Skip to playerSkip to main contentSkip to footer
TV Hub
  • 2 days ago
Nick Kotz looks at the issues plaguing America's energy policy and how it remains guided by special interests and dependent on foreign oil.

Category

📺
TV
Transcript
00:00Frontline is a presentation of the Documentary Consortium.
00:12And how many days did it take to win the Gulf War?
00:1643.
00:18And how many did it take Congress to pass a national energy strategy?
00:25532 and still counting.
00:27Last summer, the President was goading the Congress to approve his energy plan.
00:34Finally, on October 8th, after nearly two years of wrangling, the Congress passed a comprehensive energy bill.
00:42It is one of the few major pieces of legislation President Bush is expected to sign.
00:48Tonight on Frontline, will the government's energy bill come to grips with America's energy habit?
00:54I feel really pretty good about it.
00:56I'm frustrated that I can't get some things through, but after all, how about 90% of the loaf?
01:02It's an American failure from top to bottom.
01:06From the President, from the Congress, from the media, from the people.
01:09We have an energy policy today.
01:12We will go to war to keep the oil flowing from the Middle East.
01:15That's the Bush strategy.
01:17Tonight on Frontline, the politics of power.
01:27With funding provided by the financial support of viewers like you.
01:33And by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
01:36This is Frontline.
01:45This program is a co-production with the Center for Investigative Reporting.
01:50Additional funding provided by these funders.
02:06At stake is our very way of life.
02:09Americans own 190 million cars and trucks and consume 17 million barrels of oil each day.
02:16That's 25% of the world's oil.
02:19Half of it comes from overseas, leaving us vulnerable to oil cut-offs, recession, even war.
02:26Meanwhile, auto exhaust is choking our cities.
02:36Americans also consume 25% of the world's electricity.
02:41How we produce this power also seriously affects our economy and environment.
02:52Frontline asked Nick Kotz, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and author,
02:56to look into U.S. energy policy.
02:59Working with the Center for Investigative Reporting,
03:02Kotz has immersed himself in a story most Americans know nothing about.
03:06It's a story of fierce Washington political infighting
03:09that took place in the White House and on Capitol Hill
03:12as Americans went to war in the Gulf.
03:16The story reveals the limits of American government,
03:19showing what is possible and what is not possible in today's Washington.
03:26It was not until the 1973 Arab oil embargo
03:38that Americans ever thought much about where they got their oil.
03:43But that winter, Americans lined up for gasoline for the first time.
03:46The crisis prompted this presidential imperative.
03:53Let us pledge that by 1980, under Project Independence,
03:59we shall be able to meet America's energy needs
04:03from America's own energy resources.
04:06Of course, energy independence was easier pledged than realized.
04:13Four years later, President Carter tried again to rally the people,
04:17promising more government action.
04:20Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people
04:24and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern this nation.
04:28This difficult effort will be the moral equivalent of war.
04:36But soon, America was caught unprepared by another Middle Eastern crisis
04:40and another oil cutoff.
04:47Then came the 80s.
04:50The Reagan administration believed that less, not more, government regulation
04:54could solve most energy problems.
04:56As you know, our administration has repeatedly expressed the intention
05:02to abolish the Department of Energy.
05:04We are united in the conviction
05:06that the best way to deal with our energy problems
05:09and serve the American people
05:11is to let our market economy work.
05:14And so, today's legislation...
05:16When George Bush became president,
05:17he shared Reagan's hands-off attitude towards energy.
05:20But he was also moved by the desire to show that he was different from Reagan.
05:26We cannot and will not wait
05:27for the next energy crisis to force us to respond.
05:32And so, today, I want to make this announcement.
05:36I'm directing Jim Watkins, our able Secretary of Energy,
05:39to take the lead in developing
05:41a comprehensive national energy strategy.
05:47Admiral James Watkins was a Navy nuclear engineer
05:50who rose to chief of naval operations.
05:54Watkins had already distinguished himself
05:56as a skilled Washington troubleshooter
05:58as chairman of President Reagan's AIDS Commission.
06:01Now, Bush wanted Watkins to make him the energy president.
06:06You told Congress this is the toughest job of all.
06:10Why?
06:12Well, you know, when you're in the Navy,
06:13you give right full rudder,
06:14and everybody goes to the right.
06:15It's wonderful.
06:17Nobody pays any attention to you in the private sector,
06:19and I've learned that kind of the hard way.
06:22We're putting together one of the most complex strategies
06:26I think the country's ever had
06:27because embodied within the energy strategy
06:30are all the gut issues
06:32facing the economic recovery of the nation,
06:36facing the satisfaction of the American consumer,
06:40facing the environmental issues
06:41that are now becoming global in nature.
06:43You've got a lot of different people to satisfy.
06:46We have a lot of people to satisfy.
06:51As he had with AIDS,
06:52Watkins began by holding a series of public hearings.
06:56The president charged me as secretary of energy
06:59to craft an action plan
07:00that will balance America's energy requirements
07:04with the need for a safe and healthy environment.
07:08He held 18 public meetings,
07:11taking testimony from nearly 500 witnesses
07:13from 43 states.
07:15I'm here today to say stop railroading geothermal through
07:19without disregard to public opinion.
07:22When you have a subject
07:24as potentially contentious as AIDS
07:27or as energy,
07:29even though people may not understand that,
07:31after those hearings,
07:32they understand how potentially contentious was.
07:35The northeast of the United States
07:36has one view of energy.
07:38The West has another view,
07:40totally different.
07:42They're very hostile
07:43in their viewpoints towards each other.
07:45They're different nations
07:47when it comes to energy.
07:50As Watkins traveled the country,
07:52he found that many states
07:53were already far ahead of Washington,
07:56saving energy through conservation,
07:58actively searching for alternatives to oil,
08:00and concerned they weren't seeing
08:02more federal leadership.
08:03We have an energy policy today.
08:07It's very, very straightforward.
08:10We will go to war
08:11to keep the oil flowing from the Middle East,
08:13and we will do nothing else
08:15appreciably to develop alternative resources.
08:19That's the Bush strategy.
08:21Dave Freeman runs Sacramento, California's
08:24municipal utility district.
