[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 25272-25279]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       OUR NATION'S ENERGY ISSUE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Drake). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Peterson) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the 
opportunity to share tonight what I believe to be one of the most 
compelling issues facing this country, and it is our energy issue.
  Energy is what makes everything run. It heats our homes. It makes our 
businesses run. It helps us transport ourselves and goods from place to 
place. Energy is a part of everything we do.
  Now, I come from right near Titusville, Pennsylvania, where the first 
oil well was drilled, and nothing has changed the world more than when 
we found petroleum and how it developed our whole Industrial Revolution 
in this country and we became the leaders of the world and how we 
developed our transportation system.
  But today, you know, we hear a lot about the price of oil because it 
is published daily, and we hear a lot about the price of gasoline at 
the pump. And that is important to us. And it has been painful some 
time back when we hit over $3 for gasoline.
  But, folks, when gasoline prices were at $3, they had doubled in the 
5-year period. The real issue facing America is the price of natural 
gas, which has increased 700 percent in the same period of time, 5 
years.
  Why is it a crisis? Well, the impact is we heat our homes. It could 
threaten homeownership. We heat our schools, our hospitals, our YMCAs, 
our YWCAs, our churches, our colleges, our universities, our small 
businesses. Yes, everybody uses natural gas in some way, from cooking 
to baking to heating their homes, running something.
  And we have major industries like steel, aluminum, brass, all our 
metals, that melt steel, that heat it to bend it or shape it. 
Petrochemicals, they use natural gas as a heat. They use natural gas as 
an ingredient. Every chemical that we buy in the grocery store or the 
hardware store is a derivative of natural gas.
  Polymers and plastics, we do not have anything that does not have 
polymers or plastics connected to them. Again, polymers and plastics, a 
major ingredient is natural gas; and of course it is used again and 
again to melt it and to shape it.
  Fertilizer, our farmers have been devastated this year with huge 
increases in fertilizer cost. Nitrogen fertilizer, the one most common, 
70 percent of the cost of fertilizer is natural gas.
  So our farmers have been hit very hard with the energy crisis because 
they have paid a lot more to run their tractors, to cultivate their 
farms. They have paid again to harvest their crops. They have paid with 
natural gas to dry the grains before they put them in storage in the 
big elevators. They have been hit with natural gas every way they turn.
  Why are natural gas prices more harmful than oil prices? Well, when 
we buy $65 oil, as it was a few weeks ago, or 58 or 59 or $60 oil, as 
it is today, that is the world price. And all our competitors, far and 
wide, around the world pay that same price.
  But that is not true of natural gas. When we paid $14 for several 
months, we are down around 12 now, maybe 11, still the highest price in 
the records that have ever been kept, we are alone. We are the only 
country paying that.

[[Page 25273]]

Canada is considerably cheaper. Europe is usually about half of our 
price. Our economic competitors, Japan, Taiwan and China, a third of 
our price. Thinking of giving all those manufacturers and processors 
over there another huge advantage over us economically, not only cheap 
labor, but cheap energy.
  How can our employers compete when energy is a large part of their 
cost? The fact is they cannot. I was today at a celebration of the 
expansion of a lime company that put in new kilns and invested $60 
million in my district. And I asked them, what fuel do you use to fuel 
these kilns to make lime, because you heat it to 2,400 degrees. And 
they said, we use coal. And I said, you can be glad you do. And they 
said, well, we have plants all over the States. We have plants in 
Canada and plants in Mexico. We have natural gas plants. And I said, 
well how are they faring? And they said, well, we are not running 
those. Today's natural gas prices we cannot afford to make lime.
  Folks, the problem we face with the natural gas prices that are going 
to be high for a long time to come, they are going to be devastating to 
homeownership. They are going to be devastating to small business. But 
they are going to force major companies to leave this country, because 
if they want to compete, if they want to make products that are 
saleable, you cannot pay three, four and five times as much.

