[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2657-2659]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                             ENERGY CRISIS

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me take a few moments this morning 
to discuss the merits of the energy bill which was introduced earlier 
this week by a number of our colleagues. It is a bipartisan 
introduction by myself, Senator Breaux, Senator Lott, and a number of 
other Senators who are on the bill.
  I think it is appropriate to kind of focus in on reality. We have an 
energy crisis in this country. It has been developing for a long time. 
It does not solve anything to point fingers at where the responsibility 
is. The bottom line is how to address it, how to resolve it, and how to 
get this country moving again. We are looking at the stock market, 
shaking our heads. We are listening to Alan Greenspan. The predictions 
for the economy are gloomy, and one of the causes, a significant cause, 
obviously, is the price of energy.
  The price of energy has hit everyone in this body. If you live in 
Washington, DC, and you use gas, you know your gas bills have doubled. 
That means you have had to take a greater percentage of your disposable 
income to pay your gas bill. I will not go into gasoline prices which 
have escalated over an extended period of time. But the American public 
and Members of this body have an opportunity, and I think have an 
obligation, to come up with some positive solutions.
  We would like to think that energy is bipartisan. We all have the 
same responsibility. We have different views on how to achieve a 
balance. But I think there is a basic philosophical opportunity for 
some self-examination

[[Page 2658]]

because some folks suggest we can simply conserve our way out of this 
crisis. Factually, we cannot conserve our way out of this crisis. It is 
understandable as we reflect on where we have come in the last 10 
years. We are dependent on computers, air-conditioning. With a larger 
more affluent population, it simply uses more energy.
  We can be more energy efficient, but the reality is, as the CSIS 
study showed, we are going to be dependent on fossil fuels for the next 
two decades at an increasing percentage--somewhere from 86 to close to 
90 percent. We forget we are not the whole world. We kind of look at 
ourselves and say, well, we set the pattern. But given the growth of 
Third World countries such as China, their consumption of energy 
suggests that, as we look at the future, there is going to be more 
pressure on conventional hydrocarbons. We have to look to alternatives. 
We have to examine ways not to throw the baby out with the bath water, 
which is what some have suggested in criticism of this bill.
  We have to recognize that for a long time we are going to be 
dependent on our conventional sources of energy, even though we have an 
abundance of coal and we have the technology to clean up our coal. 
Still, as we look for power generation relief, we don't look to coal 
anymore. There are a number of reasons for it. Obviously some coal has 
problems. It has problems associated with Btu's; it has problems 
associated with ash; it has problems associated with the chemical 
makeup of the coal that requires removal of impurities. But the 
technology is there although the cost increases. We work in this 
competitive area on the cost of energy per Btu.
  Sulfur in coal can be removed. We can have scrubbers on our stacks. 
But we have to have a plan and an encouragement and in some cases 
assistance in developing this technology. We have this in this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, 20 percent of our power--and I know my friend from 
Nevada occasionally rises to the occasion concerning nuclear power--20 
percent of the power in this country is generated by nuclear energy. 
Yet we have not built a new plant in almost 20 years. You cannot build 
a plant. It is not economic. We cannot address what to do with the 
nuclear waste. I am not here to promote nuclear energy, solely. I am 
simply saying nuclear energy has a place in the mix of our energy 
production, just as coal does.
  We have tremendous capacity and capability for hydro, particularly in 
the Pacific Northwest, but the prospects for building new hydro plants 
are very remote. We are talking about taking dams down, but we don't 
honestly evaluate what the tradeoff is. If we take down dams on the 
Columbia River, what is the result? We will lose the capability of 
barge traffic moving huge tonnages on that river. What will we do with 
them? We will put them on the highway; that is the tradeoff--oil.
  Obviously, we are becoming more dependent on imported oil, 56 percent 
dependent. At what point do we sacrifice our national security effort 
by becoming increasingly dependent, and at what percentage does that 
occur? It is pretty hard to say. We are 56 percent dependent now. We 
were 37 percent in 1973 when we had the Arab oil embargo. The 
Department of Energy says it is going to be somewhere in the area of 63 
or 64 or 65 percent.
  I was asked that question the other day by a reporter: You talk about 
our dependence. We have become used to it. At what point do we really 
compromise our national security?
  I thought for a moment. I said that in 1991-1992 we fought a war. We 
lost 147 lives. Is that sufficient? I think it is.
  As we look to the future, we are going to continue to have a problem 
unless we relieve our dependence on imported energy sources, and 
particularly oil.
  How do we do that? We do it through a combination of ways, developing 
other known sources of energy, such as I outlined, and opening up new 
sources of domestic energy.
  One of the interesting things about this bill is it focuses. It is 
300 pages, but it focuses like a lightning rod on one issue: opening 
ANWR. Do we do it safely? Can we do it safely? Do we have the 
technology? Clearly we do. There is absolutely no question about that.
  On the other hand, America's environmental community has rallied to 
the cause to save ANWR, saying that we cannot do it safely. Somebody is 
wrong. But I can tell you what it has done. It has given the 
environmental community a cause. They need a national cause where 
people cannot evaluate the issue for themselves because they will not 
go up there. It increases membership and dollars.
  Look at some of the colleges in the East: Save ANWR. There is no 
question of technology capability.
  What we are facing here is very little focus on the energy bill in 
itself but great rhetoric. For example, the Sierra Club--may I ask what 
the time agreement is?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator had until 10:15. It is 
now 10:15, I say to the Senator.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add 10 
minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. That being the case, I ask everyone's time be advanced 
accordingly so no one loses any time because under the time agreement 
everyone has allocated time by the minute. I ask as part of that that 
everyone be advanced 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleague.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska has an 
additional 10 minutes, and all other Senators' times will be moved back 
10 minutes from that previously agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada.
  Let me spend a few minutes countering the allegations against this 
legislation. The Sierra Club came out with a report saying the bill was 
a giveaway for fossil fuel producers.
  There is absolutely no incentive in this legislation for big oil. We 
focus on maintaining a viable domestic industry, reducing our 
dependence on foreign oil, and ensuring our national security. The 
Sierra Club release also calls for increased efficiency, renewable 
energy, and more efficient, less-polluting powerplants. I wonder if 
they have read the bill. We provided incentives for alternatives: 
fuels, renewable energy production, energy efficiency, just as they and 
we advocate.
  Did they also ignore our new R&D program in the bill, and the 
incentives to use clean coal technology in existing and new 
powerplants? I doubt if they have read the bill.
  The Sierra Club focuses on the need to improve fuel economy for cars, 
SUVs, and light trucks, and we agree. That is why our bill requires a 
3-mile-per-gallon improvement in the fuel economy of Federal fleets by 
the year 2005. Why did we start with Federal fleets? We ought to start 
with Government. That is where it belongs. Government should show the 
way. So we provided new incentives for the purchase of hybrid vehicles 
that give double, even triple the gas mileage of today's cars. But they 
must not have seen this because the Sierra Club just doesn't appreciate 
the reality, that this is just not a bill that has one little portion 
covering ANWR.
  Regarding the provisions of the bill, I think, for the most part, if 
the Sierra Club would sit down and read it, they would agree with it.
  We have another group, the League of Conservation Voters, who, in a 
press release, have some polling data showing the public is against 
opening up the Arctic in Alaska. They say 66 percent of American voters 
support permanently closing ANWR to oil and gas exploration.
  Isn't it funny what polls say. The Christian Science Monitor poll and 
the Chicago Tribune poll say otherwise.