08:25I think that my constituents
08:29and everywhere,
08:30I think people know
08:31that we need to conserve
08:33and we need to get on
08:34to domestic clean resources.
08:37Every poll suggests that they do,
08:40but I don't want to get into
08:41the politics of it.
08:42Most students of the energy problem
08:45know that you...
08:47We're back to importing
08:48over half of our oil
08:49as we sit here and talk today,
08:51and no one seems to be concerned
08:54about it in the administration.
08:59California,
09:00the world's seventh largest economy,
09:03embarked on its energy crusade
09:04in the 1970s.
09:07The goal was to reduce consumption
09:10and develop new, cleaner,
09:12and cheaper energy sources.
09:16California has been particularly
09:17encouraging of this kind of ethic,
09:20customer value,
09:21environmental awareness,
09:22and concern,
09:24but it's happening
09:25all over the country.
09:27John Bryson is the chairman
09:28of Southern California Edison,
09:31a utility that was once run
09:32by Admiral Watkins' grandfather.
09:35Bryson testified
09:36at one of Watkins' public hearings.
09:39Our focus here is
09:41not just on improving
09:44the existing automobile fleet,
09:46but just breaking the mold altogether.
09:49We need to think about
09:50new means of transportation.
09:54Beginning in 1998,
09:57California will require
09:58that an increasing number
09:59of new cars
10:00must be powered
10:01by alternative fuels,
10:03including ones
10:04that emit no pollutants.
10:07Ultimately,
10:08says Dave Freeman,
10:09California's mandate
10:10may bring change
10:11to the entire
10:12U.S. auto industry.
10:14It's already having an effect.
10:16That is the only reason,
10:17and they will tell you
10:18in Detroit.
10:19That is the only reason
10:20that they're building
10:20an electric car.
10:21In other words,
10:22it's the compulsion of law
10:24that has got their attention.
10:28California has also made
10:29far-reaching changes
10:30in its utility regulatory structure,
10:33allowing utilities
10:34to make money
10:35by saving energy
10:36as well as selling it.
10:38The result?
10:40California today
10:41has the lowest
10:41per capita growth
10:43in electrical demand
10:44in the nation.
10:46Charles Imbrecht
10:47heads the California
10:48Energy Commission.
10:50For a state
10:50that had a 25%
10:52population increase
10:53in just 10 years
10:55between 1980 and 1990,
10:57we would have had
10:57to build power plants
10:58from one end
10:59of California
10:59to the other
11:00to meet that kind
11:01of growth
11:02generated simply
11:03by population.
11:05But by contrast,
11:07we were able
11:07to develop a consensus
11:08that indeed
11:09energy efficiency
11:10was the least expensive
11:11and I might add
11:12the most environmentally
11:13benign option available
11:15to the people
11:16of California.
11:18Secretary Watkins
11:19found that California's
11:20call for more conservation
11:22echoed across the country.
11:25In an interim report,
11:27he wrote,
11:28The loudest single message
11:30was to increase
11:31energy efficiency
11:32in every sector
11:33of energy use.
11:36Back in Washington,
11:38some high-level officials
11:39didn't like
11:39what they were hearing.
11:40White House
11:43Chief of Staff
11:44John Sununu
11:44was one of several
11:45top administration officials
11:47who feared
11:47that Watkins' effort
11:48could lead to more
11:50government regulation,
11:51new taxes,
11:53and harm to the economy.
11:55The others
11:56were Treasury Secretary
11:57Nicholas Brady,
11:59Richard Darman
11:59of the Office
12:00of Management and Budget,
12:02and Michael Boskin
12:03of the Council
12:03of Economic Advisors.
12:05They're known
12:06within the government
12:07as the Troika.
12:08Who were these people
12:11in the Troika,
12:13and why didn't they
12:14want to see a change
12:15in our energy policy?
12:18Well, the Troika
12:19consisted of people
12:20who were concerned
12:21with economic policy
12:23and had some very
12:24pronounced views,
12:27ideological views,
12:28about the proper
12:29role of government.
12:31Congressman Howard Wolpe
12:33is a critic
12:33of the administration's
12:35energy plan.
12:35Well, I think that
12:37the basic issue
12:38for them
12:39was an ideological view
12:41that the government
12:41should not be involved
12:43in the energy policy
12:46in any significant way.
12:47The marketplace
12:48was supposed to make
12:50all of the relevant
12:51decisions.
12:53And considerations
12:53of national security
12:56in terms of
12:57our vulnerability
12:58to a cutoff
12:59in oil supplies,
13:00they didn't care about that.
13:02Their only concern
13:03was keeping the government
13:04out of energy policy.
13:07To ensure
13:08that Watkins' efforts
13:09did not result
13:10in an activist
13:10energy policy,
13:12the Troika
13:13and its allies
13:14moved to block him.
13:16They instructed
13:16the secretary
13:17only to prepare
13:18a list of options,
13:20not a comprehensive plan.
13:23Richard Smolensy
13:24was a member
13:24of the president's
13:25council of economic
13:26advisers at the time.
13:28Who gave him
13:29his orders?
13:30My understanding
13:31that the instruction
13:32to come forward
13:33with options,
13:34not with a
13:35straight document
13:37came from Sununu.
13:40But even Watkins'
13:41list of options
13:42went too far.
13:43One Treasury Department
13:45memo to the
13:45Department of Energy
13:46stated,
13:48the options
13:49handed out yesterday
13:50in almost every case
13:51suggest that
13:52current energy policy
13:53is wrong
13:54and needs to be fixed,
13:55preferably by the government.
13:58The NES process
14:00continues to rely
14:01excessively on
14:02Secretary Watkins'
14:03hearing process.
14:04He should know
14:05that Treasury
14:05will very likely
14:06oppose any energy
14:08strategy that looks
14:09like the current
14:09list of options.
14:11What was Treasury's
14:13problem?
14:13What were the options
14:14he was coming up with
14:15that bothered them?
14:17I think what happened
14:18is that the administration
14:19suddenly became aware
14:21that the public
14:23was demanding
14:24a redirection
14:25of energy policy
14:26in a way that
14:27didn't coincide
14:27with the ideology
14:29of the administration.
