Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 48 (Wednesday, April 7, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 48 (Wednesday, April 7, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3871-S3873]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

OPEC

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in the last few days, the Foreign Minister
of Saudi Arabia has said--and it has been widely reported by our
country's two largest wire services--that Saudi Arabia was not
contacted by the Bush administration over OPEC's recent decision to cut
oil production by 1 million barrels per day. I was very troubled by
these comments by the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia. I want to read
specifically what the Saudi Foreign Minister said when he was asked
whether the United States had expressed its disappointment over OPEC's
cut in oil production. The Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia said:

I didn't hear from the Bush administration. I'm hearing it
from you that they are disappointed.

This ought to be troubling to every Member of the Senate. Up and down
the west coast of the United States, our constituents are getting
mugged by high gasoline prices. In community after community, citizens
are paying more than $1.90 a gallon. The high driving season is just
upon us, and escalating gasoline prices are going to be devastating to
consumers and to our economy overall. We all understand consumer
spending is a major driver of our economy today, and it is going to be
harder and harder to grow the economy and create private sector jobs if
these gasoline prices continue to skyrocket.
I am hopeful my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support
the resolution I have introduced urging that OPEC increase production.
The reason I am hopeful for bipartisan support is that this resolution,
in terms of its substance, is identical to one introduced on February
28, 2000, with our current Secretary of Energy, our friend, Spence
Abraham, as one of the principal sponsors. Back then it was clear that
our colleagues thought it was important, and we had a number of our
colleagues who serve today, our friend Senator Grassley, distinguished
chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Santorum, and others, all of
whom said--and I share their view--that it is important for every
administration to put the heat on OPEC in order to protect our
consumers. It was important then to make it clear that it was the
position of the U.S. Senate that OPEC boost oil production, and it is
just as clear now.
At the time that resolution was adopted in March 2000, a resolution
sponsored by then-Senators Abraham and Ashcroft, oil prices were in the
$25-per-barrel range with a high of $27 per barrel in February of 2000.
In recent weeks, oil prices have been in the range of $35 per barrel,
spiking up to $38, a 13-year high, last month.
In 2000, then-candidate George W. Bush said it was important to put
pressure on OPEC to boost oil production. I certainly share his
sentiments. Yet with the comments of the Saudi Foreign Minister last
week, it is clear that at best, there has not been a full court press
in this administration on Saudi Arabia, on OPEC in order to increase
gasoline production.
If ever there were an administration that had earned some bargaining
chips to push Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, it is this
administration. After 9/11, there was an effort to help the Saudis, a
number of them, leave our country. When there was concern about
charities and the role that charities had played in financing 9/11, it

[[Page S3872]]

was difficult to get key Government documents declassified.
The fact is that Saudi Arabia keeps getting a free pass again and
again. On this issue with respect to oil production, if ever there were
an administration that had some bargaining chips to play in trying to
get OPEC and the Saudis to increase oil production, it is certainly
this administration. Now the Saudi Foreign Minister has said, just
after OPEC announced another million-barrel-per-day production cut, it
was not even contacted by the Bush administration to keep oil
production high.
There are other troubling signs which have led me to introduce this
resolution. When Secretary Powell was in Saudi Arabia about 2 weeks
ago, he also had a chance to talk about the oil crunch and how it is so
harmful to the American consumer. The press release that came from the
U.S. Information Agency--this is another document coming from our
Government--indicated that the Secretary and the Crown Prince and
Foreign Minister talked about a number of subjects--terrorism,
governmental reforms, a variety of issues--but not the question of oil
prices and keeping oil production high.
I have said that OPEC is going to stand up for OPEC. Anybody who
thinks OPEC is going to stand up for the American consumer thinks
Colonel Sanders is going to stand up for the chickens. OPEC is doing
what they think is in their self-interest. If you think they are going
to stand up for the consumer, it is a delusion; it is not going to
happen. But it is the job of our administration, just as it was in
2000, to stick up for the consumer who is getting clobbered with these
gasoline prices.

When the Saudi Foreign Minister says he hasn't even been contacted on
this question of boosting oil production, I say that is not good
enough. That is not good enough, given the harm it has done to our
economy and our consumers by these gasoline price hikes. It is
certainly not good enough for the people of Oregon, where consistently
we have paid some of the highest gasoline prices in our country.
The American people are entitled to some answers. Certainly, they are
entitled to an administration, just as they were in 2000, that does
what then-Governor George W. Bush says was important, and that was to
push OPEC, put the heat on OPEC, have a full court press on OPEC to
increase oil production. Instead, what we have learned from the Saudi
Foreign Minister in recent days is that the administration has
essentially sat on its hands with respect to this oil production issue.
I will tell you, I think what is coming on this gasoline situation is
a perfect storm. The combination of the shenanigans by OPEC--the fact
that we are filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at the wrong time,
swiping oil from the private market, squirreling it away in the reserve
at a time when we have enough for our national security needs; the fact
that the Federal Trade Commission is not following up on
anticompetitive practices--are the factors that are going to come
together for a perfect storm with respect to this gasoline issue.
I think it is critically important this Senate go on record on an
issue we can do something about, just as we did in 2000 when we were
led by a number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in
making an effort to boost oil production. We ought to do the same now
and stand up for the American consumer.
I have introduced S. Res. 330, and I ask unanimous consent that
Senator Carper, Senator Graham of Florida, and Senator Daschle be added
as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I also want to make sure our colleagues
understand the timetable that is behind my resolution. On February 28,
2000, then-Senators Ashcroft and Abraham introduced a resolution
calling on President Clinton to pressure OPEC to boost oil production
before an OPEC meeting. That resolution passed the Senate by unanimous
consent.
On June 22, 2000, then-candidate George Bush said:

I would hope the administration would convince our friends
at OPEC to open the spigots.

