[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 61 (Monday, May 7, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4407-S4410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the purpose of my addressing my 
colleagues today is to question just what kind of energy policy is 
supportable in this country as a consequence of many of the leading 
opinion makers and newspapers relative to just how we go about 
addressing our energy crisis.
  It might get the attention of the Chair to recognize that California 
alone, which has received an awful lot of notoriety, clearly has a 
crisis. It can probably best be addressed by indicating that in 1998 
Californians spent $9 billion for energy--electric energy. In the year 
2000, they spent $20 billion. In the year 2001, it is estimated they 
will have spent somewhere between $65 and $75 billion. It is not really 
necessary to say much more. If that is not an acknowledgment of that 
being a crisis, I do not know what is.
  What I find frustrating is the inconsistency of just how we are going 
to get out of this crisis. I refer to an editorial appearing in the 
Washington Post today. It is entitled ``selling the Energy Plan.'' I 
ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.

[[Page S4408]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                        Selling the Energy Plan

       Soon President Bush will unveil his energy policy, and last 
     week his administration began sounding some of the themes 
     that will be used to sell it. The country faces an energy 
     crisis, officials repeated. ``We're running out of energy in 
     America,'' the president said; both new supplies and 
     conservation are needed because ``we can't conserve our way 
     to energy independence.'' Simple, compelling messages. The 
     only trouble is, they're not exactly right.
       The problem isn't ``running out of'' resources, it's 
     getting them to the right places at the right time. While 
     many consumers struggle with high bills, there's not a crisis 
     of supply unless you live in California. And America won't 
     reach true energy independence through any combination of 
     production and conservation, at least as long as 
     transportation runs on oil.
       That's not to say there aren't serious challenges. There 
     are, and meeting them will require hard choices. But it's 
     important to be clear about the critical issues. Those 
     include expanding infrastructure--such as pipelines, 
     transmission lines and refineries--so that electricity and 
     fuel can be produced and delivered when needed. They also 
     include a serious look at how to guard against damaging price 
     spikes or supply interruptions in deregulated energy markets. 
     Currently, one effect of deregulation has been the erosion of 
     incentives for maintaining the extra supply or generating 
     capacity that can cushion against sudden jumps in demand.
       Along the way, policymakers must be clear-eyed about 
     prices. Protecting against economy-damaging price hikes is 
     one thing; promising an endless supply of cheap energy is 
     another. The energy debate ought to include a hard look at 
     where prices should be to reflect energy's true cost and to 
     encourage responsible use. Any discussion must acknowledge 
     that the world market will continue to set oil prices, no 
     matter what America does to boost domestic supply.
       It's also worth noting that the energy market is responding 
     already. Natural gas drilling increased last year. Vice 
     President Cheney noted this past week that growing 
     electricity demand will require the equivalent of 1,300 to 
     1,900 new power plants during the next two decades; power 
     suppliers already have reported to the Energy Department 
     plans to add more than 40 percent of that capacity between 
     now and 2005. For the short term, as President Bush 
     acknowledged last week in ordering federal energy use cut in 
     California, conservation can ease the pinch between supply 
     and demand.
       However, conservation and increased efficiency are also 
     critical components of any long-term policy. They can 
     contribute much more than the administration has so far been 
     inclined to admit. Candor must be part of the discussion. The 
     issues are complex and call for balanced and wide-ranging 
     solutions; one way to get them is to avoid over-simplifying 
     the debate at the start.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I agree with a good deal of the editorial's comments 
relative to the fact the energy crisis is upon us. They indicate we 
cannot conserve our way to energy independence, and I agree with that. 
But what I find a little bit inconsistent is the reference that somehow 
we are going to have to interject some kind of Government control on 
prices. Now, they did not go into a great deal of detail suggesting 
that we increase supply and that the traditional increase of supply 
should take care of the price.
  Clearly, California is the victim of a situation of supply and demand 
because for a number of years California simply decided it was easier 
to buy energy outside the State of California than developing energy 
from sources within. Clearly, last year, California found itself 
depending on imported energy from other States. Those States chose to 
market that energy at the going price--whatever they could get for it. 
The difficulty, of course, is that now California finds itself in a 
mess.
  The controls on retail pricing which exist in California have 