14:31You had
14:31in the public
14:32hearings that
14:34had been held
14:35one theme
14:36emphasized over
14:37and over again
14:38and that was
14:39energy efficiency.
14:42At the Pentagon,
14:43the defense establishment
14:44had its own
14:45point of view
14:45on energy policy.
14:47They saw energy
14:49as a national
14:50security issue.
14:52These are the facts
14:53that worry them.
14:53Since 1970,
14:56U.S. domestic
14:57oil production
14:57has been dropping.
15:00And by 2010,
15:02projections are
15:03that America
15:03will import
15:04up to 70%
15:05of its oil.
15:07Most of that increase
15:08will come from
15:09the Middle East.
15:10On the oil side,
15:12the idea was
15:13to keep
15:14our oil dependence
15:15or consumption
15:17from growing
15:18because that meant
15:18inevitably
15:19dependence on
15:20Middle East oil.
15:22Henry Rowan
15:23was Assistant
15:24Secretary of Defense
15:25for International
15:26Security Affairs.
15:28The plan
15:29that was proposed
15:30did not contain
15:31measures
15:33that were sufficient
15:34to limit,
15:37preferably even
15:38reduce,
15:38our oil consumption
15:39during the course
15:40of the 1990s,
15:41which seemed to me
15:41to be,
15:42from the energy
15:43policy standpoint,
15:44a key thing to do.
15:47Rowan lobbied
15:48one federal agency
15:49after another,
15:51urging government
15:51action to reduce
15:53oil imports.
15:55The best way
15:57would be through
15:57a general tax
15:59of some kind,
16:00a tax on oil
16:01consumption,
16:03or imports,
16:04or maybe a gasoline
16:04tax.
16:06Then,
16:07in the middle
16:08of Rowan's
16:08lobbying effort,
16:09Saddam Hussein
16:10seized Kuwaiti
16:11oil fields.
16:14At risk
16:14was two-thirds
16:15of the world's
16:16known oil reserves.
16:17the Pentagon
16:21was now facing
16:22the kind of war
16:22it wanted to avoid.
16:27At home,
16:28oil prices doubled.
16:29It was the third time
16:30in less than two decades
16:32that a surge
16:32in Middle Eastern
16:33oil prices
16:34helped push the economy
16:35into recession.
16:36It has caused
16:41a lot of problems.
16:41We've had three
16:41oil shocks,
16:43three disruptions
16:43of supply
16:44in less than
16:4520 years.
16:46And that's why
16:46the president
16:47directed me
16:48to build
16:48the National
16:49Energy Strategy.
16:49That's the real
16:50driving force.
16:51I don't want to
16:51go through this again.
16:52I don't want
16:52the American people
16:53to go through it again.
16:54And, of course,
16:55we didn't see
16:55Saddam Hussein
16:56on the horizon
16:57a year
16:58and a month
16:58hence.
17:00Mr. President,
17:01it's an energy
17:02crisis.
17:03It's about
17:04oil.
17:06Bennett Johnston
17:07is the chairman
17:08of the Senate
17:08Energy Committee,
17:10the most powerful
17:11seat in Congress
17:12on energy.
17:14American young men
17:16and women
17:16are dying in the Gulf.
17:18You spoke with
17:19Cheney,
17:19Powell,
17:20Scowcroft.
17:22They were your allies.
17:25What were their concerns?
17:27Well, their concerns
17:28were the same as mine.
17:29That is,
17:29that we were fighting
17:30a war over energy
17:31in order to protect
17:32our supplies of crude
17:33from the Middle East.
17:35And that they wanted
17:37an effective policy
17:38as I did
17:39to get our energy
17:41in America
17:41rather than having
17:42to import it.
17:44An internal
17:45Energy Department
17:46document obtained
17:47by Frontline
17:48shows concretely
17:49that with a half
17:50million troops
17:51pouring into the Gulf,
17:52option after option
17:53supported by the
17:54Defense and State
17:55Departments
17:56was opposed
17:56by the President's
17:57economic advisors.
18:00Higher fuel
18:01efficiency standards
18:02for cars
18:03opposed.
18:04higher gasoline
18:06tax
18:06opposed.
18:09They even
18:09opposed a small
18:10tax on oil
18:11to increase
18:11America's
18:12strategic petroleum
18:13reserves.
18:16These 570 million
18:18barrels of oil
18:19stored in Louisiana
18:20and Texas
18:20are currently
18:22the nation's
18:22first line of defense
18:24against an oil shock.
18:25in the White House
18:27and the White House
18:28finally in December
18:28of 1990
18:29with the war
18:30only a month away
18:31key cabinet officials
18:33met in the White House
18:34to settle their
18:35differences on the
18:36energy plan.
18:36sources who attended the
18:39meeting report that
18:40National Security Advisor
18:42General Brent Scowcroft
18:43who sided with the
18:44Pentagon
18:44listened in growing
18:46disbelief as one
18:47conservation measure
18:48after another
18:49was rejected.
18:51Finally, he asked
18:51in frustration
18:52what are we fighting
18:53this war for
18:54anyway?
18:57Richard Smolensy
18:58also heard
18:59first-hand
18:59accounts of the
19:00meeting.
19:00The reports I heard
19:02were basically that
19:04we have a half a
19:09million troops in
19:09the Gulf
19:10they're fighting in
19:13an oil-rich country
19:14we've had an oil
19:15shock as a consequence
19:16of this whole affair
19:17why doesn't the
19:20strategy come to
19:20grips with this?
19:22My understanding is
19:23that was followed by
19:24silence.
19:25That's a hard question.
19:26The president had said
19:26we're not fighting the
19:27war for oil.
19:29Following the
19:30meeting, an official
19:31briefing paper was
19:32sent to the
19:33president.
19:34Obtained by
19:34Frontline, it argues
19:35that measures to
19:36reduce oil dependency
19:37are too costly.
19:40It then concludes,
19:42To the extent that
19:43we cannot substantially
19:45reduce our oil
19:46vulnerability problem
19:47through energy
19:47policies, we must
19:49prepare our diplomatic
19:50and defense assets
19:51to cope with its
19:52consequences.
