[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 94 (Tuesday, June 12, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7498-S7502]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 ENERGY

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, a story in today's Los Angeles Times 
states that the approval rating of Congress is the lowest in a decade. 
The poll reported in today's Los Angeles Times says 27 percent of 
Americans approve of how Congress is doing its job, and most see 
business as usual. After Congress has diverted its attention from what 
I consider to be the most important domestic issue confronting the 
Nation today; that is, fixing our broken borders and actually enforcing 
our immigration laws, in order to have a vote of no confidence on the 
Attorney General in what is clearly a political exercise rather than 
anything that would produce a meaningful result, we now turn our 
attention to an important issue and one I hope Congress will embrace in 
order to address energy concerns in this country.
  Of course, we all know--all we have to do is to drive up to fill up 
our gas tank--the price of gasoline has gone through the roof. While it 
is true that Congress can pass laws and Congress can even repeal laws 
that have been passed by previous Congresses, what Congress cannot do 
is repeal the laws of supply and demand.
  It is important as we look at this legislation before us that we look 
at whether this legislation is, in fact, designed to fix problems. One 
of the questions I suggest we need to look to is, Does this bill 
increase supply? In a global economy we know there is going to be more 
and more competition for oil and gasoline. We know we are competing, 
not only in the United States, but literally with China and India, each 
of which have 1 billion people. Their economies are growing, and the 
number of people driving and their economic activity is directly 
related to access to a reasonably priced energy supply. We need to look 
to see what we are doing at home to try to increase supply.
  We all know we are dangerously reliant on imported oil from dangerous 
parts of the world or from places such as Venezuela, governed by the 
likes of Hugo Chavez. Current energy policy in this country does 
nothing but make our enemies richer. It does nothing but line the 
pockets of people like Hugo Chavez or somebody like President 
Ahmadinejad in Iran--countries pursuing weapons of mass destruction.
  We have to eliminate the schizophrenia that has characterized our 
energy policy in the past and look at what commonsense steps Congress 
can take in order to improve the supply of oil and gas, preferably from 
our own domestic sources at home, so we are less reliant on these 
dangerous rulers in other parts of the world for the very lifeblood of 
our economy.
  By any measure, the bill that is now before us is an incomplete bill. 
It deals nearly exclusively with the demand side of the energy 
equation. While it is worthwhile to aggressively pursue better 
efficiencies and alternative sources of energy to meet our future 
energy needs, the provisions in this bill fail to address much of our 
current energy needs. It is a matter of simple economics. This bill 
will do nothing to deal with our current energy needs without 
addressing supply.
  I fear this bill will also end up being even more expensive for 
consumers. Both the provisions in the bill and some of the expected 
amendments from the majority set up unreasonable mandates for renewable 
and alternative energy sources, which are more expensive. I do not 
question our need to produce more of our energy from clean and 
renewable sources, but I believe the winners and losers should be 
determined by the market, not by the Government. Indeed, this bill 
determines for Americans which fuels we will use, how much, and at what 
time. That is the last thing we need the Federal Government to 
dictate--to determine which fuels we will use, how much, and at what 
time--when public confidence in Congress under this new majority is at 
a 10-year low. The last thing we need to do is say: Give us the power 
to determine what fuels you will use, how much, and at what time.
  I do believe there is great promise in renewable energy. I am proud 
that my State, Texas, continues its energy leadership. As a traditional 
oil and gas State, it now is the largest producer of wind energy in the 
country--2,749 megawatts as of last year. We are also the largest 
producer of biodiesel, an industry that has grown rapidly in just the 
last few years.
  It is also unwise to turn away from proven and developing 
technologies to meet our Nation's clean air goals. For example, nuclear 
energy has the lowest impact on the environment, including land, air, 
water, and wildlife, of any energy source because it does not emit 
harmful gasses. It isolates its waste from the environment and requires 
less area to produce the same amount of electricity as other sources.
  I wouldn't necessarily hold out other countries as a model for 
America when it comes to their energy policies, but I must say a 
country such as France that generates 80 percent of its electricity by 
nuclear power does represent a goal that I think the United States 
ought to strive for, particularly when nuclear power is cheap. It is 
conducive of a good environment, and it requires a lot less for us to 
produce in terms of cost and other collateral issues. I think this is 
one area where we clearly ought to be encouraging greater use of 
nuclear power, particularly when it comes to our electricity supply.
  I want to say a word about coal. Coal should also continue to play an 
important role in our energy future. There are clean coal technologies 
being developed that could enable us to continue utilizing this 
abundant domestic resource and--this is important--improve air quality. 
Coal is also expected to remain one of the lowest cost fuels available.
  I do believe with Federal investment in programs such as FutureGen, 
which is a $1 billion investment in clean coal-burning technology, we 
can use this 300-year supply of coal in our country in a way that is 
compatible with a good environment and allows us to maintain the 
diversity of our energy sources which are essential to the growth of 
our economy, as well as our national security, from the standpoint of 
depending less and less on people who are trying to do us harm for the 
very energy we need.
  It is ironic at a time that we are engaged in the global war on 
terror that many of the state sponsors of terrorism, many of those 
areas that are in unstable regions of the world, from the standpoint of 
the global war on terror, are the very ones being enriched by our

