[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3680-3681]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 ENERGY

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I was hoping to have a little bit more 
time, so I will cover this a little faster than I normally would. It is 
so critical.
  I just got back from the Middle East, and I know the problems that 
are over there. A lot of people are saying the gas prices that are 
going up are a result, partially, of what is happening over there, but 
the real problem is a political problem.
  First of all, let me talk about the commitment this administration 
has to cap and trade. Some people who have been around for a while can 
remember that way back at the Kyoto treaty I kind of led the opposition 
to ratifying that treaty. Later on--for the next 10 years--they tried 
to pass cap-and-trade legislation. Since I chaired the committee of 
jurisdiction at that time, we thought this was not going to work, even 
by the admission of the EPA. If we were to pass something such as this 
in the United States, it wouldn't have any effect on reducing 
greenhouse gases.
  I still say this. Something is happening this morning in the House. 
They are looking at this issue, and we have introduced legislation that 
has said the EPA doesn't have the jurisdiction to regulate greenhouse 
gases. I will get to that in a minute.
  My message is simply that higher gas prices are simply a product of 
this administration's goal. The minority leader, a minute ago, said 
something. He quoted Steven Chu, the Secretary of Energy. He said: 
``Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to 
the levels in Europe.''
  In the United Kingdom, gas is $7.87 per gallon; in Italy, it is 
$7.54; in France, it is $7.50; in Germany, it is $7.41.
  That is what this administration wants to do with gas prices. They 
have a motive for doing that. I cannot stop talking about the cap-and-
trade agenda until we realize how it does affect things. You might 
remember that back during the campaign, President Obama stated in 
2008--when he was running for office--and he has stated it several 
times: ``Under cap and trade, electricity prices would necessarily 
skyrocket.''
  He had it right. The whole point of that is, it would skyrocket if we 
were to pass it. That also has an effect on all forms of energy. The 
House Energy and Power Subcommittee is voting this morning on the 
Energy Tax Prevention Act, which I introduced in the Senate, and it was 
introduced by Congressman Upton in the House. The bottom line of the 
Energy Prevention Act is to make it so EPA doesn't have the 
jurisdiction to do what they could not do legislatively. Starting with 
the Kyoto treaty and all the way up to the following 10 years, they 
tried to pass--in 2003 and 2005 and 2008 and 2009--a similar type of 
cap and trade.
  What is the cost of cap and trade? The cost would be--and this goes 
back to the Kyoto treaty and when we had the estimates from the Wharton 
School and MIT--between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. In 
Oklahoma, that translates to $3,000 a year for each family who files a 
tax return. What do we get for it? By the admission of the Obama EPA 
and Lisa Jackson, in response to a question I asked live on TV--I 
asked: What effect would this have on worldwide emissions of 
CO2? The answer was it would not because that only affects 
the United States. In reality, it could actually increase it, as our 
jobs go overseas, to places such as China and Mexico and other places 
where there are fewer emission controls. So it could have the opposite 
effect.
  Nonetheless, I say this because there are people wandering around out 
there who say we should do something about emissions. Yet I wish to 
make sure they are listening. Even if we did this, it would not have 
any effect. They hope, if we restrict enough supply, the price will 
increase and we can simply shift to what they call green energy.
  I think it is important people understand that the Republican 
position on this is, yes, we want green energy, renewables, but we also 
want coal and natural gas and nuclear and oil. These are the products 
that can run America today. This is what we are doing. Back in 
Oklahoma, there are logical people. They ask: What would it be if they 
don't want oil, gas or coal? How do we run this machine called America? 
The answer is, we can't.
  Let me state this--I don't have the time. It is not just the 
administration or Secretary Chu but others in the administration, such 
as Alan Krueger, Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy, who said: 
``The administration believes that it is no longer sufficient to 
address our Nation's energy needs by finding more fossil fuels.''
  They are antifossil fuels. They admit the tax subsidies are currently 
provided in the oil and gas industry, and they lead to inefficiency by 
encouraging overinvestment in domestic resources in this industry.
  This is critical. This is an administration official, Alan Krueger: 
``The small change in domestic producer costs [which I call a tax 
increase] could cause some production to shift from domestic to foreign 
suppliers.''
  There it is, folks. That means we would have to depend on the Middle 
East--import more of our energy from the Middle East. By the way, I 
think it is important to note the Congressional Research Service--and I 
think we all respect their work--came out with a report, and they 
stated--and nobody has been able to refute this yet--that the United 
States of America now has the largest supply of recoverable reserves in 
gas, oil, and coal. We keep hearing people say it is only 3 percent of 
the amount--we are using 25 percent of the energy and are producing 
just 3 percent.
  That is flatly not true. I think people understand that because they 
use that as proven reserves. You can't prove reserves until you drill. 
We have the political problem that the Democrats don't want us to 
drill. In that case, we have to fall back on the other way of looking 
at it; that is, recoverable reserves. I say this: We are in a position 
right now to have the recoverable reserves. This chart shows these are 
the recoverable reserves we have right now. This is America's true oil 
potential. This is what we could produce. These are the proven reserves 
they talk about. The bottom line is, we have--and this is 
incontrovertible--the world's largest supply of oil, gas, and coal.
  This chart shows the amount of oil, gas, and coal we have is greater 
than that of China, Iran, and Canada--all three put together. This is 
what we

