Oil Crisis
September 27, 2000
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, this morning there was a meeting of the Joint Economic Committee on which I sit. The subject had to do with oil prices. I would like to report to my fellow Senators and any who may be watching on television some of the things we found out.The first thing that became clear was that the oil crisis that we are dealing with now did not occur in the last 60 days. It has been building for months. Indeed, the conditions have been building for years.
One of the things that I found distressing was a comment made by one member of the committee whose suggestion was that anyone who disagreed with what the President and the Vice President are currently proposing should be challenged with this question: What is your solution? And if the answer was you don't have an easy solution, then stop complaining about our solution.
I think that is an irresponsible reaction.
I quoted to the members of the committee a column that was written in the New York Times yesterday by Thomas L. Friedman. He is the foreign affairs commentator for the New York Times, not normally known--either Mr. Friedman or his newspaper--for their support of Republicans or for their disapproval of Democrats.
I found it a rather interesting column. I quoted some of this to my fellow committee members. I would like to quote from it here on the floor.
I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, the entire column be printed in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, Mr. Friedman is writing this column from Tokyo. It has a Tokyo byline on it. He starts out by saying:
It's interesting watching the American oil crisis/debate from here in Tokyo. The Japanese are cool as cucumbers today--no oil protests, no gas lines, no politicians making crazy promises. That's because Japan has been preparing for this day since the 1973 oil crisis by steadily introducing natural gas, nuclear power, high-speed mass transit and conservation, and thereby steadily reducing its dependence on foreign oil.
That is one of the key paragraphs in this entire piece, that for nearly 30 years now the Japanese have been steadily reducing their dependence on foreign oil. In the same period in the United States, we have been steadily increasing our dependence on foreign oil.
Look at the power sources Mr. Friedman refers to: Natural gas, nuclear power, high-speed transit, on the conservation side. I have been a supporter of high-speed transit ever since I came to the Senate. There are some people who have said: Senator, you come from the West. Why do you care about Amtrak? Why do you care about high-speed ground transportation in the Northeast corridor? I have said I care about it because it is part of the long-term solutions in the United States. Even as a Senator from Utah, I have sided with the Senators from New Jersey, the Senators from New York, and the Senators from Delaware in supporting Amtrak and high-speed ground transportation, in hoping to keep that form of transportation alive so we are not always on the highways.
Natural gas: There is an enormous amount of natural gas in the United States.
Nuclear power: We have not built a nuclear powerplant in this country since the oil crisis of 1973. There are those who say nuclear power cannot be built. I am a strong supporter of nuclear power.
Just because we have large supplies of natural gas, including large supplies of natural gas on Federal lands, public lands, doesn't mean we can use the natural gas to heat our homes. Why? Because natural gas on Federal lands is of no value. It must be explored for, it must be brought out of the ground, and then it must be transported, which means building pipelines, usually across Federal lands.
Once we realize, particularly in this administration, what the attitude has been, we begin to understand why Mr. Friedman can write this somewhat sarcastic column in Tokyo. This administration, for 8 years, has done everything it can to prevent the building of additional pipelines across Federal lands. They say, no, we don't want to do that; somehow it will despoil the Federal land if there is a pipeline under it. I stress "under it" because once a pipeline is in place, people who are out on that Federal land who love the wide open spaces will not be aware of the fact that the pipeline is there. The pipelines get buried, particularly natural gas pipelines, and the scenery is unaffected. It comes back quickly, in the age of the wide open spaces of the West, a few years, to recover from where a pipeline has been buried. It is nothing more than the blink of an eye in nature's time. This administration is opposed to pipelines.
Friedman goes on to tell us that America has failed to do the kind of exploration and conservation that the Japanese have done. He makes this comment:
Imagine if America had that sort of steely focus. Imagine, in fact, if at this time of soaring oil prices and endangered environments, America had a presidential candidate who could offer a realistic plan for how to preserve our earth in the balance.
