[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 20, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6507-S6508]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY CRISIS IN AMERICA
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I recognize that we are debating a
motion to proceed to the Patients' Bill of Rights. I am tempted,
however, to ask unanimous consent that we set the Patients' Bill of
Rights aside and go to the energy legislation that is pending before
this body. I shall not do that, in deference to my colleagues on the
other side, although I must admit, it is somewhat ideal and timely.
What I am going to do is call on the majority leader of the Senate to
set a date to take up the energy crisis in America. Polling indicates
the No. 1 issue in this country and concern is not education. It is
energy.
Under the previous leadership--and hindsight is cheap--this was the
week we were going to be debating a comprehensive energy bill in this
body. Senator Lott had indicated that that was the next order of
business after education. Where are we in the order of business? We are
on the Patients' Bill of Rights. We are supposedly going to be on the
supplemental next week. We may take up the minimum wage. We may be on
appropriations. Where is energy in the Democratic list of priorities
for this body? I am very disappointed that evidently it has been tossed
aside under the new leadership.
Where have we been on this matter? We have been busy. The Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, which I previously chaired and on which I
worked with Senator Bingaman--Senator Bingaman now chairs the
committee--has been busy inasmuch as we have held 24 hearings. We have
had 164 witnesses over the last year. We clearly know what this country
needs. We need to produce more energy. We need to develop alternatives.
We need to develop renewables. We need to do a better job of
conservation. But we have to come to grips with this crisis. We can't
ignore it. It is not going to go away.
The issue is ripe for debate in this body, ripe for debate on the
Senate floor. We should proceed forward on behalf of the American
public who is looking to Congress to provide a solution.
We all know prices are too high; supplies are too low. We all know
that too little is being done as evidenced by the calendar with which
we are confronted.
I therefore ask the majority leader at this time to agree to bring
the energy policy legislation to the floor of the Senate at a time
certain, and certainly no later than July 23. I look forward to his
response.
To give some idea of the timeliness of this, one only has to look at
what is going on in the committees. Yesterday, the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee heard from FERC. We heard from the five members of
the Commission.
Today, in Government Affairs, we had the Governor of California, Gray
Davis, along with other Western Governors, appearing to tell of the
energy crisis in their States. We also heard from the FERC relative to
the action they had taken unanimously to reach a conclusion to
basically take the pressure off what was proposed as legislation to
mandate wholesale caps and prices.
I think it is fair to say that we can commend the administration, the
President and the Vice President, for holding the course because
wholesale caps do not encourage investment. We need investment in new
power-generating facilities. As the President knows, if you put very
tight caps in, investment will not come in regardless of how many
permits for construction are issued. The incentive for a reasonable
rate of return has to be there.
Now, FERC has come out with an order that addresses this. It takes
care of not only investor-owned but municipally owned utilities. It
covers both. It sets a 15-month timeframe in which to work, and it
bases its great structure at the lowest efficient contributor into the
energy pool.
I commend FERC. We can argue why they didn't do it sooner, but it is
important to recognize that FERC has just been functioning with its
five members for a relatively short period of time, less than 2 weeks.
Where were they last year? There is no use going back and trying to
figure out why they didn't act sooner. In any event, it is fair to say
that what California needs is not political excuses; they really need
practical solutions.
FERC, while working out the solution, found that some in California
continue to spin the issue away in the hopes that somehow the blame
will be deflected. We heard from Governor Davis. He has been blaming
virtually everyone for the problems in California--his predecessor, the
State legislature, and he even blamed the Texas ownership that
contributes only about 12 percent of the energy that comes into
California from Texas-owned energy companies. Twelve percent is
significant but not overwhelming. He has blamed the President and the
Vice President for problems that began 9, 10 months before they even
took office. He has not recognized that, indeed, the President and the
Vice President, in their proposal in the energy task force, proposed
realistic ways to correct the problem--to correct it for California and
nationally--by a balanced comprehensive energy policy. He also blamed
power producers for price gouging. He hired the head of one of these
groups, David Freeman, of the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power, as his energy adviser.
