[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 84 (Tuesday, June 10, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7565-S7576]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 14, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 14) to enhance the energy security of the United
States, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Campbell/Domenici amendment No. 864, to replace ``tribal
consortia'' with ``tribal energy resource development
organizations''.
Dorgan amendment No. 865, to require that the hydrogen
commercialization plan of the Department of Energy include a
description of activities to support certain hydrogen
technology deployment goals.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 30
minutes equally divided for debate in relationship to the Dorgan
amendment No. 865.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Amendment No. 865
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered is an
amendment we will vote on this morning. I was disappointed yesterday to
discover that there was opposition to the amendment. This is an
amendment that passed without opposition in the last Congress. So
surprisingly now I am discovering that some have changed their mind.
I will describe why, if this Congress has any gumption at all to
decide that we ought to change course and move in a new direction and
be bold and big when we think about our energy future, they will
support this amendment.
President Bush said the following about our dependence on foreign oil
in his State of the Union Address: America's energy security is
threatened by our dependence on foreign oil. He said: We import 55
percent of the oil we consume. That is expected to grow to 68 percent
by 2025. Nearly all of our cars and trucks run on gasoline. They are
the main reason America imports so much oil--that, from President
Bush--two-thirds of the 20 million barrels of oil we use each day for
transportation.
Fuel cell vehicles offer the best hope of reducing our dependence on
foreign oil. The President said that because he was proposing a new
direction for America's energy supply: Hydrogen and fuel cells.
Following his State of the Union Address in which he proposed that,
he had a gathering at the Building Museum in Washington, DC. He invited
all of the industry leaders throughout the country to come. He gave a
great speech. I was there with my colleague Senator Domenici. We were
invited to be a part of it. He talked again about striking out in this
new direction and talked about developing hydrogen and fuel cells as
part of our future. That made sense to me.
I have spoken often of the first old car I had when I was a young
kid. I bought a Model T Ford and restored it as an old antique. The way
you gas up this 1924 Model T Ford is you pull up to a pump, stick a
hose in the tank, and pump it full of gas. And what do you do with a
2003 Ford? Exactly the same thing. Nothing has changed in almost a
century. We are still running gasoline through those carburetors.
What the President says--and I agree with him--is let's decide to
change that and reduce our dependence on foreign oil because that is
where the growth in energy use is coming; that is, on America's roads
and America's vehicles. Do we want to be at a point where we have over
one-half of our oil coming from off our shores, much of it from very
troubled parts of the world? Do we want to be at the point where we
have 68 percent of it coming from other parts of the world, where if,
God forbid, some morning we woke up and discovered terrorists had
interrupted the supply of oil and this American economy would be flat
on its back? Is that how what we want to be held hostage? I do not
think so.
So the President says let's strike out in a new direction. He
proposed $1.2 billion on a hydrogen program. It is exactly the right
thing to do. I commend him for it. But $1.2 billion is timid; it is not
enough. Nonetheless, it is moving in the right direction, and for this
American President to put his administration on the line to move in
that direction is not insignificant at all; it is very significant.
I have pushed and pushed, and now this Energy bill has almost tripled
the amount the President recommended for a new hydrogen-based economy
and fuel cell future.
I proposed $6.5 billion over 5 years, an Apollo-type program.
President Kennedy said: Let's put a man on the Moon by the end of the
decade. He set a goal. And we did. I said: Let's have an Apollo
program, decide we are going to move toward a hydrogen fuel cell future
for our vehicles.
Do my colleagues know that a vehicle is twice as efficient using a
fuel cell as it is using gasoline through a carburetor? It is double
the efficiency getting power to the wheel. And what do you get out the
back end of a vehicle that uses hydrogen in a fuel cell? Water vapor.
You are not driving around town belching black smoke. You get water
vapor. It is good for the environment, good for this country's energy
security, and good for this country's economy. The fact is, this is
moving in exactly the right direction. So I commend President Bush.
We also made progress in the Energy Committee, saying let's increase
that which the President recommended, but it is still short of where we
ought to be, No. 1. No. 2, it does not include targets and timetables.
I do not suggest they be mandatory, but I do say this: Let's decide
where we are headed, and when we give the Department of Energy and
others $3 billion plus, let's say here is where we would like to go,
here is our destination, here is our map. I say let's aspire to have
100,000 vehicles on the road in the year 2010 that are hydrogen-powered
fuel cell vehicles and 2\1/2\ million vehicles by 2020.
My colleague yesterday said, well, we think maybe it is a mandate. I
said, no, it is not a mandate at all. Just ask the Department of Energy
to develop a strategy that says here is what we would like to do. We
cannot force that to happen, but at least a goal is established.
Japan has goals and strategies with respect to hydrogen and fuel
cells. They are moving very quickly. Europe is moving very quickly.
Japan wants 50,000 by 2010 and 5 million vehicles by 2020. General
Motors has a goal of having 1 million vehicles by 2010--Ford, Nissan,
DaimlerChrysler. The fact is, the industry is moving very quickly as
well.
I just do not happen to think we ought to throw a bunch of money at
Energy and say: Do what you can with it and report back. I guarantee,
if $3 billion or $3.5 billion is put into a bureaucratic envelope and
sent down to an agency and they are told to report to us when they have
half a notion and tell us what they have done, we are not going to make
much progress.
What I believe this Congress ought to do is say: Here is what we
aspire to achieve. This is a big, bold plan, and we want to make
progress. We would like by the year 2010 on the streets in this country
100,000 automobiles that are powered by hydrogen and use fuel cells. We
would like 2\1/2\ million by the year 2020.
Why do I say we need some targets and timetables? Because this is not
easy to do. This is not something that one company can do or one
industry can do. This requires a combination of private sector
investment and initiative, and it requires public policy that
accommodates this conversion.
First of all, we have to deal in a whole range of areas. How do you
produce hydrogen? Hydrogen is everywhere. It comes from everything. It
can come from natural gas, from coal, you can take hydrogen from water.
You can use a wind turbine and produce electricity from the air and use
that electricity to separate oxygen and hydrogen in water, store the
hydrogen, use it in a fuel cell, and double the efficiency of how you
power an automobile and have water vapor coming out of the tail pipe of
the automobile. How wonderful this country's future. But it will not
happen unless the Congress and the President decide we are going to
move to a different future.
The first antique car I bought and restored when I was a kid was 75
years old. I put gas in it the same way I put gas in a car today. It is
never going to
[[Page S7566]]
change unless in public policy we accommodate the private sector's
investment and the initiative that comes from both the private sector
and public policy, to say here is where our country aspires to be. Here
is where we want our country to move with respect to an energy bill.
There is a lot to this Energy Bill. Any energy bill worth anything,
in my judgment, has to incentivize additional production. It has to
provide for significant amounts of conservation because we are wasting
a great deal of energy. It has to provide for new efficiencies with
respect to all the appliances we use. Most importantly, in my judgment,
the fourth title of an energy bill has to be limitless renewable
sources of energy. Yes, that is ethanol, which we debated last week; it
is biodiesel; but most importantly, it is trying to move toward a new
energy future with respect to our vehicle fleet. That is hydrogen and
fuel cells.
I am not talking during this conversation about stationary engines,
although that is another application for fuel cells, and we have fuel
cells that are deployed and being used in this country. We also have
fuel cells and vehicles using hydrogen. I have driven one. We have had
a fuel cell vehicle drive from California to New York. It is not as if
this technology does not exist. It does. Like all other new
technologies, it is originally very expensive. As the research and
development into the new models and prototypes are done, it is very
expensive. But those costs come down, down, way down, as our country
embraces the notion that we want a different future for our vehicle
fleet; we want a hydrogen fuel cell future that relieves this country
of being held hostage by sources of oil that come from out of our
country.
If we just think for a moment about that, this American economy is
the strongest economic engine in the entire world by far. There is
nothing close to it. Yet some catastrophic event could happen that
could shut off this supply of oil to this country because over half of
it comes from outside of our shores. Something could happen to shut off
the supply and this economy would grind to a halt. It would be flat on
its back. And everybody knows it. When it happens, if it happens, and
God forbid it happens, but if it happens everyone will say, We told you
so. That is why this President wants to move to a different path, go to
a different place, to embrace hydrogen and fuel cells, and has stated
so in a State of the Union Address. He is dead right. We have to do
that.
I don't understand why establishing an aspired-to target and
timetables engenders opposition. A year and a half ago when I offered
this amendment it was accepted by voice vote. I have no idea why all of
a sudden some people say, this is radical. What a bunch of nonsense.
Radical? Yesterday, I was told, what we are talking about are wild
guesses: 100,000 vehicles by 2010, 2.5 million by 2020. Do you think
General Motors has an aspiration of putting 1 million cars on the road
by producing 1 million fuel cell cars by 2010? Do you think they go to
the board of directors and say, We have a wild guess to talk to you
about. These are not wild guesses. This is public policy, from our
standpoint, of stating our goals.
I find it fascinating; although this is not a mandate at all, it is
trying to establish some benchmarks. Instead of just giving money to
bureaucrats or a Federal agency and saying report back when you get
half a notion and let us know how you are doing--the report will show
not much is going on. Instead of mandates, I put some targets in and
say, aspire to achieve these. We ask the Department of Energy to give
us a strategy on how they will achieve these.
