[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 6, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2697-S2699]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE ENERGY SAVINGS AND INDUSTRIAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2014--MOTION
TO PROCEED--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, Americans understand the relationship
between affordable energy and a stronger economy. They understand it.
They may not know all the numbers, but intuitively they know in their
gut that affordable energy is critical to a sound and strong economy.
Between 2008 and 2013, America suffered through a financial crisis--a
deep recession, sometimes called the great recession. There was nothing
great about it because it turned our country and our economy on its
head, and it resulted in the highest level of unemployment since the
Great Depression. Yet over the same period of time, U.S. production of
oil increased by 50 percent.
Meanwhile, from 2007 to 2012, America's production of shale oil
increased by an astounding 18-fold while our production of gas grew by
more than 50 percent. In fact, it is now projected that the United
States could well be a net exporter of natural gas. The terminals that
were built along the gulf coast and elsewhere to try to facilitate the
importation of natural gas are now being retrofitted and turned around
so that the excess natural gas produced right here in the U.S.A. is
available to export.
As we have learned, among other things, this could change the
geopolitics of the globe. If America and the rest of the world no
longer depend on the Middle East--and if Europe and Ukraine are no
longer dependent on Russia--for their sole supply of energy and oil, it
could change the world as we know it.
Well, as I started out by saying people understand the relationship
between affordable energy and a stronger economy, nowhere else do they
understand it any better than in Bismarck, ND, or in the Permian Basin
in Texas. Those are the two places, the last time I checked, that had
the lowest level of unemployment in the country, and it is not a
coincidence. These are places that are producing huge volumes of
American oil and natural gas, and it is creating a lot of jobs in the
process.
In short, even amid a difficult period of economic stagnation,
America has
[[Page S2698]]
been experiencing a true revolution in domestic energy output. This is
a little bit inside baseball, but a few years ago people were talking
about peak oil, as if all of the oil that could be discovered had been
discovered in the world; we were running out. Well, obviously, that has
proven not to be true. But, as I said, all you need to do is to visit
the Permian Basin in West Texas, the Eagle Ford Shale region in South
Texas or the Barnett Shale region in North Texas and see what happens
when America is a good steward of the natural resources we have been
provided.
The numbers in my State are really amazing--in the great State of
Texas. During the month of February, our State's average daily oil
production hit a 28-year high--a 28-year high--as we produced more than
2 million barrels of oil a day. What does that mean, if you do not come
from an oil-producing State, an energy-producing State? That means, at
minimum, that is 2 million barrels a day less we have to import from
OPEC--the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries--in the Middle
East. That is 2 million barrels less a day that we are held hostage to
that volatile region of the world.
In Karnes County, TX, alone, which is part of the Eagle Ford Shale
region, total monthly oil production was nearly 4.9 million barrels.
How did this happen? Well, it happened because of the innovation of
this sector of our economy--the energy sector--and it has made it
cleaner, safer, much more productive than it has been at any other time
in the past.
In Midland, TX, which I mentioned a moment ago--part of the
incredibly productive Permian Basin, which has been producing oil and
gas for many decades now--monthly oil production grew from about
842,000 barrels in February 2008 to 1.9 million barrels in February
2014, for a total increase from 2008 to 2014 of 128 percent--128
percent. Incredible.
As I said, it is not surprising that this area of our State and our
country has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the entire Nation.
There is a relationship between affordable energy and a strong economy
and strong job growth. It is a place, for example, where a person with
a high school diploma or a general equivalency degree, a GED, can make
$75,000 a year driving trucks. So if you can get a commercial driver's
license in Midland, TX, and you have a GED or a high school degree, you
could make $75,000 a year. I was told yesterday that at the McDonald's
restaurants in the area, people are being paid $15 an hour. That is not
because the Federal Government has raised the minimum wage to $15 an
hour; that is because the market demands it because the economy is
booming.
As I said, people in my State have long understood--because we have
been an energy-producing State--that U.S. energy policy is a critical
part of U.S. economic policy. Thanks to this innovation I alluded to a
moment ago, you are seeing other parts of the country experience this,
some for the first time.
