[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 123 (Thursday, October 5, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H8914-H8921]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Martinez). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 
is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the Democrats' and 
the Clinton-Gore administration's energy policy versus the Republicans' 
lack of energy policy and the Republicans' support for big oil rather 
than the consumers.
  I also have to underscore the fact that the Democrats' energy policy 
protects rather than sacrifices environmental protection.
  I know I am going to be joined this evening by some of my colleagues, 
and I wanted to first yield if I could to the gentleman from the great 
State of Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding to me, and I appreciate very much his taking this time today 
to talk about the lack of a national energy policy.

[[Page H8915]]

  Perhaps the best known price in America today is that of gasoline. 
Americans see it posted along the road a dozen or two times a day. They 
pull in to fill up every week to 10 days, if not more often.
  It is also a price that perhaps because of that visibility can 
generate a lot of heat, especially when it is going up, as it has this 
year.
  This is in fact a price that tells the complex story of global supply 
and demand, of technological change and of environmental consciousness, 
and of shifting consumer taste and social change.
  Despite the long-term trend, prices move up and down a great deal. 
These fluctuations can be caused, among other things, by political 
events, shift in supply and demand of fuel, weather, the level of 
inventories, disruptions in refinery operations, and the introduction 
of new environmental standards.

                              {time}  1630

  Over the last year or so, retail gasoline prices in the United States 
have bounced down and then up from very low levels and then back up to 
very high levels. In February of 1999, the national average retail 
price fell to 95 cents per gallon, the lowest since 1989 in nominal 
dollars and one of the lowest levels ever seen in inflated dollars, and 
30 percent lower than the price 2 years earlier. Not much more than a 
year later, they had risen to the recent highs of over $1.50 per gallon 
nationwide.
  These price swings were detrimental to the producer and the consumer. 
The trucking industry, for example, in my district and all over the 
United States had a hard time maintaining operations as usual under the 
economic strain experienced by their businesses as a result of these 
price increases. Agriculture also has borne the brunt. Today, high oil 
prices reflect in part the U.S. economic boom and recovering economies 
elsewhere.
  According to the study done by Cambridge Energy Research Associates, 
gas price conditions felt this summer were attributed to four primary 
forces acting on the market: number one, the price of crude oil, where 
for every $1 per barrel, gasoline prices increased 2 to 3 cents; two, 
inventories are low based on production constraints; three, new 
environmental regulations have created numerous variations, RFG, 
ethanol, MTBE, in gasoline contents making it difficult to transport or 
mix gas from one area into the next during times of crisis; four, the 
booming economy has created a 2 percent higher demand for gasoline over 
last summer. This coupled with the fact that Americans are driving more 
per person per year, 13,000 miles per person per year, has increased 
demand.
  The last President or last administration to attempt to create a new 
energy policy was President Carter. I cannot remember a time when the 
Congress, particularly in the last 6 years, in which we have had a 
serious debate in this Congress regarding energy policy.
  A national energy policy is a must for the United States and this 
policy must decrease America's dependence on foreign oil. Our Nation 
gets almost 60 percent of our oil from foreign sources, and this is 
absolutely unacceptable as it puts our economic and national security 
at risk. The rejuvenation of the domestic oil and gas industry will 
benefit all Americans and ensure an energy security for this Nation far 
into the future. Wide swings in price are not good for consumers or for 
producers. I happen to represent the oil patch. Less than 2 years ago 
when oil prices were at critically low levels, we had $8 per barrel 
prices, domestic oil and gas producers in my district, the 17th 
District of Texas, were struggling to keep their operations open and 
many did not.
  In my district, claims for unemployment from the oil and gas industry 
quadrupled from 1,171 to 4,730 between December of 1997 and December of 
1998. During this time, the lost wellhead value dropped $5.79 million 
and the value of oil to the Texas economy dropped by almost $1 billion. 
The number of producing wells declined by 2,855 during this time as 
well. In my home county of Jones, oil production in December of 1997 
was 83,706 barrels; in December of 1998 it had dropped to 69,000 
barrels; and in December of 1999 it had declined to 58,000 barrels. 
That is a decline of 25,000 barrels per month from December of 1997 to 
December of 1999, or a decline of 30 percent. Total domestic crude oil 
production has declined from 8.7 million barrels per day in the United 
States in 1986, the first oil price collapse, to 5.9 billion barrels 
per day.
  When prices are below the cost of exploring and producing crude, 
these small independent producers cannot stay in business, and it has a 
ripple effect throughout local communities as schools and hospitals in 
Texas rely on a healthy oil and gas industry for revenues. At the time, 
we warned that critically low prices have the potential to turn into a 
price shock. Unfortunately, this is a lesson that we should have 
learned many times over the last 2 decades. I would like to find any 
evidence anywhere in which this Congress, the 106th, attempted to do 
anything about the low prices.
  If there was a time of dramatic demonstration, the compacted 
experience of the last 3 years with its highs and lows illustrates the 
need for our Nation to take responsibility for its energy future. We do 
need a free market for the production of energy, but it cannot be a 
free market dominated by foreign producing countries that do not have 
our best interests at heart. Congress needs, in fact must consider 
measures to help restore market stability with domestic crude oil and 
natural gas prices, maintaining a level where domestic producers can 
compete in a global market. However, our national energy policy must 
recognize both producer and consumer issues.
  Last week, the House considered the energy and water appropriations 
conference agreement which deleted language added in by the House 
earlier this session to reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and 
to create a Northeast home heating oil reserve. I find it reckless that 
in the midst of home heating oil shortages in the Northeastern States, 
this Congress is on the verge of allowing the President's authority to 
use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lapse.

