[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 120 (Wednesday, July 20, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3514-S3519]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Energy Policy

  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, well, summer is in full swing, and all 
across the Midwest, people are preparing for lake vacations, for family 
barbecues, but new to this year's agenda, they are also preparing for 
Biden blackouts.
  The shocking new inflation numbers show Americans already paying 42 
percent more for energy than this time last year, but now, due to the 
White House policies, we may not be able to generate enough electricity 
to meet demand.
  Now, let us not forget that under Republican leadership, we had a 
nation completely in control of our energy security. We were the global 
leader in energy production, and we were a net exporter of oil 
products.
  However, under Democratic leadership, we are making plans for the 
lights to go out, and I hope everybody has their candles ready to go at 
home.
  But it isn't this administration's fault, of course, so just ask 
them--just ask them. No, this White House states they are powerless to 
the whims of a global marketplace, and don't bother asking them to own 
the consequences of their actions.
  Did President Biden actually believe canceling the Keystone XL 
Pipeline on his first day in office would not have negative effects on 
the global energy markets? Think about it. The United States, the 
largest oil producer in the world, stopping the transport, the 
importing, of nearly a million barrels a day, over 5 percent of our 
supply--who could have ever predicted decreasing supply could impact 
the cost at the pump?
  And who could have predicted that halting all leasing on Federal 
lands would impact global supply? I even asked the Interior Secretary 
if this policy made it more difficult for oil companies to drill, and 
she couldn't give me an answer. She didn't care. This administration 
doesn't care about the cost of gas at the pump; that is, until they get 
it high enough to make driving electric cars more comparable.
  Don't even think about implying that John Kerry, Biden's climate 
envoy at COP26, would cause private companies to take coal-powered 
plants offline and eliminate baseload without a plan going forward. 
After all, he said in Glasgow:

       By 2030, in the United States, we won't have coal. We will 
     not have [any] coal plants.

  Well, we may not have coal, but we will have blackouts.
  And it was Joe Biden on the campaign trail, in his own words--I am 
sure you all remember--who said:

       Kiddo, I want you to just take a look . . . I want you to 
     look into my eyes. I guarantee you, we are going to end 
     fossil fuels.

  And we wonder why Americans won't invest tens of millions--hundreds 
of millions--of dollars into this energy sector to drill new oil. Yet 
this President has declared war on American energy, and every American 
is paying the price at the gas pump. And yet this President wonders out 
loud why companies won't invest in any more exploration when it takes 5 
or 10 years for a payback on these types of investments. He continues 
to create uncertainty.
  It doesn't have to be this way. Republicans have been sounding the 
alarm on the negative impacts of this administration's policies since 
President Biden took office. Honestly, this should be surprising to no 
one. Yet the left seems confounded, stupefied, and without a plan 
except to turn off your air conditioner and your freezer.
  Even more, they have resorted to outright lies. In fact, they repeat 
these lies over and over, hoping America will eventually fall for them. 
They repeatedly claim they have not been interfering with American 
energy production and now deceivingly spout they support the industry 
that they have been vilifying for years.
  It is clear, we need more traditional fuel production. I know it; the 
American people know it. And to be completely clear, I think the White 
House knows it as well.

[[Page S3515]]

  Why else would he have gone overseas to Saudi Arabia to beg for more 
oil? Why is the White House reaching out to dictators in Venezuela or 
countries that sponsor terrorism like Iran instead of supporting 
American production in places like my home State of Kansas?
  When I asked the Secretary of Energy in committee about the price of 
gas, she cheekily replied that she drives an electric vehicle. This is 
the same Secretary of Energy that laughed and found it ``hilarious'' 
when asked about her plan to increase oil production in America. That 
is how this administration responds to the pain of the American people: 
laughing as they ride away in their fancy electric vehicles.
  All that said, I truly hope that those of us forced to experience a 
Biden blackout are able to get safely through it. For many, a short-
term blackout might prove a mild inconvenience. But with the seasonal 
heat waves we are seeing across the State of Kansas, across this Nation 
and the rest of the Midwest, it could lead to life-threatening 
complications. These Biden blackouts show that it is well past time for 
the President to stop the climate extremism, stop the anti-American 
policies devastating our communities, and stop looking overseas to fix 
problems that we have the answers to right here in America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I hear from families in Louisiana every 
day that they are struggling to keep up with gas prices at historic 
heights. It is becoming unaffordable to drive to work or drop their 
kids off at school. The 15-year-old pickup that they drive--not because 
they don't want a new car but because they cannot afford a new car--now 
costs $100 a tank to fill up. And for those who say: Tell them to buy 
an electric vehicle, that is the modern-day equivalent of Marie 
Antoinette saying to the peasants ``Let them eat cake.''
  Families are forced to choose between buying groceries or buying gas. 
And the Biden administration doesn't seem to be listening, so I am here 
to make their voices heard.
  Let me just read from letters we received from constituents, just 
kind of like sending us a line. Here is Lorrie from Jamestown, LA.

