[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 74 (Friday, May 25, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5668-S5671]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague from Idaho just discussed the 
energy issue. There is not any question the energy policy is a critical 
policy for this country. We must develop a national energy plan that 
makes sense for our long-term future.
  Every American every day has a claim on the need for energy. We need 
a consistent, predictable supply of energy that is reasonably priced. 
We need a policy that allows that to happen. When the price of oil went 
to $10 a barrel for some long while, people stopped looking for oil and 
natural gas. It is pretty predictable. There were fewer rigs looking 
for oil when the price of oil and natural gas was very low. When the 
price of oil went up and natural gas spiked back up, there were more 
drilling rigs and more people are searching for more oil and natural 
gas. That is predictable. That is how the market system works.
  It is not in this country's best interest to have a roller coaster of 
exploration, and that is what happens. That is what describes only part 
of our current problem with the imbalance between supply and demand for 
energy.
  We are too dependent on the OPEC countries. All of us know that. One 
day we will wake up--I hope this is not the case--it is likely we will 
wake up when some grotesque terrorist act in the Middle East interrupts 
the supply of oil, even if temporarily, and it will allow us to 
understand how overly dependent we are on a source of energy and oil, 
natural gas from a region that is so unstable.
  In addition to having this roller coaster on exploration and being 
overly dependent on a supply of energy from the Middle East, we also 
are a country that has largely decided to ignore conservation. One can 
drive down the road these days and see someone driving a new vehicle 
that looks a lot like a Humvee, except it is bigger and heavier and is 
sold at your local dealership as a family vehicle. People have a right 
to drive that, but the point is that is moving in the opposite 
direction of having a national conservation ethic.
  It is true, as the Senator from Idaho said, that we must produce 
more. I do not think you will find Members of the Senate in 
disagreement on that. We must produce more oil and natural gas. We must 
use coal resources. There are ample resources in our coal fields. We 
can do it using clean coal technology. We must use our fossil fuels in 
a thoughtful way, and we can do that in a manner that is not 
inconsistent with a good and clean environment.
  That is important, but it is also important to understand we just 
cannot produce ourselves out of this problem. We cannot produce our way 
out of this problem. We have a President and a Vice President who come 
from oil backgrounds so it is probably not surprising their energy plan 
is to just drill more. They have an easy solution to America's energy 
problem: Just drill more.
  That is one approach, but it is not a balanced approach. Yes, we must 
produce more, and I support that, but we also must conserve more. 
Conservation of energy is another way of producing energy. We must have 
a conservation component that is real, not just talk, but real as we 
deal with this energy policy.
  We also must have an efficiency process in this energy plan. All of 
the appliances, the things we use every day in our lives that make our 
lives better, easier, can be made more efficient and should be. We have 
efficiency standards. The question is whether we continue to press for 
greater efficiency in all of these appliances or not. The answer should 
be yes.

  Finally, renewable resources. We ought to use renewable forms of 
energy, and I know the big oil companies have never liked that very 
much, but I happen to believe that using ethanol, taking a drop of 
alcohol from a kernel of corn and using it to extend our energy supply, 
makes good sense.
  We can take a drop of alcohol from a kernel of corn and still have 
the protein feedstock left. So we have extended America's energy supply 
and we still have protein feedstock for animals. What a wonderful thing 
to do. Plus, it is renewable. We are not depleting it every year.
  Wind energy. North Dakota happens to be the Saudi Arabia of wind, 
according to the Department of Energy. There is nothing wrong, as an 
important part of our energy plan, of putting up more efficient wind 
turbines and using that wind energy to extend America's energy supply.
  It is true, as my colleague from Idaho says, we need to produce more, 
and all of us support that, but a balanced energy plan will include 
production, conservation, renewable energy, and also efficiency with 
appliances and the things we use day to day. If we have a bold energy 
plan that includes all of those components, I believe we will find a 
broad area of support for it in this Congress.
  As I mentioned, we have a President and Vice President who come from 
the oil industry, so it is not unnatural for them to produce a plan 
that says: By the way, let's just drill more. But that is not a 
balanced plan. We can, should, and must do much better than that and 
have a plan that balances all of these interests.
  And, finally, another thought on this issue of an energy plan. We 
have other dislocations occurring in this country in a very significant 
way. In California, the price of electricity is going through the roof. 
Some say that is supply and demand. That is nonsense. That market is 
broken. It is flat dead broke, and the regulators should have 
intervened.
  The Federal regulators are doing their best imitation of potted 
plants. They sit on their hands, we pay them salaries, and they do 
nothing. The fact is, they should have put a cap on wholesale prices 
for electricity in California.
  We have big traders and big economic interests that take an Mcf of 
natural gas, trade it from an unregulated market to a regulated market, 
and in 24 to 48 hours, the price of that same Mcf of natural gas will 
double, triple, or quadruple. Guess who gets hit right square in the 
jaw with that. The consumer.

