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
Look at the kind of winter we have had. Look at the kind of winter we have had here in Washington: One snow, 3 inches. Look at the drought that has come upon this area of the country during the winter season. What can we expect for the spring and
[Page: S2198] GPO's PDF
I have lived a long time--84 years. Something is going on out there. I don't need a scientist to tell me that. With the differences in the winters, the differences in the summers, in the temperatures, in the water level, there is something happening, and we had better be aware of it. We had better do something about it.
I sincerely hope that we will be able to work together in a bipartisan way and not put off addressing these challenging questions on another generation, but we must begin that effort now.
In June 2001, I introduced with Senator Stevens bipartisan climate change legislation. Our bill received unanimous support in the Government Affairs Committee last year. Our proposal is based on scientifically, technically, and economically sound principles and would put into place a comprehensive, national climate change strategy, including a renewed national commitment to develop the next generation of innovative energy technologies. Senator Stevens and I believe this is right policy framework, and I hope that my colleagues will not allow this commonsense approach to be undermined or stricken from this bill.
Senator Stevens and I are aware that there may be an effort to strike this from the bill. But Senator Stevens and I will stand as one man, as one individual, against any such effort.
I am glad to say that the Byrd/Stevens legislation is included in this energy package, as I have already indicated, for it will provide for the long-term viability of coal as an energy resource.
We must seize this opportunity to learn from past experiences. President Carter spoke to the nation in 1977 about the energy crisis of that era. He said that:
Our decisions about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern this nation. This difficult effort will be the `moral equivalent of war,' except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not to destroy.
Those are the words of former President Carter. At that time, energy was a household concern. Lines, long lines at gas stations were a common scene. Everybody remembers that--anybody who was living at that time. We were building a national resolve to craft a comprehensive national energy policy. But the gas lines went away, and so did the sense of urgency about energy.
During my tenure in the United States Senate, I have witnessed the ebb and flow in energy concerns as energy prices rise and fall. I fear that, as a nation, while our energy supplies are plentiful and prices are low, we may have sunk back into somnolence--somnolence--asleep at the wheel. If the United States is going to remain a global economic power, we have to tackle these energy issues. If there was ever a time to come together and craft an intelligent, responsible, bipartisan, long-term energy policy, it is now.
Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia for his courtesy and his kindness to me and for allowing me to precede him so I could make this speech and then go back to the Budget Committee where we are having votes and where I should be attending right away. I thank him, and I join with him. I know what he is going to say and what he is going to speak about. I shall have something to say about that matter later. I thank him.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the completion of the remarks of Senator Miller and Senator COLLINS I be allowed to speak. I will be offering a consensus amendment at that time which has been agreed to by both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NELSON of Florida). Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, the Senator from Georgia is recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. MILLER are printed in today's RECORD under ``Morning Business'')
Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
AMENDMENT NO. 3041 TO AMENDMENT NO. 2917
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. WYDEN], for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Smith of Oregon, proposes an amendment numbered 3041 to amendment No. 2917.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's RECORD under ``Text of Amendments.'')
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Energy Policy Act that the Senate has been debating contains a number of strategies to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil and to improve the environment, but it does omit a key technology that can help this country achieve these critically important goals.
That technology is the hybrid electric vehicle. The Senate has heard a lot about hybrids over the last few weeks, and, last week saw a poster of a red SUV--a hybrid vehicle that Ford is developing. Hybrids are coming of age. Anyone who has questions about their benefits can ask our colleague, Senator Bennett from Utah, who does in fact, drive a hybrid vehicle.
These vehicles can achieve fuel efficiencies that are more than twice the current CAFE standard. Their greenhouse gas emissions are only one-third to one-half of those from conventional vehicles; and for other pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides, they can meet the country's highest emission standards , those set by the State of California.
