[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6334-6336]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding we have 15 minutes 
equally divided. I ask the Chair, after 6 minutes has elapsed, to 
advise me.
  First, let me say there is nothing new to the problem we have had in 
this country by not having an energy policy. I can remember when Don 
Hodel was Secretary of Energy and later Secretary of the Interior. We 
had a dog-and-pony show where we went around the country during the 
Reagan administration and tried to talk about how serious this was--the 
fact that our dependence upon foreign countries, or our ability to 
fight a war, was not an energy problem, it was a national security 
problem.
  We found the message didn't sell. I was critical of the Reagan 
administration. Later on, when the first Bush administration came 
along, I thought, surely, out of the oil patch he would want to have an 
energy policy, but he didn't either. And during the Clinton 
administration, he did not. When the second George Bush came into 
office, the first thing he did was say we are going to have an energy 
policy. Keep in mind that our dependency at that time, when I was 
active around the country with Don Hodel, was 36 to 37 percent. Now we 
are up to twice that. It is much worse now than it was before.
  We are in the middle of our second gulf war and people should realize 
what a threat this is. I chair the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, which has most of the jurisdiction over many energy issues, 
and certainly the air issues. I remember making every effort to get 
drilling on ANWR. The distinguished President pro tempore has spent his 
life trying to get production in the northern part of his State. It is 
something that would resolve the problem.
  Yesterday, on this floor, one of the Senators on the Democratic side 
said it would take 10 years before we would see any of that production. 
I don't believe that is true. But if it were true, I remind my 
colleagues that on November 20, 1995, we passed in both Chambers 
drilling in ANWR, and President Clinton vetoed the bill. We would have 
it today. We would not be having this problem.
  I suggest also that there is one other facet that has not been talked 
about enough, and that is, we could have all the production, all the 
exploration in the world, but if we don't have the refining capacity, 
it doesn't do any good.
  We were at 100 percent refining capacity even before Katrina. This is 
a serious problem. In our committee, we marked up a refinery bill, a 
very sophisticated bill, very moderate. It would allow those cities 
where they had closed military bases to use those closed military bases 
along with EDA grants to establish refineries. It is something that 
would enhance our refinery capacity and give us new refineries, and it 
was killed right down party lines. Every Democrat voted against it.
  I will read what one of the papers, the Topeka Capital Journal, said:

       Politics played a crucial role in Democrat opposition. If 
     gas prices are high next year--


[[Page 6335]]


  This is next year now--

     the GOP will be blamed. . . .

