[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 29, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7591-S7593]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 ENERGY

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, it is time this Senate begin to act on 
what it is going to do to increase the supply of energy. It is time to 
lay aside politics. It is time to begin to look for real solutions to 
solve this country's energy problems.
  What we have heard so far from the other side has nothing to do with 
increasing the supply of energy. We heard speeches on the Senate floor 
attacking speculation. Speculation works as a normal way of doing 
business on the futures market. What is against the law, which creates 
problems, is if you have manipulation of the markets. That is where 
somebody goes in and takes some kind of action on the market that 
somehow is going to artificially drive up the cost of fuel. It is 
manipulation. The administration has discovered a company or two that 
is doing that. They have been working on it for some time.
  This shows the regulation process is working. We heard testimony in 
one of the committees on which I serve and we had a discussion on the 
supply of energy and the manipulation of the markets, and the 
regulators agreed they need to do more. I agree with that. We need to 
make sure they have the manpower they need to adequately enforce what 
we already have on the books.
  I am looking for real solutions and my Republican colleagues, I 
believe, are looking for real solutions because we realize how 
important it is we become less dependent on foreign oil and not more. 
It is important for the security of this country, now and 20 to 30 
years down the road, that we increase our supply of energy. So we need 
more energy, and we need to consume less.
  Increasing taxes, which has been talked about on this floor, is not 
the answer. We are going to have a tax proposal that will be brought 
up, perhaps, on the floor of the Senate that will temporarily cut taxes 
for renewable energy--and, by the way, I am a strong supporter of 
renewable energy--and put in place a permanent tax increase on 
business. That is not the way we should be doing business on the floor 
of the Senate. That does not increase the production of oil.
  Now, making it more difficult to produce more energy through more 
regulations is certainly not the answer. But we have heard proposal 
after proposal on the Senate floor claiming they are going to increase 
the supply of energy by increasing the regulatory environment, making 
it more difficult to go out and produce energy.
  One of the things, in my view, that would produce more energy is 
utilizing capped wells, we have a lot of capped wells out there. These 
are existing wells that do not have to be drilled. They were shut down 
because at one point the economics were such that they could not make a 
profit with these wells. So they capped them and said: We are going to 
quit wasting our money on that one and go on to new areas where we can 
provide more oil for this country--oil and gas.
  Well, the cost of the market is such that now it is feasible to begin 
to open these capped mines. We need to make sure we do not pass a 
regulation in this body that is going to make it more difficult for 
them to uncap those wells. That is a ready resource of energy.
  We also heard comment on this floor about the fact that we have all 
this leased land out here. Leasing land does not equal more oil and 
gas. Many times, when you go onto a parcel of land and lease it, you 
have no idea whether there is oil or gas underneath there until you 
begin to put in some test wells and test the area. Just because you 
talk about all of this land that is available for leasing doesn't mean 
there is oil and gas on it. Leasing land doesn't mean there is oil and 
gas on there.

  What happens with many of those leases is they may have found they 
are not productive. The leases are let out for 5 years or they may be 
let out for 8 years or 10 years. Then, if they are not producing, they 
put them back on the market and see if anybody else is interested in 
using the technology they have to try to discover if there is a source 
of energy under the surface of that land.
  The important point to make is that just because you have land 
available doesn't mean there is oil and gas underneath it.
  So my view is--and I think the view of many Republicans--we need to 
increase the production of energy, whether it is natural gas or whether 
it is oil shale, in order to bridge the gap to develop technology that 
is going to produce more energy in the future. I happen to feel that 
nuclear power is something we have ignored, and we need to do more in 
the way of nuclear power to meet the needs of providing adequate energy 
supply to our businesses and to our homes.
  Let's talk about the pain at the pump. Throughout this great Nation, 
people are struggling with high gas prices. I am looking for some 
renewables to deal with cars. A lot of the renewables happen to deal 
with wind, solar, happen to deal with geothermal, biofuels. Now, there 
is something that might be able to be used with cars, but most of these 
renewables we are talking about can't be used in the car world.
  People are feeling the pain. It is when you pull up to the gas tank 
and put your credit card in there and you fill up the tank, and when 
you look at the total at the end is when you really begin to hurt. High 
gas prices not only affect our ability to get around but increasingly 
are affecting each facet of our everyday life.
  Americans are feeling pain at the pump due to high gas prices, and 
increasingly they feel pain at the kitchen table too. As gas prices go 
up, so do food prices. Food prices go up because it costs a lot to 
produce those food products that will end up on the table. America's 
farmers and ranchers

