will hurt American jobs and American families
and small businesses.
{time} 1530
After his announcement yesterday, President Obama made a commitment
to waging war on American energy, which was made crystal clear. In
fact, by imposing further barriers to the construction of the Keystone
XL pipeline and by working to severely hinder American coal production,
President Obama has unveiled a misguided agenda that will only hurt
Montana and American energy consumers and will cost good-paying Montana
jobs.
Montana's energy sector is a huge driver for our State's economy. Our
coal mining industry employs over 1,200 workers across our State.
Montana contains more coal reserves than any other State in America,
and it ranks number six overall in coal production nationwide.
Additionally, coal production provides critical funding for Montana
schools, as much of our State's coal is located on school trust lands.
We forget about the contribution to our tax base, that of helping build
schools and funding teachers, which comes from the energy industry.
The development of our coal reserves produces millions of dollars for
Montana public education every year. My daughter is a senior at Montana
State University, preparing to graduate and go into elementary
education in Montana. Energy production will be critical to funding our
public schools in Montana as we look down the road.
We have also seen tremendous growth from the booming development of
the Bakken formation, as my friend from North Dakota alluded to, which
spreads across eastern Montana and into western North Dakota. Oil
production in our State has created thousands of good-paying jobs, both
in the oil fields and also in the service industries that are at the
heart of many of our small towns.
I would like to have the President come out to eastern Montana and
see what's happening out there. Families are struggling, living month
to month, but are seeing the benefits now of the energy industry as
they are seeing paychecks they can count on as they look forward. It
has also injected millions of dollars into our State's economy; and,
like coal, it has helped provide millions of dollars in much-needed
funding for Montana's schools. Recent reports show that Bakken oil
production currently accounts for 11 percent of the total U.S. oil
production and represents 40 percent of increased oil production
nationwide. If the Keystone XL pipeline is built, it would be able to
move up to 100,000 barrels of oil. That's Montana and North Dakota oil
per day from our very own Bakken formation.
Mr. President, I am in favor of ``made in America'' energy. Montana's
natural resources, like coal and oil, not only provide our State and
Nation with quality American energy, but they are helping keep the
utility costs low for hardworking American taxpayers. Montana gets more
than half of its power from coal. That helps keep electric rates low.
We see some electric cars driving down the highways today and in our
towns. I'm not opposed to electric cars; but if the truth be known, we
ought to have a sticker on the back that reads: ``This electric car
likely powered by coal.'' The average retail price in Montana is
currently 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour, which is among the lowest in the
Nation.
The construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, on the other hand,
would also have a tremendous impact on energy prices for Montanans. In
fact, not too long ago, I was traveling around our State. I am the only
Member of Congress for the State of Montana. It's a privilege to
represent an entire State. I was up in Glasgow, Montana, meeting with
the NorVal Electric Co-Op. I learned that the NorVal Electric Co-Op is
expected to supply power for one of the Keystone pump stations. If the
Keystone pipeline is built, it will help NorVal keep its customers'
electric rates stable for the next 10 years. Think about that--10 years
of no increase. Contrast that to, if the pipeline is not built, NorVal
expects that their rates will grow upwards of 40 percent over the next
decade.
Mr. President, these customers at NorVal live month to month. They
live paycheck to paycheck. This is what is helping American middle
class, hardworking taxpayers survive--expanding our energy production.
By declaring a war on energy right now, you are declaring a war on
American families who are struggling every month to make ends meet. For
most Montanans who live on tight budgets and who carefully track where
their paychecks are going, unlike a lot of the folks around here in
Washington, D.C., a 40 percent increase in utility rates would be
devastating. Unfortunately, under President Obama's agenda, that very
well could happen.
President Obama's war on coal would severely hinder coal production
in Montana and the jobs that rely on this important industry. It would
be a serious blow to Montana families and to small businesses that rely
on coal as a reliable source of affordable electricity. Just as bad,
this job-killing agenda will be imposed through unilateral action,
demonstrating that the President is more set on achieving his own
political goals rather than on listening to the will of the American
people or on working to create much-needed jobs.
Mr. President, the people of America are focused on paying their
bills every month. That's a higher priority to them than your priority,
which is that of winning an election in 2014.
By sidestepping Congress and public scrutiny, President Obama will
set his agenda in motion through costly regulations and more and more
red tape and bureaucratic hoops. These roadblocks won't just hurt the
coal industry as we know President Obama and his advisers seek to do;
these regulations will hurt hardworking American taxpayers who rely on
American energy each and every day.
Let me be clear: President Obama's agenda isn't just a war on coal.
This is a war on Montana energy, on Montana families, on Montana small
businesses, and on Montana jobs--and it must be stopped. I will remain
steadfast in this fight to stop the President's job-killing agenda, and
I look forward to working with my colleagues here today on commonsense
policies that grow American energy and help create the good-paying
[[Page H4067]]
jobs that the American people desperately need.
Mr. CRAMER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
I especially appreciate your reference to the Keystone pipeline and
to the importance of the role of electric cooperatives.
