[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2661-2663]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                             ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from Nevada for their 
conversation. Certainly we have a lot of things in common with Nevada, 
mostly public lands. We don't have the gambling revenue, however.
  I rise to speak a few moments today on energy and energy policy. 
Certainly,

[[Page 2662]]

this is one of the issues President Bush has talked about, and we have 
talked about it for some time in the Congress, the lack of a policy on 
energy. The President has asked Vice President Cheney to come up with 
some ideas with regard to energy and an energy policy. I believe he is 
going to do that within the next month. I look forward to that.
  One of the important and interesting aspects of this working group 
Vice President Cheney has put together is that it involves the 
directors of several agencies. That is extremely important. What we 
thought is, we have an agency called the Department of Energy, which is 
fine, but much of what is done with respect to energy is done in some 
other agencies, such as Interior, EPA, and Agriculture. It is extremely 
important that we have a high level group such as this that will bring 
together the differences that have evolved out of the various agencies.
  We also are seeking to reactivate and continually activate an oil and 
gas forum in the Senate for those States that have particular interests 
in the production aspect of oil and gas and fuel. Obviously, everyone 
has an interest in it. No one pays much attention to it when gas is $1 
or $1.10 a gallon. When it gets to be $1.90, there is suddenly a lot of 
interest in it. I understand that. Even in our State of Wyoming, where 
we are maybe the energy center of the country our natural gas prices 
have gone up, for heating, of course, in the wintertime. And then the 
California situation certainly has brought attention to it as well.
  So I think even though we have sought to do this over the last 
several years, it is time we really focused in on having a national 
energy policy. That will give some vision to what we expect and want to 
do with regard to energy and, indeed, how we would do that. It is 
interesting; I guess I wasn't aware of the impact high-tech has had on 
the electricity consumption in California. You don't think of this 
computer sitting in front of you, Mr. President, which is using a lot 
of energy. But there are so many that are turned on that it has, 
indeed, had an impact.
  What do we need to do with the energy policy? I guess we ought to 
begin by saying, what do we want, expect, and need in terms of energy 
for our economy, our families, our communities, to have the kind of 
life we want to have? I think then we look at that demand situation. Of 
course, we have to take a look at how we are going to supply those 
needs.
  We are currently about 56-percent dependent on foreign sources for 
our Nation's supply of oil. It cost more than $100 billion last year to 
bring those things here. Our dependence has increased over the years. 
It was about 36 percent in 1973 during the Arab oil embargo and 46 
percent during Desert Storm. Now DOE projects that it will be about 65 
percent by the year 2020--our dependency on foreign sources of energy--
unless we change our situation.
  So coupled with producing the product, I think there are some other 
things that each of us would like to see. We have to do something with 
the costs, see if we can level out costs. That is particularly 
important to us, really, those of us who are in the production field. I 
think a year ago the wellhead price of natural gas was about $1.50, and 
of course that wasn't enough to even offset the costs. You had a little 
exploration, a little production, and really our economy in those areas 
was kind of down, and all of a sudden it was like $9. So now there is a 
rush. We tend to have energy boom-and-bust cycles--not only for 
consumers but for producers and for communities around the country. How 
can we level that out some?
  Diversity: I think we have to look at diversity. Certainly, there are 
a number of sources of energy. Some are used more than others. I think 
we need to have diversity.
  The environment: As we produce domestically, obviously, we need to 
take into account very seriously the protection of the environment. 
There are new ways being discovered all the time as to how to do it. 
There is horizontal drilling where you can reach out over thousands of 
square miles with a very small footprint.
  Conservation: As we look at that, there are ways in which we can use 
energy more efficiently than in the past.
  So I hope we can do that on domestic production. We can do it, of 
course, in a number of ways. One of the ways, I am sure, that is most 
important is access. We were just listening to the Senator from Nevada 
and 87 percent of Nevada belongs to the Federal Government. Fifty 
percent belongs to the Federal Government in my State of Wyoming. So 
many of the lands where there is access and there are designs for 
multiple use--we haven't had the access to be able to explore and 
