[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 10 (Thursday, January 30, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S835-S837]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    THE CASE FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to address an 
ongoing threat to our Nation's security and prosperity, a threat with 
dual roots. In the precarious Middle East and right here at home there 
is reason for concern about our Nation's increased reliance on 
potentially unstable foreign sources of oil. I believe it is critical 
during the 105th Congress that we focus on efforts to increase energy 
conservation, particularly in the context of reauthorization of the 
Federal highway and transit programs.
  We must think back to the days of the gulf war and further back to 
the oil crises of the 1970's to better understand the entire picture. 
American consumers too often forget the interdependence of world 
events, particularly when it comes to our use of imported foreign oil. 
There are currently legitimate reasons to question whether instability 
in

[[Page S836]]

the Mideast will once again jeopardize our access to that region's oil 
resources, putting our economy and perhaps our national security at 
significant risk.
  By way of background, it is well known that the oil supplies in the 
Mideast are immense. An estimated 66 percent of the world's recoverable 
oil resources are found in the region. These supplies are critical to 
the United States as well as to our European allies. More than 20 
percent of the oil we purchase comes from the Arab countries of the 
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, commonly known as OPEC. 
Western Europe depends on the region for 25 percent of its oil 
consumption. These OPEC countries include alphabetically, Algeria, 
Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.
  I have been troubled that U.S. imports of foreign oil continue to 
increase. Currently, the U.S. imports constitute more than 50 percent 
of the oil which we consume. According to the American Petroleum 
Institute, this equals more than 9 million barrels per day, with a 6-
percent increase in the amount of imported oil since 1995 alone. That 
is cause for real concern. This is a huge jump from the 6 million 
barrels imported per day in 1973. Further, if these trends continue, 
analysts say that in 10 years we will look to these overseas sources 
for two-thirds of our energy needs.
  In part because of the ready availability of less expensive sources 
of foreign oil, it has not been cost effective for U.S. energy 
companies to increase domestic production. U.S. domestic production of 
oil continues to decline, with an estimated 17,000 U.S. oil wells 
ceasing production annually. U.S. industry claims that regulatory 
relief and tax measures are necessary to jump start domestic production 
again, and these are areas which we ought to consider.
  This is a field that I have some personal knowledge in, Mr. 
President, from my roots in Kansas where my father ran a junkyard and 
where he and my brothers bought oil wells for salvage and then flooded 
wells. We have a great source of supply from those wells and other 
production in the United States which we really ought to reexamine in 
the context of this major international problem.
  In an effort to protect ourselves against the disruption of oil 
supplies after the oil crises we faced in the 1970's, Congress 
established the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That reserve was intended 
to minimize the effects of any disruptions from the import of oil, and 
by the end of 1989 that reserve held 580 million barrels. The first 
sale from that reserve occurred after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 
August 1990, demonstrating that the reserve can serve its intended 
purpose, because it was used at that time.
  The effectiveness of the reserve is measured by the number of days of 
net petroleum imports the reserve could supply in the event of an 
interruption in the supply of foreign oil. For example, in 1986 the 
reserve was said to contain 115 days of imports. By 1995, based on the 
decreasing U.S. production and a corresponding increase in foreign 
imports, the reserve was said to hold an amount comparable to 75 days 
of net imports.