                              {time}  2145

  In South America natural gas is only $1.60. In Russia it is only 90 
cents. And I named all of our other competitors.
  How did this happen? Well, for decades gas was under $2 and oil was 
around $10. Nothing competes, none of the renewables. None of the new 
initiatives work with those cheap, cheap prices that we had for a long 
time.
  Now, about 10 years ago we changed a major policy in this country. 
Historically, it was against the law to use natural gas to make 
electricity. It was considered not prudent. I think we were right then, 
but that was changed. And so 10 years ago we took away the limitation 
of using natural gas to make electricity, and today one-fourth of our 
electricity is made with natural gas. So huge reserves of natural gas 
now go into making electricity.
  Now, I remember at the same time when that was happening I went to a 
briefing in the Senate and a Daniel Yergin, who wrote the book ``The 
Prize'', a Pulitzer Prize-winning book, he said if we used a lot of 
natural gas to make electricity and we did not open up supply, in a few 
years we would develop a real shortage of natural gas in this country. 
That happened, because I remember the first year that it reached up 
over $3, that was from under $2 gas to over $3. That was a major bump 
in the cost of heating our homes and running our businesses.
  Well, the next year it was up in the high $4s and that again was a 
huge percent increase of natural gas costs, and we all watched and 
learned. The next year, the average price last year, the average price 
for natural gas during the summer months when we fill our storage, in 
the summertime we produce more gas than we can use and we put it in 
huge caverns, many of them in my district in Pennsylvania, and we store 
it for winter usage because we do not produce enough in wintertime.
  Last summer the average price was $5.30. That was the highest price 
we ever paid for summer gas. It was very alarming to those who watched 
that. This year was even worse. We were bouncing along between $7 and 
$8 all summer; and those were waiting for new contracts, waiting for 
the price to come down, it just never happened. Then as we were 
approaching the fall we got up to around $9 gas and sometimes even 
close to $10, and then came Katrina and the other storms and a shortage 
of gas coming out of the gulf, and we hit $14.50. And that was a record 
for gas prices in this country, and it stayed there for some month or 
two and now just recently has edged down into the elevens. But still it 
is way above.
  We were talking this summer that probably sometime this winter, when 
the cold Canadian air comes down into the States, that we could be 
looking at $10 and $11 gas this winter. Well, we are back at $10 and 
$11 gas now and we think that is pretty good compared to $14 a few 
weeks ago, but it is a huge shock to our system. It is not a price 
companies can pass on.
  I have companies in my district that, when it reached $8, they do not 
produce any more because they cannot pass that on. That cost makes it 
prohibitive.
  Now, how did this all happen? What could we do to fix it? Well, we 
have huge reserves in our West and we have huge reserves on our Outer 
Continental Shelf. What is the Outer Continental Shelf? That is our 
shoreline. The States control the first 3 miles of the Outer 
Continental Shelf, and then for the next 197 miles, 200 miles is 
controlled by the Federal Government.
  Historically, most countries in the world produce oil and natural gas 
there. But about 20-some years ago the President of the United States 
put a moratorium. It was supposed to be temporary; it was while we had 
an inventory to see where the best supplies were so we could open up 
with the least environmental damage. So that moratorium carried into 
the Clinton administration, and they just extended it to 2012, and our 
current administration has not dealt with it.
  Well, that has closed up 80 percent of our shoreline with huge 
reserves. Some estimate that it is 400 trillion cubic feet. Others feel 
it is far in excess of that because we have never used the most modern 
seismographic equipment to tell us what is there today, if we did that, 
because Congress has not allowed us to. We have not allowed the Outer 
Continental Shelf to be measured with the modern technology of today to 
tell us how much oil and gas is there, because if we found out there 
was a lot we might go after it, and that would be a terrible thing to 
do.
  Well, I am sorry, but there has never been a natural gas well that 
has ever polluted a shore. I am promoting natural gas production, and I 
will explain my legislation a little later here.
  But we have also not had a major spill from oil production in the 
water since 1969. I do not know how long the industry has to be perfect 
before we can do it there and be trusted.
  In the gulf when we had the series of storms that hit this year, the 
worst ever, a 60-foot wall of water, rigs were destroyed, platforms 
were destroyed, but there were no major spills because the technology 
that we have today works. The wells are locked in at the ocean floor, 
and the gas and oil is held there until we can repair the platforms, 
until we can reconnect those wells and get them back into the system. 
So it is safe technology today.
  Well, how safe is it? How can we be sure? Well, Canada is a very 
environmentally sensitive country. They produce right off the coast of 
Maine and right off the coast of Washington. They actually drill for 
natural gas in our Great Lakes every day and sell the gas to us. Does 
that make sense? I do not think so.
  The United Kingdom, an environmentally sensitive country. They 
produce a lot of their oil and gas both on their Outer Continental 
Shelf. Belgium, Norway, Sweden and Norway, very green countries. Where 
do they produce their energy? On their Outer Continental Shelf. New 
Zealand, Australia produce there every day.
  Our future depends on the price of energy. If we are going to have 
businesses that compete, if we are going to be able to afford home 
ownership, if churches are going to be able to heat their churches this 
winter--I have churches in my district that are talking about not using 
the auditoriums, but using their basements and not heating the rest of 
the church because they will not be able to afford to.
  Most of the churches and schools and small businesses in my district 
had $6 and $7 contracts for natural gas last year. They buy outside the 
controlled system. They buy direct from the producers and they use the 
pipeline that the public system has. And all of them have had a 
doubling, not a 10 percent increase, not a 20 percent increase, but a 
doubling of their gas costs for this year. So if a YMCA spent $12,000 
last a month for natural gas, this year it will cost them $24,000.

[[Page 25274]]

