[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 26 (Thursday, March 1, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1724-S1725]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY CRISIS
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me take a few moments this morning
to discuss the merits of the energy bill which was introduced earlier
this week by a number of our colleagues. It is a bipartisan
introduction by myself, Senator Breaux, Senator Lott, and a number of
other Senators who are on the bill.
I think it is appropriate to kind of focus in on reality. We have an
energy crisis in this country. It has been developing for a long time.
It does not solve anything to point fingers at where the responsibility
is. The bottom line is how to address it, how to resolve it, and how to
get this country moving again. We are looking at the stock market,
shaking our heads. We are listening to Alan Greenspan. The predictions
for the economy are gloomy, and one of the causes, a significant cause,
obviously, is the price of energy.
The price of energy has hit everyone in this body. If you live in
Washington, DC, and you use gas, you know your gas bills have doubled.
That means you have had to take a greater percentage of your disposable
income to pay your gas bill. I will not go into gasoline prices which
have escalated over an extended period of time. But the American public
and Members of this body have an opportunity, and I think have an
obligation, to come up with some positive solutions.
We would like to think that energy is bipartisan. We all have the
same responsibility. We have different views on how to achieve a
balance. But I think there is a basic philosophical opportunity for
some self-examination because some folks suggest we can simply conserve
our way out of this crisis. Factually, we cannot conserve our way out
of this crisis. It is understandable as we reflect on where we have
come in the last 10 years. We are dependent on computers, air-
conditioning. With a larger more affluent population, it simply uses
more energy.
We can be more energy efficient, but the reality is, as the CSIS
study showed, we are going to be dependent on fossil fuels for the next
two decades at an increasing percentage--somewhere from 86 to close to
90 percent. We forget we are not the whole world. We kind of look at
ourselves and say, well, we set the pattern. But given the growth of
Third World countries such as China, their consumption of energy
suggests that, as we look at the future, there is going to be more
pressure on conventional hydrocarbons. We have to look to alternatives.
We have to examine ways not to throw the baby out with the bath water,
which is what some have suggested in criticism of this bill.
We have to recognize that for a long time we are going to be
dependent on our conventional sources of energy, even though we have an
abundance of coal and we have the technology to clean up our coal.
Still, as we look for power generation relief, we don't look to coal
anymore. There are a number of reasons for it. Obviously some coal has
problems. It has problems associated with Btu's; it has problems
associated with ash; it has problems associated with the chemical
makeup of the coal that requires removal of impurities. But the
technology is there although the cost increases. We work in this
competitive area on the cost of energy per Btu.
Sulfur in coal can be removed. We can have scrubbers on our stacks.
But we have to have a plan and an encouragement and in some cases
assistance in developing this technology. We have this in this
legislation.
Mr. President, 20 percent of our power--and I know my friend from
Nevada occasionally rises to the occasion concerning nuclear power--20
percent of the power in this country is generated by nuclear energy.
Yet we have not built a new plant in almost 20 years. You cannot build
a plant. It is not economic. We cannot address what to do with the
nuclear waste. I am not here to promote nuclear energy, solely. I am
simply saying nuclear energy has a place in the mix of our energy
production, just as coal does.
We have tremendous capacity and capability for hydro, particularly in
the Pacific Northwest, but the prospects for building new hydro plants
are very remote. We are talking about taking dams down, but we don't
honestly evaluate what the tradeoff is. If we take down dams on the
Columbia River, what is the result? We will lose the capability of
barge traffic moving huge tonnages on that river. What will we do with
them? We will put them on the highway; that is the tradeoff--oil.
Obviously, we are becoming more dependent on imported oil, 56 percent
dependent. At what point do we sacrifice our national security effort
by becoming increasingly dependent, and at what percentage does that
occur? It is pretty hard to say. We are 56 percent dependent now. We
were 37 percent in 1973 when we had the Arab oil embargo. The
Department of Energy says it is going to be somewhere in the area of 63
or 64 or 65 percent.
I was asked that question the other day by a reporter: You talk about
our dependence. We have become used to it. At what point do we really
compromise our national security?
I thought for a moment. I said that in 1991-1992 we fought a war. We
lost 147 lives. Is that sufficient? I think it is.
As we look to the future, we are going to continue to have a problem
unless we relieve our dependence on imported energy sources, and
particularly oil.
How do we do that? We do it through a combination of ways, developing
other known sources of energy, such as I outlined, and opening up new
sources of domestic energy.
One of the interesting things about this bill is it focuses. It is
300 pages, but it focuses like a lightning rod on one issue: opening
ANWR. Do we do it safely? Can we do it safely? Do we have the
technology? Clearly we do. There is absolutely no question about that.
On the other hand, America's environmental community has rallied to
the cause to save ANWR, saying that we cannot do it safely. Somebody is
wrong. But I can tell you what it has done. It has given the
environmental community a cause. They need a national cause where
people cannot evaluate the issue for themselves because they will not
go up there. It increases membership and dollars.
Look at some of the colleges in the East: Save ANWR. There is no
question of technology capability.
