[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.

                          ____________________