[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 76 (Tuesday, June 5, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5805-S5808]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE ENERGY CRISIS

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is likely that soon the Senate will 
undergo a historic change in leadership. I am concerned about some news 
reports that the new Democratic leadership may not proceed forthwith to 
the consideration of an energy bill that the administration very much 
would like to see us consider. It is my understanding that, at least 
from news reports, there are some other priorities the new Democratic 
leadership will probably pursue.
  I just want to make it as clear as I can I think we should, as soon 
as possible, consider the legislative recommendations of President Bush 
and Vice President Cheney to deal with this most serious crisis. In 
fact, I think we saw this past weekend that the President thought it 
was important enough to travel to California to visit with Governor 
Davis, who has certainly expressed his views on the importance of the 
issues facing his State. And his is not the only State that has faced 
this energy crisis.

[[Page S5806]]

  There are a couple of statistics worth noting in this regard. Our 
energy demands are growing very rapidly while our production side is 
relatively stagnant. Oil consumption, for example, will grow by over 6 
million barrels per day over the next 20 years, but oil production is 
expected to decline by 1.5 million barrels per day. Natural gas 
consumption will grow by over 50 percent over the next 20 years, but 
production will only grow by 14 percent. And electricity demand, which 
is especially of concern on the west coast and in my region of the 
country, will rise by 45 percent over the next 20 years. This will 
require 1,300 to 1,900 new power plants. So we have a big job ahead of 
us. I think we need to get on with some of the solutions as soon as 
possible.
  There has been some criticism that the President's recommendations 
are primarily longer term solutions. We will make them even longer term 
the longer we take to get to them. We will have shorter range solutions 
the quicker we get to the legislation that is required.
  I note that many of the recommendations from the commission the Vice 
President headed are recommendations that can be effectuated by the 
administration itself. Twelve can be implemented by Executive action; 
seventy-three are directives to Federal agencies. For example, the 
President has already directed Federal entities to reduce consumption 
by 10 percent, including the military. But there are some 20 
recommendations for action by the Congress. These are among the things 
on which we need to get moving:
  The plan of the President to modernize and increase conservation, to 
diversify energy supply, and modify and expand the infrastructure 
through which those sources of energy are delivered to the American 
people, and to strengthen our energy security. This is the core of the 
set of recommendations.
  Without getting into all of the details, because I only have 5 
minutes this morning, let me just say that one of the things that has 
been proposed is price caps. Price caps, as the President and Vice 
President have said, are exactly the wrong thing to do. Price caps 
would keep demand increasing and do nothing to enhance supply. In fact, 
it would tend to keep supply down because there is nothing for the 
investor to look forward to if there is a price cap on how much can be 
charged for the energy that is being produced. And, of course, there is 
no incentive to conserve if there is a price cap. If prices, on the 
other hand, are allowed to rise, as they do with gasoline, then people 
will be more careful about how much they use.