[[Page S7499]]

current energy policies, which puts a lot of our domestic resources 
here at home out of bounds and depends, as I say, too much on imported 
oil and gas.
  It is important to note there are some differences between the 
approaches of those of us in this Chamber on how we achieve that sort 
of energy self-sufficiency in this country, which I believe ought to be 
our goal.
  It is important that we, as I said a moment ago, increase supply and 
that we not inadvertently or otherwise create disincentives for those 
currently exploring and producing oil and gas. On this side of the 
aisle, we support increasing America's energy supplies while reducing 
consumption.
  For example, the bill we passed in 2005, under Republican leadership, 
provided incentives for domestic exploration of potential new natural 
resource supplies and aided the production of affordable domestic 
energy. Now we are seeing the new majority threaten to overturn several 
of those successful provisions.
  Then when it comes to trying to increase supply of gasoline in this 
country by enhancing capacity of refineries, we have seen those efforts 
blocked by our friends on the other side of the aisle in the last 
Congress. Now the majority leader will be offering a substitute 
amendment, we are told, based on S. 1419 to H.R. 6.
  This amendment by the Democratic majority leader contains some 
positive provisions. But, unfortunately, it is promise that is being 
oversold. Very simply, the legislation produces no new energy and may 
actually end up raising prices, not lowering them. The Reid substitute, 
in my opinion, does not produce a viable energy policy for the United 
States.
  As a matter of fact, many of the proposals we will hear from the 
other side of the aisle may actually increase energy prices. For 
example, we are likely to hear a proposal for a 15-percent renewable 
portfolio standard which ignores clean energy sources such as nuclear 
power.
  This proposal would cost consumers billions of dollars because States 
simply would not be able to meet it. The majority leader's substitute 
amendment will also, it looks like, ignore the need for domestic energy 
supplies and ignores the problem of refining capacity, which experts 
say is a leading cause of high gas prices; again, simply a matter of 
supply and demand.
  With the static supply not catching up to demand, you are going to 
see gas prices go up. That is what we have all experienced at the pump. 
This bill makes no effort to increase domestic production and reduce 
our reliance on foreign oil.
  This bill also does not pay enough attention to clean alternatives, 
attempting to mandate energy production solely from renewable sources. 
While alternative and renewable energy has made a great start in 
reducing our foreign imports needed for energy, it will be decades 
before we can produce enough alternative fuels to replace oil and other 
carbon fuels.
  It is important we support efforts to increase the use of renewable 
and alternative fuels, but we should not be sold on unrealistic 
proposals that will suggest that somehow, in the short term, we are 
going to be able to replace our dependence on oil and gas, particularly 
in the transportation sector, where there is not any other viable 
alternative. It is unrealistic to think we can address our current 
dependance without producing as much of America's energy as we can here 
at home.
  Overlooking sources of new clean energy demonstrates, once again, we 
are not paying enough attention to our domestic energy supply. Of 
course, gas prices are up to record levels, particularly since the new 
majority took over in November.
  The Reid substitute does nothing to reduce them. We have seen 
gasoline prices increase almost 50 percent during the last 5 months. 
Now, when our friends on the other side of the aisle were put in 
control in last November's election, the price of gasoline was about 
$2.20 a gallon. Today it averages $3.15 a gallon. The proposals in this 
bill do nothing to reduce high gasoline prices. In fact, some of the 
amendments I am told that our friends on the other side of the aisle 
are considering would actually increase energy prices for the 
consumers.
