[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8327-8328]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     PRESIDENT BUSH'S ENERGY POLICY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) is 
recognized for the remainder of the leadership hour, 14 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about the energy 
policy released today by the administration.
  Madam Speaker, for the last several years we have had a strong 
economy, primarily because we have had affordable and reliable sources 
of energy; but now we are in an energy crisis which threatens our 
economic future and our national security.
  The President and Vice President have come together and put together 
a plan, and today they released their national energy policy, which I 
would encourage every Member and every individual in America to get a 
copy of and read it through. It is a comprehensive plan. The President 
recognizes the problem. He is concerned about the effects that high 
energy prices, both in gasoline and in electricity, will have on the 
American people and on our economy. We have a bold, new approach to 
addressing the energy policy in this country.
  We need reliable, affordable, and clean energy increases. We need 
improved infrastructure. We cannot meet tomorrow's challenges with 
yesterday's technologies. We need new technologies to meet the demands. 
Some people will say those technologies are not here yet. I will say, 
Madam Speaker, that Americans are second to none in their ability to 
solve problems when they set their minds to it. We are the most 
technologically advanced Nation on Earth. If we set our minds to 
solving a problem, we can do it.
  The President's leadership comes at a very critical time, but we must 
act now if we are going to have a comprehensive plan to address the 
energy crisis which will be with us for several years if we do not act. 
If anyone questions whether there is a serious energy shortage in this 
country, let me just give a few statistics.
  Over the next 20 years, U.S. oil consumption will rise by 33 percent. 
Over the next 20 years, U.S. natural gas consumption will rise by over 
50 percent. Over the next 20 years, U.S. electricity consumption will 
rise by 45 percent. Since 1992, oil production is down 17 percent in 
this country, while consumption is up 14 percent. In 1993, we were 
reliant on foreign oil for 35 percent of our demands. That was during 
the oil crisis that we had in 1973.
  We said at that time we needed to become less dependent on foreign 
oil because our economy was subject to the whims of those countries in 
OPEC. Instead of becoming less reliant on foreign oil, we are now 
nearly 60 percent reliant on foreign oil for our oil needs. The U.S. 
spends roughly $300 million a day, or about $100 billion a year on 
foreign oil.
  It is obvious that the demands for energy in the future are going to 
increase in this country. So what have we done in the way of supply? In 
1990, U.S. jobs in exploration and production of oil and gas were 
405,000 in the United States. In 1999, 10 years later, U.S. jobs in 
exploration and production of oil and gas were 293,000, down 27 
percent. In 1990, in the United States, U.S. oil rigs, we had 657 of 
them in the United States. In the year 2000, working U.S. oil rigs, 
153; a 77 percent decline. Thirty-six oil refineries have closed since 
1992, and we have not built a new oil refinery since 1976.
  The previous administration had no, I repeat, had no long-term energy 
policy. It seems the energy policy of the past administration was to 
shut down exploration as we became more reliant on foreign oil, to shut 
down refineries, to shut down research on clean coal and finding new 
sources of coal, to shut down nuclear research. It seems that you could 
sum up the past administration's energy policy as the ``Do not worry, 
be happy,'' energy policy.
  As I said, we have in this country a supply and demand problem, and 
that is essentially what the energy crisis is, a supply and demand 
problem.
  Let me summarize what President Bush's energy plan does. It is 105 
specific recommendations. Forty-two of those recommendations are 
targeted at conservation. Much has been said by our opponents that the 
President does not rely heavily enough on conservation. Forty-two of 
the recommendations are targeted at conservation; 35 recommendations 
are targeted at energy supply; 25 of the recommendations are targeted 
at increased energy security; 12 of the recommendations can be done 
through executive order; 73 of the recommendations are directives to 
Federal agencies; 20 of the recommendations will require action by this 
Congress.
  Briefly, let me go through the major portions of his recommendations.
  First, conservation. He wants to expand government support for 
programs for conservation, improved energy efficiency for appliances, 
improved conservation efforts in Federal buildings, and support new 
fuel-efficient technology for vehicles, buses, transit and other 
transportations.
  In the area of renewable and alternative energies, he wants renewed 
focus on renewable and alternative energy, reduced delays in geothermal 
leasing processes, help for communities

