[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6886-6888]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            GASOLINE PRICES

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it has been called to my attention that 
there are some people who are trying to respond to the fact that we 
have such high prices of gasoline at the pumps in a totally unrealistic 
way, in a way that is class warfare, in a way that doesn't make any 
sense to anyone, when we have a solution to this problem we have been 
talking about for a long period of time.
  There are some who are trying to say we are going to have to do 
something about the subsidies that are given to oil companies, about 
what they have been doing over the years, and all of a sudden they are 
the ones who are responsible for the high price of gas at the pumps.
  A CRS report was requested by my colleague, Lisa Murkowski, that grew 
out of frustration with the Democrats' refrain that ``America has only 
3 percent of the global oil reserves.'' Therefore, under this view, 
more drilling and production at home is futile. As President Obama has 
said many times, ``with 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, the U.S. 
cannot drill its way to energy security.''
  Well, it can, because it is not 3 percent. A CRS report came out 
later and showed--and this is something people don't want to believe, 
but it is out there and it is a fact--the United States of America has 
the largest recoverable reserves of oil, gas, and coal of any country 
in the world--more than China, Saudi Arabia, or anyone else. Our 
problem is a political one--this administration. It goes down 
Democratic and Republican lines. The Democrats put 83 percent of 
America's Federal lands off limits to drilling. Of course, that is fine 
for the administration, because they have made some statements, which I 
will read in a minute, to demonstrate clearly that they want to 
increase the price of gas at the pumps.
  On the idea that you can do this through regulation and through 
trying to further tax the oil industry, CRS stated that tax changes 
outlined in the President's budget proposal--I am quoting from CRS, 
which everyone knows is completely nonpartisan--``would make oil and 
natural gas more expensive for U.S. consumers and likely increase 
foreign dependence.''
  I was very proud of a couple of Democrats--the only two who were 
outspoken. Senator Landrieu, from Louisiana, said:

       The administration has put forward draconian taxes on the 
     oil and gas industry. . . . It seems very contrary to our 
     stated goal of being more energy sufficient in the United 
     States. Taxing this domestic industry will instead cut jobs 
     and increase our dependence on foreign oil. So I want you to 
     deliver that message again to the administration. We have 
     bipartisan opposition to increasing taxes on this industry.

  Senator Mark Begich from Alaska said:

       [The President's proposal] would cost thousands of jobs in 
     Alaska and across the country. Energy companies are among the 
     businesses investing and creating jobs at a time when our 
     country needs both. I will fight any measure to end these 
     incentives.

  It should be obvious that without these two Democrats coming in--I 
appreciate the fact they did. We are not going to be able to reduce the 
price of oil at the pumps by further taxing the oil and gas industry. 
It is ludicrous to even think that anyone would suggest we could 
increase taxes on the oil industry and gas industry and somehow we are 
going to have energy more available and are going to reduce the cost of 
gas at the pump.

[[Page 6887]]

  There is a way of doing this that I think is so simple. There is not 
a person in this country--certainly no one who serves in this body--
who, back during his or her elementary education, did not learn about 
supply and demand. Here we are in the United States of America sitting 
on more gas and oil than any other country in the world, and we are the 
only country that does not exploit its own natural resources. We are 
the only country. If we did, we would be completely independent from 
the Middle East. We would not have to go outside this continent to 
supply our needs.
  People say: If you do that, you start developing. Then it is going to 
take a long time. It is going to be maybe 8 or 10 years. That would be 
fine. They were saying that 8 or 10 years ago, and we could have done 
it then. That is not quite true because the economists have said that 
if we announce we are going to areas where we are not exploiting our 
resources--I am talking about the gulf, the east coast, the west coast, 
the North Slope in ANWR, Alaska. I am talking about the public lands 
where 83 percent of our public lands are off limits for drilling. If we 
were to announce today that we were going to open drilling and 
exploration and production in the United States of America, that price 
would drop tomorrow. It would drop immediately because people would 
know we are going to use our own resources.
  I hate to say this, but somebody has to say it. We have an 
administration that is so wrapped up in saying that one of these days, 
we are going to have to have all this green energy, and they themselves 
are on record saying they want to increase the price of oil and gas.
  Let's look at what happened.
  Alan Krueger with the Department of Treasury said:

       The administration believes that it is no longer sufficient 
     to address our nation's energy needs by finding more fossil 
     fuels.

  The Obama Treasury Department said:

       To the extent the lower tax rate encourages overproduction 
     of oil and gas, it is detrimental to long-term energy 
     security.

  Therefore, we want to do away with oil and gas.
  Here is the best one. President Obama's Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, 
said:

       Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of 
     gasoline to the levels in Europe.