On February 10, 2004, our current Secretary of Energy said:

[It is] very clear we are not going to beg OPEC for oil.

On April 1 of this year, at a White House press briefing by Scott
McClellan, he said:

Let me just continue to reiterate that we remain actively
engaged in discussions with our friends at OPEC. . . . We
continue to make our view known. The President certainly
makes his views known when he meets with world leaders
and when he talks with world leaders. High-level
administration officials from Dr. Rice to Secretary Powell
to Secretary Abraham are always in close contact with
producers around the world to make our views known. And we
continue to do so.

But given that timeline, on April 1 of this year--just a few days
ago--the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia said he had not been
contacted by the Bush administration over OPEC's decision to cut crude
production by 1 million barrels a day. The Saudi Foreign Minister said:

I didn't hear from the Bush administration. I am hearing it
from you that they are disappointed.

That is a direct quote from the Saudi Foreign Minister. We have to
have an administration that puts the heat on OPEC, that pushes them to
increase oil production and, just as the Senate said in 2000, we ought
to say it in 2004.
So given what I have just outlined, I now ask unanimous consent that
the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further
consideration of S. Res. 330, a resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate that the President should communicate to the members of OPEC and
non-OPEC countries that participate in the cartel of crude oil-
producing countries the position of the United States in favor of
increasing world crude oil supplies so as to achieve stable crude oil
prices; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that
the resolution and the preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table, all without intervening action or
debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this
resolution has recently gone to the committee. It needs to go through
the process. I certainly empathize with many of the things the Senator
from Oregon has propounded. However, I must respectfully object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, what is troubling about the objection of
our distinguished colleague from Texas is that this resolution is, in
its substance, identical to the resolution that was offered by those on
the other side of the aisle in 2000. It is interesting that when I came
to the floor first to discuss this resolution, the distinguished
Senator from Kentucky, our friend Senator McConnell, said that
certainly if we applied a set of principles to the Clinton
administration, we can look at it as it relates to the Bush
administration. That is exactly what I am doing.
I will tell you, I listened to all of the arguments for the Bush
administration's position. We hear about ``quiet diplomacy,'' for
example. Maybe it is quiet diplomacy, but apparently the Bush
administration's brand of diplomacy was inaudible to the Saudi royal
family. So I cannot understand why there would be an objection from the
other side with respect to this resolution.
We have the Saudi Foreign Minister saying he had not been contacted
by the Bush administration. I outlined the specific timeline of events
between 2000 and 2004 that makes the case, in my view, why every Member
of the Senate should want to support this resolution, which in terms of
its substance is identical to the one passed in 2000. So I think it is
very unfortunate that there has been an objection. I note that there
has. I hope we will be able to take it up as expeditiously as possible.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield for an answer to his question?
Mr. WYDEN. Of course.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, with all due respect, I do sympathize
with much of what the Senator from Oregon has said, and I am frustrated
as well. But I think it is important that the Senator recognize we do
have a process; that this is 2004; it is not 2000; and it is not 2002.
Furthermore, I say to the Senator from Oregon that we have many ways

[[Page S3873]]

to increase the supply of oil in our country. Passing the Energy bill
that has already passed the Senate, that went to conference and was
held up by the Democratic side by two votes would give us the supply
that we need to lower the cost of fuel in our country. We have at our
disposal the capability to lower prices.
Mr. President, I think it is incumbent upon all of us not to just
look at the cartel that is OPEC, but to look at our own resources and
to control our own resources. We have the capability to do that and we
are not because of the obstructionism on the Democratic side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, first, the Energy bill would do absolutely
nothing over the next few months to lower these gasoline prices. What
will help to lower the prices is passing this resolution and pushing
OPEC to increase crude oil production. In fact, Republicans have even
asked, with respect to the Energy bill, what it would do to gasoline
prices. There is no evidence that it will lower prices.
This resolution does something in conjunction with making sure we
stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, making sure the Federal
Trade Commission deals with these anticompetitive practices.
This resolution can make a difference by pushing OPEC to stand up for
the consumer. It was good enough in 2000 when a number of our
colleagues, led by current Secretary of Energy Abraham, said it made
sense. I submit this is something, unlike the Energy bill, which can
make a difference for the gasoline consumers getting hosed at the pump
right now.
For that reason, I think it is unfortunate my colleagues have
objected. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for
15 minutes.

____________________