What we are facing here is very little focus on the energy bill in
itself but great rhetoric. For example, the Sierra Club--may I ask what
the time agreement is?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator had until 10:15. It is
now 10:15, I say to the Senator.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add 10
minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will
not object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. That being the case, I ask everyone's time be advanced
accordingly so no one loses any time because under the time agreement
everyone has allocated time by the minute. I ask as part of that that
everyone be advanced 10 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleague.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska has an
additional 10 minutes, and all other Senators' times will be moved back
10 minutes from that previously agreed to.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada.
Let me spend a few minutes countering the allegations against this
legislation. The Sierra Club came out with a report saying the bill was
a giveaway for fossil fuel producers.
There is absolutely no incentive in this legislation for big oil. We
focus on maintaining a viable domestic industry, reducing our
dependence on foreign oil, and ensuring our national security. The
Sierra Club release also calls for increased efficiency, renewable
energy, and more efficient, less-polluting powerplants. I wonder if
they have read the bill. We provided incentives for alternatives:
fuels, renewable
[[Page S1725]]
energy production, energy efficiency, just as they and we advocate.
Did they also ignore our new R&D program in the bill, and the
incentives to use clean coal technology in existing and new
powerplants? I doubt if they have read the bill.
The Sierra Club focuses on the need to improve fuel economy for cars,
SUVs, and light trucks, and we agree. That is why our bill requires a
3-mile-per-gallon improvement in the fuel economy of Federal fleets by
the year 2005. Why did we start with Federal fleets? We ought to start
with Government. That is where it belongs. Government should show the
way. So we provided new incentives for the purchase of hybrid vehicles
that give double, even triple the gas mileage of today's cars. But they
must not have seen this because the Sierra Club just doesn't appreciate
the reality, that this is just not a bill that has one little portion
covering ANWR.
Regarding the provisions of the bill, I think, for the most part, if
the Sierra Club would sit down and read it, they would agree with it.
We have another group, the League of Conservation Voters, who, in a
press release, have some polling data showing the public is against
opening up the Arctic in Alaska. They say 66 percent of American voters
support permanently closing ANWR to oil and gas exploration.
Isn't it funny what polls say. The Christian Science Monitor poll and
the Chicago Tribune poll say otherwise. The Christian Science Monitor;
54 percent support opening the area; the Chicago Tribune; 52 percent
support opening the area. Three out of four support increased oil and
gas exploration in our country.
The League of Conservation Voters goes on to state:
America needs a sensible energy policy that places serious
emphasis on energy conservation and alternative fuels. . .
Title VI of our bill focuses on energy efficiency, conservation, and
assistance to low-income families. Title VII of the bill focuses on
alternative fuels and renewable energy.
Our tax provisions have several new incentives for energy-efficient
homes, appliances, vehicles, and for renewables.
As I indicated in my opening remarks, the Center for Strategic
International Studies says, unfortunately, that we will remain
dependent on fossil fuels for the near future. Shouldn't we direct our
efforts towards developing technology to use these fuels more cleanly
and more efficiently? We simply can't ignore our reliance on foreign
oil. As I indicated, it is expected to reach 70 percent by the year
2002. We cannot ignore our coal at 52 percent of our electricity. We
can't ignore nuclear, which is 20 percent of our electricity.
Instead of a comprehensive approach, some environmental groups want a
national energy policy that requires massive shifts in our energy
industry. Elimination of fossil fuels entirely, thousands of jobs lost,
higher energy prices, and standard investment are not in their
equation.
Our approach to an energy policy--the National Energy Security Act of
2001--we think is the right approach. It is comprehensive. It is
balanced.
Obviously, in the hearing process we had input from all Members, and
the administration is yet to be heard. But we are trying to use the
philosophy of using the fuels of today to yield the technologies of
tomorrow and ensuring clean, secure, and affordable energy in the
future. I think this bill attempts to do that.
Let me leave you with one additional thought. We hear from many of
the opponents of ANWR that all we have to do is get an extra 3 miles
per gallon out of our cars and we will get the same amount of oil as
drilling and opening up that area in our State. I question that claim.
The real issue is do you think everyone in America should trade in
their cars and buy new vehicles. And there are about 132 million cars
in America. That doesn't count the trucks and the buses. But if the
Americans have to go all out and buy new and efficient cars as
pseudoenvironmentalists want them to do, it will cost more than $2.6
trillion. Since most Americans don't have $20,000 sitting around just
waiting to go buy a new car, they are going to have to finance that
car. That will probably raise the cost to more than $3 trillion. That
seems to be their answer to Americans--get a new car and spend $3
trillion. That isn't going to happen either.
I think everyone has a responsibility to make some positive
contributions to this legislation and recognize what is happening to
our economy as a consequence of the scarcity of energy associated with
the higher prices and the fact that energy is, indeed, taking a larger
share out of everyone's budget and, as a consequence, affecting
dramatically our economy.
Let's get serious, and let's do something meaningful about this.
I thank my colleague for the additional time. I appreciate the
courtesy, and at any time I will certainly respond.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, as
amended by the Senator from Nevada, the Senator from Nevada, Mr.
Ensign, has control of the time until 10:40 a.m.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to
speak for 5 minutes following the statement of Senator Ensign.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
____________________