[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 130 (Thursday, September 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S10980]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOREIGN OIL CONSUMPTION: HERE'S WEEKLY U.S. BOX SCORE
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports
that for the week ending September 13, the U.S. imported 7,572,000
barrels of oil each day, 393,000 less than the 7,965,000 imported
during the same week a year ago.
Nevertheless, Americans relied on foreign oil for 54 percent of their
needs last week, and there are no signs that the upward spiral will
abate. Before the Persian Gulf War, the United States obtained about 45
percent of its oil supply from foreign countries. During the Arab oil
embargo in the 1970s, foreign oil accounted for only 35 percent of
America's oil supply.
Anybody else interested in restoring domestic production of oil--by
U.S. producers using American workers? Politicians had better ponder
the economic calamity sure to occur in America if and when foreign
producers shut off our supply--or double the already enormous cost of
imported oil flowing into the U.S.--now 7,572,000 barrels a day.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, it appears to me that we find ourselves in a
pleasant predicament when it comes to education appropriations for
fiscal year 1997. On each side of the aisle we have leadership packages
that would add some $2.3 billion in additional funding to education.
In several areas, the Democratic package, of which I am a cosponsor,
is larger than the Republican package. It would, for instance, add $585
million to the Pell Grant program in order to fund a $2,700 maximum
grant for the coming year. It would also add funds to the Goals 2000
Program, to the Professional Development Program for Teachers, to
Education Technology, and to important higher education programs, such
as TRIO and the SSIG Program.
In other areas, however, the Republican package is larger. In areas
such as Title I, Adult Education, the SEOG Program, College Work Study,
and Special Education, the Republican package contains more funding
than the Democratic package.
Mr. President, there is a solution to the dilemma with which we are
faced that is in the best interests of our nation. It is also an
outcome that would get us out of a bipartisan battle, and bring the
spirit of bipartisanship back to education policy making and
appropriations. Very simply, I believe we should take the higher number
from each package, put them together, and pass a package for which we
can all take credit.
This would mean more money for education, and to my mind, that would
be very good news, indeed. It would mean better funding in such
critical areas as Pell Grants, Title I, Professional Development for
Teachers, Special Education, and the campus-based student aid programs.
Instead of discussing which proposal is better in which area, we
should resolve the dilemma and conclude an agreement that is in the
best interests not of one political party or the other but of the
American people.
____________________