  Authorization of the SPR expired on March 31 of this year, 6 months 
ago. The House supported a measure that would reauthorize the SPR, the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and ensure that it would be filled with 
domestic crude oil to capacity with specific options leading to the 
expansion of the SPR capacity. Many of us stood on this floor and 
through letters and Dear Colleagues encouraged the Congress 2 years ago 
when we had the opportunity to buy oil from domestic producers at $8 a 
barrel and put it into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which would have 
been a good investment for this country, a good investment for taxpayer 
dollars, to buy it at $8, to support the domestic industry when we had 
a chance to. But because of overt concerns about unrealistic budgets, 
the majority on this body refused to even consider it.
  It is irresponsible, I believe, to refuse that the SPR be 
reauthorized, giving this and future Presidents all means available to 
respond to any possible energy supply emergency. It is in our national 
security interest. The Department of Energy cannot establish a regional 
home heating oil reserve until Congress either reauthorizes the SPR or 
separately passes legislation authorizing the creation of such a 
reserve with a responsible trigger. Are we trying to send a message 
from Congress to many vulnerable consumers that they will have to 
sacrifice other needs just to heat their homes this winter? 
Additionally, shortages in natural gas will be the next energy issue 
before us when brownouts start occurring in cities short on natural gas 
used to create electricity, a direct result of the collapse of the 
independent oil and gas producing industry in the United States because 
when you stop drilling for oil, you also stop drilling for gas. Gas is 
often found in the process of discovering oil. That is something that 
we have been very, very shortsighted on with our, again, lack of a 
national energy policy.
  Let me just quickly outline some of the things that this Congress 
should have done this year, or last year. Congress needs to consider 
measures to help restore market stability with domestic crude and 
natural gas prices maintaining a level where domestic producers can 
compete in a global market. However, our national energy policy must 
recognize both producer and

[[Page H8916]]

consumer issues. We need to enact legislation that provides tax relief 
for marginal well production, providing a safety net for producers when 
prices are critically low. We need to enact legislation that provides 
tax incentives for inactive well recovery aimed at bringing plugged or 
abandoned wells back on line. We need to pass the Watkins-Stenholm 
proposal that would correct the inequity facing American oil producers 
who must meet regulatory costs avoided by producers in other countries 
by imposing an environmental equalization fee on imported crude oil and 
refined products at the level of cost domestic producers currently 
spend on compliance with Federal environmental regulations.
  We need to encourage production of unconventional fuels. I have 
recently cosponsored the Energy Security for American Consumers Act 
that aims to stimulate production of unconventional gas in the hope 
that our Nation will be better equipped to meet our future energy 
needs. This bill would extend the section 29 tax credit for 
unconventional gas production and will provide the energy sector with a 
necessary incentive to produce gas that is both difficult and costly to 
obtain.
  We need to enact legislation expensing geological and geophysical 
costs, delaying rental payments and extending the suspension of net 
income limitation of percentage depletion for marginal wells. We need 
to enact a low-cost emergency lending program for the benefit of 
domestic oil and gas producers. We need to enact legislation that would 
enhance recovery and wildcat exploration. We must open our Federal 
lands, both onshore and offshore, except in the most treasured 
environments, to responsible exploration. From 1997 to 1999, oil well 
completions for drilling for new reserve declined 54 percent. But by 
providing financial incentives to increase domestic oil production and 
exploration, we can encourage the discovery of new domestic oil 
reserves.
  We need to ensure that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is filled with 
domestic crude oil to capacity and to the extent that the filled 
capacity does not meet a 90-day supply of foreign imported petroleum, 
expand the SPR capacity. We need to ensure that the Northeastern States 
are not in the position where they are facing home heating oil 
shortages that will harm consumers by establishing a home heating oil 
reserve in the Northeast. Despite the fact that the President acted 
administratively in July to create it, the Congress still needs to 
authorize the use of this new reserve.
  We need to enact legislation to promote new developments in the 
access, production and use of natural gas. We need to enact legislation 
to promote research in exploring other avenues of energy, including 
solar, wind, hydroelectric and other renewable energy resources. We 
need to enact legislation to provide tax incentives encouraging 
consumers to make energy-efficient improvements to their homes and 
purchase energy-efficient automobiles, as well as further promote and 
fund LIHEAP.
  It is imperative that Congress work together setting aside partisan 
differences to ensure price stability, prices that are not so low that 
producers are put out of business and prices that are not so high that 
they hurt consumers and threaten our economy. America needs a balanced, 
forward-looking energy policy based on the proposals that have been put 
before this Congress. We need a responsible approach that will infuse 
our energy sector with both efficiency and competition seeking to 
protect America against emergencies in the energy market.
  Mr. Speaker, these are the things that we should have done. I would 
challenge very many individuals on either side of the aisle to show 
anything that we have done other than not avoid the temptation of 
pointing the finger. There are many, many solutions. I am very happy 
today, and I again thank the gentleman from New Jersey for taking this 
1 hour. I thank him for allowing me to show at least in this one 
Member's mind some of the things that we should have been doing in this 
Congress, and some of the proposals that are being advocated now of 
where we need to go in the next administration and in the next 
Congress.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Texas for 
his remarks and two things, first of all, I think he points out very 
successfully, that it is the Congress that needs to act on authorizing 
these energy initiatives that would help the American consumer, and we 
know that for the past 6 years, the Republicans have been in the 
majority and they have not done it. I know the gentleman does not like 
to point a finger; but the bottom line is, the Republican leadership 
runs this place, and they have not put forward an energy policy, and 
they have not been willing to enact the policies that the Clinton-Gore 
administration have put forward.
  I also wanted to thank my colleague because I see the concern he 
expressed for the Northeast, particularly the need to authorize the 
Northeast home heating oil reserve which, again, the Republican 
leadership has not been willing to do and has been trying to stop the 
reserve actually from being passed. The gentleman mentioned gas prices. 
There is an article in the Star Ledger, which is the major newspaper in 
my home State of New Jersey, today that is entitled ``Gas Heat Costs 
Will Be Soaring. Jersey's Four Utilities Want Rate Hikes as High as 40 
Percent.'' If I could just in the first couple of paragraphs of the 
article, it says:

       Heating bills could rise as much as 40 percent for some New 
     Jersey consumers this winter if rate increases requested 
     yesterday by the State's four natural gas utilities are 
     approved by regulators. The four utilities covering millions 
     of customers filed petitions seeking emergency relief with 
     the State board of public utilities which is expected to act 
     on the proposals at its next meeting on Tuesday. The 
     increases would be effective immediately.

