THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display    

Another question was about, how important is the ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? Developing a national energy strategy is really a team effort. ANWR is one of the best players on that team because it is the one area where the geologists have said there is likely to be a major oilfield of

[Page: S1550]  GPO's PDF

   Without going into the inefficiencies of deregulation--which was really not a true deregulation when you maintain a cap on retail prices--it is fair to say there is a situation where, in the sense of our increased dependence on imported oil, we are too dependent on outside sources. As a consequence of that, I think we are certainly vulnerable to price hikes for oil as well.

   So I think that as we look at the California situation, we should recognize the exposure we have here in the United States on our increased dependence on oil, which is about 56 percent.

   The question came up: What comments have we gotten from the administration? President Bush recognizes the need for a national strategy. Vice President CHENEY has been leading a task force to develop their own initiatives. It is my understanding that effort is going to be completed in about 45 days. So we look forward to incorporating their comments into our ongoing work at the appropriate time.

   We have had meetings with our colleagues over in the House, Congressman TAUZIN and Congressman BARTON. And we have had a

   very positive response relative to the manner in which we hope to bring this legislation through the House and Senate.

   Now, when will we have a vote on this? Obviously, it is going to the committees of jurisdiction for hearings--the Energy Committee and the Finance Committee. But what we wanted to do is get the debate started on the entire bill so we can move through the committee process and, hopefully, to the floor at a later date.

   Some have said this bill calls for more nuclear power, and will this require an accelerated program for nuclear waste storage? We need to use all our domestic resources. Inasmuch as nuclear contributes about 20 percent of the total electric energy in this country, it is important that we continue our efforts to try to resolve what to do with the nuclear waste.

   As you know, Mr. President, we were one vote short in the last Congress of overriding a Presidential veto. The difficulty with the nuclear waste issue is no one wants the waste. As a consequence, as we pursue our efforts in Nevada to develop the Yucca Mountain site, there is a noted lack of support from the Nevadans.

   That is understandable, yet that waste has to go somewhere. As we look at some of the technology that has developed over the years, we find the French have addressed, through the vitrification process, the recovery of plutonium, putting it back in reactors, burning it, and basically getting rid of that proliferation. We don't seem to be able to do that in this country. Maybe we should give more thought to it.

   There has been a question brought up about providing some short-term changes such as increasing CAFE standards in the legislation. We think we have addressed this because we have, as far as CAFE standards , put the burden on the Federal Government to have its vehicles pick up about 3 additional miles to the gallon, and that is a good place to start before we dictate to the American public any mandates with regard to this. It is fair to say that if it works for the Government, then the Government ought to lead the way.

   There are some other points I will bring to the attention of the Senate at this time relative to the state we are in. This came about as a release last week from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a well-renowned defense and foreign policy think tank here in Washington. It includes scholars, both moderates and conservatives, from both parties, and their conclusion in a three-volume, 3-year effort entitled ``Geopolitics of Energy into the 21st Century.''

   The new study predicts that the U.S. and other industrial nations will become increasingly dependent on oil from the Middle East in the next 20 years and will need the region's most unstable countries--Iran, Iraq, and Libya--to raise their output. I wonder, at what price to the U.S.

   Furthermore, I refer to a Wall Street Journal article on February 15 and an AP article of February 14 on the same

   subject, indicating that global demand will grow sharply over the next two decades. The oil will come from areas with increased risk of supply interruptions. Further, it states, by 2020, half of all petroleum used by the world will be met from countries that impose a high risk of internal stability. World energy demand will increase by 50 percent, and at some point developing countries, led by China, will begin to consume more energy than the developed countries.

   Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator from Alaska will yield, I came to the floor to commend and congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for his work on this very important legislation. It is overdue. It is very broad, comprehensive legislation that is designed to address this problem. I think he should be recognized for the effort he has put into it.

   This is a bill that has been developed in a bipartisan way with all different views and regions of the country reflected in various components of the bill. I acknowledge that.

   I ask the Senator, when does he expect there will be some input from the administration, and how does he plan to proceed in terms of committee hearings and when he might actually get legislation ready for the Senate to consider?

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. I appreciate that inquiry. As I believe the leader recalls, the President has appointed Vice President CHENEY to form a task force developing an energy policy for the administration. That task force has been at work for some time. My understanding is they should have this ready in about 45 days.

