[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 11, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1511-S1514]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DOMESTIC FUEL TAX
Mr. HOEVEN. This morning I spoke on the floor and I talked about
energy. I talked about the need for a States
[[Page S1512]]
first, all-of-the-above approach to a comprehensive energy plan that
will not only produce more energy for our country but will get us to
energy independence or energy security within a very short period of
time and will also help with environmental stewardship and will help us
deploy the technology that will not only produce more energy--and do it
in a dependable, cost effective way--but at the same time the same
technology as we deploy it will help us produce that energy with better
environmental stewardship.
That is the right kind of plan for America. We have legislation that
I introduced along with my colleagues both on the Republican side of
the aisle and the Democratic side of the aisle to accomplish that plan,
including a good friend of mine, a Senator from West Virginia, a
Democrat. I am a Republican, but we have been able to work together on
legislation that will empower hundreds of billions in private
investment into the energy sector to produce more energy more cost-
effectively, more independently, more efficiently, more reliably, and
with better environmental stewardship because it deploys the new
technologies that not only will make a difference in this country, but
will be adopted by other countries around the globe.
That means lower-cost energy. That means more energy, and at the same
time better environmental stewardship. That is the right approach. That
is the right approach to a comprehensive energy policy.
The fact is, we do not just have one bill to do what I am talking
about--not just one big, monolithic Federal approach--but rather we
have a whole series of bills that would create a step-by-step approach
to a comprehensive energy plan for this Nation that would truly create
a States first, all-of-the-above approach. That would create more jobs
and economic growth. It would create tax revenue to help address our
deficit and our debt without raising taxes through economic growth.
It would create more domestic energy, and more domestic energy means
national security, not being dependent on oil from the Middle East.
This country does not want to be dependent on oil from the Middle East
and there is no reason that we should be. Together with our closest
friend and ally Canada, we can produce more than enough energy for our
needs. That means national security, and as I said, with the new
technologies and better environmental stewardship.
As I said, I put forward legislation with my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to accomplish just that. Again, this isn't one big,
comprehensive 1,000-page bill that you have to pass to understand what
is in it. These are individual bills that are very understandable, that
are common sense--legislation that includes approval of the Keystone XL
Pipeline. As I said this morning, the administration has been reviewing
the Keystone XL Pipeline for more than 5 years. This Congress can
approve it, and it should.
It includes items such as the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, which has
already been passed by the House. It includes a whole series of bills
that would help us to develop a strategic, comprehensive plan and goals
to make sure we are producing more energy in this country on public
lands both onshore and off.
The Empower States Act makes sure that States have a primary
responsibility for regulating hydraulic fracture. Hydraulic fracturing
is enabling us to tap new areas of energy that we never thought we
would be able to develop.
Coal ash recycling legislation. Together with my good friend from the
great State of West Virginia, we have a coal ash recycling bill. This
bill not only will help us recycle coal ash for building materials, for
building roads, but it will also help make sure that when we landfill
coal ash, it is done with good environmental stewardship. That is a
win-win.
This is something the EPA is working on. They have to have a solution
in place by the end of the year, and we have worked with the EPA to
actually come up with something that is clear and understandable and
works, not only to make the landfill safer but to make sure we can
recycle coal ash in a way that reduces the cost of our roads and our
buildings. Again, just another commonsense example of what is in the
Domestic Fuels Act.
The Domestic Fuels Act allows marketers, gas stations, to not only
sell oil and gas products but actually makes it easier for them to sell
renewable fuel as well--ethanol, biofuels, hopefully hydrogen and other
fuels of the future. It makes it easier for them to get permitted and
to use the same equipment to sell a whole variety of different types of
fuels. What does that mean? That means consumer choice. That means more
competition to help bring down the price at the pump. Now this is the
same kind of comprehensive plan that we developed in my State of North
Dakota. We called our energy plan EmPower ND--EmPower North Dakota.
The idea was to unleash all of our energy resources, both traditional
and renewable. Our State is now an energy powerhouse for the Nation.
The only State that produces more oil for this country now is Texas. We
are closing in on a million barrels a day of oil, and producing it in
new ways with new techniques that people thought were not possible a
few years ago, and with a smaller footprint and better stewardship.
That is what the technology does.
When you create an environment where you empower the investment, that
technology unleashes the energy and does it with better environmental
stewardship. We did that as a State, and we can do it as a country. It
builds on the very foundation of how our government works.
The States in our great country are the laboratories of democracy.
What I am proposing is that we also make the States the laboratories of
energy development. We do that by giving them the primary role in how
they develop energy, how they develop their energy resources and how
those energy resources are regulated.
