[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 15 (Friday, February 15, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S884-S888]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, under the authority granted to me on
Thursday, February 14, I now call up Calendar No. 65, S. 517.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The leader has the authority. The clerk will
report the bill by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:
[[Page S885]]
A bill (S. 517) to authorize funding for the Department of
Energy to enhance its mission areas through technology
transfer and partnerships for the fiscal years 2002 through
2006, and for other purposes.
Amendment No. 2917
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I
ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for himself
and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 2917.
Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that 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. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have seen in the last year that energy
security is related to economic security as well as to national
security. Americans need and deserve an energy plan that truly moves us
towards energy independence. At the same time, America's appetite for
energy continues to grow each year. Over the next 10 years, the United
States is expected to consume roughly 1.5 trillion gallons of gasoline,
yet the United States holds only 3 percent of the known world oil
reserves.
There is no question that we need to free ourselves from our
dependence upon foreign oil and the volatility associated with it. But
increased production alone will not meet this demand. It is clear we
need a new approach.
Last year, Democrats promised our colleagues they would begin an open
debate on energy legislation before the Presidents Day recess. Today we
are keeping that promise and bringing to the floor an example of that
new approach, a comprehensive, sensible, and balanced plan to address
the energy challenges of our Nation.
This bill will achieve a number of important objectives. It will
reduce our dependence upon foreign oil. It will ensure abundant and
affordable energy for all Americans. It will create jobs for American
workers. It will improve our air quality and reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases which will make the United States a more credible
participant in the international effort to address this serious
problem.
This bill is the work of nine Senate committees. It reflects a broad
range of ideas and proposals. It has the provisions that will allow us
to use our traditional fossil fuel supplies more intelligently and
incentives to help us diversify our energy supplies with renewable
sources such as wind and solar, geothermal, and ethanol.
This bill also seeks to take advantage of the huge opportunities for
commonsense conservation in our cars and homes, the appliances we use
every day. In fact, the fuel efficiency provisions of this bill will
save the United States as much oil as we import from the Persian Gulf.
If the goal--as so many of my colleagues have stated--is true energy
security, then this is the way to achieve it: By balancing production
and conservation, innovation, and improvement in existing technology.
This bill also recognizes the linkage between energy policy and
climate change. To that end, it includes a number of bipartisan
proposals to confront the rising tide of global warming. It has been
said that we are all continually faced with a series of great
opportunities brilliantly disguised as insolvable problems. Meeting our
energy challenges is a difficult problem, but it is also a great
opportunity to demonstrate America's strength and American ingenuity.
I thank all the chairmen who worked so hard during the last few
months to craft this legislation. I look forward to working closely
with them, with my Republican colleagues, and the White House to craft
final legislation that hopefully will be signed into law this year.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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 (Mr. Dayton). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I was very pleased to hear the remarks
of the majority leader relative to the introduction of the energy bill.
I have that bill here. It is important to recognize that it is about
500-some-odd pages. It is a very complex bill. I want to make a brief
reference to the majority leader's comments where he thanked the
chairmen who helped craft this bill.
This is what the bill looks like. As we start in, it is going to be
quite an educational job because much of the bill is crafted without
the input of the members of the committees of jurisdiction.
When the majority leader says he wants to thank all chairmen, I join
and applaud that effort, but what about the members of the committees
of jurisdiction? To some degree, they have been left out of this
process, which I think is extremely unfortunate. Did they help craft
this bill? Were they asked? Clearly the answer is no.
As an example, as the ranking member of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, I can certify that the committee has not had an
opportunity to, in a markup, deliberate on the merits of this package
of some 500 pages covering aspects as complex as electricity and
electricity deregulation.
It is fair to say this bill is going to require a great deal of time
and a great deal of education. There are technicalities associated with
the electrical portion that are so complex that without having a
committee process where it is debated within the committee so that we
formulate positions and vote out the amendments on the basis of
examination, on the basis of a support group of both Republicans and
Democrats coming together, we are going to find ourselves in a
situation where we have to depend on a lot of time and explanation in
the Chamber.