[[Page S5669]]

  The price of power in California was $7 billion 2 years ago. It is 
expected to be $70 billion this year, a tenfold increase.
  My point is this: Whether it is the price of natural gas that is 
being sold into California or the price of natural gas that is doubling 
around the rest of the country, or the price of gasoline at the gas 
pump, or the price of electricity, the fact is, we need to shine the 
spotlight of investigation on energy pricing in this country.
  The education bill is going to be pending in the Senate when we 
return. It has an amendment that is pending which I offered calling for 
a joint House-Senate investigative committee on energy pricing. Is 
there some manipulation going on? Are there some interests that are 
manipulating both price and supply and driving up energy prices for the 
American people? I do not know, but I suspect so.
  Some very limited investigations have shown that supply has been 
manipulated in a way to drive up price. It seems to me, given what is 
happening in California and the rest of the west coast, and given what 
is happening to natural gas prices and other things around the country, 
and the price at the gas pump for that matter, the American people will 
be served well by shining a spotlight of investigation on energy 
pricing practices all across this country.
  That would represent a component to an energy plan that gives the 
American people some confidence that we are doing the right thing.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for highlighting 
this energy issue. If there were ever a moment in time when we should 
talk about energy, it is on the Friday before the Memorial Day weekend 
when families across America are making plans to head out for vacations 
or family reunions. It is the time when they get in the car or decide 
whether to take a long or short trip and become sensitized to the price 
of gasoline.
  In Chicago and in the Midwest, for the second year running, we have 
seen devastating increases in the price of gasoline. It seems Easter is 
the kickoff for the oil companies to start raising the prices and then 
to catch all sorts of criticism from the public and elected officials 
and to bring them down after Memorial Day. In the meantime, families 
and businesses are being socked by the high prices.
  The Senator from North Dakota puts his finger on it. This Congress 
has been unwilling to take a look at the energy industry. Certainly, we 
do not expect the White House, with the President and Vice President, 
with their background in this field, to do it. If this Congress will 
not do it, the consumers of America stand on the sidelines. They stand 
on the sidelines with their pockets empty because each time they go to 
the gasoline station, they are putting more and more money into their 
cars and trucks, into their vehicles to move their families.
  I ask the Senator from North Dakota, if we have an opportunity for a 
joint conference with the House and Senate in a bipartisan approach to 
get into the energy pricing, how soon can we have that hearing, what 
kind of things can we look into, what kind of relief can we offer to 
businesses and families across America who are being nailed by the high 
energy prices?
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Illinois knows we have an amendment 
pending on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that calls for 
the creation of a select committee on investigation. One of the 
problems is you need resources to do that; you need investigators. You 
cannot do this without the ability to investigate pricing practices. My 
hope is that we can move quickly when we get back. We will have a vote 
and see who wants to do this.
  I make another point that is important. One hundred years ago, Teddy 
Roosevelt, carrying a big stick, said to John D. Rockefeller: ``You 
can't do that.'' He was talking about price fixing with respect to oil 
and energy. He began to break it up.
  I am not alleging there is widespread fraud or abuse. All I am saying 
is there are things that do not add up. We have big energy traders, 
huge economic interests, trading energy and doing it at secret prices 
from unregulated markets into regulated markets. We have oil companies 
much, much bigger than they used to be because they merged, and merged, 
and merged again. We have economic power with the opportunity to 
manipulate markets and try to drive up prices. Who are the victims? The 
victims are the American consumers. They deserve to know.
  There was a limited Federal Trade Commission investigation dealing 
with gas prices last year in the Midwest. Some say that exonerated the 
companies. It did no such thing. It was such a limited investigation. 
Even that limited investigation showed some deliberately limited 
refinery output. They did not want to increase supply because they knew 
if they restricted supply, they could jack up prices.

