[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 8958-8960]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            SENATE INACTION

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to turn to an important vote that 
we had yesterday in the Senate. Unfortunately, yesterday morning, we 
saw only 42 Senators voted to do anything significant about the high 
price of gasoline at the pump. This is just the latest example, I am 
afraid, of congressional intransigence and turning a deaf ear to the 
cries of the American people for Congress to do something to help bring 
relief at the gas pump. Unfortunately, it is just the latest example.
  I know most of us came to Washington to serve in the Congress to try 
to solve problems. Unfortunately, the mentality inside the beltway 
seems to be that we ought to spend more time shooting at each other on 
a partisan political basis and not working together to solve problems. 
Unfortunately, there are more examples than just high gas prices to 
demonstrate this mentality.
  I will just point to four areas where we have seen significant delays 
in congressional action that have had tremendous consequences on the 
American people. First and foremost is on our national security. It was 
89 days ago that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act basically 
expired. The most recent authorization would have allowed us to 
continue to listen in to foreign terrorists communicating with each 
other on the telephone in a way that would allow us to detect and deter 
terrorist activity and defeat terrorist activity.
  Why the House of Representatives and Speaker Pelosi would refuse to 
allow this important piece of legislation to come to the floor after it 
passed the Senate on a strong bipartisan vote is, frankly, beyond me. 
But it has been 89 days now since we have had the ability to detect new 
terrorist threats, when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
basically went dark and expired.
  Secondly, it has been 540 days since we have failed to act on the 
Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Free-trade agreements should not be 
partisan affairs. It is good, in fact, for us to have free-trade 
agreements because it opens markets to American farmers and American 
manufacturers and producers for their goods in other countries. In 
fact, Colombia does about $2.3 billion in trade with the State of Texas 
each year, which is very important to my State. Unfortunately, when 
Texas sells goods and produce to Colombia, they carry large tariffs, 
which disadvantages my manufacturers, my producers, and my farmers in 
Texas, while Colombian goods that are sold in the United States, 
because of other agreements, basically come in duty free.
  Why Speaker Pelosi would fail to allow this important free-trade 
agreement to be taken up and voted on in the House of Representatives, 
again, escapes me. This is in the best interest of the United States. 
It is in the best interest of my State and the people who work there. 
At a time when we are dealing with stimulus packages because we are 
concerned about the softening of our economy, what better stimulus 
could we enact than to pass this free-trade agreement, which would 
strengthen the robust markets in Colombia for American goods and 
produce? But here we are 540 days later, and it is bogged down in 
partisan disagreements.
  The next number is another important number. I think one of the most 
important jobs the Senate has is to take up and consider the 
nominations of individuals who have been proposed for service on the 
Federal bench and to serve in that important branch of Government. But 
we have seen that because of inaction in the Judiciary Committee, on 
some nominees such as Peter Keisler--nominated more than 685 days ago--
and we have seen nominees out of North Carolina pass the 300-day mark 
without even so much as a hearing in the Judiciary Committee.
  This is another example of partisan delays that, frankly, I think 
frustrates the American people. It certainly frustrates me. It is an 
example of where we ought to act and find an opportunity to come 
together to solve a problem, and the problem is particularly in the 
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, where many litigants simply cannot 
find access to the courts because there are not enough judges sitting 
on those benches to listen to cases. Whether you are a crime victim or 
a small business man or woman or whether you are just a regular citizen 
in that Fourth District, we have a judicial emergency with about one-
third of the seats vacant. Frankly, that creates a lack of access to 
justice. So, again, it has been 685 days without a vote on some of the 
nominees in the Judiciary Committee. We need to do better.
  Of course, it was 751 days ago when Speaker Pelosi,--then running for 
election, and before the 2006 election, where Democrats were given the 
majority status in both the House and Senate, said: Elect us and we 
will produce a commonsense plan to help bring down the price of 
gasoline at the pump. Unfortunately, the price of gasoline at about the 
time that she took office as Speaker of the House was about $2.33 a 
gallon, I believe. And now, of course, it is about $3.75 a gallon.
  Yesterday, as I mentioned, we had an opportunity to help provide 
relief for American families, to help them deal with their family 
budgets when it comes to the cost of gasoline. But I think we took a 
half step that did not do very much. What I mean by that is we did vote 
to quit filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but if you look at how 
much oil that represents that would then be available in the open 
market, it is roughly 70,000 barrels of oil a day. Now, 70,000 barrels 
of oil a day sounds like a lot of oil, unless you consider the amount 
of oil consumed globally by all the countries on the planet. That is 85 
million barrels of oil a day. How much of an impact do you think it 
will have on gasoline at the pump to provide an additional 70,000 
barrels of oil, when worldwide consumption is 85 million? You don't 
have to be a Ph.D. in mathematics to figure that out. It will not be 
big. As a matter of fact, it will be minuscule--not completely 
insignificant but not very much.
  On the other hand, we had an opportunity to vote to reduce our 
dependence upon imported oil and gas from dangerous enemies of the 
United States, countries such as Iran and Venezuela, both of whom are 
members of OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
  Unfortunately, the Senate turned down that opportunity to produce as 
much as 3 million barrels of oil a day from the U.S. reserve because we 
would not allow or authorize Alaskans to produce oil in Alaska. We 
would not authorize the States along the Outer Continental Shelf to be 
able to develop their oil reserves in the Outer Continental Shelf, and 
we would not allow States in the West to develop the oil shale that 
could produce massive amounts of oil right here in America, reducing 
our dependency on imported oil from dangerous countries such as Iran 
and Venezuela.
  What I don't understand is, if our friends across the Senate--and I 
believe