resulted in the consumers taking the full brunt of what that energy 
costs. By having a wholesale cap on California's energy, why, it is 
acting to inhibit investments coming into California to build more 
plants.
  It should be noted that Vice President Cheney, in commenting on the 
growing electricity demand, indicated that the country is going to have 
to put in about 1,300 to 1,900 new powerplants during the next two 
decades. The Department of Energy evidently supports that reference 
because they indicate that is between the plants they anticipate as 
necessary to pick up the shortage.
  What we have is a reference in general terms that we should address 
this crisis but not specifically how we are going to address it or 
specifically what means we are going to use. The Washington Post 
editorial indicates that conservation and increased efficiency are 
critical components. And they are, Mr. President, but we should 
recognize one fact. Less than 4 percent of our power generation in this 
country currently comes from renewables or alternatives. In other 
words, the renewables would be the wind power, hydropower, and it 
certainly could be fuel cells or various other components. The point is 
we have invested about $6 billion in subsidies and grants for 
renewables. They still only take a very small percentage.
  What I find rather ironic is that there is no identification of just 
how we are going to get out of this energy crisis. We are going to get 
out of it by going back to our traditional energy sources--coal, 
nuclear, oil, gas, hydro--and recognizing we can do a better job of 
conservation and work towards renewables.
  What is frustrating is there is no identification of any consistency 
of what people will support. As a consequence of that, we find 
ourselves with the recognition that not only do we have an energy 
crisis but we also have an inadequate distribution system, whether it 
be our pipelines or whether it be our electric transmission lines. Many 
of these have not been expanded over the last several years.
  We also have a shortage of refinery capacity in this country. We have 
not built a new refinery in 25 years. It is almost the perfect storm 
coming together. We don't have the refining capacity. We have not built 
any coal-fired powerplants since 1995. We have not built a new nuclear 
powerplant in over 10 years. We have been concentrating on natural gas. 
We saw the price of natural gas go up to $2.16 per thousand cubic feet 
18 months ago. Now it is $4 or $5. It has been as high as $8.
  Here we have, if you will, not only an aging infrastructure for 
delivery but a rather curious inconsistency in our foreign policy. We 
are currently importing about 700,000 barrels a day from Iraq. Many 
people forget that in 1991-1992 we fought a war over there. We lost 147 
American lives. Yet today we enforce a no-fly zone over Iraq. We have 
flown over 230,000 individual sorties enforcing that no-fly zone and 
putting American men and women in danger. Saddam Hussein proceeded 
valiantly and, fortunately, he has been unsuccessful in his effort to 
shoot down one of our aircraft. We are putting men and women in harm's 
way so we can continue to get oil from the Mideast--get it from one 
person who is an enemy.
  I can simplify it. I have used this often. But it seems as if we take 
his oil and put it in our airplanes and then fly missions over Iraq. He 
takes the money that he gets from us and develops a missile capability 
after paying his Republican Guards to keep him alive and aims his 
missiles at our ally, Israel.
  What kind of a foreign policy is that? As a consequence, we see our 
Nation 56-percent dependent on imported oil.
  It is kind of interesting to note what other people are saying. A 
noted investment banker, Matt Simmons, told the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources, which I chair, that ``we are now in the early stages 
of the most serious energy crisis this country has ever faced--worse 
than 1973. As the crisis unfolds, it could become the most critical 
threat to our economy since World War II.''
  I don't know if we are heeding that call, but we certainly try. 
Several of us--Senator John Breaux and myself, among others--have 
introduced comprehensive bipartisan solutions in our energy bill 
pending before the Energy Committee. The objective is to promote the 
use of alternative fuels, encourage efficiency, increase domestic 
supplies of energy, a balanced, comprehensive approach that addresses 
all of our conventional sources and uses of technology as a consequence 
of the advancements we have made in the last several years. We have 
provisions to provide for more efficient appliances in our homes, 
alternative fuel cars, and to make it easier for communities to make 
schools more efficient. It encourages the development of clean coal, 
nuclear, and other domestic energy sources.
  One of the problems with this bill is you might not know what is in 
it because most of the coverage has been around one single issue in my 
State of

[[Page S4409]]

Alaska; that is, whether or not we should include the development of 
ANWR in the bill.
  ANWR is a very small piece of land, but it has turned into the focal 
point of a very large argument. The reason is the environmentalists 
need an issue such as ANWR--an issue that is far away, that Americans 
can't see for themselves. If one looks at the makeup of the huge area 
that includes ANWR and recognizes how insignificant that very small 
portion is that we are planning to open, one begins to understand the 
merits of, indeed, the realization that we can do it safely.

