[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 126 (Monday, July 28, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7544-S7545]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      DEALING WITH HIGH GAS PRICES

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am heartened by the consent agreement 
the majority leader was about to offer a while ago, and I think it 
indicates that we are finally getting serious here about doing 
something significant about the price of gas at the pump. I appreciate 
the spirit in which that was offered. As I indicated, I will be getting 
back to him later this afternoon.
  But make no mistake about what has been going on. The press has 
understood it. There has been a lot of bobbing and weaving, 
cancellations of Appropriations Committee meetings in order to avoid 
votes on offshore drilling or getting rid of the oil shale moratorium 
which was put in place just last year by the new majority. Great 
efforts have been underway, to the point where even the Washington Post 
a few days ago was calling on the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives--the Washington Post was calling on the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives--to allow votes on drilling.
  There is no denying there has been a great effort to try to kick this 
can down the road and not deal with it. For example, the senior Senator 
from New York, who is the campaign chairman, if you will, for the 
Democratic Senate candidates, was quoted in the Post just this weekend 
as saying we should just wait until there is a new President before 
dealing with this issue; in other words, we should put it off for 6 
months. In the meantime, consumers continue to pay these 
extraordinarily high prices at the pump while the chairman of the 
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee recommends we just wait to 
deal with it until, he hopes, he has a better political lineup with 
which to deal. Look, we don't need to wait 6 months. We need to do it 
this week--this week.
  The New York Times--I rarely cite the New York Times--in an editorial 
just this morning indicated that even though they don't share my view 
and the view of the majority of my Members who think increased domestic 
production will have a positive impact on the price of gas at the 
pump--while they don't share that view, this is what they had to say 
about the speculation bill which our good friends on the other side 
would like to pass essentially with nothing added to it--in other 
words, a speculation-only bill. The New York Times this morning on the 
speculation-only bill:

       Democrats' misbegotten plan to curb speculation and oil 
     futures.

  This is the New York Times, not the Wall Street Journal.
  They go on:

       Democrats should know that financial speculation is not 
     what's driving oil prices, and that curbing futures trading 
     could hamper the ability of companies like airlines and oil 
     refineries to manage their risks by locking in the price of 
     oil. Putting them together is compounding one bad idea with 
     another.

  Again, this is the New York Times, not the Wall Street Journal.
  The Times goes on:

       A report by government agencies--including the CFTC, the 
     Federal Reserve, the Treasury and Energy Departments--found 
     that speculative trades in oil contracts had little to no 
     effect on the rise of prices over the last five years.

  Again, this is not the Wall Street Journal and not Investors Business 
Daily. This is the New York Times about the underlying bill which our 
good friends on the other side of the aisle had been hoping to pass 
without any additional amendments.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, July 28, 2008]

                           Gas Price Follies

       Add high energy prices to a sagging economy in an election 
     year and politicians will inevitably come up with bad 
     policies, like converting the corn crop into ethanol or John 
     McCain's proposal to suspend the federal gas tax--neither 
     will provide real relief at the pump while both are 
     guaranteed to create other problems.
       The good news is that Congress failed last week to cut a 
     deal on two more bad ideas: Republicans' misguided push for 
     offshore drilling and Democrats' misbegotten plan to curb 
     speculation in oil futures.
       Republicans should know that allowing more offshore 
     drilling might marginally trim oil prices--in about a 
     decade--while sacrificing important environmental 
     protections. Democrats should know that financial speculation 
     is not what's driving oil prices, and that curbing futures 
     trading could hamper the ability of companies like airlines 
     and oil refineries to manage their risks by locking in the 
     price of oil. Putting them together is compounding one bad 
     idea with another.
       Of course, there is plenty of evidence that markets can be 
     manipulated by fraudulent speculation--recall the Enron mess. 
     Yet all evidence suggests that speculation has little to do 
     with the rising price of crude. From rice to iron, commodity 
     prices are all rising, even without much financial 
     speculation, due to a variety of factors including a weak 
     dollar and growing demand from China and India.
       A report by government agencies--including the Commodity 
     Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Reserve and the 
     Treasury and Energy Departments--found that speculative 
     trades in oil contracts had little to no effect on the rise 
     in prices over the last five years.
       Oil futures are financial contracts for future delivery of 
     oil. Their price has been responding to the same factors: 
     growing world demand in the face of stagnant supply and the 
     expectation that this dynamic will continue.
       Like some of the other ``cures,'' offering to solve 
     Americans' energy woes by drilling or slapping Wall Street 
     around merely feeds the myth that there is a quick and easy 
     solution out there. There isn't. Expensive oil is likely here 
     to stay. Americans must burn less oil and find alternative 
     sources of energy that do far less damage to the environment.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Hopefully, Mr. President, we will be able to construct 
later this afternoon a process by which we can go forward and consider 
amendments that would really have an impact on the problem. I look 
forward to getting back to the majority leader later in the afternoon 
on the prospects of entering into a consent agreement that will allow 
us to consider all of these important items--not 6 months from now but 
this week.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

[[Page S7545]]

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, when the bill is laid down, would the Chair 
announce how much time there is for Senator McConnell and me to divide?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will do so.

                          ____________________