[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 22 (Tuesday, March 5, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1530-S1533]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2002--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, when the Senator from Montana referred to 
me as a producer, he was referring to the State of Oklahoma which is a 
production State. I don't think inadvertently he also referred to me as 
a producer. And I was.
  I started out at the age of 17 in the oil fields. At that time, I was 
a tool dresser. Not many people know what a cable tool rig is. I was a 
tool dresser on a cable tool rig. There is no harder work in the world 
than being a tool dresser on a cable tool rig. That was before 
rotaries. Mostly, they were marginal wells--shallow wells.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. INHOFE. Certainly.
  Mr. BURNS. The Senator must have been pretty good at it. He still has 
all of his fingers and thumbs.
  Mr. INHOFE. I suggest to the Senator that he is one of the few 
Senators who know what I am talking about. When you picked up a cable 
tool--it

[[Page S1531]]

weighed several hundred pounds--if you did not open up your hands in 
time, it went right down in there. I have a lot of friends who can't 
play the guitar anymore.
  Frankly, I almost ended up in this business. It is a very admirable 
business. When we talk about economic development and economic 
stimulus, I think often about the oil fields in Oklahoma. I was a very 
young child at that time. We are talking about 50 years ago. I remember 
going to get lunch. You had to stand in line and wait to pay your 
ticket. That was back in the days when we really had economic stimulus. 
It came from this energy. That is something we don't talk about very 
much, but it is a very real thing, and it is particularly real when you 
personally experience it.
  But I have to say that my major concern right now with our energy 
crisis with which we are faced--and it is a crisis--is how it affects 
our ability to defend America. I spent about 4 years chairing the Armed 
Services Subcommittee on Readiness. I am now ranking member. I see what 
our readiness problems are and what our military problems are as they 
relate to our dependency on foreign countries for our ability to fight 
a war. Several Members mentioned--including the Senator from Montana--
that our dependency is directly related to our ability to be 
independent and to be strong. If we are dependent on Iraq for our 
ability to fight a war against Iraq, that is a crisis. That is a 
situation we are in right now. We are dependent upon foreign countries 
for our ability to fight a war.
  But here are the facts. I think it is important that we talk about 
this from a military perspective.
  First of all, the military is as dependent on foreign oil as the 
general public is. It takes eight times as much oil to meet the needs 
for each U.S. soldier as it did during World War II. In addition to 
that, the Department of Defense accounts for 80 percent of all 
Government energy use.
  For all practical purposes, we are talking about the defense 
ramifications of this use. It is not like it was in World War II. Now 
it takes eight times as much oil. It is a very serious problem.
  Iraq is the fastest growing contributor to our dependency. People do 
not understand that. They say: Wait a minute. Aren't we at war with 
Iraq? I guess by some definition you would have to say we are. They are 
shooting down our UAVs that are flying over some of the zones trying to 
protect us, as is required by U.N. resolution. Yet Iraq is the fastest 
growing source for United States oil imports. Shockingly, in the 
year 2000, $5 billion of American money went to Iraq to buy oil.

