[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 1 (Thursday, January 4, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S19-S21]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          NATIONAL ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT SECURITY ACT OF 2007

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor S. 6, which is 
the National Energy and Environment Security Act of 2007. This is a 
message bill that Senator Reid introduced earlier today. It lays out a 
number of important goals that will guide our thinking and action on 
energy-related matters, including the issue of global warming, in the 
110th Congress.
  Let me talk briefly about five key goals that are mentioned in the 
bill. These goals will be subject to much more detailed discussion in 
future weeks and to action both in the Energy Committee and, for some 
issues, in the Environment Committee as well.

[[Page S20]]

  The first goal of the bill is to reduce our dependence on foreign and 
un-
sustainable energy sources. Any national energy strategy to reduce that 
dependence will have to maintain our domestic production of oil and gas 
as well as undertake three basic initiatives. The first of those 
initiatives is to greatly increase the efficiency of the cars and 
trucks that we put on the road in this country. There are a lot of 
ideas on how to do this. They include several proposals for increased 
CAFE standards as well as so-called ``feebate'' standards that send 
signals to the market to encourage the production and sale of high 
efficiency vehicles. I look forward to working with my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to try to move these proposals forward.
  Another way to reduce our dependence is to further develop 
alternative fuels, particularly biofuels. In that regard we need to 
focus on broadening the base of biological feedstocks that are used to 
make fuels such as ethanol. This is an issue we will be focusing on in 
the Energy Committee.
  A third way is to look at the other new technologies to power our 
cars and our trucks. There is much promise in hybrid vehicles with 
larger batteries that can be charged overnight, so-called plug-in 
hybrids. This sort of technology can help reduce demand for gasoline 
for short trips and deserves further attention.
  The second goal in the bill is to reduce our exposure to the risks of 
global warming. While there are several Senate committees with great 
interest in this issue, obviously the Environment Committee has a 
primary role and the primary jurisdiction. But over 95 percent of the 
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions and nearly 85 percent of all U.S. 
greenhouse gas emissions come from energy production, distribution, and 
use. We want to work with other committees to find the best way to deal 
with this important issue and to balance environmental imperatives with 
the need for reliable and affordable energy into the future.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On Page S20, January 4, 2007, the following appears: Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read Environment 
Committee.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The third goal in the bill is to diversify and expand our use of 
secure, efficient, and environmentally friendly energy supplies and 
technologies. Efficiency is a key element in our energy policy. It 
deserves more attention in this Congress than we have been able to give 
it before. There are outstanding opportunities to reduce the demands of 
our future energy system by being more efficient and effective in the 
ways we distribute and use energy.
  As one example, most incandescent light bulbs are only 5 percent 
efficient, so they waste 95 percent of the energy that goes into them. 
Fluorescent lighting is only 20 percent efficient. There is no 
fundamental scientific reason why lighting has to waste so much energy. 
New technologies are on the horizon that could reach close to 100 
percent efficiency. Even if we were to make all lighting in the United 
States just 50 percent efficient, we would eliminate the need for the 
equivalent of 70 1000-megawatt nuclear power plants. Examples like this 
present a compelling case for pushing energy efficiency, and I expect 
that we will have a strong focus on these opportunities in this 
Congress.
  A fourth goal of the bill is to reduce the burdens on consumers of 
rising energy prices. We need to make sure that programs such as the 
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program are fully funded and targeted 
at low-
income and working families.
  The fifth goal in the bill is to eliminate unnecessary tax giveaways 
and prevent energy price gouging and manipulation. We need to take a 
broad look at the incentives we have in place for energy production on 
both the tax side and the royalty side, to ensure that we have the most 
