[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 145 (Wednesday, September 18, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6124-S6127]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 1121

  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. President, thank you and thank you to the Senator 
from Alabama for doing this.
  I think it is very important that we understand what is happening in 
our economy right now with the energy issue and the energy crisis we 
find ourselves in.
  And so the bill that I bring forward today is Protecting American 
Energy Production Act.
  It is real simple. It allows us to be energy independent. The 
backbone of our economy is energy, and if you have high energy costs, 
which we have had a 37-percent increase in energy under this current 
administration, you obviously are going to have inflation increase 
because energy is the backbone of our economy. You cannot make a 
product, nor can you deliver the product, without factoring in the cost 
of energy.
  With a 37-percent energy increase over the last 4 years, we have to 
bring back that resilience. We have to bring back that energy 
independence. And the way we do that is we understand real numbers.
  For instance, in 2019, fracking, which our current Vice President has 
been on record saying that she wants to ban fracking, in 2019, fracking 
accounted for 63 percent of our total crude oil production and 75 
percent of our natural gas supply.
  Underneath the current administration, we have seen a significant 
decline in fracking wells. At the same time, we haven't seen demand 
decrease, we have actually seen demand increase, which by the amount 
that has actually been taken away from oil or from American producers, 
now we have seen an increase in imports.
  Not all of them are friends of ours. As I said, the bill is very 
simple, Protecting American Energy Production Act.
  So as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be 
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1121 and the Senate 
proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be 
considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Reserving the right to object.
  My colleague whom I am pleased to work with on a number of issues has 
come to the floor with a unanimous consent request that would constrain 
the power of our President to protect our public lands. So while we may 
agree on a number of things--and I hope that doesn't hurt his 
reputation back home--on this particular proposal, I do bring a 
different perspective.
  I think in my role working on the Interior Committee--and 
understanding that the authority we have granted the President is so 
essential to making sure that the lands that are publicly held remain a 
treasure for every single American.
  It was not that long ago--well, it seems like quite a few years now, 
maybe a decade, I attended a hearing in which a number of folks came 
forward to explain different damages that had occurred to the water 
table in their community from fracking.
  Now, in this case, my real concern here is about constraining the 
President's ability to protect our treasures, our public lands, from 
these types of effects.
  I think Americans who have traveled to our national parks and our BLM 
land and our Forest Service land understand that this is a 
responsibility that we in the Senate take very seriously, but there is 
also a little bit more to my concern here as well.
  One is that if we are going to tackle climate chaos, we have to have 
international cooperation. And if we continuously say we are going to 
reduce the ability of the United States to have policies and abilities 
to address our own production of fossils, then, of course, every other 
country is like, well, the United States and China are the biggest 
producers of climate gases--both methane, known publicly as natural 
gas, methane gas--and they have very large footprints, if they are not 
going to act, why should we act?
  So if we want to address this challenge and sustain international 
cooperation, we can't be consistently restricting the potential 
flexibility of our President.
  The third is that the climate impact in my home State is very 
substantial. We have seen a loss of snowpack in the Cascades that is 
devastating--the water in late spring and early summer--to our ranchers 
and farmers. Our rural foundation, our rural pillar is our farming and 
our ranching. And when you constrain the water in our rivers because of 
the dropping snowpack, that is a big impact.
  And in addition, our water tables have been dropping that many 
farmers have depended on. In fact, we are investing heavily in piping 
our irrigation ditches at huge expense, knowing how precious every drop 
of water is.
  So if we care about our rural areas, we have to take on climate chaos 
and not just our farmers and ranchers, our foresters, too, because we 
are seeing significant devastation to Oregon's famous forests over 
drought and insect infestation with climate chaos.
  Of course, it is not just Oregon that is affected. Every single State 
is affected. I was very concerned earlier this year, earlier this 
summer, when I heard about the 115 to 120 degrees in a heat dome that 
passed over my colleague's State and the impact that that was having. I 
think every State has their effects that they are experiencing.
  So this is a big issue that we need to wrestle with, and this brings 
me to the fourth item mentioned about energy security. In the last 4 
years, under the Biden administration, we have become energy 
independent. There has been a vast increase in the production of oil 
and a vast increase in the production of gas. As a result, we are now 
the largest producer of oil and gas, and we are the largest exporter of 
gas.
  Now, kind of the interesting little piece here is that the goal of 
the gas industry is to export gas and raise prices on Americans, so it 
is more expensive for Americans to heat their homes and heat their 
water. But we could do the opposite. We could, in fact, say we are 
going to repeal the 2015 law that put us into the world market and 
created these massive exports and lower the price here in America for 
our families.
  That is a much better idea than raising the prices. Let's lower the 
prices. In fact, here is the thing. Let's start right now by ending our 
exports of oil and gas to China. Now, my colleagues just not so long 
ago advocated that we end any sale of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
to China with good reason. Why should we lower their prices and 
increase our prices? But that is true for the exports that are going to 
oil and gas as well.
  So let's stand together on both sides of the aisle. Let's lower the 
price for American consumers and ban these exports to China. And for 
that reason, I have prepared just such a solution and an opportunity to 
have it embraced by my colleagues.
  And so I turn to the formality here that I ask the Senator to modify 
his request and that the Merkley substitute amendment at the desk be 
considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read 
a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table, so that we will have the 
ability to end these exports to China and lower the prices for American 
consumers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the modification?
  Mr. MULLIN. Reserve the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. MULLIN. While I understand my colleague from Oregon, where he 
stands on this issue, there are just some factual things that need to 
be checked on that.
  One, he said that we are the No. 1 exporter of gas. That is just not 
true. Russia is the No. 1 exporter of gas.

