Domestic Energy

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for organizing this colloquy with the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Ohio on this very important issue.

We have our American consumers paying more than $3.70 at the pump today. Actually, today the price is $3.72. That is the right question because that hits every single American. As the Senator from Texas and the other Senators have pointed out, when the administration took office, the price of gasoline per gallon was about $1.85. Today, it is $3.70. Actually, again, this chart is already old; today the average price is $3.72. In some places, it is already well over $4. The projection is that by Memorial Day, gasoline will be $4 a gallon and by later this summer it could be as much as $5 a gallon.

Let's put that into perspective for just a minute, following up on the question by the Senator from Texas. Recently, the President wanted a payroll tax cut, and the Congress passed that payroll tax cut. As the President liked to point out, that was about $1,000 a year. The benefit of that payroll tax averaged about $1,000 a year for the American worker or about $40 a paycheck. People get a paycheck every week, so it would be $40 a paycheck for the average working American. That is about $20 a week.

When we are paying between $4 and $5 a gallon for gas at the pump, we more than pay that additional $20 we got in that payroll tax, don't we? In other words, it costs us more than that. In essence, we have gone back because of the high price of gasoline.

What is the administration doing? As the Senator from Missouri just pointed out, the administration has an all-of-the-above strategy. What is that? That means we produce more energy from all our resources--oil, gas, biofuels, solar, wind, nuclear, and biomass. I agree with that. We should produce all our energy resources and have an all-of-the-above strategy. The problem is the administration is saying that, but they are not doing it. They are saying we should have an all-of-the-above strategy, but they are not doing it. Not only are they not doing it, they are actually blocking oil and gas development in our country, and they are blocking our ability to get oil from our closest ally and trading partner, Canada.

The Keystone XL Pipeline, which they have turned down, is a great example of that. That is 830,000 barrels a day that we are not getting from Canada, because after 3 1/2 years of study, the administration turned down the project. The Keystone XL Pipeline and projects similar to it are very important parts of the solution. We still get 30 percent of our crude from the Middle East and Venezuela. Oil prices are going up because of instability in the Middle East. That creates a risk premium to the price of gasoline, which we could reduce substantially by producing more oil and gas here at home and with our closest friend and trading partner, Canada.

Ironically, the President wanted a payroll tax cut to stimulate our economy, he said, and to help the American worker. Then he more than takes away any benefit from that payroll tax cut by blocking our ability to develop oil and gas in this country and to get oil from Canada. In my State of North Dakota, not only can we not get our oil to market because we cannot put it into the Keystone XL Pipeline and get it to refineries, we cannot get the oil from Canada either, and our consumers, working Americans, pay the price at the pump. Why would the administration do that? Why?

I think some insight is provided by Ted Turner's letter on the CNN Web site. He has a letter on that Web site,
and everyone can check it out. Mr. Turner cites a number of arguments as to why we should not get oil from Canada. First, he says: That oil we get from Canada--we will just export it, so it will not reduce gas prices in the United States. But in a recent Department of Energy report, dated June 22, 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy says just the opposite; that the crude we bring in from Canada will be refined in the United States, and it will lower gas prices in the United States on the east coast, the gulf coast, and in the Midwest--not ``may'' reduce gas prices but ``will'' reduce them on the east coast, the gulf coast, and in the Midwest. Mr. Turner's letter says the pipeline will leak and, gee, we don't want a pipeline that leaks.

As my second chart shows, this is the second Keystone Pipeline. This first Keystone Pipeline has already been built. He says that Keystone Pipeline leaked, so we cannot build a second one. The first one had no underground leaks. The leaks he refers to were minor leaks at some of the joints as they constructed the thing, which is normal and they were quickly and readily handled and they were no problem. That is functioning today just fine, and there are no underground leaks. So that is not accurate either, is it?

As a matter of fact, let's take a look at this chart. Those are not the only two pipelines we have in the United States. There are others. We have thousands of oil and gas pipelines across the country. But somehow building one more that will bring in 830,000 barrels a day to help reduce the price of gas is a problem. Really? That doesn't make much sense.

The other argument he uses is that we are producing that oil in Canada in the oil sands, and that is not good because we have to excavate to do it. What is the reality with producing oil sands? It does have somewhat higher greenhouse gas emissions. How much? About 6 percent. That is how much more greenhouse gas emission we get. But we are moving from excavating to produce that oil and gas to in situ. In situ is drilling just like we do for conventional oil. That means the same amount of greenhouse gas, the same footprint. Eighty percent is in situ. It has the same amount of greenhouse gas. We have deployed new technologies and produce more energy and do it with better environmental stewardship.

So these arguments aren't accurate.

But the reality is this: Folks like Mr. Turner, rich and famous, I guess they can pay $4 for gasoline. They can pay $5 for gasoline or a lot more. That isn't a problem for them. The problem is for hard-working Americans who have to pay that price at the pump every single day. So the administration has to decide who they are going to side with on this issue. Who are they going to side with on this issue? Are they going to continue to side with, I guess rich and powerful interests that want to see those gasoline prices go higher, and for whom the price of gasoline at the pump really isn't an issue or with hard-working Americans for whom this creates real hardship? That is the issue we have here with this vote that we will be having on the Keystone XL Pipeline.

The reality is this: We can have North American energy security. We can do it. Right now, between Canada and the United States, with some help from Mexico, we produce about 70 percent of our crude. The Keystone XL project alone would take us up over 75 percent. And with other sources, which some of my colleagues have referred to, such as shale and the in situ drilling I have talked about, we can easily meet our needs. In fact, if we include the work we are doing with natural gas, with biofuels, and with energy efficiency, I believe we can truly have North American energy security--meaning we can supply the energy needs in the United States and North America, with our friends in Canada, within 5 to 7 years. But we have to get started. We have to get started.

So let's get started, Mr. President. Let's start by approving the Keystone XL Pipeline project. Let's show the world we are serious about getting this done. Asking the Saudis for more oil, as some of my colleagues have done, doesn't solve the problem. Nor does taking oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That doesn't solve the problem. We solve the problem by truly producing all of the above--not saying it but doing it.

It is ironic the administration praises TransCanada for moving forward on building the only portion of this pipeline they can build without a Presidential permit. He praises them for moving forward at the very time the administration is blocking the project. And while they are blocking it, that means not one more drop of oil is coming into this country from Canada, not one more drop of oil is coming from my State of North Dakota down to the refineries to help reduce the price of gasoline at the pump. That is not an all-of-the-above energy policy. That is not helping American workers. And that is exactly why gasoline is $3.70 a gallon and going higher.

It is time for Congress to act.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source