  So what he is saying about the impact ultimately on gas prices is 
certainly coming true. Most important is the fact that the Republican 
leadership continues to oppose the President's initiative, backed up by 
Vice President Gore, to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the SPR. I 
just wanted to point out briefly, and then I would like to yield to my 
other colleague from Texas, that it is ironic that Governor Bush and 
the Republican leadership here and the Republican leadership on the 
Committee on Commerce, which I serve on which has jurisdiction over 
energy policy, continue to criticize the President and the Vice 
President with regard to the SPR, because if I could just recount a 
little history here because I think it is important since the 
Republican leadership came into the majority, or actually I could take 
it even further back to when President Bush was in office.
  When President Bush sold oil from the reserve from the SPR during the 
Gulf War, domestic reserves were higher than today and crude prices 
were $5 per barrel cheaper. Yet he said he released the oil not because 
of national security but to, ``calm the markets.'' So even President 
Clinton's predecessor, President Bush, recognized the fact that the SPR 
could be tapped, not for security reasons, but to make sure that prices 
did not continue to rise.

                              {time}  1645

  But, beyond that, since the Republican leadership has been in charge 
here in the Congress, since 1996, they twice passed laws requiring the 
sale of oil from the reserve, over 28 million barrels, to help pay for 
GOP budget priorities. Selling the oil from the SPR just to make ends 
meet in terms of the budget. Then, last year, in 1999, the Republican 
leaders, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), joined 35 other Republicans to introduce a bill that 
would not only eliminate the Department of Energy, but abolish the 
Reserve, abolish the SPR.
  Since taking control, Republicans have let the President's authority 
to fully use the Reserve lapse three times, totaling 18 months. The SPR 
authority last lapsed on March 31. In 1999, Republicans blocked the 
Clinton Administration proposal to buy 10 million barrels of oil when 
crude prices were only $10 a barrel. This is what the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) was saying. The purchase would have helped 
domestic producers and fill part of the 115 million barrels of SPR 
capacity in the Reserve.
  I am only trying to bring up dramatically that we have Governor Bush 
and the Republican leadership here criticizing President Clinton, Vice 
President Gore, for tapping the Reserve to

[[Page H8917]]

try to bring prices down, and we know the Republicans have a history 
going all the way back to President Bush of tapping the SPR for similar 
reasons, but, at the same time, trying to abolish it altogether and not 
even have it available for use in a time like this, when prices have 
been going up.
  So I am just glad that President Clinton acted on Vice President 
Gore's advice and decided to go ahead and tap the SPR, because we know 
it did have the impact of stabilizing prices and even reducing prices 
to some extent.
  I would like to yield now to another one of my colleagues from Texas, 
the chairman of our Democratic Caucus, who has been chairing a task 
force on energy policy and has been very effective in not only bringing 
forth the message in terms of what the Democrats are trying to do here, 
but trying to get the Republicans to act on the Democrats' proposals.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  For the past 22 years, I have had the honor of serving the people of 
Texas, America's prototypical energy producing State, so I know that we 
can achieve bipartisan consensus around energy policy if we want to.
  Unfortunately, for 6 years this Republican Congress has been AWOL on 
energy policy, and, when they have not been asleep at the wheel, they 
have led the fight against energy independence for America, slashing 
energy efficiency programs, trying to eliminate the Department of 
Energy and selling off the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  Earlier this year, gas prices surged around the Nation, and then, as 
now, the Republican Congress chose irresponsible partisan attacks 
against the administration, not reasonable responses with bipartisan 
support. Most outrageously though, this Republican Congress has 
consistently ignored or killed Democratic energy policies, and then 
turned around and tried to score political points when oil prices went 
up.
  For more than 6 months, for instance, the United States has been in a 
weaker position to negotiate with OPEC, because the Republican Congress 
continues to withhold one of the President's chief tools for dealing 
with an energy crisis, the clear authority to fully use the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve.
  This winter, families in the Northeast face a repeat of last winter, 
record high home heating prices, because this Republican Congress 
refuses to create a Northeast Heating Oil Reserve. Just last week, in a 
fit of partisan pique, Republican leaders again played politics with 
these two key pieces of America's energy security arsenal, deleting 
them from the energy and water appropriations bill.
  In the midst of an energy crisis, this Republican Congress still 
refuses to take the simplest of steps to increase America's energy 
independence. Fortunately, President Clinton and Vice President Gore 
have showed their leadership to ignore Republican partisanship and to 
act decisively and appropriately to address our immediate energy 
problems. After the President announced that he would address shortages 
by swapping oil out of the Reserve this year in exchange for more oil 
next year, oil prices dropped nearly $6 a barrel, their lowest level in 
almost a month. In contrast, oil prices immediately jumped when 
Republican Representative Joe Barton of Texas announced that he would 
try to stop the oil swap.
  While we are on the subject of the Reserve swap, let me take a minute 
to clear up some misconceptions being perpetuated by some of our 
Republican friends.
  First of all, Republicans like to attack the President's move as 
political. Well, was it political for northeastern Republicans to call 
for deployment of the Reserve? Hardly. They, like Al Gore and the rest 
of us, are trying to do what we can to protect families from having to 
choose between heating their homes and buying groceries this winter.