[[Page S6125]]

  When they say production has increased, that is actually not accurate 
either. Could we have been the largest liquefied natural gas exporter? 
Yes. That was until the permits for the pipelines to go to export 
terminals in Louisiana were canceled, which put a lot of our allies in 
Europe in a situation to where now they had to go buy gas from a bad 
actor that is right now invading Ukraine called Russia.
  Our allies do not want to be dependent, obviously, on Russia. They 
would love to have our gas.
  And as far as being the No. 1 seller to China with crude and refined 
products, it is not true again. At current rate, Iran is the No. 1 
seller to China, and they are the ones that are buying it because of 
the Biden-Harris administration being extremely weak on the sanctions 
that we put on Iran under the Trump administration--which now Iran is 
actively funding the Houthis and Hamas and terrorist organizations all 
around the world.
  What we are saying is: Let our allies count on us. We have more 
reserves underneath our feet, and we can produce it cleaner and more 
efficient than OPEC, than Russia, than Iran. Our allies want to do 
business with us, and our economy desperately needs it. We are in a 
recession, and no one is denying that. Why should we depend on allowing 
OPEC to set the world price for crude? Why are we allowing them to set 
the price and become rich off of our backs when we ourselves could 
easily do that in a much cleaner and more efficient way?
  Why are we still importing petroleum products from Russia? Why are we 
still importing oil, which is a dirty crude, from Saudi Arabia, when we 
can still produce it--a sweet crude--that comes out of Oklahoma, that 
comes out of North Dakota, that comes out of Pennsylvania, that comes 
out of Texas, that is a much easier product to refine and burns 
cleaner. And there is no denying that.
  Because the world's demand for fossil fuels is increasing not 
decreasing--so why are we doing it at the cost of the American 
taxpayer? Why are we hurting our economy along the way?
  As far as the change that my colleague from Oregon wants to do, it is 
not necessary. The change isn't there. This is just to try to kill the 
bill because the legislation that my colleague is trying to do--we 
already know that the President, currently, already has the authority 
to restrict oil and gas exports because he did exactly that earlier 
this year, which is why I brought up Louisiana.
  All this does is deflect blame away from the Biden-Harris 
administration, which has been very soft on sanctions with bad actors--
as I mentioned, Iran. The majority of which are bought, as I mentioned 
before, by China. And as I mentioned before, this does nothing but 
enable Iran, when they sell their product, to sponsor the largest 
groups around the world operating in terror organizations.
  The bill my colleague from Oregon is raising today would do nothing 
to address the massive amounts of Russian oil flowing into China, and 
what Republicans are trying to do here today is bolster American energy 
production by preventing this administration and future administrations 
from banning fracking.
  As I said, as the current Vice President openly said in 2019, she was 
100 percent for banning fracking across the United States.
  So with that, I have to object to my colleague from Oregon's 
legislation and changes to my current bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection to the modification is heard. Is 
there objection to the original request?
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--a couple 
of points--the first is that my colleague mentioned that the bill I am 
proposing would restrict our ability to support our allies, who count 
on us.
  Actually, my bill is about stopping exports to China. They are not 
our ally, last I checked. We are in competition with them, and these 
exports are making their life easier and their economy stronger and 
making things more expensive for us here in the United States of 
America. If you want more available for allies, hey, let's stop the 
exports to China. It is actually compatible with the goal my colleague 
suggested.
  The second is he challenged the question--and I realize we are doing 
this on short notice; so we have various facts flying around--about 
whether the United States was the largest exporter of natural gas last 
year. So I have in front of me the information from the Energy 
Information Administration, which produces all of the stats on this, 
and the headline is:

       The United States was the world's largest liquefied natural 
     exporter in 2023.