So whether it is oil or gas or nuclear or biofuels, hydro, wind,
solar, biomass or whatever else may be an area of strength for that
State, they decide and they figure out how to develop it. Who will be
more concerned about good environmental stewardship than the people who
live right there and deal with it every single day?
It is a States first, all-of-the-above comprehensive plan for energy
development for this country instead of the current approach, an
approach where there is too much regulation, taxation, and restriction
by big Federal policies. This one-size-fits-all approach is, in fact,
preventing investment in energy development in this country.
I will give you the Keystone XL Pipeline as a great case in point.
There is $5.3 billion in investment and not one penny of Federal
spending, but $5.3 billion that has been held on the sideline now for
more than 5 years. In 2011 the Chamber of Commerce put forward a study.
They cited hundreds of projects across the country totaling hundreds of
billions of dollars that were being held up that would create energy
and jobs and economic activity for our country. If you think about it,
you cannot regulate it. The Federal Government cannot regulate our way
to a solution--think about it--even if you put out regulations. If the
Obama administration could say, OK, only these kind of energies can be
produced and they have to be produced this way--even if that worked in
this country, what about the rest of the globe?
This is a global issue. So instead of holding up the development and
deployment of these new technologies with regulatory barriers, we need
to empower that investment. As you empower investment and you produce
energy and you deploy new technologies, you get better environmental
stewardship.
It doesn't happen in just this country. It will happen in other
countries too. Why? Because they will adopt the technology we develop.
That is how it works. When somebody develops a better technology, then
other companies, other countries adopt it.
So let me contrast what is going on right now. One of the things I
worked on both as a Governor and now here in the Senate is getting the
Keystone XL Pipeline approved. It has been more than 5 years--more than
5 years--and the administration still refuses to make a decision. That
is defeat by delay, sidelining $5.3 billion of private investment that
the administration's own studies show will create jobs. The final
environmental impact study produced by the Department of State said
[[Page S1513]]
that the Keystone XL Pipeline project will create 42,000 jobs without
spending a penny of Federal money. The $5.3 billion in private
investment would create 42,000 jobs at a time when we need to get the
economy growing and creating jobs. It also will create hundreds of
millions in revenue that will address the deficit and the debt at the
local, State, and Federal level. It will also create hundreds of
millions in revenue over many years at a time when we have deficit and
debt without raising taxes. It also strengthens national security.
There is no question when you go to the public and say: Do we want to
get our oil from the Middle East or would we rather get our oil from
right here in the United States and Canada, if we can produce it
ourselves and get it from Canada, is that what we want or do we want to
continue to rely on the Middle East, obviously that is a pretty easy
answer, isn't it?
In a recent public poll performed last week, March 7, by the
Washington Post and ABC, two-thirds of Americans support building the
Keystone XL Pipeline and 22 percent oppose. After 5 years and study
after study, the administration still can't make a decision. Yet two-
thirds of Americans know what we need to do. Two-thirds of the American
people say: Build the pipeline. What are you waiting for? Only 22
percent oppose it.
The final environmental impact--I believe it is either the fourth or
fifth environmental impact study--done by the Obama administration came
out and again it showed there was no significant environmental impact.
That was released at the end of January.
The inspector general's report that was released at the end of
February said there was no conflict of interest by the company hired to
do the environmental impact statement. Yet still we wait. There is
still no decision. So you wonder why. You look at our economy and you
say: Why isn't our economy growing faster? Why isn't our economy
stronger? Why isn't unemployment going down? Why is there so much
investment capital sidelined? Why aren't businesses growing? Why aren't
small businesses growing? Why aren't small businesses across the
country hiring people? Then we see regulations which are holding up
approvals for more than 5 years. Maybe that is the answer.
America has always been the place where everybody came to do business
because it was easier to do business. As a result our economy has
always been the greatest economy in the world. When we have a
government that can't even make a decision on a regulatory approval to
approve a project billions of dollars after its own agency has come out
time and time and time again and said there is no reason not to go
forward, maybe that is the problem.
Obviously the people of this country know that. That is why when you
go out and ask them a commonsense question, they give you a commonsense
answer: Build the pipeline. We listened to the arguments about how we
can't build the pipeline because of CO2 emissions because
using oil from the oil sands in Alberta, Canada, will create
CO2.
The reality is--and as the environmental impact study done by the
State Department clearly shows--you have more CO2 emissions
without the pipeline than you do building it. How does that make sense?
How does it make sense to hold it up on the basis of CO2
emissions when you have more CO2 emissions without the
pipeline than with it?
Of course the net result is instead of having the energy come to the
United States, it goes to China. And what do we do? We keep importing
oil from the Middle East.
