[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12642-12644]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           THE ENERGY CRISIS

  Mr. KYL. I suspect that most of my colleagues, as myself, talked to a 
lot of our constituents over the Fourth of July recess who reminded us 
of the fact that out in America there is still a problem with an energy 
shortage. I know I had to gas up my vehicle, as did a lot of other 
Americans, when I drove up to the mountains in Arizona. I had a 
wonderful time. I marched in a Fourth of July parade in Show Low, AZ, 
really the heart of America as far as I am concerned. Folks out there 
are still concerned because they recognize that Washington is 
dithering; that we are not doing anything to solve the problem of an 
energy shortage in this country.
  Some people may call it a crisis; other people may not; but the fact 
is we have had a wake-up call. The question is, Will we answer the call 
or are we simply going to dither around, ignore it, and play partisan 
politics?
  My own view is that there is no better opportunity for us to show 
bipartisanship, to work together toward a solution to a common problem 
that affects all Americans, than working together to solve this energy 
shortage problem.
  This is something on which the administration has weighed in. They 
have taken the issue very seriously. Very early in his term, the 
President asked Vice President Cheney to convene a group of people to 
come up with some suggestions on what we could do--both short term and 
long term--to address this energy shortage problem.
  The Vice President, along with a lot of others, came up with a series 
of recommendations which I would like to have us consider in the 
Senate. They are recommendations which deal with new production, with 
conservation--a majority of the recommendations, incidentally, deal 
with conservation, even though that has largely been ignored in the 
media--and recommendations dealing with new energy sources, something 
in which I am very interested--hydrogen fuel cells, and a whole lot of 
things.
  The fact is, this is a serious effort. While the Republicans held the 
majority in the Senate, a bill was introduced which embodied many of 
these recommendations. Under the then-Republican leadership, it was 
going to be our program to take up that energy legislation in this 
Senate Chamber starting today or tomorrow. Sadly, that is not going to 
happen. The Democratic leadership announced some time ago that it had 
different priorities and that the Senate Chamber would not be the place 
for debate about the energy shortage the week following the Fourth of 
July recess.
  It is my understanding that hearings have been scheduled and both the 
Finance Committee and the Energy Committee will be taking up different 
pieces of legislation. There will be hearings on the administration's 
plan, as well as other ideas. And that is good. But we need to deal 
with this problem while we have had this wake-up call and not kick it 
to the back burner where we will forget about it and then, in another 
year or two, realize we wasted a couple of years that could have been 
spent in finding new energy sources, putting them into play, and 
providing an opportunity for Americans to enjoy the kind of prosperity 
we can enjoy with the proper mix of good energy sources.
  There are basically two issues. One deals with the cost of producing 
electricity and how that electricity will be produced. The other has to 
do with the reality that Americans are going to use a great deal of 
energy--petroleum products primarily, and primarily for transportation. 
That is not going to change in the near term, despite the fact that 
over the long run we will have to come up with some alternatives.
  I mentioned hydrogen fuel cells as one of those possibilities. It is 
a little closer than I think most people would recognize. We put money 
into basic research at the Federal Government level. The administration 
has pushed for that as part of their energy plan. I hope we can move 
down that path.
  But in the meantime, we have to be realistic about the fact that 
Americans are going to continue to drive their automobiles. We are 
going to have to continue to have gasoline. We cannot wish that problem 
away. The question is, Do we rely strictly on the sources of oil from 
the Middle East, for example, or do we recognize that it really puts us 
behind the 8 ball if the OPEC countries want to constrain supplies and 
increase prices? Or if there is jeopardy to those sources from military 
conflict, will we have to once again send our troops and spend a great 
deal of energy and money to protect those energy sources as we did 
during the Persian Gulf war? That is one path we can take.
  There are some in this country who would have us ignore the potential 
for energy development in this country. I think we ought to have a plan 
that both recognizes the potential within the United States for oil 
production as well as buying what we can on the market internationally.
  The other aspect of that problem is refineries. We have not built new 
refineries in this country for 20 to 25 years. We have actually had 
some shut down. As one of my Democratic colleagues said during a 
hearing in the Finance Committee a couple weeks ago, she is a little 
disappointed about the fact that there is criticism of refineries 
making money. She said: What are my business folks in my State to do--
be in the business to lose money? The fact is, they are in the business 
to make money. In the process of making money, they make petroleum 
products that we demand when we go to the service station.
  When I filled up my vehicle last week, I wanted gasoline to be in 
that pump so I could drive my family where we were going. We have a lot 
of demand in this country. It is we who have the demand, not the oil 
companies. They are the ones that provide the product and the 
refineries that refine that product so that we can meet our demand. Yet 
there is a great deal of criticism about anybody who would make money 
in producing one of these products. That is the only way we get the 
products.
  The free market system has served us well. We ought to be very 
careful about denigrating the suppliers who have made it possible for 
us to enjoy our standard of living.
  So my view, just to summarize, is that we should consider the 
President's recommendations in a bipartisan spirit. We should move 
along quickly with the hearings that I understand have been scheduled. 
And we should bring to

