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    

In our vote, we will answer the question: Should we in this single vote not only say yes to drilling in ANWR but also say yes to derailing stem cell research by stopping it dead in its tracks, really, without looking at it?

[Page: S12297]  GPO's PDF

   I don't see any problem in banning human cloning. I think we would get 100 to 0 on that one. It is a very easy thing that we can do. But why would we want to derail stem cell research?

   I am certainly willing to vote no on the Lott amendment that contains both of these issues: Drilling in the Alaska wildlife refuge and stopping stem cell research.

   The Senator from Alaska is quite open on the point of drilling and makes the case very well.

   He brings up a number of issues. First of all, he criticizes people who are for retaining the wildlife refuge if they have not actually gone to see it. Let me say that many of us have and some of us have tried. I sent one of my top environmental aides there and got a full report on it.

   The bottom line is, the Senator from Alaska and others have not seen every single national park, have not been into the Sierras in my State, into every little town. Yet they weigh in on logging debates. So that is a bogus issue.

   The issue is, How do we have better energy independence? I think I speak with some authority--a little bit, in any event--because in our State of California, we were hit with a horrific shortage of electricity, and it was even predicted we would have brownouts and blackouts and there would be rioting in the streets. The bottom line is, because the people in my State understood this, they began to be energy efficient, making very small changes in their daily lives that never even impacted on their comfort, really. We have saved about 11 percent in our energy use. We avoided all of these problems.

   My friend talks about the creation of jobs. This is an important issue. I know some of the unions are backing drilling because of that. Let me say to my friend, the fact is, if you produce energy-efficient appliances, you create many jobs. If you produce energy-efficient automobiles--hybrid vehicles; so many other ideas; electric cars--you will produce jobs. Alternative energy in itself produces jobs, whether it is solar power, wind power, whether it is biomass--all of these create jobs, and not only good jobs, but the whole green technology is a technology that we can export around the world as the whole world looks for ways not to choke on gasoline fumes. We can do it. We can do it and meet our energy needs and become independent of imported oil.

   I find it so interesting when my friends from Alaska talk because they fought me when I wanted to make sure there was a ban on exporting Alaskan oil. We used to have that in place because I made the point, as many of my colleagues did at the time, that we needed that oil to stay home in America because we wanted energy independence. But both my friends fought to allow us to export Alaskan oil. I find it very interesting.

   So we have so many ways we can win this energy battle. One way is to raise the fuel economy standards of automobiles. Just take SUVs. If the SUVs met the same standard as a regular sedan, in 7 years we would save as much oil as there is in ANWR.

   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President.

   Let me repeat that. If we simply did one thing, and that is, got the SUVs to have the same fuel economy as a sedan--and, by the way, that is quite doable--we would, in 7 years, have ``produced'' enough oil to equal that of ANWR by saving it. By the way, that happens exponentially. In the next 7 years, there is another ANWR. Every 7 years you save another ANWR.

   So to stand in this Chamber and say the only way to become energy independent is by drilling in a refuge I just do not think stands the light of scrutiny.

   I am looking forward so much to having the debate on the energy bill, as Senator Daschle has promised. He is very interested in having that debate, as well, but he does not want to have that debate up against the December timeframe when

   we have so much to do relative to economic stimulus, when we are looking at bioterrorism. We must get the vaccines in place for smallpox. There is so much we need to deal with, including the appropriations conference reports. So I think Senator DASCHLE has done the right thing by setting aside a time, within 60 days, when we can have this debate.

   The President, using his Executive powers, overturned a rule that President Clinton put in place that said that air-conditioners should become more efficient. That particular rule was even supported by many of the people in the industry itself. By canceling that, we are again being beholden to Middle East oil. So there are so many things I want to talk about when that energy bill comes before us.

   In California, I drive a hybrid vehicle. If people look at you and say that sounds very strange, well, you fill it up with gas, just the same way you do any other car, and the computer within the car knows when it is more efficient to be running on gas or running on electricity. When you step on the brake, it charges the battery. So we are getting about 50 miles to the gallon.

   As someone who has been sharply critical of the increase in oil prices, finally they have come down. I am convinced regulatory agencies will not do a thing about high prices. We had them cold on what I believe was very close to price fixing. We had them cold on harassing independent station owners who wanted to lower prices. We had them cold on that. But we could not move the regulatory agencies.

   One way you fight back is you drive a car that gets 50 miles to the gallon. You can do it. You can buy it pretty cheaply. I encourage people to do that. So I do look forward to taking up the energy bill.

   On the issue, again, of stem cell research, this is one that is so important. I have seen a list of the groups that oppose Senator Brownback's 6-month moratorium. I think it is very important because sometimes you learn a lot from supporters and opponents.

   Let me read to you the list of opponents to the 6-month moratorium on stem cell research: Alliance for Aging Research, Alpha One Foundation, American Academy of Optometry, American Association of Cancer Research, American College of Medical Genetics, American Infertility Association, American Liver Foundation, American Physiological Society, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, American Society for Cell Biology, American Society of Hematology, Association of American Medical Colleges. All of these, and more, oppose, very strongly, a 6-month moratorium on stem cell research.

   Here are some others: Association of Professors of Medicine, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Coalition of National Cancer Cooperative Groups, Cure for Lymphoma, Genetic Alliance, Harvard University, Hope for ALS, the International Foundation for Anticancer Drug Discovery--and it goes on--the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International--those folks came to visit many of us in our offices--the Kidney Cancer Foundation, Medical College of Wisconsin, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Project, National Patient Advocate Foundation, Research America, Resolve, Society for Women's Health Research, and it goes on.

   So the bottom line is, we have a chance today, by voting against the Lott amendment, to send two very important messages: Yes, we want an energy policy, but we want it to be well thought out. There can be differences on whether the

   Alaska Wildlife Refuge is pristine, whether it is worth saving. I am willing to get into that debate. That is a fair debate. But wouldn't it be an interesting debate to find out what our other options are and then to decide if it is truly worth the gamble? People I know and respect say it isn't worth the gamble. And on stem cell research, clearly, it is time to continue this research while we ban human cloning. The Brownback amendment does not do that.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

   Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

   Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am aware that the other side has until 4:45. I ask unanimous consent to speak as though we had reached 4:45, which starts the time running for our side.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

   Without objection, it is so ordered.

[Page: S12298]  GPO's PDF

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