[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 66 (Thursday, April 24, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3344-S3347]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               GAS PRICES

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to note an 
anniversary. Although you may have noticed there has been no gift 
giving, no celebration, no remembrances of the day, the promise was 
made. That is because the people who made the promise failed to keep 
their promise. They failed to bring the change they promised.
  Now, to what promise am I referring? I am referring to the day, 2 
years ago today--April 24, 2006--when then-House minority leader Nancy 
Pelosi announced ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down 
skyrocketing gas prices.'' She told the American people that if they 
put Democrats in charge of the House and the Senate, we would all see 
lower gas prices. The then-minority leader, the senior Senator from 
Nevada, said, on that same day, that it was just ``about priorities.''
  Well, it is time to get real about energy. Democrats running for 
office across the Nation in 2006 said change would come with a 
Democratic Congress. Well, we certainly got change all right. Since the 
Democrats have come to power in the House and Senate, pain at the pump 
has increased by 50 percent. Americans who paid, on average, $2.33 a 
gallon in January 2007 now pay $3.53 a gallon, on average--hardly a 
change any of us bargained for. However, $3.53 is just the national 
average. Some are paying much more. To just take a few States, in 
California, it is $3.87; in Nevada, it is 3.60; in Illinois, it is 
$3.67; in New York, it is $3.67. Mr. President, $1.30 more for a gallon 
of gas is certainly not the kind of change I would believe in or 
support.

  What is this doing to hardworking families struggling just to get by? 
``With gas hitting record highs, drivers [are] feeling squeezed,'' as 
my home State Kansas City Star reported this week. For example, Carol 
Licata, a 75-year-old retiree, told in the story of how a larger part 
of her fixed income is now going toward gas. She said that ``to get to 
the doctors . . . it's an awful lot of money . . . I don't drive that 
often, but I have to take necessary trips . . . and [gas] takes a big 
chunk out of our budget.''
  Fixed-income seniors, though, are not the only ones suffering record 
pain at the pump. Consider the plight of low-income workers struggling 
to get to work. Their affordable housing is a great distance, maybe, 
from where they have a good-paying job. Maybe they are driving from the 
inner city out to a suburban job or from a distant suburb, where 
housing prices are lower, to the city. Either way, modest-income folks 
with the least ability to pay higher gas prices are hit especially 
hard.
  What about truckers? For all the hard work they put in on the open 
roads, they never seem to make more than a modest living. Now they are 
being hit with even higher diesel prices. At $4.20 a gallon, diesel 
prices are 40 percent higher than they were a year ago.
  Unfortunately, this pain at the pump is just one more burden families 
and workers are bearing at the same time as a housing meltdown, higher 
food prices, higher health care prices, higher power bills, higher 
heating bills, and I expect, this summer, higher air-conditioning 
bills.
  So what is the Democrats' ``commonsense plan'' to lower gas prices 
and help working families? With record-high gas prices, it is clear we 
are still waiting for the ``commonsense'' part of the solution. About 
the only thing we have heard proposed from the other side is to 
increase taxes on oil companies. Since when does raising taxes on 
something increase its supply or lower its price? Never. Again, that is 
all we hear.
  What is so sad is the fact that we are sitting on top of a big part 
of the solution. We can lower the prices by tapping the millions of 
barrels of oil just waiting for us here in America.
  In Alaska, above the barren Arctic Circle, Democrats refuse to allow 
us to tap millions of barrels of oil in an environmentally safe manner. 
They say drilling in an area smaller than the size of Dulles Airport 
would have too great an impact on an area the size of the State of 
South Carolina. Congress, in 1996, passed a budget resolution which 
would have allowed the opening of ANWR. However, President Clinton 
vetoed that resolution, pointing out that he opposed and would not 
support opening ANWR. Had ANWR been opened, there would be a million 
more barrels of oil a day flowing into the United States.
  Now, speaking of South Carolina, Democrats refused to let us get at 
millions of barrels of oil and natural gas a safe distance off our 
coastal shores, literally unseen because it is over the horizon. Some 
say this is another example of ``not in my backyard,'' or ``NIMBY,'' 
but this is really a case of not in ``your'' backyard because the 
people, for example, of Alaska and Virginia are happy with and want to 
tap the oil and gas on their lands and off their shores.
  But Democrats still refuse to unlock the vast untapped natural 
resources

