[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14161-14173]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 14162]]

  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 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

[[Page 14163]]

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 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.

[[Page 14164]]

  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 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

[[Page 14165]]

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.
  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 BusinessWeek 
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 on 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

[[Page 14166]]

     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 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

[[Page 14167]]

     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 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

[[Page 14168]]

     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 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

[[Page 14169]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 14170]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 14171]]

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
     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.

[[Page 14172]]

  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?
  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

[[Page 14173]]


     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.

                          ____________________