Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 - Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

CONSUMER-FIRST ENERGY ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - June 11, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, there has been a great deal of discussion on the floor of the Senate today, certainly, about the price of oil and the impacts the high energy costs are having on our States across the Nation. I rise today to talk a little bit about one solution, one aspect of the solution for our energy woes in this country, and that is increased domestic production. Before I begin my comments, I acknowledge it is only one piece of the puzzle as we deal with the high price of energy in this country. Increased domestic production is one aspect of it, but we also have the other components. Certainly we must do more to focus our technologies to advance the renewables and the alternative energy sources in this country. Then the third leg of my three-legged energy stool is the focus on conservation and efficiency. I think it is fair to say that we in this country simply do not do enough yet, and that is something we must move toward and move toward in a dramatic manner.

We had a situation in the capital of Alaska about 6 weeks or so ago. The community of Juneau was left without their source of hydroelectric power when a series of avalanches took out the transmission lines that connected the source of hydro to the State's capital. Literally overnight, that community was plunged into a situation where they were going to be powering that community off of diesel. They were looking at a fivefold increase in their energy prices. The communities said: What do we do? We can't do this. All of a sudden we had a community--a population--that said: I can't afford to pay utility bills that are five times what I am already paying in terms of energy usage. So that community came together in a time of crisis and in 1 week's time reduced their energy consumption by 30 percent, and moved on then further in the next couple of months to reduce their energy consumption in Juneau, AK, by about 40 percent.

They did it through everything. Juneau, as my colleagues may know, is in a rain forest. It is pretty damp. There is usually not much need for clothespins, but every clothespin in Juneau was snapped up literally as people said: Well, I can't afford to run the dryer. We are going to figure out ways in our households where we learn to conserve. That focus--that very specific focus on conservation now because we are in a time of crisis--produced some pretty dramatic results. I think that community can stand as an example of how we in this country can work together to make a difference to reduce our energy consumption.

I wish to talk a little bit this afternoon about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the State of Alaska and how opening ANWR to oil exploration and development could help lower the price of petroleum for decades into the future. Over the past couple of days, we have heard several colleagues--well, not several; we have all been talking about the high prices of fuel that people are facing. I have heard a lot from some about encouraging foreign nations, whether it is Saudi Arabia or others, to produce more oil so that we can drive down the price of fuel for our benefit. We have heard that imposing perhaps a windfall profits tax on the oil companies would somehow or other lower prices, but the explanation for exactly why that would occur has been a bit sketchy to me. But I have heard almost nothing--almost nothing--from some of the Members of this body on why America should not produce more oil itself,

keeping the jobs in America, keeping the wealth in America for our benefit, America's benefit, not the benefit of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or Nigeria.

We can pass many laws in Congress, and we can repeal many laws, but we cannot repeal the law of supply and demand. I am not the first person to stand on the Senate floor and say that. If we want to lower our prices, we have to figure out how we can increase our Nation's fuel supplies.

On June 5, in the Washington Post, there was an opinion piece by George Will. He talked about the fact that America does have a national energy policy. According to Will:

America says to the foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit.

That was his statement about our national policy. That is a crazy national energy policy. No wonder it hasn't worked.

I ask unanimous consent that this full column by Mr. Will be printed in the Record.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. On the floor this week, some Senators have argued that by opening ANWR and causing physical disturbance to just 2000 acres, which is what we are talking about, of the Arctic coastal plain--and this area is about one-sixth the size of Washington Dulles Airport that would likely result in the production of about 1 million barrels of new oil a day--isn't going to have much of an impact on prices.

I want to quote the senior Senator from New York, who said on May 13:

If Saudi Arabia were to increase its production by 1 million barrels per day, that translates to a reduction of 20 percent to 25 percent in the world price of crude oil, and crude oil prices could fall by more than $25 a barrel. ......In turn, that would lower the price of gasoline between 13 and 17 percent, or by more than 62 cents off the expected summer regular-grade price, offering much-needed relief to struggling families.

Now, earlier this afternoon, the same Senator said opening ANWR would ``have little impact'' on lowering prices. I am not going to suggest that I know what he was thinking there, but I believe what he intended to say was that opening ANWR would have little impact on lowering prices immediately. In fact, if we were to vote in Congress today, this very moment, to open ANWR, we would not actually see the oil down the line into the lower 48 States for between 5 to 7 or 8 years. But I do believe the Senator who made those comments is wrong about both the short-term and the long-term effects of opening ANWR to oil development. He was right when he said last month that adding more oil to the world supply chain would increase supply and help drive down the prices. I think that is just as true in the years ahead as it is today.