19:54We cannot wish away
19:55the geology of
19:56world oil, and we
19:58cannot turn our backs
19:59on the Middle East.
20:00As I report to you,
20:03air attacks are
20:04underway against
20:05military targets
20:06in Iraq.
20:10Our nose bombs
20:11away.
20:15Impact point is
20:16steady.
20:17As the president
20:18turned his attention
20:19to fighting the
20:19Gulf War, the
20:21energy department
20:22began preparing the
20:23administration's bill
20:24for Congress.
20:26Watkins had less than
20:28he wanted, but he
20:29still defended the
20:30bill.
20:33Correspondent Nick
20:34Cotts asked
20:35Watkins why the
20:36administration killed
20:37so many conservation
20:38measures, including
20:40the defense
20:40establishment's call for
20:42a higher tax on
20:43gasoline.
20:44Gasoline in this
20:46country is cheaper
20:46than bottled water.
20:48Why did the Bush
20:49administration turn
20:50down this option?
20:51Everybody glibly
20:52talks about this
20:53gasoline tax.
20:55The Congress won't
20:56even put a nickel, a
20:58gallon, on it.
20:59And so there's a
21:00major political issue,
21:02and the American
21:02people don't like it.
21:03They see a 10% change
21:06in their gasoline
21:07cost, and they raise
21:08holy heck about it.
21:09Even though they
21:10have the cheapest
21:10gas in the world.
21:11Even though they
21:12have the cheapest
21:12gas in the world.
21:13The American people
21:14believe they have
21:15a right to 2.7
21:16cars per family.
21:17Now, whether that's
21:18right or wrong, I
21:19don't know, but
21:20that's what they
21:21want.
21:22It's something that
21:23is really essential,
21:24a national energy
21:26strategy, and I want
21:27to announce it
21:28today.
21:29When President
21:30Bush unveiled his
21:31energy bill, measures
21:33to lessen foreign
21:34oil dependence were
21:35modest.
21:36Domestic oil
21:37drilling,
21:37more natural gas
21:39use, and some
21:40shift to alternative
21:42fuels.
21:44The plan also
21:46contained a major
21:47revival of nuclear
21:48power.
21:49And over the next
21:50two decades, this
21:51strategy will make
21:53us more energy
21:55efficient without
21:57new energy taxes.
21:59And it'll mean
22:00savings for consumers
22:01in energy costs, and
22:03it'll improve our
22:04energy security, and
22:06reduce our
22:06vulnerability in the
22:08years ahead.
22:10But whatever the
22:11president's claims
22:12were on energy
22:13security, his own
22:14report suggested
22:15otherwise.
22:17It stated,
22:19our nation and the
22:21world are likely to
22:22depend more on
22:23Middle East oil
22:24suppliers under any
22:25realistic scenario for
22:27the foreseeable future.
22:32The Senate will come to
22:34order.
22:37Where is our national
22:39energy policy?
22:40Why don't we have a
22:42national energy policy?
22:45Spurred into action by the
22:47Gulf War, Bennett Johnston,
22:49the Senate's power broker
22:50on energy, introduced a bill
22:52much like the
22:53administrations.
22:55Right after the Iraqi
22:56crisis, I was trying to
22:57bring the bill to the
22:58floor quickly at that
22:59time because I wanted
23:01the decision to be made
23:03with the Iraqi war
23:06fresh on their minds.
23:09But as the memory of that
23:10faded, so did the need to
23:13do something.
23:15American public, the
23:18attention span on this
23:19issue of energy, is only
23:21stretches so far as the
23:23price of gasoline at the
23:25pump is up or down.
23:28Johnston faced an uphill
23:29battle.
23:31Ready to pounce on the
23:32bill was an array of
23:33special interests with
23:34millions of dollars in
23:35their war chests.
23:37What happened over the
23:38next several months was a
23:39textbook example of
23:41political gridlock.
23:45Johnston's first problem
23:46was the environmental
23:47lobby.
23:47The bill contained a
23:49controversial proposal to
23:51drill for oil in an
23:52Alaskan wildlife refuge
23:54called ANWAR.
23:581.5 million acres of
24:00coastal plain remain
24:02unguarded because of
24:04suspected oil and gas
24:05deposits.
24:06But already more than
24:0890% of the North Slope is
24:09open to oil and gas
24:11development.
24:12If we are concerned
24:14about energy dependency,
24:15then we save oil.
24:17And there are not
24:18provisions to do that in
24:19this bill.
24:21People around this
24:22country were at public
24:23hearings.
24:24They said they wanted to
24:25focus on conservation and
24:27renewables.
24:28And what they have
24:29instead in this piece of
24:30legislation is drilling
24:32for oil in the Arctic
24:33National Wildlife Refuge.
24:35To soften resistance to
24:37Alaskan oil drilling,
24:39Johnston had a plan.
24:40He decided to add conservation
24:43measures to the bill.
24:45The key measure would
24:46require automakers to
24:47increase fuel efficiency
24:48from 27 to 34 miles per
24:52gallon.
24:56Particularly in light of the
24:57events of recent weeks in the
24:58Middle East.
24:59But a freshman senator from
25:00Nevada, Richard Bryan,
25:02wanted more.
25:04He led other senators in a
25:05move to amend the bill, to
25:07raise the standard to 40 miles
25:09per gallon.
25:10The bill would have
25:11achieved a savings of two
25:13and a half million barrels
25:14of oil each and every day.
25:17That's a permanent savings,
25:18not just a temporary
25:20phenomenon.
25:21But Bryan's idea was
25:22politically unrealistic, and
25:24it mobilized another
25:25powerful lobby, the auto
25:27industry.
25:27In a case of strange
25:37bedfellows, not uncommon in
25:39Washington, automakers joined
25:41environmentalists to fight the
25:43bill.
25:45Powerful forces from the auto
25:47industry, which rolled out all
25:49the stops, the big three, were
25:52there mobilizing their lobbyist,
25:55the administration, secretary of
25:57transportation, then the chief
25:59of staff, John Sununu, and all
26:02of the organs of the federal
26:04government descended upon
26:05Capitol Hill and turned the tide
26:07against us.