[[Page S3345]]

here at home. Our dependence on foreign sources of energy grows 
greater, and families continue to suffer. Is it any wonder Americans 
are fed up? Democrats are looking at thirsty Americans and saying: You 
should drink less or drive less. Now, do not get me wrong, I support 
and have supported aggressive but achievable automobile fuel efficiency 
increases, incentivizing low-emission vehicles such as hybrids and 
plug-ins, and more fuels from renewable sources, but these are long-
range solutions that will not pay dividends for years.
  Some say opening our reserves would not pay dividends for years. 
While it will take time for the oil to start flowing, there would be a 
message. Right now, the market is factoring in the present U.S. 
attitude which says we will do nothing to increase our supplies of oil. 
A change in our attitude would change their attitude for the future. 
Saying we are going to increase supply and cut demand would help 
relieve the pressure. I think we need to support it.
  Another pressure I support relieving is continuing to add to the 
strategic petroleum reserves during times of record-high prices. We 
need to stop supplying these strategic petroleum reserves when gas hits 
$3 a gallon.
  Unfortunately, my friends on the other side, predominantly, support 
legislation that will send gas prices even higher. I am referring to 
the Warner-Lieberman climate bill the majority plans to bring to the 
floor in early June. In pushing forward that bill, Democrats are 
willing to say that $3.53 a gallon gas is not enough. They will be 
telling the American people that gas prices should be even higher.
  The Environmental Protection Agency recently estimated that 
Lieberman-Warner will force gasoline prices to rise $1.44 per gallon 
higher. For those of you keeping score at home, that would mean $5-a-
gallon gasoline. It boggles the mind, the majority advocating $5-a-
gallon gas in just over a month, but that is what they would be doing 
supporting that bill. That is not the kind of change our families and 
workers need. That is not common sense. That is why there are no 
flowers today, no fancy dinner tonight. On this anniversary, there will 
only be more pain at the pump.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri for making enormous common sense on a subject where, frankly, 
the Congress can only be characterized as having a schizophrenic 
approach to our energy crisis today. Congress always seems to talk a 
good game, but when it comes to actually doing something about it, the 
solutions seem to be few and far between.
  I, too, think it is important to remember that since Speaker Pelosi 
made that promise 2 years ago, we have not had anything happen in the 
Congress that would indicate that this ``commonsense plan to help bring 
down skyrocketing gas prices'' is any closer today than it was 2 years 
ago. You would think, if any party has a commonsense solution to help 
reduce the pain at the pump, they would be eager to unveil it and to 
debate it on the floor, to show it off. But, of course, as we finished 
out the 2006 session of Congress, we got no such bill.
  So again, as elections are heating up, and, as we all know, our 
constituents back home are feeling the pain at the pump--and whereas 
there is a lot of concern today about food prices--a lot of the 
increase in food prices is caused because of increased costs of 
production on the farm, primarily energy costs. Again, we see that as 
it becomes a political football, it has become something to talk about 
in election season. But when it comes to the fact that now our 
Democratic friends have control of both Houses of Congress, we have 
seen no action--zero action--taken to reduce the price of gas.
  The price of gas, as we know, has continued to go up. Here is a chart 
that indicates--right here on Capitol Hill--that back in, I guess we 
can call it, the good old days, unleaded regular was $3.09 a gallon. 
Today, in April 2008, it is $3.49 a gallon, right here in Washington, 
DC. In some parts of the country, it is approaching $4 a gallon.
  While $3.09 is certainly not a low price by anybody's reckoning, it 
certainly looks pretty good today. But, frankly, we have not seen our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle work with us to support any 
legislation that would be calculated to bring down the price of gas at 
the pump. As a matter of fact, this is calculated into the inaction as 
a result of the energy policies by the majority, and you see it costs 
the average American family $1,400 a year in additional energy costs, 
additional gasoline costs.
  So while the majority, which really runs the Congress, is quick to 
blame others for high oil prices, it is, in fact, their inaction that 
continues to raise gas prices. I wonder how long it will be before our 
friends on the other side of the aisle--who won the last election, who 
claimed a mandate as a result of that election--are actually going to 
act like the majority that they now are and help work with us to bring 
down prices at the pump. How long will it be before they stop pointing 
the finger of blame and start looking in the mirror for the solutions?
  The only way we are going to resolve this schizophrenia when it comes 
to our energy policy is by Republicans and Democrats working together 
to pass commonsense legislation which will have the effect of bringing 
down the price of gasoline at the pump. I will talk about some of those 
in a minute.
  The simple truth is, those who have been entrusted with the majority 
in the Senate and the House have failed to act to lower energy prices 
at all. Rather than show us their commonsense solution, as Speaker 
Pelosi talked about, they have opted to pursue political posturing, 
which has done nothing to deal with the problem. So, as we see, the 
problem just gets worse and worse and worse.
  Now, our side does not have all the answers, but we have proposed 
some good solutions, I think, which would help address America's 
growing energy crisis that we should and could act upon to start 
bringing the price of gas down.
  Let me say, first of all, there are several reasons why the price of 
gasoline is so high today. First and foremost is skyrocketing 
consumption in other parts of the world. This commodity is in great 
demand, and we are competing literally with the entire world for this 
scarce commodity known as oil that is then refined to make gasoline. Of 
course, we know there remains political unrest in producing countries 
as well.
  Every one of these problems could be mitigated, if not solved 
outright, by promoting and investing in America's natural resources 
rather than continuing to be so dependent on imported oil and gas from 
dangerous parts of the world and from our enemies such as Hugo Chavez 
in Venezuela.
  We are a politically stable nation with the resources to invest in 
maintaining our infrastructure and to add production that would greatly 
increase the available oil and gas supply. All of that adds up to lower 
costs at the pump and more money in the pockets of American citizens.