One has to look at the list of those that allegedly have overcharged
California. They contribute about $505 million. Among them is the city-
owned Los Angeles agency that distributes water and power in Los
Angeles--somewhere in the area of about $17 million in overcharging.
Another significant overcharge allegation was leveled against the
Columbia River producers on the Columbia River in Bonneville. Nearly
$173 million were BC hydro, which constituted about two-thirds of the
$505 million.
I suggest that California spends more time discussing the problem of
spinning off responsibility than looking forward to how they can
address changes by increasing more production in California. I commend
FERC, and I share the President's commitment to market competition, not
Federal Government command and control. We must never forget that
Government itself doesn't generate one kilowatt of electricity,
and neither do controls, if you will, on private investment. Only
industry can generate the electricity the public needs. Price controls
have never spun a turbine and have never stopped a rolling blackout.
In the pursuit of just and reasonable rates, Congress need not pursue
new legislation. As we saw yesterday from the FERC, the system is
working. The FERC order clears the way for our work on the long-term
solution. We must come together now on focusing our attention on
putting in place a comprehensive national energy strategy that will
help get us out of this crisis and keep us out. That must be our
priority. And recognizing the contribution the administration has made
in submitting the energy task force to us, the introduction of bills by
both Senator Bingaman, myself, and a number of Members, which is a
comprehensive proposal for relief, should be on the calendar of this
body. It should be on the calendar for action now. It is beyond me why
those on the other side have chosen to ignore it at a time when it is
the No. 1 priority in the country.
Further, on a sidenote, on May 23 of this year, the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, which I formerly chaired and now am the
ranking member, reported the nomination of Steven Griles to be the
Deputy Secretary of the Interior. It has been 28 days and we are still
waiting to even get a time agreement, which was noticed to us that
would be required. The significance of this particular nominee in the
Department of the Interior is that the only confirmed position at the
Department of the Interior is the Secretary of the Interior.
That is simply irresponsible. It is time for the Senate to let Steven
Griles' nomination go. We look forward to trying to work with the
majority to achieve this. There is absolutely no excuse to hold this
nominee from being confirmed. He has been voted out of the Committee on
Energy, and there is little we can offer the majority. The excuse is
that they are holding up the nomination until such time as the
committees are determined. But we all know the committees are going to
be determined with at least one more Member of the majority going on
the committees. I don't know what the minority can do other than to
recognize that the Department of the Interior serves all of us--both
Republicans and Democrats--and to hold up the functional responsibility
when we have had
[[Page S6508]]
the hearing and this nominee is waiting to serve the country bears
another examination by the majority. I would certainly be glad to get
any explanation anybody might care to provide at this time, or at any
other time.
I will leave you with one thought. Back in 1992, we had a similar
concern in this country that we were facing--an increase in imports. As
a consequence of imports, we were increasing domestic production, as
well as domestic demand, and as a consequence, we became concerned and
passed out of committee a number of items that are shown on this chart.
It is interesting to note, though, what we got out of the process when
it went to the floor. We had given on all the supply increases
associated with increasing domestic production and reducing dependence
on foreign oil. As a consequence, it is rather interesting to see on
the current energy plan that there is little relief proposed. Yet in
our comprehensive bill on the right, clearly we tried to cover all the
areas of concern.
The reason that things are different--and I will show you this on the
second chart--things aren't the same as they were in 1992--we have kind
of a ``perfect storm'' scenario. We were 37-percent dependent in 1973.
Now it is 56 percent. The Department of Energy says it will be 66
percent by 2010. Natural gas prices soared three to four times. They
were $2.16 per thousand, and now it is somewhere between $4 and $5. We
haven't built a new nuclear plant in over 10 years, no new refineries
or new coal plants.
I thank you for the time. I yield to the majority whip.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend that I am still the
chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and we have
a number of nominations waiting to help Governor Whitman. We have
approved a deputy, Linda Fisher. I wanted to make sure she called, and
she said she needed that help very badly; and we worked it out so when
the Republicans were under control, I made sure that was released and
that she could get over there and help.
