Saturday, June 15, 2024

Congressional Record publishes “THE ENERGY CRISIS” on Sept. 26, 2000

Volume 146, No. 116 covering the 2nd Session of the 106th Congress (1999 - 2000) was published by the Congressional Record.

The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.

“THE ENERGY CRISIS” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Senate section on pages S9235 on Sept. 26, 2000.

The publication is reproduced in full below:

THE ENERGY CRISIS

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would be remiss, following the remarks of the Senator from Alaska, if I didn't comment on the whole energy issue, which is one of great concern to families, individuals, and businesses across America.

I have listened carefully as critics of the Clinton-Gore administration came out with statistics about the reason for our plight today. One that is often quoted, and was quoted again by the Senator from Alaska, is the fact that we have not built a new refinery in the United States for the last 24 years. I have heard this over and over again. There are two things worth noting. If I am not mistaken, during the last 24 years, in only 8 of those years have we had a Democratic administration. So if there has been any laxity or lack of diligence on the energy issue, I think that statement reflects on other administrations as much as, if not more than, the current administration.

Secondly, the people who make that statement hardly ever note that existing refineries have been expanded dramatically across the United States. That is the case in Illinois and in so many other States. I think it is worth noting that to say we have ignored the increased energy demands for our economy is not a complete statement. We have responded to them. The question, obviously, is whether we have responded enough.

There have also been statements made as to whether oil companies have been guilty of price gouging or profiteering. Those of us in the Midwest who, this spring, endured increases in gasoline prices of $1 a gallon, and more, in a very short period of time did not believe that market forces were at work. We believed what was at work was the forces of monopolies that virtually can dictate prices to American consumers. We were not alone in our belief. The Federal Trade Commission, after looking at the issue, could find no reasonable economic or market explanation for this increase in gasoline prices in Chicago or Milwaukee.

The other side would blame the Environmental Protection Agency and virtually everybody connected with the Clinton administration. Yet there was no evidence to back up those claims. As a consequence, the FTC is investigating oil companies to determine whether or not they did take advantage of consumers, businesses, and families across the Midwest. We believe it cost tens of millions of dollars to our local economy, and I believe if any fine is ultimately imposed on the oil companies, it should go to benefit the businesses and families who were the victims of these high gasoline prices by these oil companies.

The Senator from Alaska also made reference to the decision of this administration within the last few days to release oil on a swap basis from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It was a hot topic. Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore were involved in this debate for a long period of time. The question, obviously, is whether or not it is going to have any impact on our growing concern about the cost of fuel and energy, particularly the cost of heating oil. Well, we might be able to speculate for a long time, but we don't have to.

I call the attention of my colleagues in the Senate to this morning's Washington Post in the business section. The headline reads ``Price of Crude Oil Drops Below $32.'' Let me read from this article by Kenneth Bredemeier of the Washington Post:

The price of oil fell to its lowest level in a month yesterday in the wake of the Clinton administration's announcement last week that it is releasing 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help ensure adequate supplies of home heating oil this winter.

He goes on:

``It was not unexpected,'' said John Lichtblau, chairman of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation. ``It reflects the fact that inventories will be increased. This is not a sharp decline, but it is headed in the right direction. They could fall somewhat more.''

Lichtblau said that while very recently there had been speculation about $40-a-gallon oil, ``now there's speculation that it will drop to below $30. The assumption has changed directionally.''

So those who would argue against Vice President Gore and President Clinton's position on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, saying it won't help consumers and families and it won't help businesses, frankly, have been proven wrong by this morning's headline in the business section of the Washington Post. This is not a campaign publication, this is a report on the realities of the market. Of course, we can't stop with that effort. We have to continue to look for ways to reduce the cost of energy so that families and businesses can continue to profit in our strong economy.

But I think the suggestion of the Senator from Alaska embodied in this bill that we begin drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in his State is the wrong thing to do.

I recently ran into the CEO of a major oil company in Chicago. I asked him about this. How important is ANWR to the future of petroleum supplies in the United States? He said: From our company's point of view, it is a nonissue. There are plenty of sources of oil in the United States that are not environmentally dangerous situations. He believes--and I agree with it--that you do not have to turn to a wildlife refuge to start drilling oil in the arctic, nor do you have to drill offshore and run the risk of spills that will contaminate beaches for hundreds of miles. There are sources, he said, within the U.S. that are not environmentally sensitive that should be explored long before we are pushed to the limit of finding sources in these environmentally sensitive areas.

But the Senator from Alaska and many of our colleagues are quick to want to drill in these areas first. Their motive I can't say, but I will tell you that I don't believe it is necessary from an energy viewpoint. There are plenty of places for us to turn. But drilling for new oil energy sources is not the sole answer, nor should it be. We should be exploring alternative fuel situations.

They come to the floor regularly on the other side of the aisle and mock the suggestion of Vice President Gore in his book ``Earth In The Balance'' that we look beyond the fossil-fueled engine that we use today in our automobiles, trucks, and buses and start looking to other sources of fuel that do not create environmental problems. They think that is a pipedream; that it will never occur. Yet they ignore the reality that two Japanese car companies now have a car on the road that uses a combination of the gas-fired engine with electricity; with fossil-fueled engines, and those that do not rely only on fossil fuels to prove you can get high mileage without contaminating the atmosphere.

I am embarrassed to say again that the vehicles we are testing first come from other countries. But they are proving it might work. We should explore it. It seems an anathema to my friends on the other side of the aisle to consider other energy sources.

But if we can find, for example, a hydrogen-based fuel which does not contaminate the atmosphere and gives us the prospect of providing the energy needs of this country, why wouldn't we explore that? Why shouldn't we push for that research?

That is the point made by Vice President Gore. It is a forward visionary thing that, frankly, many people in the boardrooms of oil companies might not like to consider. But I think we owe it to our kids and future generations to take a look at that.

To go drilling in wildlife refuges and off the shores of our Nation with the possibility of contaminating beaches is hardly an alternative to sound research. I think we should look at that research and consider it as a real possibility.

____________________

SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 146, No. 116