[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.
____________________