[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 87 (Thursday, May 19, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2630-S2633]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 ENERGY

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, to the fans of the Alaskan of the Week 
series, I regret to say this is not going to be an Alaskan of the Week 
speech. Stay tuned. We will have more. Sorry to the pages. I know this 
is their favorite speech of the week.
  Actually, unfortunately, regrettably, Mr. President, this is what I 
am referring to as an anti-Alaskan of the Week speech, and you are 
going to understand why here in a minute because I want to talk right 
now in the Senate about what everybody else in America is talking about 
when you actually leave the bubble of the beltway and you go home.
  I was home last weekend. I try to get home almost every weekend. What 
are people talking about? They are talking about inflation; they are 
talking about the high cost of everything; they are talking about 
formula; and, of course, Mr. President, they are really talking about 
the high cost of energy that is crushing working families in our 
Nation--certainly in my State but all over the country.
  A few stats on that: We have now had 10 days in a row of record high 
gas prices. In Alaska, we hit $5 a gallon for the first time ever at 
the pump. Remember, at the end of the Trump administration, gas was 
$2.39 a gallon. During the Biden years--not even a year and a half--it 
is up 91 percent--91 percent. The price of natural gas in America 
doubled last year. This is having a devastating impact on Americans 
across the board but particularly working families, middle-class 
families, people on fixed incomes.
  Now, the President keeps saying that he is doing all he can to 
address this problem of high energy costs in America. The Secretary of 
Energy today testified in front of the Armed Services Committee. She 
said that the administration is doing all it can to increase supplies 
of oil and gas in America.
  Respectfully, to the President, the Secretary of Energy, the 
Secretary of the Interior: None of this is true. It is not even close, 
and I see it on a daily basis back home in Alaska. And here is the 
thing: The American people know it is not true. The American people 
know it is not true.
  This wasn't last weekend when I was home; this was about 4 weekends 
ago. I was filling up my truck. Actually, it was three-quarters empty. 
So my truck was on one-quarter full, an F-150. It cost me almost $110 
to fill that up. Had the truck been empty, it would have been $142 to 
fill that up. By the way, now that we have had these increases at the 
pump since 4 or 5 weeks ago, the estimate--if you own an F-150 and it 
is 5 bucks a gallon, it is about $150 to fill up your truck.

[[Page S2631]]

  Now, Mr. President, this is the meter that I filled my truck up with, 
and you see this little sticker. That is Joe Biden, and it says, ``I 
did that.'' I did that, America; I made these prices really high. These 
stickers are spontaneously showing up everywhere in America. Every 
State in the country, when you go to gas stations, has that ``I did 
that.'' For anybody watching on TV, I encourage you to keep doing that 
because the American people are wise, Mr. President.
  The Secretary of Energy, Joe Biden, they keep claiming: We are doing 
all we can to make sure you don't get crushed by energy increases. And 
it is not true, and this just shows it. People get it. Joe Biden did 
that, and we know it. The American people know it. So we all know this.
  Day one of the Biden administration, there was a focus on shutting 
down oil and gas production--certainly in my State but across the 
country--limiting the ability to actually transport energy--Keystone 
XL--but oil and gas pipelines; going to financial institutions, strong-
arming them not to invest in the American energy sector. All those 
things happened and have been happening since the beginning of this 
administration.
  So now that you are seeing that the whole country knows that the 
responsibility of these high energy prices are from this administration 
and this President--``I did that''; there you go--you might be 
thinking: All right, people are really hurting. This is driving up 
inflation. The Biden administration is probably saying: Hey, let's do a 
course correction. Let's try to really increase the supply of energy, 
not strong-arm financial institutions to get rid of energy or to make 
it harder to invest in.
  So has there been a course correction? Is the Secretary of Energy, as 
she testified today--and the President--We are doing all we can to 
increase production--well, the answer is no. The answer is no.
  Let me give you three examples, just in the past few weeks, that 
demonstrate this 100 percent that their goal continues to be to shut 
down energy production and still make it hard as heck to produce and 
build energy infrastructure. Two are very close to home for me, 
unfortunately.
  Last week, the Federal Government, the Biden administration, at the 
last minute, canceled a lease sale for oil and gas leases in a place we 
call Cook Inlet in Alaska. I was actually on the Kenai Peninsula, where 
Cook Inlet is, last weekend.
  The people were furious. They were furious. This is a lease sale. We 
have State leases, Federal leases. And Cook Inlet, this is the original 
major hydrocarbon basin in Alaska, still producing oil and gas. We had 
a Federal lease sale canceled. None of this is controversial. We have 
them all the time. The Biden administration canceled it. So much for 
wanting to increase production--canceling the lease sales.
  Let me give you another one, Mr. President. The National Petroleum 
Reserve of Alaska, set aside by Congress decades ago, probably the most 
prolific basin in the world right now for oil and gas--when you explore 
there, explorers are finding billion-barrel fields. Not controversial--
it has been set aside, like I said, for decades for oil and gas 
production. Three weeks ago, the Biden administration announced in an 
Executive order they were going to take half of that massive petroleum 
reserve off the table for any exploration and development--just 3 weeks 
ago. That is the biggest oil and gas reserve in the country by far, the 
most prolific producing energy basin, probably in the world, and they 
took half of it off the table.
  And they claim they are trying to increase production, increase 
supply? Not true.
  And the third one, again, just in the last 3 weeks, Mr. President: 
The Council on Environmental Quality at the White House issued new 
rules on how to implement NEPA, the permitting that goes into any 
infrastructure project. By every measure--by every measure, these new 
rules are meant to delay the building of American infrastructure, 
especially oil and gas infrastructure.
  Mr. President, I have here two editorials from the Wall Street 
Journal that I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record. One 
is called ``How to Kill American Infrastructure on the Sly: The White 
House revises NEPA rules that will scuttle new roads, bridges and oil 
and gas pipelines.'' And the other is called ``A Bipartisan Energy 
Deal? Overriding Biden's new NEPA rules blockade is essential for 
fossil fuels and solar and wind power'' development.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             How to Kill American Infrastructure on the Sly

