[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11139-11141]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        ENERGY CRISIS IN AMERICA

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I recognize that we are debating a 
motion to proceed to the Patients' Bill of Rights. I am tempted, 
however, to ask unanimous consent that we set the Patients' Bill of 
Rights aside and go to the energy legislation that is pending before 
this body. I shall not do that, in deference to my colleagues on the 
other side, although I must admit, it is somewhat ideal and timely.
  What I am going to do is call on the majority leader of the Senate to 
set a date to take up the energy crisis in America. Polling indicates 
the No. 1 issue in this country and concern is not education. It is 
energy.
  Under the previous leadership--and hindsight is cheap--this was the 
week we were going to be debating a comprehensive energy bill in this 
body. Senator Lott had indicated that that was the next order of 
business after education. Where are we in the order of business? We are 
on the Patients' Bill of Rights. We are supposedly going to be on the 
supplemental next week. We may take up the minimum wage. We may be on 
appropriations. Where is energy in the Democratic list of priorities 
for this body? I am very disappointed that evidently it has been tossed 
aside under the new leadership.
  Where have we been on this matter? We have been busy. The Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, which I previously chaired and on which I 
worked with Senator Bingaman--Senator Bingaman now chairs the 
committee--has been busy inasmuch as we have held 24 hearings. We have 
had 164 witnesses over the last year. We clearly know what this country 
needs. We need to produce more energy. We need to develop alternatives. 
We need to develop renewables. We need to do a better job of 
conservation. But we have to come to grips with this crisis. We can't 
ignore it. It is not going to go away.
  The issue is ripe for debate in this body, ripe for debate on the 
Senate floor. We should proceed forward on behalf of the American 
public who is looking to Congress to provide a solution.
  We all know prices are too high; supplies are too low. We all know 
that too little is being done as evidenced by the calendar with which 
we are confronted.
  I therefore ask the majority leader at this time to agree to bring 
the energy policy legislation to the floor of the Senate at a time 
certain, and certainly no later than July 23. I look forward to his 
response.
  To give some idea of the timeliness of this, one only has to look at 
what is going on in the committees. Yesterday, the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee heard from FERC. We heard from the five members of 
the Commission.
  Today, in Government Affairs, we had the Governor of California, Gray 
Davis, along with other Western Governors, appearing to tell of the 
energy crisis in their States. We also heard from the FERC relative to 
the action they had taken unanimously to reach a conclusion to 
basically take the pressure off what was proposed as legislation to 
mandate wholesale caps and prices.
  I think it is fair to say that we can commend the administration, the 
President and the Vice President, for holding the course because 
wholesale caps do not encourage investment. We need investment in new 
power-generating facilities. As the President knows, if you put very 
tight caps in, investment will not come in regardless of how many 
permits for construction are issued. The incentive for a reasonable 
rate of return has to be there.
  Now, FERC has come out with an order that addresses this. It takes 
care of not only investor-owned but municipally owned utilities. It 
covers both. It sets a 15-month timeframe in which to work, and it 
bases its great structure at the lowest efficient contributor into the 
energy pool.
  I commend FERC. We can argue why they didn't do it sooner, but it is 
important to recognize that FERC has

[[Page 11140]]

