[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16130-16131]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



[[Page 16130]]

                                 ENERGY

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, when historians look back at the 110th 
Congress, they will say the most vexing domestic issue we faced was a 
rapid and dramatic rise in the price of gas at the pump. As it stands 
today, they will have to conclude that the Democratic leaders ignored 
the problem by refusing to unlock the domestic energy resources that 
were put off limits when gas and oil were cheap.
  If these historians do their homework, they will note the irony in 
all of this. They will note that these same Democrats were the ones who 
took the majority less than 2 years ago, promising to do something 
about gas prices that were a lot lower back then than they are today.
  I recently received a letter from a dialysis center in Kentucky. It 
was an urgent plea to do something about gas prices. The letter said 
some of the rural patients who have to go to this center for treatment 
three times a week are now foregoing their dialysis treatment because 
they cannot afford the gas to get there. This is the kind of crisis 
high gas prices is for low-income and sick people.
  After reading that, I have a simple question for our friends across 
the aisle: If you won't act now, with dialysis patients unable to get 
into town for treatment, when will you unlock the natural resources 
Americans have right under their own feet? What is it going to take? 
Clearly, this is a very serious problem for the American people, and we 
have an obligation to address it, and the time to do it is now. I am 
afraid the Democrats who run the Senate want it all to somehow go away. 
They have been going to great lengths to make sure it goes away. They 
are cancelling hearings when they are afraid the issue might come up, 
and they are muzzling their own Members, more than a dozen of whom 
favor a balanced solution that includes more domestic production and 
increased conservation. They are telling them the same thing they are 
telling the American people: No, we can't.
  The problem we face, as everyone knows, is that the demand for oil is 
rising faster than the supply, and the solution, as everyone knows, is 
to increase supply and lower demand. Yet this week, the Democratic 
leadership in Congress is saying: No, we can't. They are saying: No, we 
can't produce a single barrel of oil at home.
  Instead of increasing supply, they are trying to distract us with the 
same blame game they roll out whenever the demands of some special 
interest group conflict with the will of the people.
  This time they have turned their attention on speculators. They say 
the reason gas prices have nearly doubled since the Democrats took over 
a year and a half ago is the speculators.
  Well, Republicans have no problem strengthening regulation of the 
futures markets. That is part of the bill that 44 of us are sponsoring. 
But if Congress does not allow any new exploration, it is perfectly 
clear what the speculation about future prices will be: not good. The 
speculators are betting on scarcity, and the majority is helping to 
prove them right.
  So here we are. After months of frustration, Americans are hearing 
from the Democratic leaders that Congress is going to do one thing 
about the single most vexing issue in America today. The Democratic 
leaders are telling the American people that the solution is to write 
up some new guidelines for energy traders, call it a day, and head 
home. And if we do not support this very timid solution, they will go 
back to the blame game again. They will say Republicans voted against 
lowering gas prices, when the fact is not a single person in America 
who does not sit behind a desk on the other side of the aisle thinks 
this particular speculation provision will do anything to lower gas 
prices.
  Let's be perfectly clear: A vote for this narrow bill alone is not a 
serious vote about high gas prices. It is an abdication of our 
responsibilities as lawmakers. It is an insult to the American people 
who are demanding every single day that we do something to ease their 
pain at the pump.
  This is not a theoretical problem. This is not a looming problem. It 
is an urgent problem. It is an urgent problem with families who have to 
struggle to put food on the table or send their kids to school. It is 
an urgent problem for the dialysis patients in my State who can't get 
treatment because they can't afford to get to town to see the doctor. 
And Americans are hearing the Democratic leadership's response, which 
is: No, we can't.
  The ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, my 
good friend from New Mexico, put it this way. He said that in his 37 
years of service in the Senate, he has never seen a single bigger 
problem met with a smaller solution. The Senator from New Mexico said 
he had never seen a bigger problem met with a smaller solution.
  I would put it this way: Americans are saying the house is on fire, 
and the Democratic leadership is showing up at the scene with squirt 
guns.
  Let's put the scope of this bill in perspective. During last year's 
energy debate--a year ago--on the Energy Independence and Security Act, 
331 amendments were proposed, 49 amendments were agreed to, and gas 
prices were $3.06 a gallon. Two years before that, during the debate on 
the Energy Policy Act, 235 amendments were proposed, 57 amendments were 
agreed to, and gas was selling for $2.26 a gallon.
  With gas prices in some places at more than double what they were 
then and when Americans are clamoring for dramatic action and when it 
is clearly the No. 1 issue in the country, the Democratic majority 
wants us to tighten the leash on a few speculators and then head home 
and do nothing else until next year.
  To drive down gas prices, we could be opening the Outer Continental 
Shelf. Democratic leaders say: No, we can't. To drive down gas prices, 
we could be lifting the ban on development of vast oil shale deposits 
in Western States that sit on three times the reserves of Saudi Arabia. 
The Democratic leaders say: No, we can't.
  To drive down gas prices, we could be approving incentives for 
battery-powered electric cars and trucks. Democratic leaders say: No, 
we can't.
  To drive down gas prices, we could be voting to open untapped 
American oil. Democratic leaders say: No, we can't.
  To drive down gas prices, we could be voting for new clean nuclear 
technology, but Democratic leaders say: No, we can't.
  To drive down gas prices, we could be approving new and promising 
coal-to-liquid technology. Again, Democratic leaders say: No, we can't.
  When will the Democratic leadership listen to the 77 percent of 
Americans who want us to use our own domestic resources to drive down 
the price of gas and say: Yes, we can. When will they listen to more 
than a dozen of their own Members on the other side of the aisle who 
are saying: Yes, we can.
  Americans never imagined they would be paying these prices at the 
pump, but if the Democratic leadership has its way, Americans will be 
paying even more in the years to come. When that time comes and there 
is no one else to blame, they will look around and see that there is no 
one else around to blame but themselves. Then Americans will know whom 
to blame, and I can tell my colleagues it will not be the speculators.
  Mr. President, I see my friend from Arizona on his feet, and I am 
wondering if he wishes to ask me a question.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wonder if my colleague would yield for two 
questions.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would be happy to.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I believe at least twice 
the majority leader has made a comment about my colleague from Arizona, 
John McCain, and I wanted to see if the Republican leader's 
understanding is the same as mine.
  The majority leader said: ``McCain says drilling is only 
psychological and won't make a difference.''
  I have checked the actual record of what Senator McCain said. It was 
a discussion of offshore drilling, which Senator McCain strongly 
supports on the Outer Continental Shelf, and the question was whether 
there would be short