  There is a lot Congress can do that would be positive, but the one 
thing we can't do is to repeal the law of supply and demand. When you 
have a fixed supply and the demand goes up, the price invariably goes 
up. I don't know why Congress refuses to acknowledge that simple law of 
economics of supply and demand, and add to the supply.
  First and foremost, we need to increase American energy production 
right here at home. Unfortunately, we see time after time and, again, 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle block commonsense energy 
policies that would give American companies access to valuable 
resources such as oil deposits in the Arctic, in Alaska, the Outer 
Continental Shelf, on Government lands, and shale oil sites that have 
great promise in terms of the volume of oil that can be produced, the 
major component of gasoline. Of all of the cost drivers in gasoline, it 
is the price of oil that causes the greatest increase. If we could 
increase the supply of oil by increasing America's supply of oil by 
developing the resources we have in our country, it would vastly 
improve the situation we are in now.
  In addition to lowering prices at the pump and increasing domestic 
energy production, it would also create more jobs in America. At a time 
when Congress is passing economic stimulus programs, spending enormous 
sums of taxpayer money, one of the best things we

[[Page S3346]]

could simply do is to change the policies that would allow us to 
explore and develop our own natural resources rather than depend on 
imported oil from foreign sources. Personally, I have always liked to 
see the ``Made in America'' label when I buy a product. Wouldn't it be 
nice to see that on the side of a gas pump here at home? Think of the 
thousands of jobs that could help kick-start our economy if we actually 
encouraged American energy production and less dependence on foreign 
sources.
  Beyond increasing the supply of oil, we also need to increase our 
refinery capacity, the place where that oil is then made into gasoline. 
We haven't built any new refineries in this country since the 1970s 
because of restrictive policies of the Federal Government. One of the 
most costly steps in producing gasoline is refining oil to make it 
usable in vehicles. Since we have limited refining capacity--again, the 
law of supply and demand--a fixed supply and increasing demand is 
driving up the cost of gasoline because we don't have the refinery 
capacity to make the gasoline out of the oil. So prices continue to go 
up.
  Finally, any American energy policy must, of course, include 
alternative sources of energy. We need to look to technology in our 
American legacy of innovation and research to help reduce our need on 
oil and gas, whether domestic or foreign. But that is not going to 
happen overnight. It is not going to happen even in the near term. But 
long term, clean coal technology, nuclear energy, even biofuels and 
wind energy can help reduce the strain on our gas supply by taking some 
of the energy load off of oil.
  We need to be careful not to cherry-pick a few politically correct 
solutions. We have already seen the increase in the cost of food, in 
significant part because of food being used for fuel. Even with the 
best of intentions of an ethanol policy, it has created an impending 
crisis when it comes to using food for fuel.
  I think it is time for us to take definitive steps to help reduce the 
cost of gasoline at the pump. We have some solutions, if we would get 
some cooperation on the other side of the aisle. Since the Democrats 
are now in charge, we would expect them to lead, to keep the promise 
that Speaker Pelosi made 2 years ago. We wish to help them come up with 
a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices. But 
continued obstruction, continued schizophrenia, and continued reliance 
on politically correct solutions which sometimes end up backfiring is 
not the way forward. The American people are looking to us for a 
solution and it is high time we deliver.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida is 
recognized.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I want to follow my colleague from Texas 
in pursuing that very same discussion on the issue of energy. I was 
here before the Presiding Officer joined the Senate and I remember 
daily diatribes about how Republicans being in charge was leading 
Americans to have higher gas prices. In fact, I recall a great deal 
being made about what the gas prices were then, when they reached $3 a 
gallon in April of 2006, and I recall a big show up here at the gas 
station on the corner, right here on Capitol Hill, about how if 