[[Page S7592]]

produce the safest, most affordable food in the world, but rising 
energy prices have affected almost every level of agriculture. It has 
caused everything from fertilizer costs to processing costs to 
increase. The high cost of diesel and other types of energy are forcing 
food prices up.
  My home State of Colorado produces some of the best tasting produce 
in the world, including potatoes. In Colorado's San Luis Valley last 
year, it cost a farmer about $90 an acre for starter fertilizer. This 
year, the cost is up to almost $300. Imagine that. In 1 year, it has 
gone from $90 an acre to $300 an acre. Suppose you have a farm of 100 
acres. That is a huge cost, a huge impact on the bottom line. That is 
right, in 1 year those costs have more than tripled.
  Weld County, another agriculture-producing county in Colorado, is one 
of the Nation's top-producing ag counties. Even in an area that 
produces as much food as Weld County, people are fighting high food 
costs.
  Higher food costs are affecting all Americans, but they are 
especially damaging to people dealing with food insecurity. Food banks 
are struggling to stretch dollars so they can keep food on their 
shelves. This is food that goes to our most vulnerable populations--
impoverished individuals and their families. In Weld County, 32 percent 
of the individuals served by our local food bank are children.
  Recently, oil hit $145 per barrel, and from the beltway to Middle 
America, $4-a-gallon gas is the frightening norm.
  In the face of these challenges to the American economy and 
consumers, we have failed to take the steps necessary to address this 
problem either in the short term or in the long term.
  This Congress has been ignoring one of the fundamental rules of 
economics; that is, supply and demand. Currently, worldwide supply of 
energy is being outpaced by growing demand. That is not only worldwide 
but here in this country. I saw on the TV a report which said that it 
is everything we can do to keep up with current demand. So if we were 
to implement any of the policies we are talking about here to increase 
supply, we would barely be able to keep up with current demand at the 
current levels. This is a huge challenge for Americans, and we 
shouldn't be backing away from that challenge here on the Senate floor.
  If we take steps to increase supply, prices will go down. The day 
after President Bush lifted the Presidential moratorium on drilling in 
the Outer Continental Shelf, oil prices fell nearly $7 a barrel. Let me 
say that again: a drop of almost $7 per barrel in 24 hours because 
action was taken that got us closer to putting additional supply on the 
market. This translates eventually into cheaper gas.
  One of the best ways to drive down fuel prices is by finding more and 
using less. Embracing renewable energy is an excellent way to increase 
supply.
  As a founder and cochair of the Renewable Energy Caucus, I know the 
importance of using renewable energy, but we are not at a point yet 
where renewable energy can meet all of our energy needs. We still need 
fossil fuels.
  One of the most promising sources of domestic energy is found in the 
West, much of it in my home State of Colorado. We have lots of natural 
gas available on the western side of our State. We also have oil shale 
which is found not only in Colorado but in Utah and Wyoming that will 
yield somewhere between 800 billion to 1.8 trillion barrels of 
oil. This is more than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia and 
certainly enough to help drive down gas prices and bring us closer to 
energy independence.

  However, we cannot delay. Some people say it is going to take 10 
years to develop this resource. Well, are we going to wait another 10 
years before we start developing a resource that is going to take 10 
years to develop? We can't continue to delay these kinds of policies; 
we need to act now so we can begin to give the American people some 
relief.
  We aren't taking the steps necessary to utilize the resources we have 
and to cut back on the $700-plus billion we send overseas annually for 
fuel because the Democrats in the Senate and in the House of 
Representatives have prevented the Department of the Interior from even 
issuing proposed regulations under which oil shale, for example, could 
be moved forward.
  My position is that we need to put the regulations in place so that 
then the leases can be let. If you expect oil companies to go and begin 
to lease all of the land that is apparently available and that they 
thought was available for lease, if you want them to do that, they have 
to know the rules of the game. They have to know what is going to be 
their return on their investment. They have to know what the lease 
rates are going to be. They have to understand the market forces. They 
need to understand what the remediation is that might be required. They 
need to understand what environmental laws they have to deal with if 
they go ahead and happen to put in place a project to extract oil 
shale.
  By the way, the technology in oil shale has changed significantly. We 
have moved that basically from a mining operation in Colorado to an in 
situ process where you leave the rock in the ground, you heat the 
ground and extract basically a high-quality jet fuel that needs further 
refinement with nitrogen sulfur. So that is how far the technology has 
come. It has gone from a mining operation to where you have in situ 
technology where you leave all the heavy, tarry stuff in the ground, 
you extract a good-quality fuel, and it has a lot of environmental 
advantages when you use that process.
  So it is time for us to move forward. It is time for us to quit 
bickering about profits that are made by oil companies. It is time for 
us to stop blaming the President. It is time for us to recognize that 
it is a supply-and-demand issue. We need to supply more, we need to 
encourage less consumption through conservation, and we need to begin 
to move forward on this Senate floor and pass some meaningful 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I now yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana is 
recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I also come to the Senate floor to join so 
many of my colleagues in urging the distinguished majority leader to 
allow a full and open debate and an open amendment process so we can 
address the single top issue in the hearts and minds of the American 
people; that is, gasoline prices--energy. We all know it is beyond 
discussion, it is beyond debate that this is the concern, this is the 
top challenge the American people face.
  In my home State of Louisiana, I hold townhall meetings all around 
the State on a very regular basis. For months, this issue hasn't been 
the first question at each and every one of those townhall meetings, it 
has been the first 10 questions. That is no different from any other 
State in the country. Gasoline prices, energy prices are hitting all of 
our neighbors' pocketbooks. It affects every Louisiana family, every 
American family. So they ask a simple question: Why isn't Congress 
acting? Enough talking, enough political maneuvering. Why don't you 
come together and act?
  That is what we should do. That is what we should do right here and 
right now on the floor of the Senate. So I urge the majority leader to 
lift his block of all amendments on the pending energy bill so that we 
can have that full and open debate, that full and open amendment 
process.
  The last two times this body considered the issue of energy in a 
significant way, we had that sort of open debate.
  In 2007, we were on an energy bill for 3 whole weeks. We took 16 
rollcall votes on amendments, 22 rollcall votes on the entire bill. The 
total number of amendments proposed was 331, and actually 49 of those 
were agreed to, some by unanimous consent, others through those 16 
votes I alluded to. That was when the price at the pump was about $3 a 
gallon, not $4 a gallon as it is now.
  Before that, we also debated energy in 2005. We had 19 rollcall votes 
on amendments over a period of 2 whole weeks. We had 23 rollcall votes 
on the bill overall, 235 amendments were proposed, and actually a total 
of 57 were adopted. That is when the price at the pump was $2.26 a 
gallon, not at four bucks as it is now.
  So now that the price is about $4 a gallon, now that it is the top 
concern of the American people bar none, why can't we have that open 
process and open amendment process as we have in the past? The American 
people want action.