Members are going to be torn in the educational process by lobbyists
who are going to educate Members on specific issues affecting their
particular area of energy-related activities.
When the majority leader says he wants to thank the chairmen, I point
out and elaborate a little further that not only has the Energy
Committee been left out of the process but in the area of CAFE, which
is a very controversial portion of this bill, the Commerce Committee
has been left out.
The rationale behind that is beyond me, but clearly the majority
leader has seen fit to take this bill up without the input of the
actions of the committee of jurisdiction, the Commerce Committee.
Therefore, we are facing a situation where there is a CAFE standard in
the bill and it has not had examination from the committee of
jurisdiction.
To some extent this is also true of the Finance Committee inasmuch as
the tax components are to come in later, as I understand it, which
basically means the various incentives in this bill that are provided
to encourage new technological developments in recovering energy from
coal-bed methane or developing hydrogen, and various other aspects
which we want to encourage through tax incentives are also not in the
bill because the Finance Committee simply has not been given an
opportunity to vote out these issues.
It is a less-than-perfect process, though it is not the first time we
have had a less-than-perfect process around here.
As we review these 500 pages of the bill, I put my colleagues on
notice that since we finally got the bill introduced, we should reflect
on what we have before us rather than what we do not have; in other
words, be positive rather than negative.
I think the consequences of that reflection bear on the reality that
I am going to have a lot more to say after we return from the recess.
But before we get into the real debate, which will probably occur
Tuesday or Wednesday after returning from the recess, I wish to point
out a couple of points.
The President, in his State of the Union Address, charged us to help
make our Nation more secure. That ``us'' means both the House and the
Senate. The House passed H.R. 4. The House has done its job. The job of
the Senate remains in front of us. But I think most Members would
agree, our energy policy is a critical first step in
[[Page S886]]
this challenge. And it is a challenge. It is a challenge when we fight
for freedom, when we seize the day for democracy.
The rationale behind these comparisons is one thing. We need energy
to accomplish them. When we pioneer technologies that save lives, when
we turn on the conveniences that mark the differences between modern
life and life in the past, we turn to energy.
We turn to energy as we look at the standard of living that Americans
enjoy. If it is an SUV, it is an SUV because Americans prefer that as
opposed to being dictated by Government as to what type of an
automobile they have to drive.
When our energy supply is threatened, that is another matter, and
that is why the work we are starting today is so critical. That is why
the process that got us to this point has been--well, it has been
frustrating. It has been a little embarrassing. I have highlighted it
in my opening remarks.
Again, because the majority leader forced the Senate to consider the
measure without the benefit of committee deliberation and action, he
has made the task of moving the bill much more complicated than it
might be ordinarily.
Difficult and divisive issues that could have and should have been
addressed in committee are now going to be debated in the Senate
Chamber. That is going to require an educational process because many
Members simply are not familiar with many of the terms of much of the
technology and there is not a basis of support coming out of the
committee.
This is a flawed process, and I think it is unfortunate. It sets
somewhat of a precedent in this body that the Energy Committee has
simply been directed by the majority leader not to mark up the energy
bill. That is rather extraordinary.
What is the rationale behind it? There are certain aspects in the
bill to which the majority leader and others object. One of them
currently is the ANWR issue, the contentious issue of the electricity
matters, the contentious issue of CAFE, and many others.
Some things are left out of this bill. ANWR is certainly left out of
the bill and, as a consequence, it is going to take 60 votes to put it
in. Had we been able to vote it out of the Energy Committee--and we had
the votes to put it in the energy package--why, it only would have
taken 50 votes. The psychology is very clear. The majority leader has
seen fit to set it up so that it requires a 60-vote point of order.
We can point fingers in each direction, and certainly in this
political process within the rules of the Senate everything is fair,
but I did want to bring this to the attention of my colleagues.