26:09And then they organized an effort
26:10in which they publicized on
26:13television an auto crash, which
26:15we believe was not altogether fair
26:17in its presentation, suggesting
26:19that people who were favoring fuel
26:21economy were prepared to endanger
26:23the life and safety of
26:25America's motorist.
26:27While smaller cars can save gas,
26:30U.S. government safety experts
26:31say they could cost you something
26:33far more precious.
26:35Fuel economy is important, but
26:38safety is vital.
26:41I mean, it was essentially a
26:42scare campaign.
26:43Senator Bryan, are you suggesting
26:46that the entire Bush
26:47administration is at the bidding of
26:49the automobile industry?
26:50I am saying that they responded
26:53to the request of the industry.
26:56When they cracked the whip, the
26:59Bush administration made the
27:00trip.
27:03Another key opponent of Bryan's
27:05proposal was the chairman of the
27:07House Energy Committee, John
27:08Dingle of Detroit.
27:11Senator Bryan blames the automobile
27:13industry, the powerful lobby of the
27:16big three automakers, for defeating
27:18his proposal.
27:20Is he right?
27:21I think he's perhaps slightly right.
27:24I suspect he really ought to blame
27:26the Congress, which is considered the
27:27matter, with a great deal of care.
27:30Has come to the conclusion that it
27:32has an adverse impact upon jobs,
27:34particularly in the auto industry,
27:36that it will contribute very little in
27:37terms of saving fuel, and that it
27:40will cause enormous inconvenience and
27:42risk to the American motoring public,
27:44which is at greater risk in a small car
27:46than they are in a large car.
27:48Studies by the Office of Technology
27:50Assessment and by the Department of
27:52Energy suggest that substantial
27:55increases in fuel economy are
27:57possible without sacrificing
27:59automobile size or performance.
28:02Why not capture those oil savings if
28:05they would be substantial?
28:07Well, you're wrong.
28:09You're just plain flat wrong.
28:11I'm just quoting OTA and DOE.
28:14It does not say what you said.
28:17The harsh fact of the matter is that
28:19what the study said was that it is
28:21possible using unproven technologies,
28:25untested technologies, in combinations
28:29and arrangements which have not yet been
28:32utilized on automobiles to achieve some
28:35theoretical improvements in fuel efficiency
28:38of American automobiles.
28:40The man responsible for the study
28:42doesn't see it that way.
28:44What did you find that was possible about
28:46improving automobile fuel efficiency?
28:49We found that it's possible to increase
28:51fuel efficiency substantially without
28:55compromising the size and performance
28:59of the current fleet.
29:00Dr. Peter Blair heads the energy
29:04program at Congress's Office of
29:05Technology Assessment.
29:07If we really concentrated on automobile
29:10fuel efficiency, how much oil could we
29:13save?
29:13On the order of two million barrels a day,
29:16the same perhaps as that that we might
29:18get from an aggressive alternative fuels
29:20program.
29:22On this vote, the yeas are 50, the
29:24nays are 44.
29:26The motion to proceed is not agreed to.
29:28With the energy bill opposed by two
29:31powerful lobbies, the bill died on the
29:33Senate floor.
29:35There was no help from the White House.
29:38And I think the reason is that some in
29:41the White House were so afraid of cafe
29:46standards, fuel efficiency standards, that
29:49they were willing to junk the whole bill.
29:51Mr. President, we may have defeated
29:53national energy policy here today,
29:55comprehensive national energy policy,
29:57but we have not defeated the problem.
30:00Three months later, Senator Johnston surprised
30:03everyone by bringing the energy bill back to
30:06the Senate floor.
30:08Calendar 393, S-2166, a bill to reduce the
30:12nation's dependence on imported oil to
30:14provide for the energy security of the nation
30:16and for other purposes.
30:17This time, both controversial provisions, Alaskan oil
30:23drilling and auto fuel efficiency, were
30:27sacrificed altogether.
30:28But there was more trouble.
30:33Another senator, Republican James Jeffords of
30:35Vermont, made another attempt to toughen the
30:38legislation.
30:41His idea was endorsed by a majority of his Senate
30:43colleagues, but it alarmed the oil lobby.
30:46What my amendment will do is to create a free market for
30:50domestic producers.
30:52That's right.
30:53My amendment will create a free market, a market safe from
30:56the power and the hammer of OPEC.
30:59In short, Jeffords wanted to force the oil companies to sell
31:02less gasoline and more alternative fuels such as
31:06methanol and natural gas.
31:07The oil companies knew this would cut into their profits.
31:14You proposed a plan that would have required that our fuel
31:17supply include 10% domestically produced alternative fuels by
31:22the year 2000, 30% by 2010.
31:26What did you hope to achieve?
31:29Energy independence.
31:31To enlist the president's support, Jeffords went to the
31:33White House.
31:34I went down there well prepared because I knew that this was a
31:40critical juncture in the deliberations.
31:43When it came my time to talk, I asked the president and
31:48suggested that this country ought to be energy independent.
31:52And he agreed.
31:52He said, yes.
31:54Doesn't our plan get us there?
31:55And I said, no, Mr. President does not.
31:57And I had prepared documents that had been prepared for DOE
32:01information, and I distributed those around the room.
32:03And he looked at them briefly, and then he looked at the
32:06Secretary of Energy and said, Jim, you get together with
32:10Senator Jeffords and see if you can work something out here.
32:14But Jeffords' efforts were in vain.
32:16His majority of votes in the Senate was evaporating.
32:20...and 39 nays.
32:22The amendment is tabled.
32:26We asked Senator Jeffords if his colleagues had heard from the
32:29oil lobby.
32:30Yes, they said, boy, the oil companies are really down on your
32:36amendment.
32:37And one of them even mentioned, you know, this is going to cost my
32:40campaign money if I stick with you.
32:44And so what did that senator do?
32:46Voted against me.
32:49Energy interests know how to make friends in Congress.
32:52Over the past seven years, the oil industry has pumped $18 million
32:56into Congressional campaigns.
33:00The auto industry has contributed more than $11 million.
33:04Well, I knew that big oil was powerful, but I didn't realize how powerful.
33:08I didn't realize that they could change what I had done to build support for it.