  Most YMCA's, most churches, most small businesses do not have those 
kinds of cash reserves to use to heat their buildings.
  Now, who opposes our production on the OCS? Well, I have to be 
honest. We have a lot of good friends in Florida, and I love them 
dearly. But the Florida delegation and Florida State government has 
been a real obstacle to production on the Outer Continental Shelf. They 
have really been much of the dictation of policy, and for, I believe, 
all the wrong reasons.
  Now, the plan we have is the Peterson-Abercrombie plan. We want to 
remove the moratorium on all of our shoreline for natural gas only. We 
will give the States 20 miles of protection instead of 3. So when you 
get past 12 miles, it is all out of sight; nobody will know it is 
there. The production lines are all underground coming into the shore. 
And it is the best and most sensitive environmental way to produce 
natural gas. And there is no good argument, I have yet to have anyone 
show me an accident in the history of the production of natural gas 
offshore, of a natural gas well ever polluting a beach, ever polluting 
a shoreline, ever causing detrimental damage to fish and aquatic life.
  All the studies have shown that aquatic life and fish life are far 
more prevalent where platforms and drilling rigs have been because they 
like the protection from the hot sun. They congregate there, and the 
fishermen find that that is the best fishing. That has been historic.
  In the gulf when there was talk about not rebuilding some of the 
platforms, the fishermen were saying, Please leave them there. Please 
do not take them out. That is where we catch our fish.
  So it is not detrimental to aquatic life. It is not detrimental to 
clean beaches. It is not a sight problem because you cannot see it; it 
is out of sight. But it is about our home owners. It is about our 
businesses. It is about our employers, our churches, our Ys, our 
schools. There has never been a natural gas well that has polluted a 
beach or shoreline.
  Someone said in a debate the other day that there was no sense in 
doing this, that it would take 7 to 10 years for production. That is 
not true. It would take several years for production.
  Now Tract 181 in the gulf, I think it is a tragedy that it has not 
been leased. It was scheduled to be leased during the Clinton 
administration. And here we are 6 years later and Tract 181 has never 
produced. Now Tract 181 is about 200 miles from the Florida coast. It 
lies mostly under Mississippi and Alabama. It only gets near to Florida 
along the panhandle of Florida. And I am told now they will cut the 
corner off, so it is more than 100 miles from Florida, which really 
Florida should have never had any jurisdiction or should never have 
been able to stop the use and leasing of Tract 181.
  Tract 181 is the best known reserve we have. It is millions of acres, 
right beside where we produce in the gulf today. And every well that 
was drilled would automatically be hooked into the system, gas or oil, 
and we could help our supply problem.
  Now, I do not believe we can drill our way out of the oil problem in 
this country. I think we ought to be diverting from the use of oil 
everywhere we can. But natural gas is really the almost perfect fuel. 
There is no pollution to natural gas. It burns the cleanest of any 
fuel. Even CO2, you have one fourth of the CO2 
that you have with other fuels. It is almost the perfect fuel.
  Now, I do not particularly think we should be using a fourth of our 
natural gas for electric generation, but that is a debate for another 
day, but we have to open up our supply so prices moderate. What could 
that do for us?
  Natural gas could be very much a part of our transportation system. 
We have a bus system in my district, State College, that uses all 
natural gas for their bus system. There are bus systems in California 
that are all natural gas. Today those systems are paying a premium. 
Historically, natural gas was less expensive than gasoline, but today 
it is more expensive.
  Now, in the cities, if you used natural gas, and a gasoline engine 
can be easily converted. This is not some expensive technology. All our 
short-haul delivery trucks, all our taxi cabs, all of school buses, all 
our construction vehicles, they do not have to go long distances, could 
be running on natural gas, saving the need to build refineries, saving 
the need to import more oil, and in the cities, helping them get 
attainment for the clean air mandates.
  Natural gas should be the bridge to our future, not the wall that it 
is today because of prices no one can afford. Natural gas is almost our 
clean, perfect fuel, and we need to be using it wisely. We need to be 
producing it, though, in quantities that are affordable. It really is a 
part of almost everything we create from fertilizers to all the 
chemicals, even face creams.
  Now I do not think the average woman when she puts on make-up or any 
of us who use skin softeners think we are using natural gas, but we 
are. Those are all made from a derivative of natural gas. It is just so 
much a part of our lives. It is almost hard to explain an item that we 
get out of the ground, gas, with all of these qualities that have such 
a part of our industries.
  Now, when these prices increase 700 percent, companies who use huge 
amounts of that just cannot exist. As I said earlier, the lime 
companies told me they were not running their plants that are on 
natural gas. They could not afford to sell the lime if they did that.
  So just think of a steel company. I spoke this spring at a breakfast 
of steel makers, and I gave them my natural gas speech, and a gentleman 
sitting at my table was quite alarmed. He said, I cannot believe what 
you just told me. And I said, Why? And he said, I used $10 million of 
natural gas last year to melt steel.

                              {time}  2200

  I never knew, I thought there was a little price differential, but I 
never knew there was this huge differential, that my steel companies in 
neighboring countries could buy natural gas so much cheaper and have 
such an economic advantage on me in making steel.
  Folks, if we are going to have steel-making in this country, if we 
are going to make aluminum in this country and petrochemicals and 
fertilizer, and these are some of the best jobs we have left, they are 
all huge energy consumers. They all use huge amounts of natural gas.
  If our seniors, who are approaching their years and want to live in 
their homes, they are going to use a lot of natural gas to heat them, 
to heat their water and cook with. The current prices of natural gas 
are going to prevent homeownership. We are going to have a lot of 
people shut off this winter who could not afford to pay their gas 
bills, and they will be terminated. We can even actually have people 
freeze to death in our cities where people do not know they are there 
and do not know that they are having the problem.
  So I just find it an argument that I have been making for some time 
here in Congress, and I guess I have been so shocked and surprised that 
we have not been successful yet at opening up the Outer Continental 
Shelf and opening up the production in the Midwest.
  The Outer Continental Shelf, I think this is the most advantageous 
thing to do because the Outer Continental Shelf lies near the 
population. The bulk of the population in this country is along the 
shorelines; and so when you produce gas along the shorelines, you are 
going to have it near where the people are. One of our problems of 
Midwest gas is getting it to the market needs.
  We are told this winter that Wisconsin and Minnesota and Michigan, 
those areas are going to pay considerably more for natural gas than the 
Northeast because they are supplied out of the gulf more than the 
Northeast is. So with the gulf having so much of their gas still shut 
in from the storms, there is going to be a shortage in their pipeline 
system because these systems are not all connected.
  I want to share with you what the Associated Industries of Florida 
said, and then I am going to call on my