We recognize that our actions in this Nation, in terms of the statements that we send and what we are willing to do and what we are willing to commit to--if America were to finally tell the world that we are willing to produce more fuel ourselves, that we are serious about producing more of the energy we consume, I believe it would result in lower prices immediately--not in the 5 years it is going to take to get ANWR oil flowing, but it would bring down prices because it would have a psychological impact.

In 1995, President Clinton vetoed the legislation that would have opened ANWR. If he had not at that point done that, and we had moved ahead, more than likely we would be seeing an additional 1 million barrels of oil flowing to the market right now. I believe and contend that oil would have prevented the prices from reaching today's exorbitant levels.

To go back to George Will's column, he says everyone who has worked to block U.S. oil development over the past several decades is ``complicit in taking $10 away from every American who buys 20 gallons of gasoline.''

We talk a lot about ANWR and the potential out there and the controversy that, well, you can't open something if it doesn't have the support of the American people. I think we are being deceptive if we are saying the American people do not support the exploration in the 1002 area. According to a May 29 Gallup Poll, 57 percent of Americans support ``allowing drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas now off limits'' to development.

In Alaska alone, the Alaskans who had expressed their support over the years--it has historically been 75 percent-plus of Alaskans who do support opening ANWR. We are seeing that support grow not only in the State, but we are looking at truly exorbitant prices, and we are seeing it across the country as well.

Just yesterday, there was a nice fellow from Indiana who called my office to say he started a petition campaign on his own--just acting on his own volition--to help win support for opening ANWR. He said in just a few weeks he gathered thousands of signatures from citizens, not just in Indiana but in a number of States, in support of opening ANWR. Just last night, I heard a radio commercial from a group, and I didn't even know they existed. They were gathering signatures in support of opening ANWR to exploration and development.

I think the American people know what some Members in Congress seemingly don't; that is, the need for America to expand its domestic production, expand that in a manner that we can move as quickly as possible and affect the high prices that we are seeing in this country. Again, it is not just increased domestic production. That is one aspect of it.

I spoke a little bit about the Juneau example and how we in this Nation need to be doing more to conserve and achieve greater efficiency. I was home in the State this weekend and folks in Alaska are driving through some pretty rough roads and are driving through tough conditions. People there like SUVs and trucks, but it is not just because they are big and powerful; they are necessary. So driving by some of the lots this weekend, I can tell you just about everything for sale in the lots was the big trucks. People are looking at them and saying: I can't afford to fill up my vehicle anymore.

I was in the fishing community of Dillingham on Saturday. They are preparing to go out for their first fish opener on Monday. Some of those boats are not going out because they cannot afford to fuel up. In Dillingham, the spring barge just came in a couple weeks ago. The price of gas at the pump there jumped up over a dollar in 1 day. They are paying $5.50 for unleaded. Diesel is $6.50-plus. It affects everything in the community, not just what is happening when you fill up your car. They are paying $8 for a gallon of milk. They are paying $10 for a carton of orange juice.

When I went in to get a cup of coffee, a young woman said: I don't know how long we can stay in business. People from the small villages surrounding Dillingham are coming in because they cannot afford to fill up. The communities are suffering terribly. It is not just anger that we are seeing from the people in Alaska over the high prices that happened this winter. People were angry about what they are paying.

Now what is happening is they are scared. They have nowhere to go. When your village cannot keep the lights on and you have to move to the regional hub and you realize there is no place for you to live, it is just as expensive, and there is no way to go, you say: I will go to town, to Anchorage or Fairbanks. But do you know what. The people don't have the money to get the airplane ticket out of town to get to a community where, again, the energy prices are through the roof.

We have challenges in this Nation the likes of which I don't know that we have seen before because it is our energy and our ability to utilize our energy sources that keep this country as great as it is. We cannot have rural Alaska and rural America imploding because we haven't helped address the high cost of energy. The answers are there. It is increased domestic production. It is renewables and alternatives and the technologies we can advance. And it is conservation and efficiency.

We will keep working on it. I think the people are going to be hearing a lot more about what many of us think is the shorter term solution, and that is increased production.

With that, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source