A lot of people forget that there is a Keystone pipeline. There was
actually one sited and built with very little fanfare. I was at that
time a member of the North Dakota Public Service Commission and carried
the pipeline portfolio and sited the first 220 miles in the United
States of the original Keystone pipeline. It didn't go anywhere near
the Bakken, unfortunately; but it did cross 600 landowners' land--green
field all the way, two scenic rivers. We put a lot of restrictions on
it, but it was with very little fanfare. In fact, every landowner
willingly signed the contract. There wasn't a single inch of that
pipeline in North Dakota that had to be condemned to be built.
It was interesting because we have, I think, five or six pumping
stations in North Dakota on the original Keystone, and the co-ops were
all sort of arguing about whose territory would it be in because every
pumping station was a load equivalent to a city of 10,000 people. For
those who argue that it's not about the United States, the Keystone XL,
that's big time for the people of North Dakota and for the people of
the United States. It is about the United States. So I appreciate your
raising that issue.
Another State that has a lot to lose in the war on coal and a lot to
gain by more offshore drilling is Virginia. I yield to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I thank you so much for the opportunity to
speak this afternoon on these important issues.
It's true that offshore in Virginia is something we've been
discussing since 2004. What's interesting is that a lot of the folks
said, You don't really want to do that in 2004. It's not going to
really help gas prices. Do you know why? Because it will take 7 to 10
years to get it developed.
Guess what? If we'd have started in 2004 drilling off the coast of
Virginia, we'd be getting that natural gas, and we'd be getting that
oil off the coast of Virginia right now. It would be creating jobs. It
would be creating tax dollars that could go to schools, roads--you name
it--whatever the legislature in Virginia decided it wanted to spend it
on. It could be going to increase the revenues of the United States of
America as well. Likewise, this Congress could then be debating the
expenditure of those funds and what we wanted to do with those moneys.
Instead, the naysayers keep saying, Well, not now, not now. I say to
them, If not now, when? When are we going to do this? We know it's out
there. We know it's a huge resource for the United States of America.
Then yesterday, on top of blocking our ability to get from the other
side of the State the natural gas and the oil that is there and that we
know is there and that we want to get to, the President of the United
States declared what I call the ``war on coal--phase 2.'' He has
already been involved in phase 1 for some time, but in his comments
yesterday, he made it clear that he's not going to wait for science to
get us a solution--because it's coming. There is research that's being
done on chemical looping and on other ways to use coal cleanly, where
you end up with coal ash and carbon dioxide--no SOx, no NOX,
no mercury. It's coal ash and carbon dioxide, and you can recycle the
iron pellets that they use. I mean, it's really a wonderful process,
but we have testing left to do on it. It has already been working at
Ohio State University. They are building a facility in Alabama, and
they are going to be doing testing beginning later this year that will
end next year on a bigger project than what they did at Ohio State, but
still it's got another phase to go even after that.
If we wait just a few years and if we do reasonable things now and if
we wait for science to catch up, we can, in fact, accomplish what the
President wants to accomplish on the environment and not destroy the
jobs of southwest Virginia, the central Appalachia region and all other
coal-producing States. There are more than 20 of them that are coal-
producing States. We will be damaging their economies if we go forward.
{time} 1540
It's interesting that the President noted in his speech and said:
Now, what you'll hear from the special interests and their
allies in Congress is that this will kill jobs and crush the
economy.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, that's exactly what you'll hear. Do you
know why you're going to hear it? Because it's true.
And if being a special interest means you have to be one of the
people that lost their job in the coal fields of southwest Virginia or
Kentucky or West Virginia or any of the other States where jobs--we've
been losing them monthly. We get reports of another 25 here, another 15
there, people who've been laid off in the coal fields. And it's not
just the coal fields. It's the railroads that haul the coal. It's the
people at the manufacturing centers that make the equipment for the
mines. It's the car dealerships that used to sell cars to the miners,
who used to have jobs.
Let me make something clear, folks. Being in the mine is a hard job.
There's no question about it. And we want to make sure health concerns
are taken into consideration because it does have dangers to it. There
is no question about that. But the workers in those mines are making
somewhere between $75,000 and $95,000 a year if you add in their
benefits. You take a district like mine, the Ninth District of
Virginia, where the average household income is around $36,000 a year,
and you start laying off 15 $75,000 to $95,000-a-year jobs here with
health insurance included, you lay off another 25 jobs here and 30 jobs
there, and ladies and gentlemen, you want to talk about destroying the
economy, you're darn right you're going to destroy the economy. And if
standing up for the special interests of the people who work in the
mines, the people who work in the equipment factories, the people who
work at the car dealerships, the people who work at the restaurants in
southwest Virginia is a bad thing, then I guess I'll just keep doing a
bad thing because I will continue to fight for southwest Virginia and
the jobs in the coal fields.
The other thing the President went on later to say was that this
issue didn't used to be partisan and now it's partisan. Guess what? The
President is wrong. This is a bipartisan issue. And I'm going to look
at the Bluefield Daily Telegraph and read you some quotes from some of
my Democrat colleagues because it's important for the people of America
to know that the President may want to divide, but in the coal fields
we understand exactly what this is going to do to our jobs and our
economy, and ultimately to the economy of the United States of America.
