[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9522-9523]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                             ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from the State 
of Wyoming for yielding to me, and I thank him for his leadership on 
all of these many issues that he has discussed. He comes from a 
fascinating State, a State with a basket full of potential energy for 
this Nation if we can change a few of our policies and allow Wyoming, 
Montana, and other such States to be able to use the abundance of their 
coal to produce electricity at the mouth of the mine itself, and then 
through transmission lines to transport it across the Western States 
and to the State of California, where they are so desperately in need 
of more energy.
  I say that in my opening comments because we are on the threshold of 
beginning to work on a national energy policy. The President has 
presented one. The Senate has produced a bill. The Energy Committee, on 
which I serve, will now begin to review all aspects of that proposed 
policy and begin to shape for our Nation new public laws, amended 
public laws, a new regulatory process, a reduced regulatory process 
that will allow this country, once again, after nearly a decade, to get 
back in the business of producing energy.
  Senator Thomas and I were downtown yesterday speaking to a group, and 
I, at that time, said we are a rich Nation. Compared with all other 
nations of the world, we are one of the most wealthy. It is because of 
a combination of assets that we have had and have uniquely combined in 
the American character.
  First of all is the free enterprise system where an individual is 
allowed to create at his or her level and with his or her talent, and 
to use that creation not only to create wealth for themselves but for 
everyone around them. That is probably the No. 1 resource in our 
country and always has been. But tied to that resource is an abundance 
of energy in almost all forms--electrical, hydrocarbon, you name it. We 
have never wanted for energy in our country. But today we do. The 
American public is paying a higher price for gas than at any time in 
our Nation's history. They are paying higher electrical rates than at 
any time in our Nation's history, and they are asking a fundamental 
question: Why? Why are we? Why do we have to?
  Of course, we already know that those higher costs have depleted or 
reduced the wealth-generating capability of our country. It has cost 
thousands of jobs. It has hurt households. Every day, the commuter to 
his or her job is paying nearly double in the commuter costs than a 
year ago.
  This country cries out for a new energy policy of production. But 
they also want to see it done in a clean and responsible way when it 
comes to the environment. All of those things can be accomplished if 
this Senate will put its mind to it to assuring that we make that 
happen, and that we partner with States and local governments to assure 
they are fully involved and engaged with us in this most important 
process.
  A lot of people are saying right now: Well, George Bush, why aren't 
you helping out in California?
  After about 20 decisions coming out of the new administration, 3 
decisions coming out of the FERC, at some point we have to do the very 
common and necessary thing and say to California: Help yourself.
  California, finally, is beginning to do that. They are beginning to 
recognize that after 10 long years of not producing any energy, they 
are going to have to produce some. They used to buy a lot of energy 
from Idaho. We used to ship a lot of energy down there. But we Idahoans 
now need our energy because we are growing. We also had a drought in 
the Western States of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. We used to produce 
most of our power by turbines and dams and hydro power. As a result, 
this year we have less capability to produce and therefore we have less 
power to sell to California.
  Those are some of the critically important dynamics of the policy we 
will have to develop in the Senate. I have already had some of my folks 
calling me from Idaho saying, with what happened yesterday and with 
Democrats taking control of the Senate, is the energy policy dead?
  No, I don't think it will be. It can't be. My colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle cannot be viewed as obstructionists who are advocates 
of $2 or $3 gasoline or $400 or $500 megawatt power. They aren't now, 
and they can't be later. They must work with us and the Bush 
administration to get this country back into the business of producing 
and conserving and balancing out our electrical needs.
  President Bush said: Give me a tax cut now and give me some immediate 
response so at least in the short term a consuming family will have 
just a little bit of relief in their energy bill or any other part of 
family expenses.
  That is what we are struggling with at this very moment. The House 
and the Senate are meeting in conference to work out the differences 
between what we have produced in the Senate and what our colleagues in 
the House have produced. I hope in the end it will look very closely 
like what our President is asking--to return some of their tax dollars 
to them in the form of tax relief, both in the short term and in the 
long term, to stimulate the economy and to allow the producer to keep 
more of his or her hard-earned cash.
  In the midst of all of that, for just a little bit of time, maybe 
they can afford to pay just a little more for energy. I wish they 
didn't. I wish we had been smart enough 10 years ago, 5 years ago, 4 
years ago, to shift the policy. But we had an administration that said 
all you have to do is conserve and maybe use a little gas--that is, 
natural gas--to generate electricity, and we will get through all of 
this. We know that didn't work very well. Conservation was an important 
part of that energy message, and it is today.
  The average consumer today is now making a choice. I heard on the 
television a couple of mornings ago that the American Automobile 
Association says consumers are going to travel less this summer. 
Instead of a 10-day trip in their automobile, they are going to take an 
8-day trip or a 7-day trip. That is the American consumer doing what 
they do best--evaluating the cost of the trip and what they have in 
their pocketbooks and what their family can afford and stepping back.
  It is OK to do that in the short term, but when it comes to industry 
and the creation of jobs and the fact that industry may have to produce 
less and step back because of the input cost of energy, that then 
begins to hurt the whole economy of our country.
  So how can I talk about tax relief and energy in the same 
conversation? They are, in fact, integrally related. The ability to 
create a job, the ability to earn a paycheck, and to have a fair amount 
of that which you can apply to yourself, your family, and your kids' 
education has, in part, always been in direct relation to the amount it 
takes you to live; and the cost of living has gone up substantially in 
the last 2 years because of the fundamental cost of energy. All of 
these issues are tremendously important. Thank goodness we now have a 
President who speaks boldly, clearly, and bluntly about these kinds of 
issues.
  He says we are in an energy crisis and we can get out of it if we 
simply

[[Page 9523]]

produce and get back to the business of providing for the consumer of 
this country. He has laid out a plan on how to do it. On most of it, I 
agree. I certainly hope this Senate in future days, and under its new 
leadership, will recognize the importance of such a policy to the 
American people. You simply cannot deny it any longer. If conservation 
is the only message out there, then look at California, the greatest 
conserving State in the Nation. They have conserved themselves right 
into darkness. That is no way to run a State. They now know they have 
to produce along with that conservation, and we ought to allow this 
great country of ours that opportunity.
  I have always been one who believed that the freer our citizens, the 
freer our economy, the more flexibility to do what we do best--generate 
this great country's wealth and, therefore, this great country's world 
presence.
  Wealthy nations can provide for their people, and we do. Poor nations 
cannot. There is nothing wrong with the idea of creating wealth and 
allowing people to share it, allowing people to have the fruits of 
their labor and their genius. It is what has made us great, and it is 
what allows us to turn to those less fortunate here and around the 
world, to say we can help, and the only reason we can help is because 
we are, fortunately, a rich nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is the next 8 minutes are 
under the control of the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas. I ask 
unanimous consent that I be recognized, and in the event someone comes 
to whom Senator Thomas wishes to yield that time, I will be happy to 
discontinue my comments.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.

                          ____________________