Even with additional hurdles being put before us on this overall
bill, I believe we can and I believe we must move the bill off the
floor and get it to conference, but we must do it in a way that
addresses the difficult policy decisions that are before us rather than
avoid them.
What we have to do in realism and what is expected is to build a
bridge. There is no question that we see in the numerous polls that the
country expects us to pass an energy bill. The Nation needs an energy
bill, one that is rooted in finding new alternative energy sources, one
that boosts our efficiency, helps us use less energy.
We all agree with this, but efficiency and alternatives alone are
simply a two-legged stool. Alone they will not close the gap between
energy supply and energy demand in this Nation. We must also seek to
safely increase our domestic energy resources. We must do it in a way
that protects our environment, and we can. We have the technology. We
have proven ourselves.
Make no mistake, we are the most energy-efficient economy in the
world, and we are getting better. So I think we have to recognize our
standard of living is directly related to the efficient use of energy.
Since the 1970s, it now takes 40 percent less energy to produce each
dollar of our GDP.
This chart shows in 1973 it took approximately 18,000 Btu per dollar
of our domestic GDP, and today we are down to roughly 10,000 Btu per
dollar. That is realism. That is progress. That is efficiency. That is
the American way of life. It is the American standard of living. So we
have become 42 percent more efficient per dollar of GDP. Our efficiency
has increased.
We are going to hear a lot of criticism that we consume a quarter of
the world's energy. I will acknowledge we consume a quarter of the
world's energy, but let's hear the other side of the argument. We
produce a quarter of the world's economy. That does not come by magic.
We do not pick that off a tree. It is directly related to energy and
our efficiency. Without the efficiency, we would not be using a quarter
of the world's energy; we would be using a lot more. We use energy to
produce a quarter of the world's economy. Let us keep that in mind and
be proud of it, proud of the American worker and proud of our energy-
producing industries that provide jobs in this country.
In doing so, we have proven we can balance our conservation and our
environmental protection with increased domestic energy production.
That does not mean we are doing it perfectly, but we are doing a better
job, and we can continue to improve. For that reason, I refuse to take
part in this fable being put forth by some in the environmental
community in their spin machine that says this Nation needs to make a
choice, a choice between using the energy technologies of today--our
coal, our oil, our gas, our hydro, our nuclear--or using energy
technologies of tomorrow. Reality dictates we have to use both.
Some say we have to spend on technology, and if we spend, we will
develop that technology. That is very easy to say. We have expended
over $6 billion in the last 6 or 7 years on advanced technology through
grants and through the Department of Energy, and we should continue
that. But to listen to some who say this debate is about energy vis-a-
vis the environment, that is to say it is about today versus tomorrow.
Some insist whatever solutions we propose, they cannot be done safely
today. That logic, in my opinion, sells the American worker and
American ingenuity far too short.
We need to strive for new technologies that diversify our energy
supply. We need to conserve more. We need to become more energy
efficient. If this bill passes, we will not be driving hydrogen cars
tomorrow. We will not be powered by solar or wind by tomorrow morning.
We simply cannot shut down the economy of this Nation and put our
Nation's national security on hold for a generation or more while we
work on a new technology that simply displaces our current dependence
on coal, oil, gas, hydro, and nuclear. We have to build a bridge to the
future. I think that is one of the cautions I have about this bill.
Some suggest we can simply get there through conservation. Even if we
get to the point where wind and solar and alternative energies emerge
up to 20 percent of our energy mix, where does the other 80 percent
come from? It comes from energy sources we use today: Coal, oil,
natural gas, hydro, nuclear. We must thoroughly explore new
technologies to reduce our consumption in the coming years.
One of the problems I have with this bill is their proposal on CAFE,
to move it up to 37, 38 miles per gallon. That is a very easy thing to
say: Let's do it. How one gets there from here is something else and,
as usual, the devil is in the details because the timeframe is
somewhere in the area of 15 years before we have to be held accountable
for setting a goal today that is going to come due 15 years from now.
