[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 60 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3957-S3958]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  NATIONAL ENERGY SECURITY ACT OF 2000

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am going to take advantage of this 
time to speak on behalf of the National Energy Security Act of 2000.
  For the benefit of the Chair, this is the result of a 10-member task 
force appointed by the Majority Leader, which he asked that I chair. 
The Task Force included Senators Nickles, Craig, Hutchison, Collins, 
Domenici, Snowe, Roth, Santorum, and Smith of New Hampshire.
  The bill before us is S. 2557. The purpose of the legislation is to 
address a harsh reality that it is currently hard to identify just what 
the administration's policy is toward energy in this country at this 
time, other than to increase imports of crude oil coming into the 
country. The Majority Leader charged us to examine the impacts of 
increased U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources and the resulting 
increased energy cost to American consumers.
  It is estimated that the increase in the price of crude oil, which 
has risen from roughly $10, $11, $12 a barrel a year ago, to as high as 
$34--and it is currently about $30--has resulted in an increase, if one 
could compare it to a tax increase, of about $100 billion to the 
American consumer.
  If you have taken a cab in Washington, DC, you have noticed there is 
a little sticker that says they are going to charge 50 cents extra 
because of the increased cost of gasoline. If you have taken an 
airplane lately, you have noticed a surcharge from $20 to $40 on your 
ticket. So the multiplier is out there, Mr. President, and it is a 
significant factor in adding to inflation.
  So at the leader's request, we have established a very simple goal 
for our energy security through this legislation. The goal of the bill 
is to decrease

[[Page S3958]]

America's dependency on foreign oil to less than 50 percent by the year 
2010. It is kind of interesting, but the current administration figures 
indicate that since President Clinton has come to office, we are 
currently consuming 14 percent more oil than we did approximately 7 
years ago and producing 17 percent less.
  There is indeed a need for an energy policy. This is what the 
National Energy Security Act of 2000 proposes to establish.
  We anticipate achieving the goal of reducing our imports of oil 
through a number of considerations.
  One is enhancing the use of renewable energy resources--including 
hydro, wind, solar, and biomass. We spend a good deal for experimental 
funding for these renewable sources. But the reality is we have a long 
way to go before they are going to take a major share of our energy 
production.
  Second, we are proposing to conserve energy resources and improve 
energy efficiencies.
  Third, we propose to increase domestic energy supplies, including 
oil, gas, and coal.
  The bill also addresses the concerns of regional consumers, 
particularly in the Northeast.
  It allows the Department of Energy's Secretary Richardson to create a 
home heating oil reserve and strengthen the weatherization program.
  It establishes a State-led education program to encourage consumers 
to take action to minimize seasonal price increases and shortages of 
home heating fuel.
  It provides incentives for construction and rehabilitation of private 
home heating oil storage facilities.
  The purpose is very simple. Imported energy should supplement our 
domestic energy supplies--not supplant them.
  The administration has looked for a quick fix and has pointed 
fingers. We understand that the American energy supply problem cannot 
be solved overnight. It is going to take a long-term view. We have to 
take it one step at a time. But it is time to begin taking those steps 
and that is a process we further today.
  The administration continues to lull the American public into a sense 
of indifference about energy supplies and the energy situation and has 
really hidden behind a slight decrease in prices at the pump. However, 
I would suggest these reductions in price are not here to stay.
  I refer to an article that appears in the Wall Street Journal of May 
16 entitled ``Tight U.S. Gas Markets Boost Oil Prices''--a price of 
$30, and a year ago it was $12 or $13.
  What about the inflation factor? A significant indicator is the 
increased cost of energy.
  What about the balance of payments? One-third of our $300 billion 
deficit balance of payments--$100 billion--is the cost of imported oil.
  As a consequence, we have had an opportunity to hear from consumers 
all over the country stung by the high prices of heating oil, 
particularly in the Northeast corridor. And it is fair to say that as 
we go into the summer, this particular area of the country, which is 
approximately 30-percent dependent on oil-powered generation, will 
experience substantial price increases as a consequence of increased 
energy demand, particularly for air-conditioning.
  It is estimated that electricity costs in the Northeast region may 
double what they were last year and in some cases triple.
  The idea is that the older oil-fired power generation facilities are 
the last to come online, and ordinarily there is a windfall profit 
associated with that. Whatever it takes to support financially the cost 
of the higher generating resource--namely, oil--the other energy 
sources, whether they be gas or coal, rise to that price level--a 
practice known as ``uniform pricing.'' The consumer is stuck as a 
consequence, and prices go up as a result of the windfall profit.
  Finally, as the economies of Asia, Europe, and the United States 
continue to grow in the context of a set energy market, there will be 
increasing demands for energy resources by the fourth quarter of this 
year, again leading to tightening of petroleum supplies and a 
corresponding increase in prices.

