[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 29, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3463-S3467]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 ENERGY

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about what 
everyone is talking about, which is the price of energy today. I was 
home in Alaska over the weekend. Everywhere I went, the price of 
gasoline was the main topic. Everyone wanted to talk about it. Here in 
the lower 48, as we are looking at high crude prices hitting the $120-
per-barrel mark yesterday, or nearing that mark, recognizing that we 
are seeing a nationwide average of gas prices at $3.60 for a gallon of 
regular--

[[Page S3464]]

this is up just 4 cents over the weekend--we all agree that prices are 
high, far too high. But in a State such as mine, we consider the prices 
to be in the stratosphere. In Bethel over the weekend, the price of 
gasoline was at $4.98 a gallon. I just met with a constituent coming 
over here. We were talking about prices in Fairbanks, about the 
national average. But up in Allakaket, which is a pretty remote little 
village, the prices they are looking at for their gasoline are over $7 
a gallon for regular gasoline.
  In Valdez, which is the site of the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline, the 
terminus of our gas line, they are finding regular selling there for 
more than $4 a gallon. I think we would all agree these prices are not 
just high, but for many they are absolutely unbearable.
  We can talk about why the prices are high. It is important to 
understand that. But Americans are tired of hearing, when we talk about 
the world demand, the world using 85 million barrels a day, that there 
is very little surplus oil production capacity left.
  They are tired of hearing of the weakness of the dollar that is 
driving investors into buying oil as a safe haven against inflation. 
The truckers who were gathered around The Mall yesterday in protest of 
the high prices--I have to wonder if they care that we, in Congress, in 
2005 and again in 2007, passed legislation to promote energy 
conservation that requires an increase in the vehicle fuel efficiency 
standards. That is going to begin to improve their mileage in about 7 
years. They do not necessarily care we have funded the research and the 
demonstration of alternative energy technologies, whether it is for 
geothermal or for ocean energy. They do not care about the loan 
guarantees we intend to make for nuclear and solar and wind and biomass 
as we try to make our biofuels go even further.
  What people care about--what they want to know--is: What are you 
doing, Congress? What are you going to do to make the price I pay at 
the pump go down?
  I suppose we can halt filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve--
something we certainly are looking at. I think at this time of very 
high prices it makes some sense. But we need to recognize that is only 
going to add 70,000 barrels a day to the nearly 21 million we are 
using.
  We could also reduce the Federal gas tax, which is currently 18.4 
cents, and dedicate the nearly $5 billion we gained in OCS lease sales 
this winter from sales up in the Chukchi Sea in Alaska and from the 
Gulf of Mexico to help offset the losses to the highway trust fund. 
But, again, that would only offset the revenue losses to transportation 
projects for probably a few weeks.
  So the question the consumer is asking is: What can you do that could 
make a difference in this country? I believe one of those things we 
need to do in America is to produce more of our domestic oil and gas 
supplies to help increase global oil supplies and, thus, drive down the 
prices. We would do this at the same time we are working toward 
renewable fuels. We would do this at the same time we are focusing on a 
level of conservation. It has to be this kind of three-legged stool 
approach. But we cannot stick our head in the sand and say increased 
domestic production should not be part of that comprehensive strategy.
  Now, some have suggested we do not have enough oil in this country to 
make a difference. But look at what we in the Federal Government have 
done through regulation and through moratoria. We have prevented 
exploration in many of the places where oil and gas are most likely to 
be found in this country.
  If you take the areas that are covered by the OCS moratoria--the 
Atlantic coast, parts of the Gulf of Mexico closest to Florida and the 
Pacific coast and you throw in the Arctic Coastal Plain and parts of 
