[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 60 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3960-S3962]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                MEASURE READ FOR THE FIRST TIME--S. 2557

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in order to have this important bill placed 
on the calendar, I ask for the first reading of S. 2557.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2557) to protect the energy security of the 
     United States and decrease America's dependency on foreign 
     oil sources to 50 percent by the year 2010 by enhancing the 
     use of renewable energy resources, conserving energy 
     resources, improving energy efficiencies, and increasing 
     domestic energy supplies, mitigating the effect of increases 
     in energy prices on the American consumer, including the poor 
     and the elderly, and for other purposes.

  Mr. LOTT. I ask for its second reading, and I object to my own 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The bill will be read the second time on the next legislative day.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Idaho would 
like to be recognized to speak for 10 or 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this is an important day in the Senate. I 
think it is important for us to let Americans know there is a group of 
their national leaders who are focused on developing a national energy 
policy for this country. You have heard the majority leader of the 
Senate speak for just a few moments. He touched on some very critical 
questions that I think Americans are asking when they go to the gas 
pump and they find, as they have found for the last good many months, 
that their energy costs are going up dramatically. But high oil prices 
are doing more than raise the price of gasoline. With spikes in 
electrical production during this last heat spell on the east coast, we 
are going to find that when the power bill gets to that consumer, his 
or her power bill has gone up substantially.
  As a result of sustained high oil prices, several weeks ago the 
majority leader convened a task force in the Senate, led by Senator 
Frank Murkowski, who is chairman of the full Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee. I, as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, 
served with that task force and today our work product has been 
introduced. But this is a work product that resulted not by just a 
group of us coming together to decide what was a better idea, it is a 
product of a good many hearings held by the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee to explore the effects of the cost of energy now 
and in the future on the American consumer.
  As a result of that, S. 2557 has been introduced today. That is 
better known as the National Energy Security Act for 2000. The 
legislation is designed to do a number of things, but its overall 
objective is to reduce our dependence on imported crude oil below 50 
percent. Crude oil and gas prices shot up earlier this year. At the 
time we were importing about 55 percent of our crude oil needs. Now, 
according to the latest Energy Information Administration figures, U.S. 
dependency on foreign crude oil as of May 5, is just over 60 percent. 
We are getting about 9.2 million-barrels-a-day from somewhere else in 
the world. The U.S. is now importing about a million barrels a day more 
than we were importing in January of 1999.
  In addition, the U.S. is importing more finished petroleum products. 
That is a rather new phenomenon. We have seen the tearing down of many 
of our refineries during the last good number of years for failure to 
retrofit to meet Clean Air Act requirements because there was no cost 
incentive to do so. In fact, there has not been a major refinery 
permitted in the U.S. since 1975. Now we are importing more finished 
product.
  In January of 1999, our daily import level of motor gasoline, for 
example, was about 441,000 barrels per day. During the week ending May 
5, according to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. 
imported an average of 562,000 barrels a day of motor gasoline.
  In other words, if the average consumer were looking at a chart 
graphed along with these increases we have just talked about, the price 
of gasoline would be going up and so is our reliance on imports. We are 
no longer the masters of our own destiny. We no longer control the 
future of energy in this country. That is a sad day for Americans, when 
that reality is in front of us. It is something I think this country 
has to deal with.
  The Energy Information Administration estimates our dependency on 
imports could rise to more than 65 percent by the year 2020. At the 
rate we are going, my guess is we will be there long before that.
  For the last nearly 8 years, the Clinton-Gore administration has 
refused to develop an effective national energy policy. The 
administration has published national energy plans and, I will be 
blunt, I do not think they are worth the paper on which they are 
printed. Here is exactly why. Their plans pay only lip service to the 
need to increase domestic oil and gas production. They have 
consistently underfunded research into more efficient and clean use of 
coal for electric generation. Yet the U.S. has an abundance of coal 
that we ought to be using in an effective and environmentally sound 
way. They have underfunded research into how we can improve the 
efficiency and safety of our nuclear generating stations. And they have 
refused to recognize hydropower as a renewable resource.