  Indeed, families in the Northeast are facing the prospect of another 
winter of low oil inventories and high home heating oil prices, as much 
as 30 percent higher than last year. Across the country, gas prices are 
still too high. It would have been irresponsible, a terrible abdication 
of leadership, to ignore this coming energy crisis in the way 
Republican leaders are trying to do.
  Second, Republicans claim the President risked national security by 
using the Reserve to help families suffering from the energy crisis. 
This is as hypocritical as it is ridiculous. After all, did it threaten 
national security when this Republican Congress sold off 28 million 
barrels of oil from the Reserve to pay for its budget priorities in 
1996? Did it threaten national security when this Republican Congress 
stopped the administration from increasing the Reserve's inventory last 
year, when oil prices were at just $10 a barrel, which would have 
strengthened the Reserve and helped domestic producers? And did it 
threaten national security when Republican leaders, like the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), and the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) tried last year to abolish the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve altogether? Probably so.
  But by swapping oil out of the Reserve now for more oil next year, 
the President's action will not just help consumers this winter, it 
will also strengthen the Reserve and increase national security. In 
fact, the Department of Energy announced yesterday that its swap 
agreement with 11 oil companies had been completed, and that it would 
yield the Reserve a net increase of 1.5 million barrels of oil.
  Once you put politics aside, it is clear that the administration's 
action was good for families in the Northeast beset by high home 
heating oil prices, and it was good for us in Texas, where long 
distances and high gas prices can take a real toll on people's 
pocketbooks.
  Fortunately, where American consumers see an energy crisis, 
Republican leaders see a political opportunity; an opportunity to score 
political points against a President they despise and an opportunity to 
cover up their 6-year record of negligence on energy independence. That 
is profoundly disappointing, because there is no doubt about the 
seriousness of home heating oil shortages this winter and continued 
high gas prices.
  This Republican Congress has the ability and the responsibility to do 
more than just play partisan blame games while American consumers are 
suffering. Congressional Democrats, President Clinton and Vice 
President Gore, have consistently tried to develop a comprehensive 
energy independence policy that has broad support across partisan, 
regional and industry lines. We have worked to reduce America's 
dependence on foreign oil by encouraging environmentally friendly 
domestic production.
  Under the Clinton Administration, natural gas production on Federal 
lands on shore has increased nearly 60 percent since 1992, and under 
the Clinton Administration, oil production offshore in the Gulf of 
Mexico has increased 62 percent since 1992. But, again, Republican 
leaders have preferred politics to progress, so Republican energy 
policy pretty much starts and ends at drilling in the pristine Alaska 
National Wildlife Reserve, despite the fact that it would not result in 
a drop of oil on the market for years and despite the fact that the 
most recent U.S. Geological Survey estimates make clear that the amount 
of recoverable oil, which amounts to less than 6 months of U.S. 
domestic oil consumption, is not nearly enough to justify despoiling 
forever this pristine wildlife reserve.
  In contrast, Democratic tax incentives for marginal wells and to 
further increase domestic production, which have broad support, have 
been ignored in this Republican Congress. Republican leaders have been 
even more hostile to our efforts to increase energy efficiency and 
develop alternative energies. Over the past 6 years, the Republican 
Congress has underfunded solar, renewable and conservation programs by 
$1.3 billion below the President's request, and, if Republicans had not 
cut the weatherization assistance program by 50 percent in 1995, then 
250,000 more households could have been helped, which would have 
decreased demand for oil.
  When Republicans first took control of the Congress, they voted to 
kill the Low Income Home Heating Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, 
which helped the neediest Americans in the midst of an energy crisis, 
and the following year Republicans proposed

[[Page H8918]]

changing LIHEAP so that disadvantaged families could be forced to 
choose between buying food and heating their homes.
  For the past 6 years, the threat to America's energy security has 
come from this Republican Congress and its refusal to treat energy 
policy as anything other than a partisan political opportunity. It is 
long past time that Republican leaders finally stop playing political 
games with oil prices and began working with us to give America the 
common sense, comprehensive energy independence policy it needs.