Some who would not want to put this kind of a strategy or this sort
of a target in law will come to the Senate and say, on national missile
defense, we are going to spend $9 billion this year on national missile
defense and we demand you deploy a system. It does not matter whether
it is not ready or whether the technology does not exist, and it does
not matter if you cannot hit a bullet with another speeding bullet; we
demand you deploy that system by 2004. So the mandated targets are fine
with respect to a national missile defense system for which you want to
spend $9 billion.
All of a sudden, when the President says, do a hydrogen fuel cell
initiative for America's energy security and you put in a rather weak,
in my judgment, set of targets, just so you have targets rather than no
targets and timetables, they say, gosh, what on Earth are you doing
here? Why would you suggest that?
I suggest this, because I think if we are going to spend money, we
ought to spend it effectively. If you are going to go on a journey, you
might want to get a map. If you want to take a trip to go to a
different kind of energy future, you might want to have a spot in mind
about your different nation. Those who want to take the taxpayers'
money and throw it at a problem and send it to an agency and say, do
the best you can, I say, God bless you, but I will show you how not to
make progress. Just do that, keep doing that, and you will never, ever,
make progress.
If we want a different energy future, then we have to be driving the
train. We have to decide this is what we aspire to achieve; these are
the goals we set for our country. If you do not want to set goals, do
not tell me you support an energy future different from today. Don't
tell me you want to withdraw and disconnect from 55 percent dependence
on foreign energy--55 percent going to 68 percent. This is a habit that
is destructive to this country. It is destructive to our future, and it
is destructive to our security. It is a habit we must end. This
President has supported an approach to do that.
I have worked on hydrogen for some while, as have others in the
Congress, Republicans and Democrats. But working on hydrogen and fuel
cells to try to move to a different energy future, while a worthwhile
enterprise, is not going to move us down the road unless this Congress
decides to be bold and decides to have big dreams and big goals. The
fact is, we try to incrementalize everything. We talk big and think
little. If we want to do something, this amendment should be attached
to this Energy Bill. As I said before, this amendment was accepted by
voice vote 2 years ago. I don't have the foggiest understanding of why
someone would oppose this. It is not a mandate. It is not a wild guess.
It is not radical. In fact, in many ways it is the most conservative of
approaches to say, let's not spend money unless we know what we are
going to do with it, unless we have a strategy, unless we aspire to
achieve certain goals good for this country and that fit with what the
President intends to have happen with respect to a hydrogen and fuel
cell future.
I ask unanimous consent Senator Feinstein be added as a cosponsor to
my amendment No. 865 to Senate Bill S. 14.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I understand my time has expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes and the
other side will be added 5 additional minutes to the closing side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me show a couple of photographs that
might be helpful for people to understand what this issue is about.
This is a DaimlerChrysler fuel cell bus introduced in Germany in 1997
that runs on fuel cells. I rode on a fuel cell bus in California. For
anyone who thinks this technology does not exist, it does. We have fuel
cells. We use hydrogen.
Let me give another example of what is happening in the private
sector: The Ford Focus fuel cell vehicle, 2002.
This is a Nissan Xterra, fueled by compressed hydrogen that was
tested on a California road beginning in 2001.
This General Motors Hy-Wire fuel cell concept car was unveiled in
August of 2002.
Let me make a point about all of this. You can't convert a vehicle
fleet in this country from a fleet that pulls up to the gas pump and
you take the cap off and you stick a hose in and pump away--you can't
convert a vehicle fleet from a gasoline-powered vehicle fleet to a
hydrogen-powered fleet without substantial public policy initiatives
that complement where the private sector wants to go. One cannot do it
without the other.
That is why, even as all these companies are working very hard on
these
[[Page S7567]]
issues, they need public sector and public policy support. This is a
picture of a hydrogen fueling station at Power TechLabs. So if you had
a car with a fuel cell that uses hydrogen, where would you go to fuel
that car? Where would you go to power it? Where would you find a supply
of hydrogen? So you have a whole series of questions.
As I mentioned earlier, you have to develop the question of how do
you produce hydrogen in large quantities. It is not terribly difficult.
You can produce it in many ways, but what would be the predominant
method of production? How do you store it? Where do you store it? How
do you transport it? All of those are important issues that the private
sector and public policy will answer, in my judgment.
Then, what kind of infrastructure can develop and how do you
incentivize its development so those who are purchasing the new fuel
cell vehicles powered by hydrogen have a place to come where they can
fuel those vehicles?
We have plans for many areas of public policy, whether it is Social
Security or Medicare--a whole series of issues. We have all these
studies and plans of where we aspire to be and what we aspire to do.
The goals in this amendment, while not mandates, are very simple. In my
judgment they are reasonable goals and ones that ought not frighten
anyone in this Chamber into believing they are mandates.
We know California's Clean Air Act requirements will ensure there
will be many fuel cell vehicles on the road in California in the
future. By this year, 2003, 2 percent of California's vehicles have to
be zero emission vehicles, and around 10 percent must be zero emission
by 2018. California will have nearly 40,000 to 50,000 fuel cell
vehicles on the road by the end of the next decade.
One of the other considerations in public policy is Federal fleet
purchase. We can be the first purchaser of these technologies and put
thousands, tens of thousands of vehicles on the road through the
Federal fleet purchase. Those are the kinds of activities I think can
make a big difference.
Let me finish as I started. I am very disappointed. I hope perhaps a
good night's sleep will have persuaded those who came yesterday, who
were a little cranky about this amendment and wanted to see if they
shouldn't maybe oppose this amendment--I am hoping maybe a good night's
sleep would have provided some sort of epiphany to those who would have
otherwise opposed it and they will decide that they should support what
the Senate unanimously supported 2 years ago. This is not anything
other than a step in exactly the right direction.
If you want to be big, you want to be bold, you want to agree with
President Bush that we ought to move to a new energy future, if you
want to do all that and believe hydrogen and fuel cells, as the
President says, are the future--and I do--if you believe all that, then
let's do this the right way: Set timetables and targets and goals. If
you want to spend money, then let's make those who are going to receive
the money give us the strategies that relate to where we want our
country to move. Or do we just want to throw money in the air and sort
of mill around and thumb our suspenders and smoke our cigars and say we
did a great job; we spent $3 billion on hydrogen, and boy, we hope
something comes of that. That is not the way you do business. The way
you do business is you have a plan. You decide where you want to go for
the future of this country and what you want to do and how you want to
achieve it. That is what this amendment does. It just sets out those
goals. I am hoping when we have this vote it will have a very sizable
victory here in the Senate later this morning.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I make a point of order a
quorum is not present.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside and the Senator from Louisiana be allowed to
offer her amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Amendment No. 871
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] for herself, Mr.
Specter, Mr. Bingaman, and Ms. Collins, proposes an amendment
numbered 871.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To reduce the dependence of the United States on imported
petroleum)
On page 238, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
Subtitle E--Measures to Conserve Petroleum
SEC. ____. REDUCTION OF DEPENDENCE ON IMPORTED PETROLEUM.
(a) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than February 1, 2004, and
annually thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a
report, based on the most recent edition of the Annual Energy
Outlook published by the Energy Information Administration,
assessing the progress made by the United States toward the
goal of reducing dependence on imported petroleum sources by
2013.
(2) Contents.--The report under subsection (a) shall--
(A) include a description of the implementation, during the
previous fiscal year, of provisions under this Act relating
to domestic crude petroleum production;
(B) assess the effectiveness of those provisions in meeting
the goal described in paragraph (1); and
(C) describe the progress in developing and implementing
measures under subsection (b).
(b) Measures To Reduce Import Dependence Through Increased
Domestic Petroleum Conservation.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the President shall develop and
implement measures to conserve petroleum in end-uses
throughout the economy of the United States sufficient to
reduce total demand for petroleum in the United States by
1,000,000 barrels per day from the amount projected for
calendar year 2013 in the reference case contained in the
report of the Energy Information Administration entitled
``Annual Energy Outlook 2003''.
(2) Contents.--The measures under paragraph (1) shall be
designed to ensure continued reliable and affordable energy
for consumers.
(3) Implementation.--The measures under paragraph (1) shall
be implemented under existing authorities of appropriate
Federal executive agencies identified by the President.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, we are today continuing a very important
debate on fashioning an energy policy for our Nation. We will be voting
on many key amendments as we attempt to move this very important bill
off the Senate floor, to conference with the House, and to the
President's desk for signature.
It is crucial that we increase domestic production of oil and gas.
It is crucial that we invest more money in research and technologies
for alternate fuels that are more environmentally friendly. It is
crucial that we reduce our consumption, particularly of oil, as well as
have a revitalization, in my opinion, in the appropriate ways, of our
nuclear industry--they are all important aspects of this bill--as well
as have the deregulation components of electricity and the expanding of
the electric grid, in the appropriate ways, which is quite difficult
because there are regions of the country that come at that issue from a
variety of different standpoints, and it has been very difficult to
negotiate those particular aspects of the bill.
But I compliment the chairman from New Mexico and our ranking member
from New Mexico who have worked beautifully together trying to fashion
a bill that is balanced and is actually possible to pass and not get
logjammed in ideological battles; it is something that will help our
country move toward more energy efficiency and security; increasing our
national security and improving efficiency in our economy, hopefully
putting people to work in developing these new technologies. So I
commend them for their patience and persistence and their guidance.
I believe the amendment I offer today will go a long way to
minimizing the consumption of oil in this country. We are a nation that
has only 3 percent of the world's known oil reserves. Yet we consume
more oil than any country per capita or in any way you might
[[Page S7568]]
want to arrive at that conclusion. It is simply essential that we
reduce our consumption of oil.