  As if it was not sufficient to let the effectiveness of the reserve 
dwindle, last year in an unprecedented move, the Administration decided 
to sell approximately 25 million barrels of petroleum from the reserve 
to generate revenues, an amount equivalent to almost 3 weeks supply of 
imports from Saudi Arabia. That timing, I suggest, was less than 
prudent, particularly considering the state of affairs in the Mideast 
today which should highlight the dangers and disadvantages of reliance 
on Mideast oil. Saudi Arabia, in particular, poses a unique cause for 
concern. The sovereign independence of Saudi Arabia is of vital 
interest to the United States, as President Bush said in 1990 after 
Iraq invaded Kuwait. If a hostile nation seized Saudi oil wells, the 
largest reserve in the world, the American economy and the world 
markets could tumble.
  More recent events are again drawing our attention to Saudi Arabia. 
Last week, Attorney General Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh publicly 
acknowledged what has been known for a long time; and that is that the 
Saudis are not cooperating with the United States investigation into 
the terrible terrorist attack at Dharhan on June 25 of 1996. We saw the 
terrorist attack on United States citizens in Riyadh in November of 
1995. We saw the Saudi investigation. We saw the Saudi execution of 
four convicts, people they said were guilty, on May 31, 1996 without 
giving the FBI an opportunity to question those individuals. Now 
Director Freeh has been blunt about the lack of Saudi cooperation, and 
Attorney General Janet Reno said the same thing in public disclosures 
last week.
  It is in the interest of the United States, Mr. President, for our 
relationship with Saudi Arabia to continue, and we want to have a good 
relationship with the Saudis. But we have some 5,000 U.S. military 
personnel there. We have thousands of other U.S. personnel there. I 
think it is important for the Saudis to understand that continued 
United States cooperation requires fair treatment for our investigative 
efforts.
  Along a parallel line, it is important for the Saudis to understand 
that respect for United States personnel there, for their religious 
freedom, is of enormous importance. It was not too long ago, in the mid 
1980's, when United States citizens were arrested in their households 
by the so-called ``religious police'' and held in detention.
  But this effort to maintain our relationship with the Saudis, while 
of enormous importance, requires that we focus on a potential problem 
of what we will do if the oil supplies from Saudi Arabia are in any way 
threatened.
  Mr. President, while our interest in reducing dependence on foreign 
oil is a difficult task, we can achieve meaningful reductions in energy 
consumption through prompt reauthorization of the Federal mass transit 
and highway programs contained in the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991, known as ISTEA, as well as enactment of an 
Amtrak reform bill and continued public policy initiatives to promote 
the use of clean burning alternative-fueled vehicles such as natural 
gas and electric cars.
  ISTEA is commonly referred to as the highway bill, but it does much 
more than pave roads. That legislation expands the mass transit formula 
and discretionary grant programs, authorizing some $31.5 billion over 6 
years for public transportation. Other provisions established funding 
for bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways. That bill revolutionized 
Federal spending on transportation infrastructure improvements by 
establishing the National Highway System, funding the Congestion 
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, granting States and 
local governments more flexibility in determining transit and highway 
solutions, and promoting new technologies such as intelligent 
transportation systems and magnetic levitation systems, which are also 
important alternatives to help us reduce dependency on foreign oil.
  The funding authority for ISTEA will expire on September 30 this 
year, therefore creating the necessity and an opportunity to focus 
national attention on the significant link between energy consumption 
and our transportation infrastructure. A Department of Transportation 
study of the 50 largest urban areas in the United States suggests that 
nearly 4 billion gallons of gasoline are wasted each year due to 
traffic congestion--approximately 94 million barrels of oil. There is 
much at stake, for the annual economic loss to business in the United 
States caused by traffic congestion is estimated in itself at $40 
billion by the Federal Transit Administration. We will be correcting 
many problems if we work on mass transit and road improvements to 
reduce traffic congestion and also our dependence on foreign oil.
  Legislation to reauthorize Federal highway programs will provide an 
opportunity to improve existing roadways, construct more efficient 
bypasses and highway interchanges and generally reduce congestion in 
our cities and towns. Further, a key weapon in our effort to reduce our 
dependence on oil shipments from potentially unstable regions is public 
transportation and mass transit.
  Mass transit has developed to include traditional bus and subway 
lines, commuter rail, cable cars, monorails, water taxis, and several 
other modes of shared transportation. Public transportation is a 
lifeline for millions of

[[Page S837]]

