[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 79 (Wednesday, May 14, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4128-S4130]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SENATE INACTION
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to turn to an important vote that
we had yesterday in the Senate. Unfortunately, yesterday morning, we
saw only 42 Senators voted to do anything significant about the high
price of gasoline at the pump. This is just the latest example, I am
afraid, of congressional intransigence and turning a deaf ear to the
cries of the American people for Congress to do something to help bring
relief at the gas pump. Unfortunately, it is just the latest example.
I know most of us came to Washington to serve in the Congress to try
to solve problems. Unfortunately, the mentality inside the beltway
seems to be that we ought to spend more time shooting at each other on
a partisan political basis and not working together to solve problems.
Unfortunately, there are more examples than just high gas prices to
demonstrate this mentality.
I will just point to four areas where we have seen significant delays
in congressional action that have had tremendous consequences on the
American people. First and foremost is on our national security. It was
89 days ago that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act basically
expired. The most recent authorization would have allowed us to
continue to listen in to foreign terrorists communicating with each
other on the telephone in a way that would allow us to detect and deter
terrorist activity and defeat terrorist activity.
Why the House of Representatives and Speaker Pelosi would refuse to
allow this important piece of legislation to come to the floor after it
passed the Senate on a strong bipartisan vote is, frankly, beyond me.
But it has been 89 days now since we have had the ability to detect new
terrorist threats, when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
basically went dark and expired.
Secondly, it has been 540 days since we have failed to act on the
Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Free-trade agreements should not be
partisan affairs. It is good, in fact, for us to have free-trade
agreements because it opens markets to American farmers and American
manufacturers and producers for their goods in other countries. In
fact, Colombia does about $2.3 billion in trade with the State of Texas
each year, which is very important to my State. Unfortunately, when
Texas sells goods and produce to Colombia, they carry large tariffs,
which disadvantages my manufacturers, my producers, and my farmers in
Texas, while Colombian goods that are sold in the United States,
because of other agreements, basically come in duty free.
Why Speaker Pelosi would fail to allow this important free-trade
agreement to be taken up and voted on in the House of Representatives,
again, escapes me. This is in the best interest of the United States.
It is in the best interest of my State and the people who work there.
At a time when we are dealing with stimulus packages because we are
concerned about the softening of our economy, what better stimulus
could we enact than to pass this free-trade agreement, which would
strengthen the robust markets in Colombia for American goods and
produce? But here we are 540 days later, and it is bogged down in
partisan disagreements.
The next number is another important number. I think one of the most
important jobs the Senate has is to take up and consider the
nominations of individuals who have been proposed for service on the
Federal bench and to serve in that important branch of Government. But
we have seen that because of inaction in the Judiciary Committee, on
some nominees such as Peter Keisler--nominated more than 685 days ago--
and we have seen nominees out of North Carolina pass the 300-day mark
without even so much as a hearing in the Judiciary Committee.
This is another example of partisan delays that, frankly, I think
frustrates the American people. It certainly frustrates me. It is an
example of where we ought to act and find an opportunity to come
together to solve a problem, and the problem is particularly in the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, where many litigants simply cannot
find access to the courts because there are not enough judges sitting
on those benches to listen to cases. Whether you are a crime victim or
a small business man or woman or whether you are just a regular citizen
in that Fourth District, we have a judicial emergency with about one-
third of the seats vacant. Frankly, that creates a lack of access to
justice. So, again, it has been 685 days without a vote on some of the
nominees in the Judiciary Committee. We need to do better.
Of course, it was 751 days ago when Speaker Pelosi,--then running for
election, and before the 2006 election, where Democrats were given the
majority status in both the House and Senate, said: Elect us and we
will produce a commonsense plan to help bring down the price of
gasoline at the pump. Unfortunately, the price of gasoline at about the
time that she took office as Speaker of the House was about $2.33 a
gallon, I believe. And now, of course, it is about $3.75 a gallon.
Yesterday, as I mentioned, we had an opportunity to help provide
relief for American families, to help them deal with their family
budgets when it comes to the cost of gasoline. But I think we took a
half step that did not do very much. What I mean by that is we did vote
to quit filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but if you look at how
much oil that represents that would then be available in the open
market, it is roughly 70,000 barrels of oil a day. Now, 70,000 barrels
of oil a day sounds like a lot of oil, unless you consider the amount
of oil consumed globally by all the countries on the planet. That is 85
million barrels of oil a day. How much of an impact do you think it
will have on gasoline at the pump to provide an additional 70,000
barrels of oil, when worldwide consumption is 85 million? You don't
have to be a Ph.D. in mathematics to figure that out. It will not be
big. As a matter of fact, it will be minuscule--not completely
insignificant but not very much.