       Dear Mr. Cassidy, Is there any relief in sight for gas 
     prices? We had affordable gas under the Trump administration. 
     There is no reason we should have these prices now if the oil 
     and gas production in the United States was in full force. 
     Why would we ever depend on other countries for anything when 
     we have already been energy independent just a short time 
     ago? Families in our country are suffering.

  Next letter, Gwendolyn from Prairieville:

       Dear Senator Cassidy, please do whatever it takes to get 
     American oil and gas used as resources. I am a divorced 60-
     year-old woman on a limited income. Gas has gone up, 
     electricity has gone up, groceries have gone up, medical 
     expenses have gone up, and insurance has gone up drastically, 
     and my pay has not kept up at all.

  Here is Donnis from Singer:

       Dear Senator Cassidy, I just wanted to voice my opinion 
     about how it makes no sense that our government will not 
     renew oil leases off the coast of Louisiana . . . There is no 
     reason we need to be held hostage by countries who do not 
     care about our sovereignty.

  This is Philip from DeRidder:

       Please help with these high gas and food prices. I am 
     retired and on a fixed income and these higher gas prices and 
     food prices are starting to hurt me and my wife.

  Here is Gregory from New Iberia:

       This is not about party affiliation. We're coming into a 
     bad crisis. Both parties need to come together and talk about 
     drilling. We have all the resources we need to start drilling 
     again, and I know you are trying. I see it on the news. 
     Please keep trying.

  Here is Laura from Vinton:

       I want to express my concern for us Louisiana citizens. Gas 
     prices are rising every day, food prices are rising everyday 
     also. It's coming down to having to choose between to get gas 
     or get groceries. Something needs to be done. U.S. citizens 
     are suffering daily. Please help us Americans!

  Here is Daryl from Mooringsport:

       As your constituent, I urge you to publicly call for and 
     vote in favor of the immediate and permanent expansion of 
     domestic oil and natural gas production. No more Green New 
     Deal nonsense. Energy dependence is driving higher gas and 
     diesel prices that are causing skyrocketing gas and food 
     prices. We can't rely on Iran or Venezuela to save us. We 
     need to produce our own energy here--in America--and NOW.

  Lastly, Karen from Gretna asked:

       Why are we importing any oil? Energy independence is of 
     vital importance to us and our national security. Louisiana 
     was a leader in domestic energy production. It is shocking to 
     see how quickly our country has changed. Please continue to 
     work on our behalf to force our government to reinstate the 
     energy independence policies that were in effect during the 
     Trump administration. Speak loudly for us.