We have a number of people waiting to go to the EPA. Governor Whitman
needs help also with running that important entity.
I think the Senator should check with people on his side. The reason
is that we have been waiting since we took control of the Senate to
have a simple organizational resolution passed to allow the committee
structure to be effectuated.
Rather than having an arrangement where the minority leader, Senator
Lott, speaks with the majority leader, Senator Daschle, a committee was
formed to meet with Senator Daschle.
As we know, any time committees are chosen, it usually slows things
down. Someone told me once that a committee was formed to come up with
a horse, and the committee came up with a camel. That was their version
of a horse. I think the committee is not really serving the Senate
well.
I have knowledge, and I am sure their intent is good, nothing has
happened in all this time. It seems to me the time has come that
something should happen. There has been a lot of passing back and forth
of memoranda and meetings, but that is what is holding things up.
As I indicated, we have people for EPA. Senator Leahy has said
publicly on a number of occasions he wants to start hearings in the
Judiciary Committee.
This is not, as far as I am concerned, payback time. The fact is that
45 percent of President Clinton's nominations for the appellate court
never made it through the process--45 percent. When we were in control
last time, the average waiting time for a judicial nomination was 85
days. The last full Congress when the Republicans were in control, the
waiting time was 285 days.
This is not going to be payback time. Senator Daschle has said that.
We are going to conduct the Senate and the committee system in an
appropriate way.
We have vacancies in Nevada. We have three vacancies for Federal
judges in the small State of Nevada that need to be filled. We hope
that can take place quickly. Senator Ensign and I have agreed on the
judges who should be nominated and sent to President Bush. They are
down there now.
I say to my friend from Alaska, we also want the organization of the
Senate to formally take place, and we hope the committee of five will
get together and take care of the other 44 Senators they represent and
move on to what we believe is the appropriate function of this Senate.
I will be happy to yield to my friend from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I very much appreciate the comments of my friend from
Nevada who has outlined, I think accurately, the overall situation. I
did not in my request highlight the overall resolve of this dilemma
associated with the committee and the structuring of the committee.
What the Senator said certainly is relevant to having the committees
take action.
This issue of Steven Griles is entirely different. The reason it is
different is he has been waiting 28 days. That was before the Senate
changed hands. For the majority whip to indicate he is part of this, in
reality, his nomination was pending before Senator Jeffords left our
side and joined the other side.
At that time, we were negotiating with the Democrats in good faith to
agree to a time agreement, and there was an indication that they would
require at least several hours, and we were willing to do that.
I want the record to note Steven Griles is different than the other
pending nominations because he was proposed and held up prior to the
Democratic Party taking control of the Senate.
I again renew my request that special consideration be given him
because his is truly a special case.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Alaska, I have not
spoken to the majority leader about Steven Griles, but I am confident
once this organizational resolution is in effect, that will happen
pretty quickly.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. If the Senator will yield on one more point.
Mr. REID. Yes, I yield.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I can appreciate that, but we are still saying Steven
Griles is, in effect, held hostage as a consequence of the policies of
the majority now when we could have taken action when we had the
majority, but we were trying to work with the minority at that time.
Clearly, we are left in this dilemma of him being caught, if you
will, in the tidal backwater which affects us all, whether Republican
or Democrat.
As the Senator from Nevada knows, he is from a public land State. He
needs some help at the Department of Interior. This action of delaying
simply puts off Mr. Griles' ability to serve our country and the
Department. That is, indeed, unfortunate, particularly in view of the
fact he was voted out of the committee and his nomination is still
pending.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I feel confident that it will be in
everyone's interest--the minority, the majority, and every State in the
Union--if we can get this organizational situation completed. We have
waited far too long. The committee of five should meet as often as
necessary with Senator Daschle. We only have one representing us and
five representing them. I think Senator Daschle would make himself
available any time of the day or night to get this organizational
situation resolved.
____________________