  There is a lot of talk about sanctions. I am a believer in sanctions, 
if sanctions are going to really accomplish something. But how can we 
have sanctions against a country when we are paying them $5 billion in 
America money to buy the oil, particularly when that is used to defend 
America?
  America's energy consumption is on the rise, but we are producing 
less domestic oil than at any time since World War II. Our dependency 
on foreign oil has dramatically increased since 1973, and it is 
projected to continue to increase--currently, about 60 percent. You 
hear 57 percent. You can justify some 60 percent, depending on how you 
calculate it. Sixty percent of U.S. oil needs are met by foreign 
sources.
  In the mid-1980s, I traveled around the country with Don Hodel. Don 
Hodel was Secretary of the Interior. He was also Secretary of Energy. 
This was back during the Reagan administration. At that time, we were 
about 38 percent dependent on foreign countries for our oil. Don Hodel 
and I went to States that are consumption States and not production 
States, and explained to them that our dependency on foreign countries 
for our ability to fight a war was a national security issue--not an 
energy issue. In fact, we had a little dog-and-pony show. We would go 
back to, and including, the First World War. And every war since then 
has been won by the country that had control of the energy supply. You 
can't name one country that wasn't.
  There were a lot of people who listened to us. We were in Illinois, 
in New York, in New Jersey, and in different States, trying to tell 
that story. It didn't sell too well then.
  After the Persian Gulf war, people started listening and realizing 
that there is a relationship between our ability to be energy 
sufficient and the danger that we are facing.
  In both 1995 and 1999, the Secretary of Commerce acknowledged, 
pursuant to a law requiring his assessment, that our oil dependency 
poses a threat to our national security. Keep in mind, this is before 
September 11. Additionally, in January of 1998, I elicited virtual 
consensus from all members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that energy 
security was a too-often overlooked aspect of our national security 
needs.
  After September 11, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said 
that U.S. dependency on foreign oil--now, this happened in a public 
hearing where we were; and I asked him the question about how it 
relates to our national security--he said that U.S. dependency on 
foreign oil ``is a serious strategic issue . . . My sense is that [our] 
dependency is projected to grow, not to decline . . . it's not only 
that we would, in a sense, be dependent on Iraqi oil, but the oil as a 
weapon. The possibility of taking that oil off the market and doing 
enormous economic damage with it is a serious problem.''
  That is the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz.
  The President made energy a top national priority. He said it over 
and over again. Sometimes I wonder if people are listening. In an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan manner, the House of Representatives adopted 
a comprehensive energy policy which includes provisions to modernize 
conservation and infrastructure, increase domestic energy supplies, and 
accelerate the protection of the environment.
  But that is not all that H.R. 4 has. H.R. 4 is a comprehensive 
approach to meet our energy needs. We have nuclear in there; we have 
oil and gas production. Let's just take the marginal production I have 
been concerned about, because my State happens to be a major producer, 
or they used to be, of marginal wells.
  A marginal well is a well that produces 15 barrels of oil or less a 
day. If we had all the oil that would have come from margin wells that 
have been plugged in the last 10 years flowing again today, it would 
produce more oil than we are currently importing from Saudi Arabia. 
That is a huge source. That is part of H.R. 4.
  H.R. 4 also has renewables in it. People are talking about 
renewables. It has nuclear. Right now, to meet our energy needs to 
light our lights in America, we are only 20 percent dependent on 
nuclear energy. France is 80 percent dependent. Those very people who 
were marching and protesting back in the 1970s against nuclear plants 
now realize, after all the ambient air problems that have been coming 
up, that nuclear energy is among the safest, the cheapest, and the most 
abundant energy available, yet we are not using it.
  That is why I offered the energy bill as an amendment to last year's 
Defense authorization bill. Here I am on the Armed Services Committee. 
I had chaired the Subcommittee on Readiness. I offered the energy bill 
to the Defense authorization bill so people would somehow reprogram 
their thinking and realize we were talking about a defense issue. We 
are talking about a national security issue when we talk about our 
energy dependence. So I offered it, and I was glad I did.
  We, of course, are addressing energy legislation today. I am really 
highly troubled by the bizarre legislative path that this legislation 
has traveled. I know we have talked about this quite a bit. I hope the 
majority leader will allow fair up-and-down votes on issues such as 
ANWR. We need to vote on it.
  I wish it were required for everyone who is going to be voting on 
ANWR to take a trip up to the north slopes of Alaska to see what we are 
really talking about. It is not a pristine wilderness. We are only 
talking about a very small, a minuscule part of that area up there, and 
we are talking about an environment where the Eskimos, the local 
people, are begging us to come in and open it up.

  So we do not need just any bill; the Senate owes our country a strong 
energy bill, which should include hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic 
fracturing is a system where water is forced in, in order to be able to 
produce the oil.

[[Page S1532]]