  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator another question. When we ask the 
people in the energy business, why are prices out of control, they say 
it is the market mechanism, market forces.
  There are two things I find interesting. Our common experience says 
when gasoline prices go up in a town, they all go up at the same time 
in lockstep. When they come down, they trickle down at the same rate. 
You don't see competition in pricing that could be found in any other 
market.
  Second, the oil companies consistently guess wrong about supply. That 
is what the Federal Trade Commission said. Why would they guess wrong? 
They make more money when they guess wrong. These oil companies are now 
having record profits and they are saying: We just did not have 
pipeline capacity; we were not prepared for reformulated gas, for clean 
air; we made a mistake.
  Look at what resulted from the mistake. It did not result in their 
being penalized. It resulted in their being rewarded with some of the 
highest profits they have seen in 10 years. I cannot think of another 
company or another industry in America that can guess wrong so 
consistently and profit from it time and time again.
  Vice President Cheney recently he saw no evidence of price gouging. 
Mr. Vice President Cheney, come to Chicago, come to Illinois. Take a 
look at what happened in a 30-day period. The price of gasoline went up 
50 cents a gallon. No price gouging?
  I have a quote from Vice President Cheney who said:

       Americans are more understanding and tolerant of high gas 
     prices than most pundits believe.

  Again, I invite the Vice President to speak not only to the families 
who are now paying $50 and $60 and $70 to fill the gas tank but also 
talk to business people, the small businesses that have been forced to 
consider layoffs and a reduction in their own activities because of 
high energy prices. To say people understand this and accept it is to 
ignore our responsibility. We are supposed to be there for these 
consumers and these businesses and these families who have no other 
voice in the process.
  I have joined with the Senator from North Dakota. I think it is 
important we have this investigative hearing to make certain that the 
people who run this industry come in and are held accountable.
  I also think when we get into the debate about energy, we ought to 
have consumers at the table. It is not enough to have the energy giants 
and the government agencies and people in pinstriped suits from K 
Street in Washington. Let's have people representing small businesses 
in Illinois, farm families from North Dakota, who can talk about the 
practical impact. I know the Senator from North Dakota supports that. I 
would appreciate it if he told me what he thinks we can do to deal with 
the market mechanism which always is stacked against the consumer.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the market is broken. It is clearly 
broken.
  Look at what is happening in California: $7 billion was the cost of 
power in California 2 years ago. This year it is estimated to be $70 
billion, a tenfold increase. Who are the victims? The folks in 
California who are going to work every day, coming home to open the 
bills and figure out how to pay an electric bill that has dramatically 
increased.
  That is why I say, look, we need a new energy plan. I don't disagree 
with that. We have not had a good energy plan for decades. We are too 
dependent on foreign sources.

  The Senator from Idaho piqued my interest on the subject. There are a 
lot

[[Page S5670]]

