[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 38 (Thursday, March 30, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1958-S1961]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE GASOLINE PRICE SPIKE

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity 
to advise my colleagues why I think it is appropriate that we address 
some relief for the American consumer with regard to the gasoline price 
spike that has occurred in this country. I am a cosponsor, with the 
majority leader, Senator Lott, and a number of others, of this 
important legislation that will give us an opportunity to take positive 
action in a meaningful way to put a brake on the ever-rising gasoline 
prices that American families face each day.
  The American people should have a choice, whether they feel the 
priority is such that they should have relief from the gasoline tax. I 
emphasize a choice. I emphasize the American people, through their 
elected representatives on this floor, have to make a determination 
that this is a priority because there is no free lunch around here. 
What we are talking about is a combined bill which would waive the 
Federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents. That is a considerable tax. It is 
even larger when you add the State taxes to it.
  When I said there is no free ride around here, what I meant was we 
have agreed if we suspend the Federal gas tax for the balance of this 
year, we will also make whole the highway trust fund. That alternative 
will require that we find considerable funds. But if we guarantee we 
are going to find them, that means they are going to come through the 
budget process, from surplus and other areas.
  Is this a sufficient priority? There are those who feel very strongly 
this jeopardizes the highway trust fund. In this bill itself, it says 
we will hold the highway trust fund harmless. That is a mandate, in 
effect a promise, to hold it harmless. It does not say where the money 
is going to come from to offset it.
  We are suspending it only for the balance of this year. I have been 
advised by the budgeteers that this will not jeopardize any of the 
contracts that are presently let for this construction year or next 
year that propose to use highway trust fund moneys because those have 
already, in effect, been designated, earmarked, and so forth. I am not 
on the Budget Committee, but that is the advice I have been given.
  I think Members should understand a little background here. It was in 
1993 that the Clinton administration proposed a significant tax on 
Btus. There was going to be a big tax increase on all Btus--British 
thermal units. It was going to be based on what you use. We debated 
this issue at length and we voted down the increased Btu tax that the 
Clinton administration proposed. However, there was a 4.3-cent-a-gallon 
gas tax that was also proposed at that time. It was hotly debated. That 
4.3-cent-a-gallon gas tax was not designated for the highway trust 
fund. It was designated for the general fund. That is just where it 
went.
  Of interest to the Chair, perhaps, is how this happened. All the 
Republicans voted against the tax; six Democrats joined us, and we had 
a tie vote. Vice President Al Gore sat in the Chair as the Presiding 
Officer of this body, where the Senator from Utah sits, and he broke 
the tie. The Vice President has to wear the mantle. That is where the 
4.3-cent-a-gallon tax came from. He has to wear the mantle. It did 
designate the tax would go into the general fund. Later, when the 
Republicans took control of this body, we changed the designation from 
the general fund and we designated that 4.3 cents into the highway 
trust fund.
  It should again be noted what this legislation specifically provides 
because there is a lot of confusion over it. It says in order for the 
18.4 cents to be suspended, and this is regular gasoline, the price has 
to average $2 a gallon. Only then will it be suspended, and only for 
the balance of this year. And the highway trust fund will be made 
whole.
  I know there are Members who feel uncomfortable about the highway 
trust fund. But all I can do is make very clear what this bill 
provides. It provides for full reimbursement of the highway trust fund. 
But it is not a free ride. The money is going to have to come from 
someplace else.

  The point I want to make, and the appeal to my colleagues and our 
staffs who are listening, is about the real savings. America's 
consumers cannot pass on this price increase. If you buy an airline 
ticket, as my friend from Utah and I do occasionally, to go back to 
Utah or Alaska, you are paying a surcharge for fuel. You don't know 
what the tax is on the ticket because the airlines have so many 
confusing fares you can't figure it out, but a $40 surcharge is in 
there.
  The trucker who comes to Washington, DC, who has a contract for 
delivery, maybe he cannot pass it on; and the farmer, it is very 
unlikely he is going to pass it on; nor the fishermen in my State who 
fuel up their vessels, it is pretty hard for them to pass it on--but 
the person who surely cannot pass it on is the American consumer, the 
moms driving their kids to the soccer game. The family bought a utility 
sports vehicle for convenience. Maybe the SUV does not get too many 
miles to the gallon. It might have a 40-gallon gas tank. When mom goes 
to the gas station and fills that up at nearly $2 a gallon, it shoots a 
pretty good hole in a $100 bill.

