Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 125 (Tuesday, October 10, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 125 (Tuesday, October 10, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10140-S10141]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL POLICY ISSUES

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, over the last couple of weeks we have had
several debates on this floor that dealt with national policy, and, of
course, with the debates on television, there are many issues related
to national policy. I take this opportunity to relate how those policy
issues are being viewed in Wyoming. I know that is kind of the melting
pot and the test center for the United States. I say that in all
sincerity because I talk to these people every weekend when I go home,
and I know it is a real center of common sense with a real concern
about a lack of national policy on some very important issues.
They talk about foreign policy and how we don't appear to know how to
go into a war. They talk about energy policy, the price of gasoline,
and how long we have been addressing that. They talk about Social
Security policy.
They hear about the lockbox, and they have watched six or seven
filibusters against the lockbox to protect Social Security. They hear
about needing to save Social Security first and then not seeing any
action on that.
I want to suggest, too, that our country needs policy. We are not
talking about hindsight; we are talking about foresight. We are not
talking about polls; we are talking about leadership.
There were a couple of editorials in Wyoming that dealt with the
recent tapping of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. One of them was in
the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, which is the main paper in Cheyenne, WY, the
State capital of Wyoming. It starts off by saying:
President Bill Clinton's decision to direct the Department
of Energy to release 30 million barrels of oil from the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve is viewed by the White House as a
way to lower fuel prices and reduce our country's dependence
on foreign oil.
Nice try, Mr. Clinton.
Each day, the world oil market produces 77.1 million
barrels of oil and consumes 75.6 million barrels. The United
States consumes 20 million barrels per day. The additional 30
million barrels is equal to about a 36-hour supply.

* * * * *

Higher energy prices fall squarely on the shoulder of the
American people, the government's strangle-hold on refineries
and the White House.

* * * * *

Let's not forget our country's thirst for oil. Since 1991,
the amount of oil imported by the United States has increased
an average of 5.3 percent per year.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire editorial be
printed in the Record. I hope everybody will read it. It gets into more
detail about policy and suggests some things that need to be done.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Our View

Oil Reserves--Tapping This Supply Won't Solve Energy Dependency

President Bill Clinton's decision to direct the Department
of Energy to release 30 million barrels of oil from the
Strategic petroleum Reserve is viewed by the White House as a
way to lower fuel prices and reduce our country's dependence
on foreign oil.
Nice try, Mr. Clinton
Each day, the world oil market produces 77.1 million
barrels of oil and consumes 75.6 million barrels. The United
States consumes 20 million barrels per day. The additional 30
million barrels is equal to about a 36-hour supply.
What Mr. Clinton did was wrong. Releasing the oil from the
reserve to influence market prices sets a dangerous
precedent. The oil reserve was created in 1975 to protect
Americans from countries that decide to cut off oil exports
to the United States, not to manipulate prices. Any
unexpected cold snap, natural disaster, cutback in OPEC
production or political unrest that leads to a disruption in
world supply could quickly overwhelm any short-term benefit
from tapping into our oil reserves.
Granted, releasing the oil may have a short-term effect on
prices, but markets eventually will refocus on the long-term
conditions--influenced primarily by world supply and demand
for oil--that have driven up prices during the past years.
Higher energy prices fall squarely on the shoulder of the
American people, the government's strangle-hold on refineries
and the White House.
Since 1983, access to federal land in the West--where 67
percent of America's onshore oil reserves are located--has
declined by 60 percent. Mr. Clinton has used his executive
powers to severely limit oil and gas activity on government
land, and the search for new domestic offshore oil has been
limited to parts of the Gulf of Mexico and Alaskan waters.
Let's not forget our country's thirst for oil. Since 1991,
the amount of oil imported by the United States has increased
an average of 5.3 percent per years.
While American refineries are operating at a 95.4 percent
utilization rate, up from 94.1 percent a years ago, there is
little margin for error. It's uncertain if American
refineries will be able to process the oil released from the
reserves fast enough to make a difference in gasoline prices
or home heating oil inventories. The newest oil refinery was
built nearly 25 years ago. That's because the Clean Air Act
and other environmental requirements tied to upgrading or
building new refineries restrict private business from
building additional refining capacity.
The administration's failure to establish a long term
domestic energy policy that guarantees America's energy
independence is largely to blame for high gas prices at the
pump.
The next president will need to address this nation's
dependence on foreign oil that leaves both the economy and
national security at risk. Unless the White House is ready to
encourage the development of domestic energy resources,
America will remain overly depend on foreign production.

[[Page S10141]]

That's the real tragedy.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I also cite an editorial that appeared in
the Riverton Ranger, Riverton, WY, with some of the same sentiments:

