[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7521-7522]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 ENERGY

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come on the heels of the minority leader 
speaking about or at least attempting to define what he and his party 
believe in. I watched him struggle this morning to try to shape what 
they are versus what we are, and that is really what we heard discussed 
a few moments ago. But he kept going back to the issue of high energy 
costs and the soccer moms and their inability to fill their gas tanks 
today. So I am going to focus on that part of what he struggled to 
define this morning and speak to the realities that are out there and 
what has transpired over the last several decades as it relates to the 
inability of this country to produce energy and why that inability 
exists.
  A couple of weeks ago, I came to the Senate floor to inform this 
Senate and awaken America to the reality that just 50 miles off the 
coast of Florida, China is drilling for oil--Not the United States but 
China. And the reason China is drilling for oil is that we have 
prohibited our own companies from the opportunity to drill in the 
northern Cuban zone, so that Cuba is now leasing out to other countries 
in the world except the United States.
  Then I watched a rush to judgment on the other side as there was a 
flurry to say not only do we have to stop Cuba, we dare not let 
America, American companies, experts in deepwater drilling, experts in 
environmental soundness, ever drill in that region.
  Today I wish to expand on that idea. I wish to talk about why America 
is in trouble today with energy and why that soccer mom is paying more 
at the gas pump today than she ever has. The answer is really right 
here. It happened right here in the Senate over the last several 
decades, starting in 1950.
  From the 1800s to 1950, we were energy independent. We were the great 
producer of oil. But as folks came home from World War II and as our 
economy began to expand, we began to use more oil. Then, starting in 
the 1960s and 1970s, we began to say about oil: We need it, but we 
can't drill here and we can't drill there and we will drill elsewhere.
  Here is our problem today, so clearly defined in a supply and demand 
environment in which we have become 60 percent dependent upon foreign 
countries to produce our energy for us. America now knows that. Two 
weeks ago, we watched the other side blame and blame again somebody, 
including this administration, for a failure to produce. But they 
failed to tell you what they had not done, had denied over the last two 
or three decades.
  I went to the White House during the Clinton years and asked 
President Clinton to work with us, to floor what we call marginal wells 
in west Texas and Oklahoma so they could continue to produce. Why? 
Because oil was below $18 a barrel and there was no economy there. They 
couldn't make money and they were shutting the wells in. We said: Let's 
floor it and keep them producing.
  We couldn't do it because of the politics of that Democratic 
administration. What happened? Those wells went off line. They were 
filled with concrete, and they stopped producing what would be a 
million barrels of oil a day into this market right now. So to the 
American consumer who is paying those high gas prices, you are lacking 
a million barrels a day into our markets by a Democratic administration 
that denied its happening. Darn it, that is a fact. That is reality.
  What transpired during that other time? Let's go on to the next chart 
that talks about our failure to get certain things happening. The 
Presiding Officer knows all about ANWR. He knows all about Alaska and 
Alaskan production. It was Bill Clinton who vetoed, a decade ago, the 
ANWR bill which would have put upwards of 10 billion barrels into the 
market at about a million barrels a day. Let's do the math now. We shut 
in a million barrels a day in Texas and Oklahoma because of the 
politics of that administration, and then they vetoed ANWR at 10 
billion or a million a day. That is 2 million barrels a day to which 
they said no. So the answer to the minority leader as to why the soccer 
moms are paying the highest price ever today for gas is quite simple. 
It is because they said no. They said no to stripper wells, they said 
no to ANWR.
  Now let's talk about the rest of the story because what I am 
interested in is the reality of the ``no'' politics, the ``no'' 
production, the ``no'' refinement. That is the answer to our problem 
today. You saw it on the last chart, the chart of supply and demand and 
60 percent dependency on foreign sources. We cannot even drill in our 
own hemisphere.
  Then let's go to this map. I call it the no zone. Why is it called 
the no zone? Because you can't drill here and you can't drill here and 
you won't drill here and you can't drill here. Why? American politics 
today. It is the no-drill zone.
  If we could drill in the no-drill zone, it is possible that we could 
find, through U.S. geological surveys already under way, 115 billion 
barrels of oil and a phenomenal amount of gas. But the answer is no. 
Who said no? They said no. Republicans didn't say no.
  Let me talk about that for just a moment. President Bush comes to 
town. We meet over here in the leader's office. He says: My first 
priority is to allow the Vice President to assemble a group of the 
experts and put together a national energy policy. We have to get this 
country back into production. He said that as his first initiative. 
Five

[[Page 7522]]

years later, after they kept saying no, last August we got a bill. We 
are beginning to produce. But this is still all ``no.'' Mr. President, 
115 billion barrels are outside the reach of the American consumer 
today, even though our technology is the best in the world and even 
though, after the worst natural disaster ever, we proved ourselves out 
in the gulf. In this little clean area right over here where we have 
not said no--at least the States of Texas and Louisiana didn't say no--
we found out that wells went off line, rigs got blown off their 
foundations, but no oil was spilled. Why? Because of the phenomenal 
technology today and because of environmental rules and regulations 
that we have asked for and demanded compliance and received it from the 
major oil companies that drill in deepwater and the Outer Continental 
Shelf.
  The reason I bring these issues today is quite simple: We have to 
quit saying no. The other side can demogog and they can try to blame, 
but the reality is here. The facts are here.
  Let's run down the rest of the chart. We have said no to ANWR, no to 
OCS, no to 181 leasing, no drilling in the northern Cuba zone--at least 
American companies--while China drills in our backyard. American 
consumers need to know that the answer to their problem is not no. It 
is, yes, we can produce and, yes, we ought to produce and, yes, we 
ought to be energy independent and, yes, it ought to happen in our 
hemisphere, and, yes, we ought to be less dependent on foreign oil.
  If we put all of those things together, America can be independent 
today. But you are not independent by saying no. And the answer has 
been no, no, no, no. That is why we ought to talk about the ``no zone'' 
and the naysayers and the minority who have said no for so long.
  Reality is at hand. The American consumer is being squeezed at the 
gas pump like never before, and the answer still remains no. Americans 
are demanding that this be resolved. We are rushing to new production 
in all kinds of alternatives, but you do not get away by denying the 
obvious.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the leader for that time.
  I will conclude by simply saying 115 billion barrels of oil are 
denied because somebody--and it was over here--said no, and now we 
enter the ``no zone.'' Americans do not believe it. Americans are going 
to demand a change, and we ought to be able to deliver.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no time to yield for a 
question.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Presiding Officer. I will raise 
the questions in a speech later on. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we want to accommodate colloques. If the 
request is to be asked and granted by the Chair, then I suggest the 
morning business hour for the Republican side be extended 10 minutes to 
accommodate that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. How much time does the Senator require?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I am not going to request time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time I seek the concurrence of the 
Presiding Officer to speak about 12 to 14 minutes regarding General 
Hayden.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________