       Americans are going to need a split-screen for the Biden 
     Administration's policy contradictions. Even as the President 
     on Tuesday promoted the bipartisan infrastructure bill he 
     signed last November, the White House moved to make it harder 
     to build roads, bridges and, of course, oil and natural-gas 
     pipelines.
       The White House Council on Environmental Quality is 
     revising rules under the National Environmental Policy Act 
     for permitting major construction projects. CEQ Chair Brenda 
     Mallory says the changes will ``provide regulatory 
     certainty'' and ``reduce conflict.'' Instead, they will cause 
     more litigation and delays that raise construction costs, if 
     they don't kill projects outright.
       NEPA requires federal agencies to review the environmental 
     impact of major projects that are funded by the feds or 
     require a federal permit. Reviews can take years and run 
     thousands of pages, covering the smallest potential impact on 
     species, air or water quality. Project developers can be 
     forced to mitigate these effects by, say, relocating species.
       While the 1970 law was intended to prevent environmental 
     disasters, it has become a weapon to block development. The 
     Trump Administration sought to fast-track projects by 
     limiting NEPA reviews to environmental effects that are 
     directly foreseeable--e.g., how a pipeline's construction 
     would affect a stream it crosses.
       Some liberal judges, however, have interpreted NEPA broadly 
     to require the study of effects that indirectly result from a 
     project such as CO2 emissions. Now the Biden Administration 
     is mandating this. CEQ's new rule will require agencies to 
     calculate the ``indirect'' and ``cumulative impacts'' that 
     ``can result from individually minor but collectively 
     significant actions taking place over a period of time.'' 
     This means death by a thousand regulatory cuts for many 
     projects.
       The Transportation Department will likely have to examine 
     how a highway expansion could increase greenhouse-gas 
     emissions in concert with new warehouses. The Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission might have to calculate how a new 
     pipeline would affect emissions from upstream production and 
     downstream consumption.
       Wait--didn't FERC recently walk back its policy to do 
     exactly this? The White House is thumbing its nose at West 
     Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who blasted FERC's now-suspended 
     policy for shutting ``down the infrastructure we desperately 
     need as a country.''
       The rule's obvious intent is to make it harder to build 
     pipelines, roads and other infrastructure that would enable 
     more U.S. oil and gas production, even as the Administration 
     makes phony gestures to reduce energy prices. Last Friday the 
     Administration announced it would comply with a court order 
     to hold oil and gas lease sales on public land. Those leases 
     won't matter if energy companies can't get federal permits 
     for rights-of-way.
       While fossil fuels may be the rule's political target, 
     don't be surprised if green energy is snagged in this trip-
     wire. Environmental groups have used NEPA to block new 
     mineral mines and transmission lines that connect distant 
     renewable energy sources to population centers. In this 
     Administration, the left hand doesn't seem to know what the 
     far left hand is doing.
                                  ____