effective mix of incentives going forward. We are all agreed that those 
are issues that need attention.
  The United States has one of the most favorable set of fiscal 
policies for production of oil and gas in the world today. Some of 
those fiscal incentives may be redundant at the price levels we are 
currently seeing. There are big problems in the royalty system being 
managed by the Department of the Interior, with some companies getting 
royalty treatment that Congress never intended them to receive. We will 
be looking at these issues closely in this new Congress. We will be 
examining how to rebalance the system, both from the perspective of 
having fair and effective royalty and tax policies for oil and gas and 
from the perspective of having effective tax and other incentives to 
promote other forms of energy, such as production of electricity from 
wind solar, geothermal, and renewable sources.
  All of this is a tall order for Congress. I predict instead of seeing 
just one big energy bill, we will be addressing these issues through 
multiple bills that move through the Senate as issues and proposals for 
addressing these issues become ripe for action. In the Senate we will 
not make much progress on energy or environment unless we can develop a 
strong bipartisan approach on the issues. The Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources has a strong tradition of bipartisan accomplishment 
that I plan on continuing in this new Congress. I look forward to 
working with my colleague, Senator Pete Domenici, and all members of 
the committee as we forge an effective path forward to promote our 
energy and energy-related environmental security.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is wonderful to see you sitting there 
and to tell you, as I know you will be very pleased with this news, 
that S. 6, which has been introduced by Leader Reid, is called the 
National Energy and Environmental Security Act of 2007. That means 
Senator Reid is sending a signal to all of us here, both sides of the 
aisle, that we are going to put the environmental issue back front and 
center and we are going to put the energy issue front and center and we 
are going to do everything we can do to become energy independent and 
to preserve this planet for future generations.
  This is a very emotional day for me in a very good way because I am 
assuming the Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which 
is a dream come true for me. Since I started my career, the environment 
has always been one of my signature issues. In California it is a 
bipartisan signature issue. We all work together, Republicans and 
Democrats and Independents, because we understand that the health of 
our planet and the health of our families is very important. America 
has always taken the lead. Somehow, recently, we have lost our way.
  Oftentimes when I speak about the environment, people are stunned to 
see that, indeed, Republican Presidents have taken the lead on the 
environment. Dwight Eisenhower set aside the area that is now part of 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and said we should not destroy this 
beautiful part of the world. Richard Nixon created the Environmental 
Protection Agency, and then you look at Jimmy Carter who I believe 
created Superfund. Presidents of both parties worked with Congress to 
write the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act--it has been, I 
think, a backpedaling of environmental laws and regulations that has 
undermined the bipartisan issue of the environment.
  I have three goals for this committee. No. 1 is to protect this 
planet. I think that is our moral obligation. I view it as a spiritual 
obligation. No. 2 is to protect the health of our families, the health 
of our children. I view that as a moral obligation and a spiritual 
obligation. My third goal for the committee is to bring back 
bipartisanship. We have had, in this great committee, great leaders 
from both parties. Already I have begun reaching out to Republican 
friends. Of course we know there will be disagreements. But I can tell 
you, and I want to reassure the American people, that we are working 
together. Today I had an open house at the committee room and in walked 
my Democratic colleagues and my Republican colleagues. My former 
chairman, James Inhofe, was the first Senator to come by and we had a 
series of Senators come by--Senator Isakson, Senator Obama, Senator 
Lautenberg, Senator Alexander, Senator Vitter, and Senator Warner. It 
was a wonderful experience for me to sit there and see that in fact we 
are getting off on the right foot.
  I cannot tell you how good I feel about S. 6 because it lays down a 
marker and it says we have to do something about energy efficiency and 
we have to do something about global warming. If