  We have an administration that wants to increase the price of 
gasoline at the pumps to be comparable to Europe, which is between 
$7.50 and $8 a gallon. Obviously, people know this is true. It was not 
long ago that President Obama gave his energy speech. In his energy 
speech, he said there is all this abundance of clean gas we can use. 
Then at the end of the speech he said: But we have some problems in 
getting the gas out of the ground. He is talking about natural gas in 
this case, not about oil. I happened to give a response on one of the 
TV stations. He said he wants natural gas. At the same time, he says he 
wants to end hydraulic fracturing.
  Let me tell my colleagues about hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic 
fracturing started in the State of Oklahoma, my State, in 1948. It is a 
way of pumping fluids and water primarily into these tight formations. 
These tight formations mostly are down about 1 mile to 2 to 3 miles 
under the surface. That will allow them to go in and get the gas. We 
have enough natural gas to take care of our needs for the next 100 
years; we just need to use these systems. If we do away with hydraulic 
fracturing, then that means we are not going to be able to get any of 
the natural gas. We cannot produce 1 cubic foot of natural gas without 
using hydraulic fracturing. What did we find out last week? Secretary 
Chu is going to be in charge of a study to see how dangerous hydraulic 
fracturing is. This is the same guy who said that somehow we have to 
figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.
  I will only say this. We actually have three problems. We have the 
problem of, we have this abundance of resources we are not going after, 
and hydraulic fracturing. Then keep in mind that what we get, we have 
to refine. That is where the EPA comes in.
  I have stood at this podium for 9 years talking about the problems we 
have with cap and trade, the fact that we can't have a cap-and-trade 
system that is going to have the effect of costing the American 
people--the estimates are between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. 
That is supposedly for greenhouse gases.
  We had the Kyoto treaty back in the nineties, and then they tried 
seven different times on the Senate floor to pass legislation that 
would have the same type of cap and trade we would have had if we had 
become a party to and ratified the Kyoto treaty. The problem with that 
is, even if there are people out there--and there are. A very large 
percentage of the people in America, some 40 percent, believe that 
somehow greenhouse gases are causing catastrophic global warming. Even 
if that were true, which it is not, but if it were true, it does not 
make any difference what we do in the United States of America.
  I admire the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
Lisa Jackson, who was appointed by President Obama. Yes, she is way off 
in the leftwing. She is liberal and all of that. When you ask her a 
direct question, she gives an honest answer. She gave honest answers. I 
asked a question--I think at that time it was the Markey bill. It was 
one of the cap-and-trade bills. I said: In the event we were to pass a 
cap-and-trade bill in the United States, would that reduce emissions? 
Her response was, no, it will not, because that would only affect the 
United States of America.
  That is not where the problem is. The problem is in India, Mexico, 
and China. Right now, China is cranking out two coal-fired generating 
plants every week. It is going to continue there. In fact, one could 
argue that it would even be more expensive or more polluting--if one 
calls CO2 a pollution--because our jobs would go to places 
such as China where they do have this problem. They do not have any 
emissions control.
  We have the problem of refining the gas once we get it. I see my good 
friend is on the floor and is going to be speaking perhaps to the same 
issue. I only want to mention one thing. With regard to the cap-and-
trade agenda, since they are not able to get it passed, they are trying 
to do it through the Environmental Protection Agency through 
regulations.
  Lion Oil, based in El Dorado, AR, recently testified before the House 
Energy and Commerce Committee that it commenced a $2 million expansion 
of its El Dorado refinery in 2007, with 2,000 construction jobs, but 
its completion has since been stalled. As Lion Oil vice president Steve 
Cousins explained:

       The uncertainty and the potentiality of prohibitive costs 
     associated with possible cap-and-trade legislation and EPA's 
     greenhouse gas regulations were a critical factor leading us 
     to delay the completion of the expansion.

  What I am saying is, if we are--and I believe we are--going to break 
down this barrier and overcome this mentality that we should not be 
developing our own resources, then we also have to have a way of 
refining it. We can do it. It is within our reach. We can bring down 
the price of oil and gas and certainly gasoline at the pump by 
tomorrow. If we were to announce we were going to stop being the only 
country in the world that does not exploit its own resources, if we go 
after the oil and gas that is available in the gulf, the east coast, 
west coast, our public lands, as well as the North Slope of Alaska, we 
could be independent from any dependency on the Middle East. I believe 
the American people understand that point. It goes right back to our 
elementary school education. It is supply and demand. We have the 
supply in the United States of America. We have to open up that supply 
so we can use it, and obviously that would lower the price of gas at 
the pumps.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for 
his leadership on the Environment and

[[Page 6888]]

Public Works Committee. I am pleased to be back on that committee with 
him. I share very much the substance of his views about the need to 
produce more oil and gas. It keeps money in the United States, creates 
jobs in the United States, and creates tax revenues for the United 
States. Offshore oil and gas in our gulf produces billions of dollars 
for States and the Federal Government. Why we would want to produce oil 
and gas off Brazil and not produce it off our shore I do not know. I 
thank my colleague.

                          ____________________