[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3333-3337]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         NATURAL GAS IN AMERICA

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his 
leadership on an amendment to the Transportation bill, the Menendez-
Reid-Burr amendment. For short title purposes, it is called the NAT GAS 
bill. This is not a new bill. It is not a difficult bill to understand. 
It is a game changer as it relates to our energy policy in this country 
and, more importantly, the economic security of our country.
  I wish to take these 40 minutes to walk through the bill. But before 
I do that, it is essential to say to my colleagues and to their staffs 
and to the American people: If for some reason you believe that in the 
next 18 months in America we are going to have massive tax reform--
lower rates, no deductions, no credits, no subsidies--then I want you 
to do me a favor. Turn off your TV. Leave the gallery. I will never 
convince you this is the right move. In fact, if I believed we were 
going to do comprehensive tax reform, I would not be on this floor. I 
would not be offering this amendment. But the truth is, there is nobody 
in America who believes that is going to happen.
  Let me say this to all of my colleagues, their staffs, and to the 
American people: If you believe some miraculous thing is going to 
happen and there is going to be peace in the Middle East--no civil 
wars, no nuclear advancements, no threats--then turn off your TV. Leave 
the gallery. I will never convince you nor would I be here today if I 
thought that was going to happen.
  The truth is that as policymakers we are charged with doing things 
based upon the landscape and the framework we have in front of us. 
Today, in the absence of this body acting--the Congress of the United 
States--the American people will get exactly what they

[[Page 3334]]

have gotten: escalation of energy costs; that is, to fill their cars, 
to fill their trucks, to heat their houses. It is felt through the 
increased costs of the businesses for which they work. This is about 
personal security. This is about the livelihood of every American.
  Let me just say now, if you are still with me--if you haven't turned 
off the tube or left the gallery--the single most important reason we 
should do this is our national security. Our national security is vital 
to this country.
  Let me just stop and pose a question to my colleagues: Who controls 
today our access to and our cost of energy? It is not us. In many cases 
it is people around the world who don't even like us who control 
whether we are going to have access to oil or what the cost is going to 
be. Today 70 percent of our oil is imported. So we have 30 percent that 
we have some ability to control and to access, but for 70 percent of it 
we are at the whims of other people. We are at the whims of the market. 
They don't like us, and they don't care what we pay. And, I might say, 
many of those countries use the dollars we send them to fund 
terrorism--to fund the very people we run into on the battlefield in 
Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world. They aren't concerned with our 
economy. They aren't concerned with the future of our country or the 
future of our children. It is not a very comforting situation to rely 
on for our energy, especially with 70 percent reliance on what they 
have.
  Let me suggest this requires U.S. dollars to be spent and U.S. lives 
to be put on the line to make sure that day in and day out this country 
has access to that 70 percent reliance on black gold. Look at the gulf: 
ships, sailors, marines, aircraft, all in the gulf to make sure 
somebody doesn't shut down the Strait of Hormuz; to make sure we have 
access to that oil. It certainly doesn't cap what we pay at the pump or 
the taxes we pay to assure that when we need it, it is going to be 
there.
  Some claim speculators are the whole problem with the oil industry. I 
will admit I think around the edges--a couple of cents a gallon--it is 
speculation; futures traders probably do have a little bit of impact. 
But it is not significant, and speculators don't control our access to 
it. Our reliance on foreign oil is what judges whether we have access 
to it or not. We must admit our access today is a national security 
threat.
  No. 2: Economic security. The Presiding Officer and I know a word 
that is called LIHEAP, which is the low-income heating program for 
seniors across this country and for individuals who can't afford home 
heating oil. We will spend $5.1 billion this year to subsidize home 
heating fuel. This entire NAT GAS bill--which is a game changer 
relative to the cost of not just home heating fuel but diesel and 
gasoline--costs a little over $3 billion, and the taxpayers aren't on 
the hook for one penny of it. I will get to that a little bit later.
  The U.S. economy is starting to recover. We have seen signs not in 
every community and not in every sector of our economy, but we see 
signs that it is moving in the right direction. But there is one common 
thread that all economists agree on: If energy costs go up, we stand 
the chance of cutting off that recovery. We stand the chance of 
freezing or increasing unemployment at above the rates they are today. 
