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    

Let me move to one other chart to make the point that we do need to deal

[Page: S12430]  GPO's PDF

   Domestic oil production has been declining since about 1970. That is not going to change. Domestic oil production is going to continue to decline.

   We can affect it. Domestic oil production, if ANWR is opened, will be affected. It will increase it somewhat. That is reflected with this little red line. But when you look at what are the steps that can be taken that will have a major impact on this total oil demand, this top number, you can see that doing something about transportation demand is by far the largest action that we can take.

   The Commerce Committee is having a hearing tomorrow on this very issue. They are intending to develop a proposal to bring to the Senate as an amendment to this bill to indicate a change in the requirements, the corporate average fuel efficiency requirements, the CAFE standards , fuel efficiency standards , and I look forward to seeing what they propose. I do believe it is important we take serious steps in this regard. The House-passed bill did not do that.

   We as a Nation have to come to grips with this issue. The technology is there. This is not something we have to go out and speculate on as to whether the technology could be developed that will get us better fuel efficiency . We all know Senator Bennett, our good friend from Utah, has a hybrid electric vehicle he parks right out here at the Senate steps. I complimented him on it. I asked him yesterday: What kind of fuel efficiency do you get on that car? He said: 53 miles per gallon in town. Now, that is a clear signal to me that the

   technology is there. We can produce more efficient vehicles. We should do that. We should provide incentives for people to use those.

   There are other steps. The Federal Government can do a much better job of increasing efficiency in the energy it uses. We have included various provisions to encourage that. Industrial energy efficiency can be dramatically improved. We have various provisions to encourage that. Commercial and consumer products can be much more efficient than they are, and we have provisions in the bill to encourage that.

   There is a new generation lighting initiative in this bill which I believe is a major step in the right direction. We are still using incandescent light bulbs, just as Thomas Edison taught us. There is no reason why we can't be using much more advanced technology which is much more efficient. About 25 percent of the power that goes into most lighting fixtures actually winds up being translated into light. The rest goes off in heat. We can do much better than that. This next generation lighting initiative we believe will help U.S. industry to meet that challenge and help our country to benefit from the development of those new technologies.

   We also have a provision for substantially increasing the effort for energy efficiency assistance programs. This is the LIHEAP program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Many people depend upon that as we get into the winter months. You do not know it today by the temperature outside, but there are cold days coming. In the winter, this is an extremely important program. And also in the summer, when air conditioning is needed, this is an extremely important program for many of our citizens. We propose increases there.

   A third and final overarching goal of the bill is to balance energy policy with other important societal considerations. Energy production and use comes associated with a host of consequences for the environment. We need to strike the right balance among energy, the environment, and the economy. That balance is what we are sent to Washington to try to find. This bill addresses the issues in a number of ways. Several provisions of the bill deal with the legacy of past problems posed by energy production and use for the environment.

   We have major provisions to focus the attention of the country and the Government on dealing with the issue of global climate change, a proposal Senators BYRD and STEVENS made earlier this year that has been considered in the Governmental Affairs Committee, setting up an office to look at global climate change to come up with a policy and coordinate our governmental response to that issue. That is a proposal the bulk of which we have included in this legislation.

   That is a very important part of the bill. I have said from the beginning of the discussion about an energy bill that we needed to have one that integrated energy policy with climate change policy, and we have tried very hard to do that.

   We also have provisions in the bill to reconcile energy policy with the needs we have for security of our energy infrastructure. The events of September 11 have caused us to think about potential security vulnerabilities of the energy infrastructure. This is an area where there is a considerable amount of work that has been done, but more needs to be done. We have provisions to focus on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to direct the administration to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We also have provisions related to security of other parts of our energy infrastructure.

   Let me say a couple of words about why we have not included a provision in this bill to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. If you take all of the discussion about energy policy that has occurred in the Chamber over the last 10 or 11 months, you would think that this was the centerpiece, this is the main thing the country needs to be doing to solve its energy problems. I dissent from that view. I do not believe this is the centerpiece of our energy policy. This is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

   I do believe that opening the wildlife refuge for drilling is not an essential or substantial part of solving our national energy needs in the future. As you can see from this chart, it does increase production domestically. It does not increase it to such an extent that our problems of growing dependence on foreign sources of oil are solved.

   That debate is one that I am sure we will have, and we have had it already many times in the Senate Chamber. We will have an opportunity to have it again when this bill comes up, and each Senator has a strongly held view on the subject.

