[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 34 (Thursday, March 23, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1661-S1662]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      OIL PRICES AND ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to talk this afternoon about this 
country's overall energy policy or, more truthfully, to talk about the 
lack of this country's overall energy policy.
  With fuel prices continuing their rise to levels that threaten 
farmers, truckers, families, and, in fact, our entire economy, I felt I 
needed to come to the Senate floor for a few minutes to discuss this 
very important issue.
  As my colleagues know, I come from a rural State that is heavily 
dependent on agriculture. When farmers in Minnesota are hurting, it has 
an impact on businesses, on families, and individuals far removed from 
the fields of our family farms. Because Minnesota is a large State and 
so heavily reliant upon agriculture, it is also reliant upon truckers 
to move products to market and to bring products to communities. It is 
also important to note that Minnesota is well known as one of our 
Nation's coldest States, a State where many residents rely on fuel oil 
to heat their homes. These realities are a few examples of why crude 
oil prices and supplies are so important to the people of my State. 
They are also examples of why, since coming to the Congress in 1993, I 
have been a strong critic of the Department of Energy's failure to 
strengthen our Nation's energy policies.
  In the late 1970s, our Nation responded to the energy crisis by 
creating the Department of Energy and charging it with developing a 
stable energy policy that would decrease our reliance on foreign 
sources of energy. At the time, our Nation was reliant on foreign oil 
for about 35 percent of our needs. When DOE was created, with its 
charge to create an energy policy to make us more energy independent, 
our reliance on foreign fuels was 35 percent. Despite the countless 
billions of dollars taxpayers have invested in the Department of Energy 
over the past two decades, our Nation is now roughly 60 percent reliant 
on foreign energy sources, and that reliance is growing and growing 
rapidly.
  That's one of the reasons why I'm an original cosponsor of S. Res. 
263, which calls on both the administration and Congress to undertake 
steps which will lead to a long-term reduction of our reliance on 
foreign sources of energy. Among those steps, the resolution calls on 
the administration to review all programs, policies, and regulations 
that place an undue burden on domestic oil and gas producers. I believe 
this is an important aspect of the DOE's failure to reduce reliance on 
foreign energy sources. Sadly, this administration's opposition to 
virtually all exploration and production activities on public lands has 
rendered our nation's domestic producers incapable of responding to 
supply shortages. That is why we are in the position we are in today. 
In fact, since 1992, U.S. oil production has been reduced by 17% while 
our consumption of oil has increased by 14%. In 1990, U.S. jobs in oil 
and gas exploration and production were roughly 405,000--today those 
jobs have been reduced to roughly 290,000 a 27% decline in jobs in 
energy-related fields. In 1990, the United States was home to 657 
working oil rigs. Today, there are only 153 working oil rigs scattered 
across the Nation--a decline of 77 percent; again, a reason the United 
States did not respond to shortages in supply. During a recent hearing 
before the Senate Budget Committee, I asked Energy Secretary Bill 
Richardson if he would consider supporting the exploration of the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which is estimated to hold 
enough oil to offset 30 years of imports from Saudi Arabia. In his 
response, he indicated that he believes we have sufficient areas for 
exploration on federal lands without developing ANWR. We have 
opportunities, he says, to go onto other Federal lands and do the 
exploration. If we do, the question is, Why haven't we? If that is the 
case, then why has the Clinton administration failed to move forward in 
allowing expanded exploration and production activity on those Federal 
lands instead of leaving us vulnerable to the OPEC nations?
  Why has this administration waited until an oil price crisis has 
gripped our nation before suggesting increased development of domestic 
oil and gas reserves on public lands? Why does this administration 
still maintain it's opposition to exploring our nation's most promising 
oil reserves like ANWR? And why does this administration maintain 
opposition to exploration in the United States based on environmental 
considerations but has no reservations about calling on other nations 
to do so?
  For some reason, this administration seems to believe that it is an 
environmentally friendly proposition to expect other nations to produce 
our oil for us. The United States has some of the most stringent 
environmental standards for oil exploration and production--standards 
that aren't embraced by many of the oil producing nations of the world. 
I simply cannot see how sending our nation's energy secretary across 
the world to beg for increased oil production every time we have a 
supply problem is sound energy, economic, or environmental policy. I do 
not connect the two.
  I believe it's also important to note that this administration is 
currently engaged in a number of other activities that severely limit 
our nation's ability to increase our energy independence. First, this 
administration's failure to remove nuclear waste from civilian nuclear 
reactors threatens to shut down nuclear power plants across the 
country. In Minnesota, the DOE's inaction may force the premature 
closure of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Facility. If it should 
close, Minnesota will lose 20% of its generation capacity. At the same 
time, this administration is attempting to breach hydropower dams in 
the Pacific Northwest--dams that are crucial to the energy needs of 
that region. In each of these situations, consumers will be forced to 
rely more heavily upon fossil fuels to replace the loss of clean energy 
technologies. As if that weren't enough abuse of America's energy 
consumers, the Clinton administration has undertaken a number of 
activities that have severely impacted the ability of utilities to turn 
to coal-fired plants to meet the energy demands of consumers. And I 
need not remind any of my colleagues of the lack