[[Page 12643]]

this Senate Chamber, as soon as possible, the legislation or other 
recommendations that will enable us to deal with this issue now, when 
we have had the wake-up call, and not kick it down the road a couple 
years to when we can see some real problems not just in the State of 
California but spreading throughout this country in energy cost 
increases, potential blackouts and brownouts, and the like. This is the 
time to deal with that problem.
  Mr. President, to conclude, I rise today to express my concern that 
the Senate Democratic leadership has not yet scheduled floor time to 
allow the full Senate to promptly address the energy crisis that 
threatens all Americans. Having just returned from the July 4th recess 
in Arizona, I can tell you that not all Americans share the view that 
this should be a low legislative priority. Most of them want to deal 
with the problem in a bipartisan way.
  Because of its effect on the national economy as well as peoples' 
individual pocketbooks, I am particularly troubled that the energy 
crisis seems to take a back seat to other issues on the new 
leadership's agenda. This is not the bipartisanship those leaders urged 
when they were in the minority.
  The United States faces the most serious energy shortage since the 
oil embargoes of the 1970s. We all know about California's problems 
with rolling blackouts and soaring energy bills. The President thought 
it important enough to travel to California last month to address this 
problem firsthand. Unfortunately, energy shortages and price increases 
are spreading to other parts of the country.
  I want to make it as clear as I can that we should quickly address 
the energy recommendations offered by the administration. With oil 
consumption expected to grow by over six million barrels per day over 
the next 20 years, natural gas consumption to jump 50 percent and 
electricity demands to rise by 45 percent, we must act aggressively to 
increase production in each of these areas before the entire nation 
suffers from the shortfall. Just to meet expected electricity demands, 
for example, we must begin now to build between 1,300 and 1,900 new 
power plants over the next 20 years.
  To address this reality, we should act now on the 105 recommendations 
of Vice President Cheney's energy task force. This plan makes 45 
recommendations to modernize and increase conservation through tax 
credits and the expansion of Energy Department conservation programs. 
It proposes 35 ways to diversify our energy supply and expand our 
infrastructure by encouraging new pipelines, generating plants and 
refineries, and streamlining our regulatory process. And this proposal 
strengthens America's national security by decreasing our dependence on 
foreign oil through increased energy production within our borders.
  Some opponents of the President and Vice President rely on ad hominem 
attacks, misinformation, and demagoguery to cast aspersions on the 
administration's proposals. They claim that, because the President and 
Vice President were once connected to the oil business, they somehow 
are disqualified from energy discussions. On the contrary--these are 
people who actually know something firsthand about the problems in the 
energy industry. They do not benefit personally from efforts to 
increase energy production.
  Opponents of this energy strategy applaud the recent imposition of 
price caps to the western states. However, price caps do nothing to 
increase energy supplies, and could very well discourage investment in 
new generation power production by artificially limiting a producer's 
return on his or her investment. Indeed, California's two largest 
utilities are basically bankrupt as a result of artificial price caps 
on retail electricity prices. I am particularly concerned about price 
caps because Arizona, unlike California, has moved aggressively to 
permit new power plants needed to satisfy the state's growing demand 
for electricity. FERC's recent imposition of price caps could result in 
delayed construction or cancellation of these new facilities.
  Opponents also say that the President's proposal will not encourage 
conservation. As an Arizonan, I certainly support commonsense 
conservation efforts that help preserve our natural resources. But 
these opponents must not have read the President's plan, for he devotes 
the bulk of his recommendations to efforts to enhance conservation. 
Among many provisions, the administration endorses tax credits to 
encourage use of more energy efficient products, such as hybrid or 
fuel-cell vehicles. It extends conservation programs in the 
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. It 
increases funding for conservation technologies and orders federal 
agencies to reduce their energy usage by at least 10 percent. In total, 