  Speak loudly for us.
  Speak loudly for us.
  What these letters make clear is that Americans are hurting. That is 
why I call for an Operation Warp Speed to lower the prices at the pump, 
to unleash American energy, and to regain our energy independence.
  President Biden needs to stop prioritizing far-left climate activists 
over the families sitting at the dinner table asking what they have to 
give up next in order to make ends meet.
  President Biden, as one of my constituents says, needs to go where 
real people live.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Rosen). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, that whole concept of going where real 
people live is an important one. When people are facing higher utility 
bills every month and a bigger bill every time they fill up their gas 
tank, it doesn't take long for them to figure out that policy decisions 
somewhere have changed something--and something that really 
dramatically affects their quality of life. And then it didn't take 
long to figure out that those policy decisions in Washington are the 
decisions that made that kind of difference.
  When a blackout causes the lights to go out and your refrigerator to 
stop working, the impact of energy policy becomes pretty tangible and 
you understand pretty quickly that this is impacting you. That is a 
prospect that a lot of Americans are facing this summer. It is not 
theoretical, but in too many places, it is happening and happening over 
and over again.
  In late May, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation 
released a report that said that nearly two-thirds of the United States 
could experience blackouts this summer as a result of reliability 
challenges of the electric grid. Now, that group is a nonprofit 
regulatory authority that monitors the grid in the United States and 
Canada and some of northern Mexico.
  They could see this coming and Americans can now see this happening. 
They said that it was sobering. They said that it was an 
understatement, really, in many ways, to see it any other way. The 
understatement is, in particular--and the report said--that in the West 
and the Midwest, there was a heightened risk of reliability challenges 
and energy shortfalls.
  This report on the electric grid cited several reasons for heightened 
risk people are facing. One of them is that there is simply too little 
electric-generating capacity in the middle of the country where I live 
following the closure of older baseload generators. You can't make 
these decisions about energy policy without having a replacement in 
mind and not expect to see bad things happen to families, to 
individuals, to our economy. And that is what we are seeing now.
  Earlier this year, the Energy Information Administration projected 85 
percent of the generators closing this year would be coal-fired power 
plants.
  So, if you close these plants and don't have a replacement in line, 
look what happens. Maybe we should ask Germany what happened when they 
shut down one of their major energy sources without having a 
replacement. Before you know it, they were dependent on a source of 
energy and a kind of energy and a country to get that energy from that 
didn't work out at all.
  From day one, the administration has advanced policies to restrict 
the production of affordable and reliable American energy. We have gone 
from being a net exporter of energy to an importer--in fact, even a 
pleading importer of energy--in an unbelievably short period of time.
  Electric prices in that period of time have gone up nearly 20 
percent. Gasoline prices have more than doubled. If you are at the gas 
pump and you fill up your tank, whatever you are paying, cut that in 
half. That is what you

[[Page S3516]]

