[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 116 (Tuesday, September 26, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Page S9235]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page S9235]]
THE ENERGY CRISIS
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would be remiss, following the remarks
of the Senator from Alaska, if I didn't comment on the whole energy
issue, which is one of great concern to families, individuals, and
businesses across America.
I have listened carefully as critics of the Clinton-Gore
administration came out with statistics about the reason for our plight
today. One that is often quoted, and was quoted again by the Senator
from Alaska, is the fact that we have not built a new refinery in the
United States for the last 24 years. I have heard this over and over
again. There are two things worth noting. If I am not mistaken, during
the last 24 years, in only 8 of those years have we had a Democratic
administration. So if there has been any laxity or lack of diligence on
the energy issue, I think that statement reflects on other
administrations as much as, if not more than, the current
administration.
Secondly, the people who make that statement hardly ever note that
existing refineries have been expanded dramatically across the United
States. That is the case in Illinois and in so many other States. I
think it is worth noting that to say we have ignored the increased
energy demands for our economy is not a complete statement. We have
responded to them. The question, obviously, is whether we have
responded enough.
There have also been statements made as to whether oil companies have
been guilty of price gouging or profiteering. Those of us in the
Midwest who, this spring, endured increases in gasoline prices of $1 a
gallon, and more, in a very short period of time did not believe that
market forces were at work. We believed what was at work was the forces
of monopolies that virtually can dictate prices to American consumers.
We were not alone in our belief. The Federal Trade Commission, after
looking at the issue, could find no reasonable economic or market
explanation for this increase in gasoline prices in Chicago or
Milwaukee.
The other side would blame the Environmental Protection Agency and
virtually everybody connected with the Clinton administration. Yet
there was no evidence to back up those claims. As a consequence, the
FTC is investigating oil companies to determine whether or not they did
take advantage of consumers, businesses, and families across the
Midwest. We believe it cost tens of millions of dollars to our local
economy, and I believe if any fine is ultimately imposed on the oil
companies, it should go to benefit the businesses and families who were
the victims of these high gasoline prices by these oil companies.
The Senator from Alaska also made reference to the decision of this
administration within the last few days to release oil on a swap basis
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It was a hot topic. Mr. Bush and
Mr. Gore were involved in this debate for a long period of time. The
question, obviously, is whether or not it is going to have any impact
on our growing concern about the cost of fuel and energy, particularly
the cost of heating oil. Well, we might be able to speculate for a long
time, but we don't have to.
I call the attention of my colleagues in the Senate to this morning's
Washington Post in the business section. The headline reads ``Price of
Crude Oil Drops Below $32.'' Let me read from this article by Kenneth
Bredemeier of the Washington Post:
The price of oil fell to its lowest level in a month
yesterday in the wake of the Clinton administration's
announcement last week that it is releasing 30 million
barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help
ensure adequate supplies of home heating oil this winter.
He goes on:
``It was not unexpected,'' said John Lichtblau, chairman of
the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation. ``It reflects the
fact that inventories will be increased. This is not a sharp
decline, but it is headed in the right direction. They could
fall somewhat more.''
Lichtblau said that while very recently there had been
speculation about $40-a-gallon oil, ``now there's speculation
that it will drop to below $30. The assumption has changed
directionally.''
So those who would argue against Vice President Gore and President
Clinton's position on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, saying it won't
help consumers and families and it won't help businesses, frankly, have
been proven wrong by this morning's headline in the business section of
the Washington Post. This is not a campaign publication, this is a
report on the realities of the market. Of course, we can't stop with
that effort. We have to continue to look for ways to reduce the cost of
energy so that families and businesses can continue to profit in our
strong economy.
But I think the suggestion of the Senator from Alaska embodied in
this bill that we begin drilling for oil in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge in his State is the wrong thing to do.
I recently ran into the CEO of a major oil company in Chicago. I
asked him about this. How important is ANWR to the future of petroleum
supplies in the United States? He said: From our company's point of
view, it is a nonissue. There are plenty of sources of oil in the
United States that are not environmentally dangerous situations. He
believes--and I agree with it--that you do not have to turn to a
wildlife refuge to start drilling oil in the arctic, nor do you have to
drill offshore and run the risk of spills that will contaminate beaches
for hundreds of miles. There are sources, he said, within the U.S. that
are not environmentally sensitive that should be explored long before
we are pushed to the limit of finding sources in these environmentally
sensitive areas.
But the Senator from Alaska and many of our colleagues are quick to
want to drill in these areas first. Their motive I can't say, but I
will tell you that I don't believe it is necessary from an energy
viewpoint. There are plenty of places for us to turn. But drilling for
new oil energy sources is not the sole answer, nor should it be. We
should be exploring alternative fuel situations.
They come to the floor regularly on the other side of the aisle and
mock the suggestion of Vice President Gore in his book ``Earth In The
Balance'' that we look beyond the fossil-fueled engine that we use
today in our automobiles, trucks, and buses and start looking to other
sources of fuel that do not create environmental problems. They think
that is a pipedream; that it will never occur. Yet they ignore the
reality that two Japanese car companies now have a car on the road that
uses a combination of the gas-fired engine with electricity; with
fossil-fueled engines, and those that do not rely only on fossil fuels
to prove you can get high mileage without contaminating the atmosphere.
I am embarrassed to say again that the vehicles we are testing first
come from other countries. But they are proving it might work. We
should explore it. It seems an anathema to my friends on the other side
of the aisle to consider other energy sources.
But if we can find, for example, a hydrogen-based fuel which does not
contaminate the atmosphere and gives us the prospect of providing the
energy needs of this country, why wouldn't we explore that? Why
shouldn't we push for that research?
That is the point made by Vice President Gore. It is a forward
visionary thing that, frankly, many people in the boardrooms of oil
companies might not like to consider. But I think we owe it to our kids
and future generations to take a look at that.
To go drilling in wildlife refuges and off the shores of our Nation
with the possibility of contaminating beaches is hardly an alternative
to sound research. I think we should look at that research and consider
it as a real possibility.
____________________