That is about what the energy policy amounts to--burning down our
strategic house to take care of a little blip that doesn't solve the
problem at all--again, lack of an energy policy.
I ask unanimous consent that the complete editorial from the Riverton
Ranger be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The Clinton-Gore administration has announced its intention
to sell 30 million barrels of oil from the nation's strategic
reserve.
This amounts to less than a two-day supply of oil for a
country that uses 19 million barrels of oil a day.
The rationale for the release of oil from the salt mines is
that the administration wants to make sure that no Americans
are cold this winter, due to a shortage or too high prices
for home heating oil.
The image of households backing up to their burned-down
home comes to mind. The optimist in the family, warmed by the
glowing embers as the fire dies down after consuming the
house, remarks that ``at least we'll be warm tonight.''
How ironic that the same administration that continues to
lock up more of the public land from whence comes much of the
nation's oil, designates more acreage as national monuments,
classifies more of the public lands as defacto wilderness
through roadless designation, would then provide temporary
relief from an oil shortage by selling a few barrels of
reserves, on the condition the oil companies replace the
borrowed oil within a short period of time.
President Carter made quite a fuss when the domestic supply
of oil dropped perilously close to 50 percent. Now we think
nothing of having foreign sources 75 percent of our U.S. oil
supply.
The same situation applies to uranium, or even worse. We
have a law on the books of Washington that requires the
maintenance of a viable domestic uranium industry, for
strategic defense purposes, and for our nuclear utility
industry.
With uranium mines closing and throttling back in Wyoming,
the last of the 50 states still mining uranium, our domestic
companies can supply less than 15 percent of the uranium
needed by our nuclear utilities which supply now 23 percent
of the nation's electricity. The rise from the traditional 20
percent share comes from the greater availability of the
remaining almost 100 nuclear power stations for generation of
electricity.
If our national leadership wanted to help our people stay
warm, other than by backing up to our burning houses, a
national policy ought to be developed that encourages
domestic exploration and production, rather than impeding it
at every turn.
The promised release of oil from our reserves appears to be
politically timed and motivated.
Any hope for a sound national energy policy that will keep
more companies finding oil on our own continent seems faint,
indeed.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, finally, in the area of forest fires and
forest fire policy, Mr. H.B. Davis writes the letter to the editor
where he explains in some detail how we are failing on our forests.

Well, the West is again being managed by nature because a
few people block the true management of our replenishable
environment. Ignorance has again led us to ashes. Some of the
very forests that have been ``protected'' against harvesting
for years, have this summer burned. To those who wanted their
homes surrounded by the pristine (I'm sorry), do they look
better in ashes? The pristine that we admire will never
remain, for it changes by growing old, weak, and ravaged, by
nature, not just man. We can help it by maintenance, with
harvest, common sense use, and stewardship. Nature does it by
random (and sometimes violent) ways but we (some) have the
intelligence to do it selectively and sensibly unless our
hands are tied.

He goes on to explain how a sensible forest policy will allow us to
enjoy the beauty of the forests rather than the devastation of forest
fires, and even though forest fires help to rejuvenate forests, they do
it in a very poor stewardship way.
As one lady at a hearing recently said: The difference between the
clear-cutting that my little family business does and what Mother
Nature does, we respect 200 feet from a stream. We protect against
erosion. We don't kill the fish. Mother Nature often does.
I ask unanimous consent that his entire letter be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Ignorance to ashes

Editor: Well, the West is again being managed by nature
because a few people block the true management of our
replenishable environment. Ignorance has again led us to
ashes. Some of the very forests that have been ``protected''
against harvesting for years, have this summer burned. To
those who wanted their homes surrounded by the pristine (I'm
sorry), do they look better in ashes? The pristine that we
admire will never remain, for it changes by growing old,
weak, and ravaged, by nature, not just man. We can help it by
maintenance, with harvest, common sense use, and stewardship.
Nature does it by random (and sometimes violent) ways but we
(some) have the intelligence to do it selectively and
sensibly unless our hands are tied.
I fought timbering many years ago, thank God I failed, for
the timbered areas are now beautiful and what I wanted to
keep now has or needs to burn, for it is of no value except
for wildfire fuel. We want clean air and to stop the
greenhouse effect so we promote wildfire. Does it do the job?
Some people have the idea you can keep a living organism
from growing old. Maybe some people, through money and
surgery appear not to age, but they do age. That ``stop-
aging'' or use attitude leads to fuel for wildfires, disease
and starvation in animals, and imbalance in nature. To the
people who take on a specific issue, you appear to forget an
issue is not the book of life but a single page and until you
can see all of life don't kill it with an issue, as is now
happening. Closure does not guarantee protection, only lack
of observation, thus allowing good conditions to go bad until
it is all destroyed. On the other hand, careful harvesting,
replanting, and maintenance does protect. It keeps it
renewing and healthy. The cartoon, in Wed, Aug. 23, by
Deering would have had a better caption of ``what is this
stuff?'' ``It is what's left when the environmentalists''
protect the environment.'' I'll bet the burned bear cub
(Signey) would prefer his mother protecting him and not some
short sighted environmentalists.
We can't use and abuse, but we can harvest, replant, and
maintain so Mother Nature doesn't have to do on a big scale
what we should have done a little at a time.
Personally, I'd rather see the timber used to build (at a
reasonable price, with jobs) than as smoke, ashes and charred
pieces in mud to smother our wildlife and fish come the next
rain. If our ``do-gooders'' would quit looking at a single
page of aging life and work with the folks who would, with
responsibility, harvest, replant, and maintain, we'd not need
the tears of regret when Mother Nature has to manage.
H.R. Davis,
Riverton.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I will take an opportunity at a later time
to talk about lack of policy on Social Security. I would like to
address the type of accounting we have where we are kind of fudging
some things that will cost future generations their Social Security
unless we take some action now.
We also need to take some action in the area of paying down the debt,
tax policy, and education policy. If we don't address these policies
using foresight instead of hindsight, if we don't do policy instead of
polls, we are going to run into a situation similar to what we had when
we hired 100,000 new teachers and then discovered we didn't have
buildings to put them in. That was easy to solve; we just threw in a
little more money. We put more buildings in there, except we are
putting buildings in places where the voters themselves chose not to
put buildings.
I hope we will look at policy.
I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy in letting me
put those letters in the Record.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia
is recognized.

____________________