  Neither the Federal Trade Commission nor any State agency that has 
explored the issue has found any evidence that there has actually been 
price gouging. I am told there will be proposals to prohibit price 
gouging, which is already illegal I might add, but by new and vague 
standards which are impossible for anybody to determine whether their 
actions are covered, unless perhaps it is too late.
  This is a diversion from the real energy problems. We all oppose 
price gouging. I know of no one who supports price gouging. But it is 
important we understand we need to find new ways to increase our 
domestic supply and particularly our refining capacities here at home. 
We see nothing but roadblocks thrown up every time we introduce 
proposals to try to encourage expansion of refinery capacity, which is 
the only way we are going to make more gasoline to keep up with the 
demand and hopefully keep prices down.
  Now we will see alternatives offered during the course of this debate 
that will lead to increased domestic production of oil, streamlined 
refinery processes, and greater investment in research and development 
and clean vehicles. I think this is an important debate.
  But we need to be careful about what we are doing again to make sure 
we do not oversell and underdeliver when it comes to energy policy, 
because, frankly, I think when it comes to the way the Congress has 
approached our energy needs, it has been more than a little 
schizophrenic. The consequence, I think we can all see, is that 
gasoline prices are too high because refinery capacity is too low. We 
have actually increased the danger, in terms of our security, by 
continuing to rely too much on imported oil and gas from dangerous 
parts of the world, enriching our biggest enemies. At the same time, we 
have put out of bounds too much of our domestic reserves.
  So I hope as this debate goes forward, we will have a full 
opportunity to debate amendments and offer constructive solutions to 
this problem. That is why I think our constituents sent us here. If we 
do that, then hopefully this poll I mentioned at the outset, reported 
in today's Los Angeles Times that reflects 27 percent of Americans 
approve of the way Congress is doing its job, hopefully those numbers 
will go up as we produce constructive solutions to the problems that 
confront the American people and we do the job we are sent here to do 
by our constituents.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time is available 
to me.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 13 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. BENNETT. I listened with interest to the Senator from Texas. I 
wish to discuss basically the same thing, perhaps putting a slightly 
different twist on it. People look at the economics of energy and make 
this point. They say it costs something like a dollar a barrel to lift 
the oil in Saudi Arabia. That is the elevating price, a dollar, a 
dollar and a half, whatever. It doesn't sound like very much when oil 
is selling for something like $60 a barrel.
  They look at the difference between the lifting cost and what we are 
paying, and then they look at the difference between the cost for a 
barrel of oil and the cost of a gallon of gasoline and they say: 
Somebody is making an awful lot of money here, and there has to be 
something wrong. There has to be someone hiding in the weeds who is 
profiteering off us. If we can find that ``someone'' and stop him from 
doing the profiteering, then everything would be fine, we would have 
plenty of oil, we would have lower prices at the pump, everything would 
be fine. There is a conspiracy going on. There is somebody somewhere 
who needs to be discovered, exposed, and attacked, and then everything 
will be fine.
  Well, unfortunately, the real world does not operate like that. In 
the real world, there are reasons, valid reasons, for prices to be 
where they are and for the situation to be as it is. The fundamental 
fact, with respect to retail prices, that people forget, if indeed they 
even know, is this: The retail price is not set on the basis of what it 
costs to put a gallon of gas into the pump that you go to when you fill 
up your tank; the retail price is set by