 Some 80 percent of the wells now use hydraulic fracturing. In the last 
15 years, we have had 100,000 wells that have used that process. There 
has never been any environmental problem with it.
  Since 1940, when we started this process, there have been over 1 
million wells that have used hydraulic fracturing. But some court came 
along and said they were going to have to look at the environmental 
concerns that go along with hydraulic fracturing. Wait a minute. If we 
have done a million wells, as we have, using that process, and there 
has never been a problem, why are we concerned about it?
  We need to have a strong energy bill that has the tax incentives for 
domestic oil production. I have talked about that. We have a tremendous 
opportunity there. But, you see, you cannot go after marginal wells 
because it costs 10 times as much to lift a barrel of oil that way than 
it does in Saudi Arabia. So you have to have some type of protection in 
there so that a person who is making an investment in a well today--
recognizing they are not going to have any production out of that well 
for a couple years--how do they know what the price is going to be when 
it escalates from $8 a barrel to $40 a barrel, and then goes back to $8 
a barrel? There is no way they can afford to take that kind of a risk. 
Certainly, the Presiding Officer is someone who has been in the 
business world, and he understands that. You have to have an idea of 
what kind of investment return is going to be out there. H.R. 4 has 
that in it. We need to have that in our bill. It said, if the price 
goes down, and it starts going below $17 a barrel, as it approaches $14 
a barrel, tax credits set in, so they know it is not going to go below 
that. It is a way of getting another large block of oil domestically.
  Corporate average fuel economy, the CAFE standards, while every 
single Senator has sworn an oath to uphold a government of the people, 
by the people, and for the people, some in this body seek to thwart the 
will of the people who drive vehicles and who express their will every 
day when they purchase vehicles at auto dealerships. It is called 
choice. This is America. We are supposed to have freedom of choice.
  In greater numbers than ever before, all across this country, and 
particularly in my State of Oklahoma, Americans are purchasing 
minivans, sport utility vehicles, light trucks, and roomy cars for 
their safety, comfort, and utility.
  I strongly support Americans' safety and ability to select whatever 
vehicle we deem fit for our purposes. We are not ``one size fits all.'' 
We are different people. I have 4 children and 11 grandchildren. I 
suggest to the Senator from Ohio, you try putting them in a compact 
car. They just don't fit. Our needs are different.
  I think the bill should exclude renewable portfolio standards, RPS. 
The left again seeks to encroach upon the free market and the business 
of America through attempts to limit the use of coal, oil, natural gas, 
hydroelectric, and nuclear energy in an era when America is trying to 
ward off energy crises. We need all of the above. All of those things 
should be a part of this bill. But by shrinking the allowable 
percentage of power coming from these sources, we hamstring our ability 
to deliver needed energy and we weaken our Nation.
  Price-Anderson. This is going to be controversial. It should not be 
controversial. This is a way that will allow us to get and expand into 
nuclear energy. Currently, 103 U.S. nuclear units supply about 20 
percent of the electricity produced in the United States. Going forward 
into the future, nuclear energy must be a key component of any national 
energy plan. As ranking member of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, I 
believe the first step in that direction must be the reauthorization of 
Price-Anderson.
  Finally, I would like to address the impact of overly burdensome 
regulations on our energy supply. In a recent report entitled ``U.S. 
Downstream: The EPA Takes Another Bite Out of America's Fuel Supply,'' 
Merrill Lynch concluded that EPA's clean air regulations ``will clearly 
have the impact of reducing existing U.S. refining capacity.'' In other 
words, the United States will have a greater dependency on foreign 
refineries.
  When the price of gasoline goes through the roof, we all witness the 
incredibly irresponsible accusations that big oil companies ``were 
colluding.'' Price spikes occurred last summer because of the large 
number of poorly implemented environmental regulations. I have sat on 
that committee for 8 years now. We are at virtually 100 percent 
refinery capacity in this country. We started having new start reviews. 
We started having more and more regulations that really have nothing to 
do with the environment, and then we wonder why the price of fuel goes 
up.
  It is supply and demand. We should know something about that in this 
country. When we are at 100 percent, we have more regulations that cost 
more money, and then some of the refineries leave and go down to 
Mexico. Then we can't even meet the current needs. What is going to 
happen? The price is going to go up.
  The solution to high prices is not found in cheap political gimmicks 
such as releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Rather, the 
solution relies on a national energy policy and having a highly 
effective and streamlined environmental regulation.
  This is not a partisan notion. Going all the way back to the Carter 
administration, I tried to get them to have a national energy policy. 
Then Reagan came along. I thought we could get it in a Republican 
administration. I tried to get the Reagan administration to do it. They 
wouldn't do it. I tried along with Don Hodel, who worked in the Reagan 
administration. Then along came George the 1st from the oil patch. I 
thought, surely we will have a national energy policy at this time. He 
didn't have one. Of course, we haven't had one since.
  We have that opportunity now. This President is committed to having a 
national energy policy.
  When well thought out and reflecting consensus, environmental 
regulations can certainly provide benefits to the American people. But 
when regulations are rushed into effect without adequate thought, they 
are going to do more harm than good.
  I see the Senator from Ohio in the Chamber. I remember before he was 
in the Senate, I held a hearing in the State of Ohio on new source 
review. We had testimony from refiners that replacing a 12-inch pipe 
triggered a new source review which cost millions of dollars in that 
case.
  As a Senator and a grandfather, I want to ensure the cleanest 
environment in our Nation. However, I am convinced that environmental 
regulations can be harmonized with energy policy. Our current situation 
demands it.
  I know that the extremist environmental community opposes any of the 
provisions and reforms which I have discussed. However, the 
environmental community does not have to answer to the American people 
when energy prices go through the roof. Nor does the environmental 
community have to worry about the national security implications of 
greater dependency on foreign oil.
  My major concern, the reason I put this on H.R. 4 as an amendment to 
the defense authorization bill, is because I can't think of any single 
thing that plays a greater role in our future national security than 
becoming energy independent. Again, it is ludicrous that we should have 
to be dependent upon Iraq oil to fight a war against Iraq. It doesn't 
make sense. It is time we start making some sense.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, as we begin debate on comprehensive energy 
legislation, it is important to remember that a diversity of energy 
concerns has brought us to this point. Because current energy supplies 
are relatively high and gasoline prices are relatively low, there are 
those that may want to postpone the difficult decisions required by 
comprehensive action. I rise today to remind my colleagues of our 
energy history and that, to avoid repeating the energy crises of the 
past, we need to act now.
  A quick review of just the last four years reveals the breadth of the 
energy issues that we must address. At the end of 1998, oil prices were 
so low they threatened the viability of the domestic oil industry; in 
the spring of 1999, they soared to record levels. Severe weather and 
transportation problems