  The question before us is: Do we want to do something short term, or 
do nothing, which is what the administration proposes. My colleagues 
heard the President yesterday. He said we have to develop more 
dependence on alternative fuels, we have to develop more resources 
domestically. He does not tell you he is going to open up low-sulfur, 
high-Btu coal in Utah. No, he says he has made that wilderness, for all 
practical purposes.
  He does not say he is going to encourage exploration on public lands 
in the Rocky Mountains so that oil and gas exploration can occur in 
those States in the overthrust area where there is a tremendous 
potential for oil and gas in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, 
Kansas, or Oklahoma, where the small strippers have almost gone out of 
production because they simply cannot produce at the low prices. They 
only produce a few barrels a day. My colleague, Senator Kay Bailey 
Hutchison, addressed that earlier today.
  In our long-term package of proposals, there is relief for the 
stripper wells. There is relief to encourage exploration in the 
overthrust Rocky Mountain area. There is relief to provide OCS areas 
for lease--we heard the Vice President say: If I am elected President, 
I am going to cancel all the OCS lease programs. He does not say where 
he is going to get the oil to replace that produced under the leases.
  Think about what this administration's policy is on energy. One does 
not have to think very long because there is none. Clearly, our 
Secretary was sent over to OPEC almost on his knees to beg for 
production increases. OPEC said they were going to have a meeting on 
the 27th. He was over there 3 weeks prior to that. The Secretary said: 
We have an emergency in the United States. They said: We are going to 
meet on the 27th. They met on the 27th. They did not do anything until 
the 28th.
  I have a chart which shows what they really did. They did this 
yesterday. Not many people are aware of the realities associated with 
what has happened to oil and the demand for oil in this country.
  To the left of the chart in the red is the total global demand for 
oil in the world today. It is about 76.3 million barrels per day. To 
the right of the chart is the production and where it comes from: 45 
percent from non-OPEC, 23 percent from OPEC, 5.6 percent other OPEC.
  My point is, actual production is 75.3 million per day, but the 
demand is 76.3 million per day. There is a 1 million-barrel-a-day 
difference. There is a greater demand than supply. When there is this 
kind of situation, we have price spirals.
  I want to point out and make sure everybody understands what happened

[[Page S1959]]

yesterday with OPEC. I am really amazed, with the exception of the Wall 
Street Journal and a few other folks, the media has not really delved 
into this. When OPEC met last year, they decided they were going to 
produce 23 million barrels a day. They promptly began to cheat. They 
overproduced. They produced 24.2 million barrels a day. The difference 
between what they said they were producing, 23 million barrels a day, 
and what they were actually producing, 24.2 million barrels a day, is 
1.2 million barrels a day. The difference between the 1.2 million 
barrels and 1.7 million is 500,000 barrels a day. That is what they are 
actually producing.
  Here it is. They were cheating 1.2 million barrels a day. As I said 
before, they started out with 23 million but were actually producing 
24.2. The difference between 1.2 and 1.7 is 500,000 barrels a day, and 
that is exactly what we got. That is the actual new production. It is 
not 1.7 million barrels a day, it is 500,000 barrels a day.