[[Page S7500]]

what it would cost to replace the gallon of gas once it is gone out of 
the tank and into your gas tank.
  That means whoever is setting the price is concerned with 
uncertainties that are there in the marketplace that will determine the 
future replacement cost. If there is a geopolitical uncertainty, Iran, 
Iraq, unrest in Saudi Arabia, instability in Venezuela, whatever it 
might be, the marketplace will say: We have to have the uncertainty 
return, we have to have a premium on what it would cost to protect us 
against the uncertainty because it may well be that supply is suddenly 
disrupted around the world, and if we are going to have an additional 
gallon of gas in that service station tank in the future, we are going 
to have to pay for that uncertainty there, so we will charge an 
uncertainty premium now.
  This is the working of the marketplace. As I have said often, and 
expect to say again, we cannot repeal the law of supply and demand. We 
think we can. In Congress we keep passing laws that say we are going to 
set prices here and there. But whenever we try, all we do is produce 
one of two results. When we try to repeal the law of supply and demand, 
when we try to interfere with market forces, we either create a 
shortage or a surplus.
  When we set the price artificially too high in the market, we create 
a surplus, as everybody wants to get in on the very good price, people 
want to sell for the highest price. We did that in Congress with 
respect to silver. We wanted to have silver mined in the United States. 
So the United States said: We are going to pay so much for silver. It 
was above the price the market would pay. We opened up silver mines, 
the Government ended up with a huge surplus of silver piling up in 
warehouses because we set the price higher than the market would put 
it.
  When we set the price too low, as we have done with gasoline, with 
oil windfall profits, set the price too low, then we get a shortage; 
nobody wants to produce for that low price. So we can tell ourselves 
how wonderful we are. We can say we have the power to set prices by 
legislation, but if we set them in the wrong places, if we go away from 
where the market is, the market either gives you a surplus of things we 
don't need or we create a shortage.
  We saw the impact of the shortage during the Carter administration. 
We all remember the long lines, where we were lined up to get gasoline. 
There was a shortage. It was artificially created. When Ronald Reagan 
became President, he said: No, we are going to let the market work. The 
shortages all went away. The lines went away. Interestingly enough, the 
prices actually came down in many areas of energy as the market then 
responded to the reality of demand.
  Our problem now is we do not have sufficient supply to bring the 
prices down. One of the reasons, as the Senator from Texas made clear, 
one of the reasons is we do not have the refinery capacity we need. It 
is all very well and good to pump oil out of the ground, but the oil 
you purchase out of the ground cannot be put into your car. The oil 
pumped out of the ground has to be refined into gasoline. If it is not, 
it sits there accumulating until the refinery capacity can be brought 
on line.

