[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21872-21874]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         NATIONAL POLICY ISSUES

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, over the last couple of weeks we have had 
several debates on this floor that dealt with national policy, and, of 
course, with the debates on television, there are many issues related 
to national policy. I take this opportunity to relate how those policy 
issues are being viewed in Wyoming. I know that is kind of the melting 
pot and the test center for the United States. I say that in all 
sincerity because I talk to these people every weekend when I go home, 
and I know it is a real center of common sense with a real concern 
about a lack of national policy on some very important issues.
  They talk about foreign policy and how we don't appear to know how to 
go into a war. They talk about energy policy, the price of gasoline, 
and how long we have been addressing that. They talk about Social 
Security policy.
  They hear about the lockbox, and they have watched six or seven 
filibusters against the lockbox to protect Social Security. They hear 
about needing to save Social Security first and then not seeing any 
action on that.
  I want to suggest, too, that our country needs policy. We are not 
talking about hindsight; we are talking about foresight. We are not 
talking about polls; we are talking about leadership.
  There were a couple of editorials in Wyoming that dealt with the 
recent tapping of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. One of them was in 
the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, which is the main paper in Cheyenne, WY, the 
State capital of Wyoming. It starts off by saying:

       President Bill Clinton's decision to direct the Department 
     of Energy to release 30 million barrels of oil from the 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve is viewed by the White House as a 
     way to lower fuel prices and reduce our country's dependence 
     on foreign oil.
       Nice try, Mr. Clinton.
       Each day, the world oil market produces 77.1 million 
     barrels of oil and consumes 75.6 million barrels. The United 
     States consumes 20 million barrels per day. The additional 30 
     million barrels is equal to about a 36-hour supply.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Higher energy prices fall squarely on the shoulder of the 
     American people, the government's strangle-hold on refineries 
     and the White House.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Let's not forget our country's thirst for oil. Since 1991, 
     the amount of oil imported by the United States has increased 
     an average of 5.3 percent per year.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire editorial be 
printed in the Record. I hope everybody will

[[Page 21873]]

read it. It gets into more detail about policy and suggests some things 
that need to be done.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Our View

    Oil Reserves--Tapping This Supply Won't Solve Energy Dependency

       President Bill Clinton's decision to direct the Department 
     of Energy to release 30 million barrels of oil from the 
     Strategic petroleum Reserve is viewed by the White House as a 
     way to lower fuel prices and reduce our country's dependence 
     on foreign oil.
       Nice try, Mr. Clinton
       Each day, the world oil market produces 77.1 million 
     barrels of oil and consumes 75.6 million barrels. The United 
     States consumes 20 million barrels per day. The additional 30 
     million barrels is equal to about a 36-hour supply.
       What Mr. Clinton did was wrong. Releasing the oil from the 
     reserve to influence market prices sets a dangerous 
     precedent. The oil reserve was created in 1975 to protect 
     Americans from countries that decide to cut off oil exports 
     to the United States, not to manipulate prices. Any 
     unexpected cold snap, natural disaster, cutback in OPEC 
     production or political unrest that leads to a disruption in 
     world supply could quickly overwhelm any short-term benefit 
     from tapping into our oil reserves.
       Granted, releasing the oil may have a short-term effect on 
     prices, but markets eventually will refocus on the long-term 
     conditions--influenced primarily by world supply and demand 
     for oil--that have driven up prices during the past years.
       Higher energy prices fall squarely on the shoulder of the 
     American people, the government's strangle-hold on refineries 
     and the White House.
       Since 1983, access to federal land in the West--where 67 
     percent of America's onshore oil reserves are located--has 
     declined by 60 percent. Mr. Clinton has used his executive 
     powers to severely limit oil and gas activity on government 
     land, and the search for new domestic offshore oil has been 
     limited to parts of the Gulf of Mexico and Alaskan waters.
       Let's not forget our country's thirst for oil. Since 1991, 
     the amount of oil imported by the United States has increased 
     an average of 5.3 percent per years.
       While American refineries are operating at a 95.4 percent 
     utilization rate, up from 94.1 percent a years ago, there is 
     little margin for error. It's uncertain if American 
     refineries will be able to process the oil released from the 
     reserves fast enough to make a difference in gasoline prices 
     or home heating oil inventories. The newest oil refinery was 
     built nearly 25 years ago. That's because the Clean Air Act 
     and other environmental requirements tied to upgrading or 
     building new refineries restrict private business from 
     building additional refining capacity.
       The administration's failure to establish a long term 
     domestic energy policy that guarantees America's energy 
     independence is largely to blame for high gas prices at the 
     pump.
       The next president will need to address this nation's 
     dependence on foreign oil that leaves both the economy and 
     national security at risk. Unless the White House is ready to 
     encourage the development of domestic energy resources, 
     America will remain overly depend on foreign production.
       That's the real tragedy.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I also cite an editorial that appeared in 
the Riverton Ranger, Riverton, WY, with some of the same sentiments:

       The Clinton-Gore administration has announced its intention 
     to sell 30 million barrels of oil from the nation's strategic 
     reserve.
       This amounts to less than a two-day supply of oil for a 
     country that uses 19 million barrels of oil a day.
       The rationale for the release of oil from the salt mines is 
     that the administration wants to make sure that no Americans 
     are cold this winter, due to a shortage or too high prices 
     for home heating oil.
       The image of householders backing up to their burned-down 
     home comes to mind. The optimist in the family warmed by the 
     glowing embers as the fire dies down after consuming the 
     house, remarks that ``at least we'll be warm tonight.''

  That is about what the energy policy amounts to--burning down our 
strategic house to take care of a little blip that doesn't solve the 
problem at all--again, lack of an energy policy.
  I ask unanimous consent that the complete editorial from the Riverton 
Ranger be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       The Clinton-Gore administration has announced its intention 
     to sell 30 million barrels of oil from the nation's strategic 
     reserve.
       This amounts to less than a two-day supply of oil for a 
     country that uses 19 million barrels of oil a day.
       The rationale for the release of oil from the salt mines is 
     that the administration wants to make sure that no Americans 
     are cold this winter, due to a shortage or too high prices 
     for home heating oil.
       The image of households backing up to their burned-down 
     home comes to mind. The optimist in the family, warmed by the 
     glowing embers as the fire dies down after consuming the 
     house, remarks that ``at least we'll be warm tonight.''
       How ironic that the same administration that continues to 
     lock up more of the public land from whence comes much of the 
     nation's oil, designates more acreage as national monuments, 
     classifies more of the public lands as defacto wilderness 
     through roadless designation, would then provide temporary 
     relief from an oil shortage by selling a few barrels of 
     reserves, on the condition the oil companies replace the 
     borrowed oil within a short period of time.
       President Carter made quite a fuss when the domestic supply 
     of oil dropped perilously close to 50 percent. Now we think 
     nothing of having foreign sources 75 percent of our U.S. oil 
     supply.
       The same situation applies to uranium, or even worse. We 
     have a law on the books of Washington that requires the 
     maintenance of a viable domestic uranium industry, for 
     strategic defense purposes, and for our nuclear utility 
     industry.
       With uranium mines closing and throttling back in Wyoming, 
     the last of the 50 states still mining uranium, our domestic 
     companies can supply less than 15 percent of the uranium 
     needed by our nuclear utilities which supply now 23 percent 
     of the nation's electricity. The rise from the traditional 20 
     percent share comes from the greater availability of the 
     remaining almost 100 nuclear power stations for generation of 
     electricity.
       If our national leadership wanted to help our people stay 
     warm, other than by backing up to our burning houses, a 
     national policy ought to be developed that encourages 
     domestic exploration and production, rather than impeding it 
     at every turn.
       The promised release of oil from our reserves appears to be 
     politically timed and motivated.
       Any hope for a sound national energy policy that will keep 
     more companies finding oil on our own continent seems faint, 
     indeed.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, finally, in the area of forest fires and 
forest fire policy, Mr. H.B. Davis writes the letter to the editor 
where he explains in some detail how we are failing on our forests.

