Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act -- Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

GAS PRICES

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about something that is on the minds of people in my home State of Wyoming and people across the country, the high cost of gasoline. When I filled up on Sunday evening in Wyoming and on Monday morning on the way to the airport I noticed that the price of gasoline in Wyoming was 10 cents higher per gallon than it was Sunday night when I filled the tank. I am heading back this weekend, later today, to Wyoming, and we will see what the cost of a gallon of gasoline will be. I know absolutely that the price of diesel fuel is much higher, almost by a dollar a gallon, than the price of regular unleaded gasoline.

I think it is something that is happening all across the country because even in this morning's New York Times, Thursday, March 1, 2012, on the front page, a headline reads ``Tensions Raise Specter of Gas At $5 a Gallon.'' That is on the front page of the New York Times. It says, ``Gasoline for $5 a gallon? The possibility is hardly far-fetched.''

It goes on to say:

With no clear end to tensions with Iran and Syria and rising demand from countries like China, gas prices are already at record highs for the winter months--averaging $4.32 in California and $3.73 a gallon nationally on Wednesday, according to the AAA's Daily Fuel Gauge Report. As summer approaches, demand for gasoline rises, typically pushing prices up.

Again, ``no clear end to tensions in Iran and Syria and rising demand from countries like China. .....''

It is interesting because, obviously, China is the country that told the Prime Minister from Canada recently: We will buy all that extra oil you have that apparently the President of the United States isn't interested in, as he continues to block the Keystone XL Pipeline.

That is what the American public is facing today, rising prices and an administration that continues to block access to an important source of safe, secure energy, as opposed to sending so much money overseas. Here we are with high gasoline prices, which is continuing to cause additional hardship for American families and American businesses. When families pay more at the pump, it impacts the quality of their lives. Families are dealing with mortgages, goods and services, and their kids as they continue to see the money going to fill the tank. This also hurts economic growth and our ability to create jobs.

When companies pay more for gasoline, they have less money to expand their businesses and create new jobs. Wyoming families and businesses know this all too well because in Wyoming we drive longer distances than most Americans. The President also knows this impacts the economy. That is why he continues to give speeches on energy.

It is clear the President is defensive on this issue, and it is understandable because the average price of gasoline, regular unleaded, the day he became President--today it is 103 percent higher, over double what it was the day President Obama took office just 3 years ago. Again, the price of gasoline is 103 percent higher than the day the President took office.

There are a lot of factors at play. What this does show is that the President's policies are at best ineffectual; at worst they are contributing to the higher gas prices. People on both sides of the aisle know this and are hearing it at home. This week, actually, one Senate Democrat wrote to the Obama administration and pointed this out. Specifically, he pointed out that these are ``the highest prices we have ever seen for this time of year.''

Unfortunately, that Senate Democrat's solution is to request that Saudi Arabia produce more oil. I will repeat that. His solution is to have the Secretary of State ask Saudi Arabia to produce more oil.

Of course, the President is also considering other proposals as well. Like asking Saudi Arabia to produce more oil, the President's ideas would put national security at risk. There I am referring to the President's threat to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This will be the second time that President Obama has tapped the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Prior to the President's decision to do that last June, it had only been tapped twice for emergencies since 1975. So between 1975 and 2011, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve had only been tapped twice for emergencies--in 1991 upon the outbreak of the Persian Gulf war and then again more recently following Hurricane Katrina.

In both of these instances we are talking about actual supply disruption. However, when President Obama tapped the Reserve last year, there was no substantial prospect of a supply disruption. The decision was based on politics, as would be the decision this time. That is why Jay Leno, earlier this week during his nightly television show, called the Strategic Petroleum Reserve President Obama's strategic ``reelection'' reserve.

A number of my colleagues and I think there are other

ways to address high gasoline prices. We understand the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is for emergencies, not political disasters.

It is interesting because just earlier today, the House minority leader Nancy Pelosi endorsed tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve--not because of an emergency or a crisis or supply disruption, but she says ``to combat rising gas prices.''

There is only so much oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The amount that was taken last year was never put back in to fill the tank. The amount taken out last year was sold. If we use that money to fill the tank, it is not enough--almost $1 billion more this year to fill the tank than what they got for selling what they took out last year.

