A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should communicate to the members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries ('OPEC') cartel and non-OPEC countries that participate in the cartel of crude oil producing countries the position of the United States in favor of increasing world crude oil supplies so as to achieve stable crude oil prices.

Mr. President, in the last few days, the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia has said--and it has been widely reported by our country's two largest wire services--that Saudi Arabia was not contacted by the Bush administration over OPEC's recent decision to cut oil production by 1 million barrels per day. I was very troubled by these comments by the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia. I want to read specifically what the Saudi Foreign Minister said when he was asked whether the United States had expressed its disappointment over OPEC's cut in oil production. The Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia said:

I didn't hear from the Bush administration. I'm hearing it

from you that they are disappointed.

This ought to be troubling to every Member of the Senate. Up and down the west coast of the United States, our constituents are getting mugged by high gasoline prices. In community after community, citizens are paying more than $1.90 a gallon. The high driving season is just upon us, and escalating gasoline prices are going to be devastating to consumers and to our economy overall. We all understand consumer spending is a major driver of our economy today, and it is going to be harder and harder to grow the economy and create private sector jobs if these gasoline prices continue to skyrocket.

I am hopeful my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support the resolution I have introduced urging that OPEC increase production. The reason I am hopeful for bipartisan support is that this resolution, in terms of its substance, is identical to one introduced on February 28, 2000, with our current Secretary of Energy, our friend, Spence Abraham, as one of the principal sponsors. Back then it was clear that our colleagues thought it was important, and we had a number of our colleagues who serve today, our friend Senator Grassley, distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Santorum, and others, all of whom said--and I share their view--that it is important for every administration to put the heat on OPEC in order to protect our consumers. It was important then to make it clear that it was the position of the U.S. Senate that OPEC boost oil production, and it is just as clear now.

At the time that resolution was adopted in March 2000, a resolution sponsored by then-Senators Abraham and Ashcroft, oil prices were in the $25-per-barrel range with a high of $27 per barrel in February of 2000. In recent weeks, oil prices have been in the range of $35 per barrel, spiking up to $38, a 13-year high, last month.

In 2000, then-candidate George W. Bush said it was important to put pressure on OPEC to boost oil production. I certainly share his sentiments. Yet with the comments of the Saudi Foreign Minister last week, it is clear that at best, there has not been a full court press in this administration on Saudi Arabia, on OPEC in order to increase gasoline production.

If ever there were an administration that had earned some bargaining chips to push Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, it is this administration. After 9/11, there was an effort to help the Saudis, a number of them, leave our country. When there was concern about charities and the role that charities had played in financing 9/11, it

was difficult to get key Government documents declassified.

The fact is that Saudi Arabia keeps getting a free pass again and again. On this issue with respect to oil production, if ever there were an administration that had some bargaining chips to play in trying to get OPEC and the Saudis to increase oil production, it is certainly this administration. Now the Saudi Foreign Minister has said, just after OPEC announced another million-barrel-per-day production cut, it was not even contacted by the Bush administration to keep oil production high.

There are other troubling signs which have led me to introduce this resolution. When Secretary Powell was in Saudi Arabia about 2 weeks ago, he also had a chance to talk about the oil crunch and how it is so harmful to the American consumer. The press release that came from the U.S. Information Agency--this is another document coming from our Government--indicated that the Secretary and the Crown Prince and Foreign Minister talked about a number of subjects--terrorism, governmental reforms, a variety of issues--but not the question of oil prices and keeping oil production high.

I have said that OPEC is going to stand up for OPEC. Anybody who thinks OPEC is going to stand up for the American consumer thinks Colonel Sanders is going to stand up for the chickens. OPEC is doing what they think is in their self-interest. If you think they are going to stand up for the consumer, it is a delusion; it is not going to happen. But it is the job of our administration, just as it was in 2000, to stick up for the consumer who is getting clobbered with these gasoline prices.

When the Saudi Foreign Minister says he hasn't even been contacted on this question of boosting oil production, I say that is not good enough. That is not good enough, given the harm it has done to our economy and our consumers by these gasoline price hikes. It is certainly not good enough for the people of Oregon, where consistently we have paid some of the highest gasoline prices in our country.

The American people are entitled to some answers. Certainly, they are entitled to an administration, just as they were in 2000, that does what then-Governor George W. Bush says was important, and that was to push OPEC, put the heat on OPEC, have a full court press on OPEC to increase oil production. Instead, what we have learned from the Saudi Foreign Minister in recent days is that the administration has essentially sat on its hands with respect to this oil production issue.