[[Page S1533]]

combined to create a home heating oil crisis in the Northeast the 
following winter. At the start of the summer of 2000, people in the 
Midwest were paying record prices for petroleum products. Later that 
summer, a decaying gas pipeline in New Mexico exploded, killing an 
entire family.
  The winter of 2000 brought new challenges. Consumers were paying an 
average 30 percent more to heat their homes than they had the previous 
year. The summer of 2001 saw the collapse of the California electricity 
market, with blackouts and previously unthinkable electricity prices. 
Last fall, we began a war against terror that may impact our supplies 
of oil from the Middle East.
  Energy policy is about more than the price of gasoline at the pump 
today. A comprehensive energy policy will require thoughtful, and often 
difficult, choices today to ensure secure, affordable and sustainable 
energy in the future. The bill before us addresses many of these 
choices. It aims to secure new, as well as traditional, energy 
supplies; promote investment in critical infrastructure; expand 
technology options; reduce energy use and promote energy markets that 
protect consumers and the environment.
  I would like to highlight just a few of the provisions in this bill 
that I believe advance these objectives. Many of these are items that I 
worked with Chairman Bingaman to have included in this bill and I thank 
him for his assistance and support.
  First, among the bill's efforts to increase our short-term energy 
security, is a provision that Senator Landrieu and I developed 
directing that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve be filled to capacity. 
It also requires a review to determine whether the size of the Reserve 
and our capacity for refining and transporting the Reserve oil are 
adequate to respond to a severe supply disruption. The bill also moves 
the Nation toward greater long-term security by providing incentives 
for development of Alaska's natural gas resources. Other provisions to 
expand the use of renewable fuels for transportation will ease both 
short- and long-term supply uncertainties, while reducing the 
environmental costs of petroleum.
  The energy bill also acknowledges the critical role that innovation 
and technology deployment will play in our long-term energy strategy. 
The bill expands energy research and development in traditional as well 
as alternative energy. This bill also calls for the Department of 
Energy to identify ways to accelerate innovation and reduce barriers to 
technology development.
  The tax provisions of the bill, which I understand will be added at a 
later date, also aim to balance incentives for increasing conventional 
and alternative energy supplies, including credits for marginal oil 
well production, clean coal technology and renewable energy production. 
In addition to supply incentives, the package contains provisions to 
address energy demand, including credits for efficient cars, homes and 
appliances which will help to reduce energy use while promoting 
technology development.
  Another way that I believe that the Federal Government can play a 
significant role in promoting efficient technologies is by using its 
own purchasing power. Last year, I introduced a bill, S. 1358, to 
provide resources and enhance accountability for the Federal 
Government's efforts to improve its own efficiency and reduce its 
energy use. The bill would establish energy reduction goals and 
performance standards for Federal buildings and fleets; ensure that 
Federal procurement policies promote purchases of the most efficient 
equipment and supplies and create a Federal revolving fund, or ``energy 
bank'' to help agencies finance efficiency improvements. Many of these 
initiatives have been incorporated into the bill before us; I believe 
they will reduce the Federal energy bill and build the market for 
efficiency technologies.
  Another area in which the bill provides assistance for advanced 
energy technologies is a voluntary demonstration program, which I also 
supported, to help schools and communities secure newer school buses 
that use clean diesel and natural gas technology. A growing market will 
help to bring down the cost of these new technologies and let 
communities reap the air quality benefits in the process.
  The bill also recognizes the requirements of new energy markets. For 
instance, S. 517 replaces the archaic Public Utility Holding Company 
Act of 1935 with regulatory and oversight mechanisms that protect the 
consumer in the modern marketplace and promote investment in the energy 
sector. It also acknowledges that effective energy planning must occur 
across State lines and provides for regional energy coordination 
without undermining States' authority.
  These are just a few of the important ideas in the bill that deserve 
support; there are many more. There are also many difficult issues that 
will need to be resolved. We will not all be able to agree on every 
provision in this bill, but it is critical that we work across party 
and regional lines to find compromise where we can and move forward 
with a comprehensive policy. The alternative is to persist in our 
national amnesia about our energy problems, ensuring that the spiking 
prices, infrastructure failures and energy insecurity of the past 
become part of our future.

                          ____________________