On the other hand, we had an opportunity to vote to reduce our
dependence upon imported oil and gas from dangerous enemies of the
United States, countries such as Iran and Venezuela, both of whom are
members of OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
Unfortunately, the Senate turned down that opportunity to produce as
much as 3 million barrels of oil a day from the U.S. reserve because we
would not allow or authorize Alaskans to produce oil in Alaska. We
would not authorize the States along the Outer Continental Shelf to be
able to develop their oil reserves in the Outer Continental Shelf, and
we would not allow States in the West to develop the oil shale that
could produce massive amounts of oil right here in America, reducing
our dependency on imported oil from dangerous countries such as Iran
and Venezuela.
What I don't understand is, if our friends across the Senate--and I
believe there was only one vote against the decision to stop putting
oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But if everybody in the Senate
virtually agrees that adding 70,000 barrels of oil to the worldwide
supply of oil would help bring down the price of gas at the pump--
however minuscule that figure may be--how much more would it be likely
to bring down the price of gas at the pump to add 3 million additional
barrels to worldwide supply? Of course, this would not be from Saudi
Arabia or Iran or Venezuela. It would be from the good old USA.
Again, how many new jobs would that create at home, when our economy
has turned soft? It would create a lot of jobs in Texas. I know it
would create jobs in Louisiana and, frankly, all over the country.
Instead of taking an opportunity to take a bold move on a bipartisan
basis to increase the supply of American oil and gas, we find ourselves
with half steps and relatively insignificant votes to increase
production. I am glad that, finally, the Congress has recognized that
the laws of supply and demand are not inapplicable in the District of
Columbia. As a matter of fact, for a long time, it seemed that we
outright refused to recognize the economic laws that apply across the
planet right here in Washington, DC.
So I ask my friends and colleagues, if you are unwilling to allow us
to open
[[Page S4129]]
American oil reserves when the price of gasoline is $3.75 a gallon and
the price of a barrel of oil is $125, will you allow us to do it when
gasoline hits $4 a gallon? How about when it hits $4.50 a gallon or $5
a gallon or $10 a gallon? How about when the price of oil hits $150 a
barrel or $200 or $250?
We know because of the geopolitical situation with countries such as
Iran, which are no friend to the United States and are major oil
producers and are part of OPEC, that causes speculation on the spot
market to push the price of oil higher. I believe it would have a
dramatic impact on those prices and, ultimately, because oil represents
70 percent of the price of a gallon of gasoline, I believe it would
ultimately bring down the price of gasoline and provide some much
needed relief to the average American family.
Congress's failure to act on a strong bipartisan basis to do it is,
frankly, inexplicable to me, just as it is inexplicable to me why we
would not allow our intelligence officials to listen to the
conversations of new targets of foreign terror surveillance, and why we
would continue to let American businesses and farmers be disadvantaged
by tariffs on goods and produce sold to the nation of Colombia, and why
we would wait more than 685 days to consider the nominations of
judicial nominees and allow crime victims and small businesses and
others to go without their day in court.
Just for the same reasons those delays are inexplicable, why are we
still waiting 751 days after Speaker Pelosi made the statement that she
would produce a commonsense plan to bring down the price at the pump?
It is inexplicable to me why we have to wait with no real solutions
in sight.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana is
recognized.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask that I be notified when I have
consumed 6 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will so advise.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I also rise on the Senate floor today to
talk about the crisis we face in terms of gasoline and energy prices
and the need for us to act in terms of this true crisis that affects
every Louisiana family I represent and every American family this body
represents.
When this new Congress, led by Democratic leadership, took office,
energy prices, gasoline prices were supposed to be a top priority. At
the time, the price at the pump was $2.31. Yet today it has risen to
$3.76 a gallon. That is a 61-percent increase.
If this was such a priority at $2.31, if we have had this dramatic
increase, the fastest, the most dramatic, the most onerous on the
consumer in history, why isn't this leading to action? The simple
reality is that it is not.
This Congress has been tangled in inaction, unable to take
significant action on this issue, and that has to end for the good of
the American people.
As my colleague from Texas reiterated, this is not overly
complicated. Price is set by the equation of where supply meets demand.
That is economics 101. That is the first lesson of economics. So we
need to do everything we can to reduce demand, mitigate worldwide
demand, which is clearly increasing, particularly from rapidly growing
countries such as China and India, and we can do that through
conservation, fuel efficiency, and new sources of energy. But we also
need to increase supply. We need to do both at once because our energy
picture is so challenging and so dire.