[[Page 16131]]


-term relief. Here is precisely what Senator McCain 
said in response:

       I don't see an immediate relief, but I do see that 
     exploitation of existing reserves that may exist--and in view 
     of many experts that do exist off our coasts--is also a way 
     that we need to provide relief. Even though it may take some 
     years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would 
     have psychological impact that I think is beneficial.

  Now, I ask the leader: Is it correct, in your view, that what Senator 
McCain was saying is that while the benefits of production would take 
some years to achieve, there could be an immediate psychological 
benefit simply from the decision that we were going to do this, such as 
the $20 reduction in the price of a barrel of oil following shortly 
after the President's announcement that he was going to lift the 
moratorium on offshore drilling?
  Mr. McCONNELL. My understanding of Senator McCain's position is the 
same as my good friend from Arizona. I believe he states correctly the 
position of his senior colleague from Arizona on this important issue 
of whether it would be useful for America--the third-largest oil 
producer in the world, sitting on vast reserves--to expand the usage of 
those reserves, particularly on the Outer Continental Shelf.
  Mr. KYL. Secondly, Mr. President, the second question. The Republican 
leader said a moment ago that speculators were betting on scarcity and 
the majority is doing everything to prove them right.
  With respect to a decision to begin production off our shores on the 
Outer Continental Shelf, is it the Senator's opinion that this would 
have a beneficial effect on drawing down the price of futures in the 
oil market because the decision would be seen as a commitment to 
produce more?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend from Arizona, my view on that 
is probably not as significant as others. For example, the famous 
oilman, T. Boone Pickens, who has been in town this week and who has 
met with Republicans and Democrats, has made it quite clear that he 
thinks we ought to be doing all these things, both on the find-more 
side, which would certainly involve greater use of the Outer 
Continental Shelf which is currently off-limits. He thinks we ought to 
be doing all these things. I gather that most experts understand the 
law of supply and demand, and if you increase supply and diminish 
demand, you are working in tandem to get gas prices down. I think it 
makes elementary good sense that that is the only way we will be able 
to make progress on this issue.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the leader.

                          ____________________