The overall energy efficiency of hybrid vehicles is more than double of any available alternative fuel vehicle. But the result of this country's current energy policy is that vehicles rated at even 70 miles per gallon are disqualified as counting toward energy efficiency fleet requirements just because they do not use alternative fuels. But, clearly, they more than fulfill the spirit of a modern energy policy that moves this country towards the critical goal of energy independence.
When it comes to alternative fuel , the Energy Policy Act of 1992 is all windup and no pitch. It requires fleet administrators to buy alternative fuel vehicles, but it does not require them to use alternative fuels. In many States, even the best-intentioned fleet administrators have real trouble finding enough alternative fuel . That certainly has been true in my home State of Oregon.
Out of 178,000 fuel stations across the country, only 200 now provide alternative fuel . That is less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our filling stations. The result is, many alternative fuel vehicles are being operated with gasoline, which completely undermines this country's goal of reducing the use of petroleum.
The energy bill before us, wisely, will close that loophole by requiring alternative fuel vehicles to actually use alternative fuels. If passed, by September of next year, 2003, only 50 percent of the fuel that fleets use in their alternative fuel vehicles could be gasoline.
Though the Nation's alternative fuel infrastructure is expanding, the question still remains: What about those States that still lack enough stations where fuel can be purchased? Are they supposed to just let those vehicles sit unused in their parking lots?
The amendment I offer today, with Senator Murkowski, Senator BENNETT, and my colleague from Oregon, Senator SMITH, will provide fleet administrators with the flexibility to choose between alternative fuel vehicles and hybrid vehicles. Like the Energy Tax Incentives Act reported by the Finance Committee, it contains a sliding scale that allows partial credit for hybrid
vehicles based on how good their fuel economy is and how much power they have.
[Page: S2199] GPO's PDF
For instance, if a hybrid car or light truck averages 2 1/2 times the fuel economy of a similar vehicle in its weight class, it could earn credit worth up to 50 percent of the purchase of an alternative fuel vehicle. Then, based on how much power it has available, it could earn additional credit. So significant credit would only be given to the best performers.
To illustrate what this means, for a hybrid vehicle to get one-half the credit of a 3,500-pound alternative fuel vehicle that averages 21 miles per gallon in the city, that hybrid would have to average over 53 miles per gallon. It is clear what a huge reduction in petroleum use this proposal could mean.
The amendment is supported by a broad range of interests, including the National Association of Fleet Administrators, the National Association of State Energy Officers, Toyota Motor of North America, and the National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association.
I thank my colleagues, particularly Senator Murkowski, Senator Bennett, and Senator Smith of Oregon, for all of their efforts in working with me to fashion this bipartisan legislation.
I also thank Chairman BINGAMAN, who has been very helpful with respect to this issue. He is a strong advocate of hybrids.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside and that the Senate return to it later in the day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who seeks time?
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for a few minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I gather there is some concern expressed by the majority leader about the pace at which we are proceeding on the energy bill. This often happens in the process of a complex piece of legislation, particularly a piece of legislation that has not gone through the committee process as a consequence of the decision of the majority leader. This has taken a while. We are not through by any means. We still have some contentious issues to address, such as global warming, ANWR, the tax proposal, which is going to take some time.
I want to see this bill passed. It is my intention to keep working with Senator Bingaman toward the passage of a comprehensive energy bill. It was with the intention that, by amendment, we would try to craft a bill that would be worthy of the Senate's deliberations. There is no question that, obviously, we were expected to deliver a bill. The reality that the House has done its job and passed H.R. 4 puts the responsibility on the Senate.
The President has outlined energy as one of his priorities, encouraging that we pass comprehensive energy legislation. So the obligation clearly is ours. This afternoon, I gather we are going to go back on judges for an undetermined timeframe. At the conclusion of that, I hope we can again go back to some of the outstanding amendments we have before us on the energy bill.
I also point out to those who suggest we are holding up this bill that we spent a good deal of time off the bill on campaign finance. I am not being critical of that. It is just a reality that the majority leader chose to take us off to complete that particular issue, which has been around for so long.