       Well, the West is again being managed by nature because a 
     few people block the true management of our replenishable 
     environment. Ignorance has again led us to ashes. Some of the 
     very forests that have been ``protected'' against harvesting 
     for years, have this summer burned. To those who wanted their 
     homes surrounded by the pristine (I'm sorry), do they look 
     better in ashes? The pristine that we admire will never 
     remain, for it changes by growing old, weak, and ravaged, by 
     nature, not just man. We can help it by maintenance, with 
     harvest, common sense use, and stewardship. Nature does it by 
     random (and sometimes violent) ways but we (some) have the 
     intelligence to do it selectively and sensibly unless our 
     hands are tied.

  He goes on to explain how a sensible forest policy will allow us to 
enjoy the beauty of the forests rather than the devastation of forest 
fires, and even though forest fires help to rejuvenate forests, they do 
it in a very poor stewardship way.
  As one lady at a hearing recently said: The difference between the 
clear-cutting that my little family business does and what Mother 
Nature does, we respect 200 feet from a stream. We protect against 
erosion. We don't kill the fish. Mother Nature often does.
  I ask unanimous consent that his entire letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Ignorance to ashes

       Editor: Well, the West is again being managed by nature 
     because a few people block the true management of our 
     replenishable environment. Ignorance has again led us to 
     ashes. Some of the very forests that have been ``protected'' 
     against harvesting for years, have this summer burned. To 
     those who wanted their homes surrounded by the pristine (I'm 
     sorry), do they look better in ashes? The pristine that we 
     admire will never remain, for it changes by growing old, 
     weak, and ravaged, by nature, not just man. We can help it by 
     maintenance, with harvest, common sense use, and stewardship. 
     Nature does it by random (and sometimes violent) ways but we 
     (some) have the intelligence to do it selectively and 
     sensibly unless our hands are tied.
       I fought timbering many years ago, thank God I failed, for 
     the timbered areas are now beautiful and what I wanted to 
     keep now has or needs to burn, for it is of no value except 
     for wildfire fuel. We want clean air and to stop the 
     greenhouse effect so we promote wildfire. Does it do the job?

[[Page 21874]]

       Some people have the idea you can keep a living organism 
     from growing old. Maybe some people, through money and 
     surgery appear not to age, but they do age. That ``stop-
     aging'' or use attitude leads to fuel for wildfires, disease 
     and starvation in animals, and imbalance in nature. To the 
     people who take on a specific issue, you appear to forget an 
     issue is not the book of life but a single page and until you 
     can see all of life don't kill it with an issue, as is now 
     happening. Closure does not guarantee protection, only lack 
     of observation, thus allowing good conditions to go bad until 
     it is all destroyed. On the other hand, careful harvesting, 
     replanting, and maintenance does protect. It keeps it 
     renewing and healthy. The cartoon, in Wed, Aug. 23, by 
     Deering would have had a better caption of ``what is this 
     stuff?'' ``It is what's left when the environmentalists'' 
     protect the environment.'' I'll bet the burned bear cub 
     (Signey) would prefer his mother protecting him and not some 
     short sighted environmentalists.
       We can't use and abuse, but we can harvest, replant, and 
     maintain so Mother Nature doesn't have to do on a big scale 
     what we should have done a little at a time.
       Personally, I'd rather see the timber used to build (at a 
     reasonable price, with jobs) than as smoke, ashes and charred 
     pieces in mud to smother our wildlife and fish come the next 
     rain. If our ``do-gooders'' would quit looking at a single 
     page of aging life and work with the folks who would, with 
     responsibility, harvest, replant, and maintain, we'd not need 
     the tears of regret when Mother Nature has to manage.
                                                       H.R. Davis,
                                                         Riverton.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I will take an opportunity at a later time 
to talk about lack of policy on Social Security. I would like to 
address the type of accounting we have where we are kind of fudging 
some things that will cost future generations their Social Security 
unless we take some action now.
  We also need to take some action in the area of paying down the debt, 
tax policy, and education policy. If we don't address these policies 
using foresight instead of hindsight, if we don't do policy instead of 
polls, we are going to run into a situation similar to what we had when 
we hired 100,000 new teachers and then discovered we didn't have 
buildings to put them in. That was easy to solve; we just threw in a 
little more money. We put more buildings in there, except we are 
putting buildings in places where the voters themselves chose not to 
put buildings.
  I hope we will look at policy.
  I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy in letting me 
put those letters in the Record.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia 
is recognized.

                          ____________________