[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 72 (Thursday, May 20, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5896-S5897]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           HIGH ENERGY PRICES

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, again this morning I will talk about 
energy. I hope I have an opportunity each week until we come to our 
senses and pass an energy bill to remind the American people one of the 
reasons gas prices are spiraling, one of the reasons we are skeptical 
about our future is the tremendously high price of crude oil.
  That will never be reduced until America makes a commitment, until 
the people of the world and the producers of oil understand the United 
States of America is not going to sit by and do nothing. We are going 
to have a comprehensive policy with one objective. That is to produce 
more alternatives that can be used by the American people to satisfy 
and supply their energy needs. That means we want to do more to produce 
natural gas, not sit idly by and let the demand increase and soon be 
dependent on foreign countries for natural gas.
  The occupant of the Chair comes from a State that has an abundance of 
natural gas. But we have to bring it to the lower 48 States. The Energy 
bill which we propose, that the other side of the aisle for the most 
part defeated, had a powerful provision which will bring natural gas 
from Alaska. It also had a provision that will get the maximum amount 
of natural gas from our sources in America.
  The price of gas in California this week averaged $2.27; in San 
Francisco, it hit $2.79; in Brooklyn, it was $2.49. Each time our 
citizens pump a gallon of gas in their cars, they should remember a 
majority of the Senators in this body, led by the Republicans, has been 
trying to pass a comprehensive energy legislation package. They are 
blocked each time by a filibuster led by the other side of the aisle, 
the Democrats, who, for some reason, find an excuse on every energy 
bill we propose. Either this must be changed, that must be changed, or 
this must be added--until we end up with nothing.
  Fellow Senators, the Energy bill is not a silver bullet to lowering 
the price of gasoline. It does, however, set forth a plan for the 
future. The Energy bill will increase domestic oil and natural gas 
production that helps balance supply with our growing demand. The 
Energy bill does a number of technical things. It removes a 2-percent 
oxygenate mandate that will make it easier on refineries to make 
gasoline that can be traded between regional markets. The Energy bill 
addresses the proliferation of boutique fuels. There are a number of 
State-specific gasoline reformulations that make refining more 
challenging and make marketing inefficient. We can go on and on.
  This bill provides basic research in hydrogen power. Many ask, How 
are we going to get ourselves off of this tremendous demand for 
gasoline and crude oil derivatives? One is hydrogen power. How do we do 
that without an energy bill that sets a policy of spending the research 
money on hydrogen power with the automobile manufacturers to come up 
with a solution?
  We try, as part of a comprehensive energy bill, I said, try as we 
may--we cannot satisfy the other side of the aisle. I wonder if they 
really want an energy bill. I am beginning to think it is their way or 
no way. They might even think the President of the United States might 
be helped too much with an energy bill. I hope that is not true.

  The benefits are being denied to the American people. Some people 
want to kick the political football around and they hope they can score 
a touchdown. We are actually going to score in higher energy prices--
and higher energy prices hurt the economy. I am a football fan. But 
that is one touchdown I don't want to see scored.
  Right now we are focusing on high gasoline prices. High gasoline 
prices are tied to the price of oil. What has been making the price 
climb? We know there is huge demand in the world led by China, which is 
gobbling oil like you would think there was no end to the supply. In 
addition, there is a risk factor being built into the price because of 
terrorism and the vulnerability of oil production. There is a risk 
factor that is causing those who produce and sell it on the world 
market to not go rock bottom but to go as high as they can because they 
are afraid of terrorism.
  We have to be hopeful that the cartel and those who are producing 
oil, who are listening to our President, some of whom have been friends 
of America, we are hopeful they will see the light of day, that this 
price they are forcing on the world is not good for them, either; it is 
bad for their friends; it is bad for the world. Ultimately, it is not 
good for the producing countries.
  Our President is taking a leadership role with reference to the 
energy-producing countries. He is trying to cajole, to talk to them, to 
work on them so they will increase production and hopefully bring down 
the price of oil. Some want to embarrass the President by offering 
resolutions directing him to do what he is doing. Some want to use the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve as if that reserve, which is there for 
emergencies, could, in fact, help with these high oil prices. The last 
time we tried, it affected gasoline prices by 1 cent. Do we want to 
reduce the emergency oil we have and then find in a few months the 
terrorists do something and we are short of oil and then we have a real 
problem because of it? SPR was for that kind of situation.
  Perhaps people forgot the last time Iran cut a little bit of the 
supply to the world, America was affected in a dramatic way. That 
caused us to build SPR so we could never be immediately cut off and 
immediately forced to have our economy disrupted by a challenge from 
outside. Why do we want to risk that when the consequences will be very 
little?