the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska--you have nearly 40 billion of 
the Nation's 112 billion barrels of remaining undiscovered oil which 
has been put off the table for consideration. That is nearly enough to 
power over 20 million cars for 60 years and heat nearly 10 million 
homes for the same period.
  Last year, I came to this floor--actually, I come to this floor quite 
often--to urge my colleagues to consider greater oil development in my 
home State of Alaska. Earlier this year, I came and I urged that we 
simply allow--just allow--us winter-only exploration in northern Alaska 
to confirm that the oil we believe is there is truly there. Last year, 
when I spoke, the price of oil was at the $60 mark. At the same time, I 
warned that if we continued to do nothing, the prices would only 
continue to climb.
  I have never been one of those people who relishes the ``I told you 
so'' approach, but I am here to say it is time for this country to snap 
out--snap out--of its lethargy and actually explore for and produce 
more of our Nation's fuel needs.
  It was about a month ago, Senator Stevens and I introduced new 
legislation to open a tiny part of the Coastal Plain of the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development. Opening a few 
thousand acres--we are talking about 2,000 acres--of Alaska's Arctic 
coast to oil and gas production could produce up to 16 billion barrels 
of economic oil by current Government estimates. To some, that might 
not seem like much. But without opening ANWR, we are going to have to 
import between 780,000 and 1 million barrels of additional oil each 
day. That is only going to continue to help drive up the world price of 
oil.
  Without ANWR, American domestic oil supplies fall sharply. The EIA 
predicts Alaska will be producing about 270,000 barrels a day, next 
decade, from our existing oil fields up in Prudhoe Bay. This is 
compared to the nearly 800,000 barrels a day the State is currently 
producing.
  The bill we introduced will automatically open the coastal plain of 
ANWR in the northern part of the State if the world price of oil tops 
$125 a barrel for 5 days. In return, what it does is allocates all the 
Federal revenues that would come from that oil to both alternative 
energy development and to programs to help improve energy efficiencies 
and to those in need. What we anticipate, in terms of revenues, would 
be an estimated $297 billion--$297 billion--to help fund the wind 
technology, the solar, the biomass, the geothermal, the ocean energy, 
the landfill gas--everything that was covered in those Energy bills 
that were passed in 2005 and 2007, plus it would provide funding for 
LIHEAP, for weatherization, and for the WIC Program. The bill 
incorporates protections so that while we do the exploration and the 
production, we are also protecting the environment.
  We mandate that the exploration occur only in the winter, when no 
animals are on the Coastal Plain to be disturbed. It requires the use 
of ice roads that disappear in the summer to protect the wildlife. It 
allows for special areas to be designated to protect the key habitat. 
There are dozens of stipulations to guard against noise and flight 
disturbances, spills or land use problems.
  Opening ANWR does so many things. It makes us, first and foremost--
and most important--less dependent on foreign sources of oil. It cuts 
our balance of payments deficit. It improves our economy. It keeps our 
jobs at home, not exporting them to foreign oil producers such as 
Venezuela. But, more importantly, I think it signals that we are 
finally serious about helping ourselves, that we will do it here first, 
that we can produce oil from ANWR, and we recognize this will help to 
drive down the psychology and the speculation that is currently acting 
to drive up world oil prices.
  I will be the first one to admit to you that opening ANWR tomorrow 
will not produce more oil tomorrow. We recognize that. But we do 
believe it will dampen the price speculation that is helping to fuel 
higher prices.
  We have to talk about true and meaningful solutions: not only 
increasing alternative energy--which is a must--not only doing more to 
improve our energy efficiency and our conservation--absolutely 
important--but we need to get on now with also increasing our domestic 
energy supplies. ANWR is one way to demonstrate we are serious about 
doing that.
  I do hope we will seriously look at the current merits of opening 
ANWR to exploration and development.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Murkowski for her 
comments and agree with them very