[[Page 25275]]

friend from New Mexico who has just joined us, but while we have had 
all this opposition from the government of Florida, we also have the 
Associated Industries of Florida wrote a letter to our Minerals 
Management Service saying:
  ``We appreciate that MMS is going to review all of the current OCS 
areas, including the areas that have until now been off limits due to 
the moratoria, which include the Atlantic, Pacific and Eastern Gulf of 
Mexico regions. Research documents that these areas hold substantial 
undiscovered but technically recoverable energy resources that will be 
absolutely critical to America's national security and to the continued 
growth of our economy and to securing jobs for virtually every sector 
of our economy.''
  They go on to say later in the letter: ``If America doesn't look to 
expanding exploration and drilling in these OCSs, then America will 
unnecessarily pay a high price and incur a heavy burden. The U.S. 
Energy Information Administration forecasts that by 2025 petroleum 
demand will increase by 39 percent and natural gas demand will increase 
by 34 percent. Higher energy prices have exacted a toll on our economy 
by slowing our growth from between .5 to 1 percent based on pre-
hurricane prices. Farmers have paid $6 billion more for energy in the 
last 2 years. Natural gas costs for the chemical industry in America 
have increased by $10 billion since 2003! Of 120 chemical plants,'' 
this is an alarming figure, ``being built around the world with price 
tags of $1 billion or more, only one is being built in the U.S.
  ``As a result, Associated Industries of Florida,'' this is 10,000 
business people, ``recommends to the MMS that expanded lease sales are 
important to our country, to our citizens, and to our way of life. To 
not utilize all of our available energy resources, when it can be 
accomplished in an environmentally sensitive way, would be a disservice 
to our country. We need to ensure that we have a brighter future by 
adopting an expansive OCS leasing program.''
  I am pleased to be joined by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Pearce) who understands this issue maybe even better than I, and I 
yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Peterson) for bringing this important issue to the floor of the 
House.
  I understand the issue. My father worked in the oil fields. My father 
actually began life as a sharecropper in west Texas, and I was born in 
1947. There was a drought in 1947 and 1948, and my father was a 
sharecropper on dry-land farming, which is peculiar to that particular 
area; and with no rain, literally they went broke. Mom and Dad picked 
up the three kids they had at that point, eased across the New Mexico 
line to where we had the oil fields. Actually, it is the Permian Basin 
that is there in west Texas and eastern New Mexico, and this is where 
Dad raised six children.
  I was able to get a college education. My brother was the first to 
get a college education, but all these things came because my father 
was working there. He was just a worker in the oil industry, and from 
my earliest days I have watched the oil industry drill in and out of 
the cycles of high and low prices. Frankly, I do not think that we have 
enough capacity, not enough oil wells really to drill in the United 
States right now to lower the price of oil that is at a historic high 
of about $70; but as the gentleman has pointed out adequately time and 
time again, the natural gas price is an internal price to the United 
States.
  Natural gas does not move back and forth between markets, and it is 
possible for us to drill enough to begin to lower that price of gas. 
That is why what we are going to see this winter is we are going to see 
our seniors on fixed incomes and low-income families paying an 
extraordinarily high price for their natural gas.
  Many people, and especially our friends on the other side of the 
aisle in this body, are pointing to the industry and saying they are 
price gouging. The truth is that it is a market price set by our 
policies for the last 20 or 30 years. Even today, the Governor of the 
State of New Mexico has brought suit to stop drilling for natural gas 
in New Mexico, and New Mexico is one of the largest producers of 
natural gas.
  You have people who claim to have good intentions; but at the bottom, 
they are obstructing the drilling of these wells which would help us to 
lower the price. The price of natural gas is simply an economic outcome 
of an increasing demand.
  The U.S. Government is requiring that we convert electrical producing 
plants, our utility plants that create electricity. They are converting 
those at the direction of the U.S. Government from coal to natural gas. 
That has increased the demand. On the other side, we have not increased 
the supply. So you have a demand and supply imbalance which creates a 
higher price.
  If the people who are bringing suit to stop the production of gas 
wells and the permitting of gas wells on public lands, if they were to 
drop those objections, we would begin to see more economic activity, 
more drilling of wells. That would increase the supply, the balance 
would come back, and the price would begin to moderate.
  But for some reason, we have people in this country who are willing 
to obstruct, even at the risk of losing major industries; and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), my friend, has pointed out 
well that the chemical industries are among the first who feel this 
because they use a very large amount of natural gas in the production 
of their products.
  One of the other industries that experiences the great pressure that 
comes from the high natural gas price is farming and also the 
production of fertilizer.
  Our economy and our way of life in this country has two basic 
parameters that it depends on. Our way of life depends on two different 
things in our lives, that is, an affordable food supply and an 
affordable energy price. Affordable energy is the bedrock of many of 
our industries. Our economy is fueled by affordable energy, and so 
right now we have prices that are above $14. The price is up and down, 
but historically our economy and our way of life is built on $2 gas, 
and now it is $14. You just cannot experience those kinds of increases 
without experiencing the economic pressures that come along with it.
  We are going to find it both in the lowering of our economic base and 
status in the country, and also in our personal lives. So there is a 
twofold threat, but I will tell you that the second way we are going to 
find it is in increasing food costs. I was just talking to farmers in 
our area this past weekend, and they are telling me that they are 
getting three and four bales of cotton per acre; and yet because of the 
irrigating cost, the price is just the same. The net profit is the same 
as what they had experienced before.
  Now, exactly the same thing is happening with our food crops, and we 
are going to see the cost of food on the shelves begin to increase. So 
we are going to have a double effect on our families and especially 
those families with limited income; and still we have people, our 
friends on the other side of the aisle in this institution, who are 
willing to obstruct and say, no, you cannot drill here. You cannot 
drill in my backyard. You cannot drill off the Outer Continental Shelf. 
You cannot drill in ANWR. You cannot drill in Alaska.
  I am sorry, but when do we begin to recognize that we are paying the 
price for that obstructionist policy that they are willing to engage 
in? It is time for us to have some common sense and to recognize that 
the technology of drilling oil wells has changed tremendously in the 
past 30 years. These arguments that are directed at an industry that 
existed 30 years ago have been bypassed, and yet they still hold the 
arguments in place.
  We are able at this time in our history to drill one single well bore 
and come down to, say, 10,000 feet; and we can turn the bit and start 
moving sideways laterally and achieve drilling into areas that 
previously we could not do.
  When we begin to understand the new technologies, we begin to see 
that