You might say to me, Mr. President: That is strange, Senator, since
you are from a State that produces oil. We are a proud producer, as you
know, of oil and gas. We believe we contribute to the wealth and
security of this Nation. We believe and know that these oil and gas
wells have brought jobs and wealth and opportunity and prosperity to
our State. Yes, it has come at some environmental cost, particularly 40
and 50 years ago, where the science was not where it is today, the
technology was not where it is today, the safety measures were not
where they are today. We made mistakes, but we are quickly learning
from our experience, as any smart individual or enterprise does. We are
now engaged in new technologies that minimize the footprint. We are
engaged in making tremendous improvements in environmental restoration
projects.
So I hope people will not think it is strange that a Senator from
Louisiana would be offering what I consider a very reasonable amendment
to reduce oil consumption in this Nation because even our oil and gas
producers themselves are willing, and know, in the long run it is in
everyone's interests, including theirs, to diversify our source of
supply, to minimize our consumption and our dependence on foreign oil
by improving and increasing domestic production of oil and gas, which
is a centerpiece of this bill which I am proud to support.
So, therefore, I offer this amendment which will save, if adopted--
and I am pleased to offer this amendment with the Senator from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, as the lead cosponsor; Senator Lamar
Alexander, from the great State of Tennessee; as well as Senator
Collins from Maine--so we offer this as a bipartisan amendment to save
the taxpayers and the businesses and the consumers in this Nation 1
million barrels of oil a day. That is the essence of this amendment.
Before I explain the details of the amendment, let me just talk a
moment about the importance of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.
As I said, we need to develop alternative fuel sources. One of the
reasons is because oil provides nearly 40 percent of U.S. energy
consumption. Sixty percent of the oil we consume today is imported, and
that number is set to rise. Unless this amendment and others like it
are adopted, that trend will continue to go up, putting at risk our
national security and putting at risk our international economic
competitiveness.
Because oil is truly an international commodity, and the United
States is the world's largest consumer of oil, it is particularly
vulnerable to any event that would affect supply and demand. As I said
earlier, our daily consumption of oil is almost four times the next two
largest oil consumers, Japan and China. Let me repeat: Our daily
consumption of oil is four times the next two largest oil consumers,
Japan and China.
The price of oil in our country is at the mercy of world events, and
not just in the Middle East, which we see played out on television
every day, but in Venezuela, which might be off the front pages but,
believe me, it is not off the front pages of the business journals in
this country where they see their prices and their businesses
jeopardized because of the turmoil in Venezuela and Nigeria.
We owe it to ourselves to try to minimize the volatility of oil
prices. We do that in two ways: increasing domestic production, which
obviously Louisiana would support; and also by reducing our
consumption, which people in Louisiana--average families, businesses
large and small--all would agree to.
I continue to advocate for responsible and robust domestic oil
production, as I said, but we need to do more to reduce consumption.
Oil is a critical component of nearly everything that affects our daily
lives: from transportation, to food production, to heating. And rising
oil prices actually act like a tax by foreign oil exporters on the
average American. We have spent a great deal of time trying to reduce
taxes on the floor of the Senate. We have done that sometimes in a
bipartisan way. Sometimes the majority has pushed through tax relief.
We can debate that issue at another time. But there is no disagreement
that when we can reduce taxes in a responsible manner, we most
certainly should do so.
This amendment, which asks the President to reduce the consumption of
oil in this Nation by 1 million barrels a day--we are consuming about
19 million barrels a day, so this would require and basically meet his
goals, as outlined in his State of the Union speech--gives him broad
latitude as to how to do that. It would be like a tax reduction because
currently middle-class families pay about 5 percent of aftertax income
for energy needs. As the price of oil increases, family aftertax income
continues to decline.
When businesses pay higher taxes, pay for higher oil prices and
disruptions in oil supply, this increases inflation and reduces
profits, production, investment, and employment. Let me repeat: It
increases inflation, reduces profits, reduces production, reduces
investment, and reduces employment. We need to be increasing
production, investment, and employment. My amendment will help us to do
just that.
Consumers are spending $50 billion more in annual energy bills than a
year ago. If we could reduce our consumption by the amount that our
amendment suggests, we would begin to save consumers money they could
spend on other most needed and necessary things for themselves, their
children, their grandchildren, or their businesses.
The amendment I offer today, as I said, would direct the President to
develop and implement a plan to reduce oil consumption by 1 million
barrels a day by the year 2013.
I show you a chart I have in the Chamber because this amendment would
actually put into law--I am hoping we can get a broad bipartisan vote
on this amendment--it would actually put into law the words the
President himself spoke in his State of the Union speech when he said
U.S. oil consumption would be about 1.8 million barrels per day lower
in 2020.
So what my amendment says is, instead of saying there would be a 1.8
million reduction by 2020, let's try to shoot for a 1-million-barrel-
per-day reduction by 2013, which is just about the equivalent--a little
different goal but you could argue an equivalent goal. The benefit and
beauty of this amendment is that it does not tie the President's hands,
but it gives him great flexibility in how to achieve the goal he has
outlined.
There are any number of reasonable and simple measures the President
could adopt that would help us to consume a less significant amount of
oil and reduce taxes on the American people, increase our national
security, improve our environment, and create jobs. It almost sounds
too good to be true, but it is true.
We are not mandating a specific approach, which is the beauty of it,
because the approach some have argued for I have actually disagreed
with and want to give the President great flexibility but hold to this
important goal.
There are any number of ways we could do that. The President could
consider renewable fuels standards. A different approach could save
175,000 barrels of oil per day by 2013. Weatherizing of homes under
credit enhancements or encouragement or new techniques that some local
and State governments have found very helpful could save 80,000 barrels
per day. Air traffic improvements, just simple improvements in the way
and timing of our airplanes taking off and landing, which can be
increased effectively by additional technologies, could save 50,000
barrels of oil per day. As to reducing truck idling, there are several
new technologies being developed, employing scientists and engineers
and putting Americans to work developing these new kinds of
technologies which make the engines more efficient. They don't have to
idle or, at the idling stage, don't use as much oil. That could save
50,000 barrels of oil a day. Just replacing tires, using our tires and
keeping them filled with air as opposed to flat, new technology
regarding the tires could save money.
The point of this list--and I could go on because I could speak about
30, 40, or 50 known actions that could be taken by the President in
this realm without dictating exactly how the savings would occur--is to
illustrate the plethora of choices where he could go to achieve these
savings.
[[Page S7569]]
The amendment I offer today with Senators Alexander, Bingaman,
Specter, and Collins is a clear and reasonable objective for oil
savings. It will reduce our dependence on oil.
Let me show a couple of examples of the way the President could
achieve these goals, some of which we have already passed on the Senate
floor. Ethanol is now a part of this bill. There were some Members who
disagreed with the ethanol fuels standard. I actually supported, along
with Senator Daschle, Republicans and Democrats, that new standard.
This will save oil consumption in the country. The President would have
that option. In addition, I talked about the tire savings, replacement
tires with the appropriate rules and regulations could save us 270,000
barrels of oil. And finally, the idling engines, this is a visual to
show that with some new technologies to keep our airplanes flying and
spending less time on the ground and more time in the air, which
passengers would appreciate--believe me, as a frequent flier myself, if
we could just keep our airplanes flying and keep them from idling;
there are new technologies helping to do this--we could save oil.
In the past, we have focused the debate on just one way of saving oil
which was directed at our transportation sector. My amendment does not
direct these savings at the transportation sector, although I
acknowledge that the transportation sector is the largest user of oil.
This amendment provides flexibility. It sets a realistic goal that
matches the President's, basically the equivalent of the President's
own goals. And I think it would create, if adopted, a tremendous
balance in the bill because again we have increased opportunities for
production. We have given incentives for more domestic production. But
that has to be coupled with Senator Bingaman's leadership on energy
efficiency and savings to reduce our consumption of oil as we promote
in the appropriate ways over the appropriate timeframe the use of other
alternative sources of energy.
I offer the amendment in good faith. There will be Members who will
speak hopefully for the amendment. Hopefully we can pass it by a good
margin to show we are indeed serious about a balanced energy policy
which promotes in the right ways domestic production but also oil
savings.
I will ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a Business Week
article that had a great impact with me as I read it, ``Taming the Oil
Beast.'' It is time, since the business community realizes we can and
should get smart about oil, that we do so. I think this is a very good
amendment about getting smart about oil because it sets a goal of
reduction, but it gives the President and his departments flexibility
as to how this would work.
I would like to submit that for the Record because it would serve as
a basis for the offering of the amendment today.
I would also like to reference an article by the Concerned Scientists
Association, over 2,000 scientists who have written a paper, very
illustrative, encouraging action on this subject. I say that because
some of our brightest minds, some of the best scientists in the country
are thinking along these lines and fully support this amendment to save
1 million barrels of oil. Perhaps we can save more. I would actually be
open to saving more. If someone wants to offer an additional amendment,
I would consider voting for it. But I am certain this is something we
can accomplish. The President himself outlined this as a goal. The
President's own budget that he laid down cited as a goal the
equivalent, basic goal of what I am offering.
We have voted any number of times in the Senate and have come very
close to reaching this goal. So while some may argue that we should try
to save more, I think this is an amendment that can pass, that can get
us moving in the right direction. I submit both of these from a
business perspective, from an environmental perspective for the Record,
to substantiate the value of the amendment.
I see my colleague from Tennessee on the floor who has probably come
to add his good words as a cosponsor of the amendment.