of areas we can agree. I agree with the Senator from Idaho, that we do 
need to produce more oil and gas. I agree with that. We need to build 
more power lines and more transmission capability. I agree with that. 
We need to build more powerplants, I agree. We need to use more coal 
sources, use more clean coal technology, and do all of that while being 
sensitive to the needs of the environment. We can do that. I support 
that in a manner consistent with protecting our environment.
  Then I say: Support us on this. We need better conservation. More 
conservation. We need more effort towards renewable sources of energy. 
We need more effort towards greater efficiency of appliances and the 
rules that support that are in place. And now the administration 
threatens to retract on some of those rules.
  Finally, we also need to have an investigation of pricing practices. 
Join us on that.
  If my colleague from Idaho and his colleagues would join in the 
resolution I have included on the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act that calls for the selection of a House and Senate committee to 
investigate pricing, we will have an energy plan that includes a lot of 
the right things but also says, while we are doing this, let's take a 
look to make sure the American people are not victims of pricing 
practices and supply manipulation that enriches some of the bigger 
economic interests, but takes it out of the pockets of the folks who 
are trying to gas up at the pump in order to go to work.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. I follow up on a point. There was an old saying during 
debate of the Clean Air Act, a belief that once we established 
standards for clean air in America, it was said as a result of that 
Government decision, the people in the automobile industry in Japan 
went out and hired an army of engineers to figure out how to make their 
cars cleaner and more fuel efficient.
  The people in charge of the American automobile industry went out and 
hired an army of lawyers to fight the regulations at every possible 
level. That is an oversimplification.
  But I want to say to the Senator from North Dakota that 8 years ago, 
during the Clinton-Gore administration they said to Detroit: We want 
you to sit down and work on a more fuel-efficient automobile that is 
safe for families. We are prepared to make certain that you do not run 
afoul of any antitrust violations. We want you to come together, the 
big three, put your heads together with your best creative talent and 
come up with that automobile, come up with that SUV, come up with that 
truck. They gave them that assignment. They moved forward with it and 
they hoped for the best.
  Let's take a look at where we are today. Today the only vehicle I 
know of that is on the road that offers fuel economy over 50 miles a 
gallon in a car that is of normal size is, sadly, from Toyota Motor 
Company. It is a model called the Prius. They have a 5-month waiting 
list of people who want to buy this car which combines electric power 
with a gas engine and gives much greater fuel economy.
  Detroit announced last week that they will have a competitor for the 
Toyota Prius in about 3 or 4 years.
  You have to ask yourself, what is going on here? If this country, 
with all its creative talent and technological skill, cannot come up 
with a product, an automobile, a truck, an SUV, that is safe and fuel 
efficient, what are we missing?
  I think what we are missing is the guidance and leadership and 
direction from the top. We cannot just say let market forces come to 
work because if market forces come to work, we are going to get scooped 
time and time again by someone with more vision. Sadly, in this case it 
happens to be a foreign automobile manufacturer.
  I ask the Senator from North Dakota if part of this energy debate 
should not include incentives for those who are making the automobiles 
and the trucks and other vehicles to come up with more fuel-efficient 
vehicles so we can have safe vehicles that also reduce our need for 
foreign oil.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Illinois, I 
think that makes a great deal of sense. I know one of our colleagues 
drives one of the hybrid cars. I have seen it parked outside of the 
building when we have late votes. It is a car that runs on both 
gasoline and electricity. I understand they are very efficient.
  But the roads are not populated with many of those cars, largely 
because we have an energy industry and auto industry that moves down 
the road with the internal combustion engine, and they fight every step 
of the way on increased efficiencies people propose in Congress.
  Mr. President, I have told my colleagues this before, my first car 
was a 1924 Model T Ford. I bought an antique car and restored it. My 
dad told me where it was. He was hauling gasoline and was out on a farm 
and they had an old car in a granary. He told me about it and said you 
should write to this fellow and see if he wants to sell it. The guy had 
long since moved to Wisconsin. So I wrote to this fellow from Wisconsin 
and asked if he wanted to sell an old Model T stored in a granary for 
30 or 40 years. I was a teenager.
  He said he would sell it for me for $25, and he sent me the owner's 
manual and the key. So I went out and hauled the old Model T in and 
restored it.
  It is interesting, that 1924 Model T Ford is fueled exactly the way a 
car built in 2001 is fueled. You pull up to a gas pump and you stick 
the nozzle in the tank and you pump gas in it. Think of the few things 
that have changed in 75 or 80 or 90 years--almost everything has 
changed around us. Almost everything we do is dazzling, breathtaking 
new technology, technological change that takes your breath away. Guess 
what. Eighty years ago you pulled up to a pump and stuck a hose in and 
pumped a little gas in, and 80 years later you do exactly the same 
thing.

  You wonder why; why would nothing change? Clearly, part of the 
solution is technology. I just described the technology of a car that 
is occasionally parked in front of the Capitol. We have the capability 
of making more efficient automobiles. Of course we have the capability. 
We ought to have the will. As the Senator from Illinois says and 
proposes, we ought to provide incentives as part of an energy plan to 
say to those who are interested in doing that: Here is your head, go do 
it. We encourage you to do it. Here are the financial incentives to do 
it.
  That is another way to provide conservation and new technology to 
move out of this energy problem that we have. That is longer term, not 
short term. But it is certainly part of what we ought to be doing.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield, I would like to ask him this 
question. There are those who argue from the energy industry side that 
the only way we can improve our energy future in America is by 
compromising on air quality standards. They suggest it is environmental 
regulation which is causing the problem we face today.
  I disagree with that. I think they ignore realities. One of the 
realities we should not ignore is to perhaps visit a local hospital, go 
to an emergency room, and ask the doctor who is in control what is the 
No. 1 diagnosis of children going to emergency rooms in America today. 
I was surprised to learn it is not trauma, kids falling off a bicycle; 
it is asthma. The No. 1 reason kids miss school: Asthma. The No. 1 
diagnosis in emergency rooms: Asthma. Pulmonary disease, lung problems, 
and asthma are, unfortunately, becoming epidemic in our country. I 
cannot give you the specific reason for all of it, but the people I 
have spoken to say air quality is part of it.
  I will mention something else to the Senator from North Dakota. The 
former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Carol Browner, told 
me that the Web site for the Environmental Protection Agency had a 
dramatic increase in visits from a few thousand a month to millions a 
month when they started posting ozone alerts on cities across America. 
Families literally got up in the morning and logged on, went to the EPA 
Web site to find out whether it was safe for their child to go outside. 
Think about that.
  If we are talking about compromising air quality standards in 
America, more kids are going to be sitting inside their homes; more 
elderly people with pulmonary disease are going to be at risk. We 
cannot afford that. We can have a good energy policy and not compromise 
the public health of this Nation and the health of families across the 
board. I totally reject the concept that I have

