The Status of Energy in the World Today

Floor Speech

Madam Speaker, it was a pleasure to be down here listening to the special orders of my friends from the various States, and especially my friend from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney, and I understand his compassion and concern. But I will tell you that if we don't get a handle on these energy costs, people aren't going to have the money to do the things they want to do with their families on a day-to-day basis. So we have this time tonight to talk about energy and our energy status in the world today.

We started doing this last week on a bill that came to the floor that we are going to finish this week, the Beach Protection Act of 2007. We took that opportunity to talk about that. But we ought to be addressing some of the pressing concerns of this country today.

We hear the term that America, and rural America, is bitter. It is a big phrase today and over the weekend. They are bitter. They are bitter about high energy costs, and they are bitter about the fact that this Congress is not doing anything to address the supply part of this debate.

More supply means lower costs. That is basic economics 101. Anyone who has gone to have a bachelor's degree, and even some good high school programs teach economics, it is a simple supply and demand equation. So we are going to talk about energy tonight. My focus is going to be on supply, how we need more supply.

We also hear a lot this year about change. We want change, and everybody wants change. But, you know, change is not always good. Here is an example of change.

Since the Democrats got in the majority, when they first got sworn in, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $58.31. Today, the price of a barrel of crude oil is $111.15. I would say that is bad change. That is not good change. So change is not always good. This is negative change, and it flies in the face of promises from my friends on the other side of the aisle.

The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi said on April 24, 2006, about 2 years ago, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down the skyrocketing gas prices.'' Well, that was almost $60 a barrel less ago, and $1 and change per gallon of gas less.

Majority leader STENY HOYER said, October 4, 2005, ``Democrats believe that we can do more for the American people who are struggling to deal with high gas prices.''

Well, they did. They did. What did they do? They raised their gas prices. You want to talk about not being able to pay for dental care? People are using their money to get to work.

In rural America, we drive long distances. Rural America doesn't have the access of buses. Rural America doesn't have the opportunity to take the Metro or light rail.

Those who are driving distances to get to work are harmed exponentially greater. Democrats proffered lower gas prices. What do we have? We have higher gas prices. All we are asking them to do is keep their prices. Help them lower the price of gasoline, but they won't do it. Do you know why they won't do it?

They won't do it because they really hate fossil fuels in this country. They hate crude oil, and they hate coal. They hate crude oil, and they hate coal.

They hate fossil fuels, so to address high prices, what we have to do is bring on more fossil fuels to the market, and they won't do it. That's why we are not going to have any relief on gases.

Constituents ask me, what are you going to do to lower prices? What are you going to do, Congress? I just shake my head, and I said the only thing that's going to happen is prices are going to go up because demand is going to continue to go up, supply is going to stay the same, and you are going to have higher prices.

Democrat Whip JIM CLYBURN, Democrat from South Carolina, said ``House Democrats have a plan to help curb rising gas prices.'' Jim got it wrong. ``No'' is not an energy plan. They had no plan, and when you have no plan, you plan to fail, and what do you get? You get higher prices.

We know we are going to have $4 a gallon gas this summer sometime. We know it. In fact, the newspapers are starting to raise this issue, ``$4 gasoline seen possible this summer,'' the Buffalo News, April 9, 2008; price at the pump likely to reach $4, the Washington Times, April 9, 2008; ``$4 Per Gallon Gas Creeps Closer,'' Fox News, Denver, Colorado, April 9.

We know we are going to have $4 a gallon of gas. How do we stop that from happening? We have to bring on more supply. I have some friends here to join me, but I am going to finish with one solution that has bipartisan support, and that's coal-to-liquid technologies.

There are a lot of ways we can address this debate and this issue, but let me just pitch one to you. The Illinois Coal Basin, and I am from Illinois, I am biased, the Illinois Coal Basin is basically the State of Illinois and the southwestern part of Indiana and the western part of Kentucky. That's all a big coal field.

Under the ground there is as much fossil fuel energy in coal as Saudi Arabia has in oil, 250-year's worth. We have been mining and using it for generations. In fact, I am fourth-generation Lithuanian American. My great grandfather immigrated to my home town of Collinsville, Illinois, where I still live. What did he do? He worked in the coal mines. My grandfather worked in the coal mines.