  Maybe some think they can blame an economic downturn, because of high 
energy prices, on President Bush. They will not succeed. President 
Bush's economic policy has brought America from a recession to a 
vibrant, growing economy. Its gross domestic product increases are the 
highest in 20 years--not 2 years, not 5 years, in 20 years. So they are 
not going to deny that by filibustering an energy bill.
  But I can tell you, the purpose of debating in the Senate is to let 
the American people know who is responsible for what. And I don't know 
what to do. We have tried everything with reference to getting an 
energy bill. Maybe we ought to ask the Democrats to sit down and talk 
about what they need. I am not sure we could get anything out of that 
because I am not sure they know. Because it seems to me anything we try 
just cannot get anywhere because one group or another, principally on 
the other side of the aisle, seems to find fault; and there we go, we 
get nothing done.
  Now, we have some who want to investigate the oil companies because 
of the prices. I have, in this statement, a list of the investigations 
that have occurred and who has done them. They are powerful, neutral 
bodies that have done them. They did one for California because their 
prices went skyrocketing. Nobody can find collusion or

[[Page S5897]]

price fixing. What has happened is the world demand is monstrous, and 
the cartel and others that are not part of it want to hold supply down 
to let prices go up.
  And what do we do? We sit here in the U.S. Congress, wring our hands, 
and complain and worry and talk about President Bush needing a plan. 
Look, he gave us a plan. If you want to argue about how he did it, go 
ahead, but look at it and see what it will do. For the most part, the 
things in that plan are exactly what America needs. We need to maximize 
our own production of oil. It will not be sufficient, but we can do 
some things. We need to maximize the production of natural gas. We need 
to maximize the potential use of coal. We need to build every 
alternative into our national plan. Wind energy and solar energy need 
the incentives that are required. And, yes, in the end we have to put 
some incentives in to get started with nuclear again. But we do not 
have to have all of these. We need the basics. You cannot even get 
those done.
  So from my standpoint, I hope we will quit blaming, quit wringing our 
hands, quit talking, especially on the other side of the aisle, about 
what we need to do, when, in fact, they are denying the very things 
they say we need to do by not voting for the things they are talking 
about. In fact, I think we could go through the Record and find that 
many on the other side have gotten up and made speeches about what we 
need to do, and you could go down and tick them off, and most of them 
are in the Energy bill. Most of the things they talk about are in the 
Energy bill, but for some reason they would rather talk about it than 
vote for it. They would rather talk about it than offer amendments and 
get the thing going.
  I think what we ought to do soon is offer a bill and offer a 
unanimous consent suggestion that we put it up here and we have 10 
amendments on each side and then we proceed to vote. I think that would 
be a fair way to handle the energy crisis of America. It would say, 
quit fooling around. You get 10 amendments. That ought to be enough to 
get your purposes out there. We get 10. Then it is over with, and we 
vote. But I am sure if you tried that, every excuse in the world would 
be forthcoming. Nobody will say: We need an energy bill. Let's do 
something. They will say: Oh, no, it doesn't have this. There is a 
chance, a risk we will get hurt. They won't take care of this and they 
won't take care of that and we will get nowhere.

  So I close by saying I was also privileged to hear the President 
speak this morning. The Senator from Texas talked about it. I, frankly, 
have nothing but admiration for his fortitude, his strength, and his 
determination. I think if the United States and its people can quickly 
assess the blame with reference to the prisons and get on with letting 
our President and the military people stabilize Iraq and let them begin 
to decide their future as free people who do not have to worry about 
getting killed, the sooner we can let that happen, the sooner America 
will be back on the right track. But I am not sure that everybody in 
this country wants to get that over.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have 1 
additional minute.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I close by saying I would hope that as 
we prepare to go out for recess, everybody in this body will examine 
their conscience, examine their positions, and that maybe they can come 
back and say: Let's sit down. Let's get an energy bill. Let's get the 
maximum kind of flexibility for production of alternatives in this 
country. Let's see if we can't make the American electric energy grid 
more powerful, stronger, more reliable, and see that it can grow and 
prosper.
  It is our future. How we energize it is our challenge. We cannot do 
it with natural gas alone. We have to have alternatives. That is what 
we had proposed. We must decide that we are going to try. I chose this 
committee--left the Budget Committee--because I knew how important this 
was, but, frankly, I never thought there would be so many people who 
wanted to make it so hard for us to get an energy policy as has 
happened. I could not believe it, as a veteran Senator. Frankly, I am 
amazed there are still those on the other side who want to blame 
somebody, want to tell us what we ought to do but do not want to vote 
for anything.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, as Senator Domenici prepares to leave 
the Senate floor, I thank him for his tenacity and his earnest desire 
to lead us to a balanced energy policy. I think he knows there are 
plenty of us on this side who do want to reach the right balance, and I 
have enjoyed trying to provide a little bit of that balance.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. CARPER. I am happy to yield.

                          ____________________