                       A Bipartisan Energy Deal?


 overriding biden's nepa rules blockade is essential for fossil fuels 
                        and solar and wind power

       West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin wants to cut a 
     bipartisan compromise on energy. It's not a crazy idea, but 
     the risk is that Democrats will lure Republicans into 
     accepting superficial permitting reforms in return for a 
     gusher of green energy spending.
       Any worthwhile deal, at a minimum, should make the National 
     Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) a less lethal regulatory 
     weapon. While a large pipeline can be built in a year or two, 
     federal permitting can take two to three times as long. If 
     there are lawsuits--and there always are--you're looking at a 
     decade or more. Add that to the cost in present value of any 
     energy or other project.
       The bipartisan infrastructure deal included modest NEPA 
     reforms, such as a two-year shot clock for federal agencies 
     to complete environmental impact statements. The law also 
     requires federal agencies to work on a review at the same 
     time rather than wait in turn.
       Alas, the Administration's new NEPA regulations, announced 
     last month, will create more red tape that increases costs 
     and expands litigation risk. Federal agencies going forward 
     will have to consider the ``cumulative'' and ``indirect'' 
     project impact.
       While the rules don't specify every potential tangential 
     impact, they put an emphasis on climate and ``environmental 
     justice.'' Project developers will have to mitigate these 
     effects--say, by installing electric-vehicle chargers in 
     minority communities.

[[Page S2632]]