  Let me take it one step further because this really excites me, and 
that is, what our share of OPEC oil has been. Our share has been about 
16 percent. If we got another 500,000 barrels increase--remember, this 
does not go just to the United States, this goes to all the customers 
of OPEC all over the world. The U.S. share is about 16 percent. So that 
amounts to about 79,000 barrels a day.
  With the help of some of my staff and the AAA, we determined the 
immediate metropolitan area of Washington, DC, uses 121,000 barrels a 
day. This means that with the 500,000 new barrels, we are not even 
standing still.
  I do not want to put too much of an arithmetic load on my colleagues, 
but there is one more figure they ought to know about, and that is the 
little secret of the administration and the Department of Energy they 
did not want you to hear. They did not want you to find out what was 
written between the lines of the OPEC agreement. Here it is. Buried in 
the agreement is what they call a ``price band'' provision to keep the 
prices between $22 and $28 a barrel. We have seen prices for oil go up 
to $34. A year ago, that price per barrel was at $10 and $11.
  This is a unique arrangement, but our friends in OPEC are unique in 
their craftsmanship of what is in their best interests. The arrangement 
calls for producers to increase output 500,000 barrels--remember where 
you heard it. That is the 500,000 that is the actual increase. They 
said:

       The arrangement calls for producers to increase output 
     500,000 barrels per day on a pro rata basis if oil prices 
     remain above $28 for 20 consecutive days.

  My friend, I am a businessman. I understand the fine print of an 
agreement, but I do not think the folks down at the White House do or, 
if they do, they do not want you to know about it. This agreement 
further states that OPEC will also cut from production--there it is, 
cut from production, cut from their 1.7 million-barrel promise, or 
really the 500,000 barrels a day. They will cut from production by that 
same amount if prices fall below $22 for more than 20 days. They have 
set a ceiling, and they have set, obviously, a cellar.
  OPEC or the Clinton administration has made no acknowledgment of this 
in their announcements. Isn't that rather curious? We talk about 
significant relief. If we have this kind of a deal, I do not know from 
where the significant relief is going to come. Under this agreement, 
one can easily see that the price of oil is going to hover around $28, 
maybe as high as $34 per barrel for extended periods or until OPEC 
meets again.
  I urge those in the media and my colleagues, and particularly their 
staffs who are a little bit curious, to read today's Oil Daily, page 2. 
It is all spelled out under the headline ``OPEC Bases New Production 
Strategy on Price Band Experiment.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From the Oil Daily, Mar. 30, 2000]

      OPEC Bases New Production Strategy on Price Band Experiment

                   (By Toby Odone and Barbara Shook)