   I am most appreciative of the Senator's cosponsorship, along with that of Senator Breaux. This is a bipartisan package. It will go to the two committees of jurisdiction--the one I chair, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and the other is the Finance Committee. We will begin hearings as soon as I have had an opportunity to sit down with Senator Bingaman and find some mutually compatible dates. We intend to move on this and get the debate started because, as the Senator knows, it is a very comprehensive piece of legislation. There is going to be a lot of input into it. There are certain things we have to get done, and we need an estimate from Joint Tax.

   This legislation is meant to stimulate new technology, to provide incentives for the small independents, the stripper wells, so we can keep those people going when the prices decline. It is not addressed to the large oil companies that can fend very well for themselves.

   Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator for his response. I asked so I could have some plan as to when we might bring it to the Senate. I hope that certainly in June or July of this year we would be able to get to it.

   Let me ask the Senator another question. I don't want to take up all of his time. I would like to have some brief time to make some remarks of my own. I believe we are importing now 56 percent of the oil needs of this country.

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is correct. The largest increase is now coming from Iraq, from Saddam Hussein. Remember, we fought a war over there in 1991.

   Mr. LOTT. That is right. When I go around the country, I find there are a number of States with additional oil that could be used if we could get it out of the ground. It is not being used. There are a lot of areas of the country, such as my own, where we have a substantial supply of natural gas but there has not been an incentive or incentives for us to convert to natural gas, which is clean burning and has been a cheaper source of

   energy, even though, because of all the demand, it has been going up.

[Page: S1551]  GPO's PDF

   I found, when I was in Kentucky last week, there is substantial progress being made in clean coal technology that we could make better use of coal. In my own State, we have a nuclear plant but no place to put the nuclear waste. When I go out west, I see other sources being used. Wind is one example. The list is endless of the potential we have in this country. Yet we are not using it.

   I wonder if the American people think we have a shortage of energy supply. I ask the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, do we have a shortage? If we don't, why are we importing 56 percent of our energy needs from the OPEC countries of the world? I think this is totally indefensible.

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think our national energy security interest is at risk. We fought a war over there to keep Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait or going into Saudi Arabia. At what point do we compromise our national security? I think if we see fit to fight a war over it, it is pretty important. As the Department of Energy predicts, in the year 2006 or 2007, we will be in the high 60s, 60-some-odd-percent dependent on imports.

   We have tremendous reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. We have reserves in the overthrust belt in my State of Alaska and tremendous resources of natural gas in Mississippi and Alabama, Texas, Louisiana. We have these resources. We have the technology to develop them safely. We have had a difficult time, perhaps, convincing the environmental community that we can make a smaller footprint. We can do a better job. And we have the American ingenuity and commitment to do it, if given the opportunity.

   Many of these areas have been closed for exploration and development.

   Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as I go around the country and around my own State, more and more people are bringing this subject up to me. People are complaining about gasoline prices. They are complaining about their electricity bills or their natural gas bills. Out in the real world people seem to be concerned about it and mad about it, but when I come back here, I don't get the sense of urgency. In fact, there are a lot of people who seem to think all we need to do with our energy problem is provide more incentives to weatherize our houses, which is fine, and provide more money for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, money that we give to low-income individuals to meet their heating and air-conditioning costs.

   Now, I emphasize that while those are both fine in this bill, they are not an energy policy. The answer to the energy shortage is not for the Federal Government to pay the additional cost of not having an adequate supply.

   So I commend the Senator for including those provisions in his bill. It is comprehensive. He has more incentives for exploration and conservation, for alternative sources, and for low-income needs. I look forward to us actually getting to the floor and having a full debate and amendments.

   If we complete this year not having passed a major national energy policy bill, it is going to be a big mistake, a tragedy. I think it is the biggest threat to our future economic prosperity. If we don't do this now, we could be in danger because there won't be the power to run Silicon Valley or new automobile manufacturing plants or anything else. There will be shortages, and that will be a mistake for our future economy.

   I thank the Senator for yielding. I wanted to engage in a little bit of a discussion about when we are going to take this up.

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the majority leader. I thank him for his commitment and enthusiasm to make sure this legislation is of the importance that it obviously is as we look at the situation in California. We just recognize, for example, we have huge resources of coal in this country--huge resources. We have the technology to clean that coal and reduce emissions. We haven't built a new coal-fired plant since the mid-1990s. Why? We could not get a permit, for all practical purposes. All the emphasis has been on natural gas.