33:14And when they moved in full bore, they just turned things around much more
33:21successfully than I anticipated.
33:23Mr. Mack.
33:25Mr. McCain.
33:27Mr. McConnell.
33:29Mr. Metson.
33:30With the most controversial provisions defeated, the Senate passed a
33:34compromise energy bill in February of 1992.
33:37The bill has passed 94 to 4.
33:45The most surprising battle on the energy bill was not about oil, but about
33:49where the U.S. will get its electricity.
33:5455% of electricity is now generated by burning coal.
33:59Over 20% comes from nuclear power.
34:02The rest comes from burning oil and natural gas, and from hydroelectric plants.
34:10To help meet future needs, the administration is committed to a major revival of nuclear power.
34:16They are calling for more than 100 new nuclear power plants to be built over the next 40 years.
34:22And Congress has approved the administration's proposal making it easier to license nuclear plants.
34:27Of all energy measures backed by Washington, none faces greater challenges.
34:35Now, we made a mistake.
34:37We goofed at Three Mile Island, okay?
34:39And I understand that.
34:40But remember, we didn't kill anybody.
34:42We didn't pollute the environment outside that building.
34:44We had a mess inside, as you know, a couple billion dollars worth to clean up.
34:49But still, you compare that with energy sources around the world, in terms of casualties, fatalities, damaging the environment and the communities around the environment, and we've done a terrific job.
35:04Many supporters of nuclear power are looking to Florida, a state with fast-growing power needs, to lead the nuclear revival.
35:13Florida Power Corporation's President, Alan Kiesler.
35:16I think when you look at the big picture, nuclear energy is the only economically viable alternative that we as a country have today.
35:29The most recent advertisement has tried to let people know that from an environmental point of view, that we had a much less environmental impact on an area with nuclear generation than with any other form of generation.
35:44That was fossil fuel-driven.
35:47I'm calling from the Florida Consumer Action Network, and I was just calling...
35:52But many Florida citizens are organizing to pursue another solution, conservation.
35:57Right now, we're working for a responsible energy policy that protects our environment and our pocketbooks.
36:04Did you know that Florida residents use more power per person than almost any other state?
36:08They point out that utilities make money by selling more power.
36:13Instead, they want the utility industry to be given incentives to sell less.
36:18The thing is, is that we don't have hardly any conservation programs in this state.
36:22We don't encourage efficiency at all.
36:24In that way, they hope to reduce future use by up to 40 percent.
36:30Kiesler says it won't work.
36:31I do not believe that we can control 40 percent of our demand going forward as a state through demand-limiting just devices.
36:43I just don't think that's feasible, and I think we will find ourselves in a great problem if we attempt to do it that way.
36:50But even many utility executives believe that Kiesler and Washington are headed in the wrong direction.
36:58Nuclear power, they say, is just too expensive.
37:02Utility executive Dave Freeman has shut down nuclear power plants in both California and Tennessee.
37:09They make a big deal out of shortening the licensing process as though that were the problem,
37:14rather than the reactors themselves being the problem.
37:17I'm not too concerned about the streamlining of the nuclear licensing process because nobody's going to buy those suckers.
37:24No sane capitalists have bought one in 12 years.
37:27Admiral, we can't find a single company in the country that's planning to order a new nuclear plant.
37:34Too often we look at the past and say, well, how could the future be bright if the past is so dark?
37:41The nuclear is going to be pre-licensed, seven-year return on investments out of 14 years today.
37:47New technology, passively safe, and is attractive to the utility industry.
37:51They already know that.
37:53So you're going to see over the next two years the rebirth of nuclear power, providing we solve the waste problem.
38:01I didn't see it, so what are we coming to you?
38:03For the last 40 years, scientists have searched for a way to safely store nuclear waste.
38:09During that time, 22,000 metric tons of it have piled up at the nation's 75 nuclear plants, with no place to go.
38:21Congress has ordered a $6 billion study to see whether Yucca Mountain in Nevada could be a safe repository,
38:28where waste would be stored for 10,000 years.
38:31Some of your own DOE scientists still have doubts about whether Yucca is going to be safe.
38:40One or two.
38:42Let's take a look at the large body of scientific evidence that says you're on the right track.
38:47Geologically, this region of the Earth is very unstable.
38:51Don Livingston is one of two DOE scientists who recently resigned in protest
38:56over how the government is handling the Yucca Mountain study.
39:01What are the odds of groundwater coming up through the mountain and spreading waste?
39:06Well, I think they're probably pretty good.
39:08I think there's a lot of evidence that that's happened in the recent past.
39:12One day after we visited Yucca Mountain, an earthquake rocked the area,
39:17causing $1 million worth of damage to the Department of Energy's Yucca headquarters.
39:21Why is it so important to the nuclear industry that this site go ahead and that they be allowed to bury waste here?
39:31Because nuclear waste is piling up all over the United States.
39:36Right now, we can store the waste at the plants,
39:39but within the next 14 to 20 years, that's not going to be possible.
39:44So there has to be someplace to put the waste.
39:46Don Williams was hired by the nuclear industry to help run a $9 million media campaign
39:52called the Nevada Initiative to soften resistance to the proposed Yucca repository.
39:59According to this confidential memo, he can count on help from Washington.
40:04The memo, sent by a nuclear trade association to its members,
40:08boasts that the nuclear industry has established a working alliance with the Department of Energy.
40:13It calls for a scientific truth squad to neutralize political resistance.
40:20When the memo was leaked, it became a political embarrassment.
40:25The memo.
40:27It was constructed by idiots or an idiot or idiots unknown.
40:33High-level nuclear waste. Could a traffic accident cause it to leak?
40:37I'm Ron Vitto, and the answer is no.
40:39But in spite of all the PR, the choice of Yucca Mountain may have less to do with science
40:45than with old-fashioned politics.
40:47Why was Yucca Mountain chosen as the sole testing site for a nuclear waste repository?
40:53It was a political decision.
40:56One where the strong beat up on the weak and take advantage of a small state
41:00with a small congressional delegation.
41:02In 1987, in the still of the night, the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act was changed
41:10so that rather than looking for three sites, only one would be examined,
41:15and that's the one at Yucca Mountain.