       Buried in the furor over Iran's refusal to go along with 
     other Opec members in raising oil production is a highly 
     innovative price band mechanism, designed to keep prices 
     within a range of $22 to $28 per barrel for the Opec basket.
       The arrangement calls for producers to increase output by 
     500,000 barrels per day on a pro-rata basis if oil prices 
     remain above $28 for 20 consecutive days. They also will cut 
     production by the same amount if prices fall below $22 for 20 
     consecutive days.
       Opec delegates were hailing the new accord as a 
     breakthrough that for the first time guarantees minimum 
     national revenues, making budget-setting and fiscal planning 
     less hazardous. In addition, it potentially provides the 
     market with the stability that producers and consumers, 
     primarily from the U.S., have been calling for loudly in the 
     past few months.
       Nevertheless, should the nine countries that have adopted 
     the new policy adhere to its terms, the upper limit of the 
     new arrangement could see the price for West Texas 
     Intermediate (WTI) rise above $30. On several occasions, the 
     U.S. has said this level is too high, just as last year's $10 
     was too low.
       Even Iran, which is not party to the new quota accord, says 
     it would go along at least with the concept of the price band 
     mechanism. Its production level would be the same volume as 
     the base for the now rolled-back March 1999 agreement. 
     Adjustments, however, would be made as Iran reads the market, 
     not according to the Opec formula.
       Opec made no mention of the new price-band mechanism in the 
     official communique issued early Wednesday after a marathon 
     six-hour negotiating session.
       Word of its proposal was beginning to leak out, however, 
     even before the session ended, as delegation sources told 
     EIG's Energy Intelligence Briefing (EIB) that some 
     ``innovative and flexible'' new terms were under discussion. 
     Several ministers also referred obliquely to a price range 
     rather than a specific target such as the $21 that has been 
     on the Opec books since 1990. Saudi Oil Minister Ali Naimi 
     talked openly of a $20 to $25 price range.
       The official communique also made no mention of the future 
     roles of non-Opec exporters Mexico, Norway, Oman, Angola, and 
     Russia. Opec simply thanked them for their assistance in 
     earlier efforts to stabilize markets.
       On Wednesday, delegates told EIB that the non-Opec 
     countries appear to be released from their commitments to 
     shut in output.
       Outside of the Opec Secretariat, Iran continued to express 
     its irritation with U.S. intervention in the organization's 
     proceedings.
       ``Intervention was beyond expectation,'' an Iranian 
     delegate stated. None of the US's action was needed because 
     Opec and its allied nonmember exporters were aware of the 
     market and prepared to respond to increasing demand, he said.
       ``We were here to accommodate the market. We came here to 
     increase production,'' he said, adding that he believes the 
     US has damaged its image by its interference with and 
     imposition of its position on a group of sovereign nations.
       He also suggested that US actions both now and last year 
     put Opec in a bad light. ``We were discredited,'' he said. 
     ``When we cut the production we were blamed. When we 
     increased the production we were blamed.''
       The Iranian delegate refused to criticize ministers of 
     other countries directly, but he did indicate strong 
     displeasure with what he said was a prearranged agreement 
     formulated by the US. ``We are not here to rubber-stamp 
     agreements,'' he said.
       At the same time, he stressed, Iran is not trying to 
     undermine Opec as an organization. Iran would have supported 
     an increase of 1.7 million b/d if it had been accomplished in 
     two stages, starting with 1.2 million b/d. At the same time, 
     Iran will not give up any market share by withholding its 
     barrels. ``We would at least do the minimum that would have 
     been allocated,'' he said. Output will be adjusted up or down 
     as the market dictates.
       One market that will not influence any Iranian action is 
     the US. ``The US should not have expected any more than what 
     we did because Iran does not have an interest in the US 
     market,'' he declared. ``Had it been a different situation, 
     Iran might have acted differently.''
       Some observers questioned the whole scenario here, 
     wondering if Saudi Arabia and Iran weren't playing a high-
     stakes international version of ``good cop, bad cop.''
       They cited the high price range of the Opec basket relative 
     to WTI as one example of the bad-cop side, with the output 
     increase as the good cop angle. In the process, Saudi Arabia, 
     Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates could appear to be 
     cooperating. Iran, which had nothing to lose but the sale of 
     a few bushels of pistachios, could represent Opec's 
     continuing independence from outside pressure.
       Most Opec ministers and their delegations left Vienna on 
     Wednesday fully expecting prices to stay firm, despite some 
     analysts' suggestions that discord in the organization might 
     herald a sharp sell-off. However, Opec insiders pointed out 
     that the new price mechanism may forestall countries' normal 
     inclination to cheat.

                             NEW OPEC QUOTAS
                           [Thousands of b/d]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Apr. 1    % chg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algeria.............................................       788       7.8
Indonesia...........................................     1,280       7.8

[[Page S1960]]

