[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4110-4112]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      AMERICAN ENERGY RENAISSANCE

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, with the very unfortunate events in 
Ukraine in the headlines and the Ukrainian people close to our hearts, 
I rise today to speak to a topic that has significance not only for 
that European crisis and for our own well-being but also bearing a 
little bit on the longer term subject of climate change, which, of 
course, was a big discussion here last night.
  This morning I am speaking to the American energy renaissance and its 
broader benefits to us all.
  Today American technology and know-how are delivering energy 
abundance, keeping energy affordable, enabling energy to be cleaner 
than the next most likely alternative, permitting us to rely on ever 
more diverse energy sources, and, finally, improving energy security 
for our people here in this country and around the world.
  America's overall production of nearly every type of energy is 
rising. The efficiency of just about everything--whether it is our 
vehicles or whether it is our buildings--is increasing. And in 
comparing our supply with our demand, we are rapidly approaching a 
self-sufficiency rate of 90 percent. The American energy revolution has 
generated a variety of welcome benefits. It is creating jobs. It has 
generated revenues. It has helped reduce both energy prices and price 
volatility. And as our Nation imports less, the simple fact is there is 
more energy available for others. That, in turn, is creating the kinds 
of supply conditions in the world oil market that allow all of us to 
deal with the bad actors from a position of relative strength.
  There was a recent essay in Foreign Affairs which argued that energy 
has been viewed as a strategic liability in the United States since 
back in the 1970s. Now energy is becoming a strategic asset--a 
strategic asset--and one that can boost the U.S. economy and grant 
Washington newfound leverage around the world. It is really hard to 
disagree with that.
  The question then becomes, What will we do with this strategic asset? 
How will we use our newfound position? There was a survey of responses 
to Russia's disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty, and of those prudent 
areas where the United States might go. Energy is clearly among the 
most major strategic assets we possess. How we use it to bring about 
geopolitical stability can really define our leadership in the world.
  Our first real challenge as a nation is how to keep this American 
resurgence going. There are two specific areas where we have to make 
some decisions; that is, whether to grant access to new lands and new 
markets, and that will go a long way in determining whether we actually 
do that.
  As I noted, America's total energy production has increased 
dramatically in recent years, but within those numbers there is a 
serious dichotomy. Nearly the entire oil and gas production resurgence 
here in the United States has occurred on State and private lands, not 
the millions of acres managed by the Federal Government. Despite the 
discussion of all of the above and no small amount of credit taken by 
the administration, combined carbon fuel production on Federal lands 
actually fell from 2008 to 2012. That is a disappointing trend which, 
in my view, needs to be reversed.
  Consider, for example, the opportunity we are missing in my State of 
Alaska. Thirty years ago, in March 1984, Alaskan crude oil production 
stood at 1.6 million barrels per day. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System 
had been completed just a decade earlier. There were debates over 
opening new areas to production and even allowing exports of crude oil 
from the State, but the Federal Government did not act at that time. It 
did not seize Alaska's best and most obvious opportunities. Production 
peaked at 2.1 million barrels per day in March 1988. It has been on 
general decline ever since then. Alaska's production has dipped below 
the half million barrels per day marker several times since 2012. This 
is a fall of nearly 75 percent from its high.
  Back home we keep talking about a pipeline that is less than half 
full. The difference is not only geography, it is also policy. Our 
Federal policies are not working as they should. State policies, 
combined with private sector inventiveness, powerful as they are, 
cannot overcome the Federal barriers. In North Dakota, where we see a 
booming energy market, only 4 percent of that State is federally held. 
In Texas, it is just 2 percent of Federal lands. In Alaska, 62 percent 
of our lands are Federal, and most of our untapped resources are within 
these Federal areas.
  Alaska's falling production is a missed opportunity--a missed 
opportunity--to create jobs, to generate revenues, to stabilize world 
energy prices, to diversify world energy supplies. And it is not the 
only place in America where potential growth is going unrealized. We 
are passing up tremendous opportunities off of our Atlantic coast, in 
the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and in the Rocky Mountains West. We also 
have increasingly burdensome regulations that slow the pace of 
development in the Federal lands that are open.
  All of this highlights the need to reexamine our Federal energy 
policies and really reorient them for a new century.
  That leads us to the subject of exports.

[[Page 4111]]