How quickly we recover, how quickly Americans are hired, how quickly 
unemployment goes down, how this affects our balance of trade--we 
haven't even talked about the individual family budget.
  Think of what a typical family is faced with today--the cost on a 
weekly basis to fill up that vehicle. Many families have accepted jobs 
not close to where they live but where jobs are available. They drive 
from one community to another. Some drive from one State to another 
because that is where the job is. We have had no increase in wages, we 
all know that, but we have seen food prices and gas prices and energy 
prices go up. Here is an opportunity for us to have a real impact on 
the family budget in America without charging the American people one 
penny to have us do it.
  In my opinion, we should have started new exploration decades ago. 
Had we explored for oil and natural gas--onshore, offshore--had we 
built pipelines, we might not have this problem right now. For those 
who say we shouldn't do it now because it will be 10 years down the 
road before we feel the effects, we had this same debate 10 years ago, 
and we had it 18 years ago when I got to the House of Representatives. 
Today we are still talking about the same thing. The only thing that 
has changed is the price of energy in America.
  I believe we ought to focus on America and North America, and we 
ought to tap those resources in a safe and environmentally friendly 
way, which is, in fact, where technology allows us to go today.
  My third goal of this bill is energy security. This year we voted 
against pipelines. They would have provided some security. We have 
reduced some foreign demand, not much. Today we are reducing 
exploration; we are not increasing exploration at home. Who pays the 
bill? The American people. It is real simple. It is just passing 
through and pretty soon we get used to $3.76, which is the national 
average. In some places in the country it is over $4. But 3 years ago 
the price of gas was $1.86.
  I was rated as the seventh most conservative Member of the Senate. 
This year I bought a hybrid. I bought a hybrid because I was tired of 
paying people money who hate us. I was tired of paying an exorbitant 
amount for gasoline. I would personally do anything I could to make 
sure I reduced my consumption and my cost. But the only way I can 
affect every American family is to come to this floor and to change the 
policies we have in this country in a way that nobody is slighted, 
nobody is cheated, nobody loses.
  Somebody said this bill picks winners and losers. Well, I have to 
admit it does. The winners are the American people and the losers are 
everybody internationally who produces oil. I think that is a pretty 
good pick. Let me suggest to my colleagues this must stop. It must 
stop, and my suggestion is it should stop tomorrow when we vote on this 
amendment.
  We need an energy plan. We should explore. We should build pipelines. 
If we did, down the road we would benefit. One might think, well, all 
of this is an accurate depiction of where we are. What would a natural 
gas bill do to change our situation?
  Well, let me suggest it is about our most abundant, clean, flexible 
fuel. And guess what. It is American. It is found right here at home. 
Why wouldn't we use as much as possible? Oh, by the way, did I say it 
is cheap? If we look at natural gas as an equivalent to a gallon of 
gasoline, natural gas ranges somewhere between $1.60 and $2.10 at 
today's rates. Imagine where diesel is. Imagine where home heating oil 
is. Why? Because technology has allowed us to reach reserves that we 
could never reach before. It has allowed us to do it in an 
environmentally friendly way. It has allowed us to do it at a pretty 
attractive production cost.
  As a matter of fact, the word in the world is the United States is 
the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. But nobody looks at us and says: You 
are controlling our access because we can't even figure out what our 
policy is going to be. Let me suggest--and I think the Presiding 
Officer knows this--if we produce more than we consume, then we will 
aggressively build an infrastructure to ship it all around the world. 
But if we consume what we produce, there will be an effort to produce 
more and to produce more and to produce more. When that happens 
typically the price goes down.
  So I guess the question in front of this body is, are we going to use 
it for the benefit of the American people or are we going to ship it to 
the rest of the world? Some in Congress will say that shifting natural 
gas usage through Federal legislation shouldn't be done. Let me be 
clear. I agree 100 percent.
  The Federal Government is not the one that should be legislating how 
markets go. But when I consider the Federal Government, we are speaking 
for the American taxpayer because usually they are the ones who are the 
backup funder of everything we pass.

[[Page 3335]]

This bill does not do it. This bill is a 5-year bill, and it sunsets. 
It goes away. It funds the roughly $3.4 billion with a user fee on the 
exact people who are benefited by it--those natural gas users. You see, 
the American taxpayer has no skin in this game.