[[Page 25276]]

many of the complaints are dated into the past, and so we are paying a 
higher price of gas at the pump. We are paying more to heat our homes. 
We are at risk of losing industry, and we are going to pay more for our 
food because we have got people who are responding to the past 
practices.
  In Alaska, many times we have the observation that we cannot drill 
there because it will destroy the tundra. What we are doing in Alaska 
now is we build ice roads. We build those ice roads in the wintertime. 
We drill in the wintertime; and when spring comes, the ice thaws, the 
roads are gone, and all we have is the one pipe sticking up out of the 
ground.
  Actually, when people talk about the way that drilling is going to 
affect the wildlife, we find that the herd there is now five times 
larger than when we first laid that first Alaska pipeline from Alaska 
down to the southern 48. The objections are running the risk of 
destroying the economic base of this country.
  Right now we have people that are willing to come across the oceans 
to get to this country at any price because of the hope and the 
opportunity that exists here that does not exist in many other nations 
in the world. Here we have a group of people that are willing to 
obstruct and break that promise of hope and opportunity that draws 
people from around the world, that hope and opportunity that gives your 
children and my children, that gives your grandchildren and my 
grandchildren some promise for the future, and other things that cannot 
be explained. We are running the risk of giving that up.
  I see the gentleman has other comments. At closing time, I would have 
other comments, but I really appreciate the gentleman bringing this 
important conversation before the body tonight.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, there are a couple of 
issues maybe we can both talk on.
  You talked about fertilizer and the cost to farmers. I know those 
prices have doubled a couple of years in a row, and it has been a huge, 
huge cost to farmers.
  Forty-four percent of our fertilizer industry has left this country 
in the last 3 years because of natural gas prices; and if we do not 
deal with them, they will all leave. Our farmers will be using Russian 
or South American fertilizer, and this is a tragedy because a lot of 
people have been employed in this country in the fertilizer business. 
They make money making the fertilizer, storing the fertilizer, then 
hauling it to the distribution centers and to our farmers.
  The question I wanted to ask you is, today, we are drilling in old, 
tired fields that we have been producing out of for years. They are 
drilling deeper; and like I said, they are drilling horizontally trying 
to get more gas. We are drilling more than twice as many wells as we 
historically did.
  If your problem is putting a hole in the ground, that is going on in 
spades today; but we are not getting more gas. We are getting the same 
amount of gas that we were getting before when we were drilling half as 
many wells.
  If we were in fertile, productive fields, we could probably drill a 
lot less holes in the ground, am I wrong there, and have a lot greater 
production of gas because we would be in new, fertile fields where the 
gas pressure is high and we would get great production.
  Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, the 
gentleman is exactly correct. Let me use some numbers to tell you about 
the way the situation exists.
  Today, we use about 22 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year. The 
estimates are that by 2025 that we are going to need 30 trillion cubic 
feet.

