[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.

                          ____________________