  The Presiding Officer and I come from an area of the country where 
hydropower is king. Many of our rivers are dammed to produce an 
abundance

[[Page S3961]]

of electrical energy, and our electrical energy costs to consumers are 
the lowest in the Nation, while our environment is generally very 
clean. Yet as the chairman of the Energy Committee said just a few 
moments ago, this administration has, as a policy, not recognized 
hydroelectricity as a renewable resource. Quite the opposite: It 
proposes that we ought to start removing dams from our rivers for 
environmental reasons and without regard for existing economic uses.
  Instead of strong producing policies for our country and incentives 
for producers to produce more energy, the Clinton-Gore administration 
has focused its attention on solar energy and wind power and energy 
from biomass, and demanded significant increases in Federal money to 
encourage more use of these resources. There is nothing wrong with 
supporting renewables. I support renewables. I think most in the U.S. 
Congress do. We have been subsidizing solar and wind now for more than 
25 years, but they meet only about 3 percent of our total energy 
demand. I think renewables, including hydropower, must play a role in 
meeting the needs of the U.S., but the real solution lies in boosting 
oil and natural gas production and finding cleaner, more efficient ways 
to use coal. That is where our research dollar ought to be going 
because that is the only way we will be able to meet the demands of the 
marketplace.
  The bill Senator Lott has just introduced is the product of several 
months of discussion and analysis that I have already outlined. The 
committee was chaired by Senator Frank Murkowski. Let me take just a 
few more minutes and explain a the major steps the bill takes to 
improve our energy future.
  The bill would require the Secretary to report annually on progress 
toward limiting our dependence on foreign oil down to no greater than 
50-percent. The Secretary must lay out legislative and administrative 
steps to meet that goal and recommend alternatives for reducing crude 
oil imports. To increase our use of natural gas, the bill creates an 
interagency working group to design a policy and strategy for greater 
use of natural gas.
  The bill extends authority to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and 
prevents drawdown of the reserve until the President and the Secretary 
of Defense agree that a drawdown will not threaten our national 
security.
  Our bill contains a title to protect consumers and low-income 
families, and to encourage energy efficiency. It expands eligibility 
for residential weatherization programs, creates a program to educate 
consumers to help them avoid seasonal price fluctuations, and also 
establishes a heating oil reserve to help the Northeast deal with 
shortages and severe price fluctuations.
  Our bill also contains a title addressing increased use of other 
domestic energy sources like coal and more efficient use of our nuclear 
and hydro resources. It also requires the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission to report on how costs for relicensing hydroelectric 
facilities can be lowered.
  The bill also authorizes a Federal oil and gas leasing program for 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, one of the remaining 
great potential sources of crude oil in this country, with estimated 
yields of well over 16 billion barrels, the kind of production that 
could come in at about 1.5 million barrels a day and do that for nearly 
20 years or more. Despite that potential the Clinton-Gore 
administration opposes going there to explore for oil.
  The amount of additional domestic production would, if added to 
today's domestic production, reduce our 60-percent dependency below the 
50-percent mark that our legislation seeks. I think 50 percent is a 
responsible goal, not only one demanded by the public but demanded by 
the Congress and that should be supported by this administration and 
future administrations.
  The bill also contains provisions to streamline and reduce the costs 
associated with gas and oil leasing on Federal lands to enhance 
domestic production and to encourage small oil producers to keep low-
