[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 45 (Monday, March 14, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1142-S1144]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                 Energy

  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I have had many experiences presiding 
when you have gotten up to speak about energy and climate. So now the 
roles are reversed, and I will take a perspective somewhat similar to 
yours in the past but perhaps a little bit broader.
  We are in a point in time where it is clear that there is a nexus 
between energy, climate, economic security for a family and for a 
nation, and national security. And if we ignore any one, if we 
overemphasize one and forget the rest, then we lose all four.
  I will just share the example we have right now. The administration 
has clearly prioritized climate in such a way that they have attempted 
to decrease the amount of fossil fuel being produced in the United 
States of America and limit the exports of that fuel. Because of that 
singular emphasis, we are now at a point where we have endangered the 
economy of many--not ``we'' but circumstances around the

[[Page S1143]]

world have endangered the economies of the European countries dependent 
upon Russian oil. It has endangered the pocketbook of the families that 
cannot afford $4- to $6-a-gallon gasoline, depending upon where you 
live. And the climate globally is worse.
  Because there are inadequate amounts of liquefied natural gas going 
to Europe, they are going to burn tremendous amounts of coal, and that 
coal, of course, will have a greenhouse gas profile that is far greater 
than that of natural gas.
  So the question is, How do we achieve all of our goals: the climate, 
the national security, the pocketbook issues for families and for our 
nation, as well as our energy security? So that is what I wish to speak 
about today.
  Now, of course, we know there is a tension here, and the tension here 
is between this kind of almost battle we have been having in our 
country: How do we develop America's resources, but how do we do it 
while at the same time lowering carbon intensity?
  If one party is in charge of the regulatory state, then they will 
attempt to use regulatory power to choke off the amount of carbon 
coming from America's resources. I am speaking of fossil fuel resources 
at this point. But, as I mentioned, it seems that with this backdrop of 
a need globally to be free of Russian energy, we need to have a 
different approach--acknowledging totally those who are concerned about 
carbon intensity; acknowledging totally the Europeans who are now so 
vulnerable to Russian energy shortages; acknowledging totally the 
family at home with the 10-year-old pickup truck who can't afford to 
fill it up to get to work.
  Mr. President, let's set the stage. Europe depends on Russia for 40 
percent of its natural gas supplies. Some countries in Europe depend 
upon Russia for 90 percent of their natural gas supplies. In 2013, the 
EU imported 135 billion cubic meters of Russian natural gas and in 
2019, 166 billion cubic meters. One reason we need to export liquefied 
natural gas is to decrease that reliance upon Russian natural gas.
  By the way, one of the reasons that the EU is using more natural gas 
is that the carbon footprint of natural gas is so much less than that 
of coal. So using gas was a way to achieve that which the United States 
has achieved--an ability to decrease your carbon emissions by changing 
from coal to natural gas.
  Our goal here is to help the Europeans continue not just that 
transition away from coal to lower their carbon intensity but also to 
help them decrease, lower their dependence upon Russia as regards 
overall their use of natural gas.
  There is a way to get at this within the next 10 months--to lower 
global greenhouse gas emissions, to help the Europeans be freer from 
Russian gas--in a way which actually does not involve increased 
production here in the United States. When I speak of our goals here, 
it isn't just to pump more out of the United States; it is to solve a 
global problem.
  An Italian energy executive with whom I spoke mentioned how in North 
Africa, they are using natural gas. They ship a certain amount of it to 
Italy, and then it goes to the rest of the continent. But the tanks 
coming from North Africa are about 50 percent full, and there is a 
liquefied natural gas terminal in Egypt which is way below capacity. 
Why? Because the population growth in North Africa has been so great 
and the number of people getting electricity has increased so 
dramatically that the natural gas they used to ship to Europe is now 
being used domestically.
  But the powerplants they are using to burn the natural gas are 
antiquated. They don't burn efficiently. The emission profile of these 
natural gas powerplants is much greater than that which is state of the 
art. So this gentleman in Italy had a great idea. He said: Why don't we 
build out in the near term a $10 billion investment of solar panels in 
North Africa?
  It would seem like there is no better place in the world to do solar 
panels than the Sahara Desert. So if you did solar panels in Africa and 
you are exchanging the electrons from the solar panels for the 
electrons being burned in antiquated natural gas facilities, that gas 
would then be freed up to be shipped to Africa. It doesn't increase--in 
fact, it decreases the net amount of natural gas being built, but it 
does it in a way that it delivers the gas where it is going to be 
burned in a more environmentally friendly way. But it has economic 
development, and it has the substitution of solar for gas in North 
Africa. This is a win and a win and a win.
  What is the U.S. role here? Well, the U.S. role can take our DFC, 
which is our financing corporation for overseas development, and I am 
told that if we just put up 5 percent of the amount, that sends a 
message to other investors that this has the support of the U.S. 
Government and that they can step in here and make an investment too.
  Solar panels of that magnitude is a big project. On the other hand, 
it is something which can be done in the near term. In that near term, 
we are able to increase the supply of natural gas to Europe, while 
decreasing global greenhouse gas emissions. That is something we can do 
now.
  It does raise the question--someone said: Building that many solar 
panels, surely there would be some issues. It is my impression, at 
least, that there is far more open ground in the desert than there is 
in the cities but also that the regulatory burden in order to deploy 
solar panels is a lot less in Africa, which kind of takes me to my next 
issue.
  We have the ability to increase our export of liquefied natural gas, 
to increase the deployment of renewables here in the United States, to 
mine the uranium that would replace the Russian uranium we get for 
nuclear but also replace the Russian uranium the Europeans use. We have 
the ability to do that, but we are just locked up with regulations. I 
am not saying do away with the regulations; I am saying do something 
different in terms of how we regulate.
  We actually have a model for this. We saw at the beginning of the 
COVID pandemic that we had multiple Federal Agencies responsible for 
approving a new vaccine. They would kind of get to each other's issue 
and request when they got to each other's issue and request. So it 
could take 2\1/2\ years to have a new vaccine approved by regulation in 
order to even begin testing, much less to show that it worked and to 
begin to deploy.
  The previous administration, working with the different Agencies--I 
visualize it as bringing everybody in a room, and if somebody had a 
question, they would turn this question over to somebody else, and they 
had to sit there at that table until they resolved it, and then they 
gave it back, not ``Hey, listen, send it over here, and we will have it 
back to you in 4 weeks.'' No. ``Send it over here, and we will have it 
back to you in 3 days.'' They compressed the time so that a vaccine, 
which, optimistically, we were hoping would be ready in 3 years, ended 
up being ready in less than 1. There is always a concern that if you 
compress that timeframe, you have to sacrifice safety, but there is no 
evidence that occurred with the coronavirus vaccine.