[[Page S3465]]

strongly. This is not a matter that she just raised. Her distinguished 
father, who chaired the Senate Energy Committee, was a champion of ANWR 
production when he was in the Senate.
  When I came here almost 12 years ago, I believed that was the right 
thing then. I understood then that it did have the capability of 
maintaining wealth in our country and helping to ease the surging price 
of oil and gas. I believe, as history has proven, she is correct.
  That is the way it is. We steadfastly--vote after vote after vote, 
for the last 12 years I have been in the Senate and before that--tried 
to produce the tremendous reserves of oil and gas that are contained in 
a small part of ANWR. We have been blocked.
  It is odd that those who blocked it, and seem unphased by the fact 
that we are importing huge amounts of oil and gas from nations around 
the world that are often hostile to us, such as out of that great lake 
in Venezuela. Nobody is worrying about the environment in Venezuela--it 
is all right to bring it from Venezuela or other places but not from 
the United States.
  After many years since I have been in the Senate, we finally were 
able to open up more lands in the Gulf of Mexico, where huge reserves 
exist. It is not an academic matter only. We are talking about gasoline 
that has risen to the price of $3.61 a gallon as of this morning. One 
year ago, it was $2.84 a gallon; and 2 years ago, it was $2.74 a 
gallon. As a result, the American family, with two cars, is paying 
about $75 a month more for the same amount of gasoline they were buying 
previously.
  This impacts our economy adversely. It is a transfer of wealth. T. 
Boone Pickens--himself an oil producer and one of America's most 
successful entrepreneurs--recently talked about the fact we are buying 
over 60 percent of our oil from foreign countries at the cost, he 
estimates, of $600 billion a year. We are sending $600 billion a year 
to foreign countries to import the oil we utilize. T. Boone Pickens 
referred to that, in an American Spectator article recently, as: the 
greatest wealth transfer in the history of the world.
  Do we have the ability to do something about it? Are we just totally 
hopeless? Do we have an ability to do something about that? Absolutely, 
we can do some things. I supported ethanol, although we clearly are 
pushing the limits on that. But if we could do more cellulosic ethanol, 
we could do better. I supported the increase in the gas mileage, which 
we did pass, which will have a significant reduction in our demands.
  But as the population of our country is growing, even if we reduce 
our own individual use, we are going to have high demand in our country 
for years to come. It is a question of: Where are we going to get it? I 
support hybrid automobiles. I support diesel automobiles. In fact, 
diesel is as clean or cleaner, in terms of CO2, and gets 30 
percent better gas mileage than gasoline automobiles. Europeans utilize 
diesel automobiles. Fifty percent of their cars are now diesel. They 
actually get the same gas mileage and emit the same or less 
CO2 than hybrids. Did you know that?
  So somehow we have fiddled around here and ended up not promoting 
diesel in an effective way and have seen the price of diesel fuel, 
which should be cheaper, be 60 cents more per gallon at the pump. I 
would like to know more about why that is happening. I think it has to 
be a combination of things, but I think Congress needs to look into 
that. I hope, in the Energy Committee, we will have some hearings on 
that particular question.
  But let me talk about some of the reserves we have in our country.
  In 2005, this Congress directed the Department of the Interior to 
study our reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf. I am from Alabama. 
We are a gulf coast area. They found that 8.5 billion barrels of oil 
are currently known to exist off the Nation's shores. In addition, the 
study estimated that approximately 86 billion barrels of oil also exist 
in those areas that have not been charted yet. The U.S. Geological 
Survey and private industry also estimate that approximately 25 billion 
barrels of oil exist onshore in the lower 48 States and in Alaska.
  This amounts to approximately 119 billion barrels of oil available to 
the United States in our country or off our shores alone, for which we 
do not have to pay any foreign nation. Any production we get, as 
Senator Murkowski of Alaska stated, can create profits that come to the 
United States and not to foreign countries, and we can use it to 
accelerate nuclear power, plug in hybrids, ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, 
wind and solar, and those other kinds of energy forms. But apparently 
we have those who just steadfastly block this and prefer to send our 
money to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

  Now, there are some additional sources of oil in our country of 
immense proportions, and at these world prices, it has proven to be 
already economically feasible to develop them. One is oil shale. The 
Congressional Research Service, our own independent research service, 
estimates this country's oil shale reserve to be equivalent to 
approximately 1.8 trillion barrels of oil, or 1,800 billion barrels of 
oil in oil shale. The largest oil producer in the world, Saudi Arabia, 
is estimated to have only 267 billion barrels. We are talking about 1.8 
trillion in the United States, and it can be produced for less than 
$100 a barrel--some say $60 a barrel--and the people who produce it 
would be Americans paid salaries by the American Government, who would 
pay taxes to the U.S. Treasury, keeping our wealth at home and not 
transferring $600 billion to a foreign country.
  In 2005, Congress recognized the potential--I want my colleagues to 
understand this--we recognized the potential of oil shale in the Energy 
Policy Act we passed, which was a good bill. It made a number of good 
steps forward. We identified it as strategically important and called 
for its further development. Yet the new Congress, under the new 
leadership, has acted to block the development of this abundant 
resource despite the record price of oil. They undermined the 2005 
Energy Policy Act. In the recently passed Energy Independence and 
Security Act, the majority inserted language into the bill prohibiting 
any Federal agency from contracting to procure any alternative or 
synthetic fuel that produces greater life-cycle greenhouse gas 
emissions than those produced from the ground, those produced from 
Saudi Arabia. This language prohibits the Federal Government from 
contracting to produce oil shale. They knew exactly what they were 
doing, and that was exactly the purpose of that language. It really 
should be repealed. It is misguided. It is wrong.
  The Energy Act of 2005 directed the Bureau of Land Management to 
lease Federal lands for oil shale research and development projects. 
Yet the Congress, in this same bill, acted to block the development of 
this provision. So we passed it in 2005, and they came along and 
blocked it. Language was inserted, actually, this time in the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act--that is, the Omnibus appropriations 
bill at the end of last session--that prohibited funds from being used 
to implement the leasing program which Congress directed BLM to 
implement in 2005. It should be repealed. That is not the right thing 
for us to do.
  So there is much more we can say. We need technology. We need 
advancement in our ability to conserve energy, and at the same time, 
while we are making that progress, we do not need to be devastating our 
economy by transferring $600 billion a year to foreign countries when 
we can produce so much more here at home.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, may I inquire how much more time of 
morning business is allotted to this side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Eight minutes.
  Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes in 
morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair.
  I don't blame the American people for being upset at the price of 
gasoline they have to pay at the pump. Frankly, the biggest cause of 
those high prices is the Congress.
  It has been 2 years since Speaker Pelosi said that her party, the 
Democratic Party, had a commonsense plan