  In any event, I think it is important to note the inconsistency 
relative to several of our major newspapers and their positions on this 
as evidenced by editorials that have been written over the last several 
months. I refer first to an article in the New York Times. That was 
March 5, 2001. It comments on the bill that we have introduced. The 
highlight of the editorial suggests that this paper last addressed the 
folly of trespassing on this wonderful wildlife preserve of ANWR for 
what by officials estimate is likely to be a modest amount of 
economically recoverable oil. As a consequence of that, they go on in a 
later article of January 31, 2000, indicating that the country needs a 
rational energy strategy, but the first step in that strategy should 
not be punching holes in the Arctic refuge, even with improved drilling 
techniques. They go on to say Mr. Bush's plan to open the refuge is 
environmentally unsound and as intellectually shaky as it was when 
Ronald Reagan suggested it 20 years ago and when Mr. Bush's father 
suggested it a decade ago.
  Isn't that rather curious? I will put the poster up because I think 
all Members should have an opportunity to reflect on the inconsistency 
of our national news media on this issue. It did three articles. They 
did an article on April 23, 1987. It reads:

       (Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge . . . the most 
     promising untapped source of oil in North America.
       . . . A decade ago, precautions in the design and 
     construction of the 1,000-mile-long Alaska pipeline saved the 
     land from serious damage. If oil companies, government 
     agencies and environmentalists approach the development of 
     the refuge with comparable care, disaster should be 
     avoidable.

  Then they came long on June 2, 1988, and indicated:

       . . . the potential is enormous and the environmental risks 
     are modest . . . the likely value of the oil far exceeds 
     plausible estimates of the environmental cost.
       . . . the total acreage affected by development represents 
     only a fraction of 1 percent of the North Slope wilderness.
       . . . But it is hard to see why absolutely pristine 
     preservation of this remote wilderness should take precedence 
     of the nation's energy needs.

  Isn't that rather ironic? The New York Times has suddenly done a 
flip-flop when in June of 1988 they supported it, and in March of 1989 
they stated:

       . . . Alaskan oil is too valuable to leave in the ground.
       . . . the Single most promising source of oil in America 
     lies on the north coast of Alaska, a few hundred miles east 
     of the big fields at Prudhoe Bay.
       . . . Washington can't afford . . . to treat the [Exxon 
     Valdez] accident as a reason for fencing off what may be the 
     last great oilfield in the nation.

  It is interesting to note that the New York Times has done a flip-
flop. It seems to me that it is more dangerous today when we are 
importing 56 percent of our energy from overseas and worse than it was 
in the late 1970s when we were importing 37 percent.
  In 1973, when we had the Arab oil embargo, there was a reaction in 
this country. We created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and we made a 
mandate not to be dependent on the Mideast. As a consequence, we had a 
very accurate effort in legislation, and so forth, to ensure that we 
would not increase our oil imports. We had a crisis. We recognized it. 
We wanted development of oil here at home. But now the New York Times 
has suddenly turned around with very little explanation given.
  In fact, I had an opportunity to meet with the editorial board of the 
New York Times. I asked for an explanation of why they had changed 
their position when clearly the situation and the crisis as a 
consequence of increased imported energy and the California crisis had 
heightened. The response to me was: Well, we had a different editor 
then, and he is gone. I don't think that is a reasonable explanation.
  You might think I am picking on the New York Times. But I had the 
same situation with the Washington Post. The Washington Post some time 
ago supported opening up ANWR. But as of December 25, 2000, they 
indicated:

       Gov. Bush has promised to make energy policy an early 
     priority of his administration. If he wants to push ahead 
     with opening the plain as part of that, he'll have to show 
     that he values conservation as well as finding new sources of 
     supply. He'll also have to make the case that in the long 
     run, the oil to be gained is worth the potential damage to 
     this unique, wild and biologically vital ecosystem. That 
     strikes us as a hard case to make.

  Then in another editorial from the Washington Post dated February 25:

       Mr. Bush wants to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
     to oil exploration. . . .
       America cannot drill its way out of ties to the world oil 
     market. . . . But the most generous estimates of potential 
     production from the Alaska refuge amount to only a fraction 
     of current imports. To reduce dependence on foreign oil 
     requires reducing dependence on oil in general, through 
     lowered consumption [and so forth].