[[Page S5671]]

heard from some in this administration and from the energy industry 
that the only way we can move forward in America is at the expense of 
our health.
  This should not be ``your money or your life.'' In this situation I 
think we can have a good energy policy that does not compromise that 
basic quality standard. We have made amazing progress over the last 20 
years. Visit any foreign industrialized country and take a look at the 
muck they call air. Go to Beijing in China. You wake up in the morning 
and say it is a foggy day; at noon you say it is still a foggy day; 
midafternoon, still a foggy day; at night, still foggy; and the next 
morning, the same. Every day, day after day, the air quality is 
miserable.

  I don't pick on China. There are many other comparable countries. The 
United States should lead, not only being an industrial power but also 
sensitive to the health of its people. I ask the Senator from North 
Dakota for his comments on this relationship between energy and the 
environment.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois makes a good 
point. Increasing the supply of energy in this country does not have to 
be at odds with protecting and preserving a good environment. It just 
does not.
  We have had experience with this in North Dakota. Some 25 years ago, 
the proposals to build coal-fired electric generating plants in our 
State produced a great deal of controversy. I was one in the State 
capital who led the fight saying if we are going to build coal-fired 
generating plants, then you must provide the latest available 
technology on those stacks. We must have wet scrubbers and the latest 
available technology to scrub down those emissions.
  The industry was furious with me because I led a vigorous fight and 
we built those plants in North Dakota. But they did it and they had to 
have latest available technology scrubbers on their stacks. When they 
strip-mined to get the coal, they had to segregate top soil and do 
layers and topography restoration. They did not like it. But guess 
what. We did it the right way.
  Mr. President, 25 years later, looking in the rear-view mirror, they 
would all agree that was the right thing to do. We were the first State 
in the Union to meet the ambient air quality standards. We now have 
segregated top soil and topography restored on strip-mined lands of 
which we are proud.
  You can do this the right way. I know the energy industry sometimes 
doesn't want to because it is more costly to do it that way. But it 
makes sense to do it the right way. Increasing the supply of energy 
does not have to be at odds with protecting our environment.
  Let me make one final important point. Gregg Easterbrooke wrote a 
book that I believe was entitled ``America the OK.'' It was published a 
few years ago. In it he said we have doubled our use of energy in our 
country in the last 20 years, and we have cleaner air and cleaner 
water. Why? Because this country demanded it. We demanded, through the 
Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, that we take steps to protect our air 
and our water.

  The point is, no one 20 years ago would have predicted you could 
double the use of energy without significantly fouling your air and 
water. If you do it the right way, you can coexist: an increased energy 
supply with a good, clean environment. That is what the Senator from 
Illinois is saying.
  So as we go through these battles about energy policy, my hope is 
that the good ideas on that side of the aisle can be merged with our 
good ideas and we can have a policy that is balanced. Yes, more 
production, but production the right way, with environmental 
safeguards. Yes, let's also insist on some conservation, efficiency, 
and renewable energy at the same time; we can do all of this together.
  But it is not a balanced energy plan simply to say, the market will 
take care of this. The market is broken, and we know it. Buy 
electricity in California today, and ask yourself whether you think 
this market works, while the big economic interests get rich and you 
get gouged. Ask yourself then, on the west coast: Do you think this 
market works? Everyone in the country knows that is not the case.
  Americans deserve the opportunity to have an investigation of energy 
pricing that shines a spotlight on pricing and supplies and evaluates 
whether they are being manipulated in a way that victimizes consumers.
  As I said before, 100 years ago, Teddy Roosevelt took a big stick and 
said to John D. Rockefeller, you cannot do this any more, because he 
was manipulating the price of oil. And 100 years later it is useful for 
us to have a significant investigation of both the price and supply of 
energy and find out who is doing what so the American people have some 
confidence, as we develop a new energy plan, that the big economic 
interests will not gouge the American consumers.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The distinguished Senator from 
Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CLELAND. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the magnificent discussion on energy 
policy and environmental concerns led by the distinguished Senator from 
North Dakota and the Senator from Illinois.
  I would like to change the subject for a moment as we approach 
Memorial Day weekend.

                          ____________________