I ask unanimous consent to print the document I referenced.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From BusinessWeek, Feb. 24, 2003]
Taming the Oil Beast
A sensible, step-by-step energy policy is within our reach--Here's what
to do
American troops are massing outside of Iraq, preparing to
strike against Saddam Hussein. And as war jitters rattle the
world, there's one inevitable effect: a rise in the price of
oil. Crude is up more than 33 percent over the past three
months, climbing to $35 per barrel in the U.S. Economic
models predict that if the price stays high for three months,
it will cut U.S. gross domestic product by $50 billion for
the quarter. If the war goes badly, with Saddam destroying
oil fields in Iraq and elsewhere, or if disaster or unrest
chokes off oil flowing from other countries, the whole
world's economy is in for a major shock.
There's no escaping the consequences of our thirst for oil.
It fuels a vast engine of commerce, carrying our goods around
the nation, taking mom and dad to work, and carting the kids
to soccer practice. As long as the U.S. imports more than 11
million barrels a day--55 percent of our total consumption--
anything from a strike in Venezuela to unrest in the Persian
Gulf hits us hard in the pocketbook. ``We are vulnerable to
any event, anyplace, that affects the supply and demand of
oil,'' says Robert E. Ebel, director of the energy program at
the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS). In a
Feb 6. speech, President Bush put it bluntly: ``It
jeopardizes our national security to be dependent on sources
of energy from countries that don't care for America, what we
stand for, what we love.''
It wasn't supposed to be this way. Remember how Richard
Nixon insisted in 1973 that the nation's future ``will depend
on maintaining and achieving self-sufficiency in energy''? Or
how Jimmy Carter proclaimed in 1979 that ``beginning this
moment, this nation will never again use more foreign oil
than we did in 1977--never.'' Even Ronald Reagan said in 1982
that ``we will ensure that our people and our economy are
never again held hostage by the whim of any country or
cartel.''
How empty those vows seem now, when one nation, Saudi
Arabia, is sitting one the world's largest proved reserves--
265 billion barrels, or 25 percent of the known supplies--and
can send global prices soaring or falling simply by opening
or closing the spigot. For now, the Saudis are our friends.
They are boosting production to keep prices from spiking too
high. But what if Saudi Arabia's internal politics change?
``The entire world economy is built on a bet of how long the
House of Saud can continue,'' says Philip E. Clapp, president
of the National Environmental Trust.
The good news is that we can make a safer bet. And it
doesn't entail a vain rush for energy independence or
emancipation from Middle East oil. Based on interviews with
dozens of economists, oil analysts, environmentalists, and
other energy experts, BusinessWeek has crafted guidelines for
a sensible and achievable energy policy. These measures build
on the positive trends of the past. If implemented, they
would reduce the world's vulnerability to wars in the Middle
East, production snafus in Russia, turmoil around the Caspian
Sea, and other potential disruptions. The plan has the added
benefit of tackling global warming, which many scientists
consider the greatest economic threat of this century.
The energy policy BusinessWeek advocates comes down to six
essential steps. To deal with oil supplies, the U.S. should
diversify purchases around the world and make better use of
strategic petroleum reserves. It must also boost energy
efficiency across the economy, including making dramatic
improvements in the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks. How
do we accomplish this? Nurture new technologies and
alternative energy sources with research dollars and tax
incentives, and consider higher taxes on energy to more
accurately reflect the true costs of using fossil fuels.
Projecting the precise effects of these policies is
impossible, economists warn. But BusinessWeek estimates that,
at a cost of $120 billion to $200 billion over 10 years--less
than the cost to the economy of a major prolonged oil price
rise--it should be possible to raise energy efficiency in the
economy by up to 50 percent and reduce U.S. oil consumption
by more than 3 million barrels a day.
These steps draw on the lessons of history and help
highlight what not to do. Meaningful progress has long been
held up by myths and misconceptions--and by the scores of bad
ideas pushed in the name of energy independence. Remember
``synfuels'' in the 1970s? Today's misguided notions include
trying to turn perfectly good corn into ethanol and rushing
to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge. Indeed,
looking over the past couple of decades, ``my reaction is,
thank God we didn't have an energy policy,'' says David G.
Victor, director of Stanford University's Program on Energy
Sustainable Development. ``The last one had quotas and
rationing, causing lines at the gas pumps and incredible
inefficiencies in the economy.''
One false notion is that making the U.S. self-sufficient--
or doing without Middle Eastern oil--would protect us from
supply cutoffs and price spikes. In fact, oil has become a
fungible world commodity. Even if we cut the umbilical cord
with the Persian Gulf by buying more oil from Canada, Mexico,
or Russia, or by producing more at home, other nations will
simply switch over
[[Page S7570]]
to buy the Middle eastern oil we're shunning. The world oil
price, and the potential for spikes in that price, remains
the same. As long as there are no real oil monopolies, it
doesn't matter so much where we get oil. What really matters
is how much we use. Reducing oil use brings two huge
benefits: Individual countries have less leverage over us,
and, since oil costs are a smaller percentage of the economy,
any price shocks that do occur have a less dramatic effect.
Yet reducing oil use has to be done judiciously. A drastic
or abrupt drop in demand could even be counterproductive.
Why? Because even a very small change in capacity or demand
``can bring big swings in price,'' explains Rajeev Dhawan,
director of the Economic Forecasting Center at Georgia State
University's Robinson College of business. For instance, the
slowdown in Asia in the mid-1990s reduced demand only by
about 1.5 million barrels a day, but it caused oil prices to
plunge to near $10 a barrel. So today, if the U.S. succeeded
in abruptly curbing demand for oil, prices would plummet.
Higher-cost producers such as Russia and the U.S. would
either have to sell oil at a big loss or stand on the
sidelines. The effect would be to concentrate power--you
guessed it--in the hands of Middle Eastern nations, the
lowest-cost producers and holders of two-thirds of the known
oil reserves. That's why flawed energy policies, such as
trying to override market forces by rushing to expand
supplies or mandating big fuel efficiency gains, could do
harm.
The truth is, the post-1970s de facto policy of just
letting the markets work hasn't been all bad. painful oil
shocks brought recessions. But they also touched off a
remarkable increase in the energy efficiency of the U.S.
economy. From the 1930s to the 1970s, America produced about
$750 worth of output per barrel of oil. That number doubled,
to $1,500, by the end of the 1980s. But the progress largely
stopped in the past decade. Now we need policies to continue
those fuel-efficiency gains, without the pain of sudden oil
shocks.
The critical balancing act is reducing oil use without
hurting the economy--or without allowing energy prices to
fall so low that companies and individuals abandon all
efforts to conserve. Successfully walking this tightrope can
bring big gains. The next time we are hit with a spike in the
price of oil, or even of natural gas or electricity, we may
be able to avoid the billions in lost GDP that would
otherwise result. Here are the details:
1. Diversify Oil Supplies
The answer to the supply question is a delicate combination
of technology, market forces, and diplomacy. New tools for
drilling in waters nearly two miles deep, for instance, are
opening up untapped sources in the Atlantic Basin, Canada,
the Caribbean, Brazil, and the entire western coast of
Africa.
That's helping to tip the balance of power among oil
producers. In 1973, the Middle East produced nearly 38
percent of the world's oil. Now, that percentage has dropped
below 30 percent. ``Our policy has been to encourage oil
companies to search for oil outside the U.S. but away from
the Persian Gulf,'' explains CSIS's Ebel. ``It's been rather
successful.''
There's plenty of oil to be tapped. While there are now
about 1 trillion barrels of proved reserves, estimates of
potential reserves keep rising, from 2 trillion barrels in
the early 1980s to more than 3 trillion barrels today.
The Caspian Sea area, for instance, promises proved
reserves of 20 billion barrels to 35 billion barrels--but
could have more than 200 billion barrels. Skeptics argue that
this Caspian resource, surrounded as it is by Iran,
Kazakhstan, Russia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, is a bastion of
instability and could easily become the backdrop for a future
war linked to oil. But history shows that even bad guys are
eager to sell their oil.
If energy policy were only about economics, we might argue
that the world should take advantage of the ample supplies
and relatively cheap prices and just keep consuming at a
rapid rate. But there are additional costs of oil not
included now in the price (step 6). And we have other
important goals, such as doing more to protect the
environment and reducing the political leverage of the Middle
East. Says ExxonMobil Corp. (XOM) Chairman and CEO Lee R.
Raymond: ``The key to security will be found in diversity of
supply.'' In other words, whimsical though it may seem, we
should strive to maintain a Goldilocks price for oil: It
should be high enough to keep companies and countries
investing in oil fields but not so high that it sends the
world into a recessionary tailspin.
2. Use Strategic Reserves
The nation now has 599.3 million barrels stored in
underground salt caverns along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf
Coast. That's enough to replace Iraq's oil production for at
least six months. Yet this stockpile isn't being used
correctly, and it never has been, many experts believe. In
the 1991 Persian Gulf War, ``oil prices were back to the
normal level by the time the U.S. got around to releasing the
strategic petroleum reserve,'' says energy economist W. David
Montgomery of Charles River Associates, Inc. We shouldn't
make that mistake again. With oil prices already up, ``we
should release the stockpile immediately,'' he says.
Other experts argue that the reserve should be used as a
regular hedging tool rather than being saved for extreme
emergencies, which so far have never materialized. One idea:
Allow companies to contract with the government to take out
barrels of oil when they want to--as long as they agree to
replace it later, along with a bit extra. That way, this big
store of oil would smooth out glitches in supply and demand
while also taking away some of OPEC's power to manipulate the
market. There are similar reserves in Europe, Japan, and
South Korea--for a total of 4 billion barrels, including
the U.S.--that should be used in this way as well. And by
making the reserves bigger, we gain more leverage to
dampen the shocks.
