Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, Senator Domenici from New Mexico has served in the Senate for 36 years. He is the ranking member on the Energy Committee. I ask him, can you help us understand why, with so many Senators willing today--and for the last 8 days--to deal with this issue, we are not dealing with it? And why the Democratic leader seems to be determined to avoid doing any single thing that would produce more American energy?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I assume that during the last 8 days, instead of just debating or speaking in languages that we don't seem to understand from each side, we could have actually considered an amendment to have aggressive research in carbon capture to accelerate the possibility that we could deal with climate change, clean air, energy independence, and have plenty more electricity for plug-in cars and trucks that everyone seems to favor.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Is it not true that one of the leading environmental groups has said that if we can find a way to capture carbon from coal plants, that is the best long-term solution to climate change?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator. The Senator from Wyoming is here. He has been actively involved in a variety of energy issues and a member of the Energy Committee. He has been an active participant in the energy debate in this Chamber. Has the Senator not heard the Republican leader repeatedly say to the Democratic leader: We are ready to talk about supply and demand. We are ready to deal with, say, seven amendments from the Republican side and seven from the Democratic side and to vote on them and to have a time limited debate, and our whole purpose is a serious purpose to try to get a result; so can we not do that? Has he not heard that time and time again. And, if so, why does he suppose we are not doing that?

Mr. ALEXANDER. The Senator from Utah is here. He has served in the Senate for a while. We only have about 10 more minutes, and several colleagues are here who would like to speak. Doesn't the Senator from Utah think it is a great disappointment that we have not been able, instead of just talking about gas prices, to do something about gas prices? Can he help some of us who have been here a little less longer in the Senate understand how that could have happened?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Would the Chair please let me know when 5 minutes remains.

Mr. ALEXANDER. How much time do we have remaining?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator. I see the Senator from South Dakota. No one more vigorously advocates for the type alternative energy that the Senator from Alaska was talking about funding research for. The Senator from Alaska talked about the importance of research for advanced biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol. I have heard you talk about that before. It is a very promising area in addition to the ethanol we already produce.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, a week ago yesterday the Democratic leader brought to the floor an energy bill. It was limited to speculation. But we welcomed that, we on the Republican side. I think the American people welcomed it, because the most important issue facing our country is $4 gasoline. We are sending billions of dollars overseas to people, many of whom are trying to kill us by bankrolling terrorists. We are emptying our pockets to buy gasoline. I have e-mails and letters, as all Senators do--in my case from Tennesseans--from Marines who come home and do not have the money to take a family vacation, and from moms who are losing their jobs because they cannot afford to commute. So we welcomed the Democratic leader's bringing to the floor a week from yesterday the speculation bill. What we want to do in this 30 minutes is let the American people know what we could have accomplished in this last week if only the Democratic leader would have allowed a full and open debate on gas prices, including proposals to both find more and use less. You hear a lot of words here on the floor. I couldn't believe what I was hearing a few minutes ago. I thought I must be in the United Nations without translators, because, I mean, what the Democratic leader says he said is not what any of us heard him say. What we heard him say, when we asked to say: Let us bring up gas prices, let us talk about the real problems, let us talk about speculation, let us talk about supply, let us talk about demand, let us debate, let us vote, we have said: Let's come to some agreement about a number of amendments on each side. Limit them to energy, limit the amount of time, vote on them, see if we can take a serious step toward dealing with $4 gasoline. What we have said is we want to find more and use less. Now, why do we say that? Because the whole problem of $4 gasoline boils down to a couple of things: the expected increased demand for gasoline worldwide, especially in places like China and India where people are becoming richer and driving more cars; and the decreased supply. The United States can make a significant contribution to both demand and supply. Finding more is the way you deal with supply; using less is the way you deal with demand. So we offered one amendment that 44 senators agreed with that said: Let us do offshore drilling for oil and gas. Now, 85 percent of the area that should be available to offshore drilling is not available because of a congressional law. We said: Let's give States the option to do that. Secondly, we said: Let's take off the moratorium on oil shale in the western States, and proceed in an environmentally sound way to find more oil. Doing those two things over time, the Department of Interior has said, would increase by one-third United States oil production. On the other side, we said: Let's use less by making commonplace plug-in electric cars and trucks. We have 240 million cars and trucks in America. We use gasoline to run almost all of them. That comes from oil. If