     This is a way to get businesses to pay for the 
     Administration's Build Back Better plan that can't pass 
     Congress.
       The Administration's inflated ``social cost'' of carbon--a 
     speculative estimate of the global harm that could result 
     from climate change, including foreign conflict and 
     migration--will jack up costs even more. The White House pegs 
     the social cost of CO2 at $51 per ton--about 50 times higher 
     than the Trump Administration's estimate--and is planning to 
     increase it.
       A higher cost of carbon means that companies could have to 
     spend more to compensate for their emissions--and regulators 
     are sure to deem some projects too costly to permit. Any 
     energy deal should override the Administration's NEPA anti-
     reforms and explicitly prohibit federal agencies from 
     considering climate and social factors.
       It should also limit executive discretion to wall off 
     federal land from development under the Antiquities Act and 
     Endangered Species Act. And it should limit states' power 
     under the Clean Water Act to veto pipelines and high-voltage 
     transmission lines. This would help green energy too.
       How about setting a shot clock on approving drilling 
     permits? Texas requires regulators to process permits in 
     three days. The Biden Administration on average takes six 
     months. Pipelines planned in existing rights-of-way of other 
     pipelines should be approved automatically.
       Another idea reportedly under consideration is to deem 
     liquefied natural gas exports to a NATO country to be in the 
     ``public interest,'' thereby short-circuiting Department of 
     Energy review. Even better: Eliminate DOE's reviews. They're 
     redundant since the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must 
     permit export terminals.
       The model for a deal would be the 2015 compromise between 
     Barack Obama and Paul Ryan that lifted the ban on oil exports 
     while extending green energy tax credits. The model should 
     not be the infrastructure deal that Republican Senators 
     agreed to last summer that included mostly liberal 
     priorities--e.g., a public transit blowout--with small 
     permitting reforms sprinkled in.
       Republicans will likely gain leverage after the midterms to 
     negotiate reforms, so there's no urgency to strike a deal 
     now. No deal is better than a bad one.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. The Laborers' International, led by a great American, 
Terry O'Sullivan, they came out--these are the largest building 
trades--the largest construction union in the country. These are the 
men and women who build things in our country. They came out fully 
against these new NEPA rules saying directly that they would delay the 
building of American infrastructure, particularly energy projects: 
wind, solar, oil, gas.
  The Biden administration issued that 3 weeks ago. So those are just 
three examples, but it is not just they are still very focused on 
shutting down the production of energy--and the people of our great 
country know it; they know Joe Biden did that--but they are doing it in 
a way that is not transparent and, to be perfectly blunt, is dishonest.
  Let me give you two examples--again, unfortunately, directly 
impacting my State, my constituents. When the Biden administration 
leaked to the press--by Gina McCarthy, by the way, someone who is 
really hostile to Alaska and really hostile to energy development. When 
they leaked to the press last week that they were going to cancel the 
Cook Inlet lease sale, they scrambled to come up with a reason. Look, 
the reason is they hate oil and gas development, especially in my 
State, but they tried to come up with something.
  So they later put out and said, well, there was no industry interest 
in the lease sale. They were actually basing that on interest almost 2 
years ago. But I know--Senator Murkowski mentioned it in a hearing 
today with Deb Haaland--that we know for a fact there was interest in 
this lease sale; there was industry interest in the Cook Inlet lease 
sale. So the administration was spinning a falsehood.
  Here is the other thing, Mr. President. I used to be the DNR 
commissioner in Alaska. We did all kinds of oil and gas lease sales on 
State land. The fact of the matter is, you almost never know who is 
interested until you actually have the sale. Companies don't say: Oh, 
yeah, we are coming. They keep that really closely held for competitive 
reasons. And it wouldn't cost the Federal Government a dime to hold the 
lease sale. You find out if there is interest by actually holding the 
lease sale, but the Biden administration was spinning it that there was 
no interest. That is a falsehood; we know that.
  Let me give you another one, Mr. President. When the administration, 
3 weeks ago, took half of the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska off 
the table--which, by the way, should disturb every American, as that 
was set aside by Congress for oil and gas development--the Secretary of 
the Interior was actually in Alaska. She was holding a listening 
session with the Native leaders in the North Slope Borough where the 
NPRA actually is.
  And every single one of these leaders, with the exception of one, 
said to Secretary Haaland: Madam Secretary, please, no more 
restrictions on the development of our natural resources up here. It 
undermines economic opportunity. It takes away from development that we 
need in our Native communities--that most Americans take for granted: 
roads, bridges, schools, clinics, flush toilets. Please, Madam 
Secretary, no more restrictions.
  The Secretary comes back from Alaska, and 72 hours after her visit to 
the State, she and her Department issue a 100-page record of decision 
saying, We are going to take half of the NPRA off the table, the very 
place she was with the Native leaders who said: Don't do it.
  And the real audacity is there is a section in the record of decision 
which was clearly written before her visit to Alaska, her listening 
session. It wasn't a listening session at all because she had a 
predetermined outcome that she did not let the people of Alaska know 
about or the Native leaders of Alaska know about, and there was a 
section in that record of decision that said: We are doing this in part 
because the Native people want it to protect subsistence. The Native 
leaders just told her the opposite. Like I said, dishonest, 
nontransparent, not truthful.

  I will admit there are few places in the world, if you are lucky 
enough to live there, that the Biden administration actually is doing 
all it can to increase the production and supply of energy--two places, 
as far as I can tell. Let me talk about those two places. The first is 
New Mexico, the State of New Mexico. Close to half the oil and gas 
permits issued by the Federal Government last year went to one State. 
Every State in the country like mine is trying to get permits. Guess 
which State got 2,286 oil and gas permits in 2021. New Mexico. Alaska 
is being crushed: no lease sales in Cook Inlet, NPRA, half of it off 
the table, probably about the size of New Mexico, and New Mexico is 
getting special treatment.
  Hmm. Interesting. A couple of reasons why that is interesting. Let's 
see. Who is from New Mexico? Oh, my goodness, the Secretary of Interior 
is from New Mexico. Isn't that interesting? I think that is 
interesting. I wish the media thought that was interesting. Could you 
imagine if that was a Republican Secretary of the Interior favoring his 
State over every other State in the country for more oil and gas 
production? The New York Times and the Washington Post would have a 
field day. If this was Ryan Zinke, there would be a front-page story 
once a day but not if it is a Democratic Secretary of the Interior.
  Almost half the oil and gas permits in America issued by the Federal 
Government last year went to one State, New Mexico. Hmm. Who else is 
from New Mexico? Well, the senior Senator from New Mexico is obviously 
from New Mexico. In December, I gave a speech about all that he is 
doing--that I am still very riled up about--to shut down oil and gas 
production in Alaska. The senior Senator from New Mexico spent a lot of 
his time writing letters to banks, writing letters to insurance 
companies, writing letters to his fellow New Mexican, Deb Haaland, on 
how to shut down oil and gas development in Alaska.
  Now, why would he care about Alaska? I don't really know. But in his 
letters, he said we need to shut down, no investment in Alaska banks, 
insurance companies to ``achieve America's climate goals.'' That is one 
Senator trying to crush my State to ``achieve America's climate 
goals.'' Hmm. I am still not sure why that Senator cares so much about 
crushing my State. But like his New Mexico colleague, the Secretary of 
the Interior, they are doing a pretty good job of hurting my State, 
especially the Native communities.
  Today in the ENR Committee, the senior Senator from New Mexico, with 
Secretary Haaland testifying, had the audacity to brag that New 
Mexico's oil and gas production is up 400 percent in the last decade.
  Now, look, I think this is good for the country. I think it is good 
for New

