[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 77 (Wednesday, June 6, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1024]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    LONG-RANGE ENERGY PLAN NECESSARY

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 6, 2001

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the 
following editorial from the May 25, 2001, Norfolk Daily News. The 
editorial stresses the need to develop a long-range plan to address the 
nation's energy problems. The Bush administration is to be commended 
for offering a comprehensive plan with dozens of specific 
recommendations. it is imperative for Congress to work with the 
administration to develop a sensible long-term energy policy which will 
help assure Americans of development of diverse, reliable, affordable 
energy sources and an emphasis on energy conservation. Clearly, too, 
development of energy sources must be done in an environmentally 
responsible manner.

                    No Immediate Relief is Promised

       With typical impatience, many Americans are disappointed 
     that President Bush's energy plan does not immediately 
     resolve the problems with high gasoline prices and the costs 
     of electricity. Natural gas has escalated as well, and there 
     is nothing in the Bush plan that puts a lid on prices or 
     rations supplies.
       Instead, he proposes to deal with the problems on a long-
     term basis. It may well mean he will be a one-term president, 
     but if the plan gains acceptance, it is a small price to pay.
       The clamoring for the federal government to do something, 
     anything, about California's electric bill, which rose from 
     $7 billion in 1999 to $28 billion last year and is expected 
     to be upward of $50 billion next year, is intense. It seems 
     typical of state or local government blaming Washington first 
     and expecting to be bailed out. The idea that the state is 
     too big and too important to the rest of the nation leads 
     politically to the thought that federal intervention and 
     ``temporary'' price caps are the only solution.
       Energy policy must be based on the nation's best interests, 
     however, and not those of residents or business enterprises 
     in any one state.
       The solution is to be found in realistic energy pricing 
     which, in the case of gasoline now pushing upward of $2 a 
     gallon, is not as costly as 20 years ago when inflation is 
     taken into account.
       Painful as that is, and especially for those in farming 
     where costs are not often passed on, the alternative of price 
     controls, quotas and rationing would be worse.
       That segment of the oil industry in the United States which 
     finds ways to obtain supplies from old sources thought to be 
     uneconomic is now being revived. There are known reserves, 
     notably including those offshore near California and the Gulf 
     Coast, to be utilized. And there is also the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge that offers promise.
       Some of these developments, inherent in the new plan, are 
     vigorously opposed from an environmental standpoint. It may 
     take even higher prices and more severe winters to convince 
     policymakers that the conflicts between animal habitat and 
     human needs require more compromise and not total bans on 
     exploration and drilling under carefully controlled 
     conditions.
       While the Bush National Energy Policy is strong on 
     emphasizing the production side, including nuclear sources 
     and cleaner coal technology, it offers important incentives 
     for conservation, for wider development of high-mileage 
     vehicles, wind and solar power.
       In short, it is a broad plan which can make America less 
     dependent on foreign sources. That it does not solve 
     immediate price and supply problems or establish a new energy 
     czar with dictatorial powers is not a flaw. That it does not 
     immediately solve problems unique to those states which 
     handled deregulation programs poorly is not a weakness. But 
     it will take much political foresight to recognize that.

     

                          ____________________