I want to make the record clear. We have an ethanol amendment, the Feinstein amendment is resolved, and there may be some more amendments coming yet this afternoon. We are working with Senator Bingaman and the majority whip, Senator Reid, to try to conclude a list of amendments. Our list is about 2 1/2 pages long, I would guess, with around 60 amendments listed. Realistically, there are probably not more than 10 that we are going to have to deal with on that list. I know Senator Bingaman and the Democrats are working toward an effort to identify their amendments as well.
I hope that as soon as we get off the judges, we can go back and proceed to move amendments yet today and on into the evening. I have no idea what the schedule is tomorrow, but perhaps the majority whip can enlighten me. I wanted to make it clear from our point of view as to what to anticipate and what we have ahead of us.
Mr. REID. If the Senator from Alaska will yield, I will respond.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to yield.
Mr. REID. The matter with the judges will be resolved by 3 o'clock this afternoon. We will take that up in 10 minutes. After that, we will go into whatever amendments the distinguished Republican leader of this bill wants to move. We hope his number of about 10 serious amendments is more accurate than 60. We know that when there is a finite list, a lot of people file relevants and they are not really serious about offering them. Having spoken to the majority leader and Senator Bingaman today, we really want to get a finite list of amendments we can put our fingers on, in the hopes of completing this legislation.
If there are 10 amendments dealing with serious subjects, that is doable. If we get 25, 30 amendments, there are some who would recommend to the leader to file cloture and maybe go to something else. I hope that is not necessary. We have spent a lot of time on this bill. It is worthy of time.
There is nothing we can do that is more serious than working on the energy policy of this country. We know the Senator has the ANWR amendment, which has created so much interest, and we hope to get to that soon.
In short, we want to finish this bill as badly as the Senator from Alaska. We hope by this afternoon we can have some light at the end of the tunnel to do that.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the majority whip yield? Is there any indication what we might anticipate tomorrow? Is it too early to make that decision?
Mr. REID. If we have reason to be here, the leader has not said we will have no votes. There could be votes. It is the day before the recess. If we have things we can do and it will lead to our completing this bill when we get back, I am sure the leader will want to work tomorrow.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I do not want to misunderstand my good friend. Did he indicate there has been a decision there will be no votes tomorrow?
Mr. REID. The leader has said just the opposite; there will be votes. We want to have votes on substantive matters. We do not want to, on the day before the recess, have make-do votes. We are going to have something that is meaningful. With the subject matter that was briefly outlined by the Senator from Alaska, those are very serious matters, and I hope we can be working on some of them tonight and tomorrow.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous order be delayed and that I be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 2042 are printed in today's RECORD under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
AMENDMENTS NOS. 3033 AND 3040
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3 hours of debate to be evenly divided on two amendments dealing with judicial nominations.
[Page: S2200] GPO's PDF
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, earlier this week when the Senate was considering confirming the 42nd judge since the shift in majority last summer, I came to tell the Senate of the progress we have made filling judicial vacancies in the past 9 months. The pace of consideration and confirmation of judicial nominees in the last 9 months exceeds what we used to see in the preceding 6 1/2 years. During that 6 1/2 years under Republican control, vacancies grew from 63 to 105 and were rising to 111. I lay this out so people understand what is happening.
Since July, we have made bipartisan progress. This chart shows the trend lines. During the Republican majority, the vacancies were going up to 111; in the short time the Democrats have been in the majority, those vacancies have been cut down.
The Democrats have controlled the majority in the Senate Judiciary Committee for 9 months. What did we do during that 9 months? We have confirmed more judges--42, all nominated by President Bush. In those 9 months, we confirmed more judges than the Republicans did for President Clinton in the 12 months of the year 2000. We confirmed more judges in those 9 months than the Republicans did during the 12 months of 1999. In those 9 months, we confirmed more judges for President Bush than the Republicans did for President Clinton during the 12 months of 1997. During those 9 months, we confirmed more judges for President Bush than the Republicans did for the 12 months of 1996.
| <<< | >>> |
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