   Let me put up one final chart and then I will conclude. Earlier this year, President Bush appointed a task force and asked Vice President CHENEY to head the task force and work up a so-called energy plan for the country, look at our long-term energy needs. Although that plan was severely criticized by some, I thought there were some constructive suggestions in it. I didn't agree with everything in it, but I thought there were constructive sections in it.

   The administration recommended that the Congress act in 10 different policy areas. We have those on this chart. They range from electricity, to energy tax incentives, expedited Alaska gas pipeline construction, and on down through the list. The House-passed legislation, H.R. 4, which has been proposed here at various times on the Senate floor, addresses 5 of the 10 key areas that the administration proposed that we address.

   The legislation we are introducing today addresses 9 of the 10 key issue areas. I am not saying the administration embraces every aspect of what we proposed in each of these nine areas, but in many respects we do believe we are making recommendations that are consistent with that energy plan that was earlier issued by the administration. We believe these issues should not be partisan. We believe there is a great deal of common ground that we can find on energy issues. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Democratic side and the Republican side in identifying ways this bill can be improved, if there are suggestions out there. The bill is there for anyone to study and to suggest improvements. I think, in many ways, having it available for that kind of scrutiny over the next weeks, until we get into the new session after the first of the year, will be very good and will help us produce a better product for the American people.

[Page: S12431]  GPO's PDF

   I see this as a project that, hopefully, will set the course for our energy policy in this country perhaps for another decade, for some period. It was 1992 when we passed the last major energy bill in the Congress and had it signed into law. There is no reason to believe we are likely to try comprehensive energy legislation in the near term again. I hope very much that we can seriously consider this legislation in the new session of the Congress in February, as Senator Daschle has indicated, and that we can pass a bill on a bipartisan basis and go to conference with the House.

   Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a couple questions.

   Mr. BINGAMAN. I am glad to yield to my colleague from North Dakota. I compliment him on the very major contributions he made in the development of this bill.

   Mr. DORGAN. As a member of the Energy Committee, I am pleased to work with Senator Bingaman. He has done an extraordinary job. We have had many Members of the Senate come to the floor of the Senate talking about the urgency of having a new energy policy. I agree with that urgency and that the

   policy should be new, and I agree it ought to be a balanced, comprehensive policy. The other body, the House of Representatives, wrote an energy bill that I classified as kind of a dig-and-drill bill that is not changing anything very much. It is just trying to produce more of that which we have been using. This legislation enhances production of oil, natural gas, and coal in an environmentally acceptable way. We agree with that proposition. But it is also the case that we believe much more needs to be done.

   I wonder if the Senator from New Mexico would describe again the components, other than enhanced production, which we have in this comprehensive plan--the components of conservation, efficiency , and renewable energy, which I think are so important to a balanced energy plan. I wonder if the Senator from New Mexico would especially talk about conservation because I think that is a significant portion of any energy policy that would work in the long term for this country.

   Mr. BINGAMAN. Well, I am glad to briefly describe again the main things we are trying to do in the conservation area and increased efficiency area. We are trying to increase efficiency in all aspects of how we use energy--in appliances, residential construction, commercial construction, and increased efficiency with the Federal Government and State governments and schools, school buses, automobiles, and SUVs, and the whole range of places where we use energy in our society, in our economy. We are trying to say we can be much more efficient in the use of energy we produce. There is a great opportunity there.

   When the President came out with his energy plan, and the Vice President came out with his plan, it had one statistic that was referred to repeatedly, and that is that we are going to have to build 1,300 new power generation plants in the next 20 years. Well, that is not our analysis. We don't believe that is the case. We think if we take some prudent steps to improve efficiency in conservation, we clearly will need new generation in the next 20 years, but not anything like the new generation to which the Vice President has referred.

   So I think there is a great opportunity here. As the Senator from North Dakota says, we have tried very hard to balance the two--balance increased production with increased efficiency , and move us down the road in a way that is acceptable to the environment.

   Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from New Mexico, the chairman, will remember that at a hearing we held with the Department of Energy, I asked the Deputy Secretary what our goals and aspirations were for the next 25 and 50 years, and what kind of energy plan do we have for 50 years from now? What do we aspire to do? What kind of national objectives do we have with respect to supply, and what kind of energy? The answer was, we are going to have to get back to you on that, because they don't have plans 25 and 50 years from now.

