[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.

                          ____________________