[[Page 8959]]

there was only one vote against the decision to stop putting oil in the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But if everybody in the Senate virtually 
agrees that adding 70,000 barrels of oil to the worldwide supply of oil 
would help bring down the price of gas at the pump--however minuscule 
that figure may be--how much more would it be likely to bring down the 
price of gas at the pump to add 3 million additional barrels to 
worldwide supply? Of course, this would not be from Saudi Arabia or 
Iran or Venezuela. It would be from the good old USA.
  Again, how many new jobs would that create at home, when our economy 
has turned soft? It would create a lot of jobs in Texas. I know it 
would create jobs in Louisiana and, frankly, all over the country.
  Instead of taking an opportunity to take a bold move on a bipartisan 
basis to increase the supply of American oil and gas, we find ourselves 
with half steps and relatively insignificant votes to increase 
production. I am glad that, finally, the Congress has recognized that 
the laws of supply and demand are not inapplicable in the District of 
Columbia. As a matter of fact, for a long time, it seemed that we 
outright refused to recognize the economic laws that apply across the 
planet right here in Washington, DC.
  So I ask my friends and colleagues, if you are unwilling to allow us 
to open American oil reserves when the price of gasoline is $3.75 a 
gallon and the price of a barrel of oil is $125, will you allow us to 
do it when gasoline hits $4 a gallon? How about when it hits $4.50 a 
gallon or $5 a gallon or $10 a gallon? How about when the price of oil 
hits $150 a barrel or $200 or $250?
  We know because of the geopolitical situation with countries such as 
Iran, which are no friend to the United States and are major oil 
producers and are part of OPEC, that causes speculation on the spot 
market to push the price of oil higher. I believe it would have a 
dramatic impact on those prices and, ultimately, because oil represents 
70 percent of the price of a gallon of gasoline, I believe it would 
ultimately bring down the price of gasoline and provide some much 
needed relief to the average American family.
  Congress's failure to act on a strong bipartisan basis to do it is, 
frankly, inexplicable to me, just as it is inexplicable to me why we 
would not allow our intelligence officials to listen to the 
conversations of new targets of foreign terror surveillance, and why we 
would continue to let American businesses and farmers be disadvantaged 
by tariffs on goods and produce sold to the nation of Colombia, and why 
we would wait more than 685 days to consider the nominations of 
judicial nominees and allow crime victims and small businesses and 
others to go without their day in court.
  Just for the same reasons those delays are inexplicable, why are we 
still waiting 751 days after Speaker Pelosi made the statement that she 
would produce a commonsense plan to bring down the price at the pump?
  It is inexplicable to me why we have to wait with no real solutions 
in sight.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana is 
recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask that I be notified when I have 
consumed 6 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will so advise.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I also rise on the Senate floor today to 
talk about the crisis we face in terms of gasoline and energy prices 
and the need for us to act in terms of this true crisis that affects 
every Louisiana family I represent and every American family this body 
represents.
  When this new Congress, led by Democratic leadership, took office, 
energy prices, gasoline prices were supposed to be a top priority. At 
the time, the price at the pump was $2.31. Yet today it has risen to 
$3.76 a gallon. That is a 61-percent increase.
  If this was such a priority at $2.31, if we have had this dramatic 
increase, the fastest, the most dramatic, the most onerous on the 
consumer in history, why isn't this leading to action? The simple 
reality is that it is not.
  This Congress has been tangled in inaction, unable to take 
significant action on this issue, and that has to end for the good of 
the American people.
  As my colleague from Texas reiterated, this is not overly 
complicated. Price is set by the equation of where supply meets demand. 
That is economics 101. That is the first lesson of economics. So we 
need to do everything we can to reduce demand, mitigate worldwide 
demand, which is clearly increasing, particularly from rapidly growing 
countries such as China and India, and we can do that through 
conservation, fuel efficiency, and new sources of energy. But we also 
need to increase supply. We need to do both at once because our energy 
picture is so challenging and so dire.
  So I rise to join my colleagues who are saying we need to act, we 
need to break out of this gridlock, we need to act on energy prices 
which affect all American families.
  Unfortunately, we had that opportunity in the last several weeks and, 
once again, the Senate passed on the opportunity, shut down the 
opportunity to take real action.
  Again, this is an enormous challenge, and we need to do everything we 
can, both on the demand side--and I support those measures: increased 
energy efficiency, increased levels of conservation, development of new 
technology and new energy sources. We have done a little bit of that, 
but we need to do more. But we also need to act on the supply side, 
increasing our supply of energy, particularly our domestic supply which 
increases our energy independence, lessens our dependence on unfriendly 
foreign nations.
  Several weeks ago, we were on an FAA bill, and I had an amendment at 
the desk that would constitute real, meaningful action. It was very 
simple. It would have established a trigger at the price of $126 per 
barrel of oil. When the price reached that mark--and we are, 
unfortunately, perilously close already--then the trigger would have 
been pulled, and we would have been able to explore and produce off 
America's Outer Continental Shelf, where we have vast resources of 
energy. But we would only do that with two significant caveats, with 
two significant demands.
  The first is that the host State involved, wherever we were proposing 
drilling, would have to want that activity. The Governor and the State 
legislature would both have to affirm that they wanted to produce off 
their coast. It is very important, very fair, respecting State 
sovereignty and States rights.
  Secondly, my amendment would have built on provisions we passed 
several years ago to give those host States significant royalty sharing 
so anything produced off their coast, 37.5 percent of that royalty 
would go to the State for the State to use on its top priorities, 
whether they be highways or higher education or, in the case of 
Louisiana, coastal restoration, hurricane protection, hurricane 
evacuation routes. That was a very sound, sensible policy we set a 
couple years ago as we opened new areas of the gulf.
  My amendment, which I had at the desk for the FAA reauthorization 
bill, would have expanded on that good policy initiative. 
Unfortunately, we couldn't have a full debate on that amendment. We 
couldn't have any vote on that amendment because the Democratic 
majority leader filled the amendment tree, took up all opportunity for 
amendment for himself and blocked all other amendments from coming to 
the floor.
  That is unfortunate on any issue. It is particularly unfortunate, 
again, on the top concern of the American people, when prices at the 
pump are sky-high and continuing to rise, when they have risen from 
$2.31 a gallon at the beginning of this Democratic Congress to $3.76 a 
gallon today--a dramatic, onerous, 61-percent increase.
  Yesterday, we had another opportunity to break through the gridlock 
and act, and it was by adopting the McConnell-Domenici amendment. That 
amendment proposed a number of measures, including something very 
similar to my Vitter amendment regarding the Outer Continental Shelf.

