[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.
____________________