  They also say the American taxpayers should not fund new credits or 
subsidies. I agree. These are the two criticisms this bill has 
received. I agree with them totally. Read the bill. That is not what we 
do. We fund it from the people who benefit from the credits and from 
the subsidies.
  Now, you might ask, where do we disagree? Policy can, and I think it 
should, accelerate the usage of natural gas. Some have said there is no 
need to do this; it is happening all by itself. I agree; another point 
of agreement. It is happening every day in communities across this 
country. Ten years from now we might look back on it, and we might have 
made a little bit of progress. We have an opportunity right now, 
without taxpayer funding, to accelerate this move in 18-wheel vehicles, 
in fleet vehicles, in municipal trucks and automobiles. So I think we 
can, and I think we should, accelerate it.
  Again, natural gas is the only flexible mobile fuel we have. It is 
not like there are other options out there we can accomplish this with. 
I believe if credits or subsidies are paid by the users--those who 
benefit--this a good result, and it is good policy.
  Think about it for a moment. If you took all of our 18-wheel vehicles 
in America and put them on natural gas, you would reduce consumption of 
foreign oil by one-third. Do you want to know how to bring down the 
price of gasoline and diesel? There it is. Take one-third of the demand 
and shift it over to natural gas.
  Fleet vehicle companies--FedEx, UPS; I can sort of name all of them, 
the in-and-out-every-day companies--they go out in the morning, come 
back in the afternoon, they have one fueling station, and they are 
running to go to natural gas. They do not need the incentive. But look 
how fast they could change their entire fleet if it was there--again, 
without one penny of taxpayer money.
  Municipalities. There is not a municipality in America today that is 
not challenged from the standpoint of their annual budget. They have 
cut parks and recreation. They are trying to figure out how to do 
education. Every community is faced with the same thing, decreasing 
property values; therefore, the flow of revenues is less than they were 
last year and the year before.
  Where is the game changer for municipalities in a natural gas bill? 
It is very simple. There are 500,000 buses in America, and there are 26 
million kids who get on a bus every day. If we can reduce by one-third 
or more the cost by switching to natural gas, we should be doing 
everything we can to get every school system in America to have a 
natural gas engine in their schoolbus so the one-third they save goes 
back into the classroom to educate our children; where nobody is faced 
with trying to decide whether they are going to buy textbooks or have a 
teacher's aide; where every classroom is designed not based upon how 
much money we have available but what the educational requirements are 
for that next generation.
  For those who suggest this bill does not do anything, I will tell you 
one point alone is enough to get up and vote yes when it comes up. It 
is a game changer. It is a game changer to local budgets. More 
importantly, municipalities get to devote the money to the right 
places.
  Why is a credit needed? It is very simple. It costs money to switch 
an engine. A typical natural gas engine is going to cost somewhere 
between $25,000 and $40,000 more than the equivalent diesel engine in 
an 18-wheel vehicle today. But as more and more and more get built, 
what we are going to find is that the diesel engine is more expensive, 
and the natural gas engine is cheaper. Wouldn't we accelerate this as 
fast as we could so we could get the benefits of that production shift?
  Everybody is geared to do it today. As a matter of fact, it is so 
compelling a reason that Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors have all 
announced in their light-duty pickups they are going to come from the 
factory with natural gas. But for a consumer to fuel their vehicle with 
natural gas, they are going to have a little compressor at home, for 
compressed natural gas, hooked right up to their natural gas line. For 
an 18-wheel vehicle going from North Carolina to California, it is not 
that easy. It means we have to have the infrastructure across the 
country that enables that to be a feasible business decision for a 
company.
  What does part of the NAT GAS bill do? It creates a credit, a 
subsidy, so the infrastructure that is needed is out there. Oh, by the 
way, we still have the credit in place for individual consumers who 
want to have fueling stations.
  We are not recreating the solar or wind subsidies or credits. We are 
not recreating an ethanol subsidy for gasoline that Americans have just 
had a huge distaste for. We are taking not a technology of the future 
and investing in it, we are taking a technology that is here today and 
saying let's create the incentive for this to explode, for this to be a 
game changer in the global balance of trade.
  Why don't some want this? Some do not want this because they use 
natural gas and they do not want the price to go up. We are sitting on 
a 100-year supply of natural gas right now if we do not drill another 
well. We have companies that are in the business today that--because of 
where the price point is and because of where the demand is--are 
thinking about plugging, shutting in natural gas wells because they 
cannot move it out of the country and they cannot sell it here. Yet we 
are on the cusp of being able to create an incentive that is paid for 
by the users that not only keeps those wells open but gives the reason 
for those companies to actually produce more.
