[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 61 (Wednesday, April 6, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2012-S2014]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                 Energy

  Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, in poll after poll, most respondents 
blame President Biden's policies for the increasing inflation and 
especially higher gas prices.
  NBC:

       Biden's job approval falls to the lowest level of his 
     presidency amid war and inflation fears.

  In Gallup's poll, which they dubbed ``Americans Offer Gloomy State of 
Nation Report'' in February--before the

[[Page S2013]]

record gas prices at the pumps were even here that we are seeing 
today--the biggest decline in satisfaction sat squarely with energy 
policies. In fact, only 27 percent of Americans said they were 
satisfied with his energy policies.
  But, if you ask the Biden administration and congressional Democrats, 
who seem more interested in finger-pointing than in finding solutions, 
the culprit changes on a nearly daily basis. First, it was OPEC+ not 
producing enough oil. Then it was the evil corporations' price gouging 
at the expense of hard-working American families. Then it was Vladimir 
Putin's fault with his invasion of Ukraine. Now, it is oil and gas 
companies sitting on 9,000 leases. Of course, we have come back around 
today to those greedy oil companies again.
  But the 9,000 leases is where I want to spend a little time today and 
explain the problem with the claim of the 9,000 leases. Let's drill 
deeper--if you will excuse the expression--into that number to truly 
understand what is going on here and why this type of rebuttal argument 
does a total disservice to the American people and our allies abroad.
  The first and most fundamental mistake that White House spokesperson 
Ms. Psaki has made is in using the words ``lease'' and ``permit'' 
interchangeably. ``Lease'' and ``permit'' are not the same thing. They 
are not synonymous other than that both are regulatory hurdles required 
by the Federal Government for a producer to work on Federal lands.
  Second, it is important to understand the vast majority--in fact, 
two-thirds--of oil and gas leases on Federal lands are producing. There 
are 35,871 total oil and gas leases in effect, with about 66 percent of 
them producing oil or gas. The rest are going through this abused 
regulatory process or are being held up in litigation by environmental 
NGOs. In fact, over 2,200 of the leases are currently in litigation, 
and if there is one thing that liberals love more than regulation, it 
is litigation.
  Third, a lease does not mean the rented land contains oil and gas. 
Not all 9,000 of these leases ``not being used'' even contain oil and 
gas. Producers first have to perform exploratory work to discover 
whether their leases even contain the minerals that they are after. Oil 
and gas producers procure multiple leases because they need to mitigate 
the financial damage which could result from acquiring only dry leases. 
It is called a robust portfolio, a comprehensive portfolio.
  Fourth, before any development on leases can occur, producers and 
Agencies must navigate this bureaucratic maze--this labyrinth of 
permitting and environmental laws covered by the Endangered Species 
Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the National 
Environmental Policy Act, just to name a few, which can take years to 
complete. Rarely, do these things all get done at the same time. They 
are never done simultaneously but, rather, consecutively. They each 
take the number of days they need apart from one another rather than 
all together.
  Fifth, just because a producer obtains a lease and navigates the 
regulatory hurdles required to permit a well does not mean they can 
begin extraction. They must first secure adjoining leases for 
horizontal drilling. You don't just drill a hole straight down anymore 
and suck the oil straight up from one silo. You have to get leases from 
the neighborhood. They must secure these leases and then accrue the 
capital to finance mineral development. It is not done for free, and it 
is not going to be done cheaply. They have to schedule the rigs, 
construct access roads, obtain pipeline rights-of-way, establish 
infrastructure to capture the natural gas, and hire capable workers. 
All of these steps have been delayed by the administration's roadblocks 
and Biden's supply chain and labor crisis.
  Finally, after obtaining an adequate number of leases clearing all of 
the regulatory hurdles and planning the logistics of the projects, a 
company must obtain an approved application for a permit to drill, 
otherwise known as an APD. There are currently 4,604 Federal APDs 
awaiting approval from the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, and another 
162 APDs on Indian land.
  The Biden administration's BLM could approve these permits now and 
enable companies to move forward with the development to supply much 
needed domestic energy at home and abroad. However, the BLM is 
approving them at the slowest rate since the Obama administration--a 
fact that Ms. Psaki conveniently leaves out when she claims President 
Biden is doing everything possible to lower gas prices.