  I thank the gentleman very much for taking out this special order, so 
that we could discuss these very important issues with the American 
public.
  Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague from Texas.
  If I could just reiterate two of the things the gentleman mentioned, 
because I think they are so important, one is this whole effort by 
Governor Bush and the Republican leadership now to insist that, because 
of the crisis in oil prices, that we have to now threaten the 
environment again, either with drilling in ANWAR and Alaska or offshore 
the continental coast of the United States.
  As the gentleman points out, this has no immediate impact. I mean, we 
are not talking pie in the sky here, we are talking about our 
constituents, and being from New Jersey and the Northeast, I know this 
is an immediate crisis that people are facing. They do not want to hear 
about what is going to happen in a few years; they are facing the 
crisis now.
  The one thing that President Clinton's proposal by tapping the SPR 
does was to actually reduce prices, and ultimately I think stabilize a 
market in a way that has an immediate impact. That is what is really 
important.
  I never cease to be amazed how our Republican colleagues talk about 
policy, but they do not seem to respond to the immediate need that 
people have, and that is what Vice President Gore and President Clinton 
were doing when they talked about the need to tap the SPR.
  The other thing that I think is so important that the gentleman 
pointed out, and we do not hear that too often, is this idea that by 
the Republicans not pursuing a real energy policy for our country, it 
leaves us weak to foreign exploitation.
  I think what I have noticed with President Clinton and Vice President 
Gore is they keep saying that we need to tap the SPR, not only because 
of the immediate impact on prices, but because it has an impact on our 
ability to influence OPEC and the cartel, the oil cartel, if you will, 
that is trying to drive prices up.
  As the cartel and OPEC know that we are going to take action on our 
own and tap the SPR, they realize that they cannot influence prices as 
much as they have been able to and take advantage of the situation over 
the last 6 months.
  So, again, we need to make some policy initiatives here. Certainly 
the Republican leadership in the Congress has not been willing to do 
it, and the administration has essentially had to act on its own with 
regard to the SPR and the decision also to move to create this 
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. But, at the same time, instead of 
reacting positively to that, the Republican leadership comes here and 
says, oh, no, we do not want the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve, and we 
do not want you to be able to pass the SPR, and they passed the energy 
and water appropriations conference bill last week that actually would 
eliminate both of those options.
  It is an outrageous step. It is outrageous that at a time when the 
American people are crying for some action to deal with the rise in oil 
prices and the rise that is going to result in home heating oil, as 
well as natural gas prices, and the response of the Republican 
leadership in the Congress is to say no, we do not want you to be able 
to tap the SPR. We want to pass legislation that says you cannot pass 
the SPR and pass legislation that says you cannot set up this Northeast 
Home Heating Oil Reserve. I just cannot believe that that is their 
response to the public outcry for the need to action to address the 
crisis.
  I wanted to, in the time that I have left, I wanted to develop a 
little more the reason why I believe very strongly that the Republican 
leadership here in the House has not only failed to address the 
immediate energy needs, but is really trying to dismantle and eliminate 
any effort to set any kind of U.S. energy policy that would create 
independence on our part for the future.

                              {time}  1700

  And I wanted to give some examples of action that has taken place 
either here or in the other body over the last few weeks. Just last 
week or within the last 2 weeks, Senator Murkowski from the other body 
came to the floor, once again, to push for drilling Alaska's last 
remaining open space, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Not only is 
he advocating what I consider a policy of destruction; but as I 
mentioned before, drilling the Arctic Refuge will not produce a drop of 
oil for several years, and, on the other hand, would only produce 
several months' worth of supply, while destroying this precious 
resource for future generations.
  We have said over and over again, both in the House and in the other 
body, that we do not want to tap ANWR, the Arctic Refuge, because of 
the negative impact on the environment.
  What I see now is my colleagues on the other side of the aisle trying 
to use the current crisis as an excuse to go against what has been a 
bipartisan position, not to drill in the Arctic Refuge. What I would 
suggest is that instead of trying to drill the Arctic Refuge, we should 
be banning exports of Alaskan oil to other nations.
  I think a lot of people are not even aware of the fact that we are 
now on a daily basis in the process of exporting Alaskan oils to other 
countries, Japan and other countries.
  If we really want to take some action that is going to have an impact 
on prices here, use that, make that oil available here, rather than 
ship it overseas.
  Mr. Speaker, the other thing I would say, too, is that we had the 
GOP, and I call it the Big Oil GOP leadership on the other side of the 
aisle, in both the House and the other body. We are reluctant to 
investigate whether the oil companies were profiting excessively from 
gas price spikes this summer.
  They do not even want to let us investigate the problem and try to 
come up with a solution. And I guess the fear is that if the 
investigations proceed, it is going to uncover that the oil companies 
are trying to undermine the concerns of the American people and show 
that they are really in league, essentially, with OPEC and the cartel 
to try to drive up prices.
  Now, the Clinton administration did the investigation and the 
investigation that they did proved that the increase in prices this 
summer was not due to environmental standards, as the Republican 
majority has alleged, but in fact was a result of the oil giant's greed 
and their effort to simply drive up prices.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone) yield for a question?
  Mr. PALLONE. On this point?
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.
  Mr. PALLONE. I will yield, not the whole time, but sure I would yield 
for a question.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Has the gentleman visited the area up there?
  Mr. PALLONE. The Arctic Refuge?
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.
  Mr. PALLONE. No, I have not.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I have. I used to hear stories all the time about how 
building of the pipeline and all the rest of the things they were doing 
and exploration up there, that would hurt the caribou herds and destroy 
the tundra. And I was quite surprised when I went, actually, that upon 
visiting the area, the first place the area where the oil drilling is 
taking place is so cold that the workers cannot be out there for any 
more than a short length of time, and they have to be brought in and 
relieved by other workers.
  I actually asked the rangers there, because the environmentalists 
were so concerned about the destruction of the environment, as the 
gentleman has suggested, how many people had actually visited the area 
of the previous year, and there had been three people visiting the 
area. And he said awhile back, a couple of years back, there was 
actually more than that that visited, because there was the big debate 
about whether or not to drill there in that period of time, and they 
were mostly people that were protesters of the drilling there; there 
was 12.

[[Page H8919]]