[[Page S2633]]

Mexico's oil and gas workers--400 percent. He was bragging about that 
while still writing letters to shut down oil and gas production in 
Alaska. By the way, that is not how the Senate operates. Could you 
imagine if we all attacked each other's States? It wouldn't work really 
well here.
  Here is the other thing about this. New Mexico's production has gone 
up more than Alaska's now, and guess what else has gone up. My 
goodness, their carbon emissions are through the roof--through the 
roof. Where is the concern about ``achieving America's climate goals'' 
in New Mexico, from New Mexico--from the senior Senator from New Mexico 
or Secretary Haaland?
  Here is the bottom line on that. You want to shut down Alaska to 
``achieve America's climate goals,'' but you are good to go with 
cranking it up in your State and not mentioning climate change or 
climate goals at all. In most parts of America, we just call this rank 
hypocrisy--but I guess not so in New Mexico. And it is wrong. We all 
know it is wrong. Heck, even the senior Senator from New Mexico knows 
it is wrong, and it is harmful to my constituents.
  New Mexico is the place that the Biden administration and Secretary 
Haaland are clearly trying to dramatically increase oil production. I 
guess they are lucky. They are increasing carbon emissions a lot too. 
They don't talk about that.

  What is the other place that the Biden administration is trying to 
really help in terms of increasing oil and gas production? It is 
foreign countries controlled by dictators who don't like us. You heard 
the story several months ago about the Biden administration reaching 
out to Iran--the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world--
trying to lift sanctions so they can produce more oil for the world. 
Let's shut down oil in Alaska, but let's go to the Iranian terrorists 
and get them to produce more oil.
  Well, this week--this past week--there was another story that happens 
to be true that the Biden administration is now loosening sanctions on 
another one of those wonderful leaders, the dictator in Venezuela so 
they can produce more oil. Let's help the dictators who hate our 
country produce more, and then we will go shut down Alaska where great 
Americans are trying to produce energy.
  Oh, by the way, Senator Barrasso did a great job in the ENR hearing 
today saying guess who has the most dirty, polluting oil in the world 
in terms of production and carbon footprint, 18 times more dirty and 
polluting than oil production in America. Guess. Venezuela. So we are 
going to get terrorists who don't like us, who are the dirtiest 
polluters of energy when they produce it and get them to produce more, 
and we are going to shut down oil and gas production in the great State 
of Alaska that has the highest environmental standards on the planet.
  In conclusion, President Biden is not doing nearly enough to address 
the energy crisis in our country. To the contrary, he is still 
undertaking policies meant to limit supply, limit infrastructure, and 
make it harder to build--that transports energy--and shut down 
production in America.
  I just gave three examples. The American people know these prices are 
this guy's fault. But there is the Biden exception. There is the Biden 
exception. If you produce in New Mexico--maybe because the Secretary of 
the Interior is from there, maybe because the senior Senator from New 
Mexico is from there or you are a dictator who really hates this 
country and really pollutes a lot when you produce energy--the Biden 
administration wants you to produce more. This has to change.
  The American people know exactly what is going on. They know exactly 
what is going on, and these policies are hurting working families. They 
are making it so energy workers in my State get pink slips. They are 
doing nothing for the environment, and they are empowering dictators. 
And that is why the American people know the blame is right there. And 
until there is a course correction, unfortunately, the suffering that 
we are seeing all across this great Nation, in terms of high energy 
prices and inflation everywhere, is going to continue.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________