[[Page 8328]]

that want to use renewable energy, so that they can do so; extend and 
expand wind and biomass tax credits; a new 15 percent tax credit for 
residential solar energy. He wants to put $1.2 billion in ANWR proceeds 
to renewable research, a new tax credit for the purchase of new hybrid 
or fuel cell vehicles, expand research on hydrogen and fusion energy. 
It sounds to me like he has concentrated much of his effort on 
conservation and renewable and alternative energy sources.
  In clean-coal technology, President Bush wants to invest $2 billion 
over the next 10 years in new clean-coal technologies.
  In the area of oil and natural gas, he wants to review the 
impediments to oil and gas leasing on Federal lands; review regulations 
on outer Continental Shelf energy development; consider additional 
leases in the national petroleum reserve in Alaska, and work with 
Congress to look at the possibility of leasing portions of ANWR which 
were set aside specifically to look for new energy sources, oil and 
gas, to work with Congress to look at making some leases in those areas 
of ANWR for oil and gas exploration.
  In the area of nuclear energy, he wants to streamline the relicensing 
of existing nuclear power plants. There are many nuclear power plants 
that will be up for relicensing in the near future, which may not ask 
for relicensing because of the cost and time delays necessary to 
relicense these plants.
  Madam Speaker, nuclear energy is truly one of the cleanest and 
environmentally friendly forms of energy that we can have. With the 
technologies that are being developed today at the INEEL in Idaho and 
in Madam Speaker's district in Chicago, they are developing 
technologies which are reducing the amount of waste that comes from 
nuclear power plants. If we continue down this road, energy in the 
United States will be produced, I believe, largely by environmentally 
friendly nuclear energy.
  In the area of hydropower, the administration recognizes the clean 
air benefits of hydropower. It also has some problems. It dams up 
rivers, and that causes problems with fish, as we are seeing in the 
Pacific Northwest. But hydropower in the Pacific Northwest is very 
important. Eighty-one percent of the Nation's renewable electricity 
comes from hydropower. Hydropower supplies approximately 70 percent of 
the electricity in the Pacific Northwest. The administration supports 
reform of the relicensing process for hydroplants.
  Today in Idaho we have a series of dams in the Hell's Canyon complex 
which have been there for some 30 years. I can understand the length of 
time it would take to license a new dam. If you have a free-flowing 
river and you suggest putting a dam in there, you would do substantial 
environmental studies to see the impacts that dam would have on the 
environment and the species and so forth. Those dams have been there 
for 30 years. We are trying to get them relicensed. Idaho Power is. It 
has taken over 10 years to relicense those dams, and millions and 
millions of dollars. And the people that are going to pay those dollars 
are the ratepayers. We need to streamline this relicensing process not 
only for dams but for transmission lines, for transmission pipelines, 
for oil and natural gas and other things.
  Some people will say that this policy concentrates too much in one 
area and not enough in another area. I will tell you there are no 
silver bullets. We cannot conserve our way out of this problem. We 
cannot find enough oil or natural gas to get ourselves out of this 
problem. Nuclear power will not do it. It takes a combination of all of 
the efforts that we can bring to bear on this problem.
  Conservation, renewable new sources of energy, new technologies, 
clean coal, new exploration, and nuclear energy, those are the things 
that are going to be necessary if we are going to address this energy 
crisis in the long term. And if we do not address this energy crisis in 
the long term, it will be back to visit us again.
  Madam Speaker, I am glad that we have a President that recognizes the 
importance of reliable, affordable energy and the impact that it has on 
our economy, and I look forward to working with him to enact this 
policy.

                          ____________________