I will tell you, I think what is coming on this gasoline situation is a perfect storm. The combination of the shenanigans by OPEC--the fact that we are filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at the wrong time, swiping oil from the private market, squirreling it away in the reserve at a time when we have enough for our national security needs; the fact that the Federal Trade Commission is not following up on anticompetitive practices--are the factors that are going to come together for a perfect storm with respect to this gasoline issue.

I think it is critically important this Senate go on record on an issue we can do something about, just as we did in 2000 when we were led by a number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in making an effort to boost oil production. We ought to do the same now and stand up for the American consumer.

I have introduced S. Res. 330, and I ask unanimous consent that Senator Carper, Senator Graham of Florida, and Senator Daschle be added as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I also want to make sure our colleagues understand the timetable that is behind my resolution. On February 28, 2000, then-Senators Ashcroft and Abraham introduced a resolution calling on President Clinton to pressure OPEC to boost oil production before an OPEC meeting. That resolution passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

On June 22, 2000, then-candidate George Bush said:

I would hope the administration would convince our friends

at OPEC to open the spigots.

On February 10, 2004, our current Secretary of Energy said:

[It is] very clear we are not going to beg OPEC for oil.

On April 1 of this year, at a White House press briefing by Scott McClellan, he said:

Let me just continue to reiterate that we remain actively

engaged in discussions with our friends at OPEC. . . . We

continue to make our view known. The President certainly

makes his views known when he meets with world leaders

and when he talks with world leaders. High-level

administration officials from Dr. Rice to Secretary Powell

to Secretary Abraham are always in close contact with

producers around the world to make our views known. And we

continue to do so.

But given that timeline, on April 1 of this year--just a few days ago--the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia said he had not been contacted by the Bush administration over OPEC's decision to cut crude production by 1 million barrels a day. The Saudi Foreign Minister said:

I didn't hear from the Bush administration. I am hearing it

from you that they are disappointed.

That is a direct quote from the Saudi Foreign Minister. We have to have an administration that puts the heat on OPEC, that pushes them to increase oil production and, just as the Senate said in 2000, we ought to say it in 2004.

So given what I have just outlined, I now ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 330, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should communicate to the members of OPEC and non-OPEC countries that participate in the cartel of crude oil- producing countries the position of the United States in favor of increasing world crude oil supplies so as to achieve stable crude oil prices; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the resolution and the preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, what is troubling about the objection of our distinguished colleague from Texas is that this resolution is, in its substance, identical to the resolution that was offered by those on the other side of the aisle in 2000. It is interesting that when I came to the floor first to discuss this resolution, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, our friend Senator McConnell, said that certainly if we applied a set of principles to the Clinton administration, we can look at it as it relates to the Bush administration. That is exactly what I am doing.

I will tell you, I listened to all of the arguments for the Bush administration's position. We hear about ``quiet diplomacy,'' for example. Maybe it is quiet diplomacy, but apparently the Bush administration's brand of diplomacy was inaudible to the Saudi royal family. So I cannot understand why there would be an objection from the other side with respect to this resolution.

We have the Saudi Foreign Minister saying he had not been contacted by the Bush administration. I outlined the specific timeline of events between 2000 and 2004 that makes the case, in my view, why every Member of the Senate should want to support this resolution, which in terms of its substance is identical to the one passed in 2000. So I think it is very unfortunate that there has been an objection. I note that there has. I hope we will be able to take it up as expeditiously as possible.

Of course.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, first, the Energy bill would do absolutely nothing over the next few months to lower these gasoline prices. What will help to lower the prices is passing this resolution and pushing OPEC to increase crude oil production. In fact, Republicans have even asked, with respect to the Energy bill, what it would do to gasoline prices. There is no evidence that it will lower prices.

This resolution does something in conjunction with making sure we stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, making sure the Federal Trade Commission deals with these anticompetitive practices.

This resolution can make a difference by pushing OPEC to stand up for the consumer. It was good enough in 2000 when a number of our colleagues, led by current Secretary of Energy Abraham, said it made sense. I submit this is something, unlike the Energy bill, which can make a difference for the gasoline consumers getting hosed at the pump right now.