 
Kuwait..............................................     1,980       7.8
Libya...............................................     1,323       7.8
Nigeria.............................................     2,033       7.8
Qatar...............................................       640       7.9
Saudi Arabia........................................     8,023       7.9
UAE.................................................     2,845       7.9
Venezuela...........................................     2,845       4.6
                                                     -------------------
      Total.........................................    21,069
Assumed others:
  Iran..............................................     3,623
  Iraq..............................................     2,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, now they are experimenting on us with 
this price band. That is a pretty dangerous precedent to set, but, 
nevertheless, we have become so beholden to OPEC, we are 56-percent 
dependent on OPEC.
  The occupant of the chair remembers the Arab oil embargo in 1973. We 
had gas lines around the block. A lot of people were unhappy. Oil was 
more than $30 a barrel. We were excited here. We were concerned. We 
said: We will never allow exports to get to a level of more than 50 
percent. We created something to ensure that we had some relief. We 
created the SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We wanted to have a 
100-day supply. I think we have a 56-day supply in the SPR today.
  Now some people say: We have an emergency. Take the supply out of the 
SPR. Think about that. It is very dangerous to use your reserve to 
manipulate prices. You can only draw about 4 million barrels a day out 
of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is located in the salt mines 
of Louisiana. If you take it out, remember, you have to refine it. Then 
what are you going to do for a fallback in a real emergency?
  OPEC is watching what we do. If we pull down our Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, we become that much more vulnerable and, as a consequence, 
more likely to be held hostage.
  As we address what we are going to do this afternoon, again, I 
reiterate, is the priority here for a short-term fix for the American 
consumer not at the expense of the highway trust fund but at the 
expense of making it up through the budget process some other way? I 
think that is a legitimate question.
  When you pit what we are attempting to propose on this side of the 
aisle, which is some kind of relief, to that proposed by the other side 
of the aisle, which is no immediate relief, the difference is clear. 
The Administration suggests only that we develop alternatives, and that 
we have conservation, all of which are worthwhile. But those goals are 
not going to help mom today on her way home with the kids from the 
soccer game when she has to fill up the sports utility vehicle and it 
is going to cost her $80. It is not going to help the farmer. It is not 
going to help my fishermen. It is not going to help the truckers. They 
want relief today to stay in business.
  We have that opportunity. We are going to make that choice. It is a 
choice. It is a legitimate choice. It is a matter of determining where 
the priorities of this body are.
  We have a lot of options. We have some specific proposals for the 
short term and the long term that I think deserve consideration. 
Because if you look at the other side and the administration proposals, 
it is pretty hard to find anything this specific.
  The American people are saying: Hey, we have a crisis. We have a 
problem. The difficulty I have, to a large extent, is where we are 
seeking relief. We are not only limited to petitioning OPEC.
  Let's take a look at our friend, Saddam Hussein, in Iraq. I have a 
chart that I think shows and tells more than I can say in a few words. 
This shows the Iraqi oil exports to the United States. There is 
virtually nothing in 1997.
  But we all remember in 1991 we fought a war over there. We sent young 
American men and women. We had 147 casualties in that war--147. We had 
423 who were wounded. We had 26 who were taken prisoner.
  That war was in 1991. But what about the American taxpayer? What 
happened? You remember, we have been enforcing the no-fly zone over 
there. We have troops stationed around there. We have the fleet. We 
have been keeping Saddam Hussein fenced in, if you will. The cost to 
the American taxpayer has been $10 billion. That is what it has cost in 
the last 9 years. The administration does not factor that in.
  When we look at our fastest growing source of imported oil coming 
into the United States, it is coming from our good friend, Saddam 
Hussein. Incredible. I am indignant over it. I don't know about you and 
my colleagues.
  Last year, we imported 300,000 barrels a day from Iraq. This year we 
have imported 700,000 barrels a day.