Americans and deserves substantial funding for that reason alone. 
However, it deserves even greater funding when one considers that 
public transportation saves 1.5 billion gallons of fuel consumption 
annually in the United States and that each commuter who switches from 
driving alone to using public transportation saves 200 gallons of 
gasoline per year, according to government and private studies. Transit 
thus deserves a renewed and expanded Federal commitment as we begin 
consideration of the reauthorization of ISTEA.
  The additional benefits of reducing fuel consumption and improving 
the environment, not to mention the millions of Americans who are 
involved in the transit industry, provide extra reason to stop and 
explore the case for mass transit. In our States, citizens and 
communities depend on good public transportation for mobility, access 
to jobs and health care providers, environmental control, and economic 
stability.
  In the context of ISTEA reauthorization, I intend to work closely 
with my colleagues to ensure that sufficient funds are available for 
improving our transportation infrastructure, including both highways 
and transit. As a first step, I was pleased to join 56 of my colleagues 
in a recent bipartisan letter to Budget Committee Chairman Pete 
Domenici urging that the fiscal year 1998 budget resolution reflect the 
need for increased transportation funding. Further, I am currently 
working on legislation that reflects the energy and environmental 
benefits of public transportation by increasing funding for mass 
transit and preserving the elements of the transit program incorporated 
in the 1991 ISTEA law. The additional benefits of reducing fuel 
consumption and improving the environment will be present if we do have 
the highway-transit conservation ideas uppermost in our minds. Mr. 
President, I have taken some time today since we are in morning 
business and since there is not business at hand to speak on the 
subject of the interrelationship between the way we handle mass transit 
and oil conservation in the context of what is going on in the Mideast 
and very serious potential problems which we face there.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article in the New 
York Times from last Sunday be printed at the conclusion of my 
comments, entitled ``Oil Imports Are Up. Fretting About It Is Down,'' 
which summarizes some of the statistical basis for legitimate concern 
if we do not do something about those oil imports and if we do not 
focus on them. As the headline notes, fretting about oil imports is 
down. It is passe. We do remember those long lines, many of us do, in 
1973, and we do see the problems in the Mideast and the issue of 
stability of the Saudi Government.
  This is the interrelation of problems which I think we have to 
address in a number of ways. We can address these problems through our 
foreign policy with the Saudis, and by trying to reduce dependency on 
foreign oil in a variety of ways, such as first, stimulating our 
domestic oil production consistent with environmental concerns, and 
second, reauthorizing the ISTEA programs, which will give us an 
opportunity to achieve some meaningful economies through mass transit.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Jan. 26, 1997]

             Oil Imports Are Up--Fretting About It Is Down

                          (By Matthew L. Wald)