                              {time}  2215

  Now, we are able to have a supply that just about equals that annual 
consumption, but we do not have any large pockets. And, in truth, the 
amount of wells, the numbers of new leases have declined significantly 
in the past 7 or 8 years. So we really do need access to the dramatic 
deposits, and the Outer Continental Shelf. Keeping in mind that we use 
22 trillion cubic feet, the Outer Continental Shelf has about 400 
trillion cubic feet, the most dramatic source of natural gas that is 
available.
  I know that when my father worked for Humboldt back in the 1960s and 
1970s, they were saying that oil in our particular town, and gas, would 
be gone by 1980. That seemed to be so far out in the future. And then 
the 1980s came and went; we were seeing those declines the gentleman 
was talking about.
  But in truth we are finding new stimulation techniques. But the 
stimulation techniques cannot keep up with the increasing demand. What 
we need is access to more sites with more gas. And it has been a 
disappointment that the regulatory agency that is in charge of this, 
the Department of the Interior, has not found ways to really encourage 
those leases.
  Right now, I do not think that the Department of the Interior 
requires any particular office to describe the amount of natural gas or 
oil that they produce. Now, that is curious because our entire economy 
is based on these things, and we do not even measure them. So I have 
made suggestions, and we still hope that they will be listened to, that 
we begin to hold these field offices of the Bureau of Land Management, 
the BLM offices, accountable for the amount of contribution they make 
to the national energy plan, the amount of contribution of oil and gas 
reserves they have available and that they are actually producing, and 
the number of wells where they are finding good, safe environmental 
ways to drill.
  Instead, what we are finding is that for a 3-month period we shut 
down all drilling because we have some prairie chicken that they say 
breeds in that season and the sound of the rotary rigs might interrupt 
the breeding process. Now, that is not what I know to be true about the 
typical breeding process. The sound of nothing tends to interrupt that, 
but maybe the male prairie chicken is particularly sensitive. But in 
truth we are finding reasons to justify actions that are tied to the 
past, and our entire economic future is at stake.
  I yield back to the gentleman if he has other observations.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Well, the thing I have found, and I was 
at dinner tonight with some friends, some scientists, and they were 
stunned to know about the difference in prices. Everybody thinks that 
oil and natural gas is a world price, and I have to explain that to 
most people. When I explain this issue in my district, I just do not 
have people opposed to the production of natural gas on the Outer 
Continental Shelf because they know that we desperately need it to heat 
our homes, to run our businesses and to make products.
  It is such an integral part, and it is the clean fuel; as I said, it 
is almost the perfect fuel. If we could produce enough natural gas that 
the price was more affordable, maybe a little less than gasoline and 
fuel oil costs, it could be the bridge to the future. It could relieve 
the need for building more refineries, which will take years. It can 
relieve our need to increase our dependence on foreign oil from 
unstable parts of the world.
  Now, there are those who think liquefied natural gas is the way to 
go, and I do not really want to get into that discussion tonight, I 
think it can be helpful, but many are pinpointing our whole future. 
That means we build the most expensive ships, we build very 
controversial ports to bring the gas back, because you chill it, you 
put it in ships, bring it back here, regasify it and put it in these 
ports; and many people look at those in a very negative fashion, plus 
it is very costly.
  But I am even more concerned about where we get it. We get it from 
countries like Algeria, Nigeria, Libya, and Russia. Do we want to be 
further energy dependent on Third World countries that are unfriendly, 
with unstable governments, when we have such an ample supply here? 
There are many who feel that the Outer Continental Shelf has more than 
twice as much gas as the gentleman mentioned, 400 trillion cubic feet, 
but one of the reasons we do not know is we have not really measured 
it. The law has prevented us

[[Page 25277]]