In southern Illinois, we have coal mines and we have mine workers. We have an abundant natural resource.

Now, we know coal can be used to generate electricity, but I am not talking about generation of electricity right now. What I am talking about is liquid fuels, the stuff that we need to put in our cars so we can get to work. How do we lower the price of gasoline in this country? That's where coal-to-liquid technology comes in.

We also had these budget airlines, three of them went bankrupt, one is on the verge. What's one of the problems? The high cost of aviation fuel.

All those people are unemployed. They don't have a job. They are going to be a burden to the safety net. They are not going to have dental care which was provided by their employer. But now they are unemployed because of the high cost of jet fuel.

How do we bring liquid fuel back to the arena that the budget airlines and the soccer mom, who is shepherding those kids around in the minivan, can afford to do that. We bring on more supply. One option is to use our vast resources of coal in this country and use that technology that goes back to World War II, the Fischer-Tropsh technologies.

Synthetic fuel, Sasol, the South African oil company has been using it for decades. It just got permission to use synthetic aviation fuel for the British commercial air fleet.

We have not a single coal-to-liquid plant in this country. The premise is simple, you have a coal mine. This is surface mining, mostly western coal here. In Illinois it would be below surface.

At that location you build a coal-to-liquid refinery. First of all you have jobs, jobs in the coal mine. Then you have jobs that build a refinery. Then you have jobs to operate the coal mines and jobs to operate the refinery, good-paying jobs with good-paying benefits and dental care. Then you have a pipeline so you don't have to address the transportation of this fuel, and you pipe it to the major metropolitan areas of this country, or you pipe it to the air base.

You know the number one aviation fuel user in the world, you know who it is? Our United States Air Force. They are begging for this opportunity. They are held captives to imported crude oil and the high cost of jet fuel.

We can do it here. We know what Katrina did to the refineries in the gulf coast, it shut a couple of them down, causing price spikes, causing dislocations.

Well, what's the benefit of this technology? You don't have to have it on the gulf coast. You are not importing the crude oil. You can build one in southern Illinois. You could build one in Wyoming, in Montana. You could build one in Kentucky or Ohio or West Virginia, right where the coal is located, close to the pipeline that connects to our major metropolitan areas, available, low-cost fuel to turn into jet fuel, gasoline, aviation fuel, diesel fuel, things that are causing great concerns and problems in our country today.

We have got bills to do this. Many Members do. My bill, I am the primary cosponsor with Congressman Rick Boucher, a Democrat from Virginia, on a price-collar provision. There are provisions for long-term contracting. There are some other marketing provisions out there where we could do this, we could send a signal to industry.

We want to do this, we want to have these up and running in 5 years. We want to help decrease our reliance on imported crude oil. We want to lower the cost of fuel. This Congress could do it. I guarantee you if we did it, this administration would sign the bill.

It's up to Democrats who made promises in 2006 that they had a plan to lower the price of gasoline. You read the quotes. I read the quotes to you, Madam Speaker.

You know the promises that were made. You know the promises that were not kept. In fact, not only were the promises not kept, we have done worse. You didn't lower the cost of fuel, we raised the cost of fuel. We didn't lower the price of a barrel of crude oil.

When Speaker Pelosi got sworn in, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $58.31; today, $111. Now I did this part of the speech last week, it was $110. It has gone up $1 just since Wednesday.

With that, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from New Jersey, Congressman Garrett. I thank him for joining me. I yield you some time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I thank my colleague for coming down to the floor. As he was speaking I was thinking, and of course I started by talking about two buzz words that are out there because of this politicized season. I think we need to merge them together.

What we have from the Democrat majority on energy policy is bitter change. Bitter change; $58 a barrel for crude oil to $111 per barrel of crude oil; $2.40 for a gallon of gasoline to $3.50. We have bitter change, not good change, bitter change because there is no energy policy.

First there are the grand promises made by the Democratic leadership which I quoted earlier and will probably quote again. No change, bad change, bitter change. It is unfortunate because it is our citizens who are feeling the burden.

I started this last week again during the healthy beaches discussion. It is amazing as I was looking at the stories over the weekend flying home and flying back today, a whole bunch of articles. ``Truckers feel the crunch of high diesel prices.'' This one is better. ``Independent truckers join strike.'' It has tractor-trailer rigs, shut them down, on strike. Try $4 a gallon; bitter change to the independent truck driver. There is no energy policy. When you have no policy, you have a failed policy.