  We have seen news reports of people cutting back a little bit on the 
driving they intend to do this summer. Why? Because there are no price 
caps on the price of gasoline. People understand that to save money 
they are going to have to drive less; they are going to have to 
conserve.
  So I do not understand why, on the one hand, we have this drumbeat of 
comment that we have to conserve our way out of this problem--certainly 
conservation is an element but not the sole element--and yet, on the 
other hand, to put in place price caps, which would have exactly the 
opposite incentive--for people not to conserve but to go ahead and 
continue to use those electricity supplies. So I think price caps are 
not the answer. There are other elements of the bill that are.
  Finally, a point about some of the criticism of the Vice President 
and the President. I hope our colleagues will not join in this kind of 
demagogy that we have seen from outside the Senate. It is true that 
both the President and the Vice President have been in the business of 
producing petroleum products. I do not know why we would be critical of 
people who know something about the solution coming up with some good 
ideas. They are, after all, our top two elected leaders. They know 
something about the problem and its solutions, and neither of them can 
any longer directly benefit.
  So I think this criticism that they know something about the problem 
and therefore they should not be involved in the solution is very 
misdirected.
  I hope we can focus on solutions rather than ad hominem attacks. 
After all, there are two kinds of people in the United States: There 
are producers and consumers. Almost all of us are consumers, and we 
should be grateful for those who are the producers because they are the 
ones who make it possible for us to enjoy our great standard of living. 
They would not be producing if we did not provide the demand for that 
production. It is the consumers of the country who, in effect, are 
creating the opportunity for these people to do the demanding.
  Some of these critics remind me of kids who think that food comes 
from the refrigerator or the grocery store.
  Obviously, they are unaware of all the work the farmers and the 
people in between the farmers and the grocery store put in to make 
those food supplies available. We should not be talking in terms of 
criticizing the people who are coming up with the solutions simply 
because they happen to know something about it. I suggest that the new 
leadership of the Senate, as soon as they possibly can, bring the 
legislation forward in whatever form because we will all have an 
opportunity to propose amendments if we don't like its original form.
  This is very near a crisis; if it is not a crisis. We have to get on 
with the solutions. The administration has led the way by its executive 
directives. It has done all it can do. Now it is time for the Congress 
to respond. I urge the new leadership of the Senate to join with the 
administration in a bipartisan effort to begin to consider the solution 
to our energy problem.
  The ACTING PRESIDING pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, the junior Senator from 
Arizona, I don't know where he heard that the new Democratic leadership 
was not going to move forward on energy. We are most happy to move 
forward on energy.
  There are all kinds of problems, as the Senator knows. The President 
has an energy program he has put forward. There are not many specifics 
with it, but we should move forward and pass those issues on which we 
agree. Those issues on which we disagree, we can debate and vote up or 
down.
  The Senator has said what we believe is important. We have to start 
approaching some of these problems in a bipartisan fashion. We hope 
that can be done on energy.
  There is no question that there is a lot of dialog about energy and, 
of course, there are all kinds of things being said, such as ``the GOP, 
gas, oil and plutonium.'' I don't think that gets us anyplace.
  There has been a lot of bad news from California, but today there was 
some good news. The good news is that in California they have already 
found a way to conserve up to 11 percent of the electricity that they 
were using. That is significant.
  When Vice President Cheney said that conservation was a good personal 
habit but it wouldn't do anything to solve the energy crisis, I don't 
think he really believes that. It may not have come out the way he 
wanted it. We know there has to be conservation along with anything we 
do to stimulate production.
  One of the criticisms I have--and I think it is a valid criticism--
with this administration, I serve on the Energy and Water Development 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. We found in the budget 
the President gave us, there is almost a 40-percent cut in research and 
development for renewables. That is something we need to change. We can 
do that.

  In those States in the West--the Senator from Arizona has a State 
quite similar to Nevada--there are a lot of things that can be done--
again, not in the short term bit in the long term--dealing with solar, 
dealing with wind, and, in the case of Nevada, with geothermal. These 
are some of the things on which we need to work. Most importantly, we 
have to work together on this problem.
  Senator Dorgan and I have sponsored legislation--in fact, there is an 
amendment on the education bill, and we also have freestanding 
legislation--that would cause a joint committee of the House and Senate 
to be appointed to determine why prices have gone up. Maybe there is a 
good reason they have gone up. I don't think we should have a witch-
hunt. I think it should be an investigation conducted with dignity so 
the American people could at least say, after we finish, we have done 
everything we can to find out why the prices are so high.

[[Page S5807]]