volume wells operating during harsh economic times.
  Finally, we have included in the legislation tax credits for wind and 
biomass energy and electrical production from steel-making facilities 
and tax incentives for residential solar use. In other words, we want 
to encourage all kinds of energy. We do not want to pick and choose and 
decide that some do not fit our policy or our lifestyle. What this 
public wants is a market basket full of reasonable energy sources at 
reasonable costs. It is to our benefit, it is to our economy's benefit, 
and it is to the world's benefit that we drive these technologies as 
well as conventional forms of energy production.
  What is the policy of the Clinton-Gore Administration? My colleagues 
have seen it in action. We saw our Secretary of Energy walking around 
the Middle East with a tin cup: Oh, sheik, oh, sheik, if you are from 
the Middle East or if you are from Venezuela or if you are from Mexico, 
please, turn on your valves and give us a little oil. Please, please, 
it may hurt our lifestyle.
  How sad it is that our great country has been reduced to that kind of 
policy. The legislation Senators Lott and Murkowski have introduced 
today can help us regain control of our energy destiny from the Middle 
East and OPEC.
  The news today reported there is a huge new discovery of oil in the 
Caspian Sea which is years away from production, and if it comes 
online, it will be in a politically unstable place in the world over 
which we have little or no control.
  Does the average consumer going to the gas pump every day want to 
have to turn to the East and ask a sheik to turn on a valve so that he 
or she can get to work at a reasonable cost? I doubt that, and that is 
what this legislation is about. That is why Senator Murkowski, Senator 
Lott, I, and others have joined together to offer up this legislation 
as a national energy policy for this country, not only to direct this 
Congress, but to direct this administration and future administrations 
to an achievable goal of reducing foreign crude oil imports below the 
50-percent level and recognizing the great creativity in this country 
to produce energy in abundance, at low cost, and through a variety of 
resources.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time remains on the special 
order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I compliment my friend from Idaho. He has outlined 
very carefully the basic underlying theme, which is we are proposing an 
energy policy. That energy policy is enunciated in the National Energy 
Security Act of 2000, S. 2557, which was introduced by the leadership 
this morning and on whose behalf the Senator from Idaho has spoken.
  We have--I emphasize this--we have laid down an energy policy for 
this country. I suggest there is not one Member who can identify 
specifically what is the administration's energy policy. We know what 
it is not. Let's take nuclear power. We know they are opposed to it. 
They will not address the issue of nuclear waste.
  We know they are against domestic oil and gas production.
  We know they are against hydroelectric power expansion.
  We know they are against new natural gas pipelines.
  What are they for then? It is pretty hard to identify until one 
begins looking at the record of the Secretary in trying to generate 
relief from the oil shortage we are experiencing.
  I will speak about the oil shortage specifically because it is very 
real and is identified on this chart.
  This chart is designated by quarter, this is global demand and global 
supply for each quarter this year. The reality is, by the end of the 
fourth quarter, the demand will exceed the supply by about 2 million 
barrels a day. I could spend a lot of time on this chart and show where 
the oil comes from--OPEC, Iraq, OPEC supply, non-OPEC supply--but we 
have a basic economic factor where we have more demand than supply. 
When we have that kind of situation, the price goes up and the American 
taxpayers pay through the nose. Last year, oil was $11, $12, $13 a 
barrel. Earlier this year, we saw $34-a-barrel oil. Currently we are at 
about $29 to $30.
  Where are we looking to accommodate this increase demand with this 
administration? We are looking to Iraq--