  Now, the closest they could get to that area is a mountain peak, 
which is quite a few miles that you can see right down across the whole 
flat area, where they would contemplate drilling. And there is nothing 
there.
  It is absolutely barren, but what I did see, and I was really 
surprised, as we were traveling along the road alongside of the 
pipeline, I looked out there and I saw thousands and thousands of 
caribou, thousands of them. And I had to get down and take a picture. I 
asked the bus driver to stop the bus, and I went on down.
  Now the one big thing that everybody was concerned about then, they 
even caused the people who built that road to build ramps over the road 
so the caribou could cross over, because that would be the only place 
that it would cross over because of the pipeline there. And so I got 
down--let me finish this one statement.
  Mr. PALLONE. I will, then I want to move on.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I got down off the bus to take a picture, and I was 
busy snapping a picture out here of all of these caribou out there; and 
all of a sudden, I realized there was something very close to me. At 
the buttress of the support for the pipeline, there was a caribou 
standing there eating, munching the tundra and looking at me, and I 
turned around and took a picture. I have a picture. I would like to 
show the gentleman. And he was absolutely so close to me I could almost 
reach out and touch him. He did not seem disturbed at all.
  Then I noticed that the caribou were crossing, not over the ramps 
they built for them, but anywhere, anywhere along that road.
  So I am wondering, and the question that I have for the gentleman is, 
if this is to be so pristine that it is going to be disturbed and it 
has not seemed to do it yet, would we not rather have that oil than be 
dependent, because 18 years after when I got here, they were still 
arguing and complaining about being dependent on OPEC and the oil over 
there, and in 18 years we have not developed a policy.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) stood here and said he has 
not heard any talk here in the Congress or in the White House about 
developing a strategy or developing.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, let me answer the gentleman's question. I 
am willing to give the gentleman some time and that is fine. I would 
like to answer the question and move on, because I do have other things 
to say. Let me just answer the gentleman's question. Then I will not 
yield to the gentleman any more, because I want to finish with my 
comments.
  I do appreciate the fact that the gentleman came to the floor and 
expressed his concern. I understand that some people would like to 
explore in the Arctic Refuge, but I think that in many ways, your 
comments make me feel even more strongly about why it should not be 
taking place. Obviously, when the gentleman went there, it was a very 
beautiful area; the gentleman was witnessing the wildlife. The 
gentleman seems to feel that whatever has happened so far has not had 
an impact, but it is obvious from what the gentleman witnessed that it 
is a very sensitive area, and there is a lot of wildlife. And it is a 
very beautiful, pristine area.
  I would maintain that given that fact and given the fact that we are 
not really talking about that much oil over the long time that is going 
to impact, I think, U.S. energy policy that we should not take the 
risk; that the very fact that it is difficult to get there and it is 
difficult for people to deal with the situation there means that if 
there was a spill or if there were environmental problems, it would be 
that much more difficult to clean it up.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that the environmentalists take the view that 
this is a beautiful, pristine area. There is a terrific risk involved, 
a significant risk, because of the delicate nature of it, and the fact 
that it is so far away and difficult to access; and that it should not 
be tapped for that reason; and that if we have to make a decision and 
weigh the risks that it is just not worth the effort.
  It is very similar to what I have in New Jersey. There have been 
proposals by mineral management's agency to develop offshore oil 
resources off the coast of New Jersey. And arguments have been made 
back and forth about whether it is a good idea. And basically my 
position, because I represent the coastal area where this would take 
place, has been we have a huge tourism industry. We make billions of 
dollars every year from having safe beaches and clean water. Frankly, 
we do not want to take the risk, because we know that the amount of oil 
that is available there probably would only be a few months in terms of 
America's supply, and it is just not worth the effort.
  So I think part of it is weighing of the risk, and I just do not 
think it is worth it in the case of ANWR. I will not yield again. I do 
not mean to cut the gentleman off. I have a lot more to say.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. The gentleman has a lot more time. I just have one 
question.
  Mr. PALLONE. I do not have that much more time, I will not yield to 
the gentleman any more. I thank the gentleman for coming down.
  Mr. Speaker, I have another one of my Democratic colleagues here that 
is joining me here. But just before I yield to him, I just wanted to 
make a few more comments about the Republican opposition to the tapping 
of the SPR. And I just want to point out, as some of my Democratic 
colleagues have, how politically motivated this was, because as we know 
in the past, the Republicans have not hesitated to sell off the SPR, to 
tap the SPR, for reasons not related to national security or even 
advocated that there not be an SPR and it be abolished.
  It is interesting that in this case, when the President suggested 
that he was going to move forward and tap the SPR because of the high 
oil prices, there were some Republicans also that joined with the 
Democrats saying that that was a good idea. In fact, over 100 House 
Members, including 20 Republicans, such as the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) of the House Committee on 
Commerce, sent a letter to President Clinton requesting the tap.

  I, for one, would not heed the allegations, if you will, of the big 
oil ticket, the Bush-Cheney ticket that somehow this is a bad thing. 
Because if you will notice, even if you are a Republican and from the 
Northeast, you think it is a good idea, because my colleagues are 
concerned about the impact on your constituents in New Jersey, New York 
and the other States that are being negatively impacted by these high 
oil prices.
  The other thing that I think is very interesting is that actually we 
have not even had opposition from the oil industry or even from some 
Members of OPEC to the tapping of the SPR.
  We had a situation where this was quoted in the Washington Post last 
week where John Lichtblau, I do not know if I am pronouncing it 
properly, the chairman of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation, 
said that the price drop that occurred after the SPR was tapped 
reflects the fact that inventories will be increased. He went on to say 
while very recently there have been speculation about $40-a-barrel oil, 
now there is speculation that will drop to below $30. He actually 
thought it was a good idea that we tap the SPR.
  We had the Venezuelan oil minister and OPEC president, Ali Rodriguez, 
affirm the administration's belief and intent in releasing oil from the 
SPR in that same Post article where he said I think oil prices will not 
remain at their high levels.
  My point is, I do not even see opposition necessarily from the 
industry or even from OPEC, because they understand that prices were 
going up and they needed to be stabilized. I really do not have any 
clue where Governor Bush and Vice President nominee Cheney are coming 
from where they criticize the Democrats and the Vice President and the 
President for tapping the SPR. It just seems like they just do not care 
about the impact on the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from the State of 
Massachussetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), for yielding; and I come here just to add to 
some of the gentleman's comments when the gentleman was discussing the 
fact that this is, in fact, very bipartisan.