Then Thomas Friedman goes on to make this comment, writing in the New York Times:
Wait a minute--that was supposed to be Al Gore, but in the heat of the campaign, Mr. Gore has shamelessly offered us instead a fly-by-night plan for putting America out of balance. The new Gore energy theory is to demonize the oil companies, tap into the Nation's strategic oil reserve--which only a few months ago he declared shouldn't be touched to manipulate prices --and talk about developing new magic energy-saving technologies that will create jobs in the swing states where Mr. Gore needs to get elected and will allow Americans to keep driving gas-guzzling big cars and indulging their same energy-consuming habits without pain.
I felt a little sense of satisfaction when I read that particular paragraph because I have just traded in my gas-guzzling car for one that will get 70 miles to the gallon on the highway. I am sorry to say that it is Japanese in its origin, but it is a lovely little car and I will be happy to give any Member of this body a ride in it at any point.
Back to the Friedman article, referring, again, to the Gore policy with respect to energy:
How nice! How easy! And how far from what's really required to free us from the grip of OPEC.
He goes on and describes what needs to be done and then makes this comment:
Mr. Gore knows this, but instead of laying it on the line he opted for an Olympic-quality, full-bodied pander--offering a quick-fix to garner votes and pain-free solutions for the future. Prime the pumps, pumps the polls and pay later. Don't get me wrong, tapping the strategic reserve makes some sense to ease the current distribution crisis--but doing it without also offering a real program for consuming less oil and finding more makes no sense at all.
I go back to the accusation made in this morning's committee hearing: you who are complaining about what the President is doing, have no solution yourselves, so stop complaining.
What Mr. Friedman is talking about illustrates what I and other Members of this body have been proposing as a solution for 8 years. For 8 years, we have been trying to increase the domestic supply of power. For 8 years, we have been on this floor asking this administration to allow us to drill more, to find more, to produce more so that we will have the supply when the demand comes. For 8 years, we have been sounding the alarm on the energy issue and we have been ignored by the President of the United States, or on those occasions where we have actually passed legislation, it has been vetoed by the President of the United States on the recommendation of the Vice President: No, we do not need to go after that vast pool of oil that is there in Alaska; It will despoil the environment.
The Senator from Alaska has pointed out if we compared this room to the Alaska Natural Wildlife Reserve or ANWR, say this room is the size of ANWR, the footprint of the drilling would be about the size of one of those decorative stars in the middle of the carpet. One could cover it entirely with a single piece of paper 8 1/2 by 11. That would be the total amount of impact on the entire room in the bill that this Congress has passed and that the President has vetoed--not once but twice.
Yet now when we say wait a minute, it is the action of this administration that has prevented America from having the oil supplies we need to deal with this crisis, we are told: you have no solution. We have had a solution and we have had it for years and it is the President and the Vice President who have stymied us.
I don't want to overdramatize this, but I will try to be a student of history. I feel a little like Winston Churchill who for years and years and years warned of the coming threat, and then when it happened, he had to say to his people: I have nothing to offer you but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.
That is overdramatic, and I do not want to overplay it. The point is, there is one thing to be complaining about this over and over and then there is another thing to come along and say: We are in a mess and you guys don't have any solution.
My senior colleague from Utah is here. I understand he has reserved the last 10 minutes before the vote so I shall terminate my comments.
I want to make it clear, the solution to the problem of high oil prices does not lie in short-term fixes. It does not lie in the kind of neat conclusions that Thomas Friedman talks about. It lies in long-term plans and long-term policies. That being the case, we are not going to get out of this anytime soon.
I leave you with this one conclusion that came out of the witnesses. They said this: If everything goes the very best that it can, if everything works according to our plans, home heating oil prices in New England this year will be substantially higher than they were last year. That is the best-case scenario.
I think those who should have seen the handwriting on the wall last year bear the responsibility for that situation and should not be let off the hook by just saying to us: Well, what's your solution?