would have paid under the policies just a couple of years ago. Now you 
are paying 107 percent more than you were paying then. The push of a 
rapid transition to renewable energy sources will cause prices to go up 
even higher. We have already seen what happens. We should be able to 
figure out what happens if you do more of it without a plan.
  What the administration wants to do here doesn't have to be painful. 
Transitioning from fossil fuels over a period of time doesn't have to 
be a painful thing. You just have to have a replacement in mind. You 
have to understand the economic consequences and understand, if your 
timeframe is right, there are no economic consequences.
  Fossil fuels accounted for just over 60 percent of the electricity 
generated in the United States last year. Nuclear power generated 
nearly 20 percent of the electricity; wind, 9 percent; hydropower, 6 
percent; solar power was about 3 percent. When you dedicate yourself to 
eliminating 60 percent of the electricity generated in the country, you 
have got to expect that bad things are going to happen, and they are.
  We are seeing what happened with reliability challenges in California 
in its leading the way in this transition. But last summer, the State 
was doing everything they could, as quickly as they could, to build gas 
plants, natural gas plants, to supplement its power and to avoid 
blackouts. You went from plenty of power to new sources of energy and 
then, suddenly, to not enough power and then back to fossil fuels to 
desperately try to replace the power.
  Surely, we can learn that this doesn't have to be the way you make 
these realistic transitions from one way of powering things to another. 
Just to replace every vehicle in the country with electric models would 
require 25 percent more electricity than we produce today. Forcing the 
electrification of homes and buildings will drive demand even higher 
and will cost more. Families will suffer.
  For now, all of the above still works. For the long term, we have to 
find out what works for all Americans and how we may have reasonable 
energy policy moving forward. All of the above is serving us well. As 
we move from that, we need to know what we are moving to, how we are 
moving there, and how we can do it with the least impact on the 
economy, on individuals, and on families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I want to join my colleagues here in 
an important discussion as it relates to American energy.
  My colleague from the great State of Missouri said it well in so many 
different ways: Now we are pleading with dictators to import more 
energy. That is one element of what, certainly, has been the Biden 
administration's most colossal, strategic mistake of its entire first 
year in office. Trust me. There have been a lot of mistakes on the 
Biden administration's watch. There has been nothing that has 
undermined American interests in terms of working families, in terms of 
skyrocketing inflation, in terms of national security, in terms of 
energy security, and--yes, I am going to talk about it--in terms of 
environmental policy for America and the world. Nothing has been more 
harmful to America's interests and the interests of American working 
families than the reckless policies of the Biden administration's 
approach to American energy.
  I have talked about this issue a lot because a lot of those policies 
are zeroed in on my State and my constituents, but as many have already 
said and as Senator Blunt has already said, it can be summed up, in my 
view, in kind of four key areas.
  No. 1, from day one, they have come in and said: We are going to 
limit the production of American energy.
  That is happening. It is certainly happening in Alaska. On day one, 
the President made an order on ANWR. We got ANWR done in this Congress, 
but he shut that down, and they are canceling lease sales. As for the 
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, they are taking half of that off 
the table. Everywhere you look, they are trying to limit the production 
of American energy. That is a fact. It makes no sense, but it is a 
fact. That is No. 1.
  No. 2 is the slow rolling and killing of energy infrastructure, the 
ability to move energy through pipelines or LNG terminals. They are 
stopping it, slow rolling it, or killing it. That is a fact, OK? That 
is what they have been doing from day one.
  No. 3, they are going to the American financial community--John 
Kerry, Gina McCarthy, and all of these far-left, crazy, policy folks--
and saying to American banks and insurance companies: Don't invest in 
American energy.
  This is choking off capital to this incredibly important sector of 
the U.S. economy. When they are not doing that, they are appointing 
senior officials--just think Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal 
Reserve, the SEC Chairman--who are undertaking policies to choke off 
capital to the American energy sector. That is happening.
  No. 4, when they have seen prices spike and hard-working American 
families paying hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars more to get to 
work in their cars or trucks, the administration is going around, 
begging dictators for more energy production.
  This is an insult. We have the highest standards with regard to the 
environment and American energy production in Alaska and in other 
places. Do you think the Saudis care about their environment? Do you 
think the Venezuelans care? Do you think the terrorists in Iran care? 
They don't, but the administration is going and begging dictators for 
more energy.
  So those are the policies of the Biden administration on energy, and 
we all know it is not working. It is having the predictable consequence 
of driving up energy costs on all American families--and, of course, 
giving pink slips to American energy workers, who I believe are heroic 
workers: union workers and others--and empowering our adversaries. So 
that is what is happening.
  Today, the President is in Boston, so I want to talk about a couple 
of policies--energy policies--emanating from people and the communities 
of Boston that further show just how irrational the far-left Democratic 
Party is on energy.
  Let me first talk about this issue, which I like to trot out a lot, 
on this chart. This is a factual chart of emission changes from major 
economies in the world from 2005 to the present. You don't hear about 
this a lot, but take a look. Take a look at this chart.
  What does it show?
  Of all of the major economies in the world, the one economy with the 
biggest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is America, the United 
States of America, by far. Take a look. We have reduced emissions since 
2005 by almost 15 percent. EU didn't do that. Germany didn't do that. 
Japan didn't do that. And here you go: In China, there is a new coal 
plant every couple of days, it seems. In India, it is the same thing.
  Why am I bringing out this chart? A, people need to know that we are 
the leader; we are not the bad guy. I know John Kerry keeps thinking we 
are the bad guy; he goes around telling everybody we are. We are not. 
If every other country in the world had emissions profiles like we had, 
you would see a much, much cleaner and less emitting planet. That is a 
fact. So let me talk about a couple of these policies.
  John Kerry, the climate envoy, has been reported as going to certain 
countries in Asia, saying: You know, we really don't like hydrocarbons 
in America, so don't buy any of that American LNG.
  What? We are paying this guy's salary to say that? Whose side is he 
on?
  By the way, exporting clean-burning American LNG to places like India 
or China or Japan is exactly what we need to do to reduce global 
emissions. So you have got this one guy out there--and I am not sure 
why he is being paid by the U.S. Government; he should be paid by the 
Chinese Communist Party Government. There are recent press reports that 
John Kerry's private jet--that he flies all around the world on--last 
year, emitted over 300 tons of CO2.
  What? Yes.
  Look, he is smug, hypocritical, and his policies are hammering the 
middle class--and now this. John Kerry is one of the single biggest 
polluters and greenhouse gas emitters in the world for an individual.
  In Boston, one of the best things the President can do today is to 
either fire John Kerry or ask him to resign. That would be great. That 
would probably do a lot for climate in America.

