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    

Probably the most important future problem on which we need to focus as part of this bill is the problem of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the impact they are believed to be having on the climate. We have various provisions in this bill that ensure we integrate climate change strategy with our energy policy. We will have a chance later in the debate to go into those in great detail. Some of those provisions

[Page: S1437]  GPO's PDF

   We need a strategic plan for climate change that can get buy-in from both the Congress and the administration. Just before our Presidents Day recess, President Bush announced a new climate change policy framework based on reducing the greenhouse gas emission intensity of the U.S. economy . Emission intensity is defined as the output of greenhouse gases divided by the gross domestic product. The President announced that his plan would decrease emission intensity by 18 percent

   by the year 2012. That sounds impressive until you look at this chart we have here entitled ``Greenhouse Gas Emission Intensity; recent trends as compared to the Bush proposal.''

   The black line which leads up to about halfway through the chart, up to 2002, shows how greenhouse gas emission intensity has been declining in the 1990s. Greenhouse gas intensity has been declining because the part of the economy that is growing fastest is the service sector, which does not produce greenhouse gases in any significant amount.

   The red line, which is on this chart--you can see it very clearly there--shows what the President claims his proposal would do.

   The green line, which is harder to see because it is covered up by the red line, shows what would happen if current trends were simply to continue. The point is, it is hard to see the green line on the chart because it is almost completely covered up by the red line. Simply put, the President's proposal would not change the trend in greenhouse gas intensity over what would likely happen at any rate based on current trends. It is perhaps a good thing. The President has indicated an interest in climate change policy--a policy that does not improve over what would likely happen anyway, and is certainly not an adequate strategic plan in my view. We will have an opportunity to debate that issue as part of this bill as well.

   I will not go into detail about the various provisions in the Byrd-Stevens proposal except to say that I believe they set up a good framework for addressing this issue in future years.

   Strengthening our Nation's energy infrastructure security is another key issue as a result of the terrorist attacks we have suffered.

   This is something that I am sure is of great concern to all Senators. We have various provisions in the bill that attempt to do that. One set of relevant provisions has already been described--giving FERC authority to promulgate rules to ensure the reliability of States' electric grids.

   Another set of provisions in the bill focuses on the Nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is a major insurance policy against cutoffs of oil from the Middle East.

   We have a provision to provide for permanent authorization of that and fulfilling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

   Let me say a few final words about R&D, technology transfer, and education as crosscutting themes in this bill.

   I have described the many provisions of this bill in terms of the three overarching themes of increasing energy supply, increasing the efficiency and productivity of energy use, and coordinating energy policy with other societal goals. Throughout these discussions, I have described R&D programs that play a major role in achieving these goals. An aggressive and forward-looking R&D program on energy is the pervasive cross-cutting theme of this bill. I believe there is a broad consensus in the Senate that new science and new technology are at the core of any solution to our national energy challenges. Yet, despite the importance of energy R&D, our recent commitment to it leaves a lot to be desired. Federal energy technology R&D today is equivalent, in constant dollars, to what it was in 1966. Yet, our economy is 3 times larger today than it was in 1966. When you look at trends in Federal expenditures for R&D over the last 10 years, some startling facts stand out.

   First, while Federal R&D expenditures for health science at the NIH--the blue line--and basic science at the National Science Foundation--the black line--have grown during the 1990s, R&D support for energy--the red line--has stagnated or even fallen, in real timers. Today, in real terms, we are still below where we were in 1990 in terms of support for energy science and technology. For fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, the Bush administration has proposed nothing to reverse these trends. Both budget requests proposed cuts in R&D for energy.

   It is hard to see how you build a 21st century energy system on stagnant, 1960's-level-of-effort R&D budgets. This bill builds these budgets in a rational way to levels that, by 2006, will give us a robust energy R&D effort to support the goals of this bill.

   As we proceed with this debate, there will be areas in which we reach bipartisan agreement and areas in which we will differ substantially. In the latter areas, we will have to make a choice between alternatives.

   With respect to the areas of bipartisan agreement, I am pleased with the support that we have received from the administration for our position that electricity is an integral part of any energy bill. They have worked hard on assisting with electricity as a part of this energy bill. We may differ on a number of the details, but the President and the Department of Energy have made clear their interest in working on a bipartisan basis to get electricity provisions that increase renewable sources of electricity, protect consumers, and promote a reliable and effective transmission grid.

   The Administration has also supported our initiative to promote the construction of the Arctic Natural Gas Pipeline.

   There are also some important differences between where we are starting in this bill and the administration's positions. Perhaps the most reported-upon difference is on drilling in the Arctic Refuge. We will probably not get to that debate immediately, but when we do, the differences will be apparent.

   We support a stronger standard for central air conditioning units, recognizing that their energy use on hot summer days are a key contributor to the threat of brownouts and blackouts. In my view, the administration's position to roll back the standards it found when it took office was a mistake, based on incorrect and outdated data on costs. In hearings in the Energy Committee, this point was explored in detail.

   We are advocating a much stronger position on CAFE standards in this bill than the administration is willing to step up to. We believe that there is no conflict between safety, employment, and higher fuel efficiency in cars. They myths that higher standards will lead to less safe cars, or that we will lose domestic employment if we make our cars and trucks more fuel efficient are just that--myths. The National Academy of Sciences pretty much exploded them in the report that Congress commissioned it to write on the subject.

   Finally, now that we have seen the President's proposal on climate change, we must recognize some real differences between our approach and the President's plan, which is simply business as usual.

   I hope there are some concrete steps we can take to actually reduce the amount of carbon we are putting into the atmosphere. It is not enough to just reduce it relative to our GNP. We need to reduce it in absolute terms at some stage in the foreseeable future.

   I hope we can have a very good debate. I hope we can come together--both Democrat and Republican Members of the Senate, as well as the administration--and have a thoughtful analysis of our current energy challenges and demonstrate a willingness to take some bold policy steps to address those challenges. The country needs no less. Our national security, our future economic prosperity, and the jobs of millions of Americans are at stake as we try to shape an energy policy for these next several decades.

   I look forward to the debate. I know my colleague from Alaska, the ranking member on the committee, is here to give his opening statement.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, under the order, we are likely to go out at 12:30 for the luncheon recess.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. Senator Bingaman has used how much time?

[Page: S1438]  GPO's PDF

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Approximately 55 minutes.

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. So I would have perhaps 30 minutes left. I propose that I be allowed to proceed when we come back. I have probably a little less than 55 minutes. I am somewhat reluctant to start and be interrupted. I would propose to the leader that we might use the remaining time for Senators who want to speak in morning business, and I be allowed to introduce my opening statement at 2 o'clock when we come back. We will probably have statements and take amendments as they come up.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could respond to my friend from Alaska, what the Senator from Alaska proposes is that we go into a period of morning business until 12:30, and at 2:15, when we return, the Senator from Alaska be recognized for up to 1 hour; at 3:15, the Senator from South Dakota, the majority leader, or his designee would offer a modification. The Senator has suggested that he proceed at 2:15.

   For the convenience of everyone, I propose that the majority leader, or his designee, at 2:15 lay down the modification, which would take a matter of a few minutes at the most, and then the Senator from Alaska would have 1 hour to present his opening statement.

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond, I certainly have no objection to the procedure of the majority leader laying down his modification. I don't want to be bound by a time agreement. We didn't discuss a time agreement on opening statements. It is not my intention to speak at length, but I would not like to be limited necessarily.

   Mr. REID. I think that is entirely appropriate. I would like to hear the Senator speak longer than an hour.

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am sure the Senator would.

<<<

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