  In fact, to this specific point, the Bureau of Land Management has 
State offices in places like Dickinson, ND. They have regional offices 
in places like Billings, MT. That is where the decisions have been made 
as to whether the application for a permit to drill becomes a permit to 
drill--until this administration. They changed that and gave the final 
authority not to Dickinson, ND, and not to Billings, MT, but rather to 
Washington, DC--at the very height of power. In fact, it goes all the 
way to the Deputy Secretary of the Interior.
  Now let's look at some of the data on APDs, applications for permits 
to drill, and the timelines.
  In March of 2020, the BLM testified in front of the House Natural 
Resources Committee about the Trump administration's efforts to improve 
oil and gas permitting processes. In fiscal year 2019, the BLM approved 
3,741 APDs on Federal and Indian lands. The average APD processing time 
for a single application dropped from 139 days in fiscal year 2016 to 
just 44 days in fiscal year 2019. In fiscal year 2021, which included 4 
months of the Trump administration, APD approval times shot back up to 
89 days, doubling the amount of time. This is yet another example of 
the Trump administration's energy success being eliminated by the Biden 
administration's incompetence.
  The Biden administration approved just 97 permits for oil and natural 
gas wells across Federal lands in January of this year--a significant 
plunge from the 643 issued in April of last year. All of the leases in 
the world don't matter if you can't get a permit to drill on them even 
if, in fact, there is oil--and you don't even know that for sure.
  On top of the regulatory hurdles, industry considerations, supply 
chain issues, and labor shortages, producers must have certainty that 
their products can reach the global market. A key aspect of reaching 
the global market, of course, and reducing the European Union's 
reliance on dirty Russian gas are the U.S. liquefied natural gas 
terminals, or LNG export terminals.
  As of March 16, 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy had 16 
applications pending or under review for increasing U.S. LNG exports. 
If Secretary Granholm were to sign off on or were to streamline the 
review of these applications, we could increase our export capacity to 
help our allies abroad and grow our economy right here at home.
  The Biden administration has extended its onshore and offshore oil 
and gas leasing ban quarter after quarter despite being required by the 
Mineral Leasing Act to conduct quarterly lease sales. At this point in 
the Obama administration, they had held 35 onshore lease sales--35 
under Barack Obama--and that is not all.
  The Biden administration is actively working to starve the fossil 
fuel industry of financial capital in order to push them out of 
existence. That is right. They keep talking about the supply and the 
demand; yet they crush the supply by starving it of the capital that it 
needs. This is capital-intensive stuff.
  In March, the Securities and Exchange Commission released a proposed 
rule on climate disclosure--climate disclosure. This authority of 
forcing publicly traded companies to develop and disclose their risks 
from climate change is not in the purview of the SEC. They don't have 
the authority to do that. Congress has never passed a law granting them 
new authority in this space. It only serves to further discourage 
investment in domestic energy development and to prevent American 
energy independence, a critical tool for peace and the reduction of 
global emissions.
  Now, isn't that ironic?
  The Biden administration is succeeding in its mission to destroy any 
chance to once again be energy independent. Their radical nominees, 
actions in the courtroom, regulatory schemes, budget proposals, and 
foot-dragging exude hostility toward fossil fuels, inflicting a 
distinct chilling effect on the oil and gas industry.
  I have talked to a number of producers in North Dakota, and they are