Another article, ``High fuel prices mean high costs.'' There is a lot of blame being given to the agricultural sector because of the high cost of food, but the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City said over the past three decades, rising labor and energy costs have boosted that share steadily from 67 percent in the 1970s to 80 percent today.

The Federal Reserve Bank also estimated that a 10 percent gain in energy prices could contribute to 5.2 percent increase in retail food prices. And, John Urbanchuk in an article ``The Relative Impact of Corn and Energy Prices in the Grocery Aisle'' on June 14, 2007, said rising energy prices had a more significant impact on food prices than did corn.

Bitter change; no energy plan. The Democrats failed to bring supply into the energy debate. We can pass efficiencies and renewables, but the reality is it is only nibbling around the edges. The Energy Information Agency projects a 30 percent increase in demand in electricity by 2030, a 30 percent demand increase. And we are nibbling around the edges. People think we are going to do it with solar panels and wind turbines. They can help. We would like to have them. In fact, I just heard Illinois is one of the largest States to try to employ wind power. But it is not going to meet our demand. Energy prices are going to go up, and when they do, the average American citizen, especially in rural America, pays a disproportionate burden because we have to travel long distances to go to work. We don't have the commuter rails and the bus services. What we have is our truck. And we like our trucks.

I am going to talk about electricity generation. I have spent a lot of time on liquid fuels, but I am joined by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan) and so I yield to him at this time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I thank my colleague, and especially for again returning the focus to the national security dynamics of this.

The United States Air Force is the number one consumer of aviation fuel in the world. What are they asking for? They want a safe, reliable supply of aviation fuel. Reliable. The only way they are going to get a reliable supply of aviation fuel is if that aviation fuel is produced by a commodity product where we are not relying on importation. That goes back to this debate on coal-to-liquid technologies.

Again, just in the Illinois coal basin alone, 250 years worth, as much energy as Saudi Arabia has in crude oil, just the Illinois coal basin alone. We are not talking about the Wyoming-Montana coal basin or the West Virginia, Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky region. We are talking about the Illinois coal basin has as much energy as Saudi Arabia has in oil.

So as we go back to the coal-to-liquid debate and we are talking about national security, and we need to have the fuel to fly our war machines, coal, locally discovered, developed, brought to the surface, with a coal-to-liquid refinery, built by the building trades, operated by organized labor and our boilermaker friends, high-paying wages, good benefits, not on the coastal plain, in the Midwest, pipeline to, and this chart just happens to show an F-18 Tomcat, a United States Air Force fighter plane.

Our Air Force is asking for this for national security, a reliable source of jet fuel, and we continue to delay.

What's the other world doing? What's the other countries, other world doing?

Well, Russia is attempting to grab a vast chunk of the Arctic to claim to its vast potential oil, gas and mineral wells to fuel that country's economy. Russia's going after fossil fuels.

Well, what's our other friends doing?

Brazil, Russia, India and China have overtaken the United States in dominating the global energy industry, according to a study by Goldman Sachs.

What's the Chinese doing? China is building 40 nuclear plants in the next 15 years. 40. We'll be lucky to have one. One. No carbon emissions in a nuclear power plant. Zero.

I think that's the biggest frustration that a lot of us have from our friends on the environmental left. They don't like nuclear power. They don't like coal. They don't like crude oil. We're trying to find out what they like.

China is planning 40 nuclear power plants in the next 15 years, and I pray that we have one. I would be ecstatic to have four. There's no way we'll have 15. There's just no way. The United States has not licensed one nuclear power plant in 30 years, not one, due to my friends on the other side's continued opposition to nuclear power.

We could bring nuclear power legislation to the floor in this Congress. And it would have bipartisan support. All the Republicans would support it. Well, we might lose about three. And I bet we could grab 40 Democrats that would support it. I bet we could have a bipartisan majority vote on coal-to-liquid technologies. I'd bet it'd be the same. We'd have all the Republicans minus a handful, and we'd get about 40 Democrat votes. But this Democrat leadership will not bring a bill to the floor that addresses the supply debate.

