[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 115 (Monday, September 25, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9208-S9210]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             ENERGY PRICES

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are now dealing with a very important 
issue to the future of our country; and that is the price of energy; 
oil and gas, gasoline, and home heating fuel prices. They have been 
going up at a dramatic rate.
  This is not a surprise. This is an event predicted and warned about 
by Members of this Congress for years, including Senator Murkowski, who 
chairs the Energy Committee. I have talked about it for the last 3 or 4 
years that I have been in this Senate.
  This is what the issue is about. By allowing our domestic energy 
production to decline steadily, we have less and less ability to 
control prices in the world market, and, in fact, we become more and 
more vulnerable to price increases and production reductions by the 
OPEC oil cartel--that group of nations centered in the Middle East that 
get together to fix prices by manipulating production levels.
  We now find ourselves in a very serious predicament. It is not a 
predicament that a simple release of a little oil from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve is going to help. It threatens our economy in the 
long term.
  Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the U.N., just wrote an editorial 
that I saw over the weekend. He has predicted that the poorer nations, 
the developing nations, will be hurt more by rising energy prices than 
the wealthy nations, but he does not dispute that wealthy nations will 
also be damaged.
  This increase in fuel costs amounts to a tax on the American people. 
It comes right out of their pocket every time they go to the gas 
station.
  Now we have this ``bold'' plan of the Gore-Clinton administration to 
release 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 
This is supposed to be a solution to this problem, it is supposed to 
really help. But what this recent action really amounts to, is

[[Page S9209]]

closing the barn door after the horse is out.
  Releasing 30 million barrels of oil will meet no more than 1\1/2\ 
days demand for energy in America. We consume nearly 20 million barrels 
of oil per day in this country. A 30-million barrel release will not 
affect, in any significant way, the problems we are facing. That is a 
fact.
  Oil demand is not elastic. That is the crux of this problem. People 
have to have it. If you are traveling to work in your automobile--and 
there is no other way to get to work for an overwhelming number of 
American citizens, students, workers, and kids going to school--you 
must use gasoline and pay the price it costs.
  So the way this thing has worked is this: The OPEC nations over the 
years saw economies around the world steadily strengthening. Third 
World nations, began using more automobiles and electricity, increasing 
demand for oil, using more energy. We salute them for that. The life 
span for people in countries that have readily available electricity 
and energy is almost one-half longer than for those in countries that 
do not have it. We ought to celebrate poor countries being able to 
improve their standard of living. But as they improve their standard of 
living, their demand for energy increases. It is happening more and 
more around the world, and we should be happy quality of life is 
improving for third world nations. But as demand increased, oil prices 
remained at a steady rate for a significant period, then OPEC withdrew 
its production.