  America has always proven: If we will buy it, they will build it. 
Look at the automobile industry. We would buy them, and today we are 
going everywhere in the world to find the gasoline it takes to put in 
them. Well, my belief is, if we accelerate the use of natural gas in 
trucks, fleets, and municipalities, what we are going to have is 
another explosion of natural gas finds. We are going to increase 
supply. If anything, we may see prices drop even further. But without 
the demand, I can assure you, the future is very predictable.
  We have this fuel at home. It is on land. There is some offshore, but 
the majority of the finds are on land. More importantly, this has 
happened exactly where we need it: Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Dakota, 
Oklahoma--and, yes, probably North Carolina and Virginia. The fact is, 
none of us know today because some areas geologically have never been 
explored.
  What are the realities? Well, if we can outproduce what we consume, 
one of two things will happen. One, we will build an infrastructure to 
sell it all around the world or, two, we will slow the exploration. In 
both cases the price will go up. Isn't that why people are against this 
bill, because they are scared the price will go up? In fact, this bill 
is the only thing that will keep natural gas prices at a historically 
low cost. Anything less than this would cause devastation throughout 
the marketplace.
  Many say let the markets drive what happens. That is what I am doing. 
It is exactly what I am doing. This legislation says: Produce as much 
as possible. Shift as much from petroleum as technology will allow us. 
It is sort of like saying: Let's give the Federal Government a 5-hour 
energy drink. Let's put this policy on steroids to shift as much as we 
technologically can from gasoline and diesel and home heating oil over 
to natural gas.
  What is the impact on the American people if we do not do this? It 
would be higher gas and diesel prices. It would be higher costs for all 
the goods we buy. Sometimes we do not think about the fact that when 
that trucker pays $4.20 a gallon for diesel--and they have seen their 
price double in the last 12 months--it is not too long before we feel 
it in the cost of groceries or in other consumer goods or in everything

[[Page 3336]]

we purchase in the United States. If the energy costs go up for the 
warehouse that product is stored in, we get it there. If the cost to 
produce it goes up because the manufacturing process costs a little bit 
more, it goes up there. This is how inflation happens.
  Here is a great opportunity for us to get our teeth into inflation 
and cut the primary driver of inflation. I think the byproduct of it 
would be that we would have almost a magnet in America of capital 
attraction to fuel job creation and to put Americans back to work. See, 
there is a lot more to an energy policy bill than whether there are 
winners and losers.
  What else would the American people be impacted by if we do not do 
this? Higher property taxes. There is no way around it. There is 
absolutely no way around it if, in fact, we want the next generation to 
be educated. We have an opportunity to take one-third of that 
transportation cost to a municipality and to pump it back into the 
budget.
  Well, let me suggest there is another loser. I think the Acting 
President pro tempore knows this. If we fail to use this as a flexible 
mobile fuel, most of it is going to be used to generate electricity. 
They are going to take the easy way out--$50 million to build a natural 
gas generation facility. It is cleaner burning. That makes it very 
attractive to them. The only problem is, we are going to get 30 years 
down the road, when most of us are going to be looking back--if we are 
still here--at our children, saying: I cannot believe we made this 
mistake. I cannot believe we locked you in to one fuel for the 
generation of all of America's electricity.
  One of the beauties of America is that we have a mix, and we are 
constantly changing that mix between coal and natural gas and nuclear. 
Well, we would make a huge mistake if we just left it to today's 
economics to say: Let's do it all in natural gas. If we did that, we 
would not have a bridge fuel, we would not have the flexible mobile 
fuel that natural gas provides us. We would be locked in to betting 
that technology would allow us to run it on solar or something else in 
the future. I am not sure I can bet on that for my children and my 
grandchildren. I am not sure we are there. I am not sure we are smart 
enough.
  I am going to pose a question to the Senate. What if I am wrong? I 
have been wrong before. What if I am wrong? What if this does not 
happen? What if there is not an explosion of transition from gas and 
diesel over to natural gas? It is real simple: The user fee goes away. 