[[Page S3517]]

  Let me give another policy that should be raised in Massachusetts.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this Boston Globe 
editorial--a very long one--from February 12, 2018, be printed in the 
Record. It is called ``Our Russian `pipeline,' and its ugly toll.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [Editorial: Boston Globe, February 12, 2018]

               Our Russian `Pipeline,' and Its Ugly Toll

       To build the new $27 billion gas export plant on the Arctic 
     Ocean that now keeps the lights on in Massachusetts, Russian 
     firms bored wells into fragile permafrost; blasted a new 
     international airport into a pristine landscape of reindeer, 
     polar bears, and walrus; dredged the spawning grounds of the 
     endangered Siberian sturgeon in the Gulf of Ob to accommodate 
     large ships; and commissioned a fleet of 1,000-foot 
     icebreaking tankers likely to kill seals and disrupt whale 
     habitat as they shuttle cargoes of super-cooled gas bound for 
     Asia, Europe, and Everett.
       On the plus side, though, they didn't offend Pittsfield or 
     Winthrop, Danvers or Groton, with even an inch of pipeline.
       This winter's unprecedented imports of Russian liquefied 
     natural gas have already come under fire from Greater 
     Boston's Ukrainian-American community, because the majority 
     shareholder of the firm that extracted the fuel has been 
     sanctioned by the US government for its links to the war in 
     eastern Ukraine and Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea. 
     Last week, in response to the outcry, a group of 
     Massachusetts lawmakers, led by Senator Ed Markey, blasted 
     the shipments and called on the federal government to stop 
     them.
       But apart from its geopolitical impact, Massachusetts' 
     reliance on imported gas from one of the world's most 
     threatened places is also a severe indictment of the state's 
     inward-looking environmental and climate policies. Public 
     officials, including Attorney General Maura Healey and 
     leading state senators, have leaned heavily on righteous-
     sounding stands against local fossil fuel projects, with 
     scant consideration of the global impacts of their actions 
     and a tacit expectation that some other country will build 
     the infrastructure that we're too good for.
       As a result, to a greater extent than anywhere else in the 
     United States, the Commonwealth now expects people in places 
     like Russia, Trinidad and Tobago, and Yemen to shoulder the 
     environmental burdens of providing natural gas that state 
     policy makers have showily rejected here. The old 
     environmentalist slogan--think globally and act locally--has 
     been turned inside out in Massachusetts.
       But more than just traditional NIMBYism is at work in the 
     state's resistance to natural gas infrastructure. There's 
     also the $1 million the parent company of the Everett 
     terminal spent lobbying Beacon Hill from 2013 to 2017, amid a 
     push to keep out the domestic competition that's ended LNG 
     imports in most of the rest of the United States.
       And there's a trendy, but scientifically unfounded, 
     national fixation on pipelines that state policy makers have 
     chosen to accommodate. Climate advocates, understandably 
     frustrated by slow progress at the federal level, have put 
     short-term tactical victories against fossil fuel 
     infrastructure ahead of strategic progress on reducing 
     greenhouse gas emissions, and so has Beacon Hill. They've 
     obsessed over stopping domestic pipelines, no matter where 
     those pipes go, what they carry, what fuels they displace, 
     and how the ripple effects of those decisions may raise 
     overall global greenhouse gas emissions.
       The environmental movement needs a reset, and so does 
     Massachusetts policy. The real-world result of pipeline 
     absolutism in Massachusetts this winter has been to steer 
     energy customers to dirtier fuels like coal and oil, 
     increasing greenhouse gas emissions. And the state is now in 
     the indefensible position of blocking infrastructure here, 
     while its public policies create demand for overseas fossil 
     fuel infrastructure like the Yamal LNG plant--a project 
     likely to inflict far greater near and long-term harm to the 
     planet.
       ``ALL IS GLOOM AND ETERNAL SILENCE,'' wrote a 19th century 
     English traveler in an awestruck account of the Kara Sea, 
     then still a largely uncharted domain of ice floes and fog. 
     Though more powerful vessels and melting ice have enabled 
     more human activity in the Arctic, the area around Yamal, an 
     indigenous name meaning ``edge of the world,'' remains a 
     refuge. An estimated 2,700 to 3,500 polar bears live in the 
     Kara Sea region, along with the ring seals that form a 
     crucial part of their diet.
       Opening a gas export facility in such a harsh environment 
     required overcoming both political obstacles--the US 
     sanctions delayed financing--and staggering triumphs of 
     industrial engineering by a workforce that reportedly reached 
     15,000 people. Dredgers scooped away 1.4 billion cubic feet 
     of seabed to make room for the ships and built a giant LNG 
     facility on supports driven into the permafrost, all in 
     temperatures that can plunge to less than minus 50 degrees 
     Fahrenheit.
       The oil and gas industry poses serious threats, especially 
     in an area like the Arctic that recovers slowly from damage, 
     and in 2016 the Russian branch of the World Wildlife Fund 
     issued a report warning of Yamal LNG's potential dangers. 