[[Page S3466]]

to bring down prices at the pump. I am left to wonder how long we will 
have to wait to hear what that commonsense plan is. So far, all we have 
heard is an escalation of the blame game, which, of course, here in 
Washington, DC, inside the beltway, is a world-class sport. The problem 
with the blame game is it doesn't actually solve any problems. I think 
what the American people are frustrated about, among other things, is 
Congress's intransigence, its unresponsiveness, and its unwillingness 
to listen to their concerns--legitimate concerns--about how they are 
going to balance their family budget, particularly when it comes to the 
rising cost of gasoline and the rising cost of health care.
  As my colleagues can see, in the 2 years that have gone by--in almost 
2 years--we have gone from $2.33 for an average price for a gallon of 
gas to $3.61. That translates for an average family to about a $1,400 
increase in expenses a year associated with their gasoline costs--
$1,400 a year. So the Federal Government has essentially imposed an 
additional tax by its inaction on the average working family in this 
country. Frankly, we have the tools available to us to remove that tax 
and remove that burden if we will simply exercise our ability to use 
those tools in order to begin to bring down that price at the pump.
  History has shown that raising taxes on oil companies is no solution 
because ultimately we know who ends up paying for tax increases. 
Ultimately, they are passed on down to the consumer. So it may be 
fashionable to beat up on big oil and say: Let's tax the oil companies 
because they are making too much money, but do you know what. If we 
raise taxes on the oil companies, we all end up paying an increased 
price for gasoline at the pump. It also has the effect as we saw from 
1980 to 1988; the so-called windfall profits tax actually caused a 
decline in American oil production, reducing domestic production by as 
much as 8 percent. So for those who are worried, as I am, about our 
dependence on imported oil, a windfall profits tax is simply no answer 
at all. In fact, it is counterproductive.
  Of course, the problem then was the same as the problem is today, and 
that is a shortage of oil around the world. I have said it before and I 
will say it again: Congress can pass a lot of laws, we can repeal some 
laws, but we cannot repeal the law of supply and demand. Other 
countries around the world have or want more of what we have in this 
country, which is unheralded prosperity, primarily because of our use 
of a disproportionate amount of energy. India and China and growing 
countries such as those with a billion people each are using more 
energy, and we are not seeing the supply go up, particularly here at 
home. So we know that Congress has been one of the biggest obstructions 
to increasing oil supply and lowering prices at the pump.
  My staff helped me research these figures to make sure we had 
justification for them. As we see oil now approaching--maybe it has 
gone over--$120 a barrel today, if we were to develop the known 
resources we have available in Alaska that the Senator from Alaska just 
talked about, it would be the equivalent of $55-a-barrel oil--$120-a-
barrel foreign oil versus $55-a-barrel American oil. If we were to 
develop more of the Outer Continental Shelf in places such as the Gulf 
of Mexico, even beyond the horizon where you can't even see it from 
shore, we could produce that oil from American reserves at the price of 
roughly $63 a barrel--$63-a-barrel American oil versus $120-a-barrel 
foreign oil.
  It seems to me we are missing a great opportunity, not only to help 
bring down the major price driver of gasoline costs--70 percent of the 
cost of gasoline is the cost of oil--but also to make ourselves more 
secure and less dependent on foreign sources of oil, enhancing our 
national security and helping to bolster our economy at the same time. 
But, as we have heard, Congress has consistently thrown up a roadblock 
at accessing these sources of American oil.
  Now, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
proposed another so-called solution to low supplies. They said: You 
know what. We are going to take OPEC to court. Let's sue somebody. 
Unfortunately, that is an all-too-common proposed solution where we are 
going to litigate, regulate, and increase taxes. But, frankly, it is a 
little bit--well, more than a little bit--impractical, and it would 
make us even more hopelessly tied to foreign nations and their 
production whims. So if your solution is, let's sue OPEC and force them 
to sell us more oil, does that make us less dependent on foreign 
sources or more dependent? I would suggest that even if it were 
practical, which it is not, it would make us more dependent on foreign 
oil and is not a solution.