So we have a tank at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that is not full, still waiting to be filled from what was taken from it last year. Now, here we are a year later, and the President, as well as Nancy Pelosi, is considering tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve again, drawing it down again, making us that much more vulnerable in case of a true emergency.

The President actually has some options that make a lot of sense to a lot of Americans. An option, of course, is to increase American energy production. The President can begin to follow through on his words in Miami a week or so ago, when he said, ``I'll do whatever I can to develop every source of American energy.''

The President can provide more access to Federal lands and waters. This week we learned the oil and gas production on Federal public lands and public waters is down. In 2011 there was a 14-percent decrease in oil production on public lands and water from 2010--less energy produced in Federal lands and waters. There was an 11-percent decrease in gas production from 2010.

In Miami, the President said he has ``directed my administration to look at every single area where we can make an impact and help consumers in the months ahead, [including] permitting. .....''

Again, the President needs to follow through on his words. He can begin by increasing the number of permits issued for development in the Gulf of Mexico. I understand that the administration has issued only 21 permits so far this year. In 2010 the administration issued 32 permits by this time.

The President can also increase access to other offshore areas. He can provide access to offshore areas in the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, not just the Gulf of Mexico. In November he proposed an offshore leasing plan that excluded the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. What kind of offshore leasing plan is that? The President excluded areas off the coast of Virginia, even though both Senators and the Governor of Virginia supported such energy exploration. The President said no.

The President can also increase access to onshore areas. The President can open areas in Alaska, and he can support proposals to open ANWR. Both Senators from Alaska--one Republican and one Democrat--and the Governor strongly support opening ANWR for exploration. The President should too. The President should also take steps to facilitate onshore exploration in the West. Specifically, he should scrap new regulations requiring what is called ``master leasing and development plans.''

These regulations were put into place over 2 years ago by the Secretary of the Interior. It is unclear why the Secretary issued such regulations. They add more redtape and cause more bureaucratic delay and slow down American energy production.

Of course, there are other regulations that drive up the cost of American energy--specifically, the EPA's forthcoming tier III regulations which will affect America's refineries. A recent study says this rule could increase the cost of manufacturing gasoline, which will add to what Americans are paying at the pump and will add to the pain at the pump.

They could also raise operating costs for refineries by anywhere from $5 billion to $13 billion a year. They could force as many as seven U.S. refineries to shut down and could lead to a 7- to 14-percent reduction in gasoline supplies for American refineries. These policies, by this administration, are completely unacceptable. The President should, at the very least, delay the issuance of this current rule.

In addition to providing more access to Federal lands and Federal waters and eliminating burdensome regulations, the President should follow through on his words--his words--and address what he called delivery bottlenecks. Specifically, he should address the bottlenecks the Keystone XL Pipeline would relieve. I am referring to 100,000 barrels of oil a day that the pipeline would be able to ship from Montana and North Dakota.

That is right; we are talking about homegrown American energy. Of course, the President ought to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline coming in from Canada. It is North American oil from Canada but specific and significant amounts of oil--100,000 barrels a day--from Montana and North Dakota. Right now, there isn't sufficient pipeline capacity out of North Dakota and Montana. They are shipping the oil on trucks and trains, and that is much more expensive than shipping it by pipeline. Approving the Keystone XL Pipeline is an easy decision and the President should make this decision immediately.

It was interesting today to see in Politico--one of the local papers on Capitol Hill--an article quoting Bill Clinton as saying, ``We should embrace'' the Keystone XL. The first sentence of the article says:

Bill Clinton says it is time to build the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Perhaps President Obama ought to listen to President Clinton.

Finally, the President says there are no silver bullets. That doesn't mean the President should sit on the sidelines. It doesn't mean his only options are asking Saudi Arabia to boost production or opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The President needs to promote American energy production. He can eliminate costly regulations and he can approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. Those are the steps the President needs to take, and he needs to do that in the very near future because I believe we are going to continue to see headlines such as the one in today's New York Times: ``Tensions Raise Specter of Gas at $5 a Gallon.''

With that, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source