41:18We were astounded to hear that even the nuclear industry's paid spokesman, Williams,
41:23agreed about why his state was chosen.
41:25It's a political reason that we have one of the smallest congressional delegations in Washington,
41:31and we got screwed.
41:33You got screwed because you didn't have clout?
41:36Exactly.
41:37Still, Williams believes the waste will be safe
41:40and is continuing to lobby for its storage in Nevada.
41:43The harsh fact of the matter is that if we're to have an energy policy,
41:48we have to store our spent nuclear waste, particularly the high-level stuff,
41:52in a way which is safe and environmentally sound to the greatest degree that we can.
41:58And the consensus seems to be that the best place for this is Nevada.
42:05Chairman Dingell of Detroit pushed legislation to prevent Nevada
42:09from stopping the Yucca Mountain study.
42:11Some insiders say that Dingell wanted to settle a score with Nevada's Senator Bryan,
42:17who had previously challenged him over auto-efficiency standards.
42:21Several people, both in politics and out of politics,
42:26have told us that you told them you were going to teach Senator Bryan a lesson
42:31for pushing an increase in auto-fuel efficiency standards.
42:36I have no recollection of that.
42:37You never told anybody that you were upset with Senator Bryan?
42:44No.
42:44About his bill?
42:45No.
42:47What did Congressman Dingell say about Senator Bryan?
42:50Well, that he was very concerned over his seeming unwillingness to compromise
42:54on the fuel efficiency legislation.
42:57Jan Jones, the mayor of Las Vegas, spoke to Congressman Dingell while on a trip to Washington.
43:04There's no question but that the attitude on the part of Congress changed significantly
43:09when the cafe issue came to the forefront,
43:12that they took a much harder approach with Nevada.
43:17The further point that they make, Mr. Chairman,
43:21is that there was a connection between Bryan pushing his fuel efficiency bill
43:30and your pushing language into the current energy law
43:34to clear the way for the Yucca Mountain testing.
43:37Well, if you look at the history of it, you'll find that that was inserted by Mr. Sharp's subcommittee.
43:43And I won't say that I found any distress in the matter,
43:47but it was not put in by me.
43:49It was put in by the subcommittee.
43:51You're smiling.
43:52Of course.
43:53No distress at Senator Bryan having a little distress.
43:57Oh, I'm always sad when colleagues and friends like Senator Bryan have trouble.
44:02Eventually, Congress dropped Dingell's Yucca Mountain provision.
44:10But testing is continuing today under a court order.
44:15The question of where to put its waste isn't the only issue
44:18where the nuclear industry faces stiff opposition.
44:21It is our belief that over a 30-year period of time,
44:24this lake will eventually become polluted with various chemicals from this plant,
44:29uranium being one of them.
44:30Tony Johnson is leading the fight against building a uranium enrichment plant in Homer, Louisiana.
44:37But his senator, Bennett Johnston,
44:39has pushed legislation through Congress to bring the plant and its 200 jobs here.
44:45Why do you think the senator wants the plant here?
44:49I have a copy, a printout, of Senator Johnson's campaign contributions for the last election,
44:55and I think that speaks for himself.
44:57Huge amounts of money was given to him by the nuclear power industry.
45:01Between 1985 and 1992,
45:04the nuclear industry spent $16 million on congressional campaign contributions.
45:10Johnston, at $165,000, was the leading recipient.
45:14Isn't there the impression that it is trying to buy influence?
45:21That's why I am for campaign finance reform,
45:25to limit the amount of contributions,
45:28to limit the amount that can be spent,
45:31and to provide for partial public financing.
45:35I am for that.
45:37But as long as we are playing football with an 11-man team,
45:42I'm going to put all 11 men on the field.
45:45And as a matter of fact,
45:47I will plead guilty to voting for and sometimes sponsoring amendments myself,
45:54if that does not come as too much of a shock to my colleagues,
45:57that I'm willing to admit that politics occasionally creeps into the equation,
46:03and it does with all of us.
46:05The government's commitment to nuclear power
46:10means less money for renewable technologies,
46:13like wind and solar power.
46:16These collectors, just like this,
46:19current generation of collectors,
46:21if put on Edwards Air Force Base,
46:22which is just a few miles in that direction,
46:26could supply all of the electricity for the state of California.
46:31Newton Becker, the chairman of Luz International,
46:34says his industry needs the kind of benefits
46:37Washington gives traditional energy interests.
46:40His company produces 90% of the world's solar electricity,
46:45but it's now in bankruptcy.
46:47What will it take for the solar industry to compete and prosper?
46:53It will take a level playing field in a number of areas.
46:56One area has to be the tax benefit area.
47:00The other area has to be the environmental area.
47:02For example, these solar fields that you see here do not pollute.
47:07Nevertheless, we don't get any more for our electricity
47:10than a nearby gas plant or a nearby oil-fired plant
47:13or even a coal plant that does pollute.
47:16They don't get penalized.
47:17We don't get a benefit.
47:18It's not a level playing field.
47:20The lack of a level playing field is especially evident
47:24when it comes to government research and development money.
47:31Since 1973, more than half of the $38 billion
47:35spent by the government on energy research
47:38was funneled into nuclear power.
47:40A quarter has gone to fossil fuel technologies
47:44like coal, oil, and natural gas.
47:48Only about a fifth has gone to conservation and renewable technologies.
47:55Yet in 1991, Secretary Watkins' own staff
47:59ranked conservation and renewables,
48:01such as solar and wind energy,
48:03as their top energy priorities for R&D money.
48:06nuclear and coal received the lowest priority rating.
48:11There was a perfect inverse correlation.
48:15That is, all of the technologies
48:18that received the highest recommendation
48:20for funding and emphasis by the office and policy
48:23received the least funding.
48:25All of the technologies that were given the lowest ratings
48:29by the office and policy
48:31received the highest funding
48:32in the budget recommendations submitted by the president.
48:35Why did you and the White House
48:38reverse your staff on those recommendations?
48:41Wait a minute now.
48:42Let's talk about the staff.
48:45This department never had any strategic planning section.
48:50It never even had a good policy section.