     White toothed whales, a near-threatened species, breed in the 
     vicinity of the facility, and the noise from shipping and the 
     presence of more giant vessels ``may force toothed whales to 
     leave this habitat, which is crucial for their living, 
     feeding, and reproduction.''
       The giant ``Yamalmax'' ice breaking tankers, longer than 
     three football fields and designed to mow through ice up to 
     six feet deep, are also ``extremely bad news for any ice-
     associated mammals that should be in the vicinity of their 
     path,'' said Sue Wilson, who leads an international research 
     group based at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom. 
     The group has recently published a paper in the journal 
     Biological Conservation on the impact of icebreakers on seal 
     mothers and pups in the Caspian Sea and is currently studying 
     shipping impacts in the Arctic.
       ``The captain is unlikely to notice--or even be able to 
     see--seals in the vessel's path ahead,'' she said. ``Even if 
     the captain does notice, the fact that the ship is designed 
     to proceed at a steady pace means that it is unlikely to 
     attempt to stop for seals or maneuver around them, even if 
     the ship can be slowed or stopped in time.''
       Advocates also worry that increased Arctic production and 
     shipping will hurt indigenous people; sever reindeer 
     migration routes; import invasive species to an environment 
     ill-equipped to deal with them; and introduce the very 
     remote, but potentially cataclysmic, danger of an LNG 
     explosion.
       Finally, the gas pumped there will contribute to global 
     climate change. In some parts of the world, especially China, 
     LNG may provide climate benefits by displacing dirtier coal. 
     If LNG displaces gas carried by pipeline, however, the math 
     works out differently: Liquefied natural gas generally 
     creates more emissions, since the process of cooling it to 
     minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit and then shipping and 
     regasifying it requires more energy than pumping natural gas 
     through all but the longest and leakiest pipelines.
       ``The bottom line is that because of the nature of the 
     liquefaction process, LNG is fairly carbon intensive,'' said 
     Gavin Law, the head of gas, LNG, and carbon consulting for 
     the energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie. The exact 
     difference depends on factors like how much pipelines leak, 
     carbon impurities in the gas, age of equipment, and distance 
     shipped, but generally LNG produces 5 to 10 percent more 
     emissions over its whole life cycle from start to finish, he 
     said.
       From a planetary perspective, it doesn't matter where those 
     emissions occur: Whether from the plant in Yamal, or the 
     power plant in Everett, they have the same impact. The 
     science should make the state's decisions straightforward.
       ``Natural gas has shown itself to be an important bridge to 
     a clean energy future,'' said Ernest J. Moniz, the former 
     secretary of energy in the Obama administration. ``For New 
     England, expanding the pipeline capacity from the 
     Marcellus''--the area of shale gas production in 
     Pennsylvania--``makes the most sense.''
       ``Life cycle emissions for LNG imports to Boston certainly 
     are higher than they would be for more Marcellus gas,'' he 
     said.
       But the upstream emissions typically don't show up on the 
     books of states like Massachusetts, which judge the success 
     of their climate efforts based only on how much greenhouse 
     gas they emit within their own borders.
       That's an accounting fiction. But it's a convenient one for 
     lawmakers who've bowed to pressure to legislate based on 
     what's visible inside the Commonwealth's own borders.
       FROM MASHPEE TO SPRINGFIELD, Taunton to Sudbury, the 
     message was clear: To fight climate change, the state 
     shouldn't allow more fossil fuel pipelines or other 
     infrastructure in Massachusetts.
       That's what state senators Marc Pacheco and Jamie Eldridge, 
     the heads of the state Senate's Committee on Global Warming 
     and Climate Change, heard when they conducted a listening 
     tour of the state--whose results they released on the same 
     day the Russian gas was unloading in Everett--to help prepare 
     a new energy bill.
       The resulting legislation was introduced this Monday. It 
     contained many fine ideas, including boosting the state's 
     renewable energy requirements. But it also would raise 
     obstacles to pipelines that would lock in the state's 
     reliance on foreign gas, with its higher carbon footprint.
       In an interview, Pacheco said ``Obviously any fossil fuel 
     investments are problematic,'' no matter where they occur, 
     but that ``we have no control over what happens in Russia or 
     anywhere else in the world.'' Eldridge said, ``I think this 
     bill takes a big step to preventing pipelines,'' and also 
     expressed concern about the LNG the state imports instead. 
     ``I think activists need to think about where a large amount 
     of this gas is coming from, and that could be something the 
     Legislature could take a look at'' in the future, he said.
       Theirs isn't the first analysis to miss the larger picture.
       In 2015, the Conservation Law Foundation, a prominent 
     environmental advocacy group in Boston, released a report 
     dismissing the need for new pipeline capacity in New England, 
     and called on the region to rely on a ``winter-only LNG 
     'pipeline,' ``including imported gas, to meet its winter 
     energy needs instead.