  For example, the Senator and I remember when the price of fuel was so 
high in the early 1970s. You went to gas stations then and there was no 
gas. You would wait in line. You would get to the pump and there would 
be no gas to buy. We don't have that problem now. It doesn't appear to 
be a problem of supply. Then why are the prices so high?
  I hope the Senator from Arizona will look at the legislation the 
Senator from North Dakota and I are sponsoring dealing with why are the 
prices so high.
  In short, there has certainly been nothing said by any part of the 
Democratic leadership in the Senate that we were not going to take a 
look at energy. It is an issue we need to address; we need to do it as 
soon as we can; and we need to do it in a bipartisan fashion.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a quick comment?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. KYL. I appreciate the comments of the Senator. I look forward to 
working with him in a bipartisan fashion.
  I had heard the comments that the Republican leadership was going to 
take the energy bill up right after the education bill. My 
understanding is the Democratic leadership intends to take that up at a 
subsequent date. I think the Patients' Bill of Rights may be the next 
item taken up. That was the nature of my concern.
  As soon as possible, I hope it will be considered. I certainly look 
forward to working with the Senator from Nevada to find solutions to 
the problem.
  I thank the Senator.
  The ACTING PRESIDING pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I seek recognition in morning business to 
follow up on the issue raised by the Senator from Nevada. I can't think 
of a bigger issue in terms of the people I represent in the State of 
Illinois.
  A lot of families in Illinois who rely on natural gas to heat their 
homes saw dramatic increases in their heating bills this past winter. 
Families of very modest means who budgeted very carefully found their 
heating bills for last winter were $1,000 to $1,500 higher than they 
had been in the previous year. Very little explanation was forthcoming. 
A lot of families just had no choice. They turned down the thermostat 
and the bills still went through the roof.
  I ran into a lady who was a domestic housekeeper in a hotel. She 
worked nights for her family. She said to me that she had budgeted the 
same amount as last year to heat her home in Chicago. She ended up 
$1,000 in debt when it was all over. She is determined to pay off that 
debt. She is a very hard working person and takes her debts seriously. 
When you think about that, you just wonder, is this inevitable? Is this 
the market at work, where we have such wide variations?
  I have read a lot--I am sure the Senator from Nevada has as well--
about the energy problem in the West--California and other States--
where they have seen dramatic increases in utility bills, electric 
bills.
  The other issue the Senator from Nevada alluded to touches close to 
home in the Midwest. Last year we had this terrific increase in the 
price of gasoline. It seemed the Easter holiday was the kickoff for a 
runup in record-level gasoline prices. Last year we asked the oil 
companies what happened. Why did you do this? They said: We had this 
change. We had this reformulated gas to reduce air pollution, and it 
caught us by surprise. We were not ready for it.
  It was kind of hard to understand because it had been more than 8 or 
10 years they knew this was coming. They weren't prepared for it. They 
said: We had pipeline breakdowns, refinery problems. They said: We are 
sorry that it happened.
  It went on for about 6 or 8 weeks. People were paying over $2 a 
gallon for gasoline primarily in the upper Midwest but in St. Louis as 
well. Then the price started coming back down.
  Lo and behold, this year exactly the same thing occurred. At Easter 
it was as though there was another starter's gun, and gasoline prices 
went through the roof again.
  What is odd about it is that the oil companies are seeing no dramatic 
increase in the price of crude oil. The defenders of the oil companies 
tell us this is just the market at work. But if you take a look at some 
of the elements in that market, you can raise some serious questions.
  For example, if the price of crude oil is not going up, why is the 
price of gasoline going up dramatically? Secondly, if this is just a 
reflection of some problems within the industry, why is it that the oil 
companies are now experiencing the highest profits in current memory? 
This is one of the few businesses in the world where you can guess 
wrong about consumer demand and make more profit. That seems to be what 
is happening to us in the Midwest.
  I am encouraged by the announcement of our colleague, Senator Levin 
of Michigan, who has said that once the leadership change takes place 
in the Senate, as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations of the Committee on Government Affairs, he would hold a 
hearing and ask, once and for all, what is behind this; why are 
families and small businesses faced with these high energy costs that 
seem to spike out of control, whether it is for the heating bill in 
your home or for the gasoline in your car? What is it about this market 
mechanism that you see all the stations in your city in lockstep going 
up in gasoline prices and coming down, trickling down ever so slowly in 
that same fashion? This does not sound like competition to me; it 
sounds like something else is going on.