from having modern seismographic measurements of what is on the Outer 
Continental Shelf for either gas or oil.
  I want to share something I have here. Osram Sylvania has three 
plants in my district and 14 plants in the Northeast, and here is what 
they said in a letter that I received from them, dated October 26: ``In 
the past 5 years, we have seen natural gas prices escalate from $3 per 
Mcf to well over $10 on the spot market. As compared to natural gas 
costs in 2000, our bills in 2005 will be $24 million higher. In fact, 
for 2004 to 2005 alone, gas costs for us have escalated by $7 million. 
This is the single largest rate of increase in any of our costs of 
production. At current supply levels, we expect to see gas prices 
exceed $12 per Mcf in '06 and '07,'' I think that will happen this 
winter, not next winter, ``which will add another $7 million to our 
energy bills. Accordingly, since 2000, the rate of annual increase will 
exceed 25 percent.'' That means their cost of gas went up 25 percent a 
year.
  Here is the important part. ``Furthermore, while the vast majority of 
our production is based in the United States,'' that means they are 
making their products, and part of these are light bulbs, they are all, 
almost all, made in the United States, ``nearly 60 percent of our 
competitors' products are manufactured outside of the United States, 
some in Europe, where natural gas costs are less than $5 per Mcf, and 
Asia, particularly China, where gas is less than $4 per Mcf. By 2007, 
competitive disadvantage will be over $20 million on top of the wage 
gap versus China, which is already overwhelming.
  We are deeply concerned that if natural gas prices continue to 
skyrocket, our competitiveness will erode, having unhappy consequences 
for a U.S.-based manufacturing strategy.
  While some people may argue that passing the cost on to consumers is 
the remedy, price increases in the lamp market, with so many global 
competitors, it is an impossibility. Price increases to consumers to 
cover natural gas cost increases should be unnecessary as long as a 
timely, viable natural gas strategy is implemented. Globally 
competitive energy costs, especially natural gas, are a necessity to 
maintain our financial vitality and keep good paying and suitable jobs 
in the United States.
  We agree with you that coastal offshore drilling for new natural gas 
supplies carried out in a responsible and expeditious manner is the 
most important priority in new energy legislation that should be taken 
up and enacted by Congress before the end of 2005.''
  Would the gentleman from New Mexico have any examples he could share?
  Mr. PEARCE. There is one thing I would like to go back and touch on a 
bit, Madam Speaker.
  The gentleman pointed out adequately some of the objections to LNG, 
but the main objection that people unfamiliar with LNG are going to 
eventually raise, and I have LNG in the district, so I know what it 
takes to deliver LNG to a house. You put in a 500-gallon tank. This is 
just a steel tank, and you put it in either the back or the front yard. 
You have a truck come up and you offload that high pressure gas into 
these 500-gallon or 1,000-gallon tanks.
  Now, people try to hide the fact that they have an air-conditioning 
unit outside their house. They put landscaping around it, or they will 
berm up around it, or they will put bricks around it to where it looks 
like a piece of the house. But a 500-gallon or a 1,000-gallon tank is 
really going to be hard to plant a hedge around. And if you do that, 
you always have to have it serviced. If it runs out, it is like the gas 
in your car, when it runs out, then you no longer heat your house until 
you get that truck to come back out again.
  I remember spending winters in Arkansas. I was stationed at the Air 
Force Base there at Blytheville Air Force Base. I flew in Vietnam 
during the Vietnam War. But there in Blytheville, I had one of those 
500-gallon tanks out by my house. And the one time we had like 20 
straight days of ice storms, many people in that area were running out 
of gas and the trucks could not get there.
  Now, this is not the sort of dependable, affordable delivery 
mechanism that Americans are used to. They are used to natural gas that 
comes through the house in lines they do not see. They turn on the tap 
and the furnace is always running, day and night. It runs off a 
thermostat. So life will be significantly different if we decide that 
LNG is our solution to our natural gas problem.
  Again, many, many things are causing the price of natural gas to go 
up, but one of the things is the bureaucratic delay and restrictions to 
the approval of drilling new wells. When leases with access into known 
and proven reserves, and these are not leases that are in pristine 
areas where there has never been drilling before, these are leases in 
areas that have been drilled before. So there is no real objection 
that, listen, we are contaminating a new environment in a sensitive 
area. It is just that the agencies either have been directed or, for 
whatever reason, come up with reasons to delay, terminate or reduce 
access to the Federal lands that are available. This is all occurring 
during a time when we are seeing this skyrocketing price of natural 
gas, which is threatening the livelihood and the way we live our lives. 
So those elements are some that we need to be aware of.
  I would mention to my colleague that during the last 4-year average 
period we have seen a decrease of almost 30 percent of our ability to 
drill on public lands and Federal lands from the previous 8-year 
average. So we really do have some bureaucratic restrictions that are 
creating bottlenecks in the approval process to where we can go on and 
put a nice clean hole in the ground that goes down and taps into this 
gas reservoir.
  Gas wells are typically very clean producing. They do not have a pump 
jack that stands there and pumps up and down. They just have the center 
pipe coming out of the ground and then a series of valves on that, and 
then it goes straight to the pipeline. Usually it has to be refined in 
some small amount before it goes on to the consumer, but it is a safe, 
easy delivery mechanism. And why we have people who are willing to 
obstruct that has always been beyond me.
  I am not exactly certain how much time we have remaining, so I will 
yield back to the gentleman and will get a couple more thoughts ready.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, as someone who has been 
in the business, the gentleman can speak to this, but I often describe 
a gas well as a 6-inch hole drilled in the ground. A steel pipe is 
placed in that hole, it is cemented at the bottom, it is cemented at 
the top, and then we hook it to a pipeline system and we let gas out. 
Is that a fair description?
  Mr. PEARCE. It is. And people a lot of times unfamiliar with it will 
say, well, does that not contaminate the water? Well, in southeast New 
Mexico, where I live, we get our water from the Ogallala aquifer that 
lies underneath five different States. The process has a way of running 
pipe through those zones with water so that we never do get drilling 
fluids out into the water. We do not get the fresh water back into the 
well.
  We usually have three concentric series of pipes at the surface down 
to about 800 feet. We have very large, sometimes 13\1/2\ or 13\1/8\, 
that size of casing, that will go down to about 800 feet, then another 
string maybe down to 1,500 or 2,000 feet. And, finally, we have the 6-
inch string the gentleman is talking about that runs on to the total 
depth of the well. We then go in and put cement outside of that pipe.
  The particular company that I owned really was charged with going in 
and repairing those strings of pipe as holes got in them or as problems 
came along. The science in the industry has come a long ways in the 
many years since my father was in the business, and I can remember 
growing up when there were environmental problems.

                              {time}  2230

  But I will tell you, most of the young people working in those 
companies now are as environmentally sensitive as anyone you know. They 
take care because none of us want to contaminate the water for our 
children, and we do

[[Page 25278]]