  You have to understand, it does not take much of a difference in 
production to spike the price. That is exactly what happened. They cut 
production below the world demand. To get the oil and gasoline that 
people around the world needed, they were willing to pay a higher 
price. They had to pay a higher price to fill up their gas tank. People 
could not stop buying gas when the price went from $1 to $1.50 to 
$1.80. They had to keep buying gas, just as all of us do in this 
country today. So the shortfall does not have to be large to give them 
that kind of manipulative power over the price.
  This Administration has blamed the oil industry. I have no doubt that 
if the oil industry could make a few cents more per gallon, they would 
try to do so at any point in time. But let's remember, a little over a 
year ago, in my State of Alabama, you could buy gasoline for $1 a 
gallon. Of that $1 of gasoline you bought, 40 cents of it was tax. So 
really you were paying only 60 cents for a gallon of gas, less than a 
gallon of water.
  That gasoline was probably produced somewhere in Saudi Arabia, 
refined, and shipped here in ships on which they spend billions to keep 
as safe as they possibly can. It is transported, 24 hours a day, to gas 
stations around the country. You take a gas pump nozzle, put it in the 
receptacle, and the gas goes into your tank. Nobody ever doubts the 
quality of the gasoline or likely gives much thought to where it came 
from. It is a remarkable thing that the oil industry can do that. Does 
anybody think a Government agency could do that? No, sir.
  So what happened? When OPEC cut their production, it spiked the world 
price--and they have a world market for oil--a barrel of oil which was 
selling for $13, $12, has now hit $36 a barrel and it may be going 
higher because of price manipulation.
  The price has gone up 50, 60, 70 cents a gallon. What does that 
really mean? It is not like an American tax on gasoline where we take 
that 40 cents with which to build roads and other things. It is a tax 
by OPEC on us. Foreign countries that are supplying us their oil are in 
effect charging us 40, 50 cents more for a gallon of gas which every 
American is paying. It is a drain on the wealth of this country. It 
threatens our economic vitality and growth.
  You may say: ``Jeff, why didn't we do a better job of producing 
oil?'' There are some who say this administration has no energy policy. 
I don't agree. It has a policy. It is a no-growth, no-production 
policy. It has been that policy for the last 7\1/2\ years. If Al Gore 
is elected President, it will continue, and you ain't seen nothing yet 
when it comes to the price for fuel in this country. That is a plain 
fact.
  We have tremendous reserves in Alaska for example. We voted on this 
floor--and the vote was vetoed by the administration--to produce oil 
and gas from the tremendous ANWR reserves. Oh, they said, it is a 
pristine area, and America will be polluted. The fact is, there are oil 
wells all around this country. People live right next to them. Oil 
wells do not pollute. But despite this plain fact, the Administration 
refused to allow production.
  It has been reported, the ANWR reserves could be safely produced in 
an area less than the size of Dulles Airport serving the Washington, DC 
area. We would not destroy the Alaskan environment as we produce oil 
and gas there. Unfortunately, this administration would rather us pay 
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the sheiks for it rather than produce it in 
our own country, keeping the wealth here.
  They say: ``Some of that Alaskan oil is sold to Japan''. Economically 
that does not make any difference. When you sell it to Japan, you get 
money from Japan. You can buy it from Saudi Arabia, or wherever you buy 
it from--Venezuela. It makes no difference in economic terms.
  That is a bogus argument, as any person who thinks about it would 
understand. The more we produce here, the less wealth of our Nation is 
transferred outside our Nation.
  Fundamentally, this increase in prices was not driven so much by 
supply and demand. It was driven by a cartel. If this administration 
wants to address antitrust crimes, maybe they ought to worry less about 
Microsoft and worry more about this cartel that has come together to 
drive up energy prices. They have driven it up through political means.
  We, as American citizens, need to ask our Government: What political 
means are you using, Mr. Clinton, to overcome this threat? What are you 
proposing, Mr. Gore, to overcome that? Windmills? Eliminate the 
internal combustion engine? Is that your proposal? Are we going to use 
solar energy production?
  I support various alternatives. I voted for ethanol. I voted for a 
pilot program to determine whether a switch grass could be utilized to 
produce energy, and it has potential. I supported the advanced vehicle 
technology programs and renewable energy research. But these 
technologies are a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to deal 
with our energy demands in this Nation.
  Think about what we are doing. We are seeing major impacts on 
American consumers. If a family had an average monthly bill for 
gasoline of $60, when that gallon of gasoline went from $1 to $1.50, 
that means that the bill per month went from $60 to $90, a $30-a-month 
after tax draw on that family's budget for no other reason than an 
increase in gasoline prices. If the bill was $100 a month, and many 
families will pay more than that, it has become $150. It is a $50-a-
month draw on their budget.
  This is a matter of great national importance. It need not happen. 
The experts are in agreement. There are sufficient energy reserves in 
our country to increase the supply and meet demand. Our government 
could drive down these prices. But we have to have an administration 
that believes in producing oil and gas, not an administration that is 
systematically, repeatedly blocking attempts at more production.
  For example, there is a procedure used in my home State of Alabama 
called hydraulic fracturing. It is used in the production of coalbed 
methane. In some areas, coal may not be of sufficient quality and 
quantity to mine, but it does have methane in it. What has been 
discovered is that you can drill into the coal and produce methane from 
it with almost no disruption of the environment.
  Methane is one of the cleanest burning fossil fuels we can have. It 
is far better for the environment than many competing fuels. Production 
of coalbed methane is something we ought to encourage. Hydraulic 
fracturing of coalbeds has never caused a single case of underground 
drinking water contamination. In fact, for years, the EPA did not 
bother to regulate it. Then somebody filed a lawsuit. Because the use 
of this technology for coalbed methane production is relatively new, 
Congress had never addressed it. The lawsuit argued that pumping water 
into the ground needed to be regulated in the same way as injecting 
hazardous waste

[[Page S9210]]

into the ground because there was no other statutory framework to 
apply. This has caused coalbed methane producers to go through all 
kinds of extensive regulatory procedures and generally depressed 
coalbed methane production activities. The EPA never really wanted to 
regulate, and in fact, argued that hydraulic fracturing did not need to 
be regulated at the federal level because it had caused no 
environmental problems and the state programs were working well. 
Unfortunately, the court ruled against the EPA because the law which 
governs this activity was written at a time this activity barely 
existed. I have introduced legislation which would allow the states to 
continue their successful regulatory programs. Yet we have been unable 
to get the kind of support from the administration and the EPA that 
would allow us to produce this clean form of gas all across America. It 
would be good for our country. That is an example of the no growth, no 
production policy of the administration.