China opened new domestic energy reserves in 2004 and has planned to increase production by about 8 billion barrels by 2010.

Democrats refuse to allow American workers to produce American oil. In fact, in the energy debate last year, not the final bill that passed, but the two that didn't get signed into law, they put another area of natural gas off limits.

We need increased supply. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if you want lower prices, you have to have more supply. We don't get any help.

China's increasing offshore energy production to reduce its own dependence on foreign oil. Let me say that, because I've got some friends over there who live on the coast. China is increasing offshore energy production. In fact, we know just 50 miles off of Florida, 50 miles, it's not a U.S. energy company or a U.S. energy exploration to go after the oil in the Gulf 50 miles off Miami. It's China. China has better access to our oil reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf than we have. Isn't that crazy?

China's increasing offshore energy production to reduce its own dependence on foreign oil, growing that production at an average of 15.3 percent per year, with plans to make offshore oil production China's largest source of oil by doubling production by 2010.

And we know what happens any time we talk about offshore exploration, a counting of gas and oil reserves, just trying to figure out what's there we have a fight.

China invested $24 billion in large scale coal liquification technologies. Oh, that sounds familiar. Coal-to-liquid technologies.

The United States, what are we doing? Zip, zero, nada, nothing.

What's China doing? China invested $24 billion in large scale coal liquification technology. We can't get a vote on that on the floor. China's expanding its natural gas infrastructure by constructing pipelines. We can't get a pipeline bill moved.

China rapidly is expanding its refining capacity. Democrats have repeatedly voted against expanding American refinery capacity. In fact, one of the huge problems we have, which I find is really--I think people understand that we import crude oil. We're relying on imported crude oil and that's bad.

What the public, I think, would even get angrier at is we import refined product. We import gasoline. So not only, we lose the refining jobs. It would be better for us to import the crude oil and refine that crude oil, or at least we'd have our friends in the refining industry, many of those bargaining unit employees would have jobs. But we are importing refined product. Criminal negligence.

China is ambitiously developing its nuclear power industry with plans to spend approximately $50 billion on 30 additional nuclear reactors within the next 15 years. China is planning on constructing many new large scale hydroelectric projects over the forecast period, including the 18.2 gigawatt Three Gorges dam project, which is scheduled to be operational by 2009.

In fact, we're tearing down dams. We're not expanding hydroelectric power. 50 percent of the electricity we use is produced by coal in this country. 50 percent. 20 percent by nuclear power, 20 percent by hydroelectric, and the rest the others.

I'm going to move to the concern. With no plan to address this problem, which is the escalating costs of crude oil, again, when Speaker Pelosi took over, $58 a barrel, crude oil.

I'll be honest. Bush took over it was $27. I always say that. Bush it was $27, Pelosi, $58, now $111. With all the promises, and maybe I'll just read those one more time as I end.

But the basic premise is, under Democrat leadership of the House, the average American is paying more. We're paying more. We're going to pay more in taxes. We know that. But this isn't a special order on taxes. This is a special order on energy.

We're paying more at the pump. Here's the reason why. The high cost of a barrel of crude oil, we're relying on imported crude oil. One solution would be technology. Another would be to move into electric cars. But guess what? Electric cars need an electric supply. They'll need nuclear power plants. They'll need coal generating, coal, then the electricity generation plants buy coal. There's going to be, we have to have something to charge the batteries to allow these battery-run cars to run.

Let's talk a minute about global climate change. We know that the public is paying more at the pump when the Democrat majority promised lower prices. That's a given.

We had a hearing in the subcommittee last week. My issue to the panelists was, the American public, they need to understand that if we address global climate change there is going to be a cost.

Of course, some on the environmental left said no. We're going to have all these efficiencies. We're going to have all these new jobs. It's going to be a wash.

Well, it's funny, flying home, an AP story on the 12th, the State of California is going to put on the electrical bill, a 25 or 30 percent surcharge on customers' electric and gas bills for global climate change. So your electricity bills are going to go up. Gas prices are up. Electricity prices are up. You're going to pay more in taxes.

This is bitter change, bitter change, not good change. Bitter change. Bitter change for the average American who all they want to do is go to work and pay their bills, take care of their family, try to save some for the future. They can't save with these high energy prices.