U.S. Representative Nick Rahall, Democrat of West Virginia said:
Obama's climate change plan is misguided and could cost
millions of jobs.
That's not a Republican. That's a Democrat. He goes on.
The misguided, misinformed and untenable policy that the
President put forth this afternoon puts at risk the energy
security of America and the jobs of millions of our citizens.
Rahall continued saying:
Locking away the fuels that power our Nation behind
ideologically imposed barriers will drive up costs for nearly
every business and manner of industrial activity while
driving jobs overseas. Households already struggling to make
ends meet will see energy bills skyrocket.
That's Nick Rahall, Democrat of West Virginia. He goes on to say:
The administration should be advocating new clean-coal
technologies as opposed to crippling regulations.
Isn't that really where the President has been going the whole time?
He said in the San Francisco Chronicle interview of 1-17-08:
When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, you know
under a plan of cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would
necessarily skyrocket.
Nick Rahall:
Households already struggling to make ends meet will see
energy bills skyrocket.
The President is doing what he said he was going to do. He declared
war on coal, and now he's going to try to see if he can't finish it by
devastating the American economy and the economy of southwest Virginia
and central Appalachia. It's just not right.
[[Page H4068]]
Mr. President, let's look at the science that your administration has
invested money into. Chemical looping may be the way that we can both
have what we want. I want and my colleagues want jobs for America, tax
dollars coming in off of coal severance, natural gas, offshore
drilling. We want to see those tax revenues coming in because then we
can use that to help Americans. We want to help all Americans. You want
to clean up the environment, and so do we. We can do it, but we have to
be reasonable.
Let's go forward and look at another Democrat, and that would be
Senator Joe Manchin, and he touches on this point in his comments in
the Bluefield paper. U.S. Senator Joe Manchin, Democrat of West
Virginia, said:
Obama's plan will have disastrous consequences for not only
the coal industry, but also American jobs and the economy.
Democrat Manchin goes on:
The regulations the President wants to force on coal are
not feasible. And if it's not feasible, it's not reasonable.
It's clear now that the President has declared a war on
coal. It's simply unacceptable that one of the key elements
of his climate change proposal places regulations on coal
that are completely impossible to meet with existing
technology. The fact is clear: our own Energy Department
reports that our country will get 37 percent of our energy
from coal until the year 2040. Removing coal from our energy
mix will have a disastrous consequence for our recovering
economy.
These policies punish American businesses by putting them
at a competitive disadvantage with our global competitors,
and those competitors burn seven-eighths of the world's coal,
and they're not going to stop using coal any time soon. It's
only common sense to use our domestic resources, and that
includes our coal.
Senator Manchin is absolutely right because let me tell you that when
we burn coal here and we create jobs here in the United States of
America, as you well know, that means we're not sending those
manufacturing jobs overseas to another country. Particularly if those
countries are in Asia or in some of the emerging economies, they don't
have anywhere near the regulations we have. They don't have the
regulations we had in the year 2000 or the year 2005 to comply with.
So we can create the goods here, create jobs for Americans, create
tax dollars which will help us deal with the national debt and deficit
problem. We can do all of that here, and we can do it by burning coal
more efficiently and cleaner than the countries that we're competing
with. But instead the President wants to ignore all that. He wants to
ignore those facts and go forward and say, No, we can't do that.
I go on with the quotes from the San Francisco Chronicle because
right now he's not singing the same tune. He goes on to say after the
``skyrocket.''
Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or
bad, because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants,
you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were,
whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their
operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money
on to consumers.
Who are the consumers? I believe the consumers are the average family
out there, the single parent trying to raise children, the elderly, the
folks trying to struggle with that $36,000-a-year-annual-household
income, the miners and the workers in the factories that produce the
goods that help the miners do their job who now don't have jobs,
they're still going to have that electric bill coming in.
You know, it's interesting that the President actually cut in his
budget proposal the LIHEAP money, which is the program to help the
people who can't afford to pay their heat bill. So at the same time
we're creating more unemployment, we are also going to take away some
of the benefits that helps those folks. It just doesn't make sense. The
President's policies don't make sense, and I submit to you all that the
President needs to rethink this. He needs to look at clean-coal
technology because that's the winner for America, for American jobs,
for American prosperity and for America to go forward into the future,
leading the way.
Mr. CRAMER. Thank you so much for your insights and your experience
in this very important industry of coal and all of the things that it
supports and that support it.
I think that an appropriate way to sort of wrap this discussion up is
to remind folks that while we are advocates for domestic energy
development, American energy production that creates a competitive
global advantage in all areas, we are also good stewards of the
environment.
Let me just close with this. These counties in North Dakota that have
seven power plants burning coal, all got A ratings from the American
Lung Association. And I believe that the same God that created the
beauty and splendor of the oceans and the mountains and the prairies
and the topsoil, put the minerals underneath it, and we ought to use
all of them for our benefit.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
____________________