  Even though it is the Democrats who are responsible for it. So we 
have those problems that are looming at the same time.
  I will say this: Democrats did offer an alternative when they killed 
the refinery bill. All eight Democrats on the Environment and Public 
Works Committee, the committee I chair, voted in favor of an 
alternative that would put the Environmental Protection Agency in 
charge of siting, constructing, and operating oil facilities. In other 
words, socializing that particular sector of our economy, which is 
something they apparently believe Government can operate better than 
people.
  It is not true. When we had the LIHEAP program, I had an amendment 
that would have improved the permitting process for ethanol plants, as 
well as oil refineries and coal liquid facilities. Again, killed right 
down party lines.
  I guess what I am saying is, we go through this and we see what is 
happening, and it is always down party lines when we try to enhance our 
ability to have natural gas. Ask farmers anywhere in America what is 
causing the cost of fertilizer to go up. It is a shortage of natural 
gas.
  At the same time, we had an opportunity to do something in 
Massachusetts. Two Congressmen from Massachusetts, Frank and McGovern, 
put a provision in the Transportation bill that blocks the construction 
of an already-approved liquefied natural gas facility.
  What I am saying is--and I know I am down to 1 minute, Mr. 
President--it doesn't seem to matter to the Democrats whether we are 
trying to do something with fossil fuels, trying to do something with 
oil and gas, trying to do something with clean coal technology, or 
trying to do something with nuclear energy. It always is killed right 
down party lines. Now the crisis is here, and we are going to have to 
face it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as Americans go to the gas pump to fill up 
their gas tanks with gasoline, they are met with a very harsh economic 
reality. We have higher gas prices in this country. We don't have 
enough supply in this country. Of course, we have lots of demand, and 
demand continues to grow not only in the United States but around the 
world.
  As the Senator from Oklahoma said, we have been trying to take steps 
now for a decade to address this issue of shortage of supply. As 
consumers look at the prices they are facing today and the fact that 
we, for the past decade, have really, for all intents and purposes, 
done nothing to lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy or 
to add to energy resources we have in this country, that reality is 
starting to take root. I think people are realizing that now for the 
very first time, and they are taking the steps they can to curb demand. 
They are carpooling, buying more fuel-efficient vehicles, probably 
walking more than they used to. I think consumers are doing what they 
can on their side of the equation to try to address the demand issue.
  We have a profound supply issue that has been complicated by a decade 
of obstruction in the U.S. Congress when it comes to increasing that 
supply. We have tried for the past decade--I was a Member of the House 
of Representatives for three terms and now as a Member of the Senate. 
We have had the opportunity to vote on numerous occasions to explore 
and produce oil on the North Slope of Alaska. There is somewhere 
between 6 and 16 billion barrels of oil on the North Slope of Alaska. 
There would be 1 million barrels a day in the pipeline if, when in 1995 
the Congress acted, the President had acted and signed legislation into 
law that would have allowed us to take advantage of that rich resource 
right here in America.
  We have tried on countless occasions to add to supply. We have 
offshore production. Why is it that Cuba can produce oil off the coast 
of Florida but we can't? We have to do something to help ourselves, and 
for the past decade we have been blocked at every turn by our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, by the Democrats in the 
Senate and in the House, from being able to get into the resources in 
the State of Alaska and other places.
  As the Senator from Oklahoma mentioned, we had a vote in the 
Environment and Public Works Committee on legislation that would allow 
us to expand our refinery capacity. It was blocked by a party-line 
vote. One Republican voted with the Democrats, but the Democrats voted 
as a party en bloc against expanding refinery capacity.
  That is something, too, that we need to get done. I believe there 
would be a majority of Senators in the Senate who would be in favor of 
that, just as there is a majority of Senators who are in favor of 
exploring on the North Slope of Alaska and in favor of offshore 
production. But the rules of the Senate have been used repeatedly--
repeatedly, Mr. President--to block the clear will of the majority when 
it comes to adding to supply so we can lessen the crisis that we face 
in this country, putting more supply out there to bring that cost of 
gasoline, that cost of petroleum down. We have run into constant 
obstruction in the Senate from our colleagues on the Democratic side of 
the aisle.
  So as consumers look at what they are facing today, it is important 
they begin to apply pressure to their leaders in the Senate and the 
House to take steps that should have been taken a long time ago and for 
which there is a clear majority of support in the Senate for 
exploration in Alaska, for building additional refinery capacity, for 
offshore production--for all these things that would add to the supply.
  Having said that, I also believe it is not too late to do the right 
thing, and I have introduced bipartisan legislation with Senator Obama 
from Illinois that would help increase the use of renewable fuels to 
help meet the energy crisis, that would allow fuel retailers to defray 
the cost of installing E-85 pumps and other alternative fuel tanks at 
gas stations. Currently, only about 600 gas stations in the country 
have E-85 pumps. This would give many more Americans access to this 
alternative fuel and reduce our dependency on foreign energy.
  There is more we can do. The President needs to push our oil-
supplying countries to increase production to help ease this supply 
crisis.
  Later today, I will introduce legislation that will provide immediate 
and short-term relief to American consumers. I will introduce 
legislation called the Gas Price Reduction Act of 2006 that will 
provide that relief. It will suspend the gas tax in its entirety for 
the remainder of this summer, until September 30, the period when 
Americans need the relief the most over the course of the summer 
months, when they are doing most of their traveling.
  It calls for the elimination of the current 18.4-cents-per-gallon 
Federal gas tax on gasoline, relief that Americans will feel when they 
fill their gas tanks. The lost revenues will be reimbursed by temporary 
suspension of a number of tax credits and royalty waivers received by 
oil corporations. The increased revenue to the Federal Government from 
this suspension of tax breaks and incentives will be used to reimburse 
the Federal Treasury and the highway trust fund dollar for dollar for 
lost revenue from the suspension of the gasoline tax. The temporary 
suspension of the tax credits and waivers will remain in place until 
the resulting revenue stream has fully reimbursed the Treasury.
  As we see skyrocketing gas prices around the country, it is time for 
this Congress to act. It is time for the American consumer to realize 
some relief. When crude oil is selling for $73 a barrel, it seems to me 
that many of these incentives and tax credits that are in place for 
research, development, exploration, and even drilling costs for the oil 
companies could be used to offset a reduction in the gasoline tax that 
will bring immediate relief to hard-working consumers who are facing 
higher and higher costs for the fuel they need to get to work, to do 
their jobs.

[[Page 6336]]

  I look forward to engaging in the debate about what we can do here 
and now, but I have to say that in the long term, steps should have 
been taken a decade ago to add to supplies in this country. It is never 
too late to do the right thing. We need to be moving forward to make 
sure America is energy independent, that America's future is energy 
secure. So we have to rely less and less on foreign countries around 
the world from which we derive today about 60 percent of our energy 
supply. That is an untenable situation to be in. It is something that 
should have been addressed. We tried to address it for years. There is 
majority support for many of these proposals that would increase supply 
in this country today, but we continue to run into obstruction in the 
Senate. I hope that will end so we can address this incredibly 
important crisis and issue to the American people.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 2 minutes remaining for the 
majority.
  The Senator from Alabama.

                          ____________________