[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 31 (Monday, March 20, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1447-S1449]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            HIGH FUEL PRICES

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, it is hard to pick up a newspaper or turn 
on a television set or read any kind of political commentary or watch 
one of the Sunday morning talk shows without having the subject very 
quickly turn to the high price that we in this country are paying for 
gasoline. There is a certain amount of deja vu when you look at some of 
these situations: Here we go again. Many Members remember quite well 
the problems this country faced in the 1970s when we had the long lines 
at our gas stations around this country. People were screaming and 
hollering about the lack of gas for their automobiles and were also 
complaining about the price of that gas if they were lucky enough to 
get it.
  Here we are in the year 2000, and basically the problem is very 
similar to what it was back in 1973. It is interesting to me to see so 
many people wringing their hands, struggling to find out exactly what 
is causing this problem. It is not, indeed, a mystery at all. The 
problem is one of supply and demand. We are using far more gas and oil 
in this country than we were in the past decade, than in the past 5 
years, in fact, more than we used last year. Yet we are producing 
substantially less than we are using.
  During the 1970s oil embargo, many of us, particularly those from 
oil-producing States, were saying the problem would only get worse 
unless we did something to become energy self-sufficient. In those 
days, the 1970s, we were importing about 36 percent of the oil we 
consumed in the United States. When the OPEC nations just slightly 
tightened their valves and started producing a little bit less, that 36 
percent brought this Nation to its knees and created the long lines at 
the gas stations.
  Many of us at that time said it was only going to get worse unless we 
concentrated on trying to be more energy self-sufficient in this 
country; we would have to concentrate on making sure we were producing, 
in an environmentally safe manner, the necessary energy to run this 
Nation.
  I wonder what people would say if we imported 50 percent of all the 
food we needed to feed the citizens of our country. I bet that if we 
were 50-percent dependent on foreign countries for food in this 
country, there would be long lines marching in Washington, people 
clamoring for our Nation to get its act together and become more self-
sufficient, producing the food we need. I wonder why it is any 
different when it comes

[[Page S1448]]

to producing the energy this country needs.
  If food is important to our Nation and to our Nation's economy, to 
our Nation's well-being, to our security, certainly energy, which runs 
this country, is important to the security of this Nation. Yet in the 
year 2000 we are not importing 36 percent of the energy we use, as we 
were in the last major crisis back in the 1970s. Today we are importing 
55 percent; 55 percent of all of the energy from oil and gas that we 
use in this country is coming from other countries. We cannot depend on 
many of these countries to give us the supply of energy we need in this 
country.
  So I question why there is so much difficulty in figuring out why we 
have this problem. In the last 13 years, our domestic oil production 
has fallen by 2.7 million barrels a day. In the past 2 years, domestic 
production has fallen about half a million barrels per day. In the last 
decade, there has been a 17-percent decline in the domestic production 
of oil and gas in this country, while at the same time our domestic oil 
consumption has increased by 14 percent. It does not take a rocket 
scientist to figure out that we have a huge problem. We are producing 
less and less and we are consuming more and more. We are depending more 
and more on foreign sources for the energy we need to run America.