  In the same way, if we have multiple Agencies right now that are in 
charge of permitting some aspect of energy--whether it is renewable, 
whether it is mining, whether it is export--there can be an Operation 
Warp Speed for how they work together to bring our energy resources to 
bear and helping the Europeans become free of Russian energy.
  It is not just lowering the price at the pump for us, because you can 
argue that is going to be very difficult to do in the near term. What 
it can be, though, is to keep the Europeans from going into a recession 
or a depression next winter because the demand for fuel is so great and 
they are unable to meet it. And if they don't have some substitute for 
Russian energy and if the Russians decide to cut them off, they end up 
freezing, going energy poor, or having their industries crater because 
of a lack of energy.
  One more time, this is a nexus. We can do this in a way that is 
environmentally friendly, producing the energy and exporting it in such 
a way that lowers global greenhouse gas emissions, because what is 
driving us right now is the economy of countries and the economy of 
families.
  If European families are energy poor, they will lose their political 
will to stand up to the Russians, and we will lose our ally. We have to 
support not just our families but theirs so that

[[Page S1144]]

they can get through this economically; so that, one, they can more 
afford life; but, secondly, so that we can maintain political will as 
we stand up against the Russians.
  There are other aspects of this, as well. For those interested in 
battery technology, most of the critical minerals are coming from 
Russian or Chinese sources. If we are concerned about climate and we 
are concerned about the ability to be critical mineral independent in 
case of geopolitical tension, this is the exact same issue that we have 
been speaking about.
  How do we proceed? One, we just have to recognize that we are at a 
time of extreme geopolitical tension where decisions we make in this 
country have ramifications worldwide. The Europeans are looking to us 
to help them with their energy crisis, and if we fail to help the 
Europeans with their energy crisis, the Europeans will pay as much as 
6,000 euros more a year per family for their energy, and they will 
probably go into a deep recession.
  On the other hand, if we are able to solve this for the Europeans, we 
will also solve it for our families, the ones who are paying $4 to $6 
for a gallon of gasoline.
  We know what we are speaking about. Just to show that this can be 
done, as the United States has substituted natural gas for coal, we 
have lowered our domestic emissions by 14 percent at a time when global 
emissions have risen 4 percent. In that time, since 2005, where we 
lowered our emissions by 14 percent, our economy is larger. We have 
millions more people and we are domestically producing much more oil 
and gas, and there has been a subsequent return of energy-related 
industry to the United States.
  So despite an industrial profile and a mining profile and a 
population profile that would suggest that there would be greater 
emissions, we actually have 14 percent less than 2005. We did it by 
acknowledging that domestic production of energy was going to help with 
our economy, help with the economy of families, but also help our 
domestic security, and would also help climate and the carbon intensity 
of our society.
  We have done this for our country. Now the question is, Can we do it 
for the world? I would argue that if we choose not to, the Russians 
will win. There is no way that Europe or Europeans are going to accept 
energy poverty with a crater economy due to the lack of affordable 
energy.
  On the other hand, if we are able to make this commitment doing 
things such as financing for solar panels in North Africa, an Operation 
Warp Speed for energy to bring our energy resources to bear, the 
continued substitution of lower carbon intensity energy sources for 
that which currently is higher carbon intensity, then, we can 
accomplish worldwide that which we have accomplished here in the United 
States, which is to lower greenhouse gas emissions while making a more 
prosperous society and increasing domestic and international security.
  This is not theoretical. I have spoken with someone who could have an 
offshore LNG export facility completed in 12 months, if he had his 
permits from the Federal Government. I spoke to someone involved with 
drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and learned that their company 
could be sending oil to the refineries in Louisiana within 12 months if 
they could get their permits done expeditiously. And I can give list 
after list of renewable, of fossil, and otherwise.
  It is now the time for the United States to take leadership. If we 
don't, our families will continue to suffer at the pump, Europeans will 
enter a recession, and, most unfortunately, the cause of freedom 
worldwide will be harmed by Russia's continued economic hegemony over 
the rest of the world because of their energy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.