3. Boost Industrial Efficiency
After decades of concern over energy prices and the big
improvement in the overall energy efficiency of America's
economy, you would think that U.S. companies would be hard-
pressed to find new gains. ``In my experience, the facts are
otherwise,'' says Judith Bayer, director of environmental
government affairs at United Technologies Corp. (UTX) UT
discovered savings of $100,000 in just one facility by
turning off computer monitors at night. ``People talk about
low-hanging fruit--picking up a dollar on the floor in
savings here and there,'' Bayer says. ``We picked up
thousands off the ground. It's embarrassing that we didn't do
it earlier.''
Just last year, Salisbury (N.C.)-based Food Lion cut its
energy consumption by 5 percent by using sensors to turn off
lights in bathrooms and loading-dock areas and by installing
better-insulating freezer doors. ``The project saves millions
a year,'' says Food Lion's energy-efficiency expert, Rick
Heithold.
Even companies with strong efficiency track records are
doing more. 3M Corp. (MMM) has cut use of energy per unit of
output by 60 percent since the Arab oil embargo--but is still
improving at about 4 percent a year. One recent innovation:
adjustable-speed factory motors that don't require energy-
sapping brakes. The efficiency gains ``help us reduce our
operating costs and our emissions--and the impact that sudden
price increases have on our businesses,'' says 3M energy
manager Steven Schultz.
Last year, the New York Power Authority put in a digitally
controlled power electronics system--essentially, a large
garage packed with semiconductor switches and computers--in a
substation that handles electric power coming in from Canada
and northern and western New York. Along with conventional
improvements, this vastly improved the system's ability to
manage power. The state now has the capacity to transfer 192
more megawatts of available electricity, or enough to power
about 192,000 homes.
The nation's entire antiquated electricity grid should be
refashioned into a smart, responsive, flexible, and digitally
controlled network. That would reduce the amount of energy
required to produce $1 of GDP by 30 percent and save the
country $100 billion a year, estimates Kurt E. Yeager, CEO of
the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). It would
eliminate the need to build dozens of power plants, cut
carbon emissions, and slash the cost of power disruptions,
which run about $120 billion a year. Such a network would
also break down existing barriers to hooking up new sources
of power to the grid, from solar roofs on thousands of houses
to small, efficient heat and power generators at businesses.
And soon, it will be possible to rack up big efficiency gains
by switching to industrial and home lights made from light-
emitting diodes (LEDs), which can use less than one-tenth the
energy of incandescent bulbs.
These are exciting developments, but what do they have to
do with oil? The answer lies in the idea of fungible energy:
Eliminate the need for a power plant running on natural gas,
and that fuel becomes available for everything from home
heating to a source of hydrogen for fuel-cell vehicles. A
subset of the nation's energy policy, therefore, should be
doubling Federal R&D dollars over the next five years to
explore technologies that can boost energy efficiency,
provide new sources of power, and, at the same time, address
the problem of global warming.
4. Raise Car and Truck MPG
To make a real dent in oil consumption, the U.S. must
tackle transportation. The numbers here dwarf everything
else, accounting for a full two-thirds of the 20 million
barrels of oil of oil the U.S. uses each day. And after
rising from 15 miles per gallon in 1975 to 25.9 mpg in 1988,
the average fuel economy of our vehicles has slipped to 24
mpg, dragged down by gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks.
Boost that to 40 mpg, and oil savings will top 2 million
barrels a day within 10 years.
Detroit says that's too high a goal. But the technology
already exists to get there. In early January, General Motors
Corp. (GM) rolled out ``hybrid'' SUVs that use a combination
of gas-engine and electric motors to bump fuel economy by 15
percent to 50 percent. That same technology is already on the
road. Honda Motor Co.'s (HMC) hybrid Civic and Toyota Motor
Corp.'s (TM) Prius, both big enough to carry four adults and
their cargo, each top 45 mpg in combined city and highway
driving.
Adding batteries and an electric motor to vehicles is just
one of many ways to increase gas mileage. Researchers can
also improve the efficiency of combustion, squeezing more
power out of a given amount of fuel. In an approach called
variable valve timing, they can adjust the opening and
closing of an engine's intake and exhaust valves. Such
engines, made by Honda, BMW, and others, are
[[Page S7571]]
more efficient without sacrificing power. Researchers are now
working on digitally controlled valves whose timing can be
adjusted even more precisely. The gains? Well over 10 percent
in many cases.
More improvement comes from reducing the power sapped by
transmissions. So-called continuously variable transmissions
eliminate individual gears so that engines can spend more
time running at their most efficient speed. And auto makers
can build clean-burning diesel engines, which are 20 percent
to 40 percent more efficient than their gas counterparts.
Estimates vary widely on what it would cost to raise gas
mileage to 40 mpg or higher for the entire U.S. fleet of
cars. Assuming a combination of technologies, we figure the
tab could be $1,000 to $2,000 per car, or $80 billion to $160
billion over 10 years. That's less than fuel savings alone
over the life of the new vehicles. Carmakers already have the
technology. What we need now are policies, ranging from
higher gasoline prices to tougher fuel-economy standards,
that will give manufacturers and consumers incentives to make
and buy these vehicles.
The ultimate gas-saving technology would be a switch to a
completely different fuel, such as hydrogen. Toyota, Honda,
and GM already are testing cars that use fuel cells to power
electric motors. Such vehicles are quiet, create no air
pollution, and emit none of the carbon dioxide linked with
global warming. They also are expensive, and 10 to 20 years
away from the mass market.
There's one other problem: Where would the hydrogen come
from? The element must now be extracted from gas, water, or
other substances at relatively high cost. But there are
intriguing ideas for lowering the tab, such as genetically
engineering bacteria to make the gas or devising more
efficient ways to get it from coal. We need a strong research
program to explore these ideas, plus incentives to test fuel-
cell technology in power plants and vehicles. President
Bush's $1.2 billion hydrogen initiative is just a start.
5. Nurture Renewable Energy
Tim Grieves shares a vision with a growing number of energy
giants: harnessing the wind to generate cheap, clean power.
The superintendent of schools in Spirit Lake, Iowa, Grieves
has overseen the installation of two wind turbines that hum
away in a field not far from his office. They generate enough
juice to allow Spirit Lake to proudly call itself the only
electrically self-sufficient school district in the nation.
``We're not dependent on the Middle East,'' says Grieves.
``This is just smarter.''
Although less than 0.5 percent of our power now comes from
wind, it's the cheapest and fastest-growing source of green
energy. The American Wind Energy Assn. believes the U.S.
could easily catch up with Northern Europe, where wind
supplies up to 20 percent of power. In the U.S., that's the
equivalent of 100,000 megawatts of capacity--or more than 100
large fossil-fueled plants. The Great Plains could become
the Middle East of wind.
Without tax credits and other incentives, wind power
couldn't flourish. but oil and other fossil fuels also have
big subsidies. So we should either eliminate those or provide
reasonable incentives for alternatives such as wind, solar,
and hydrogen. Even if the new sources still cost more than
today's power, continued innovation, spurred by the
incentives, will lower the price. Moreover, having some
electricity produced by wind turbines and solar panels helps
insulate us from spikes in natural-gas prices. Some states
now require that a percentage of power come from renewable
sources. We should consider this nationwide, with a target of
perhaps 15 percent, up from the current 6 percent.
6. Phase in Fuel Taxes
The main reason fuel-efficiency gains in the U.S. slowed in
the 1990s is that the cost of oil--and energy in general--was
so low. ``Yes, we are energy hogs, but we became energy hogs
because the price is cheap,'' says Georgia State's Dhawan.
Even though it seems like the market is working in this
regard, it really isn't. There's widespread agreement that
the current price of oil doesn't reflect its true cost to the
economy. ``What Americans need to know is that the cost of
gasoline is much more than $1.50 a gallon,'' says Gal Luft of
the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. But the
invisible hand could work its magic if we include costs of
so-called externalities, such as pollution or the tab for
fighting wars in the Middle East. That would raise the price,
stimulating new energy-efficiency measures and the use of
renewable fuels.
The tricky part is pricing these externalities. Some
economists peg it at 5 cents to 10 cents a gallon of gas.
Others see the true cost as double or triple the current
price. Just by adding in the more than $100 billion cost of
having troops and fighting wars in the Persian Gulf,
California State University economist Darwin C. Hall figures
that oil should cost at least $13 per barrel more. ``That is
an absolutely rock-bottom, lowball estimate,'' he says. More
dollars come from adding in numbers for the costs of air
pollution, oil spills, and global warming.
Imagine, though, that in an ideal world, we could settle on
the size of the externalities--maybe $10 per barrel. We
obviously don't want to suddenly slap a $10 tax on oil. Doing
so would slice more than $50 billion out of GDP and send the
economy into a recession, forecasters calculate.
But phasing it in slowly, over 10 years, would give the
economy time to adopt fuel-efficiency measures at the lowest
costs. We should also consider additional taxes on gasoline,
since a $10-per-barrel price rise amounts to only about 25
cents per gallon of gas--not enough to make a big change in
buying habits. This approach works even better if the revenue
from these taxes is returned to the economy in a way that
stimulates growth and productivity--by lowering payroll
taxes, for example. Plus, there are big environmental
benefits from reduced pollution.