Democrats were in charge, this wouldn't be happening; it was only 
because Republicans were in charge that gas prices had reached $3 a 
gallon. Now we are looking at a situation where they are $3.69 in April 
of 2008, 2 years later.
  The Democrats, as my colleague from Texas said, the House and the 
Senate leadership, with great enthusiasm, took control of both Houses 
of the Congress and promised the American people they would lower gas 
prices, they would change the dynamics, and they would deliver. We were 
promised an alternative to paying $3 a gallon. I don't think what they 
meant was to pay $4 a gallon, but it was an alternative to pay less.
  American families are hurting. AAA reports that today's price of 
$3.50 a gallon is the highest average price they have ever had on 
record. Families are paying record high gas prices and we still haven't 
passed a sensible energy policy that gets to the heart of this matter. 
Until that policy is passed, we ought to do what we can to offer 
Americans who are frustrated with the current prices some much needed 
relief.
  Currently, oil is nearly $120 a barrel. High fuel prices are 
translating into higher prices for groceries. What families need is 
relief. We need to do what we can to stem the rise of gasoline prices 
at the pump.
  One of the ways I think we could do that and benefit our economy at 
the same time is a summer holiday from the 18-cent-a-gallon Federal gas 
tax. I have joined with several of my colleagues in supporting a gas 
tax holiday from Memorial Day to Labor Day. What a concept. Wouldn't it 
be nice. By suspending the gas tax 18 cents a gallon on gas and 24 
cents on diesel, it would be putting money back into the pockets of 
American families. This would help those who have to drive great 
distances for work.
  Many people in Florida who want to find affordable housing have to be 
a long ways from work. Florida doesn't have the kind of mass transit 
system many places in the Northeast and other parts of the country 
have. They have no option but to get in a car. When they do, they get 
hammered at the gas pump. People in the trucking industry are finding 
increasing problems in meeting their needs because diesel fuel costs 
are so high, so the cost of transporting goods is also going up. One of 
the things that benefits my State greatly is when the American family 
jumps in their car and goes for a summer vacation. As the gas prices 
begin to hurt the pocketbook of the American family, fewer and fewer of 
them will have the joy of enjoying a vacation and more and more 
Floridians, already threatened by a weak economy, would have an 
additional problem of seeing vacationers not come to our attractions 
and beaches and maybe hurt our tourism economy as well.
  Something else we can do is to seriously consider suspending the 
production of so-called boutique fuels. This is a requirement by States 
that mandate the use of different fuel blends to meet clean air 
standards. As States develop more and more requirements, the blends of 
fuel increase in number and now there are dozens of these fuel blends. 
Each one of them puts a strain on oil refineries which already are 
stretched to the max. States need to work to reduce the number of 
boutique fuels and increase their cooperation with oil refineries to 
harmonize fuel blend requirements. In other words, we all want clean 
air, but every State's version of how we get there ought to not be an 
individual act, but ought to be harmonized so we can then shorten or 
lessen the number of additional fuel blends that have to be made.
  In addition, we need to expand refinery capacity in this country. We 
haven't built a new refinery in 30 years, yet we keep saddling our fuel 
system with more and more mandates. We do need to find a way where we 
can create more avenues for refining fuel. Our industry refines 
approximately 18 million barrels a day, but we use over 20 million 
barrels a day. That means we have a shortfall between what we can 
refine, what we can actually do in that regard, and what must be 
imported from other parts of the world. So as unthinkable as it is, the 
United States has to import refined fuel. We shouldn't be in that fix; 
we should be able to stay ahead of the demand.
  We need long-term solutions to our energy problems. There are 
alternative sources of fuel, such as cellulosic ethanol, where it is 
synthesized using agricultural waste, biomass, and other byproducts 
that are renewable sources of energy and that do not compete with the 
food chain, which is an increasing problem we are finding. Florida 
could play a huge role in developing these fuels of the future and fuel 
technologies.