Most of us will not be here.
So who is going to be held accountable? It is easy to say, and vote
for, let us get 37 or 38 miles. But what does it really mean? Does it
mean safer cars, lighter cars? What does it mean for the American
automobile industry in competing with the foreign automobile
manufacturers, the cost of cars, the American labor? There are many
issues involved.
Sure, we have to conserve more. We have to get better mileage. But do
we want the Federal Government to dictate to the American people what
type of an automobile they can buy or do the American people want their
standard of living to dictate that?
I think these are some of the things we have to consider because we
have more than 200 million cars on the road and oil will continue to be
the primary ingredient in our surface transportation needs for the
foreseeable future,
[[Page S887]]
even if we do get up to the 30 miles per gallon.
One can buy that kind of a car. They can buy a 56-mile-per-gallon car
if they want to. So the technology is out there. The question is, How
do we get the American people to move over there?
Some are going to hang on to their old cars. They certainly have that
right. We know some are going to take advantage of circumstances
depending on their environment and where they live. If someone drives a
long way and they want to be in comfort, they might want, obviously, a
more comfortable car. If they have a quick commute, they might get by
with a smaller car. My point is, we have these choices available
currently.
The other issue is, again, as we address goals, which I certainly
support, we also have to address heavily the accountability to achieve
those goals. There are going to be efforts by NHTSA, which is the
organization that evaluates the technical ability to increase mileage;
they are going to come up with a study and some figures. I think we
should try to balance the attainability with the reality associated
with CAFE standards.
Furthermore, other sources of power are often confused with
transportation because we have a lot of energy sources--we have gas,
hydro, coal, and as I have said, nuclear--but what moves America and
what moves the world is oil. We have no other alternative. Perhaps we
wish we had. So we have to be careful to recognize the vulnerability of
this Nation as we find ourselves 57 percent dependent on imported oil,
and it is growing. The recognition that we are not going to have other
relief for moving America other than oil I think has to be reinforced
in the minds of many Members. One does not fly in and out of
Washington, DC, on hot air, even though there is a little bit around
here from time to time.
We have over 100 nuclear plants across the country. They are very
important because they provide emission-free energy. Twenty percent of
our entire energy mix is produced by nuclear. New electricity plants
are being built today that run on natural gas. Yet we are pulling down
our reserves of natural gas faster than we are finding new reserves.
That is a fact. The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have
centuries of supply. Can we use our technology to make our coal
cleaner? We can. We can use these resources, and we can use them in a
more efficient way, and we have to do that.
I conclude with a reference to jobs and the economy. Development of
our domestic resources means lots and lots of jobs, thousands of jobs
across the country, for crafting pipe, developing new software,
building double-hull supertankers to move our oil from Alaska, my
State, down to Washington and California.
This is a requirement under the Jones Act that mandates that oil must
travel in U.S. vessels between two American ports, from Valdez down to
the San Francisco Bay area, or the Puget Sound area, Los Angeles, and
unload; double-hulled, supermillennium tankers built in U.S. shipyards
with U.S. crews, not foreign ships coming from Saudi Arabia.
They provide high-paying, high-skilled jobs that will help turn our
economy around and help get us back out of this recession. So jobs and
the economy are very important as we address this energy bill.
It is estimated we lost 700,000 jobs in this country since September
11. It is payback time. It is time to put American workers back to
work. I reject the underlying premise of those who oppose domestic
resource development and those who do not believe the American worker
and American technology can develop our natural resources while fully
protecting the environment.
Some may unrealistically fail to recognize they can choose to rely on
Saddam Hussein and others for energy supplies because we are currently
importing somewhere in excess of 750,000 barrels a day from Saddam
Hussein. On September 11, we were importing a million barrels a day. We
all know we are enforcing a no-fly zone. We take out targets, we
endanger lives of American men and women. We have been doing that since
1992. We also know that as we take his oil and put it in our airplanes
and take out his targets, he takes our money, develops missile
capability and aims it at our ally, Israel. We have not had U.N.
inspectors in that country for 7 years. I hope we do not stand up
someday and say, as we are saying about Osama bin Laden, we responded
too late. We know what happened with bin Laden and his terrorists. They
were active in taking out our embassy. They were active in other
terrorist activities. We waited. Are we going to wait too long with
Saddam Hussein and Iraq as they build up the weapons?