[[Page 2659]]

The Christian Science Monitor; 54 percent support opening the area; the 
Chicago Tribune; 52 percent support opening the area. Three out of four 
support increased oil and gas exploration in our country.
  The League of Conservation Voters goes on to state:

       America needs a sensible energy policy that places serious 
     emphasis on energy conservation and alternative fuels. . .

  Title VI of our bill focuses on energy efficiency, conservation, and 
assistance to low-income families. Title VII of the bill focuses on 
alternative fuels and renewable energy.
  Our tax provisions have several new incentives for energy-efficient 
homes, appliances, vehicles, and for renewables.
  As I indicated in my opening remarks, the Center for Strategic 
International Studies says, unfortunately, that we will remain 
dependent on fossil fuels for the near future. Shouldn't we direct our 
efforts towards developing technology to use these fuels more cleanly 
and more efficiently? We simply can't ignore our reliance on foreign 
oil. As I indicated, it is expected to reach 70 percent by the year 
2002. We cannot ignore our coal at 52 percent of our electricity. We 
can't ignore nuclear, which is 20 percent of our electricity.
  Instead of a comprehensive approach, some environmental groups want a 
national energy policy that requires massive shifts in our energy 
industry. Elimination of fossil fuels entirely, thousands of jobs lost, 
higher energy prices, and standard investment are not in their 
equation.
  Our approach to an energy policy--the National Energy Security Act of 
2001--we think is the right approach. It is comprehensive. It is 
balanced.
  Obviously, in the hearing process we had input from all Members, and 
the administration is yet to be heard. But we are trying to use the 
philosophy of using the fuels of today to yield the technologies of 
tomorrow and ensuring clean, secure, and affordable energy in the 
future. I think this bill attempts to do that.
  Let me leave you with one additional thought. We hear from many of 
the opponents of ANWR that all we have to do is get an extra 3 miles 
per gallon out of our cars and we will get the same amount of oil as 
drilling and opening up that area in our State. I question that claim. 
The real issue is do you think everyone in America should trade in 
their cars and buy new vehicles. And there are about 132 million cars 
in America. That doesn't count the trucks and the buses. But if the 
Americans have to go all out and buy new and efficient cars as 
pseudoenvironmentalists want them to do, it will cost more than $2.6 
trillion. Since most Americans don't have $20,000 sitting around just 
waiting to go buy a new car, they are going to have to finance that 
car. That will probably raise the cost to more than $3 trillion. That 
seems to be their answer to Americans--get a new car and spend $3 
trillion. That isn't going to happen either.
  I think everyone has a responsibility to make some positive 
contributions to this legislation and recognize what is happening to 
our economy as a consequence of the scarcity of energy associated with 
the higher prices and the fact that energy is, indeed, taking a larger 
share out of everyone's budget and, as a consequence, affecting 
dramatically our economy.
  Let's get serious, and let's do something meaningful about this.
  I thank my colleague for the additional time. I appreciate the 
courtesy, and at any time I will certainly respond.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, as 
amended by the Senator from Nevada, the Senator from Nevada, Mr. 
Ensign, has control of the time until 10:40 a.m.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
speak for 5 minutes following the statement of Senator Ensign.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada is recognized.

                          ____________________