[[Page S1662]]

of infrastructure in our nation to dramatically increase our use of 
natural gas as a reliable, base-load source capable of replacing 
hydropower, nuclear, and coal-fired generation.
  What continues to amaze me is how this administration sends its ``yes 
men'' in front of Congress to pledge support for each of these 
generation technologies. I do not hear the administration telling 
Congress they want to eliminate coal-fired generation. But the EPA is 
doing its best to regulate coal plants out of business. I have never 
heard the administration say they want to close down nuclear plants, 
but I have yet to see them lift a finger to keep them operating. When 
anyone in this body confronts the administration with the impending 
brown outs and energy price increases its policies are going to force, 
all its representatives can say is that they're working on it and they 
support renewable energy technologies.
  Well, I too, am a strong supporter of renewable energy technologies. 
I've been a strong proponent of the development and promotion of 
ethanol and biodiesel as a means of reducing our reliance on foreign 
oil and improving the environment. I was a cosponsor of legislation 
signed into law last year extending the tax credit for electricity 
generated from wind and expanding that tax credit to electricity 
generated from poultry waste. I have written letters in each of the 
past two years to Senate appropriators supporting significant increases 
in renewable energy programs, and I was one of 39 Senators to vote in 
support of a $75 million increase for renewable energy programs last 
year. I wrote to President Clinton this year asking him to include more 
money for renewable energy programs in his budget. However, I know that 
simply calling for increased funding for renewable energy can't even 
approach the loss of generation in hydropower, nuclear, coal, and other 
sources that this administration has pursued through its energy 
policies.
  I'd like to believe that this administration has a grasp on the long-
term energy needs of our nation and has plans for meeting those needs, 
but the actions of the administration and the DOE's failures on the 
spectrum of energy challenges prove otherwise.
  That's why, in a letter to Secretary Richardson last week, I urged 
him to take immediate actions to allow for both on and offshore oil and 
gas exportation and production in states that want to do so. I urged 
him to take immediate steps to ensure that nuclear power plants such as 
Minnesota's Prairie Island Facility are not forced to shut down due to 
DOE inaction. I urged him to work with the Department of Interior to 
resist attempts to reduce the use of hydropower. And I urged him and 
the administration to undertake an immediate review of all regulations 
that impose undue burdens on the development of domestic energy sources 
that could reduce our reliance on foreign oil.
  Long ago, the Congress charged the U.S. Department of Energy with the 
job of reducing our nation's reliance on foreign oil and establishing a 
long-term, stable energy policy to guide our economy for decades to 
come. It goes without saying that the Department has failed miserably 
in that, its most basic mission.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming days, 
weeks and months in enacting a number of both short-term and long-term 
responses to the needs of farmers, truckers, the elderly, and all 
energy consumers. I've been a strong supporter of renewable energy 
technologies and increased funding for the Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program--or LiHEAP. I strongly support the efforts of my 
colleagues to increase domestic oil and gas exploration and production 
on public lands, including offshore reserves and the tremendous 
potential of ANWR. I remain committed to finding a resolution to our 
nation's nuclear waste storage crisis--as crisis that threatens to shut 
down nuclear plants and further weaken our nation's domestic energy 
security. And I'll continue to be one of the Senate's strongest critics 
of the Department of Energy's unbelievable neglect of the long-term 
energy needs of our nation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. the Senator from Tennessee.

                          ____________________