So I rise to join my colleagues who are saying we need to act, we
need to break out of this gridlock, we need to act on energy prices
which affect all American families.
Unfortunately, we had that opportunity in the last several weeks and,
once again, the Senate passed on the opportunity, shut down the
opportunity to take real action.
Again, this is an enormous challenge, and we need to do everything we
can, both on the demand side--and I support those measures: increased
energy efficiency, increased levels of conservation, development of new
technology and new energy sources. We have done a little bit of that,
but we need to do more. But we also need to act on the supply side,
increasing our supply of energy, particularly our domestic supply which
increases our energy independence, lessens our dependence on unfriendly
foreign nations.
Several weeks ago, we were on an FAA bill, and I had an amendment at
the desk that would constitute real, meaningful action. It was very
simple. It would have established a trigger at the price of $126 per
barrel of oil. When the price reached that mark--and we are,
unfortunately, perilously close already--then the trigger would have
been pulled, and we would have been able to explore and produce off
America's Outer Continental Shelf, where we have vast resources of
energy. But we would only do that with two significant caveats, with
two significant demands.
The first is that the host State involved, wherever we were proposing
drilling, would have to want that activity. The Governor and the State
legislature would both have to affirm that they wanted to produce off
their coast. It is very important, very fair, respecting State
sovereignty and States rights.
Secondly, my amendment would have built on provisions we passed
several years ago to give those host States significant royalty sharing
so anything produced off their coast, 37.5 percent of that royalty
would go to the State for the State to use on its top priorities,
whether they be highways or higher education or, in the case of
Louisiana, coastal restoration, hurricane protection, hurricane
evacuation routes. That was a very sound, sensible policy we set a
couple years ago as we opened new areas of the gulf.
My amendment, which I had at the desk for the FAA reauthorization
bill, would have expanded on that good policy initiative.
Unfortunately, we couldn't have a full debate on that amendment. We
couldn't have any vote on that amendment because the Democratic
majority leader filled the amendment tree, took up all opportunity for
amendment for himself and blocked all other amendments from coming to
the floor.
That is unfortunate on any issue. It is particularly unfortunate,
again, on the top concern of the American people, when prices at the
pump are sky-high and continuing to rise, when they have risen from
$2.31 a gallon at the beginning of this Democratic Congress to $3.76 a
gallon today--a dramatic, onerous, 61-percent increase.
Yesterday, we had another opportunity to break through the gridlock
and act, and it was by adopting the McConnell-Domenici amendment. That
amendment proposed a number of measures, including something very
similar to my Vitter amendment regarding the Outer Continental Shelf.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator has used
6 minutes.
Mr. VITTER. I thank the Chair. That McConnell-Domenici amendment
included a number of measures, something very similar to my proposal
with regard to the Outer Continental Shelf. It would have dramatically
expanded our domestic supply. It would have done something real,
concrete and meaningful and have a significant impact over time on the
price at the pump.
Yet again, the Senate refused to act, refused to move forward with
that significant proposal that would do major things on the supply side
and would couple it with other actions we are taking and further
actions we need to take on the demand side.
Instead, we did something extremely modest. We said: For now, we are
not going to continue to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I
supported that move. It is true that will free up 70,000 barrels of oil
to put into the open market versus pumping into the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve, but that is very modest. That is hardly going to make a dent
on the price at the pump.
In contrast, all the provisions of the McConnell-Domenici amendment,
all that extra supply domestically would have meant 3 million barrels
in contrast to 70,000. Yet again, the Democratic leadership and the
Senate overall refused to act, refused to address this issue, the most
serious that Americans are facing today, the one that hits their
pocketbook over and over, causing them real concern about their family
budget and how they are going to make it.
I urge the Senate to get out of this do-nothing attitude. I urge the
Senate
[[Page S4130]]
to act on this crucial issue for all American families.
Again, this is not brain surgery. This is economics 101, supply and
demand. It is not either/or. We need to do everything we can to lessen
demand, and I support those measures to increase efficiency, to
increase efforts at conservation, to increase new technology efforts
that will lead us to new fuel sources. That is absolutely necessary.
But it needs to be coupled with action to increase supply, particularly
domestic supply, by tapping those vital reserves, particularly on our
Outer Continental Shelf.
I join the Senator in Texas in asking, if we are not going to do it
now at $3.76 a gallon, when are we going to act? Are we going to wait
for $4? Are we going to wait for $5? We need to act now. This is a
serious issue for all Americans. This hits the pocketbook of every
American family. We need to act now. We need to act not with political
demagoguery, not with pure rhetoric. We need to act with measures that
have an impact, both on the demand side and the supply side. I hope the
Senate and the Congress move to do that.
____________________