       Washington.--In his second inaugural address last week, 
     Bill Clinton made promises on the usual problems, like race 
     relations, education and health. But another hardy perennial, 
     the nation's dependence on imported oil, went unmentioned. 
     Not gone but forgotten, this problem is larger than ever.
       Imports have risen to record levels--about 50 percent of 
     consumption, according to the American Petroleum Institute. 
     Needing cash last year, the Government sold off about 25 
     million barrels from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the 
     equivalent of almost three weeks of imports from Saudi 
     Arabia. That hoard might have been precious in a crisis.
       But there will not be another crisis quite like the oil 
     shortages of 1973 to 1974 and 1979 to 1980, experts say, and 
     there are reasons that might justify America's profligate 
     course. Last year, domestic production decreased, but the oil 
     companies delivered 2.8 percent more fuel to their customers. 
     As a result, imports, which are relatively cheap, increased 6 
     percent, the institute said.
       The contrast between the bad old days and today is 
     stunning. When imports were 40 percent of consumption, Jimmy 
     Carter, donning a cardigan, said that America should cut 
     imports by nearly a third by 1985 and declared ``the moral 
     equivalent of war.'' As President Carter's energy czar, James 
     R. Schlesinger, but it last week, Americans now have evolved 
     to ``indifference without moralizing.''
       Efforts to find substitute fuels for vehicles continue, 
     along with programs to pump more domestic oil and conserve 
     use. But dependence on foreign sources will grow anyway, the 
     General Accounting Office said last month, because rising 
     demand will outstrip all these efforts as the economy grows. 
     Even without a population increase or new factories to 
     consume more energy, new Chevy Astros, Mercury Villagers and 
     other vans are roaring out of showrooms as old fuel-efficient 
     Chevy Chevettes and Honda Civics head for the scrap heap. 
     That means more fuel per mile.
       Combined with declining domestic production, imports could 
     rise to 60 percent of consumption by 2015, the G.A.O. said.
       Hazel R. O'Leary, whose job as Energy Secretary ended with 
     Mr. Clinton's swearing-in, said in an interview just before 
     here departure that the American people needed to get the 
     message, but delivering it was beyond the ability of an 
     Energy Secretary. She said it would take another oil shock.
       And that appears about as certain as another hurricane in 
     Florida or earthquake in California. The only question is 
     when. Many of the elements are already in place; Larry 
     Goldstein, the president of the Petroleum Industry Research 
     Foundation, said that idle production capacity is only about 
     three million barrels a day, all of it in the Persian Gulf. 
     ``If you were to have a disruption in Kuwait or Saudi 
     Arabia,'' he said, ``the ability of the world to make it up 
     is zero. And nobody would honestly say the Middle East is 
     more secure today than it was a decade ago.''
       But Mr. Goldstein and other experts say oil is no longer at 
     the top of America's problem list of a number of reasons.
       For one, interruptions in supply from the Persian Gulf are 
     possible, but there is no enemy superpower poised to march 
     in. ``When the Soviet Union was still around, it had six 
     airborne divisions seemingly ready to fly into the gulf,'' 
     said Mr. Schlesinger, who also did a turn as Secretary of 
     Defense. OPEC has lost power too, he said.
       In fact, the so-called North-South confrontation of the 
     1970's, with rich oil-consuming nations facing off against 
     poor energy-producing ones, is mostly gone. Daniel Yergin, 
     president of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, pointed 
     out that in the 1970's and 1980's, oil-producing countries 
     nationalized their industries, but now they are privatizing 
     them and asking for Western investment. ``It's back to a high 
     degree of interdependence,'' he said. ``Everybody wants to be 
     on the same team now.''
       And America itself has changed. The amount of goods and 
     services that 20 years ago required five barrels of oil to 
     make now takes only three. Not only have utilities switched 
     to coal and natural gas, but the output of the American 
     economy has also shifted away from products using vast 
     amounts of energy, like heavy manufactured goods, to those 
     that use hardly any, like movies and computer software.
       The price of oil is down, too. In 1980, oil sales were 
     about 8.5 to 9 percent of gross domestic product. ``Today, 
     it's a little over 3 percent,'' Mr. Goldstein said.
       Mr. Goldstein also distinguishes between dependency and 
     vulnerability. If this country cut its dependency by several 
     million barrels a day, it would still be just as vulnerable 
     to price shock, he said, because in a free international 
     market, ``a disruption anywhere is a price shock 
     everywhere.'' Making a similar point last month, the G.A.O. 
     gave the example of Britain after the fall of the Shah of 
     Iran and the subsequent price shock. That country was nearly 
     self-sufficient in oil at the time, but when the price rose, 
     the economic dislocation was severe. The G.A.O. report found 
     that ``vulnerability is linked to dependence on oil, not 
     merely to dependence on imported oil.''
       Cheap oil is still a boon to the American economy. The 
     G.A.O. put the benefits of cheap oil at hundreds of billions 
     of dollars annually. Its analysis explicitly excluded the 
     cost of human life in sending American soldiers back into 
     Mideastern oil fields--or the limits that import dependency 
     may impose an American foreign policy. In the current 
     political climate, though, those costs do not seem to be high 
     on anybody's list.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and note the absence of 
a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Stevens). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  
                            ____________________