  I was pleased that our energy bill last year included a very robust 
focus on these new emerging technologies that will require 21 billion 
gallons of cellulosic ethanol by the year 2022. Florida has a real 
potential to be a leader in biomass production, and we are quickly 
becoming leaders in this field.
  So for the long term, we have taken some steps necessary to provide 
Americans with more alternatives to paying high gas prices at the pump, 
but more must be done. We must increase, where possible, more domestic 
production. We

[[Page S3347]]

need to also continue to expand avenues of research and opportunities 
for new fuel breakthroughs. I continue to believe that America's 
ingenuity is our greatest strength and we can look to ways in which we 
can utilize that ingenuity to find ways so we might conquer this 
addiction, as it might be called, to refined fuel. We must do better. 
We also have to help the American family to get away from $3 and $4 a 
gallon for gasoline. It is time we find a way to help the American 
family.
  Beyond that, I think there is one thing every American can do today, 
and that is to conserve. If we were to conserve fuel and do that in a 
significant way, I know we would lower the prices of gas, not only of 
fuel in the barrel but also at the pump. I think all Americans have an 
interest in conservation and we should seek and lead our people to do 
more and more conservation, because until we have alternative fuels 
available, this may be the very best way in which we can lower our fuel 
prices.
  We need leadership. We look for leadership from the majority party, 
and we hope part of that will include opening additional sources of 
exploration in America, where possible and where prudent, in 
compatibility with our environment; creating more options for fewer 
fuel blends, and more refining capacity; also, looking to cellulosic, 
but also conserving more energy.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina is 
recognized.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I yield back any morning business time.

                          ____________________