[[Page H8920]]

  I understand all the rhetoric during the campaign trails, and I 
understand that two people that are largely involved with the oil 
industry are trying to make this a political situation; but that, in 
fact, is not the case. I was one of those 114-plus Members that signed 
a letter to the President asking him to do a number of things that 
would improve the energy situation.
  I joined a number of my colleagues from the mid-Atlantic States, as 
well as from my home State of Massachusetts and New England in talking 
with the President and the Department of Energy as far back as last 
winter when these problems originated. We have consistently asked the 
President to take the kind of preemptive moves that we thought were 
necessary setting up a reserve for the Northeastern area, releasing 
fuel from the SPR, from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to cover that 
difference.
  Trying to make this into a case where people think that that release 
was to cover all of our needs is way off base. The fact of the matter 
is there is a gap between what is produced and what is consumed, and it 
is only that gap that we are trying to affect. We asked the OPEC 
countries to produce more oil, and they are trying to do that.
  We have asked the non-OPEC foreign producers to produce more oil, and 
they tell us they are trying to produce it. We now need to go to the 
domestic producers who have not been producing more. In fact, in a 
hearing with the Committee on Government Reform, at which I was 
present, one of the officials from the Exxon-Mobil company was 
questioned; and the answer was they, in fact, made 272 percent more 
profits in the second quarter of 2000 than in the second quarter of 
1999, while simultaneously reducing their production budget by some 30 
percent.
  Most of the domestic oil producers, the large companies, have, in 
fact, been making enormous profits in comparison to the previous year 
and have been cutting back.
  The President did a responsible thing that Democrats and Republicans 
have asked him to do. There were any number of Republicans from the 
mid-Atlantic States and the Northeastern States that joined in that 
letter to the President asking him to do something with the funds, 
asking him to set up a New England reserve and asking him to release 
some of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  Our colleagues on the Republican side from New York, one of them is 
running for the Senate, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), our 
colleagues from Maryland, our Republican colleagues from Connecticut, 
and so on, one of our colleagues from Maine is a Republican. The fact 
of the matter is, this is geographic in nature of where the hurt is 
going to be felt, and it is nonpartisan in terms of people trying to 
help their constituencies and getting the President to do the right 
thing.

                              {time}  1715

  We should not politicize this. We should understand that we have to 
ask every oil producer, whether they are domestic or foreign in nature, 
to step up to the plate and produce some more oil. They can do that, 
and it is about time that they step forward and do that, but also 
understand that the Republican party has a responsibility here. It is 
that party that has been prohibiting the President from having the 
flexibility he needs because they have not reauthorized the strategic 
reserve clauses of the act that need to be dealt with.
  There is no excuse for that. They have let it lapse most recently in 
March, right in the middle of this oil situation, and that is just not 
responsible.
  They have still yet to put the authorization language in for the 
Northeast reserve. We have made the appropriations on that. A 
responsible government would make sure that we have the authority in 
the President to release the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as and when 
needed in small amounts.
  That would be far more responsible than what was done by the 
Republican majority in 1996 and 1997. At that point in time they did 
not swap what was in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, they sold it, 
about $227 million dollars in 1996 for the sense of bringing down part 
of the deficit, and about $227 million in 1997 to pay for some other 
appropriations that they wanted to pay for. They sold it, they did not 
swap it.
  In fact, last year when we on the Democratic side wanted to have the 
President get authority to buy 10 million more barrels, that was shot 
down by our friends on the Republican side. So we could have been 
increasing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at an interim at a low price 
when it was down to $10 or $12 a barrel, and that was rejected.
  This is the same group that on occasion has voted to get rid of the 
Department of Energy, and along with it any Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
at all, and now for political reasons they are saying, gee, it is a 
national security issue that we are going to swap some. Unlike them, 
the President was not going to sell it, he was going to swap it.
  As a consequence of that, we are actually going to get 1\1/2\ million 
more barrels back a year from now than it was actually swapped out in 
the interim period, so we are going to have an increase in the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve that our friends on the other side of the 
aisle wanted to eliminate altogether.
  So if they really want to talk about security, let us do the sensible 
thing here and support the President's action. Let us make sure people 
in the mid-Atlantic States and Northeast and elsewhere that might be 
really jeopardized by the severe cold winter, make sure that the supply 
is there, make sure we are doing everything we can do; and most 
notably, for those that have low incomes, make sure the LIHEAP monies 
get out to people, just as the President has done, so they can fill 
their tanks while it is lower and make sure they have the best possible 
opportunity to weather this winter.
  I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, for taking the 
time and giving me the time to address this sure. The record must be 
set straight: This is not about politics, this is about people's health 
and safety, as well as our Nation's security.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, because I think what 
he is pointing out, and the Democrats have all been pointing out this 
afternoon, is that we are just trying to address the problems that the 
average person faces leading into the winter months.
  It was really encouraging to see that on our side of the aisle, on 
the Democratic side, we started off this afternoon with two colleagues 
from Texas. We might think, why do they care about the Northeast? But 
they obviously do. They both said very emphatically how important it 
was to try to address the price issue and set up the Northeast 
Petroleum Reserve, which I know the gentleman and other Members from 
the Massachusetts delegation have been very much involved with.
  That is what this is all about. That is what the President and the 
Vice President, they represent the whole country and they have to worry 
about people all over the country. I just think it is commendable that 
we are here expressing that concern, and we have colleagues on the 
Republican side saying, oh, no, that is not the way to go.
  Mr. TIERNEY. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Speaker, during our 
committee hearings we also heard a lot of talk about the fact, whether 
or not this oil could be processed, that refineries were running at 
capacity and whatever.
  What we found out is that that was just more rhetoric, also. The 
refineries generally run at 95 percent, 96 percent, during the months 
just past. Then there is a retooling period, and in our favor, just at 
the end of this month, that will be over and they would be down to a 
capacity of 90 or 91 percent, which they can then kick back up to 95, 
96 percent, to get out this home heating oil.