   If you are going to generate electricity, you get natural gas. It is becoming short in the sense that our reserves that are attainable are being pulled down very rapidly. So we are going to have to find, if you will, new reserves. We have the Gulf of Mexico, with the technology, drilling in 3,000 to 6,000 feet of water. While there is a risk associated with that, they have new technology virtually reducing that risk to a large degree, so it is manageable. I think we have to convince our environmental friends we do have the technology to make the footprint smaller, to do a better job, and to get on with the reality that we can't conserve our way out of this energy crisis. We have to simply produce more energy and sustain ourselves with new technologies, renewables, alternatives, and we have to conserve.

   Nevertheless, when you talk about solar panels, in Alaska, sometimes it gets dark in the winter for a long time. The wind doesn't always blow like it does in Washington, DC, or sometimes in this Chamber. Nevertheless, when you and I leave here, we have to have jet fuel in that airplane, not hot air. I think it affords us the responsibility that we have to come up with some meaningful legislation.

   If the majority leader would care to speak at this time, I am happy to yield the floor on this matter. I would appreciate being recognized upon the conclusion of his remarks.

   Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today's fuel prices are a daily reminder that America is now at the mercy of foreign oil producing nations. America's dependence on foreign oil directly threatens our national security and our freedom. However, before you blame your neighbor's SUV, your local fuel distributors, the oil companies, the automakers, or any of the other usual scapegoats, consider this fact--America is one of the leading energy producing countries in the world. This country has the technology, alternative resources and enough oil and natural gas to be much more self-sufficient. America does not have to revert back to the practices of the 1970s.

   This country is faced with a very serious problem. Our nation's's farmers are being hit hard--due to the cost of home heating bills, farm fuel costs, gasoline, and the impact of the crisis on the fertilizer industry. For obvious reasons, the transportation industry is also seeing a significant hit in air cargo and passenger transportation, intercity bus, trucking, and rail transportation. This in turn affects the tourism industry. Rising oil prices impact more than just energy costs. They are absorbed into a wide variety of goods causing a general increase in consumer prices. This cost increase threatens the engine of the nation's economy, our nation's small businesses.

   All of this is simply because of the lack of an energy policy. As a result, U.S. crude oil production is down significantly, as consumption continues to rise. America now imports over 56 percent of the oil it consumes--compared to 36 percent at the time of the 1973 Arab oil embargo. At this rate the Department of Energy predicts America will be at least 65 percent dependent on foreign oil by 2020.

   The National Energy Security Act of 2001, which we are introducing today, seeks an overall goal: To enhance national security by reducing dependence on foreign energy sources while protecting consumers by providing stable supplies at affordable prices. It provides incentives for the use of natural gas--a fuel which can burn cleanly in internal combustion engines, and which is abundant within our own borders--especially in the Gulf of Mexico. It also calls on America to utilize other domestic resources through incentives which encourage the use of marginal oil wells, and the billions of barrels of oil we have in Alaska. Likewise, this measure does not ignore the use of renewable energy resources such as solar power, hydro-power, or wind power. However, Congress must acknowledge that America cannot realistically run only on renewable energy resources. Coal, oil, and natural gas remain our most abundant and affordable fuels, and they can be used in environmentally sound ways.

   Some 55% of the electricity generated in the United States comes from coal-fired steam generating plants. Coal can make a significant contribution to U.S. energy security, if the environmental challenges of coal-fired plants can be met. This legislation will

[Page: S1552]  GPO's PDF

   Congress must provide incentives for independent producers to keep their wells pumping, as well. Tax credits for marginal wells will restore our link to existing oil resources, including many in my home state of Mississippi. These wells are responsible for 50% of U.S. production.

   We also need to increase the availability of domestic natural gas, which is the clean alternative for coal in electric power plants. Federal land out West may contain as much as 137 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Similarly there is Federal land in Alaska which is estimated to contain 16 billion barrels of domestic crude oil None of these facts should be surprising.

   There has to be a solution to this problem. Some would say that all we need to do is improve energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption. While there is a place for energy efficiency incentives in developing a natural energy policy, we must not starve our economy of the energy it needs to maintain and improve our standard of living. In the long run, a national energy policy that looks at all realistic sources of energy must be developed.

   This is not the 1970s, America has better technology, more efficient and cleaner automobiles as well as more energy options. The question is: How long will we forgo these options and be held hostage to nations abroad or extremists at home? Millions of Americans are enduring mandated power outages because of lack of power infrastructure or are stuck with bigger heating bills due to increased demand and limited production of energy. America must tap the vast resources we have. If not, those bills are just going to get bigger, and those outages will occur more frequently. America can solve its energy problems but Congress must act in the interests of the entire nation, rather than a select few. America badly needs a comprehensive, but realistic, national energy policy, and we need it now.

<<<

>>>

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display