There is a day of reckoning at some point in time. We will have to
face the reality of what Saddam Hussein will do, or our insistence that
we inspect with the U.N. authority. The longer we put it off, the more
devastating the retaliation on his part might be. We have to reflect on
that. That is why I am so adamant in encouraging my colleagues to stand
with some of the proposals and amendments that will be offered to
reduce dependence on the Middle East.
A way to do that is to open up that very tiny portion of the Arctic
in Alaska. I will show the location. It is important in this debate to
reassert the footprint. This area, called ANWR, is pretty big, 19
million acres; 19 million acres is the size of the State of South
Carolina. In this case, we have wilderness in the light yellow, refuge
in the dark color. Congress set up the Coastal Plain with the authority
to determine whether it should be open and put up for competitive
lease. This is the area where the prospects for major discovery are
most likely to occur.
It is estimated by the geologists that the recovery of oil in this
area is somewhere between 5.6 and 16 billion barrels. What does that
really mean? We have all heard of Prudhoe Bay. We have seen the 800-
mile pipeline between Prudhoe Bay and Valdez. At one time, it was
carrying 2 million barrels a day, 25 percent of the total crude oil
produced in this country. Today, it is a little over a million barrels
a day, about 20 percent of the total crude oil produced in this
country.
What was the field estimated to produce? Ten billion barrels. It is
on the 13 billionth barrel. If the estimates are correct, somewhere
between 5.6 and 16 billion barrels; if you want an average of 10
billion barrels, it is as big as Prudhoe Bay.
The pipeline is in place. We are not talking about that. We are
talking about building laterals over here about 70 miles. This could be
equal to what we import from Saudi Arabia for 30 years or Iraq for 40
years. When Members say it is insignificant or it is a 6-month supply,
Members must recognize that argument simply does not hold oil. Some say
it will be 10 years. We built the Empire State Building in a couple
years, the Pentagon in a couple of years. We could have oil flowing in
a couple of years.
When will it occur? In the wintertime. How does it look in the
wintertime? The winter is long. I will show you what it looks like.
Winter in Prudhoe Bay, winter in ANWR, runs about 10 months of the
year. It is tough. What is the footprint in the wintertime? We have ice
road technology, so there is no permanent scar on the tundra. This is
an ice road. No gravel. Simply remove the snow, build a pad, put water
on it, take saltwater from the Arctic Ocean. This is the pad. That is
the drilling.
What does it look like in the summertime as a consequence of this
type of environmental commitment? That is it.
Returning to the first chart with a brief explanation, keep size in
perspective. This area is 1.5 million acres out of 19 million acres.
The House bill said we could only make a footprint of 2,000 acres. That
is what we are asking in the amendment which we will offer in this
bill--2,000 acres of 19 million acres. Somebody in South Carolina that
has a 2,000-acre farm can relate to that. Gee, only 2,000 acres out of
our whole State. The rest of the State will be either a wilderness or a
refuge.
Some say we should not be doing anything. They do not understand what
refuges are. This is a map of refuges for oil and gas and minerals that
are developed in California, Texas, and Montana. These are the specific
areas of activities. Louisiana has a lot of activity in refuges. Oil
and gas exploration is not foreign to refuges.
Again, emphasize the footprint for those participating in viewing
this
[[Page S888]]
chart; 2,000 acres is it. There is a village already here for those who
suggest somehow we are bringing a footprint in an area where there has
never been a footprint. There is an airstrip, the old radar station.
About 300 or 400 people live there. There are the kids going to school.