[[Page 3681]]

have here. So people say: Wait a minute. That is a problem. Then why 
are we importing from foreign countries? It is because we have a 
political problem. We have a majority in this Senate and they had a 
majority in the House and the President trying to continue this policy 
of not allowing us to develop our own resources.
  We are the only country in the world that doesn't develop our own 
resources. I do know there are a lot of problems out there. Certainly, 
we have problems in the Middle East. But when I talk to my wife at 
home, the problem is what she is paying for gas. It is not going to get 
any better. How many people went to school and didn't learn about 
supply and demand? We have all the supply we need in America--when we 
add what we get from Mexico and Canada--to be independent from the 
Middle East. They don't let us develop it. Eighty-three percent of our 
Federal lands right now are off limits. It is a political problem.
  I can remember when we had the oilspill down in the gulf, some of the 
far left environmentalists were rejoicing that it happened. They could 
parlay that into not allowing us to drill for our own natural 
resources.
  Finally, last week, the EPA issued its first permit for deepwater 
drilling in the gulf, due to a lot of political pressure being put on 
and the realization that the American people are not dumb. We can 
develop our own resources and resolve this problem we have. If we look 
at what we have right now in reserves, in terms of recoverable reserves 
in oil and in gas, we have enough oil right now to run this country--
this is in recoverable reserves--for 90 years. Again, we have enough 
gas in recoverable reserves to run this country for 90 years. That is 
not including shale. We all know about the great shale deposits in the 
Western part of the United States. That is gigantic compared to what we 
have available to us. We also hear about methane hydrates. The reason I 
don't include shale and methane hydrates is because they are not 
recoverable today. It is not something we use today. If we lifted all 
restrictions, that would not give us, tomorrow, the shale reserves that 
are out there, nor the methane hydrates. What we would be able to do is 
start further developing those.
  Even without them, we can run this country called America for 90 
years on our own oil and gas. Then we go to coal and the significance 
of the oil reserves. Right now, we have 28 percent of the world's coal 
and, in fact, the CRS states America's recoverable coal reserves to be 
262 billion short tons. For perspective, the United States only uses 
$1.2 billion of short tons of coal each year. So what we have is oil, 
gas, and coal.
  The only problem is, we have an administration that, by its own 
admission, wants to kill oil, gas, coal, and fossil fuels. We can't do 
this without a change in the administration or a change in policy. I 
think, as you can see, when the gas prices go up--and all of America 
should listen--all they have to do is remember what this 
administration's position is, and that, as Steven Chu said--as the 
Secretary of Energy told the Wall Street Journal in 2008: ``Somehow we 
have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in 
Europe.''
  This is President Obama's position. If we take this position, we are 
going to have gas prices going up. You can talk around it all you want, 
but supply and demand is very simple. We have the potential supply to 
run this country for the next almost 100 years on just what we have 
developed.
  I know the Senator from Kansas is anxious to make his statement. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Kansas is recognized for 
15 minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak to the 
Senate for up to 25 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________