And you saw the independent truckers, the article I held up.

If we could have effective change, let's assume that we do all we can as Americans to lead the way, go through all this pain. Do you really believe that our Chinese friends, after I gave all the stats on what they're doing, are going to comply with an international agreement? Not only do I not believe it, they've told me no. And I've mentioned this in many committee hearings.

In fact, the senior Chinese official said twice to two of my Democratic colleagues' questions when they said, if the United States led, would you agree to an international agreement to coal carbon?

And their answer was, you all have had, well they didn't use you all. That's kind of a Southern Illinois thing. They said, you have had 200 years to develop a middle class in your country using fossil fuels, and it's our turn. That doesn't sound like a country that wants to address carbon debate in an international arena.

So should Americans, should we go through all this pain on global climate change, and have no gain? Do we go through all this exercise, all these job dislocations, all this pain, for not one single benefit?

And if we do, you know, I just want us to be transparent with our citizens. Intellectually honest. Chairman Dingell said, you know, if we want to be honest with the American people, what we should do is put 50 cents additional tax on gasoline and take that money, and address our carbon debate.

Well, that works great. That now takes $3.50 a gallon of gas, which people are outraged about, and brings it up to $4. And it's going to get to $4 without the additional 50 cent tax. But at least it's intellectually honest, saying that there's going to be a cost.

The California Public Utility Commission is honest. 25 to 30 percent increase on your energy bill for climate change. Great.

Well, it wasn't a front-page story. It was, I don't know, I ripped it up. I think it was, like, the Business Section, like D6, way in the back. So I'm not sure if it made the front page of the California papers, but that's what their public utility commission has agreed to do.

All pain, no gain. The public needs to know the cost and be prepared to assume the cost.

All I see in this debate on energy is bitter change, bitter change for the working men and women of this country. This is contrary to the promises made.

April 24, 2006, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' Bring down skyrocketing gas. They weren't even skyrocketing then compared to what we have now. Now we've got skyrocketing gas prices.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, ``Democrats believe that we can do more for the American people who are struggling to deal with high gas prices.''

Y'all did more? You raised gas prices even more.

Democratic Whip JIM CLYBURN said, ``House Democrats have a plan to help curb rising gas prices.''

No energy plan is a plan to fail. We go from $58.31 a barrel of crude oil to today, $111.

Now, I got these on little, kind of like a Blue Dog type of thing. I got this on a moveable type of a number system here. So that if it goes up, I can add. If it goes down, I can adjust. But the reality is, the spread, under the leadership of this House, has only gone up. And I believe, and the economists today believe, it will continue to go up.

We can do better. We can do better. I talked to many of my friends on the other side. I actually voted for CAFE language. That was a hard thing for me to do. Helped expand the renewable fuel standard. Brought biodiesel and ethanol into the national energy debate. That's all good stuff. Energy Star provisions. Electricity savings provisions.

We want the deployment of solar cells. We want wind power. As I mentioned earlier, Illinois could be at the forefront of electricity generation by wind.

What we do know, Texas had to call their high electricity users when their wind turbines stopped turning because the wind stopped blowing. That's the challenge of renewable energy. Instead of having a consistent base-load energy, and in this country it's undisputed that coal is the primary commodity product that produces 50 percent of the electricity generation in this country. The electricity we're using in the Capitol building tonight is produced by coal. The electricity on the Capitol grounds is produced by coal.

There are some of my friends on the other side that would like us to not use another ounce of fossil fuels ever in this country. I am afraid of those days because those days will only occur when there's another worldwide recession. And you want to see the pain and the agony and the frustration on the middle- and the lower-middle class of our country, wait till there's no jobs. We won't be putting carbon in the air. That will be good for some people, but we won't be employing our citizens either. And that will be a shame.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me this time. I want to thank my colleagues, Congressman Garrett and Congressman Sullivan, for joining me in a plea to my friends on the other side that, as we continue to talk about energy, we don't disregard the supply debate. That's got to be part of the solution. It just has to be because just so much of the electricity that we use today is based upon 50 percent coal, 20 percent nuclear, 20 percent hydroelectric. They have to be part of the mix. It's my plea that, as we move forward and try to address the high cost of electricity and liquid fuel, we remember the great resources that we have in this country and have a plan to use them.

Source