  The day before yesterday the Department of Commerce issued a release 
on sanctions for some of the technical parts that are needed within 
Iraqi refineries to increase their production by an additional 600,000 
barrels a day. We are certainly cooperating with Saddam Hussein. Where 
do the profits go? We suspect they probably go to the Republican Guard 
who have something to do with keeping Saddam Hussein safe. It is 
questionable if funds really go to the people of Iraq.
  I was looking at some figures the other day. As we rely on the 
Mideast, I think we should be reminded that what is happening here is 
we are enriching the Mideast, the Arab oil empire.
  As I said, in 1973 we were 36-percent dependent. Today we are 56-
percent dependent. But the startling reality is--and you may not 
believe history teaches anything; some people say it does not teach 
much--but the forecast that the Department of Energy has publicly put 
out is that we will be importing 65 percent of our oil by the year 2015 
to 2020.
  Currently, we receive 46-percent of our oil from OPEC; that is, on 
the 11 OPEC nations. Are these countries that we can depend on? How 
stable are they? What is the risk to Israel as a consequence of the 
difficulties and distrust in that part of the world?
  The U.S. has economic sanctions on 8 of the 11 OPEC countries. What 
for? For human rights abuses, drug trafficking, terrorism, weapons of 
mass destruction. On the other three countries of OPEC, to name two, 
Algeria and Indonesia, they are certainly among the least stable 
nations in the world.
  Are we through there? I don't think so. Six OPEC nations even have 
State Department-issued travel warnings against them. I ask you, if it 
isn't safe for Americans to travel there, is it safe to rely and 
entrust our energy security to those countries?
  I was looking at some material which I think I have here. It is kind 
of startling because I think we had some reference by Senator Lott who 
is concerned about our increasing support of Iraq and the realization 
that Iraq is creating a missile capability. I wonder for whom those 
missiles are designed. Mideast countries? Israel? Who is to say? But we 
are enriching and we are making possible the cash-flow that Saddam 
Hussein has; otherwise he would not have the cash-flow.
  As we look at that energy policy that I talked about, although it is 
pretty hard to identify. It certainly is to import more. It does not 
suggest we develop domestic resources in this country. We have the 
technology to do it safely. We know that.
  There is a great hue and cry by the administration against opening up 
the Arctic Coastal Plain. In my State of Alaska, we have been 
contributing 20 percent of the total crude oil produced in the United 
States for the last 23 years. We have a pipeline that is 800 miles 
long. It has withstood earthquakes and it has withstood dynamite, shots 
fired at it.
  We have an area in Alaska that I can show my colleagues on a chart 
relative to the location and a brief description of where it is, 
because it is important that you understand a few things.
  This morning I had an opportunity to speak on C-SPAN. One of the 
callers asked: Senator, you would like to open up the Coastal Plain, 
but why don't you put the rest of it in a wilderness or put it in a 
refuge or something?
  I will shortly have a chart to show you we have already done that. We 
have 19 million acres in what we call the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge. This is an area that alone is 19 million acres. It is about the 
size of the State of South Carolina. We have already put 8 million 
acres in a permanent wilderness, 9.5 million acres in a refuge 
permanently. But we left for this body to determine whether we could 
safely initiate exploration in what they call a 1002 area, which is 1.5 
million acres. That is all.  The question is, Is this the time to bring 
in the environmental community to work with us to open it safely 
because we have an abundance of

[[Page S1961]]

capacity? This is the area I am talking about specifically. This is the 
19 million acres. This is the refuge, 9.5 million acres; this is the 
wilderness, 8 million acres; this is the Coastal Plain, 1.5 million 
acres. The footprint would be 2,000 acres, if the oil is there. We have 
the pipeline right over there. The President vetoed this in 1995. If he 
had approved it, we would have production today. We have an 
availability of 1 million barrels a day in this pipeline right now. We 
have the overthrust belt, as I have indicated. We have OCS. We have the 
Rocky Mountains. But there is no effort by the administration for 
domestic production.

  For those who wonder what it is really like up there and have never 
been there but are experts on it, who speak on the floor with profound 
knowledge and have never been to Alaska, let alone the Arctic, this is 
the Arctic Slope of Alaska. This is a rig. This is what it looks like 8 
months of the year. This is winter. It is a long winter. It is pretty 
dark. This is an ice road. This is an ice pad. They build it up with 
water and ice so the footprint is minimum. Here is the same picture in 
the summer. The summer should be 4 months, but it is really only about 
3. This is the tundra. That is the footprint. That is reality. It is 
awful hard to get people to come up and look at it and recognize it for 
what it is.
  We are concerned about some of our friends, legitimately so. These 
are legitimate friends. They are going for a walk. Where are they 
walking? They are walking on the pipeline. It is warm. They don't get 
their feet cut. Here are three bears, right at home. That is not a 
prop; that is real.
  We have a few more friends; we are concerned about these friends. 
Here are some of our friendly caribou. There you have it. That is 
Prudhoe Bay. That is technology that is 30 years old. No guns allowed; 
you can't shoot them. You can't run them down with a snow machine. When 
we started Prudhoe Bay, we had 3,800 caribou. Now we have a herd of 
more than 18,000. I don't know whether that convinces anybody that we 
have a sensitivity about the environment, that we can work with our 
technology and do it right. If we get an opportunity for people to 
objectively take a look at the job we have done, the technology we have 
developed over the years, and the opportunity we have to contribute to 
the energy security of this country as opposed to more dependence on 
imports, they usually agree with us.
  That is where we are. I will conclude with a short rundown of the 
long-term and intermediate relief that we have proposed within our 
caucus to provide an opportunity to Members of this body to address 
what kind of relief they want. I have spoken to the gas tax. I have 
enunciated quite clearly that we do not have at risk the highway trust 
fund. That will be made whole. I have explained in detail that this 
measure would suspend the tax until the end of this year only, that it 
would come on only if the average price of gasoline got to $2 a barrel, 
and that the 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax originally did not go to the highway 
trust fund, it went to the general fund.
  I conclude with what we are going to present to this body in our 
legislative package, which is some kind of a relief for the Northeast 
on crude oil storage, for not only crude but heating oil. They have 
been hit very hard, and they are going to be hit harder when they 
generate electricity this summer. A lot of it is going to be generated 
from fuel oil. They are going to be paying perhaps a third to two-
thirds more for electricity because that is what comes on the line 
last. As a consequence, the costs associated with all other forms of 
energy raise up to the last energy source that contributes to the power 
pool, and that will be fuel oil.
  We are also going to look at an effort to address the difficulty with 
the stripper wells by establishing some kind of a bottom price level 
where, when oil gets very low, they can still stay in existence. Make 
no mistake about it, the strippers make a tremendous contribution. We 
can't afford to lose them. They are all over Oklahoma. They are in 
Kansas, in many States. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has legislation to 
address their survival.