For that reason, I think it is unfortunate my colleagues have objected. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Reuters news service is reporting that Saudi Arabia, and their Foreign Minister specifically, have said in the last day or so they have not been contacted by the Bush administration over OPEC's decision to cut oil production once again. As a result, today I am introducing a resolution urging the President communicate to OPEC that oil production be increased, and I intend next week to ask for its immediate consideration.

I am very troubled by the comments of the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia. In fact, what Reuters has reported is the Saudi Foreign Minister was asked whether the United States had expressed its disappointment over OPEC's cut in production and the Saudi Foreign Minister said at the time:

I didn't hear from this Bush administration. I'm hearing it

from you that they are disappointed.

This is very troubling. Up and down the west coast of the United States our constituents are getting mugged by high oil prices. We have to have an administration that is willing to put some heat on OPEC to step up oil production at a critical time, particularly as we move in this country to the high driving season. These high gasoline prices are devastating to consumers. They are going to be very harmful to our economy overall, particularly job production. It is consumer spending that is driving the Oregon economy, and if we continue to see our consumers shellacked with these high gasoline prices, it is going to be harder and harder for us to create family wage jobs and generate business growth.

I am hopeful my colleagues will support this resolution I am introducing today and which I am going to ask for immediate consideration of next week. The reason I am hopeful for such bipartisan support is this resolution, in terms of its substance, is identical to one introduced on February 28 of 2000, with our current Secretary of Energy, our friend Spencer Abraham, as one of the principal sponsors. Back then it was clear our colleagues thought it was important, particularly with influential Senators on the other side. Then the Senator from Michigan, Senator Abraham, also the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, Senator Santorum, and a number of our distinguished colleagues were cosponsors of that legislation. The feeling was then it was important to put some heat on OPEC. It was important to make it clear it was the position of the Senate that OPEC boost production.

Of course, that is what then-candidate George W. Bush said, that it was important to boost oil production. Yet with the comments of the Saudi Foreign Minister in the last day or so, I think it is very clear at best it is not a case of getting a full court press, in terms of this administration, on Saudi Arabia and on OPEC.

I will tell you, if ever there was an administration that had some bargaining chips to play with Saudi Arabia in terms of boosting oil production, it is certainly this administration. If you look at what happened after 9/11, in terms of people being helped out of the country, various issues with respect to declassifying Government documents, it is very clear Saudi Arabia has been treated pretty darned well by this administration. If ever there was an administration that had some bargaining chips to play in terms of trying to get OPEC to increase oil production, it is certainly this administration. Yet the Saudi Foreign Minister has said, just in the last day, he wasn't even contacted by the Bush administration with respect to oil production.

Let me also say there are some other troubling signs, and why I feel so strongly about the Senate next week passing the resolution I am introducing. When Secretary Powell was in Saudi Arabia about 2 weeks ago, he also had a chance to talk about the oil crunch and how it is so harmful to American consumers. The press release that came from the U.S. Information Agency--this is again another document coming from our Government--indicated the Secretary and the Crown Prince and Foreign Minister talked about a variety of subjects, terrorism and governmental reforms, but nothing was said about oil prices. What we have, and I have said this before, is OPEC is going to stick up for OPEC. OPEC is not going to stick up for the American consumer. If you think OPEC is going to stick up for the American consumer, then you think Colonel Sanders is going to stick up for the chickens. It is not going to happen. It is the job of our administration to stick up for the consumer, and when the Saudi Foreign Minister says he hasn't even been contacted, that he heard from reporters the administration was disappointed, that is not good enough. It is not good enough for my constituents where consistently we are paying some of the highest prices for gasoline in our country, where we faced anticompetitive practices like redlining and zone pricing for years. It is not good enough where you have a situation such as we have in Bakersfield, CA, where a very large refinery has been closed. They didn't even look for a buyer. There is a lot of oil in the area.

The American people are entitled to some answers. They are certainly entitled to an administration that does what then-Governor George W. Bush said was important, and that was to fight for the consumer, to push OPEC to increase production. Instead, what we learned from the Saudi Foreign Minister is the administration has essentially just sat on its hands.

I was following the remarks of the Senator from Kentucky a bit ago. He makes the point, and it is certainly one that makes sense to me, that what is good for then-President Clinton should be good for President Bush. What I say to my friend is the same principle ought to be applied when it comes to a Senate resolution on OPEC and high oil and gasoline prices.