  We need to remember just how much of an impact high energy prices 
have on the everyday lives of working Americans. High prices drive up 
the cost of all methods of travel. We are here this week talking about 
our airlines, and we know what economic pressure has been put on the 
airline industry and on the prices of tickets that continue to go up 
because, frankly, the price of oil is coming close to bankrupting the 
airline industry and driving those costs. But, of course, whether it is 
the cost of driving the kids to school or driving to work, these high 
gasoline prices impact everyday Americans all across our great country.
  As the Senator from Alabama noted, sometimes Congress's best 
intentions backfire in things such as ethanol subsidies, using corn, 
using food for fuel, and leading to skyrocketing--helping to lead to 
skyrocketing food costs, not to mention livestock feed and other 
unintended consequences. We need to recognize that while developing 
renewable fuels certainly has its place as a part of the answer, no 
single solution is a panacea. All of these have to add to our energy 
diversity and our energy mix in order to provide the relief the 
American people want and need.
  Increasing the supply, which will help bring down the cost of oil and 
the cost of gasoline, as I said earlier, must begin here at home using 
America's natural resources. Why Congress would mandate, in effect, 
that we can't buy American, we have to buy foreign when it comes to 
oil, is beyond me, and it just doesn't make any sense. We can develop 
environmentally responsible oil production right here at home if 
Congress would simply act.
  The only real commonsense near-term solution to bringing down prices 
at the pump is to take advantage of the enormous natural resources we 
have right here at home. It is estimated that if Congress stopped 
penalizing and handcuffing American energy production right here at 
home, we could produce an additional 2.7 million to 3 million barrels 
of oil a day. That would be 3 million fewer barrels of oil a day that 
we would have to buy from Canada, from Venezuela, and from nations in 
the Middle East.
  Allowing American production would send a strong message to the 
American people and to the financial markets that we are working as 
quickly as possible to drive down gas prices for American families. It 
would reduce speculation on the commodities markets that is helping to 
drive up the price of oil because when the financial markets see the 
Congress doing nothing and see the supply of oil remain static and see 
the demand increase, it is going to continue to drive prices higher and 
higher.
  Unfortunately, we have seen too many Members of Congress block sound 
energy policies that would give American companies access to our 
valuable natural resources, such as we have heard about oil deposits in 
Alaska, offshore deposits, and shale oil sites that the Senator from 
Alabama mentioned a moment ago.
  I think most Americans take an instinctive pride in the ``Made in 
America'' label, and wouldn't it be nice when it came to the gas pump 
if we saw a ``Made in America'' label on that gas pump.
  I appreciate the opportunity to talk about what I think is probably 
the No. 1 issue on the minds of most of my constituents in Texas and 
most people in America today. It is the reason we had a bunch of 
truckers here yesterday complaining about the inaction by Congress when 
it comes to the price of fuel they need to earn a living and move 
America's goods and services around this country and to our homes.
  I hope the majority leader and Members of Congress will work together 
on a bipartisan basis to try to bring some of these policies to the 
floor as soon as possible and without a moment of unnecessary delay.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator from West Virginia.

[[Page S3467]]

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we were 
going to go to the FAA bill at 11 o'clock. I was not aware morning 
business had been extended until 12:30 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands the Senator from West 
Virginia seeks recognition for 30 minutes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The Presiding Officer is an extraordinary person.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.

                          ____________________