  Now a third point, outside of North America, China is the largest 
recipient of our gas. We are directing more gas to China, whom we are 
in competition with, than any other nation. That is just a little bit 
crazy, and I want to support our allies. I want to support our 
consumers at home through lower prices.
  So I am disappointed that I didn't win over your support with my 
presentation.
  But given that I would much prefer to have a bill that lowers prices 
rather than one that endangers our public lands and raises prices for 
our consumers, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. President, one quick response to this: My colleague 
is correct about the LNG, or liquefied natural gas. What my colleague 
said in his remarks was ``natural gas.''
  Natural gas is much different than shipping liquefied natural gas. 
Liquefied natural gas is a small percentage of what is exported and as 
far as what we call natural gas. Once it is liquefied, what actually is 
by far the biggest is the pipeline that this administration approved, 
which President Trump put a hold on, going into Germany for the second 
time.
  So my original statement is true: Russia is the largest exporter of 
natural gas.
  Once again, this wasn't to do anything, as my colleague said, talking 
about China. The export ban which the administration put on the 
exporting of LNG out of Louisiana by canceling the permits, that has 
affected Europe. They are allies of ours.
  If this administration wanted to do something about China, they could 
do it today. They could do it this hour. They could do it right now by 
an executive order. Last I checked, they still had the authority to do 
so.
  So as I go back to my colleague from Oregon's change to my current 
bill, the modification does nothing. The current administration, 
currently, already has that authority.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, yes, this proposal really deserves to be 
objected to. You know, it really deserves an objection because what we 
really have to say here is that we object to this bill as a ridiculous 
attack--a Republican attack--on the authority of the executive branch.
  But we don't need to talk about how this bill would work. Let's talk 
about why this bill is the bill that the Republicans are pushing. Are 
they lining up here to protest something worthy, like public health? 
No.
  Are they demanding we deliver something meaningful, like clean air or 
clean water? No.
  Are they taking a stand for the future that worries moms and dads and 
parents and grandparents and neighbors and young people who are asking 
us to fight for those things? No.
  So what are the Republicans doing? They are protecting the profits of 
fossil fuel companies. They are delivering our dollars to oil and gas 
exporters. They are taking a stand against a clean, healthy, 
sustainable future. What a track record--what a track record that they 
have.
  These companies are fracturing American lands to produce gas for 
fossil fuel executives to export--to export--out of our country to the 
highest global bidder. They want to export this.
  And who takes the environmental risks? Well, the families who live 
nearby, who are going to be near these pipelines. And then the 
companies take it to the first port they can get it to and then send it 
out of our country.
  Do they want to keep it here to lower the price of natural gas for 
American consumers? Absolutely not. They want to get it out on the open 
market in a ship because that is the highest bidder. Around the world, 
let them bid for it.

[[Page S6126]]