  We have taken out of the mix, the possibility of drilling in so many 
of our western lands that are Government owned. There are huge areas 
out there with very large reserves of gas and oil. Yet, this 
administration has systematically blocked production. They have vetoed 
legislation--which we almost overrode--to keep us from drilling in 
ANWR. They have refused to drill off the coast of California. They have 
refused to drill and are proposing to limit drilling in the Gulf of 
Mexico. In fact, Vice President Gore recently, stated he favored no 
more drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and in fact would limit, perhaps, 
leases that had already been let.
  That is a big deal. Electric energy in America is being produced more 
and more through the use of natural gas. In addition to home heating, 
it is being increasingly used to generate electricity. It is generating 
it far cleaner than most any other source of energy. Almost every new 
electric-generating plant in this country has been designed to use 
natural gas. It comes through pipelines. Most of it is coming out of 
the Gulf of Mexico. There are huge reserves off the gulf coast of my 
home State of Alabama and throughout the gulf area. That ought to be 
produced.
  It is unbelievable that we would not produce that clean natural gas, 
but instead continue to import our oil from the Middle East and allow a 
huge tax to be levied on American citizens by the OPEC cartel members. 
It makes no sense at all. As anybody who has been here knows, they know 
what the policy is. The policy of the extreme no-growth people in 
America is to drive up the price of gasoline. They figure if they drive 
it up high enough, you will have to ride your bicycle to work, I 
suppose. But most people don't live a few blocks or miles from work. A 
lot of people are elderly. A lot of people have children to take to 
school, and they have to take things with them when they go to work. 
They have errands to run and family obligations to meet. They cannot 
use bicycles or rely on windmills to do their work.
  That is the policy of this administration, to drive up energy costs. 
That is the only way you can see it. Systematically, they have blocked 
effort after effort after effort to allow this country to increase 
production. We have to change that. Our current energy problems will 
only get worse if we do not.
  We have tremendous energy reserves in America. If we insist on sound 
environmental protection but not excessive regulation, if we make sure 
that production in areas such as ANWR in Alaska is conducted as 
previous Alaskan oil and gas production has been conducted we can make 
great strides in controlling our energy prices. The Trans-Alaskan 
Pipeline, has been delivering oil for two decades now and has had a 
minimal impact on the environment and not destroyed anything. The 
caribou are still there. The tundra has not melted. America has 
benefited from the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline and the energy that has been 
produced there. We certainly cannot stop producing oil and gas in the 
Gulf of Mexico, as the Vice President has proposed. That idea is 
stunning. It is a radical proposal. It is a threat to our future. We 
cannot allow it.
  We cannot assume, we cannot take for granted one moment the belief 
that this release of a supply equal to 1\1/2\ day's demand is going to 
deal with our long-term problem. We have an administration that is 
cheerfully accepting, increased prices American must pay for energy. 
Those prices are going to continue to increase unless we do something 
about it. It does not take a huge increase in supply to help better 
balance demand and supply. So if we can begin to make even modest 
progress toward increasing our domestic supply, I think we can begin to 
see the price fall in a relatively short term. However, we cannot do it 
with the kinds of no-growth policies this administration is talking 
about.
  I do believe in improving the environment. I support the policies 
that do so. I support research in many alternative energy sources and 
hope we will see some break throughs. I hope we will continue to 
develop technologies to increase the quality of the energy sources, 
which could make the use of energy cleaner and more efficient. I think 
these are good prudent steps to take.
  But with the world demand we are facing, these efforts have not yet 
led to a big step--a good step, but not a big step. We are going to see 
increased demand in the United States and around the world. The experts 
tell us there is energy here in the United States. We need to be able 
to produce it and not continue to allow the wealth of this Nation to be 
transferred across the ocean to a few nations that were lucky enough to 
be founded on pools of oil.
  That must remain our goal. That is what I and others will continue to 
working for in this Congress.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________