[[Page S3518]]

       After the first shipload of Russian gas arrived, David 
     Ismay, a lawyer with the group, stood by the recommendation 
     and shrugged off the purchase of Russian gas from the Arctic 
     as simply the nature of buying on the worldwide market. ``I 
     think it's important to understand that LNG is a globally 
     traded commodity,'' he said in an interview with the Globe.
       The foundation, he said, hadn't compared the overall 
     greenhouse gas emissions from LNG to pipeline gas from the 
     Marcellus to determine which was worse for the climate, nor 
     had it factored the impact on the Arctic of gas production 
     into its policy recommendations.
       But a state policy that doesn't ask any questions about its 
     fuel until the day the tanker floats into the Harbor 
     abdicates the state's responsibility to own up to all 
     consequences of its energy use--and mitigate the ones that it 
     can.
       WHEN AN ICEBREAKER BEARS DOWN on a mother seal during the 
     springtime breeding season, the terrified animal tries to 
     scurry away with her pup. The two may leave a trail of urine 
     and feces on the ice, telltale signs of their distress. Even 
     if the animals survive the collision, the disruption may 
     separate the mother and pup, leading to the pup's death.
       Conscientious companies can minimize the cruel realities of 
     global shipping--or conscientious governments can force them 
     to. American law, for instance, requires ships to maintain a 
     safe distance from seals and walruses in ice habitats. 
     Wilson, the seal researcher, also suggested that icebreakers 
     can change routes to avoid known seal habitats, especially 
     during the breeding season, and carry trained observers 
     onboard to advise vessel captains and record any adverse 
     impact, particularly on mothers and young.
       The Globe attempted to contact Sovcomflot, the Russian 
     state-owned shipper in St. Petersburg that handled the first 
     leg of the first shipment from Siberia to Everett, about what 
     policies, if any, it employs to avoid killing seals and other 
     wildlife, and whether it would halt LNG shipments during the 
     spring as mother seals nurse their pups in the Arctic.
       As of Monday night, it had not responded to e-mails.
       The policy of Massachusetts, apparently, is to hope that 
     the Russians are on top of it--and that the world beyond the 
     state's borders manages the impacts of fossil fuel production 
     and transportation that the Commonwealth buys and uses, but 
     considers itself too pure to handle itself.
       As of Monday night, the next shipment of Russian gas was 
     anchored about 70 miles off Gloucester.