  We know that very well in Utah. We have a tremendous amount of 
production going on in eastern Utah now. As oil is available, it can 
come out of the ground. At the worldwide prices for oil now, even 
though it might be more expensive than $1.50, with oil selling at $60 a 
barrel, $70 a barrel on the international market, there is money to be 
made. There is oil to be produced in eastern Utah, but it is sitting 
there. It is not ending up in anybody's gas tank. It is not helping 
bring down the price at the pump. What is the matter? We don't have the 
refinery capacity to refine that particular kind of oil. There are 
refineries in Salt Lake City. They are operating at 90 percent capacity 
plus. They are refining oil that comes from Canada, because that 
particular kind of oil is easier to refine than the oil coming out of 
eastern Utah. If we could build a refinery in eastern Utah--and the 
economics are there to justify it--we could bring down the price of 
gasoline at the pump, because all of that oil would be turned into 
gasoline.
  So why aren't we building new refineries? The regulations that come 
from the Federal Government are restricting refineries. People who own 
refineries are doing everything they can to expand them. The refinery 
capacity is up fairly dramatically, but the number of new refineries 
has not gone up dramatically. We are pushing to have the limit our 
ability to refine oil in the refineries we now have.
  We are still told the real reason prices are up is because there is a 
conspiracy. There is price gouging going on. Last week the Washington 
Post commented on this issue about conspiracy and the people who are 
deliberately driving up the price of gasoline. If I may quote from the 
Washington Post editorial entitled ``Myths About That $3.18 Per 
Gallon'':

       Multiple investigations by the Federal Trade Commission 
     since 2000 have come up, well, dry. Conspiracy theorists say 
     this lack of evidence is proof that the regulators are in bed 
     with the oil companies. But last year, California's Energy 
     Commission undertook its own investigation of a May 2006 
     price increase--and found no smoking gun indicating market 
     manipulation. Today's high prices are the result of a 
     collision among consumers' increasing demand for gas, the 
     shortage of oil-refining capacity and 50 states with 
     different regulations that make it hard to trade gas across 
     state lines.

  That is the reality. It is a collision of increasing demand for gas, 
static oil refining capacity, and different State regulations. We 
should be dealing with that reality. Why aren't we? Back to the 
editorial:

       So why protect consumers from this vaporous phantom? 
     Politics. More than 80 percent of Americans believe that high 
     gas prices are the result of oil company shenanigans rather 
     than market forces, according to the Opinion Research Corp. 
     So passing legislation against gouging is a bit of theater 
     that allows the political class to avoid the hard work of 
     getting Americans to use less gas.

  We engage in political theater all the time around here--that is our 
business--but occasionally, I would hope we would recognize reality, we 
would understand the price of gasoline is set by market forces that 
look at what it will cost to replace that gasoline.
  I will make a last point. There would be more certainty about what it 
would cost to replace that gasoline if President Clinton had not vetoed 
legislation opening ANWR, making that oil available to us for our 
domestic supply. One of the things that was said at the time was, that 
is so far away in the future, that is 10 years away.
  Well, it has been more than 10 years since he vetoed that bill. If he 
had not, we would now have the supply coming down from Alaska, saying 
we can mitigate the geopolitical uncertainties of oil in foreign 
countries by having this supply of millions of barrels available in the 
United States. The manufacturers of gasoline, refiners of gasoline, 
would say: We have a stable source of supply here within the United 
States. We need not charge as high an uncertainty premium as we might 
otherwise do.
  There is no question it would have a significant impact on lowering 
gas prices, if only we had done it. The Congress did it. The President 
vetoed it. Now the leadership of Congress continues to oppose ANWR. One 
of the arguments is: That is more than 10 years away.
  We did it more than 10 years ago. We need to do it now for the 
advantage of people 10 years ahead.
  This is not to denigrate the good things in the Energy bill before 
us. This is not to say conservation is not important. This is not to 
say alternative sources of energy are not important. But this is to say 
we need to look at the whole picture and recognize we cannot conserve 
our way into a solution. Just because conservation is a good idea 
doesn't mean increasing the source of supply is a bad one.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the energy 
legislation that will be the topic of the Senate this week. It is 
critically important. I congratulate the cochairs of the Energy 
Committee, particularly Senators Bingaman and Domenici, for the work 
they have done, along with other committees, including Commerce and the 
Environment Committee on which I am privileged to serve.
  We are dealing with a critical national crisis. In some ways, if we 
can adopt bipartisan, strong energy security legislation, we will have 
dealt with the most serious challenge facing our country. Because in 
dealing with our