  We have been unable in the last few weeks, despite these energy 
increases, to really convince the White House or the Republican-
controlled Congress to look into this issue, to investigate it. But if 
we do not do this in Congress, who will?
  Fortunately, Senator Levin of Michigan has announced he is going to 
move forward with a series of investigations as soon as the leadership 
in the Senate changes. This concern about energy and its future has to 
take into account problems that families and businesses are facing 
today.
  It is true, we have medium- and long-term energy challenges. There 
are many issues we need to consider but, honestly, shouldn't we try to 
address the current problems that people are facing and try to find 
some relief? Senator Levin's call for this hearing is one I support; it 
is one in which I have joined with Senator Dorgan from North Dakota and 
others in asking for previously. I hope we can move forward on this 
matter.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I also support Senator Levin. Not only will he be chairman 
of that subcommittee but chairman of the Armed Services Committee. The 
Armed Services Committee has jurisdiction to find out why oil prices 
are going up so high anyway because the armed services are some of the 
world's biggest consumers of oil products.
  I said to the junior Senator from Arizona, in the seventies we had 
long lines, and sometimes one got to the gas pump and there was no gas. 
There was a shortage of supply. That is not the case now. That is why 
the Senator from North Dakota and I have called for a joint 
investigation by the Congress to find out why these prices are priced 
the way they are. The Senator from Illinois has gone through a number 
of problems that simply do not make sense.
  The Senator has already said what the Senator from Michigan is doing 
on his subcommittee, and it is important. But does the Senator think 
this is one of the most important issues to face the American public 
this decade or last decade or any decade and that a joint investigation 
is warranted?
  Mr. DURBIN. I certainly do. And I thank the Senator from Nevada for 
his leadership. I was happy to join him on this legislation. What 
really frustrated many of us was the fact that Congress was unwilling 
to even look at the issue.
  It is something to go back home, whether the home State is Illinois 
or Nevada, and find people who are telling you real-life stories, 
tragedies of businesses that have had to cut back in the number of 
employees and the work they are doing, because of the cost of energy.
  I am from a farming State. Illinois, of course, is proud of the fact 
that it produces so much corn, soybeans, wheat, pork, and beef, but the 
farmers with whom I have talked face the same thing. It is not just the 
cost of operating their businesses on the farm but

[[Page S5808]]

the cost of fertilizer. All of this is directly linked to the cost of 
energy.

  We can explore and debate future energy policy, but we have to be 
very honest in dealing with the reality of the challenge facing 
families today. That is why I am hoping--and I hope the Senator from 
Nevada agrees with me--that there can be an agreement very soon between 
the Democrats and Republicans to reorganize this Senate and to move 
forward.
  There are so many issues of importance to this Nation that need to be 
addressed and addressed quickly. We have before us the whole issue of 
education. This bill was pending in the Senate before we took up the 
tax bill, and we will return to it. The sooner the Senate gets 
organized, the sooner we are in business under the new leadership of 
the majority leader, Tom Daschle, the sooner we can return to issues of 
education.
  There has also been talk about issues involving a Patients' Bill of 
Rights. That is something which I have supported. It means when your 
doctor makes a decision for you and your good health, it will not be 
overruled by an insurance company. That seems pretty basic to me, but 
we need to pass legislation to make sure the health insurance companies 
and the HMOs do not go too far and make these medical decisions.
  Energy is another issue. We want to work with the President and the 
White House. We should go to that issue. We should work on it. There 
are some important issues to be resolved. One of them is whether or not 
we should drill in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This is a piece of 
real estate in Alaska that is owned by the American people and which 
has been set aside to be maintained as a wilderness.
  There are not many places on Earth that are set aside and maintained 
as a wilderness. Many of us think, particularly in this fragile 
ecosystem in Alaska, with the wildlife that is there --some of it is 
very rare, with species that are not found in other places--that for us 
to invade that territory to be drilling for oil and gas is to run the 
risk that we might disturb that balance, and, once having done that, we 
may face consequences which we cannot repair. The best of intentions of 
the Congress and the President notwithstanding, Mother Nature and God 
have decided how certain things will exist.
  If we want to bring in the trucks and the pipelines and start 
drilling away for oil and gas, we should stop and ask the hard 
question: Is this really our best alternative to find fuel for 
America's future?
  The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it is estimated, has 180 days' 
worth of energy for the United States. Mr. President, 180 days is, of 
course, almost 6 months, but that represents energy that is taken out 
of Alaska over a 10-year period. It means a very small part of our 
energy picture.
  Even with drilling in this wilderness and running the risk of 
disturbing this ecosystem forever, we are still going to find ourselves 
dependent more than 50 percent on foreign oil and energy to sustain the 
United States. Many of us think that before we start drilling in 
wilderness areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we should 
explore alternatives, including conservation.
  I see another Senator on the floor. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Wyoming.

                          ____________________