There's a fierce debate about whether the economy gains or
loses from such tax-shifting. Many economists agree, however,
that the bad effects would be relatively small. ``There may
not be a free lunch, but there is almost certainly a lunch
worth paying for,'' says Stanford economist Lawrence H.
Goulder.
If energy taxes prove politically impossible, there's
another way to achieve realistic fossil-fuel prices: through
the back door of climate-change policy. Already, Europe is
toying with carbon taxes to fight global warming and
multinationals are experimenting with carbon-trading schemes
to get a jump on any future restrictions. Even Republicans
such as Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) are pushing curbs on
carbon dioxide. If the U.S. put its weight behind efforts to
fight climate change, it could help push the entire world
toward lower emissions--and moderately higher oil prices.
The best approach: a combination of carbon taxes and a
cap-and-trade system, wherein companies can trade the
right to emit. That way, the market helps find the
greatest reductions at the lowest cost. Economists figure
that a $100-per-ton tax on carbon emissions, for example,
would equal a rise of 30 cents in the cost of a gallon of
gas.
Under the Bush Administration, this too, may be difficult
to enact. What's left are regulations and mandates. There may
be just enough political will to boost CAFE (corporate
average fuel efficiency) standards for vehicles--and to
remove the loopholes that hold SUVs to a lower standard. But
we need a smarter rule than the current one.
One good idea: give companies whose cars and trucks do
better than the fuel-economy target credits that they could
sell to an auto maker whose fleet isn't efficient enough.
That way, ``good'' companies such as Honda are strongly
motivated to keep improving technology. By being smarter
about regulations and mandates, ``we could do a lot better
than what we are doing now,'' explains Stanford professor
James L. Sweeney.
If we implement these policies, here's what we'll get: A
reduction in projected levels of oil consumption equal to 3
million barrels a day or more within 10 years. That means we
could choose not to import from unfriendly countries
(although they will happily sell their oil to others). In
addition, oil-price shocks should be fewer and smaller,
allowing us to avoid some of those $50 billion (or more) hits
to GDP. A more fuel-efficient economy will free up oil for
countries such as China and India, notes Platts Global
Director of Oil John Kingston. And the technologies we
develop will help those economies become more efficient.
Economists will argue about the costs of these measures.
But the benefits of greater energy efficiency and reduced
vulnerability should, over the long run, outweigh the $120
billion (or more) cost of getting there. Painful though they
were, the oil shocks of the 1970s sent the U.S. down the road
toward a more energy-efficient--and less vulnerable--economy.
Our task now is to find a smoother path to continue that
journey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. The Senator from Iowa has been waiting for a while. I
would like to set the vote for the Dorgan amendment if I may, and then
I would be glad to yield to the Senator from Iowa to let him make his
remarks. Then I would like as a cosponsor to speak in support of the
amendment of the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that that be the case, that Senator
Harkin be recognized followed by the Senator from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, pursuant to the order of last night, I
ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the Dorgan amendment
No. 865 occur at 11:30 today with two minutes equally divided prior to
the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I will not object, I would
hope that we could also line up the Senator from Louisiana to have her
vote in a reasonably short period of time. She has indicated she thinks
there may be a number of others who wish to speak in favor of the
amendment. We would hope we could move on to that. We want to get to
the Wyden amendment. There is an order in effect that would set up 2
hours on that amendment. Senator Wyden will be ready immediately after
the caucus. He would have
[[Page S7572]]
been ready this morning. He would be ready after the caucus to move on
that. I hope we can get do that amendment right after the caucus and
dispose of this even prior to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Louisiana is
recognized.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, I have a question. Does
the Senator think it would be possible to do that before lunch? I think
my colleague would probably only need 30 minutes for our debate,
equally divided between the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from
Maine.
Mr. REID. I hope that will be the case. Until Senator Domenici gets
here, we cannot agree to that.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, will the Chair please state the unanimous
consent now before us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote in relation to the Dorgan amendment
will take place at 11:30, with 2 minutes of debate.
Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first, briefly, the Dorgan amendment to
put 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles on the road by 2010 and 2.5
million by 2020, with the requisite fueling infrastructure, is one that
is going to help grow our economy, make our economy stronger. The
amendment by Senator Landrieu and others to cut down on the use of oil
by a million barrels a day also is going to help improve our economy by
making us focus on things such as ethanol, for example, alternative
fuels, renewable energy and, of course, along with the Dorgan
amendment, fuel cell vehicles. It all has to do with making us more
energy independent, and that has to do with growing our economy. The
more we continue to send our hard-earned dollars out of the country for
the energy we need, the less dollars we are going to have to rebuild
our economy here at home.
Yesterday, I attended a hearing Senator Dorgan had that was devoted
to the question of our economy. The question was: Will the Bush
economic plan create jobs?
Well, I think throughout the hearing what became clear was that the
Bush economic plan will not create jobs, unfortunately. The plan
advocated by the majority rewards their friends and supporters with
large tax cuts but will do very little to create jobs. Many respected
economists warned of this months ago, but Republicans and the
administration paid them no heed.
Unfortunately, it is not only experts who believe this prediction;
history gives the same warning. These trickle-down economic policies
have been tried before, and they have failed before. In 1981, Congress
passed massive tax cuts for the rich, just like we did here. Then
Director of OMB David Stockman called it a ``riverboat gamble.''
Well, it was a gamble. Within 2 years, following the 1981 supply
side, trickle-down tax bill, we lost 1.4 million jobs. In 2001, the
Bush administration tried it again. They passed the first round of
massive tax cuts. And guess what. We lost 2 million jobs. As all major
newspapers reported this weekend, the national unemployment rate is now
at 6.1 percent, its highest level in 9 years.
Despite these two previous losing gambles, the President and the
majority party in Congress decided to give it a third try last month. I
think we ought to call the tax bill that was passed and sent to the
President the ``Bill Bennett betting bill'' because it is going to have
the same effect on our country that Bill Bennett's gambling addiction
had on him. It cost him, as I understand it, lost millions. It is going
to cost our economy lost billions.
But in the midst of it all, the wealthiest Americans will have
massive tax breaks. In fact, on average, those Americans making over $1
million a year are going to receive a tax cut of $93,000 a year. They
are going to have a great time. Unfortunately, who is going to pay the
bill? Well, it will be paid by the rest of us, especially the younger
generation--those now going through college, going out to make their
way in life. They will be saddled with a huge, new debt.
As pointed out on the editorial pages of the Des Moines Register this
weekend, these irresponsible policies will create pressure for higher
State and local taxes, tuition hikes at State colleges and
universities, rising health care costs to those lucky enough to have
insurance, and further cuts to important initiatives.
The wealthiest in America got more than their share under this tax
bill, but the folks in the middle class pay the bills. By contrast, the
United States took a fiscally responsible approach in the 1990s. In
1993, Congress passed a budget to grow the economy, create jobs. In the
2 years following that passage, 6.4 million jobs were created. That
plan put us on a path not only toward the lowest levels of unemployment
in memory, but also to balanced budgets, the largest projected budget
surpluses ever.
I find it most remarkable and disheartening that at the very time
when it is obvious that economic policies should seek to stimulate
demand, stimulate new jobs, the majority party opposes those things
that would stimulate the economy the most, such as increasing the child
credit for working families making under $26,000 a year.
Well, the Democratic priority may yet prevail, as it did in the
Senate last week. I hope it does. But further stimulus, such as putting
people directly to work, building new schools, roads, and bridges,
communications systems, upgrading our water and our waste water
systems, making sure we weatherize homes all over America, will also
save us on imported fuel. These are the things we can do now that will
put people to work now. But the majority party says no.
I also fear that their policies will lead to exploding Government
debt. On the same day we passed this ``Bill Bennett betting bill''--
that is what I call the tax bill--the debt limit was increased by an
amount equivalent to putting an additional $3,500 on the credit card of
every man, woman, and child in America--$3,500 on the credit card of
every man, woman, and child in America--to pay for this ``Bill Bennett
betting bill.''
Most of us are aware that the real cost to the Treasury of this
recent tax cut will be higher than advertised because the bill used
gimmicks and tricks to stay within some nominal budget limit. The
Speaker of the House was quoted as saying the real cost will be a
trillion dollars, at a time when our exploding deficit is approaching
$500 billion for this year alone. Well, with typical British clarity,
the Financial Times wrote on May 23, the day the tax bill passed: On
the management of fiscal policy, the lunatics are now in charge of the
asylum.
The result, as this administration is well aware, is that it will put
pressure on Social Security and Medicare. These programs are targeted
by the administration for reforms, which means privatizing Medicare and
Social Security. We are going to have a debate here, I assume, in the
Senate in the coming weeks on how we are going to provide prescription
drug benefits under Medicare. But as I see the Medicare bill
progressing and developing, it is nothing more than a shell, a
subterfuge to move toward the privatization of Medicare, which, of
course, has been the Republican Party's dream for many years. Don't
take my word for it. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said
Medicare ought to wither on the vine. The third ranking Republican in
the Senate, my friend from Pennsylvania, said the Medicare benefit
should be phased out.
So make no mistake, when we are debating the Medicare bill coming up,
we have to get out of the weeds. What they are really talking about is
taking the first step toward privatizing Medicare. The President's own
press secretary was quoted in the story:
There is no question that Social Security and Medicare are
going to present future generations with a crushing debt
burden unless policymakers work seriously to reform those
programs.