[[Page S7593]]

  I have filed seven amendments specifically, and I wish to outline 
them briefly.
  My first amendment, which has been so far barred from coming to the 
floor, would develop alternative energy offshore in the gulf and other 
places where there is the ability offshore to develop new alternative 
energy, including wind farms.
  My second amendment would increase domestic production offshore. It 
is a version of my ENOUGH Act and would also have that alternative 
energy offshore component of it tied into the second amendment.
  My third amendment would repeal the moratorium on Outer Continental 
Shelf production outright and would also have the alternative energy 
offshore piece as a part of that amendment.
  My fourth amendment would repeal outright the moratorium Congress 
passed several years ago that blocks shale activity in the Western 
States--exactly the activity my distinguished colleague from Colorado 
was talking about--as well as the alternative energy offshore piece 
attached to it.
  My fifth amendment would streamline the permitting process for 
refinery expansion. Refinery capacity is just as important an issue as 
exploration and production, and we need to do a lot better to increase 
refinery capacity in this country domestically.
  My fifth amendment to do that is by streamlining the permitting 
process for existing refineries to expand, which is a good place to 
start.
  My sixth amendment would also streamline a regulatory process, the 
permitting process for offshore leases, because every person in the 
business I talk to says even when they get access--of course, blocking 
access is the biggest issue--the Federal permitting process is way too 
long and cumbersome and uncertain. We need to streamline that in a 
reasonable way.
  My seventh and final amendment would expand the seaward boundary for 
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama to match the seaward boundary of 
Texas to the west and Florida to the east. Right now, those two States, 
Texas and Florida, enjoy a seaward boundary of 9 miles from the coast, 
meaning the first 9 miles of the gulf off of the coast is State waters. 
But for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, that is only 3 miles. That 
is unfair. We should expand that to 9 miles to match Texas and Florida, 
which will have the impact of spurring production in those waters 
because the State regulatory process is far less onerous, unreasonable, 
and cumbersome than the Federal process.
  Mr. President, other Senators have good ideas. I strongly support, 
obviously, my seven amendments. I have worked hard on them. I have 
cosponsors and I have introduced them. There are other good ideas as 
well.
  The main point is we need an open process. We need the ability to 
call up amendments, to debate amendments, and to have votes on these 
good ideas because the American people want us to act like grown-ups 
and act on this single most important issue they face in their everyday 
lives.
  Mr. President, what I find frustrates citizens back home more than 
anything is this impression they so often have that what we do here is 
in a different universe from the real world and is divorced from their 
everyday struggles and everyday lives. I am afraid the distinguished 
majority leader is reinforcing that notion by not allowing these 
amendments, these votes, not allowing an open process on the single top 
issue Louisiana families and all American families face.
  I urge the majority leader to reconsider so we can truly come 
together and do the people's business on what is the single top issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for the 
next 15 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________