the administration proposes $795 million for conservation programs as 
part of its overall budget allocation for the Department of Energy.
  While these conservation efforts are important, we must also 
acknowledge that we cannot conserve our way out of an energy crisis. 
California has dramatically reduced its electricity use over the last 
two months, yet still faces the possibility of rolling blackouts. We 
must increase supply in the near-term or face even worse shortages than 
we have now.
  Opponents also claim that we can meet our increased demand with 
renewable energy sources. We should support research into renewable 
energy technologies, such as hydrogen and fuel cells. Remember that, 
even so, non-hydro renewable energy produced only two percent of our 
energy supply last year and the Department of Energy reports that 
renewable energy will only produce, at most six percent of our energy 
supply by the year 2020. That isn't nearly enough to meet the growing 
demands of the next few decades.
  Opponents also claim that the President's energy plan promotes 
``dangerous'' energy use, such as nuclear energy and oil drilling. 
Let's address nuclear energy first. This is an energy resource that 
currently provides 22 percent of America's electricity needs, while 
producing no harmful emissions. Nuclear energy is safer than any 
comparable energy generation; capacity is more than 90 percent; power 
production is at an all-time high; and the costs are the lowest on 
record and continuing to fall. Nuclear energy use is neither a novel 
nor a risky concept; France receives 80 percent of all of its 
electricity from nuclear power.
  There is a problem with disposal of nuclear waste, but it isn't so 
serious that the critics of nuclear power are concerned with finding an 
answer. They appear to be happy enough with current on-site storage. 
Obviously, other countries more ``green'' than the U.S. have resolved 
the waste issue. The fact is that it's not a technology problem but a 
political problem.
  Increased oil drilling has proven as controversial, yet it shouldn't 
be. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, for example, is a 
commonsense and safe proposal to increase domestic oil production. It 
is also very limited in scope. Oil exploration would occur in only a 
small portion of ANWR, in an area one-fifth the size of Washington's 
Dulles Airport. Technological advances have reduced any supposed risks 
to the environment. Drilling pads are roughly 80 percent smaller than 
they were a generation ago and high-tech drilling allows for access to 
supplies as far as six miles away from a single, compact drilling site.
  Two concerns are raised: oil spills and harm to wildlife. The threat 
of spills is far greater from ocean-going tankers than from the Alaska 
pipeline. And the caribou have prospered since drilling began on 
Alaska's North Slope.
  This modest effort in ANWR would provide enormous benefits, producing 
as much as 600,000 barrels of oil a day for the next 40 years--exactly 
the amount we currently import from Iraq. Moreover, oil drilling 
utilizes a smaller portion of our environment than the alternative 
energy sources advocated by others. The Resource Development Council 
for Alaska reports that, to produce 50 megawatts of power, natural gas 
production uses two to five acres of land, solar energy consumes 1,000 
acres, wind power uses 4,000 acres, and oil drilling--less than one-
half of an acre. That is real conservation of our natural resources.

[[Page 12644]]

  As it stands now, American consumers already depend on foreign and 
often hostile nations for more than half of our oil supply. In 20 
years, that percentage will increase to 64 percent. Doesn't it make 
more sense to invest in domestic production so that we are not held 
hostage to the whims of OPEC and the need to militarily defend our 
interests in the major oil-producing regions?
  In conclusion, I commend President Bush and Vice President Cheney for 
producing serious and honest proposals to enact a long-term energy 
strategy on behalf of American consumers. A worsening energy crisis 
requires all of us to act swiftly on these proposals before the 
situation becomes more widespread.
  I urge our new Democratic leaders to take this proposal seriously and 
find a way to bring solutions to the floor of the Senate. As these 
leaders know from their days in the minority, it is much easier to find 
a way to accommodate the minority's requests than fight them. I hope 
the new leadership will act in a truly bipartisan way and consider the 
administration's ideas. We're all in this energy shortage together. 
Democrats should work with Republicans for the good of all Americans.

                          ____________________