Jeff Bingaman United States Senator from New Mexico

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me take up to 5 minutes at this point. If the Chair will advise me when that 5 minutes has been used, I would appreciate it.

We have two votes coming up related to energy. The first is on the McConnell amendment, which is a compilation of various provisions that relate to energy but, I argue, do not hold out much promise for affecting the price of oil or gas. Following that, we have the vote on the proposal that is put forward by the majority leader, Senator Reid, with regard to suspending the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the balance of this year.

I will be voting against the first amendment and voting for the second amendment. I hope my colleagues will do so as well. Let me give the reasons why I think we should vote against the Republican leader's amendment.

First, the Republican leader's amendment doesn't do anything to deal with the issue of speculation in oil markets. We have had testimony repeatedly before our Senate Energy Committee that speculation in these markets is a significant factor contributing to the $126-per-barrel price of oil we are seeing today. So if someone is concerned--as all of us are--about energy, consumers, and the burden that is being place upon them, then dampening speculation in these markets should be high on our list of work to be done. It is not in the Republican leader's amendment.

Of course, the amendment he proposes also doesn't do anything with regard to the weakening of the U.S. dollar, anything with our fiscal policies. Yesterday, I went into a discussion about how that is contributing to the increase in the price of oil. I think most economists would agree with that.

The second reason I would oppose the Republican leader's amendment is that it misses the boat on how to promote more supply. The argument being used is the assumption within the amendment that the way to promote more supply is we need to open more areas for drilling.

And particularly we need to open the east coast of the United States for drilling offshore on the Outer Continental Shelf, we need to open the west coast offshore on the Outer Continental Shelf, and we need to open a portion of ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

As I say, I think it misses the key issue in that we are opening additional areas for drilling at a pretty rapid rate in the onshore areas of the United States where oil and gas production occurs and in the offshore areas. But additional leases by themselves are not going to make a difference to consumers either in the near term or the medium term. What we need to be focused on is how we can promote more diligent development. Nearly three-quarters of what we have leased domestically onshore is not now being produced. A little over three-quarters of what we have leased offshore is not being produced, and that is what we should be concentrating on--how do we build in incentives for actual production in areas we have, in fact, leased.

Finally, with respect to future lease sales, the Republican leader's amendment leaves out the most promising area, and that is the area in the gulf coast, particularly the area we have still not opened in the original lease sale 181 area of the gulf coast. This is something we clearly should be addressing as well.

As I say, the second vote is going to be on the proposal to suspend the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. A version of that is in the Republican leader's amendment, as well as being proposed by Senator Reid. I hope we will get a very strong bipartisan vote for that provision.

I do think it is prudent to turn down this compilation of various energy-related provisions that has been put forward by the Republican leader with the claim that it is going to bring down the price of gas. It simply will not.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.