My point is, there are people up there--not very many--but they want
a better way of life. This is a little social club. They want the same
advantages you and I have: Reasonable health care, opportunities for
their children, insurance. It all relates to jobs. They do not want
welfare reform.
Some say we should not disturb their custom. Do we want to put a
fence around those people? They have television. They know what is
going on in the world. Their customs change. They maintain traditions.
That is very important because that is who you are.
By the same token, they do not want to live as they used to. You and
I know what a honeybucket is. A honeybucket is an indoor toilet, really
a pail, as opposed to running water that you and I enjoy. They do not
want to live that way anymore. They want schools, opportunities, and
education. They support this. Yet there are some in the environmental
community who would dictate how they prefer them to live, how they
prefer them not to have jobs.
As we look at this transition of our culture and our people,
recognize this is a very balanced area. If some are interested in more
wilderness, I don't know whether that is possible or not. Clearly, we
have wilderness. We have refuges. We have a development. We have a very
small footprint.
I hope, with this brief explanation, more Members can reflect on the
reality that this can be done right. We have the technology to do it. I
have faith and confidence in this Nation's men and women who drive our
energy resources.
We need an energy bill that provides today's resources to move us to
tomorrow's promise, not shallow measures with empty promises that
export our wealth and jeopardize national security, and ship our U.S.
jobs overseas.
I recognize the public policy debate about how best to approach our
energy policy is complex and will involve issues at the very heart of
the extreme environmental agenda. I think we should frame this in a
simple manner, in a manner the American people can understand. Is it
better to have a strong domestic energy policy that safeguards our
environment and our national security than to rely on the likes of
Saddam Hussein and others to supply this energy--countries in the
Mideast that are clearly unstable and will be for some time? The answer
in my mind is clearly yes.
I know some in this Chamber suggest this energy bill is just
politics, pure and simple. As far as another piece of the puzzle being
laid out is concerned, we have heard all kinds of explanations of why
this is bad. We have had broad support for reducing our dependence on
imported energy sources. We have had veterans groups come up and
support it. The response has been: ``False patriotism.'' I think that
is inappropriate.
I refer to reality. Reality dictated a comment that was made by Mark
Hatfield, the Senator from Oregon. I served with Mark for many years.
He was a pacifist. He said: I'll vote for opening up this area, this
sliver of the Coastal Plain, in a minute, rather than vote for a
measure that would send American men and women overseas, in harm's way,
to fight a war over oil in the Mideast.
As we look at the attitude of American veterans associations that
support developing an oil supply here at home, I think we have to
reflect on the comments of some of our Members who suggest this matter
is really about false patriotism. They could not be more wrong.
I have been around here a long time. I have been around here long
enough to know lots of people do things for their own reasons. What we
cannot do is sell short the American family, the American laborer--
America's future, if you will. Energy is not about politics. It is
about families across the country wondering if their jobs will be there
in the morning. It is about preserving the very independence of this
Nation. I believe in a nation that is dependent on no one but God
alone.
Our President has made it clear. President Bush has mentioned, from
time to time, the necessity of having the Senate pass an energy bill.
As recently as the State of the Union Address, he stated the urgent
need for a national energy plan. He laid it down as one of his first
proposals, with the Vice President. It is known. It has been
publicized. It has been examined.
He knows energy is about jobs. He knows energy is about security. He
wants to protect this Nation from what he calls a real axis of evil.
When we apply that to Saddam Hussein, it sticks. To some extent it
sticks in Iran. The very fact that we intercepted a ship filled with
armaments for the PLO demonstrates that. Our President knows, as long
as we are dependent on other nations for our energy, our very national
security is threatened and our future is at stake. So we should make
every effort, every responsible effort, to reduce that dependence.
Our challenge is clear. It is to deliver to this President an energy
plan for our Nation and an energy plan for our Nation's future. I urge
my colleagues to recognize the weight of this task before us as we
begin the process. We should come together to have the courage to vote
on the difficult issues and do what is right for our Nation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________