[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 82 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5771-S5773]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              ENERGY COSTS

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we are focusing today on energy and energy 
costs, which is something of which each of us is certainly aware. I 
suspect there is more exposure to gasoline prices than any other 
particular price. As we drive down Main Street in our hometowns, on 
every block we see a big sign showing the price of gasoline, and it 
certainly changes.
  I wanted to go back a little, however. As the Senator from Arizona 
mentioned, there is a background here. I think there are several 
reasons, of course, why we have the price difficulties we have now. It 
is a complex story. It has to do with global supply and demand. It has 
to do with technological change and environmental consciousness, the 
shifting of consumer tastes, and social order. It also, of course, has 
a great deal to do with restrictions and regulations that have been 
imposed.
  But one of the other things it has to do with is the availability and 
access to public lands. About 54 percent of the surface of this country 
belongs to the Federal Government. Most of that, of course, lies in the 
West. The State ownership in my State of Wyoming is about 50 percent of 
the total. It goes up to as high as 90 percent of the total in Nevada 
and Alaska and other States. So the idea of multiple use and access to 
these lands becomes a very important factor, not only for resources 
such as oil and gas, but equally important and perhaps even more 
important, often, for recreation, access for hunting and fishing 
recreation. We have seen, in recent months, an even more focused effort 
on the part of this administration to reduce access to public lands, to 
make it more difficult for the people who own those public lands to 
have an opportunity to utilize them.
  After all, I happen to be the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
National Parks. The purpose of a national park, of course, is not only 
to preserve the resource, the national treasure, but to make it 
available for the people who own it to use it; that is, the taxpayers 
of this country. It is true, parks are quite different than BLM lands, 
quite different than Forest Service lands, but the principle is still 
there; that we ought to preserve that resource and at the same time 
have multiple use so its owners can enjoy it for recreation, can enjoy 
it for hunting or fishing, so the economy of this country and the 
economy of this particular State can be enhanced by the multiple use of 
those resources.
  As we move into different ways of prospecting for oil and different 
ways of mining, different ways of using snowmobiles and so on, we find 
we have a better opportunity, as time goes by, to use those resources 
without causing damage.

[[Page S5772]]

  Particularly towards the end of this administration, and it has been 
stated very clearly by the Secretary of Interior and Assistant 
Secretaries of Interior, they are going to make a mark here. The 
President has indicated he would like to change his legacy to be like 
that of Theodore Roosevelt, who did all these things for public lands. 
The Secretary himself said: If the Congress is not going to do this, we 
will go ahead and do it without them.
  That is a real challenge to one of the strong principles of this 
Government, the principle of divided government. We have it divided in 
the Constitution so we have the executive branch, we have the 
legislative branch, and we have the judicial branch. We have that 
separation for a very important reason. That is so none of those three 
branches is able to assume all the responsibility and all of the 
authority--and, frankly, very little of the accountability.
  What we have seen in the last few months is a movement by the 
administration to go out on its own and make a bunch of regulations and 
do things, under the Antiquities Act, which reduce the availability of 
the lands for people who own them to enjoy them; for example, setting 
aside 40 million acres of forest lands as roadless. There are several 
problems with that. I don't particularly have any problem with some of 
that. We have lots of forest lands in my State, and I am glad we do. My 
parents' property, their ranch, where I grew up, was right next-door to 
a national forest. There is nothing I care more for.
  But the fact is, we ought to have a system for deciding how we handle 
these lands. Instead of using the forest plan which is what the system 
is supposed to be, for instance, in the Black Hills we spent 7 years 
and $7 million doing a forest plan, and now the bureaucrats here in 
Washington decide we are going to have a national roadless area, 
without accommodating the people with an opportunity to discuss it for 
each of the forests, and without coming to the Congress.
  Now there are a series of meetings going on which the Forest Service 
talks about a lot, but I have attended some of those and the fact is 
when you go, they are not able to tell you really what the plan is. So 
no one has a chance to react. So what we have, in effect, is the 
opportunity to avoid this.
  The people I have heard from, who feel very strongly about it--some 
happen to be disabled persons, some happen to be veterans--say: Wait a 
minute, we don't need a road everywhere. But we need enough roads to 
have access so people who cannot walk 17 miles with a pack on their 
back still have the opportunity to take advantage of that resource that 
is so important. So I think that is one of the things that is very 
difficult.