[[Page S2014]]

capital-starved. If the right messages were being sent to the markets, 
we could pick up another 200,000 to 400,000 barrels of oil per day. In 
January of 2022--this year--North Dakota produced 1.1 million barrels 
per day. To put this in context, Europe imports 2.3 million barrels per 
day from Russia. At North Dakota's peak, we produced 1.5 million 
barrels per day. North Dakota alone could provide two-thirds of the 
product Europe imports from Russia. It would be cleaner than Russian 
oil, and it would lessen Putin's malign leverage over Europe and, 
really, the rest of the world.
  Investors in domestic oil and gas have to receive the right market 
signals in order to invest their capital. The administration seems to 
believe energy production is simply a switch you turn on or a valve you 
turn when you need it. Then, if you don't need it, you just turn it 
off--no harm, no foul. It is very capital-intensive, as I said, and it 
is reliant on regulatory certainty. I am not talking about 6 days of 
certainty or 6 months of certainty but more like 6 years of certainty. 
No sane energy CEO would invest millions or billions of dollars in a 
project with the backdrop of an administration that is seeking to 
``transition'' them out of existence within months.

  Let's take a walk down memory lane on some of the signals this 
administration has sent to the industry.
  First, the President himself said during a campaign stop in 2019:

       I guarantee you, I guarantee you we are going to end fossil 
     fuel, and I am not going to cooperate with them.

  Well, congratulations, Mr. President. You kept the promise.
  Secretary Granholm appeared in a video and called for leaving fossil 
fuels ``in the ground,'' she said. She then spoke to reporters at the 
Energy and Environmental Research Center in Grand Forks, ND. It is an 
exceptional organization at the forefront of promoting carbon capture 
and other innovative solutions to reduce CO2 emissions.
  During her comments, she proclaimed the United States doesn't--get 
this now. The Secretary of Energy proclaimed, We don't have ``much 
moral authority'' to criticize China over its emissions. We, the United 
States of America, don't have moral authority over China?
  Really, Madam Secretary? That is what you believe about the country 
you serve?
  How about the climate czar John Kerry? He flies around the world 
while making outlandish comments like ``the United States won't have 
coal in 2030,'' and he discourages the world from buying our products--
U.S. energy--while fanning the flames of radicalism and proclaiming 
Ukrainian war refugees are nothing compared to climate refugees. It is 
like he is the bishop of the Church of Climatology or something. He has 
even expressed concern that the pesky war crimes that are going on over 
there by Vladimir Putin are taking the focus away from the real 
tragedy: climate change. Then he gets in his jet and flies home.
  Meanwhile, recent reports indicate the administration has turned to 
despots, like Iran and Venezuela, instead of to producers right here in 
America in order to help bring the Biden inflation under control by 
producing more of their dirty oil instead of our cleaner production. It 
makes no sense, and it is offensive to every American worker.
  We have a geopolitical opportunity right now to cut Putin's malign 
influence, and we should be taking full advantage of it. What we ought 
to be doing is encouraging production not just with our rhetoric but 
with our actions. Producing more U.S. oil and gas will--believe it or 
not, proclaim it or deny it as it is the truth--will reduce global 
greenhouse gas emissions.
  Now, if you don't want to take my word for it or trust the extensive 
studies, science, and documentation of this fact, Biden EPA 
Administrator Michael Regan, just last week, told the Financial Times 
that recent calls for increased oil output are compatible--get this 
now, this is from Biden EPA Administrator Regan--with goals to cut 
CO2 emissions.
  In fact, he specifically said:

       These are not mutually exclusive goals.

  Administrator Regan is exactly right. Producing more U.S. oil and gas 
will reduce the West's reliance on dirtier fuels from our adversaries. 
Doing so also avoids unilaterally disarming our economy and losing 
ourselves to a 2050 fantasy that has come straight up to being a 2022 
reality. Some in the Biden administration may finally be starting to 
understand: Energy security is national security and economic security. 
And so I say: Let's make the world safer, let's make the world cleaner, 
and let's unleash American energy production.

  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The Senator from Florida.