We were not in charge. Those who were should bear the responsibility. I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, Sept. 26, 2000]
Candidate in the Balance (By Thomas L. Friedman)
It's interesting watching the American oil crisis/debate from here in Tokyo. The Japanese are cool as cucumbers today--no oil protests, no oil protests, no gas lines, no politicians making crazy promises. That's because Japan has been preparing for this day since the 1973 oil crisis by steadily introducing natural gas, nuclear power, high-speed mass transit and conservation, and thereby steadily reducing its dependence on foreign oil. And unlike the U.S., the Japanese never wavered from that goal by falling off the wagon and becoming addicted to S.U.V.'s--those they just make for the Americans.
Imagine if America had that sort of steely focus. Imagine, in fact, if at this time of soaring oil prices and endangered environments, America had a presidential candidate who could offer a realistic plan for how to preserve our earth in the balance.
Wait a minute--that was supposed to be Al Gore, but in the heat of the campaign Mr. Gore has shamelessly offered us instead a fly-by-night plan for putting America out of balance. The new Gore energy theory is to demonize the oil companies, tap into the nation's strategic oil reserve--which only a few months ago he declared shouldn't be touched to manipulate prices--and talk about developing new magic energy-saving technologies that will create jobs in the swing states where Mr. Gore needs to get elected and will allow Americans to keep driving gas-guzzling big cars and indulging their same energy-consuming habits without pain.
How nice! How easy! And how far from what's really required to free us from the grip of OPEC. Here is how we got into this pickle, which you won't hear from Mr. Gore:
OPEC came along in the 1970's and pushed the crude oil price up too far too fast, and it created a global economic slowdown, triggered both energy conservation and widespread new exploration outside of OPEC. The result was an oversupply of oil from 1981 to 1998--culminating in 1998 with oil falling to $10 a barrel, when the glut coincided with Asia's economic crisis.
This cheap oil lulled us into retreating from conservation, and was like a huge tax cut. And because it coincided with the technology revolution, it added to the booming U.S. economy, which helped fuel a world economic recovery. But this boom eventually stretched OPEC's capacity for quality oil, used up most of the world's oil tankers and once again pushed up prices. As such, today we either have to start to consume less oil--by shrinking our S.U.V.'s, raising gasoline taxes and again taking conservation seriously--or find more non-OPEC oil, which means figuring out how to tap more of Alaska's huge natural gas reserves without spoiling Alaska's pristine environment. Or else we pay the price.
Mr. Gore knows this, but instead of laying it on the line he opted for an Olympic-quality, full-body pander--offering a quick fix to garner votes, and pain-free solutions for the future. Prime the pumps, pump the polls and pay later. Don't get me wrong, tapping the strategic reserve makes some sense to ease the current distribution crisis--but doing it without also offering a real program for consuming less oil and finding more makes no sense at all.
It's also dangerous. Another name for the Gore strategy would be "The Saddam Hussein Rehabilitation Act of 2000." Because tapping into the strategic reserve, without conservation or exploration, only guarantees OPEC's dominance. And when the oil market remains tight, it means that Saddam is in an ideal position to hold America hostage. Any time he threatens to take any of his oil off the market, he can make the price soar.
Mr. Gore's oil pander also reminds many Democrats of what it is that bothers them about the vice president. Many Democrats really are not wild about him, yet they know they have to vote for him over Mr. Bush. They would at least like to feel good about that vote.
But when you hear Mr. Gore bleating that "I will work for the day when we are free forever of the dominance of big oil and foreign oil"--without leveling with Americans that the only way to do that is by us consuming less and drilling more--you just want to cover your ears. Surely Mr. Gore is better than that. Surely Gore supporters are entitled to expect more from him. I guess all they can hope for now is that he will show more spine and intellectual honesty as a president than he has as a candidate. You really start to wonder, though.