But we tried something. There is no downside. It is not as if we are 
locked into something that cost the American people money. If we do not 
need as much, then we do not need the user fee. It has not impacted, up 
or down, fuel costs if, in fact, we have not pushed things over from 
where we are today. No damages; no downside.
  What if I am right? What if I am right and this is a game changer? 
Well, we continue to grow our production of gas. That creates tens of 
thousands of jobs all across the country. We reduce our need for 
foreign petroleum--game changer in the security of this country. We 
stabilize or reduce the current price of gas, diesel, home heating 
fuel.
  The more natural gas we leverage, the more dollars we have in our 
pockets as Americans. The environmental impact is significantly better 
than diesel or gasoline. Our economy grows because fuel costs are 
predictable and more investments are made hiring more Americans. 
Communities and companies can budget. They can budget better because 
we, not somebody who hates us, have control of our future costs.
  Prices come down because fuel costs are less and do not go up. The 
less of the family budget goes to fuel, less community budgets go to 
buses, more goes to our children. I realize this is bold. And, boy, has 
America become risk averse. This is not something I stumbled on 
yesterday. I have been promoting this for 3 years. This is the first 
chance to come to the Senate floor and have a vote. You know what. It 
probably is not going to pass. That is the disappointing part of it. It 
will probably fail tomorrow unless my colleagues or their staff, who 
stayed after my first two comments and listened to this, understand 
that there is not a downside to doing this.
  Why in the world would we not take this bill and implement it in 
hopes that for the first time we have a piece of energy policy in 
America? I said at the beginning that if this was done by pulling the 
money from taxpayers in America, I would never be up here offering this 
bill. But this is the time. It is now. Look at the global landscape. 
Look at the cost of energy. There has never been a more important time 
for a piece of legislation that drastically changes the future of this 
country.
  I too have been disgusted with government investing our dollars and 
picking winners and losers--mostly losers--in technologies that have 
not proven to be effective. This is not that. This is using dollars we 
collect from user fees to accelerate technology that is there today. It 
is just accelerating its use. It is making sure that the future is 
radically different. It is using existing technology to be a game 
changer. It affects the lives and the livelihood of every American, the 
communities we live in, and, more importantly, our children.
  Maybe this is too simple. Maybe Members of Congress can only get 
difficult things now. This is easy. It is easy to understand. It is 
easy to see the picture of what it affects. It is easy to understand 
the impact on the American people. And it is all positive. If you 
implement it, it has no downside. Why would we not try it and see what 
happens?
  If passing this amendment might accomplish what I have described, why 
would we not do it? We represent the American people. It may be that 
their voice needs to be heard before tomorrow when votes happen. This 
requires vision. I have to admit, it is something that Congress has 
shown very little of of late. This legislation benefits only one 
thing--only one thing--the future of this country, the United States of 
America, the opportunities of our children, the prosperity of the 
greatest country in the world.
  If that is important to you, then you ought to support this bill. It 
is important to me, and that is why I am here on a day when the Senate 
has no business, has no votes, because it was the one time I could come 
here uninterrupted, without the distractions of all the visitors and 
all the claims, to set the record straight about this legislation. It 
is simple. It is easy to understand. It impacts everybody in America. 
It does pick winners and losers. It says: America is going to win, and 
the people who are not our friends are going to lose.
  I am not sure you can say it any clearer than that. It does not cost 
the taxpayers a dime. The beneficiaries are the ones who pay the tab. 
If it does not work, there is no downside. If it does work, it is a 
game changer from the standpoint of our energy policy and, more 
importantly, our future.
  The bill sunsets after 5 years. We have a 100-year supply of natural 
gas today if we did not drill another well. We import 70 percent of our 
petroleum, and that costs $25 billion a month that we send there. 
Imagine what that $25 billion could create in jobs here if, in fact, we 
made this simple policy change.
  I thank you, Mr. President, for your attention and your patience and 
the patience of my colleagues since I ran over a little bit. But I will 
conclude with this. A bill that roughly costs $3.4 to $3.8 billion and 
is funded by user fees is not a big bill in Washington. But the 
potential impact of this legislation will not only be big in America, 
it will change the landscape of the world. It will put us back in 
control of our national security, of our economic security, and, more 
importantly, of our energy security. This will be a day that Congress 
will either be proud or disgusted at the outcome of a policy such as 
this.
  I yield the floor, and 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 3337]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________