But we are all learning that maximizing domestic energy production
will create American jobs, and it will make America safer. They are
also beginning to understand better that misguided government policies
can destroy those same jobs and perpetuate our dependence on foreign
energy sources. For example, many people in my State are very concerned
about the regulatory process at the Federal level and particularly a
proposal that will, in essence, enact a backdoor energy tax in the form
of new greenhouse gas rules. The proposed rule would have a major
economic cost in return for meager or nonexistent benefits. The Obama
Environmental Protection Agency itself admitted that its greenhouse gas
rule would not have a notable impact on U.S. carbon dioxide emissions
by 2022.
Speaking of which, I hope my friends across the aisle--who frequently
argue that we must have government-imposed CO2 reductions,
even if it kills jobs and raises the price of energy for consumers--
appreciate that this same natural gas and energy revolution that we
have talked about has itself--all by itself--resulted in a significant
decline in CO2 emissions. That is by virtue of this same
innovation that has created all this natural gas--cheaper, more
affordable energy--to help drive our economy and help create more jobs.
At the same time it has reduced CO2 emissions. Between 2005
and 2012, U.S. emissions dropped by more than 10 percent. Indeed,
emissions dropped more in the United States than in Europe, which
already has in place some draconian measures, such as a cap-and-trade
rule, a carbon tax, and those sorts of policies. It has dropped more in
America without those because of this innovation and this natural gas
renaissance.
I admit this natural gas boom was not the only reason our emissions
went down, but many experts believe it was the most important.
Despite this progress, the majority leader insists that we are still
not doing enough to curb CO2 emissions. But do you know
what. He refuses to bring a bill to the floor that would actually,
according to his scenario, do something about it--the so-called cap-
and-trade bill. I do not support that because I think it would raise
energy costs, it would have negligible benefits, and it is really just
throwing a bone to some of the most radical people in America when it
comes to our environment and exploring and producing American energy.
But cap and trade failed to command sufficient Senate approval even
when our Democratic friends controlled 60 votes, which in the Senate is
unassailable in the sense that you can do that purely on a party-line
vote. But the reason it did not pass was pretty simple, and our
Democratic friends understand this as well. The costs of cap and trade
vastly outweigh the benefits of cap and trade. It does not pass the
cost-benefit test.
The same is true of President Obama's backdoor energy tax. Over the
coming decades, America's contribution to worldwide carbon dioxide
emissions growth will be minuscule. Moreover, as I mentioned, the EPA
itself--the Obama administration Environmental Protection Agency--does
not believe the greenhouse gas rule would have a significant impact on
U.S. emissions by 2022--8 years from now. So the benefits of this
backdoor energy tax would be virtually nonexistent, while the costs
would be all too real, including higher energy prices and lost jobs.
The shale gas revolution, as it is called--shale because that is the
rock it is produced from through this phenomenon known as fracking. And
for those who are scared about the concept of fracking, who do not
really understand it, this is a process that has been used for about 70
years around the country. It is very safely regulated at the State and
local level, and, if proper drilling practices are observed, casing is
submitted in a hole in a way that protects drinking water and other
possible contamination. So it can and has been done on a daily basis
for lo these seven decades.
But the shale gas revolution has been critical to America's economic
growth during a time the rest of the economy has struggled, and it is
going to be even more vital in the decades ahead.
According to one study, by 2035 unconventional oil and gas resources
alone--that is what comes from shale; shale oil, shale gas--will
support close to 3.5 million jobs in America and make $475 billion in
value-added contributions to America's economy.
Where would we be this last quarter, when the gross domestic product
of our economy grew at 0.1 percent, if it were not for what I am
talking about here, this energy renaissance in America? We would be in
a recession, in my judgment, because it has contributed so much that it
has essentially negated a lot of the other bad policies that have kept
American job growth nearly flatlined otherwise.
Given all of that, it would be my hope based on this evidence--not
based on my comments or my arguments but based on the evidence--we
should be doing everything in Washington to support this revolution, or
some have called it a renaissance. Call it what you will, but it has
supported American job creation and lowered energy costs and helped our
economy.
So why not embrace an energy policy that is progrowth, projobs, and
proconsumer, an energy policy that is consistent with our environmental
interests but serves our economic interests as well and our strategic
interests. That means, in part, doing what I said earlier; that is,
blocking regulations that do not pass a simple cost-benefit analysis.
It means streamlining the regulatory process here in Washington so
these projects can go forward on a
[[Page S2699]]
timely basis. It means approving job-creating proposals such as the
Keystone XL Pipeline.