  Whether you are a farmer in Louisiana or in Kansas or any other part 
of the United States, or whether you are a housewife taking the 
children to school, whether you are a small businessman who is 
dependent on deliveries, or whether you are an independent trucker 
anywhere in America, you are starting to feel serious economic pressure 
because of the dramatic and rapid increase in the price of oil, in the 
price of gas at the pump.
  The reason I bring this to my colleagues' attention is not any 
mystery. I have outlined why I think the problem is as it is. When you 
become over 50-percent dependent on other countries for something that 
is so important to your domestic survival and economic security, as we 
are dependent on oil, our country is facing very difficult times.
  Some may ask: Senator, that is all fine and good. I understand what 
you are saying. But is there any oil for us to produce in this country?
  The answer is: Absolutely. The problem, however, is that so many of 
our Nation's most valuable energy areas have been arbitrarily shut off 
from any potential exploration and development by actions of 
Government, actions by the Congress, actions by the previous President, 
actions by this President. They have all said: There are certain areas 
we are not even going to look for oil and gas. We would rather depend 
on OPEC to be generous and give us all the oil we need at the price we 
want.
  In fact, that is not happening. On the chart I have here on the 
floor, the orange shows the areas in the Outer Continental Shelf around 
the United States where we have said, by Presidential edict or by acts 
of Congress: You cannot even look for oil and gas.
  From Maine to Florida, from Washington State to the Mexican border, 
we have said we are not going to look or explore or even offer for 
lease these areas where there are known quantities of oil and gas.
  The distinguished Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski, talked about 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the fact that it has been 
closed to any kind of production. An interesting fact is, our own 
Department of the Interior has estimated we have enough oil in that 
area to replace the amount of oil we are getting from the country of 
Saudi Arabia. Yet that area has been closed to even looking to see if 
oil might be there and in recoverable quantities.
  I remember the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge issue very well. I was 
in the House of Representatives when Congress made a decision as to how 
to handle that area, which is located right next to Prudhoe Bay, which 
arguably has been one of the largest oil deposits anywhere in North 
America.
  I remember when we were doing the National Alaskan Interest Lands 
Conservation Act in 1980. We were not sure about what to do with that 
area because not enough was known at that time, some said, to make a 
decision on whether or not we should explore for oil in that area.
  The House of Representatives--and it was also adopted in the Senate--
said: All right, we are going to take this area and set it aside, and 
we are going to study it.
  A lot of times, when Congress does not know what to do, it studies 
something and delays it by having a study.
  We required the Department, working with industry, to do a study 
about whether, No. 1, there were resources there, and, No. 2, whether 
they could be environmentally, safely produced by actions of industry 
if we allowed them to do it. That was in 1980.
  In 1987, the studies were completed and the results were in. The 
Department of the Interior looked at the results of that study and 
recommended the area be leased for exploration and development. But 
Congress would not let them do that. The administration would not let 
them do that. Even though the Department of the Interior, based on the 
study we required them to do in this area, recommended the area be 
leased for exploration and development, there has been no exploration. 
We will not even look to see whether there is any oil in that area for 
use by the people of this country. Yet the estimate is that there could 
be as many as 16 billion barrels of oil sitting there. By governmental 
action, by Presidential order, we are saying we are not even going to 
look there.
  Some say: Senator, are you advocating we have oil production in a 
refuge? I only point out, we have oil production in my State of 
Louisiana in practically every wildlife refuge. In the congressional 
district I represented, which is on the coast of Louisiana, we had oil 
and gas production on every single one of the wildlife refuges.
  The test is whether it is compatible with the purpose of the refuge. 
The question is whether they can be done together in an environmentally 
safe manner. The answer has clearly been shown to be yes, it can, in 
most circumstances. The wildlife refuge benefits from some of the 
royalties from that oil and gas production, and the country benefits 
because we are producing oil where it is found. We can do both at the 
same time.
  The Department of the Interior said that in 1987 after this extensive 
study Congress required. People in Congress said: We will study it 
because we think the answer will come back no. But when the answer came 
back, yes, it can be done, Congress said: We are going to say no 
anyway.

  If one looks at the map on the chart, they will notice that from 
Maine, up to the Canadian border, down to the middle of Florida, we 
have 25 leases. That is it--25 leases. In the Gulf of Mexico off 
Louisiana and Texas, we have over 10,000 leases--oil that is being 
produced on the Outer Continental Shelf that is being used by everybody 
in the United States. About 75 percent of our Federal oil comes from 
off my State and the States of Texas and Mississippi in the Gulf of 
Mexico. Over 10,000 leases are producing oil every day, ensuring 
economic security for this country.
  We cannot do it by ourselves. Selfishly, I could say: Look, I hope 
they do not do it anywhere else. It is great for Louisiana if we have 
all the production and we get all the benefits, all of the jobs, all of 
the construction; that is fine for my State. But it is not good 
national policy to say we are only going to do it off one State.
  On the other hand, look at the west coast. There are a lot of cars on 
the west coast. There are a lot of SUVs on the west coast. There are a 
lot of people hurting who want prices to be lower on the west coast. 
Yet the entire coastline from Canada to Mexico is off limits. There are 
only 83 leases from Canada to Mexico, and these are old leases which 
have been there for years and years.
  With regard to this orange area on this map, we are saying: No, don't 
look at it; don't touch it; don't consider it. Are they saying that 
because we do not need it when we import 55 percent of our oil, or are 
they saying things have to be done perfectly to proceed and, unless 
things are done perfectly, we are never going to proceed?
  It seems to me we have to have a balanced approach to energy 
development in this country. We cannot continue to send our Secretary 
of Energy--which is where I understand he is this week--to meet with 
OPEC hat in hand, saying to these foreign countries, please, please, 
give us more oil, when at the same