  Now, if they were saying, ``Hey, we really want to lower the price of 
natural gas in the United States,'' that is one thing. But that is not 
what this is all about. It is all about an export plan: Get the oil, 
get the gas out of our country and get the highest price in the world.
  They are putting wells filled with toxic chemicals next to schools, 
your homes, your daycare, your hospitals--all so they can ship tankers 
filled with natural gas to China or any other country that is the 
highest bidder.
  That is what this is all about, ladies and gentlemen. It is not about 
lowering the price of natural gas or oil for American consumers. It is 
about oil company executives getting higher profits for themselves.
  The United States exported a record shattering amount of natural gas 
in 2023, more than 10 percent higher than in 2022. We export more 
liquefied natural gas than any other country in the world. And what do 
we get for all of these planet-destroying emissions? While Big Oil and 
House Republicans say that those fossil fuel exports are good for the 
economy, soaring LNG exports actually cost big bucks, with Americans 
spending $111 billion more on natural gas as exports soared from 2021 
to 2022.
  While many justified the rapid natural gas export build-out as 
critical for European energy security, the reality is that European gas 
demand is not only already met, it is declining. So we are not using 
this fracked gas here in the United States. We are not benefiting from 
exports of this fracked gas. In fact, it raises prices at home as we 
export the oil, as we export the gas.
  If we kept it here, it would put pressure on the price of natural gas 
and oil here in the United States. But they don't keep it here. They 
put it on ships to send it around the world.
  This fracked gas is a reason that prices are going up in the United 
States, and our allies aren't demanding a surge in fracked gas.
  So who benefits from this fight for fracked gas? In 2023 alone, the 
15 biggest oil and gas companies made more than $172 billion in profit. 
That is money that directly comes out of household budgets for fuel, 
for electricity, and even food and other necessities affected by the 
high prices.
  Gas companies and oil companies are running the same old-fashioned 
playbook for their dinosaur products, fossils: Drill and shill their 
fuels as hard as they can. And as we stop moving toward clean energy, 
these fossil fuel executives are trying to get other countries hooked 
and exporting products to keep prices high at home.
  So that is a crazy economic strategy for the United States: building 
export terminals to take our own oil and gas that should be here and 
lowering the price for consumers, for our businesses, for our 
homeowners, for our commercial sector. But, no, they say: Put it on the 
open market around the world and leave less of it here for American 
consumers.
  So just as we can track earthquakes in States that have large 
fracking and be able to see that that is happening, we can track this 
fracking defense bill to the companies that will benefit from it. This 
bill does nothing to protect Americans' health or their communities or 
their future or even their budgets. It protects fossil fuel companies 
from having to answer for their actions and pay for their profiteering.
  And for that reason, I stand in support of Senator Merkley's 
objection to this, because this is not a policy which we should allow 
to go permanently unaddressed in our country. It is time we have the 
big debate about the impact exporting our oil and gas has upon domestic 
prices.
  You can't have it both ways. You can't say this is good for America 
because we are exporting it and not understand that the less that we 
have here is to lower the pressure, to lower the prices for ordinary 
Americans.
  So when you look at all the polling and it says, ``People are 
concerned about high energy prices; people are concerned about our 
economy,'' what is at the center of it? Well, what is at the center of 
it is oil and gas and high prices.
  And what this proposal does is say ``Just keep it going; send it to 
China, send it to other countries around the world.'' But, no, at the 
same time, in the same way, we are importing lower-priced Chinese 
goods, we are to be sending them even more materials that allow them to 
become more dominant as an economic power.
  I support Senator Merkley's objection. And I hope that we actually 
come to the day where we have a full-blown debate here on the Senate 
floor on the impact this export of oil and gas, this impact of fracked 
materials with chemicals in the soil of our country, have upon the 
totality of our economic and environmental justice issues in our 
society.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The Senator from Alabama.
  Mrs. BRITT. Madam President, I would like to give my distinguished 
colleague from Oklahoma an opportunity to respond and thank him for his 
leadership on the Protecting American Energy Production Act.
  Mr. MULLIN. Madam President, it is interesting to me that my 
colleague from Massachusetts is lecturing us on energy prices when the 
last time I checked, Massachusetts has the highest cost of energy to 
heat their homes in the Nation; when he starts calling fracking a 
dinosaur technology, when the last time I checked, Boston had one of 
the collective largest group of individuals still heating their homes 
off heating oil and propane.
  Infrastructure is what creates an opportunity to bring down energy 
costs, which is why Oklahoma, on the other hand, which embraces 
fracking and embraces pipelines, has the lowest energy cost on average 
around the country.
  So if we really want to talk about bringing down cost for consumers, 
let's look at a model that works instead of having someone lecture us 
from a State that their model doesn't work. We can build 
infrastructure. We would love to build pipelines in Massachusetts, but 
they block them. The infrastructure would be awesome.
  I know there is a tremendous amount of companies that would love to 
supply natural gas to Massachusetts. In fact, there is a pipeline right 
now ready to go that has been blocked.
  So let's have some serious conversations, not just lay blame and call 
CEOs bad names and give false opinions that they are just wanting to 
export. This says nothing about exporting. This is talking about 
becoming energy independent so we don't have to import oil, so we don't 
have to import refined products. This is about becoming energy 
dependent so we can bring down energy cost.
  As I said earlier, the current policy that we are operating under 
with the Biden-Harris administration has brought energy costs up by 37 
percent, which is directly affecting every single American's pocketbook 
today, right now as we speak. That is why every single American out 
there is paying $1,085 more per month in their household bills and 
grocery bills than they were 4 years ago, which, if you think about 
that, that is over $13,000 a year directly reflecting our current 
energy policy.
  This does exactly what it is supposed to do: help bring down the 
energy cost and inflation will follow. It is not hard math; it is 
common sense.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mrs. BRITT. Madam President, I could not agree more with my 
distinguished colleague from Oklahoma. It is important that we are not 
only energy independent but that we are energy dominant. The truth is 
we do it better, cleaner, and more efficiently than anyone. And we know 
the cost of energy affects everything from whether you are at the gas 
pump to heating and cooling your home to the prices you see at the 
grocery store.
  At the end of the day, the American people are hurting; they are 
hurting under the policies of this administration. We have now seen the 
Vice President as a Presidential candidate say, all of a sudden, she is 
OK with fracking. Today, we saw that her party doesn't stand behind 
her.
  I would like to hear what my distinguished colleague from Utah has to 
say about another opportunity that we have seen in front of us where 
candidate Harris is very different than the woman that we have seen 
serve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

[[Page S6127]]