[[Page S7501]]

dependence on foreign sources of oil and reducing that dependence, we 
can make our economy more secure, protect American consumers from the 
painful price spikes in the cost of gasoline and home heating oil and 
other fuels they have become accustomed to, and that not only drain 
individual budgets but hurt our national economic growth potential and 
reality.
  Second, we will make our Nation more secure. Because no matter how 
strong we are militarily or even economically, if we end up depending 
so much on foreign sources of oil, our independence can be compromised. 
We cannot tolerate that.
  Here is the reality. Ninety-seven percent of transportation in the 
United States is fueled by oil we buy from a unified global oil market. 
Saudi Arabia holds 20 percent of the world's oil reserves. Iran has 10 
percent, led by a man who today repeatedly says to crowds in Iran, 
imagine a world without America; 10 percent of the world's oil reserves 
are in Iran. Venezuela, led by a virulently anti-American president, 
holds 6 percent of the world's oil reserves; Russia has 4.5 percent; 
Libya, 3 percent; the United States today has 1.5 percent of the 
world's oil reserves. We cannot leave our national and economic 
security dependent, therefore, on a resource that lies largely in the 
hands of others, including other nations that are either volatile or 
undemocratic or aligned against the United States.
  H.R. 6, which combines the work of three or four different 
committees, contains many significant provisions that would reduce our 
Nation's oil consumption. I truly commend the heads of these 
committees, the chairmen and ranking members, for bringing this 
legislation forward. This may be the only opportunity we have in the 
110th Congress, certainly the only opportunity we will have in this 
first year of the 110th session, to confront our energy dependence and 
deal with it. Therefore, it is very important that we work hard to make 
this bill as strong as we possibly can and, of course, as bipartisan. 
Our constituents, our Nation just watched the Senate unfortunately 
grind itself into gridlock over the comprehensive immigration bill. 
Let's not turn that show into a double feature with stalemate over 
energy security legislation as well, certainly not as prices soar and 
American consumers sour.
  I want to speak briefly in favor of a bipartisan consensus amendment 
I and others will introduce as part of this debate. I am speaking on 
behalf of a bipartisan and geographically diverse group of Senators led 
by Senators Bayh, Brownback, Salazar, Coleman, and many others. We will 
offer an amendment to replace the gasoline savings goal of H.R. 6, the 
underlying legislation, with title I of our so-called DRIVE Act. DRIVE, 
in the strange world of acronyms, stands for Dependence Reduction 
Through Innovation in Vehicles and Energy. This is the successor to an 
earlier version--which title didn't make a good acronym, but which 
title I loved--which was the Set America Free Act, because right now we 
are not free. We are dependent on others for our energy. The DRIVE 
Act's title I, which we will introduce as an amendment, would direct 
the executive branch of Government to identify within 9 months and to 
publish within 18 months Federal requirements that will achieve a 2.5 
million barrel-per-day reduction in U.S. oil consumption by 2016, a 7 
million barrel-per-day reduction by 2026, and a 10 million barrel-per-
day reduction by 2031. That is about 50 percent of the per-day oil 
consumption of the United States today.
  This amendment would also direct the Office of Management and Budget 
to publish an analysis identifying the oil savings projected to be 
achieved by each requirement to be created and demonstrating that the 
listed measures will, in the aggregate, achieve the overall specified 
oil savings.
  Finally, the measure includes specific requirements for the executive 
branch to evaluate, review, and update the action plan so we can 
achieve these critical national goals.
  The targets for savings in H.R. 6 are expressed in terms of American 
gasoline consumption. The amendment would express them in terms of what 
we think is a more relevant standard which is overall oil consumption, 
because reducing gasoline use can be achieved by increasing the use of 
diesel which, of course, is also made from oil. So oil consumption 
reduction is, in our opinion, the more appropriate goal for this law, 
and that is why we are going to introduce this as an amendment to H.R. 
6. The gasoline savings goal in H.R. 6 amounts to about a 20-percent 
reduction in projected oil consumption by 2030, 23 years from now. The 