   The reason I asked the questions, the Senator will recall, is when we debate, for example, Social Security, everybody talks about what will the balance be in the account 30 years from now or 50 years from now. When we talk about energy, nobody is thinking ahead.

   That is the point of the bill that has been introduced today. I am proud to be a cosponsor of it. This bill says you have to have balance here and, yes, you have to produce more. But if that is all you do, is produce more natural gas, oil, and coal, then you are consigned to a policy that I call

   yesterday-forever. Yesterday-forever as an energy policy for this country is shortsighted and foolish. The legislation being introduced today under the leadership of the chairman of the committee is balanced. It includes production, yes, but significant conservation. Conserving a barrel of oil is the same as producing a barrel of oil, along with significant efficiencies and significant new emphasis on limitless energy and renewable energy.

   I drove a car on the grounds of this Capitol Building that was run by a fuel cell. There are new technologies, new approaches, new kinds of fuel that are limitless and renewable year after year that we also ought to embrace. Federal policy ought to be the lead in embracing that as a matter of public interest in this country.

   So let me again say to the Senator from New Mexico, it has been more than a decade since we have had a comprehensive policy change in energy in this country, one that is thoughtful and balanced and really provides initiative to move us in the direction that would be productive for this country. I think the Senator has provided leadership on a draft of something that is very comprehensive and remarkably refreshing, as compared to what the other body did. I think the other body is saying what we did yesterday, let's do more of tomorrow. That is not a very thoughtful policy. Let's do a lot of good things that work to move us in a new direction to meet our energy needs.

   Again, I asked if he would yield for a question, and I guess I could ask a question, but I did want to say to him that this is good policy. It is not the case that the long-term energy needs of this country will be served in a very comprehensive way if we are able to pass this bill as-is tonight. We won't do that. But does the Senator not believe that this will really advance this country's energy policy in a significant way?

   Mr. BINGAMAN. Obviously, I believe it would advance the interests of the country in a very substantial way. I appreciate very much the comments of the Senator from North Dakota. Again, I want to just acknowledge and compliment him on the great contributions he made to the development of this legislation. We have many of his ideas that are central to this legislation.

   We look forward to the scrutiny by the rest of our colleagues in the Senate, and I hope very much when this bill comes up for consideration that we will have a good bipartisan vote in favor of it.

   Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see there are other Senators wishing to speak.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

   Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. CARNAHAN). Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, before the Senator from New Mexico leaves the floor, I wish to thank him for his leadership on the issue of energy policy for this Nation and thank him for the way he has worked with me and Senator Breaux representing Louisiana, which is a producing State but also a State that is very interested in alternative energy sources, particularly from agricultural products, which we think holds a lot of promise.

   Many of our universities are engaged in alternative fuel developments, as well as environmental cleanup. I thank the Senator particularly for his willingness to put in this bill significant authorization for the first time for $450 million for the seven producing States, much of that production being off our coastline. Because of current law, which has been in place for many years, as the Senator knows, Louisiana and other coastal States have been shortchanged because of the impacts that affect our States.

   We will be able to use this money to help restore our wetlands which we are losing at an alarming rate. It will help

[Page: S12432]  GPO's PDF

   I thank the Senator on behalf of all the people of Louisiana and many people in the coastal parts of our Nation for his insight and leadership in including that provisions.

   I wanted to go on record this afternoon about this bill and to thank the Senator from New Mexico. There are a number of other good provisions in this bill.

   Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, may I respond briefly to the comments? The Senator from Louisiana has been a tireless and very effective advocate for her State and for coastal regions generally in this regard.

   There are substantial impacts that oil and gas development in particular have had on those regions. We have tried in this legislation to include a provision at her urging that will help provide resources to deal with those impacts. I think it is good legislation. It will be good public policy.

   I thank her for her many other contributions to this legislation as well. She is a very valued member of our committee and has made great contributions to various provisions in the bill since the beginning of consideration of it. I thank her very much.

   Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.

   NATIONAL ADOPTION MONTH

   Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I want to speak to the Senate for a few minutes on a different subject, but one that is equally important and deserves our attention and focus.

   I had hoped to get to the Chamber last week when it was actually November to speak about this subject because November is National Adoption Month. I want to spend a few minutes talking about what that means to us as a nation and what adoption has meant and continues to mean and will mean in the future to so many of our families in the United States and around the world.

<<<

>>>

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