[[Page S21]]

we do not act on global warming, our children and our grandchildren 
will wonder why we walked away from them. How could we have walked away 
from them? We do not want to walk away from them. I don't know any 
Member of this Senate who would knowingly walk away from their future 
family. Scientists are telling us we need to take action soon in order 
to avoid dangerous global warming. If we fail to act, we could reach 
the tipping point with irreversible consequences.
  I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, today I believe we 
have no choice but to act to slow global warming. We should look at our 
actions as an insurance policy. Yes, scientists will disagree. Some 
will say horrific things will happen. Some will say bad things will 
happen. I don't know of any respected scientist who thinks nothing will 
happen. But for bad things or horrific things, we need an insurance 
policy. We need to be conservative. We need to do the most we can do so 
we protect those future generations so when they look back at us, they 
will say: They stepped up and did the right thing.
  It is hard to persuade people to act when the consequences of 
inaction lie down the road. But we are smart enough, we are wise enough 
to do something about global warming.
  Here is the good news. Whatever we do about global warming, to reduce 
greenhouse gases, has a beneficial effect on our society. That is why 
it is something I think we can wrap our arms around. When we do 
something for energy efficiency, to cut back on the carbon dioxide, 
what does it mean? It means we save money in our pockets, if we drive 
fuel-efficient automobiles, alternative fuel vehicles, hybrid vehicles, 
cellulosic fuel vehicles. It helps us keep money in our pockets. It 
says we don't have to rely on foreign countries. So that makes eminent 
good sense. It means we will be developing technologies that we can 
export to the rest of the world.
  Today, as the incoming Chair of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, I am embarrassed to say to the people of the United States 
that of the 56 emitters of greenhouse gases in the order of what they 
have done to help solve the problem, we are 53 out of 56. Only a few 
countries have done less than we have done and those countries are 
China, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia. I am embarrassed to stand here and 
say that to the American people, but I must speak the truth to the 
American people. We are the No. 1 emitter of greenhouse gases and we 
are 53rd out of 56 countries in doing something about it.
  All this is going to change. I think it is going to change because 
the people want us to change. The people want us to lead.
  I look around and see, for example, Wal-Mart--Wal-Mart, with whom I 
have disagreed on so many labor issues I can't even start to tell you 
the story about that, but here is what they are doing. They want to 
sell millions and millions of energy-efficient lightbulbs. These 
lightbulbs will save so much energy, these lightbulbs will save the 
consumer so much money, and I am very pleased to see that business is 
stepping up to the plate.
  I am also pleased to see the State of California passing landmark 
legislation to fight global warming--my State--and doing it on such a 
bipartisan basis. This is very exciting for me.

  We have a great bill that will be introduced by the Senator from 
Vermont, Mr. Sanders. That will be the same bill written by former 
Senator Jeffords, a great leader on the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works, before retirement. I have to try to fill his shoes. This 
great bill is modeled after the California bill and will tackle this 
issue in a way which will be good for the environment, good for the 
health of our families, good for foreign policy, and good for the 
export of new technologies, meaning more jobs here. We can do this. We 
can reduce costs for consumers, for businesses.
  Energy efficiency is the name of the game. It is the easiest way to 
get more energy.
  Everyone who knows me knows I want to pass the greatest bill in the 
history of mankind to fight global warming. Everyone knows I want to do 
that. Everyone knows I want us to go as far as we can go. I am an 
idealist when it comes to this, but I am also a pragmatist. So we will 
work our colleagues in the Senate, both sides of the aisle, 
Republicans, Independents, and Democrats. We will open the committee to 
all the Senators. We will listen to their ideas. We will listen to 
their views. We will take the best of those ideas, we will sit down, 
and we will work hard and get a bill. That day will come in the near 
future. At that time, the faith the people have placed in Congress, 
once again, that faith will be restored. Some of it was lost because in 
many ways we took our eye off of what we had to do.
  When people ask me, What is it like in the Congress, what do you like 
to do in the Congress, I say, Let's face it, the easiest thing is to do 
nothing. When you do something, somebody gets nervous about it, but 
when we have an issue such as global warming, which is a national 
security threat--and the Pentagon has told us it is a national security 
threat because if waters rise and there are refugees all over the 
world, the instability that will follow will be absolutely enormous; it 
will create a trend. There are predictions that if we have bad global 
warming, we will have weather extremes with droughts and floods and all 
the problems we have been getting a little look at through the lens of 
the last couple of years.
  Fate has thrown us together, I say to my friends on the other side of 
the aisle. You never know when you will be born or whom you will come 
to know. I have gotten to know the Senator presiding. I am fortunate to 
have friends on both sides of the aisle. I am fortunate to have the 
State that has as its core value protecting God's green Earth and this 
planet. I am going to bring all that enthusiasm to the committee. I am 
going to be patient. We are going to listen. We are going to write a 
bill and bring it here.
  I say to Majority Leader Reid, it means so much to me to have as one 
of the top bills a bill that uses the word ``environment'' in the 
title. I cannot state how long I have been waiting for that. We have it 
in S. 6. It is called the National Energy and Environment Security Act 
of 2007. It is an apt name because when we take care of the 
environment, we are taking care of our own security and the health of 
our families.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________