produce in these natural resource areas. Access is something that is 
very important to be able to do that. I suspect we will have to take a 
look at some incentives, whether they be tax incentives or other kinds 
of incentives, to urge people to produce, of course. One of them that 
is always talked about that has a certain amount of merit is a tax 
reduction for small production wells. Wells get to the point that it is 
not profitable to produce them but there is a good deal of resource 
there. So to encourage them to do that would be useful, I am sure.
  I mentioned diversity. Gas is a great resource, and we are going to 
use a great deal of it. That is the problem we have, really, out in 
California. Of course, it is electricity, but to generate electricity, 
or want to, with gas. So you have to get gas there. But gas has a lot 
of opportunities to be used in many ways. I guess you could ask 
yourself, from a policy standpoint, should we be using gas almost 
exclusively in electricity generation when we could be using coal, for 
example, of which we have great reserves, and for stationary 
production; perhaps that is an alternative we ought to consider.
  We want to be certain that coal will be clean fuel; and it is clean 
now, but it can be even cleaner if we use some research and continue to 
work at doing CO2 and SO2 and doing some things 
that we can do there.
  Hydro: In the past several years, we have been in a situation where 
people were seeking to reduce the number of dams that were there and 
take away the production we have now. Hydro is a very efficient and, 
obviously, very clean fuel source. We can do that. I mentioned coal. 
Coal is one of our greatest resources, and we can do much with that as 
well.
  Nuclear: There is a good deal more interest in doing nuclear things. 
I think in Illinois, right now, nuclear plants produce 40 or 50 percent 
of the electricity. Now we have to find something to do with nuclear 
waste. We haven't yet finished our Yucca Mountain proposition or some 
other things. Nor do we use it as they do in Europe, where they recycle 
and a great deal of their generation is done by nuclear. It is the 
cleanest in terms of air quality, as I understand it.
  Renewables: We have some opportunities to increase the efficiency and 
make more competitive the cost of renewables, whether they be wind, 
air, sun, whatever. I think that is something we are looking forward to 
in the future.
  In addition to that, the markets for energy, of course, are not 
generally where the energy is produced, so you have to move it. Part of 
the problem is, in California, nobody really wanted to build 
transmission lines. They didn't want to provide rights of way to move 
fuel. Well, if you are going to have fuel, you have to move it there. 
Are there better ways perhaps to do it? Maybe so.
  I think one of the things we want to look at here, because it is 
interstate movement, is an electric transmission grid, so that there is 
an opportunity to move electricity perhaps even from Wyoming to 
California and that can be done.
  So there are a lot of things that need to be done. I think they need 
to be set out, and we need to balance protection of the environment. 
Obviously, nobody wants to overlook that. At the same time, you can 
make it so restrictive that it is impossible to even produce it 
efficiently, cost effectively. Those are the kinds of things that I 
think very certainly need to be considered.
  We have an act before us now. The chairman of the Energy Committee,

[[Page 2663]]

Senator Murkowski from Alaska, has put together a bill. I happen to be 
a cosponsor. It is a large bill that has to do with many of the things 
that are involved. I suspect there will be some changes in it before it 
is finally passed. I think it is a start, and I am very proud of what 
has been done there. It talks about protecting energy supplies, 
security for increasing efficiency, and the certification of pipelines. 
It has to do with technological research, advancing clean coal 
technology, alternative fuels, renewables, and conservation measures, 
just to name a few. It has to do with all kinds of things that would 
encourage us to have a clean, useful economic energy program in the 
United States to meet our needs.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the time until 11:25 a.m. shall be under 
the control of the Senators from Minnesota. The Senator from Minnesota 
is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Wellstone and Mr. Dayton pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 422 are located in today's Record under ``Statements 
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from New York is 
recognized.
  Under the previous order, the time until 11:40 a.m. is in morning 
business under the control of the Senator from New York.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Clinton pertaining to the introduction of S. 
426, S. 427, S. 428, S. 429, S. 430, S. 431, and S. 432 are located in 
today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint 
Resolutions.'')
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________