  Back in January I laid out the case for why we need to renovate the 
architecture of U.S. energy trade. We have substantial opportunities 
for exports of coal, petroleum products, natural gas, natural gas 
liquids, renewable technology, nuclear technology, and even crude oil. 
I have called for the lifting of the de facto prohibition on crude oil 
exports as a preemptive measure. I say what we need to do is lift it to 
prevent future losses of production and jobs when our trade 
restrictions inevitably collide with this surge of light tight oil and 
condensate production that comes out. The conversation I hoped to frame 
last year in January when I submitted my ``Energy 20/20'' report is 
really very well underway.
  My point is that we must increase the value of energy as an American 
strategic asset for global security and price stability.
  I wish to say a couple of words--maybe more than a couple but a few 
words--about climate change. Many groups have formed to go on the 
offensive to ``wake Congress up'' on the issue of climate. They want to 
force the Nation to talk about this subject no matter what the issue of 
the day might be. Unfortunately, they also seem to want to blame 
Republican Members and somehow also to adopt policies that this body 
has rejected year after year. So much of the climate change 
conversation seems to be defined by old ideas that have been rejected. 
It seems that if one is not supportive of yet another regulatory 
edifice, either through cap and trade, a carbon tax, or letting the EPA 
expand its authority without any checks by the people's representatives 
in Congress, then somehow or other one is against the environment. I 
reject that.
  I want to see greater balance. I know we can achieve it, and I think 
it is important that, again, we reframe the conversation. I think 
finding agreement on environmental policy is hard, but it is not 
impossible. I think what we need to do is kind of pull back and change 
the conversation we are having.
  What I want to remind my colleagues of is that part of the opposition 
I have had to some of the ideas I have heard from folks is based on 
what those policies would mean for our affordability of energy. Here I 
mean not just for Americans who are energy insecure, including 
residents in my State and in some of our most remote areas who already 
face exorbitant energy costs, but also the 1.3 billion people across 
the globe with no reliable access to electricity. Worldwide--
worldwide--families are struggling to attain the basic necessities of 
life. Although many portray climate change as our most pressing moral 
issue, I would suggest it is but one of many. Energy poverty and energy 
insecurity are others, and ones that we simply cannot ignore and we 
should certainly not make worse.
  Another part of my opposition to cap and trade or a carbon tax is 
based on what we have seen in Europe as compared to what has actually 
happened here in the United States. Without climate legislation, but 
with the advent of increased domestic production here through shale gas 
production, our greenhouse gas emissions are now 11 percent below our 
rate of emissions in 2005. Yet our friends across the Atlantic, who 
actually did pass cap and trade several years ago, haven't exactly seen 
the expected results. In the face of weak growth, high unemployment, 
and high debt, some European nations are now dialing back the extremely 
expensive subsidies they have offered and, at the same time, many of 
our NATO allies are clamoring for the cheap and the abundant natural 
gas that we are now producing on our State and our private lands, and 
they are importing our abundant and affordable coal.
  The unfolding situation in Ukraine also highlights the compelling 
importance of energy security--something that neither a carbon tax, cap 
and trade or any climate bill we have seen in the Senate has properly 
accounted for.
  Then there is the approach the President seems to want to take. 
Earlier this year he threatened to use his regulatory authority to 
regulate greenhouse gases if Congress failed to act. It is really quite 
a choice here. He suggests either to pass legislation that we don't 
like or he will enact regulations that we don't like, either way to be 
carried out under the Clean Air Act, just not according to the Clean 
Air Act.
  It is difficult to consider really whether this is a serious offer. 
What we can say, though, is this threat and the rulemakings that will 
follow is contrary--contrary--to what our forefathers envisioned. 
Executive authority foregoes the benefits and protections of a 
legislative process and it curbs the debate that is needed to ensure 
fair and balanced policy, and particularly in this area where we need 
to ensure they are fair and balanced policies.
  To effectively combat climate change we have to safeguard our 
economy. Prosperity is key to the resources that we will need to make 
progress. The Nation has to pursue all forms of energy and stress 
energy security. We cannot exclusively count on renewables to achieve a 
low carbon environment. Emission free nuclear energy has to be part of 
the solution. Technology must play a role in reaching the goals that we 
set for our country.
  Finally, as we discuss the issues and the approaches to these issues, 
we have to do so with humility, keenly aware of the unintended 
consequences that could be worse than no action at all. Climate change 
is a global issue that requires global acknowledgment of the issue and 
global action. But through it all we must be deeply concerned and 
always aware about the impacts of our actions on the individual family.
  I spend a lot of time in the rural parts of my State. We don't even 
call them rural; we use the terminology ``bush'' because it is just so 
remote, and these are areas where the only way to access the 
communities is either by air or by boat, up the river by barge. 
Supplies are brought in two times a year, if you live on the river 
system. You look around and you may be able to see the impact of 
climate change, and that is an awareness the people in this region 
have, but first and foremost, these people need to be able to live. 
This is where they have lived for thousands of years.
  When you appreciate the costs they are paying for their energy right 
here and right now, I can't support anything that is going to increase 
the energy cost for the people in my State who are already paying--
some--close to 50 percent of their income for fuel to stay warm in the 
wintertime.
  I have one letter here that I received just last week from a village 
by the name of Kwigillingok. This is an area out in the coastal 
villages region. In this letter from the tribal council they state:

       The current cost of heating fuel is 6.02 per gallon and 
     gasoline at 6.52.

  If I were to suggest to the fine people in Kwigillingok that in order 
to arrest what we may be seeing with increased emissions around the 
globe that their energy prices are going to double, that the cost of 
their heating fuel is going to go from $6.02 per gallon to $12, how 
will these people live?
  We have to be aware of the energy insecurity, the energy poverty in 
far too many places in this country and truly around the world.
  So as we discuss these very important issues about energy and how we 
do right by all, again let us do so with a level of humility and a 
level of respect for people all throughout our Nation.
  I see that my colleague from Texas is here, another fine producing 
State. In fact, Texas is a State that is really doing quite well right 
now when it comes to our energy and our energy resources. Through the 
efforts of States such as Texas, North Dakota, and California we are 
seeing a true resurgence in our energy production, and I think an 
opportunity for us as a Nation to again not only provide for our energy 
security as a Nation but to provide for security and stability on the 
global scene as well.
  With that, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator from Alaska for her wise words. I 
wasn't here for all of her remarks, but I was able to hear the 
percentage of her

[[Page 4112]]

State that is owned by the Federal Government, which is extraordinary. 
I think she cited roughly 2 percent in Texas. That was a deal we cut in 
1845, and it turned out it was a pretty good deal because Texas lands 
are overwhelmingly private lands rather than government lands.
  I think part of the point she was making as well is that while we 
have seen a resurgence of activity on private land, particularly when 
it comes to the shale gas, and on oil plays on public lands we haven't 
seen that same sort of productivity. If the Federal Government would 
simply take the same approach that the private sector is taking when it 
comes to developing these God-given natural resources, it could really 
boost our economy further and lower unemployment.
  So I thank my colleague for her wise words this morning.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as 
in morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________