  Many of us in this body on both sides of the aisle have made 
statements that the administration really lacks an energy policy. If 
you go back and recognize that in 1973 and 1974 we were 34-percent 
dependent on imported oil, today we are 56-percent dependent. And last 
month we got up to 61-percent dependence.
  The realities are, if we look to increasing imports to offset our 
increased consumption as well as the rest of the world, we are going to 
be paying the piper because, as indicated in this article today, we can 
look to OPEC and we can look to Venezuela, but, nevertheless, they have 
indicated self-discipline, and the price range is expected to be 
somewhere between $22 and $28 a barrel, which suggests, if you will, 
that the discipline to maintain this price is there.
  I see another Member of our task force is on the floor and intends to 
speak on this.
  As I have outlined our proposal in general terms and identified our 
goals--I again point out the realization that we want to protect energy 
security, we want to protect consumers and low-income families, and we 
want to increase domestic energy supplies--it should be noted that the 
last written statement from the administration about its proposal on 
energy was a narrow one. It came out during the last week of April from 
the Office of the Secretary of Energy, entitled ``Energy Secretary 
Richardson Announced Six Short-Term Actions to Help Prevent Power 
Outages.''
  I think it is appropriate to highlight just what this contains 
because clearly it does not address increased production.
  It specifically states in the six points:
  First, to work with agencies to identify opportunities to reduce 
liquid consumption and Federal water problems during times of peak 
demand.
  I assume that means we are going to shut off water and our irrigation 
projects.
  Second, it urges the Federal Regulatory Commission and State 
utilities to commission, solicit, and improve targets that will help 
reduce electric demand.
  So we are going to propose an increase in the price of electricity to 
ensure that people reduce their consumption.
  Third, explore opportunities for use of existing backup generators 
during power supply emergencies.
  I wonder if we are going to confiscate the private sector generators.
  Fourth, conduct an emergency exercise with State and local 
governments to help prepare for outages.
  It looks as if they are pretty much giving up the ship and are 
preparing for those outages as opposed to generating more energy.
  Fifth, work closely with the utility industry to gain up-to-date, 
relevant information about potential grid-related problems.
  They are going to keep us informed.
  Lastly, they are going to prepare public service announcements. So we 
will know what is coming.
  I hardly think that fits the bill as we address the need for precise 
energy policy and the realization that the administration lacks an 
energy policy of any kind.
  In conclusion, let's relate the position the administration has taken 
with regard to energy.
  There is no effort to spur domestic oil and gas production.
  There is no effort to open up the area of the Rocky Mountain 
overthrust belt to encourage exploration for gas.
  There is no effort by the administration to loosen the noose they 
have put around the neck of our domestic energy industries.
  They are refusing to resolve the nuclear waste issue.
  They have refused to recognize hydro as a renewable resource and are 
proposing in some cases to take dams down out west.
  If you identify the energy resources and recognize the position of 
the administration, it is quite clear that they do not have an energy 
policy. That is why I commend the leader and the other members of the 
task force for developing a plan that is a workable, achievable plan 
that will substantially address the emergency associated with our 
energy situation in this country. I again refer to this as the National 
Energy Security Act of 2000.
  I see the leader on the floor, and perhaps at this time he wishes to 
introduce the bill and make some remarks.




                          ____________________