[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.
____________________