  We have legislation for delay of rental payments, to allow expenses 
for geological and geophysical costs, percentage depletion legislation, 
NOL carrybacks, marginal and inactive well tax credits, language to 
address opening within the overthrust belt on public lands.
  Obviously, we are interested in coal because coal can play a major 
role in the power source needs of this country. This administration 
proposes to close eight coal-fired plants. They claim the management of 
those plants is going to be held criminally liable because they have 
intentionally extended the life of these plants that were 
grandfathered. That is the full employment act for the lawyers. They 
have no idea of where they are going to pick up the power to substitute 
for these plants.
  We can address coal through technology, given the opportunity. The 
administration doesn't have a plan for coal. What are they doing with 
nuclear? Nothing. They won't address the problem of what to do with the 
waste. On the West Coast, they will not do anything about hydro. They 
are proposing to take the dams down. I don't know how many hundreds of 
trucks a day are going to be on the highways of Oregon if they take 
those dams down. Grain will be moved by truck rather than barge, 
contributing to more gas usage and more pollution.
  The Administration says, we are going to move to increased use of 
natural gas. If you read the National Petroleum Institute figures, we 
are using 20 trillion cubic feet of gas now. In the next 15 years, we 
would be up to 31. We don't have the infrastructure to deliver it. We 
will have to invest $1.5 trillion for that infrastructure. But, the gas 
is not available for exploration because they won't let us have access 
to public lands. So gas is not the answer.
  If you look at what we are attempting to do as opposed to what the 
other side has proposed, which is what? Alternative energy, 
conservation, some tax breaks--I am all for those things. But we have 
to do something right now. We have a plan. And if it is a priority and 
deemed a priority by this body, then you have a choice. You have a 
choice of whether to vote for the gas tax suspension for the balance of 
this year, if you feel that is a priority or you don't. It will not 
jeopardize the highway trust fund. Again, it is no free ride. We will 
have to find that money someplace else.
  I could go on at length, but I felt it necessary to make this 
presentation to ensure that we had a fair understanding of what we are 
proposing in our caucus for immediate, interim, and long-term relief 
options against what you are hearing from the other side. I wanted you 
to know what we can do domestically to relieve our dependence on 
imported oil. And, I wanted to point out what the administration says 
we got the other day compared to the reality of what we got when we 
read the fine print.
  It appears that our negotiators got the short end of the so-called 
stick because that increase, again, was only 500,000 barrels a day. It 
has a floor and a ceiling: a $28 ceiling; a $22 floor. If you think we 
will see oil cheaper than that, it simply is not going to happen.
  If any Members would like to discuss with me just what is in this 
highway tax bill, please don't hesitate to do so.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________