Many of us have seen, in horror, some of the accidents that have
occurred on the railways, where tanker cars have derailed, catching
fire, only to learn that in the absence of adequate pipeline capacity,
that is the way the oil moves. It moves along the railroad lines in
tankers, and sometimes accidents happen, unfortunately.
But we need the Keystone XL Pipeline, which will create tens of
thousands of new jobs. It will mean we have a safe source for
additional oil, in addition to what we produce here in America, from
our friends in Canada. For the opponents of the Keystone XL Pipeline
who think that somehow by denying approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline
this oil will not be produced and sold, well, it is going to be sold
somewhere. Canada is going to sell that oil abroad if it cannot sell it
to the United States. That oil, when it comes down the pipeline, will
end up in southeast Texas, in a lot of the large refineries there, and
be turned into affordable gasoline, fuel oil, and jet fuel, among other
things. We have offered amendments that will do that and more.
We will accelerate natural gas exports to our allies and trading
partners. Think what Vladimir Putin might do if he knew he did not have
a stranglehold on Ukraine and Europe when it came to energy. Think what
would happen if they had an alternative--from American exports or
pipelines from other places--that could circumvent Russia and could
heat homes, keep the lights on, and avoid this stranglehold Vladimir
Putin and Russia have on so much of Europe. I think it would make him
think twice about his invasion of the Crimea and the threatening
actions and the disruption which are taking place in Ukraine today and
which could extend even further.
My point is that we have amendments to this underlying Shaheen-
Portman energy conservation bill which are relevant to the topic of
energy production, albeit broader, which would do all these things. We
are trying to offer some of these ideas, which I hope any fairminded
observer would say are constructive ideas. You may not agree with all
of it--we may not even win a majority of the vote in the Senate today
on these amendments--but why in the world would the majority leader
insist on denying us an opportunity to have a fulsome debate on
American energy policy, not just conservation but on producing more
energy as well?
Unfortunately, though, he has given every indication that he will
allow no votes on bipartisan amendments--and each of these amendments
that I have mentioned has bipartisan support. As a matter of fact, he
has indicated he won't allow votes on any amendments on this bill.
The distinguished Republican leader from Kentucky has pointed out
that since July this side of the aisle has only been allowed eight--and
I think now we have gone back and looked at it--maybe nine votes on
amendments that came from the Republican side of the aisle.
Forget me, forget the prerogatives of an individual Senator, but
think about the fact that I represent 26 million people. What a
tremendous honor and privilege it is but how unfair it is to my
constituents; how unfair it is to constituents--American citizens all--
that everyone on this side of the aisle represents to shut them out of
the process.
Someone called this the Harry Reid gag rule. That pretty well
describes it when the minority is deprived of any right to offer
constructive proposals and to have votes and debate on these policies
in the Senate. We used to call--well, I see the pages here, and I know
they go to school while they are pages. I bet if they go back and look
in some of their history or civics books, it will tell them that the
Senate is called the world's greatest deliberative body. No more. That
is history.
If the minority can't offer constructive proposals that would
actually improve the availability of American-produced energy, would
help grow the economy, and would create jobs, no more is the Senate the
world's greatest deliberative body. Unfortunately, it is the result of
the decisions made by the majority leader.
When it comes to energy policy, I hope my friends across the aisle
will remember what I said about these back-door energy taxes hurting
lower-income Americans, as well as our seniors who are on fixed income,
because they are the people who can least afford paying higher energy
bills or they are the ones who are least able to afford losing their
jobs.
We want to adopt on a bipartisan basis energy policies that are
progrowth, projobs, pro-environment, and proconsumer, but we will never
get there as long as Majority Leader Reid decides to deny us an
opportunity for a vote on relevant legislation.
This isn't just about inside Senate baseball, this is about one of
the Nation's most important governing institutions being able to
function. This is about consent of the governed. That is the very
premise upon which the legitimacy of the Federal Government exists;
that is, that the people--``We the People''--all 300 and some-odd
million of us, have an opportunity to participate in the governing
process by voting, by petitioning our elected representatives, and by
advocating that certain policies be embraced in Washington. You are not
promised you will win every time, but you are guaranteed a right as an
American citizen to participate in the process. Yet that is being
denied at its most fundamental level when the majority leader decides
to run this as an autocracy or a dictatorship or decides to impose his
own gag rule on the proper functioning of what used to be called the
world's greatest deliberative body but is no more.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________