[[Page S3962]]

of all nations of the world, Iraq. Think about it. This next chart 
shows our imports from Iraq. They were very small through 1997. In 
1998, they began to jump up. The specifics are, in 1998 we imported 
300,000 barrels a day from Iraq; currently, we are importing 700,000 
barrels a day. How quickly we forget that in 1990 and 1991 we fought a 
war with Iraq. We lost 293 American lives. There were 467 wounded. 
There was a cost to the American taxpayers of approximately $7.4 
billion.
  What have we done since then? We have enforced a no-fly zone. That is 
very similar to an aerial blockade.
  What has it cost the taxpayers of this country since the war? It has 
cost the taxpayers approximately $10 billion just to keep Saddam 
Hussein fenced in.
  The American press does not even print this anymore. We get the 
figures from the French press of what is going on over there. Enforcing 
the no-fly zone in Iraq has required more than 240,000 sorties since 
the end of the gulf war at an average cost of $7 million an hour. We 
have flown 21,000 missions since 1998. We have bombed them on more than 
145 days since Desert Fox in December of 1998. Since December of 1998, 
Iraq reports 295 of their citizens have been killed and 860 wounded in 
airstrikes. Airstrikes on Iraq occur almost daily. Where are we looking 
for oil? Iraq. What kind of a foreign policy does this administration 
have?
  Saddam Hussein seems to be deliberately luring us, sadistically using 
his own people as bait, into killing innocent Iraqis for sympathy to 
lift the no-fly zone. At the same time, he is dramatically increasing 
his own military capacity. What is happening? He is smuggling out an 
awful lot of oil. What is he using the funds for? Every Member of this 
body should get a classified briefing from the Intelligence Committee 
and find out for themselves what he is doing. It is a very dangerous 
situation with which we are going to have to reckon at some point in 
time, and God help us.
  U.N. sanctions certainly have not done the job. What we are doing 
with Saddam Hussein is rewarding him. Iraq will export $8.5 billion in 
oil this year, and it is estimated the smuggling will generate 
approximately $400 million which goes to enrich Saddam Hussein and goes 
to his Republican Guard which keeps him alive.
  Think about it. We are looking to Iraq for our oil. What is Iraq 
looking towards? This is a bizarre pattern.

  If we think about it, it is fairly simple. It is so simple that I 
hope my colleagues will reflect on its significance. He uses the money 
we send him for new arms--new biological technology--we take his oil, 
and we fill our warplanes. And what do we do? We go bomb him. Then we 
buy some more of his oil, send him some money, and the process starts 
all over again.
  We are spending billions and billions of dollars to contain Iraq's 
expansion, and billions and billions of dollars to permit Iraqi 
expansion by increasing their refining capacity. As we do this we are 
risking the lives of American service men and women, our security, the 
security of our allies, and the American way of life, if you will, 
pursuing an energy policy which can only end in a tragedy.
  I think today my colleagues who have joined the leader in the 
introduction of the National Energy Security Act of 2000 have put 
forward an energy plan, an energy policy. It is up to the 
administration now to match it. Because so far the only thing the 
administration has done is to come out with six very weak short-term 
actions: to help prevent power outages which would terminate the 
generation to Federal water projects; it would encourage price 
increases; it would explore the opportunities for the inventory of 
generators held by the private sector; it would conduct emergency 
exercises; it would work with the utility industry to update 
information; and prepare public service announcements.
  What kind of an energy policy is that?
  I see my good friend, the junior Senator from Texas, seeking 
recognition.
  Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two and one-half minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from 
Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for 2\1/
2\ minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for 
heading the task force that put together a balanced approach, with a 
clear goal--a simple goal--of reducing foreign oil dependence in the 
United States of America to under 50 percent by the year 2010, so that 
10 years from today we could have what I think is a very modest goal of 
50-percent capability in the United States of America to produce the 
oil and gas needs of our country.
  It does not take a rocket scientist to see what has been happening to 
oil prices over the last 3 years. First, we went down so low that the 
little guys could not make it. We lost thousands of small well 
producers because they could not make it on $10-a-barrel oil. They 
could not meet their expenses. So they went under and they capped the 
wells.
  When a well is capped, it is almost impossible to reopen it because 
it is so expensive. These are wells that produced 15 barrels a day or 
less. We are not talking about gushers. We are not talking about 
thousands of barrels a day, which some do produce in other parts of the 
country. We are talking about 15 barrels a day, a barely break-even 
proposition at any price, but certainly not at $10.
  What we are trying to do is take the artificially low prices and the 
ridiculously high prices that we see today because we are dependent on 
foreign imported oil, and say: What will allow us to stabilize these 
prices? What will allow us to stabilize these prices is exactly what is 
in the bill we are introducing today and which we hope Congress will 
act on before we leave; and that is, we encourage the little guys by 
giving them a floor--just as we do farmers--when prices go below $17 a 
barrel. We would just give them a tax credit so they could stay in 
business.
  The Senator from Alaska talked about many of the other parts of this 
bill. I hope we can have bipartisan support so we can stabilize the 
prices for consumers in America and jobs in our country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________