You pass a tax cut for the richest in the country that the Speaker
says is going to cost us a trillion dollars, and then you say we are
going to have a lot of pressure on Social Security and Medicare because
the money will not be there for them, so now we have to reform them,
which is their way of saying privatize them. I hope we now understand
the picture: A tax cut for the wealthiest, huge debts for the rest,
immense pressure on Social Security and Medicare; therefore, you have
to privatize them; turn them over to Wall Street. That is where we are
heading.
[[Page S7573]]
Exploding deficits and the debt will act like a cap on our economy.
It will increase interest rates when the economy does begin to recover.
It will undermine confidence. We need to create jobs in the short term,
but we need to do it in a way that is fiscally responsible, to take
care and protect the retirement security and health needs of seniors.
We need to change course. The course set by this administration will
only lead to further deficits, further debts piling up on our kids and
grandkids, economic stagnation, importing more oil from abroad--which
is why I am such a strong supporter of the Landrieu amendment and the
Dorgan amendment.
I am afraid the administration may be opposed to these amendments,
just as they are opposed to a sound rational means of getting our
economy moving again. As I said, the Federal Government can be a great
instrument, doing it in a fiscally responsible manner that actually
provides the basis for further private sector growth in our country.
I was listening to former Congressman Jack Kemp, an old friend of
mine of long standing, go on and on about how we need to make sure we
have more money in the private sector for investments. I understand
that, and that is a legitimate argument, but what about the need for
societal investments? What about the need for investing in human
capital? What about the need for investing in education? You can give
all the tax breaks you want to the richest in this country and the
corporations. Are they going to turn around and invest in higher
teacher pay, better teacher training? Are they going to invest in
rebuilding and modernizing schools all over America? There is no return
on that capital, at least not in the short term and not in a way that
would accrue to the bottom line of a company.
As we all know, that kind of an investment accrues to our national
economy. Rebuilding our schools all over America--this is something
that is estimated to be in the neighborhood of $180 billion. Think of
the jobs it would create. When you give someone an extra dollar for
consumption right now in our society, they may buy a new shirt, but
that shirt may be made in Malaysia, Thailand, or India. They may buy a
new TV set, but that TV set sure is not made in America, or a stereo
not made in America. They may buy a new car. Maybe that car is not made
in America. To be sure, some of that money does fall out in this
country because we have people selling those items, storing them, and
shipping them. But the bulk of it could go outside the country.
If, however, you make a societal investment in building a new school,
all of the workers are in America. Almost all of the materials used
from the lighting to the heating to the wallboard to the sheetrock--
everything, building materials--almost all, I would not say all--almost
all are made in America. Not only do you put people to work, you build
something of a lasting nature that provides for a strong foundation for
the private sector in America.
Take the issue of weatherization. We could save huge amounts of oil
and natural gas each year simply by weatherizing homes, and I do not
mean just in the North where it gets cold, but I mean in the South
where it gets hot in the summertime. Guess what, these are not jobs
that take a lot of training. These are jobs we could fill with
unemployed people right now. We can put them to work weatherizing homes
all over America.
What do we get? We get immediate job creation. We use materials
basically that are made in this country. And we get something out of it
that is going to help us: more fuel-efficient homes of low-income
people who will not be using their money to pay high heating bills or
cooling bills to pay for imported oil.
Yet, for some strange reason, we cannot seem to do that here. But,
boy, we can sure give billions in tax breaks to the wealthiest in our
society.
I will have more to say about this in the weeks ahead. There is
another pathway--that is my point--there is another pathway to economic
growth and jobs in our country, to which this administration has turned
a blind eye, by investing in the veins and arteries--the roads and
bridges, the highways, the sewer and water systems, the schools, the
education, the scientific research, the mathematical research, the
physics research, the chemistry research, the medical research--that
will set the stage for future economic growth and prosperity in our
country.
That will not come about by giving more tax breaks to the wealthy or
business tax breaks. It comes about by us in the Congress of the United
States fulfilling our responsibility to pass tax bills and energy bills
that are responsible, that are commonsense, and that will lay this kind
of secure foundation for the future. That is why I support the Landrieu
amendment so strongly, because it will start to do that, and so will
the Dorgan amendment that has been set aside. These are commonsense
approaches. These are the programs we should be doing for our economy.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I stand to
congratulate the Senator from Louisiana and join with her as a
cosponsor of her amendment. She and I are members of the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee. We are very proud of what our chairman and
ranking member have done this year in taking a diverse array of
opinions and coming up with a very good bill with a very good amount of
bipartisan consensus.
There is consensus about supporting a diverse array of energy
sources. The Energy bill, which the Senators from New Mexico have led
us to fashion, encourages hydrogen fuel cell cars in the economy. It
encourages renewable energy. It encourages clean coal. It encourages
oil and gas. And it encourages nuclear power.
What I think it is important we also do is make sure we encourage
conservation, and to do that in a way that puts conservation high on
the list of priorities. It is a low-cost way to have more energy. It is
a no-pollution way to have more energy.
In my way of thinking, the Senator from Louisiana has come up with a
sensible approach. It also helps to have the President involved. When
the President said, let's build a hydrogen fuel cell car, he was not
the first to say that, but everybody heard it when he said it and it
gave a lot of impetus to the work on hydrogen that had been going on in
this body from both sides of the aisle.
So the Senator's idea is to reduce our petroleum import dependence by
having the President come up with a plan to conserve oil throughout our
economy, not just in transportation but throughout the economy; to
reduce our total demand by a million barrels per day by 2013. By my
computation, that would cause us to reduce that by about 5 percent by
2013.
We ought to be able to do that. We ought to be able to go ahead with
nuclear powerplants, with all the gas explorations. We ought to be able
to go ahead with renewable energies and coal gasification. We ought to
conserve at the same time.
Just one example. The Senator from Iowa was mentioning weatherizing
homes. That is one good way, if we paid more attention to it. Another
good way is idling trucks. Truckers who are so frequent on our highways
often idle their trucks in order to keep their air-conditioner and all
the other services going that they have in the truck. There are
companies that permit the truckers now to turn off their truck and to
plug in a device and by doing that enabling operation of the appliances
they have but they do not pollute the air at the same time. It is such
a simple idea that we would hope any one of us could have thought of
that but, in fact, having the President develop a plan that will focus
on reducing our consumption of oil by 2013 would include such ideas as
weatherizing homes, as encouraging truckers not to idle, keeping tires
properly inflated. These may seem to be small ideas but they can add
up, we suggest, to a million barrels per day by the year 2013.
I congratulate the Senator from Louisiana on what I think is a
commonsense, reasonable approach to add conservation to our arsenal of
activities, to give it a higher profile in this bill, and I am glad to
join in cosponsoring her amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
[[Page S7574]]
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I, too, am pleased to join my colleagues,
Senators Landrieu, Specter, Bingaman, and Alexander, in offering this
amendment to reduce our consumption of oil by a million barrels a day
by the year 2013. This is a very reasonable and achievable goal, and I
congratulate the Senator from Louisiana for coming up with this
initiative and reaching out to those of us who share her concern that
our Nation is too dependent on foreign oil.
Increasing energy efficiency is the single most effective way to
reduce our reliance on foreign oil. Without a greater focus on energy-
efficiency measures, the Energy legislation before us, which has many
valuable provisions, will not be effective in reducing our dependence
on foreign oil. As long as we continue to guzzle foreign oil, we will
be at the mercy of those nations that control that oil. We are already
nearly 60-percent reliant on foreign sources, and the Energy
Information Administration projects that our dependence will increase
to 70 percent by the year 2010 if we do not act. If we do not do more
to improve the energy efficiency standards, America will only grow more
dependent on foreign oil and the price of gas and home heating oil will
only rise accordingly.
Our amendment would help to reduce oil consumption by a million
barrels a day by the year 2013. It would do so by giving the President
the flexibility to decide among any number of simple energy saving
measures to achieve these savings. For example, simply weatherizing
homes which use home heating oil could save 80,000 barrels of oil per
day. Using energy-efficient engine oil could save another 100,000
barrels per day. Just keeping our tires on our automobiles properly
inflated could save 200,000 barrels per day. In short, by taking a few
easily adopted measures, we could reduce our consumption of oil by a
million barrels a day.
We currently use about 19 million barrels a day. So this would make a
real difference. It would result in a reduction of consumption of
imported oil. Reducing our consumption by 1 million barrels per day
will also help to keep energy prices down and will keep billions of
American dollars at home where they belong. In fact, this proposal we
have advanced could save American consumers upwards of $20 billion each
year.
I call upon my colleagues to join us today in supporting our
commonsense measure to reduce our reliance on foreign oil by reducing
our consumption of oil by a million barrels a day. It is right for our
environment. It is right for our economy. It is right for the American
consumer.
I yield the floor.
amendment no. 865
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry: Am I correct that there will be
a vote on the Dorgan amendment at 11:30?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask to speak to that amendment until
11:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have already agreed to 2 minutes of debate
equally divided at 11:28 so we can vote, but the time until 11:28 is
available so the Senator has the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have already spoken, as have Senator
Alexander and others, against this amendment. By being against the
amendment, it does not mean we are in any way in derogation of the
efforts by the distinguished Senator, Mr. Dorgan, in his efforts to
pursue a hydrogen economy for the United States, in his efforts to move
forward with the hydrogen cell and with the hydrogen car. I compliment
him for that.
His amendment, which says we should move ahead with certain quotas,
with specific amounts, with goals, with mandatory achievements, should
not be done. It would not be of any benefit.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes of time equally divided on the Dorgan amendment.