What I am talking about is commonsense legislation. That was just one
example. I can give you others.
Earlier this year we passed a bill I put forward with other Members.
It is the BLM bill, Bureau of Land Management streamlining bill. It is
a simple, commonsense bill. It simply says BLM offices can work across
State lines. For example, the BLM office in Miles City, MT, can work
across the State line in North Dakota. That just makes sense because we
have so much oil activity in our State. Not only can they work in our
State, they can also work on the reservation.
We have the three affiliated tribes reservations: Mandan, Hidatsa,
Arikara. It is a very large reservation in our State with incredible
oil activity, but they have to get all these regulatory permits to
drill wells too, and the Bureau of Land Management could not keep up in
our State or on the reservation. Now they can bring their people from
other offices in to help.
When we look at this, it is not just about producing more energy, is
it? That is a simple, commonsense act which we passed in both this
Chamber and the House. It is now law. It not only helps us produce more
energy in our States, such as North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, and other
places, but it also helps our reservations.
We now have activity on the three affiliated tribes' reservations.
They have tremendous employment and tremendous growth. They are getting
revenue from their oil wells that they can use for social programs to
help needy families, to pay for education, and to use for roads and
vital infrastructure.
Tomorrow--along with Senator Barrasso and Senator Enzi of Wyoming--we
will introduce another similar bill that makes it easier to build gas-
gathering systems both on reservations and off. Instead of flaring off
gas at the wellhead site, you are able to build gathering systems and
get that gas to pipelines and get it to market and use it. Again, that
is not just about producing more energy; that is an example of better
environmental stewardship.
By putting these commonsense measures into place, we create economic
activity and more energy, but as I said from the outset, we get better
environmental stewardship. I mentioned that the Domestic Energy and
Jobs Act is part of that comprehensive plan to have the States first
all-of-the-above energy approach for our country; that legislation will
help us produce more energy both onshore and offshore on our public
lands.
Again, that is good for all the reasons I have identified but think
about it in this context too: By producing more energy on public lands,
we will also create more revenue for the Federal Government. Without
raising taxes, we create more revenue for the Federal Government. That
is important to address our deficit and our debt.
We have something else coming up that we are going to have to find a
revenue source for; that is, a highway bill. In September the highway
bill expires, and we are going to have to have a highway bill. We want
a 5-year highway bill that is a very strong, well-funded highway bill
to address the infrastructure needs in this country. Whether you talk
to Republicans or Democrats in this Chamber, they will tell you we need
to address infrastructure across this country.
In order to address infrastructure, we have to have a way to pay for
it. How are we going to pay for it? How are we going to pay for that
next highway bill? Right now the trust fund doesn't have the money to
do it, so we are going to have to find a source. How about we tap into
more energy on our Federal lands onshore and offshore? Without raising
taxes, we have a revenue source so we can actually pass a 5-year
highway bill. That is a long-term revenue source that we can actually
use to fund the highway bill and address the infrastructure in this
country.
It is about more than energy. This commonsense approach to building
an energy plan for our country--and again it is not that big 1,000-
page, one-size-fits-all Federal approach where everybody has to do the
same thing. It is a step-by-step process to build a comprehensive plan
that empowers the States to build on their strengths and make things
happen. We can do it. It has all of those benefits. As I mentioned
earlier, it even comes down to our national security.
I will close on this point: Think about what is happening in Western
Europe. We have a situation where Russia--President Putin has decided
he is going to invade Ukraine and he is going to take Crimea and put it
under Russian rule and maybe more. We will see. So what do we do? What
does the European Union do?
One of the decisions the European Union has to address is the energy
situation. They are asking: What is the energy situation in Europe?
Right now 30 percent of the natural gas the European Union utilizes
comes from Russia and half of that goes through Ukraine.
[[Page S1514]]
It is a particularly acute issue for West Germany.
What do they do? Are they going to be willing to get tough with Putin
when they are dependent on Russia for their natural gas for their
energy? What decision do they make?
The same thing for our country: What decisions do we make when we
continue to get our oil from places such as the Middle East and
Venezuela? We say no to getting oil from Canada and force our closest
friend and ally to turn to exporting that oil to China.
How do we deal with China? How are we dealing in that situation with
our allies, such as Canada, that want to work with us, and how are we
dealing with countries that have different interests than we do?
All of these things tie together to a good energy plan and a good
energy policy. We all want better environmental stewardship, but we
want solutions. The American people want solutions. They want
commonsense, real solutions to address these problems. We put forward
an approach that can make a big difference for our country, and I call
on my colleagues to join with me and to work to put that in place for
the good of our country today and for future generations.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________