  The Bureau of Land Management also put out a ruling on off-road 
usage. I don't have any problem with that either. We ought not to have 
four-wheelers going everywhere. We ought not to have roads going 
everywhere. But we ought to have a plan so people can have access by at 
least having a road for access. You don't need five roads; I understand 
that. So there needs to be a plan.
  The Antiquities Act is a very important act. In fact, it was very 
important to my State of Wyoming with respect to the Devils Tower and 
the Grand Teton National Park; it gives the President the authority to 
set aside certain lands in special use. Relatively little of that has 
happened over the last few years, but this President in the last 6 
months has set aside hundreds of thousands of acres, without the 
involvement of anyone. That is not the system. This is the same 
administration that wants to do an environmental impact statement on 
everything that is done, so you could have public input. I am for that. 
I pushed very hard to have the opportunity for local governments to be 
involved in the decisions that are made and impact their States. There 
are no such decisions here, just one made by this administration.
  Now we have what is called a CARE Act, to take $3.5 billion from 
offshore royalties and have it as mandatory spending, where the 
Congress has nothing to do with deciding how use of that money is 
planned, $1 billion a year to be used for the acquisition of more and 
more Federal lands. We feel very strongly about that in the West. It 
doesn't mean there are not pieces of land that need to be acquired, 
need to be set aside--no one opposes that. But the fact is, if you want 
to acquire more land in Wyoming, which is already 50 percent Federal 
owned, why not go ahead and acquire it and then release an equal value 
of Federal lands somewhere else so you don't have a net gain. That is a 
reasonable thing to do and we intend to pursue that, in terms of this 
CARE Act.
  The endangered species, again, who argues with endangered species, 
trying to protect the critters? The fact is, however, there has been no 
involvement in the listing of the animals; there has been very little 
opportunity to find a recovery plan. We have had grizzly bears listed 
now for 10 years around Yellowstone Park. The numbers have far exceeded 
the goal that was set. But you can talk about habitat forever and they 
continue to be there. We just have to manage this public land so it is 
available and useful.
  The Clean Water Act, nonpoint-source clean water, has also been used 
to manage land.
  That is where we are. Interestingly, the latest one has been the 
proposal to ban snowmobiles from Yellowstone Park--in fact, from 27 
parks. Again, I don't argue that there needs to be more management of 
these vehicles so you ought to do something about the noise, ought to 
do something about the air emissions, ought to do something about 
separating them so we have a snow team over here, we can have cross-
country skiers over here, without interfering with each other. The fact 
is, the Park Service over 20 years has never done anything to manage 
this thing.
  Now all of a sudden they say: It is not going the way it ought to, so 
we are going to ban it for everyone. That is not a good way to manage a 
resource.
  We find an increasing bureaucratic self-declaration that they are 
going to do these things, and if the Congress does not like it, that is 
too bad. That is not the way this Government is designed to work. Quite 
frankly, we cannot let that happen.
  How does this tie into energy? As I mentioned before, almost 55 
percent of public land in the West belongs to the Federal Government. 
Most of the opportunities for resource development have been on these 
Federal lands in the West. They have been a very important part of the 
State economies. They have been a very important part of the natural 
production.
  Over the last several years, it has become more and more difficult, 
because of regulations and rules, for people to go on these lands and 
produce resources, even though they very clearly, under the law, have 
to reclaim the land, whether it is mining or oil wells. We have an 
increased demand for energy on the one hand and a reduction in 
production on the other, and we are certainly a victim of overseas 
production.
  Americans consume over 130 billion gallons of gasoline, almost four 
times as much as 50 years ago. Consumption has grown at a rate of 1.5 
percent. That translates to about 8.4 million barrels a day, which is 
45 percent of the total oil production. There is increased usage, a 
reduction in domestic production, and we are at the mercy of OPEC.
  It is also interesting that in 1999, the tax component of gasoline 
was approximately 40 cents a gallon, or about 34 percent of the total 
cost. Interestingly enough, the price component of a gallon of gas, 
crude oil, and taxes is about equal: 18.5 cents is Federal and 20 cents 
is the average State tax that is levied on top.
  We also find ourselves with additional restrictions and regulations, 
put on this year, with making some changes in our policy if we are to 
deal with this increased demand. Obviously, there are a number of 
things that ought to be done over time.
  We ought to take a look at consumption and continue pushing for high-
mileage vehicles and reduce demand.
  We need to take a look at domestic production so we are not totally 
dependent on imported energy.
  We need to take a long look at the regulations and see if there are 
alternatives and whether they can be more economical, and whether, in 
fact, what we are doing has been thoroughly thought through. I am not 
sure that has been the case.

[[Page S5773]]

  I have no objection to taking a long look at the pricing of gasoline 
as well. It is interesting that there is such a great disparity in 
prices in different parts of the country. Perhaps there is a good, 
logical reason for that. If so, we should know about it.
  I hope our energy policy does not become totally political. The fact 
is, we have not had an energy policy in this administration. We have 
held hearings in our committee, not only with this Secretary of Energy, 
but the previous two Secretaries of Energy. One says: Yes, we are going 
to have a policy. The fact is, we do not. The fact is, we have not been 
able to fully utilize coal. We have not been able to take advantage of 
nuclear power by stalling in getting our nuclear waste stored. There 
are a lot of things we need to do and, indeed, should do. It is 
unfortunate we have not had the cooperation from this administration.

                          ____________________