[[Page 8960]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator has used 
6 minutes.
  Mr. VITTER. I thank the Chair. That McConnell-Domenici amendment 
included a number of measures, something very similar to my proposal 
with regard to the Outer Continental Shelf. It would have dramatically 
expanded our domestic supply. It would have done something real, 
concrete and meaningful and have a significant impact over time on the 
price at the pump.
  Yet again, the Senate refused to act, refused to move forward with 
that significant proposal that would do major things on the supply side 
and would couple it with other actions we are taking and further 
actions we need to take on the demand side.
  Instead, we did something extremely modest. We said: For now, we are 
not going to continue to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I 
supported that move. It is true that will free up 70,000 barrels of oil 
to put into the open market versus pumping into the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, but that is very modest. That is hardly going to make a dent 
on the price at the pump.
  In contrast, all the provisions of the McConnell-Domenici amendment, 
all that extra supply domestically would have meant 3 million barrels 
in contrast to 70,000. Yet again, the Democratic leadership and the 
Senate overall refused to act, refused to address this issue, the most 
serious that Americans are facing today, the one that hits their 
pocketbook over and over, causing them real concern about their family 
budget and how they are going to make it.
  I urge the Senate to get out of this do-nothing attitude. I urge the 
Senate to act on this crucial issue for all American families.
  Again, this is not brain surgery. This is economics 101, supply and 
demand. It is not either/or. We need to do everything we can to lessen 
demand, and I support those measures to increase efficiency, to 
increase efforts at conservation, to increase new technology efforts 
that will lead us to new fuel sources. That is absolutely necessary. 
But it needs to be coupled with action to increase supply, particularly 
domestic supply, by tapping those vital reserves, particularly on our 
Outer Continental Shelf.
  I join the Senator in Texas in asking, if we are not going to do it 
now at $3.76 a gallon, when are we going to act? Are we going to wait 
for $4? Are we going to wait for $5? We need to act now. This is a 
serious issue for all Americans. This hits the pocketbook of every 
American family. We need to act now. We need to act not with political 
demagoguery, not with pure rhetoric. We need to act with measures that 
have an impact, both on the demand side and the supply side. I hope the 
Senate and the Congress move to do that.

                          ____________________