  That is a circumstance working in our favor. In fact, people within 
the industry are welcoming this. The Department of Energy has been 
talking with people within the industry. Oddly enough, they also 
understand that there is a situation out there that needs to be 
addressed and they are cooperating. So that is another reason to take 
it out of the political realm and leave it in the realm of people's 
security, safety, and health.
  Hopefully we will have that sort of discussion, and not the sort of 
rhetoric that has been going around.
  Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Of course, I have

[[Page H8921]]

been talking about the lack of a GOP energy policy, but I could just 
mention briefly here for maybe a few minutes or so that the 
administration, the Clinton-Gore administration, for the last 7 years 
has been trying to get the Congress to enact a really positive energy 
policy. Of course, for 6 of those 7 years they have had to deal with 
the Republican leadership that has simply not been willing to adopt it.
  Just to give an example, because I keep hearing the Republicans 
saying they want to open up ANWR, they want to do drilling offshore, 
but earlier this year when we passed an appropriations bill in the 
House, the President had come forward with his budget proposing major 
initiatives for energy efficiency, energy conservation, alternative 
sources of energy.
  The House bill that passed, the House appropriations bill that passed 
I guess in July or so, had $201 million less than the President's 
request with regard to energy conservation and $71 million below the 
existing appropriations level for energy conservation. This was at a 
time when we were already starting to experience higher prices and less 
ability to get foreign oil from OPEC.
  Just to give an idea of these cuts and how they cut what the 
President had proposed, it was a $143 million cut, a complete 
elimination of applied research and development at the Department of 
Energy for certain conservation programs. They canceled 400 R&D 
projects in 33 States by 15 Federal labs, 22 universities, and others. 
There was a $14 million cut in the Low-income Home Weatherization 
Assistance Program, which would mean about 7,000 fewer low-income 
families would have their energy bills reduced. There was a $2 million 
cut from industrial co-generation, which funds R&D.
  Then, in that appropriations bill, there was $67 million less than 
the President's request for solar and renewable energy. There were cuts 
in biomass fuels and biopower R&D, reductions in solar electricity R&D, 
cuts in R&D for wind power, which if adequately funded would be 
competitive just within a few years.
  I could go on and on here, and I will not because I am running out of 
time.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield before he runs 
out of his time, when I hear people start to politicize this and say 
that it is a national security issue to swap oil out of the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, one thing we have to remind people is that it is a 
swap, and the oil will come back with additional oil.
  Secondly, the very people who are making that acquisition now are the 
people who in 1995 filed a bill that was known as H.R. 1649, the 
Department of Energy Abolishment Act.
  As part of that act, it would ask to eliminate the reserve totally 
and sell off 571 million barrels of oil. Now, there are 35 people on 
the other side of the aisle that signed onto that, including three of 
the very highest members of their leadership, who are the same people 
now who have the audacity to go on the floor or elsewhere and start to 
say that a swap is somehow affecting national security.
  So not only is it totally wrong and it is not affecting national 
security in any adverse way, and it is what our allies and what other 
foreign countries think is a good thing to do, as well as business and 
others, but it is absolutely contradictory to their past behavior and 
their past comments.
  I think the public can pretty much get in line as to whether people 
are acting as statesmen or politicians when they make assertions like 
that. I am going to let it go at that message and defer back to you, 
but I think it is important for people to know that this was a good 
move. People in the Northeast and New England, and Massachusetts in 
particular, are very pleased that the LIHEAP money has gotten relieved. 
Our people and low-income seniors will have that relief.
  We are pleased there is a Northeast reserve being set up so the gap 
can be addressed, and hopefully keep the supply up and the prices 
somewhere within the stratosphere. We are very pleased that the 
President indicated he was going to release from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, and already we have seen the prices drop on that, 
except for a slight rebound when Members on the other side of the aisle 
indicated they would try to block it.

  The psychological effect, already a month before it hits the market, 
has shown it is bringing prices down. That is going to help our 
seniors, people in our districts generally, and our small businesses, 
who cannot stand the kind of high prices that are going on and still be 
productive and get their business done in a way to support their 
families.
  Again, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to address this on the 
floor. I think it is important to get this information out.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for coming down and 
joining us during this time.
  I think we have a couple of minutes left, so I would just like to 
point out, Mr. Speaker, that all the Democrats are really asking is 
that instead of trying to reverse the positive steps that the 
administration is taking and making these false accusations, that the 
GOP adopt a sound energy policy and pass the measures that the 
Democrats have been advocating and that have been proposed by the 
Clinton and Gore administration in its budget request.
  Above all, we should be implementing measures that sustain our 
natural resources, practical measures that would conserve energy, 
promote our long-term energy security, and promote international 
competitiveness and alternative energy resources, all without 
sacrificing our economic growth.
  For example, before we adjourn, the GOP leadership should pass the 
administration's request for funding and tax incentives for energy 
efficiency and renewable energy measures, efficient energy research and 
development, weatherization, and alternative fuel vehicles and mass 
transit.
  I also urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to pass 
legislation banning the export of Alaskan oil. Earlier last week, one 
of my colleagues on the Democratic side introduced a bill promoting 
wind energy. This is the kind of creative thinking we need to reduce 
our dependence on domestic and foreign fossil fuels.
  Unfortunately, the Republican majority has done the opposite. It has 
vastly underfunded programs for the past 6 years that my Democratic 
colleagues and I and President Clinton and Vice President Gore have 
promoted, programs that would have conserved energy and prevented the 
situation we now face.
  The Republican majority has an opportunity in the waning days of the 
Congress, we have a couple of weeks left, to reverse their course and 
help us pass sound legislation to avert an even greater energy crisis 
this winter. I would certainly urge them to do so.

                          ____________________