just been functioning with its five members for a relatively short 
period of time, less than 2 weeks. Where were they last year? There is 
no use going back and trying to figure out why they didn't act sooner. 
In any event, it is fair to say that what California needs is not 
political excuses; they really need practical solutions.
  FERC, while working out the solution, found that some in California 
continue to spin the issue away in the hopes that somehow the blame 
will be deflected. We heard from Governor Davis. He has been blaming 
virtually everyone for the problems in California--his predecessor, the 
State legislature, and he even blamed the Texas ownership that 
contributes only about 12 percent of the energy that comes into 
California from Texas-owned energy companies. Twelve percent is 
significant but not overwhelming. He has blamed the President and the 
Vice President for problems that began 9, 10 months before they even 
took office. He has not recognized that, indeed, the President and the 
Vice President, in their proposal in the energy task force, proposed 
realistic ways to correct the problem--to correct it for California and 
nationally--by a balanced comprehensive energy policy. He also blamed 
power producers for price gouging. He hired the head of one of these 
groups, David Freeman, of the Los Angeles Department of Water and 
Power, as his energy adviser.
  One has to look at the list of those that allegedly have overcharged 
California. They contribute about $505 million. Among them is the city-
owned Los Angeles agency that distributes water and power in Los 
Angeles--somewhere in the area of about $17 million in overcharging. 
Another significant overcharge allegation was leveled against the 
Columbia River producers on the Columbia River in Bonneville. Nearly 
$173 million were BC hydro, which constituted about two-thirds of the 
$505 million.
  I suggest that California spends more time discussing the problem of 
spinning off responsibility than looking forward to how they can 
address changes by increasing more production in California. I commend 
FERC, and I share the President's commitment to market competition, not 
Federal Government command and control. We must never forget that 
Government itself doesn't generate one kilowatt of electricity, and 
neither do controls, if you will, on private investment. Only industry 
can generate the electricity the public needs. Price controls have 
never spun a turbine and have never stopped a rolling blackout.
  In the pursuit of just and reasonable rates, Congress need not pursue 
new legislation. As we saw yesterday from the FERC, the system is 
working. The FERC order clears the way for our work on the long-term 
solution. We must come together now on focusing our attention on 
putting in place a comprehensive national energy strategy that will 
help get us out of this crisis and keep us out. That must be our 
priority. And recognizing the contribution the administration has made 
in submitting the energy task force to us, the introduction of bills by 
both Senator Bingaman, myself, and a number of Members, which is a 
comprehensive proposal for relief, should be on the calendar of this 
body. It should be on the calendar for action now. It is beyond me why 
those on the other side have chosen to ignore it at a time when it is 
the No. 1 priority in the country.
  Further, on a sidenote, on May 23 of this year, the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources, which I formerly chaired and now am the 
ranking member, reported the nomination of Steven Griles to be the 
Deputy Secretary of the Interior. It has been 28 days and we are still 
waiting to even get a time agreement, which was noticed to us that 
would be required. The significance of this particular nominee in the 
Department of the Interior is that the only confirmed position at the 
Department of the Interior is the Secretary of the Interior.
  That is simply irresponsible. It is time for the Senate to let Steven 
Griles' nomination go. We look forward to trying to work with the 
majority to achieve this. There is absolutely no excuse to hold this 
nominee from being confirmed. He has been voted out of the Committee on 
Energy, and there is little we can offer the majority. The excuse is 
that they are holding up the nomination until such time as the 
committees are determined. But we all know the committees are going to 
be determined with at least one more Member of the majority going on 
the committees. I don't know what the minority can do other than to 
recognize that the Department of the Interior serves all of us--both 
Republicans and Democrats--and to hold up the functional responsibility 
when we have had the hearing and this nominee is waiting to serve the 
country bears another examination by the majority. I would certainly be 
glad to get any explanation anybody might care to provide at this time, 
or at any other time.
  I will leave you with one thought. Back in 1992, we had a similar 
concern in this country that we were facing--an increase in imports. As 
a consequence of imports, we were increasing domestic production, as 
well as domestic demand, and as a consequence, we became concerned and 
passed out of committee a number of items that are shown on this chart. 
It is interesting to note, though, what we got out of the process when 
it went to the floor. We had given on all the supply increases 
associated with increasing domestic production and reducing dependence 
on foreign oil. As a consequence, it is rather interesting to see on 
the current energy plan that there is little relief proposed. Yet in 
our comprehensive bill on the right, clearly we tried to cover all the 
areas of concern.
  The reason that things are different--and I will show you this on the 
second chart--things aren't the same as they were in 1992--we have kind 
of a ``perfect storm'' scenario. We were 37-percent dependent in 1973. 
Now it is 56 percent. The Department of Energy says it will be 66 
percent by 2010. Natural gas prices soared three to four times. They 
were $2.16 per thousand, and now it is somewhere between $4 and $5. We 
haven't built a new nuclear plant in over 10 years, no new refineries 
or new coal plants.
  I thank you for the time. I yield to the majority whip.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend that I am still the 
chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and we have 
a number of nominations waiting to help Governor Whitman. We have 
approved a deputy, Linda Fisher. I wanted to make sure she called, and 
she said she needed that help very badly; and we worked it out so when 
the Republicans were under control, I made sure that was released and 
that she could get over there and help.
  We have a number of people waiting to go to the EPA. Governor Whitman 
needs help also with running that important entity.
  I think the Senator should check with people on his side. The reason 
is that we have been waiting since we took control of the Senate to 
have a simple organizational resolution passed to allow the committee 
structure to be effectuated.
  Rather than having an arrangement where the minority leader, Senator 
Lott, speaks with the majority leader, Senator Daschle, a committee was 
formed to meet with Senator Daschle.
  As we know, any time committees are chosen, it usually slows things 
down. Someone told me once that a committee was formed to come up with 
a horse, and the committee came up with a camel. That was their version 
of a horse. I think the committee is not really serving the Senate 
well.
  I have knowledge, and I am sure their intent is good, nothing has 
happened in all this time. It seems to me the time has come that 
something should happen. There has been a lot of passing back and forth 
of memoranda and meetings, but that is what is holding things up.
  As I indicated, we have people for EPA. Senator Leahy has said 
publicly on a number of occasions he wants to start hearings in the 
Judiciary Committee.
  This is not, as far as I am concerned, payback time. The fact is that 
45 percent of President Clinton's nominations for the appellate court 
never