I hope we will have a good debate in the Senate in the days ahead with respect to our policy as it relates to OPEC and oil production. A number of

our distinguished colleagues were there when this resolution was considered earlier: Senator Grassley, Senator Santorum, our current Secretary of Energy, a good friend of mine, Senator Abraham. I also note the distinguished Presiding Officer of the Senate, Senator Chafee, was also a cosponsor of that resolution.

I am hopeful we will be able to do as the Senator from Kentucky said and that is apply the same principle to this administration as was applied to the Clinton administration. Every administration ought to be pushing OPEC to increase oil production. We certainly ought to take action when the Saudi oil minister was saying he wasn't even contacted.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article from the Reuters news service. The title of this article is ``Saudi Says Not Heard From Bush Over OPEC Oil Cut.''

Mr. President, I will be back on the floor in the days ahead to talk about this critical question. It seems to me what is coming in this country on this oil issue is a perfect storm. The combination of the fact this administration is unwilling to push OPEC over its production cuts, the fact the Federal Trade Commission is unwilling to do anything about these anticompetitive practices or even investigate this refinery closure in Bakersfield, which has great implications for the west coast, all of these factors are coming together to create what I believe is a perfect storm for the gasoline consumer in this country. Given that consumer spending is what is driving our economy right now, we cannot afford to have these high gasoline prices continue or, as I fear, escalate to $3 a gallon.

We will continue to focus on the question of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, swiping oil out of the private sector and squirreling it away into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a time when it already has a very high level and national security questions are being addressed. But that is not the focus of my comments today. The focus of my comments today is every Member of the Congress ought to be very troubled when the Saudi Foreign Minister says he wasn't contacted by the administration over these production cuts.

We ought to do as was done in 2000 when the Senate, led by a number of our distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle who moved ahead on a resolution to boost oil production by OPEC. We ought to do the same now and stand up for the American consumer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to express my support for S. Res. 330, which expresses the sense of the Senate that the President should communicate to the members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, cartel and non-OPEC countries the position of the United States in favor of increasing world crude oil supplies so as to achieve stable crude oil prices.

I am proud to again be a cosponsor of this resolution. In the 106th Congress, I was a cosponsor of a virtually identical resolution along with, among others, the current Secretary of the Department of Energy. Unfortunately, the need to stand up to OPEC is even more pressing today than it was two Congresses ago.

Ensuring access to and stable prices for imported crude oil for the United States and major allies and trading partners of the United States is vital to United States foreign and economic policy. Regrettably, the 2004 OPEC production cuts have resulted in outrageous increases in oil prices. The eleven countries that make up OPEC produce 40 percent of the world's crude oil and control three-quarters of proven reserves, including much of the spare production capacity. When OPEC instituted its production cut in February 2004, it reduced production by 2,000,000 barrels per day. From February to March 2004, crude oil prices have gone from $28 per barrel and now exceed $38 per barrel.

High gasoline prices are inextricably linked to high crude oil prices. And these high oil and gas prices hurt Americans across the Nation and from all walks of life. Farmers, teachers and small business owners are among those getting hit hard by these skyrocketing costs. For gasoline, the increases in crude oil prices have resulted in a pass-through of cost increases at the pump to an average national price of $1.80 per gallon. These are the highest gas prices we have seen in 13 years.

We cannot allow this foreign oil cartel to wreak havoc on our economy. The President should use diplomatic pressure to urge OPEC to increase production. The actions of this cartel have real consequences for Americans. And in an already shaky economy, high oil and gas prices can put working families over the financial edge.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this resolution has recently gone to the committee. It needs to go through the process. I certainly empathize with many of the things the Senator from Oregon has propounded. However, I must respectfully object.

Will the Senator yield for an answer to his question?

Mr. President, with all due respect, I do sympathize with much of what the Senator from Oregon has said, and I am frustrated as well. But I think it is important that the Senator recognize we do have a process; that this is 2004; it is not 2000; and it is not 2002.

Furthermore, I say to the Senator from Oregon that we have many ways

to increase the supply of oil in our country. Passing the Energy bill that has already passed the Senate, that went to conference and was held up by the Democratic side by two votes would give us the supply that we need to lower the cost of fuel in our country. We have at our disposal the capability to lower prices.

Mr. President, I think it is incumbent upon all of us not to just look at the cartel that is OPEC, but to look at our own resources and to control our own resources. We have the capability to do that and we are not because of the obstructionism on the Democratic side.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Wyden for up to 15 minutes and Senator Sessions for up to 15 minutes.

Senator Corzine for 10 minutes.