48:53It didn't know what it was doing on budget preparation.
48:57The problem is that they got mixed up
48:59in terms of dollars versus policy,
49:02policy, and they began to transfer dollars
49:06from a research project in nuclear
49:08over into renewables.
49:10And you can't do that.
49:11You either build something or you don't.
49:13I'm building two teams
49:15to try to find out
49:16which passively safe reactor is right,
49:19and I have to spend big dollars.
49:21Hundreds of millions.
49:22And I can't take a hundred million
49:23and throw it over here.
49:24And I told them that their analysis
49:26was a bogus analysis.
49:28So, you know, my staff does not run this department.
49:31I do.
49:33In the end, the bill that Congress sent to the president
49:36will do little to change the current energy priorities.
49:40Meanwhile, Admiral Watkins has announced
49:42he is retiring as Secretary of Energy.
49:45He says he's proud of the energy plan he has helped craft.
49:48I feel really pretty good about it.
49:51I'm amazed that we have an energy bill.
49:53Did I get all I want? No.
49:54Am I frustrated?
49:55Frankly, no.
49:56Not now.
49:57I'm frustrated that I can't get some things through,
50:00but after all, how about 90% of the loaf?
50:04How would you rate what this plan does?
50:07Big changes, medium changes, changes at the margins.
50:13Changes at the margins.
50:15Beneficial changes.
50:16Not dramatic.
50:19Certainly not revolutionary.
50:21We have a failure of political will,
50:25political leadership,
50:27a failure of the media properly to cooperate.
50:31I mean, it's an American failure from top to bottom,
50:36from the president, from the Congress,
50:38from the media, from the people,
50:40all cooperating to give us bad energy policy.
50:45Now, this bill's going to do a great deal to solve that problem,
50:50but not everything, and so there's some big gaps.
50:54The changes are modest.
50:56The changes are modest.
50:57Deregulation of the utility industry.
51:00More use of natural gas.
51:02Small steps to conserve energy and encourage use of alternative energy sources.
51:06But these measures skirt the central problem where we get our energy and how we use it.
51:13To address problems like these, we need to go beyond the politics of gridlock to reconcile what Americans want with what America needs.
51:24Two years ago, in the midst of the Gulf War,
51:32Americans briefly shared a common sense of urgency about the danger of being so dependent on foreign oil.
51:39Now it's an election year.
51:41Gasoline is cheap again.
51:43And few Americans are paying much attention.
51:46Gasoline is cheap again.
52:16Gasoline is cheap again.
52:18Gasoline is cheap again.
52:34Gasoline is cheap again.
52:36Funding for Frontline
53:00is provided by the financial support
53:02of viewers like you
53:03and by the Corporation
53:06for Public Broadcasting.
53:09Frontline is produced
53:11for the Documentary Consortium
53:12by WGBH Boston,
53:14which is solely responsible
53:16for its content.
53:21Additional funding
53:22provided by these funders.
53:26For video cassette information
53:28about this program,
53:29please call this toll-free number.
53:33This is PBS.
53:39Jobs, education, health care.
53:43The whole war is over
53:44and freedom finished first.
53:48Two men, two ambitions,
53:50one choice.
53:52How well do we know
53:53the next president?
53:55In a two-hour campaign special,
53:57Frontline examines
53:58how the lives of these men
54:00have shaped their run
54:02for the White House.
54:03He had so much respect
54:05for Jack Kennedy,
54:06but to be able to meet him,
54:08to be able to shake his hand,
54:09it was important to him.
54:11And when he came back
54:12with the picture of himself
54:15and Jack Kennedy,
54:16I knew it was politics for him.
54:19I knew it wasn't.
54:21I think that there are people
54:23who may take a view
54:24that he's led a protected life
54:25and then up until the time
54:27that he went away to service,
54:29why, I bet that was probably so.
54:32You know, he put down
54:32a first baseman's glove
54:34and picked up an airplane.
54:35You have to understand
54:42at the time
54:42we were torn morally,
54:49but faced with the reality
54:51of Vietnam,
54:52we didn't know what to do.
54:55He was in a dilemma.
54:57He doesn't want to fight
54:58and die in an unpopular war,
55:00but he doesn't want to sacrifice
55:02his political career
55:03by not going.
55:05This frontline special
55:07charts the promise
55:08of the candidate's early rise
55:09and the impact of sudden defeat.
55:12Sitting in a suite up in that hotel
55:13when the returns were in,
55:17it's kind of one of those situations
55:18where you hate to approach
55:19the candidate
55:20because you just don't
55:21have any good news.
55:22And it's like being on a train
55:24going 180 miles an hour
55:25and suddenly you hit a brick wall.
55:26And I think that's the way
55:27he felt at that moment.
55:30I regret that I will not have
55:31a few more years
55:32to serve as governor.
55:34Bill Clinton was stunned
55:35by his defeat.
55:36There was an absolute feeling
55:37of disbelief.
55:38It looked like people
55:39look at the scene
55:40of a natural disaster,
55:41a plane crash,
55:42or a drowning,
55:43that you just simply
55:43can't believe
55:44what happened to happen.
55:46Defeated,
55:47both men had to find
55:48another way to the top,
55:50reinventing themselves,
55:51making new accommodations
55:53to power.
55:53Ambassador Bush
55:54to be director
55:56of the Central Intelligence Agency.
55:59He's been very loyal
56:00and intensely loyal
56:01to the people
56:02that he served.
56:03And some of those people
56:04have not been worthy of it.
56:08Arkansas sent out
56:09a signal to business
56:10and said,
56:10hey, come take advantage of us.
56:12Then they did.
56:13Had Governor Clinton
56:14taken on those entities,
56:17I don't believe
56:17that he could have survived
56:18this many terms.
56:20It would have cost him
56:21his political aspirations.
56:22I proudly accept
56:23your nomination
56:24for president
56:25of the United States.
56:27Frontline measures
56:27the character
56:28of the men
56:29who would be president.
56:31The Choice,
56:32a PBS campaign special.
56:40For a printed transcript
56:42of this or any
56:43Frontline program,
56:44please write
56:45to this address.
56:46that is.
57:05Whoa.