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Again, these are far-left policies that are having a 
negative impact on actual environment and climate issues. This is the 
Boston Globe editorial page, not some rightwing editorial page, and 
they are writing about how the Massachusetts State legislature said: We 
are not going to have any pipelines coming across Massachusetts to be 
able to take gas from Pennsylvania and let people in Boston use it.
  Here is the editorial page on Massachusetts' reliance on imported 
gas. So what happens? They are importing all of their gas from Russia 
in the Arctic. How does that help America? You have American gas from 
American pipelines that is produced by Americans, with the highest 
environmental standards, coming across Massachusetts to Boston.
  No. The Massachusetts State legislature says: We are too good for 
that. We are not going to build pipelines.
  So what do they do? They import all of their gas from Russia.
  This is an editorial that says: This policy is insane, and that is, 
in essence, the definition of what we are seeing by the Biden 
administration, by John Kerry, and by the Massachusetts State 
legislature--all of these woke pronouncements that actually have the 
impact of degrading our environment, empowering dictators, laying off 
Americans, and raising the price of energy on our economy, small 
businesses, and working families.
  So I am hopeful that today, in Boston, the President starts to get 
serious about American energy policy and that he starts to reverse his 
administration's focus on shutting down the production of American 
energy, on permitting pipelines and infrastructure, and on helping to 
finance energy projects and production. That is the reversal he could 
make and announce today. That would help the American people. It would 
help my constituents.
  Unfortunately, I think that it is unlikely to happen. The people of 
our great Nation are going to continue to suffer, and the environment 
is going to continue to suffer because of these policies on energy that 
undermine American interests everywhere you look.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, thank you for the opportunity to address 
you and my colleagues here on the Senate floor this afternoon.
  While Kansans are dealing, Americans are dealing every day with 
skyrocketing gas prices, record-high inflation, and supply chain 
shortages, President Biden traveled to Saudi Arabia to make a plea for 
greater oil production availability. What he should be doing is asking 
Americans and giving them the opportunity to unleash the potential of 
our own ability to supply oil. We have seen days and we enjoyed the 
days in which America was generally energy independent, and it would be 
a wonderful day to return to.
  My State of Kansas is an energy-producing State, and we could help 
increase supply and cut costs at the pump, but instead President Biden 
chooses our foreign adversaries for assistance. Kansas ranks 11th in 
oil production and 14th in the production of natural gas. Kansas is 
also the ninth largest ethanol-producing State. That industry supports 
over 115,000 oil and gas jobs in Kansas.
  Our producers and our refiners stand ready to meet the growing demand 
for American energy. But since the first day in office and really 
before assuming office, the President has sought to constrain the oil 
and gas sectors' access to capital. I don't know how many times in the 
Banking Committee we were dealing with this issue of whether or not a 
regulator could regulate financial institutions, with the goal of 
eliminating their ability to finance oil and gas production.
  In addition to trying to limit access to capital, he blocked 
construction of pipelines and has proposed burdensome new regulations 
on oil and gas producers.
  My guess is that this is done for the purposes of reducing the use of 
fossil fuels, the environment-climate agenda. But it is so hypocritical 
for us, as Americans, for President Biden to be asking others who 
produce oil to increase their production. If it is about the 
environment and about climate, you wouldn't ask anybody to increase 
their production. And I have no doubt that here in the United States, 
we do it right as far as refining oil and gas into other products in a 
way that is the most environmentally sound way of doing it compared to 
places like Venezuela, Libya, where the President also asked that they 
increase their production for the benefit of American consumers.
  The thing to do for us to increase our energy production and reduce 
the price at the pump--and we talk about prices at the pump so easily. 
The cost of oil and natural gas has a consequence on things way beyond 
the price at the pump. It is not just about gasoline. Natural gas, for 
example, is used in the production of fertilizer for our farmers who 
struggle today, with the cost of production being astronomically higher 
than it was before, but almost every product that we buy that is more 
expensive today than it was previously has an oil and gas component to 
it.
  The request by President Biden to reach out to our adversaries for 
oil on the world stage, appealing to our adversaries for increased 
production, not only singles out our weakness but is also unnecessary. 
The United States has the resources, the expertise, and the domestic 
demand to be an energy-independent nation, and Kansas has the 
opportunity to be a participant in that, with additional jobs and a 
better America.
  We should see the impending energy crisis in Europe as a case study 
for why domestic energy production ought to be supported to the fullest 
extent in the United States. Additionally, our dependence upon energy 
from someplace else has huge consequences in our foreign relations, our 
military preparedness, and our national security.
  A far more enduring solution than wandering around the world with a 
tin cup out--far more stable and affordable energy prices to fill our 
vehicles, power our homes, or to operate our farms--is for the 
President to support an all-out, ``all of the above'' domestic energy 
strategy. This includes investments in new and existing energy 
infrastructure like refineries; expanding oil, biofuels, and ethanol 
production; and new EV manufacturing--incidentally, although certainly 
not an incidental thing, like the $4 billion Panasonic EV manufacturing 
plant we announced last week

[[Page S3519]]

for Kansas. We ought to be interested, again, in solar and wind energy. 
Kansas is the third highest producer of wind energy, wind power, in the 
United States.
  The Biden administration must--I asked them to shift course and 
promote an ``all of the above'' strategy that produces more U.S. energy 
from all sources. It benefits America; it benefits the world; and it 
especially benefits the consumers who are hurting so much at the 
grocery store and the gas pump and utility bills.
  We need to weaken our reliance on foreign adversaries, and we need to 
increase the production of energy in the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.