[[Page 11141]]

made it through the process--45 percent. When we were in control last 
time, the average waiting time for a judicial nomination was 85 days. 
The last full Congress when the Republicans were in control, the 
waiting time was 285 days.
  This is not going to be payback time. Senator Daschle has said that. 
We are going to conduct the Senate and the committee system in an 
appropriate way.
  We have vacancies in Nevada. We have three vacancies for Federal 
judges in the small State of Nevada that need to be filled. We hope 
that can take place quickly. Senator Ensign and I have agreed on the 
judges who should be nominated and sent to President Bush. They are 
down there now.
  I say to my friend from Alaska, we also want the organization of the 
Senate to formally take place, and we hope the committee of five will 
get together and take care of the other 44 Senators they represent and 
move on to what we believe is the appropriate function of this Senate.
  I will be happy to yield to my friend from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I very much appreciate the comments of my friend from 
Nevada who has outlined, I think accurately, the overall situation. I 
did not in my request highlight the overall resolve of this dilemma 
associated with the committee and the structuring of the committee. 
What the Senator said certainly is relevant to having the committees 
take action.
  This issue of Steven Griles is entirely different. The reason it is 
different is he has been waiting 28 days. That was before the Senate 
changed hands. For the majority whip to indicate he is part of this, in 
reality, his nomination was pending before Senator Jeffords left our 
side and joined the other side.
  At that time, we were negotiating with the Democrats in good faith to 
agree to a time agreement, and there was an indication that they would 
require at least several hours, and we were willing to do that.
  I want the record to note Steven Griles is different than the other 
pending nominations because he was proposed and held up prior to the 
Democratic Party taking control of the Senate.
  I again renew my request that special consideration be given him 
because his is truly a special case.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Alaska, I have not 
spoken to the majority leader about Steven Griles, but I am confident 
once this organizational resolution is in effect, that will happen 
pretty quickly.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If the Senator will yield on one more point.
  Mr. REID. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I can appreciate that, but we are still saying Steven 
Griles is, in effect, held hostage as a consequence of the policies of 
the majority now when we could have taken action when we had the 
majority, but we were trying to work with the minority at that time.
  Clearly, we are left in this dilemma of him being caught, if you 
will, in the tidal backwater which affects us all, whether Republican 
or Democrat.
  As the Senator from Nevada knows, he is from a public land State. He 
needs some help at the Department of Interior. This action of delaying 
simply puts off Mr. Griles' ability to serve our country and the 
Department. That is, indeed, unfortunate, particularly in view of the 
fact he was voted out of the committee and his nomination is still 
pending.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I feel confident that it will be in 
everyone's interest--the minority, the majority, and every State in the 
Union--if we can get this organizational situation completed. We have 
waited far too long. The committee of five should meet as often as 
necessary with Senator Daschle. We only have one representing us and 
five representing them. I think Senator Daschle would make himself 
available any time of the day or night to get this organizational 
situation resolved.

                          ____________________