oil savings requirement in our amendment amounts to a 35-percent 
reduction in projected oil consumption in 2030. That is a significant 
increase in reduction and one we can achieve, if we set the goal as 
high as it should be, high enough to cut our dependence on foreign oil 
and free America from that dependence.
  I believe there is broad bipartisan support in the Senate for these 
stronger targets. Indeed, the fuel economy and renewable fuels 
provisions already found elsewhere in H.R. 6 will themselves go a long 
way toward achieving the stronger targets. The DRIVE amendment's 
cosponsors believe that we need targets that will keep the pressure on 
the Executive branch to use the authorities Congress has provided to 
achieve robust oil savings.
  The DRIVE Act has 26 cosponsors, including 6 Republicans. Thus, the 
language of our DRIVE amendment is bipartisan and consensus-based. I 
hope my colleagues will adopt it overwhelmingly.
  I would like to explain my opposition to an amendment that I 
understand will be offered, an amendment that--while intricately 
drafted--has the sole purpose of opening the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to 
oil drilling.
  Most of my colleagues have been through enough Senate debates over 
this issue to know that it is highly controversial and deeply divisive. 
I believe that if an Arctic drilling amendment were added to this bill, 
it would prevent Senate passage of otherwise bipartisan legislation 
that could reshape--but not despoil--our energy landscape.
  I myself filibustered the last bill to which an Arctic drilling 
provision was attached.
  Let me just repeat a fact that I stated at the beginning of my 
remarks: The United States holds just 1.5 percent of the world's oil 
reserves. Oil is a global commodity--like wheat or corn, gold or 
copper--that essentially has a single world benchmark price.
  That means we could drain every last drop of oil from U.S. territory, 
despoiling our last stretches of wilderness in the process, and U.S. 
production still would amount to no more than a trickle in the stream 
of global supply.
  We would do irrevocable damage to our natural heritage without having 
an appreciable effect on the price that Americans pay for oil, and 
without reducing our crippling oil addiction by one iota.
  It is time we face up to the fact that we cannot drill our way out of 
this problem. The only effective and permanent solution to high gas 
prices--the only effective and permanent solution to energy 
dependence--is to dramatically reduce our oil consumption. H.R. 6 takes 
an impressive step in that direction. The DRIVE amendment would 
lengthen that step to a stride. But adding an Arctic drilling provision 
would kill the entire enterprise, leaving us in the same, unacceptable 
situation we find ourselves in now. So I respectfully ask that my 
colleagues vote ``yes'' on the DRIVE amendment, and ``no'' on any 
measure that would open the treasured Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
to drilling.
  The American people are energized on this issue. Let's not let them 
look to the Senate and think they have hit a dry well of gridlock.
  Mr. President, I note the presence of one of my colleagues on the 
floor who I know wants to speak during this half hour of morning 
business, so I will say, very briefly, we have an opportunity to do 
something right for the American people, if we can work across party 
lines--and none of this should be partisan--to get this done.
  Again I note in that regard, with some regret, some of my colleagues 
have indicated an intention to once again introduce an amendment that 
would open the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to oil and drilling. Obviously, 
they have a right to do so. This has been debated often in the Senate. 
My only word of caution is I fear such an amendment, if it is attached 
to this

[[Page S7502]]

bill, may doom the overall bill; therefore, we would all lose as a 
result of it.
  I say to my colleagues, we have a fresh opportunity here, a kind of 
fresh start. This institution is in need of a bipartisan agreement that 
solves some real problems, such as the cost of gasoline and home 
heating oil and other fuels the American people are facing. So it is 
not just that the institution would benefit in its credibility with a 
bipartisan agreement on this critical issue; the country needs us to 
show leadership on this issue. I am confident, as we begin this debate, 
we can rise to the opportunity.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin.

                          ____________________