not want to contaminate the surface of the soil for our children. So 
they have used the large companies' budgets to do research and 
development, provide new technologies, new abilities, new safety 
processes. Those things should be considered when we are dealing with 
the ability of our people to make payments for their energy even in 
today's market.
  I just hope that the Nation is listening as you present your 
comments. I know you have been tireless in supporting these causes. I 
would like to mention that your amendment that you presented during the 
energy bill hearing had five or six very common-sense modifications to 
the Endangered Species Act. It is not going to hurt the recovery of any 
single species; but what it did, it untied the bureaucracy, untied the 
hands of the bureaucracy to where we can get just a little bit of 
common-sense adjustments for some of the approval processes for 
drilling.
  In my visits back to the State since then, people are extremely 
complimentary about the amendment you got added into the bill. It is 
time to take another step. Let us look at the factors, let us look at 
those policy decisions for the last 30 years that have caused these 
situations to exist.
  I will tell you that we cannot cure the problem before this winter. 
For those people who are saying we are going to do something before the 
wintertime, it is not possible. We have dismantled the drilling 
industry to the point that back in the 1970s and 1980s, we had over 
4,000 rigs running. Today we have 1,200 and they are all working, but 
we cannot give up three-quarters of our industry's capacity and respond 
the way we should be responding.
  But if we will take corrective steps and make common-sense judgments 
that the gentleman is presenting, I know by next year we can begin to 
moderate this price that has been created by our own decisions, the 
decisions of the government to not pursue those current supplies of 
energy that could help modify the prices.
  The energy bill we passed this summer has good long-term incentives 
for renewables. There are six or seven kinds of renewables in that 
bill. There is biomass, nuclear, geothermal, there is solar, there is 
wind, there is hydrogen. All of those have great stimulations, but they 
are not market oriented right now. You cannot go out and fill your car. 
And if you had a hydrogen fuel cell car, you cannot get it serviced. If 
you had solar power in your home, there is no one to work on it. My 
brother has been in the solar industry in Denver for over 20 years. He 
still teaches school and does a solar business together because he 
cannot make a living just on the solar business alone.
  We must recognize that if we are to modify and moderate the cost to 
our consumers, we have to have a long-term strategy of conversion to 
different supply sources, but in the meantime we must be doing 
something to lower the price of gasoline at the pump and lower the 
price of natural gas into our homes.
  The gentleman is exactly correct in what he is proposing. I would 
encourage us as a body to really move forward on the suggestions that I 
know he has presented. A bipartisan group, Members from both sides of 
the aisle, recently introduced that bill that would allow us to begin 
to expand our drilling into the areas with the greatest promise. I 
think that is extremely important for us to step up to the plate, take 
responsibility for our past, and take control of our future.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, the point I want to make 
tonight, and we were debating this issue on the Interior bill, sooner 
or later we will open up the Midwest and improve the permitting 
process. We are having a hearing on natural gas on Wednesday. I would 
like the gentleman to come and be my adviser. We will have the Energy 
and Interior Departments there, and we will be there all morning 
dealing with the natural gas issue.
  If we do not deal with this issue, and the gentleman said it best, we 
will sooner or later. If we deal with it now, we will maintain the 
fertilizer business in this country. We will maintain the 
petrochemical, polymers and plastics, steel and aluminum and brass. All 
of those businesses, I have talked to their CEOs and associations. They 
have spoken for the last couple of years, but Congress and this 
administration have had a deaf ear. They cannot compete having natural 
gas prices twice that of Europe, three times that of Taiwan, China and 
Japan, five times that of South America, and 10 times that of Russia 
and be competitive. There is just no way they can make those products 
in the United States.
  We will be saying good-bye to several million jobs in this country 
that are the backbone of the blue collar workers in this country who 
have a good job that pays benefits, they can afford a home, afford a 
new vehicle, and send their kids on to college and have the American 
Dream. We are going to say good-bye to those.
  Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, there are people that are amazed that we 
can make the assertion that we are going to lose an industry. They do 
not think it is possible. I would simply refer them to the timber 
industry. In the timber industry, we used to have 22 saw mills in my 
district. New Mexico had 22. Now we have two. Both of those remain in 
my district, and they are struggling to say alive.
  In one forest alone, we are growing 50 million board feet of timber a 
year, and yet we cannot get the Forest Service to cut 12 million board 
feet. That would be enough to economically keep that mill running. We 
have given up the entire infrastructure of that industry, and we are in 
the process of giving up the entire infrastructure of our chemical 
industry and our potash industry. These are good jobs that are being 
outsourced, not outsourced because of greedy CEOs, but outsourced 
because of the policies of obstruction that many in this country are 
willing to push, and some of our friends on the other side of the 
aisle.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, too many of our urban 
Members do not understand that timber is one of the most renewable 
resources. I come from the hardwood forest of Pennsylvania, one of the 
best timber areas in the country; and I also come from an original oil 
well and some of the early gas wells, but we do not compare to the 
southern production in energy.
  I want to share a release put out by Dow Chemical. Mr. Liveris, the 
CEO, noted that the domestic price of natural gas, which was 
approximately $2 per million Btu 6 years ago, exceeded $6 in February 
of this year, increased to $10 in the days just prior to Hurricane 
Katrina, and then jumped to $12 immediately after the hurricane struck 
the gulf coast.
  We all know when the first Canadian air comes south and goes all of 
the way down the coast and jacks up the use of natural gas, and the 
prices always spike, they will go even higher. When he wrote this, the 
price of natural gas was $14, which is equivalent to $7 per gallon for 
gasoline and $28 per gallon for milk. He noted that this renders the 
United States chemical industry, which uses natural gas as a fuel and a 
raw material, simply uncompetitive with the rest of the world. It does 
the same to aluminum, it does the same to brass, it does the same to 
steel, it does the same to polymers, plastics and fertilizers. Those 
industries will leave our shores. Several million Americans will not 
have a decent job, and a lot of them will not have money to take their 
vacation on our beautiful coastlines.
  Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, we had an opportunity to be in the 
Resources Committee when we had testimony from the union workers in the 
pulp wood industry and the timber industry in the Northeast. They were 
there saying that well-meaning individuals told them they could get 
jobs in tourism. That is what the answer is from the people who would 
obstruct good solid industries: you can get a job in the tourism 
industry. Those good workers came before the committee and said we want 
our jobs, the ones we grew up with and understand. They are good, clean 
jobs. The trees grow back, they are renewable; and yet there is a deaf 
ear by many in this country to the plight of working Americans.

[[Page 25279]]

  I hope that the gentleman's efforts are successful because our 
future, our economic future in this Nation depends on good policies 
coming from this body, good choices coming from this body; and I would 
encourage the gentleman to continue his efforts to have common sense 
prevail and have us drill for natural gas in the continental U.S. and 
off the Continental Shelf.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I close with the 
following statement: what this Congress does in opening up production 
of natural gas and bringing the price down, allowing our industries to 
compete and our seniors to heat their homes will depend on whether we 
remain a leader Nation or become an also-ran Nation. Natural gas is the 
clean fuel that I think really sets our future, and what we do about it 
depends on what kind of country we are.

                          ____________________