Who yields time? The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. This amendment is very simple. It establishes timelines
and targets: 100,000 vehicles on the road by 2010, 2\1/2\ million by
the year 2020. It is not a mandate, it is not enforceable, but at least
it sets targets that we aspire to achieve. The opposition would say,
well, let's just throw money at the Department of Energy and hope
something good comes of it. That is not the way to address this issue,
in my judgment.
I know my colleague complimented me but the greatest compliment, of
course, would be voting for my amendment. What is disappointing is that
this amendment passed the Senate by unanimous voice vote a year and a
half ago. This amendment has already been embraced by the Senate. I am
disappointed that it will not be passed by a voice vote today because
if we are, in fact, going to move toward a hydrogen fuel cell future,
we need to think big and bold. Then we ought to set some targets and
have some aspirations and say to the Department of Energy, here is
three-plus billion dollars and, by the way, this is what we would like
to see achieved with that money. We would really like to see these
goals achieved--not mandates, just strategic goals.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I compliment the Senator but I cannot vote for his
amendment. This committee has added to the $1.3 billion proposal by the
President for the hydrogen car, $1.6 billion suggested by the Senator
from North Dakota and others on that side.
The issue is whether we want to add to the bill a target that we have
100,000 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in the United States by 2010. I
respectfully suggest that is a wild guess. I drove a $2 million Ford
hydrogen car around the block in Washington. I did that, I believe the
Senator and several others did, and it costs $2 million to make the
car. It actually works. We drove around and got so excited we came up
on the Senate floor and put into law that we ought to have 100,000 of
them by the year 2010. It is not mandatory.
It reminded me, as I mentioned yesterday, my friends were guessing
wrong about the facts technology. I respectfully will vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired. The question is on
agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. 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. DORGAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the
roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 32, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 212 Leg.]
YEAS--67
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--32
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Chambliss
Cochran
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dole
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Inhofe
Kyl
[[Page S7575]]
Lott
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Shelby
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
NOT VOTING--1
Edwards
The amendment (No. 865) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Amendment No. 871
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
until 12:15 be equally divided in the usual form for debate in relation
to the Landrieu-Domenici amendment; provided, further, that at 12:15
the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to that amendment, with no
second degrees in order to the amendment prior to the vote; and,
finally, that following the vote the Senate stand in recess under the
previous order.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would
like incorporated in the unanimous consent request 5 minutes. This
amendment was offered as the Landrieu-Specter amendment.
Mr. REID. No objection.
Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection.
Mr. President, I add 5 minutes to the time in the request, with the
Senator from Pennsylvania having that 5 minutes. The vote would occur
at 12:20.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I am sorry, we did not know that, I say to the Senator.
We would have asked you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking
member.
Mr. President, the amendment is at the desk. We will be voting
shortly on the Landrieu-Domenici-Specter-Alexander-Bingaman-Collins-
Schumer-Feingold oil savings amendment. It is a very reasonable
approach to an extremely serious problem. That problem is, unless we
make some adjustments--and the time to make those adjustments is now--
to our policy regarding the consumption of oil, we will be seriously
increasing, as opposed to decreasing, our dependence on foreign oil and
hurting the American economy and taxing American citizens and
businesses unnecessarily.
The amendment has been developed by many of us--Democrats and
Republicans--and it is based on lots of good work. Two issues I pointed
out earlier this morning in the debate are in a lengthy article
recently published by Business Week--not a liberal magazine by any
stretch, a middle-of-the-road business organization that argues that we
need to get smart about oil.
As a Senator from an oil-producing State, let me say I agree 100
percent. We like to produce oil. We are proud to produce oil. But we
know it is in the interest of our State in the short, intermediate, and
long run to have greater supply, a diversity of supply of fuels, and
not be overreliant. Why? Because it puts our economy, our industrial
base at risk.
I also mentioned earlier today the statement by the Union of
Concerned Scientists, over 60,000 scientists and citizens working
together to come up with some proposals for reducing our dependence on
oil, and they are clearly outlined in these articles and these papers.
What this amendment simply does--submitted on behalf of those I
mentioned--is give the President all the flexibility he needs in his
administration but to reach very specific goals. This amendment, when
adopted, will save 1 million barrels of oil a day by the year 2013,
which is equivalent to the President's own goals, but it will put this
in law in the underlying Energy bill.
I propose this amendment to the Senate for its careful consideration
and hope we will get a broad vote.
Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania would like to add some
remarks, as well as other cosponsors who may be in the Chamber.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to be the original,
principal cosponsor, along with Senator Landrieu, on the Landrieu-
Specter-Bingaman-Collins amendment. I am pleased to see that now the
Senate is on the verge of taking a significant step, albeit a modest
one, on petroleum conservation, a step long overdue in this country.
Last year, I cosponsored, along with Senator Carper, an amendment
which would have targeted reduction in oil consumption, and it was
defeated on a tabling motion 57 to 42. A few days ago, I introduced S.
1169, which was a repeat of the Carper-Specter amendment. And today I
am pleased to join with Senator Landrieu on a broader amendment which
goes for reduction of oil dependency beyond transportation but calls on
the President to set a standard for reduction of oil by 1 million
barrels a day from a projected use of some 24 million barrels.
This is a significant step, albeit a modest one. It is a first step.
But it is very important for the United States that we reduce our
dependence on foreign oil for many reasons. First of all, simply
stated, we use too much foreign oil. Secondly, we are dependent upon
the OPEC countries, especially upon Saudi Arabia, and it has an effect
on influencing our foreign policies in ways which may well be
undesirable. There have been very serious charges as to the Saudis on
sponsoring al-Qaida and sponsoring terrorism. There is much yet that
has to be proved on that subject, but we should not be tied to or
dependent upon any nation, especially Saudi Arabia.
The dependence on foreign oil results in a tremendous amount of our
imbalance on foreign trade, with oil imports now accounting for one-
third of the Nation's trade deficit which exceeded $400 billion in the
year 2001.
There is much we could do to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil.
I am pleased to report on a $100 million grant by the Department of
Energy to a plant in Pottsville, PA; a $612 million plant which will
turn sludge into high-octane fuel is now moving forward. We have
tremendous coal resources in this country, some 20 billion tons of
bituminous coal alone in Pennsylvania, 7 billion tons of anthracite,
and coal across this country which can be turned, with clean coal
technology, into reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
I am pleased to see the distinguished Senator from New Mexico,
chairman of the Energy Committee, is now cosponsoring this amendment so
that what you have, although slightly different than last year on a
tabling at 57 to 42, is an amendment gaining very substantial momentum.
That is a very good sign for conservation, a very good sign for the
future of the American economy, and a very good sign for environmental
protection.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as an original
cosponsor of what we are going to call the Landrieu-Domenici amendment.
I note the presence of Senator Alexander who was one of the original
Senators who spoke to this matter on the floor. I hope in the remaining
time he gets a chance to speak. Let me say there are a lot of people
who come up with new formulas, attempt to set new formulas on
automobiles, on the mileage that cars will have, and the like. None of
them seem to work, and none of them seem to get through this body. This
is an ingenious idea of my friend from Louisiana who has been extremely
helpful in getting an Energy bill passed. I think when we pass it in a
few weeks, and we will, she can take a great deal of pleasure in
knowing that much of it was due to her interest, enthusiasm, and
support.
I hope we will vote for it unanimously, saying to our President, find
ways to do this. I believe it is the best way for the Senate to handle
it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from
Kentucky.
Ms. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be listed as a
cosponsor of the Landrieu amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. How much more time remains under the unanimous consent?
[[Page S7576]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I would like to have 1 minute to close and then turn to
one of the original cosponsors, the Senator from Tennessee, who may
want to add. Let me again thank the chairman and ranking member for
their able help because without their support, this amendment would not
have been possible. We worked on many different approaches, several
different drafts. Finally, we did come upon a way that sets a very
clear goal.
I would agree with Senator Specter, it is somewhat modest, but it is
a compromise. It is a clear goal. It is an attainable goal. It is a
reachable goal. It gives the President and the administration the
flexibility they need to do it in a way that is most helpful to this
economy. It will create jobs, reduce taxes that people pay because of
the price of oil and energy, and it gives the flexibility necessary to
come up with a smart approach to this very serious problem.
I yield to my friend from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana. We
should not pass an Energy bill that does not put conservation up on the
platform along with our encouragement of nuclear power, oil
exploration, and hydrogen fuel cell; all of that is important. And this
amendment by the Senator and various cosponsors makes it clear to the
country that commonsense ways to conserve oil are equally important in
our arsenal of having an economy that is less dependent on foreign oil
and in a better position to produce clean air.
I am proud to join as a cosponsor. I congratulate the Senator and
congratulate our chairman for being able to move this bill forward with
such a bipartisan consensus.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield back the time I have. I might
say to Senators, we tried very hard to get the vote within 15 minutes
last time. I was asked by a number of Senators to please try to do that
on the votes. I have no authority to say that will be the rule, but as
the floor manager, we have a 15-minute rollcall vote on this amendment.
It is a simple one. It is not too hard to find your way to the floor. I
trust that in 15 minutes we will have disposed of this.
In the meantime, before that occurs, I ask unanimous consent that
when the Senate convenes at 2:15, the pending amendment be set aside
and that Senator Wyden be recognized to offer the nuclear commercial
plant amendment under the debate limitation which was agreed to last
week.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is agreeing to amendment No. 871.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 213 Leg.]
YEAS--99
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--1
Kyl
The amendment (No. 871) was agreed to.
____________________