[[Page S1449]]

time we are not doing nearly enough to develop the legitimate resources 
in our own country.
  If we had an aggressive development and production program in our 
country, we would not be importing 55 percent of the oil we need to run 
America. Yet when we say we are not going to do anything between Canada 
and Mexico and between Canada and Florida and we are only going to do 
it off Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi, that is not a balanced 
approach to energy development in the United States.
  Some say: We don't want to have it off our coast because it may 
pollute the environment; we may have an oil spill from an offshore 
platform. The truth is, it is far more dangerous to import oil in 
tankers every day than it is to produce in offshore waters. There was a 
study done by the National Academy of Sciences--and it is on the 
minerals management web site--which talks about where oil is coming 
from that is polluting the waters of the world. Does it come from 
offshore production? No. Offshore oil and gas development is actually 2 
percent of the oil that is found in offshore waters around the world. A 
little less than 2 percent comes from offshore development.
  Where does it come from? It is no surprise: Importing oil and moving 
oil around the oceans of the world in ships. Marine transportation 
accounts for 45 percent of all the oil that is found in the ocean 
waters that is not supposed to be there. Municipal and industrial waste 
and runoff, which comes from when it rains and the rain runs off the 
streets and works its way ultimately to the oceans of the world, 
accounts for another 36 percent. Atmospheric fallout is about 9 
percent, and natural seepage, which comes up from the ocean floor, is 
about another 9 percent. But less than 2 percent of the oil that is 
found in oceans comes from drilling for oil and gas off the coast of 
the countries where oil can be found.
  I do not know what the answer is. There is no simple answer. I know 
the President made some proposals in a radio address this week. I 
encourage the administration to continue to seek solutions to the 
problem.
  I have a suggestion, and one of the suggestions is right from the 
minerals management office. They have a chart that talks about the 
undiscovered resources in areas that are currently under 
moratorium. They make an estimate of how much oil is in areas of the 
country that we cannot even enter. Their estimate is probably the most 
accurate in the world.

  For areas under moratorium--either congressional or Presidential 
moratorium--they estimate there are 15.2 billion barrels of oil sitting 
out there in areas where we are saying: Don't even go look. And there 
is an additional 61.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that could be 
found in these areas. But you know what. If we don't look, we will 
never know. It would seem to me that as long as we have these huge 
areas where we have x'd out any ability to take a look to see what 
energy is there, we are not on very solid ground when we blame OPEC for 
the problems we are facing today.
  With 55 percent of the oil used in the United States being imported, 
OPEC has the ability, by turning that faucet off just a little bit, to 
bring this country to its knees. Can you imagine what it would do if 
they turned a full turn and really reduced it?
  No nation should ever allow itself--certainly not a nation as strong 
as the United States--to become dependent on foreign sources for things 
that are critical to our economic well-being and our national security 
and, indeed, our survival. Yet over the years we have allowed just that 
to happen with regard to energy.
  We would not allow it to happen in the area of food. We would not 
allow it to happen in the area of planes or tanks or warships or 
anything else that we depend on for our national security--except in 
this one area. We have made a conscious decision to say: It is all 
right to import over half of the energy we use.
  It is unacceptable. It is bad public policy. It needs to be changed; 
otherwise, every so often we will be faced with what we are faced with 
today.
  In his radio address, the President has made some suggestions which I 
have noted. One was the creation of an environmentally sound home 
heating oil reserve for the Northeast. My question is, Where does the 
oil for that reserve come from? Are we just going to buy it from OPEC 
at $30 a barrel? That is not going to solve the problem of high energy 
prices for the Northeast if we are filling up their oil reserve with 
oil coming from OPEC at $30 a barrel. It would come out of the reserve 
at the same price.
  The second suggestion is to immediately reauthorize the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, which is located in Louisiana and Texas, where we 
have oil underground. I am all for doing that, but we are going to be 
putting oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at $30 a barrel because 
of what OPEC has done to us.
  Neither one of these two suggestions domestically produce any 
additional oil. It will continue to be filled with 55 percent of oil 
coming from foreign sources at $30 a barrel or at whatever price OPEC 
determines.
  The President has some other suggestions on promoting energy 
efficiency. We are all for that. He has some suggestions for tax 
incentives for energy efficiency. I am for that. He has some 
suggestions on promoting the use of alternative fuels--I am for that--
and also support for domestic oil production, which I think is very 
positive.
  But if you have all of these areas that are roped off, if you will, 
and you say, ``Don't go here,'' when we know some of these areas have 
as much as Saudi Arabia exports to us--such as, in the Arctic Wildlife 
Refuge--I suggest that as long as we have huge areas, thousands of 
miles of areas where we are saying don't even look for energy, then we 
are never going to address the heart of the problem, which is a lack of 
energy self-sufficiency for the United States of America. We cannot 
ever say we are going to be energy self-sufficient just by producing 
energy off the coast of one or two States.
  Certainly, the Congress in the past has accepted the fact that we 
would let these areas be roped off. I guess the thought is always: 
Let's produce it somewhere else.
  That is what we are doing. We are producing it somewhere else. It is 
called OPEC. Its nations have formed a cartel. They have done very well 
in controlling the price. They know they can bring this country--
indeed, the world--to its knees simply by turning the valve off just a 
little bit. They will continue to do that.
  I hope they open up the spigot just a little bit, but as long as we 
are importing 55 percent of the energy for the United States of 
America, they will always have the ability to bring us to our knees. 
That is something that should be unacceptable for the United States of 
America.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________