  They did not say how we are going to move the transportation network 
of this country: our ships and our planes. We do not fly in and out of 
Washington, DC, on hot air. We have to have jet fuel from refineries. 
Somebody has to produce it.
  My point is the Washington Post, too, has changed. One wonders why. 
Because in 1987, on April 23, an editorial in the Washington Post read:

       . . . Preservation of wilderness is important, but much of 
     Alaska is already under the strictest of preservation laws. . 
     . .
       . . . But that part of the arctic coast is one of the 
     bleakest, most remote places on this continent, and there is 
     hardly any other place where drilling would have less impact 
     on the surroundings life. . . .
       . . . That oil could help ease the country's transition to 
     lower oil supplies and . . . reduce its dependence on 
     uncertain imports. Congress would be right to go ahead and, 
     with all the conditions and environmental precautions that 
     apply to Prudhoe Bay, see what's under the refuge's [of 
     ANWR]. . . .

  That sounds pretty good. Then on April 4, 1989, they further say in 
an editorial:

       . . . But if less is to be produced here in the United 
     States, more will have to come from other countries. The 
     effect will be to move oil spills to other shores. As a 
     policy to protect the global environment, that's not very 
     helpful. . . .
       . . . The lesson that conventional wisdom seems to be 
     drawing--that the country should produce less and turn to 
     even greater imports--is exactly wrong.

  How ironic can these two national organizations--the New York Times 
and the Washington Post--be in completely flip-flopping the position 
they both had in the mid-1980s, to turn around and now be in opposition 
when we truly have an energy crisis in this country? I encourage my 
colleagues to inquire of the Washington Post and New York Times why 
that is so.
  The explanation I got, as I indicated, from the New York Times is 
they changed editorial editors, and that person is gone. I asked the 
Washington Post for an explanation. The explanation from the Washington 
Post is rather interesting: Of the group who was there, one person 
volunteered an explanation. That explanation was that they thought 
President-elect Bush was a little too forward on the issue in his 
comments during his campaign. I do not think that is an adequate answer 
either.
  I will tell you what we have. We have general comments about an 
energy policy and the need for an energy policy but no specific 
identification of how we are going to achieve, if you will, more 
production of energy in this country, more transmission lines, and how 
to use our technology to lessen the footprint.
  One of the ways, clearly, is to reduce dependence on foreign imported 
oil and by opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve. By doing 
that, we can hasten the day when we can reduce our dependence on 
imported oil.

  Let me conclude with one reference and I do not have the charts in 
the Chamber to show you, but I think it is important to keep in mind 
that ANWR is the size of the State of South Carolina. It is 19 million 
acres. We have taken 8.5 million acres and put them in a wilderness in 
perpetuity. Nine million acres are in a refuge. Congress has the sole 
discretion on opening up the 1.5 million acres. It is estimated that if

[[Page S4410]]

the oil is in the abundance that it needs to be, it will take a 
footprint of roughly 1,000 to 2,000 acres. That is about half the size 
of the Dulles International Airport.
  To me, one of the startling things about new technology is a 
statement an engineer made in my office saying he could drill under the 
Capitol Building and come out at gate 17 at Reagan Airport. That gives 
you some idea of the advanced technology for oil and gas drilling.
  I know my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Finance, is 
anxious to be heard and to ask for 5 minutes of my time. I will grant 
him 5 minutes of my time. One of these days I will expect reciprocity.
  I am going to be speaking again on this crisis in energy and the role 
of the national environmental community in challenging the realistic 
manner in which we can achieve greater relief from the energy crisis in 
this country. I will be doing that in the coming days.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, now I know who I have to thank that I 
can get 5 minutes. So I thank the Senator from Alaska. But in show of 
my appreciation, I say to him that on the matter he spoke about in 
relation to our energy needs, I look forward to helping solve a great 
deal of our energy issues because through our Committee on Finance we 
will be dealing with a lot of tax issues that deal with the efforts to 
spur production and alternative energies.
  A very big part of your program that you have introduced--and we 
compliment you for being a leader in trying to solve the energy 
crisis--will be the work of the committee on which the Senator and I 
serve. I will be very happy to work on that.

                          ____________________