we instead began to use electricity to run those cars and trucks, we could cut in half the amount of oil we import and we could do it without building any new powerplants because we have so much electricity available at night when we are asleep. The powerplants rev down and they have got a lot of unused electricity. So you could literally, with a plug-in electric car, plug it in at night for 60 cents--that is your fill-up--and drive 30 or 40 miles on your electric battery before the gasoline engine kicks in, in your hybrid car. This is no far-fetched idea. Nissan, General Motors, Ford, Toyota-- all will have these cars on the markets. Half of our electric power is unused at night. So we have got the cars coming, we have got the power, all we need is the cord. In the Congress we have substantial agreement across party lines to do that. We have a variety of other ideas that could help us find more and use less. For example, we would like to make it easier for more nuclear powerplants. But on the other side they say no. But what we are trying to say is, Mr. Democratic Leader, let us come to the floor and do what we could have been doing for the last 8 days and try to fashion a serious effort at lowering gasoline prices. Start saying yes, we can, instead of no, we cannot. I see the Senator from Alaska here, who is one of the ranking Senators on the Energy Committee and one of the most knowledgeable on this issue. I would ask her: What do you think we might have accomplished in these last 8 days, and what could we still accomplish?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I see the Senator from Tennessee, a member of the Energy Committee. He is one of the newer Members of the Senate. He has his feet pretty firmly on the ground. I am sure he is here to try to accomplish something. I wondered if he has any reflection about these last 8 days and our ability to try to deal with the No. 1 issue facing the American people, $4 gasoline.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama. The Senator from Oklahoma wishes to speak, but before that, I would like to make a unanimous consent request. The majority leader said we could offer amendments on energy that dealt with gas prices. We said we hadn't heard that to be the case for the last 8 days, but we are eager to do that. So I would like to renew, once again, the unanimous consent request that would establish a way in which this Senate on Monday could take up $4-a-gallon gasoline, with amendments on each side of the aisle and debate them with a limited time agreement and try to come to a result on both the issues of more supply and less demand. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the pending energy speculation measure in the following manner: that the bill be subject to energy-related amendments only; provided further that the amendments be considered in an alternating manner between the two sides of the aisle. I further ask consent that the bill remain the pending business to the exclusion of all other business other than privileged matters or items that are agreed to jointly by the two leaders. I further ask consent that the first seven amendments to be offered on this side of the aisle by the Republican leader or his designee be the following: Outer Continental Shelf exploration plus plug-in hybrid cars; No. 2, oil shale plus conservation; No. 3, Alaska energy production plus conservation; No. 4, the Gas Price Reduction Act; No. 5, the clean nuclear energy amendment; No. 6, the coal-to-liquid energy amendment for military aviation fuel, plus the conservation provisions in that amendment; and No. 7, LIHEAP.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska. I ask unanimous consent, if it has not been asked already, that we conduct the next 30 minutes as in a colloquy.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator for his remarks. I stayed also to hear Senator Coburn, and I am glad I did. It was an important speech for this body in a whole variety of ways. The Senator from Alabama spoke about one of the ways, but another way is that he reminded us that we are here not to advance our own political interests. I don't think most of us feel as if we are. We come here from a variety of different directions. For most of us, it is an accident we are here. We don't take ourselves all that seriously. We know it is just a set of circumstances that put us here, and we work hard. I think most of us get up every day hoping by the end of the day that we will think of something constructive to do that will help the country. But the functioning of the Senate has failed us in our ability to do that. I have tried to put my finger on it over the last 6 years. I am not sure I have all the answers. I came here 40 years ago, with Howard Baker, in 1967. I was very young, just out of law school, and I watched things. It is never very easy--in a big complex country like this--to resolve things, and so many of the tougher issues get thrown here. We are supposed to have big issues and fierce debates and big arguments and differences of opinion. That is what we are for. But the tradition has always been that when they come here, we not only bring them up and discuss them, but we resolve them; that we come to some conclusion. That is a part of what Senator Coburn says as well. We are not able to do that when the structure of the Senate keeps us for 9 days, as an example, from dealing with the single most important issue facing our country--high gas prices. Senator Coburn spoke about another equally important issue to our country--our fiscal condition in the country. So we need to think about what we need to do to change the structure of our Senate. I know many on the other side must feel the same way. I served with some of them when we were Governors and we were of different parties. I know they are well intentioned. We have our private conversations. We all express to each other our disappointment that we are not able to focus on a major issue and show respect for our opinions and then come to a result. We must do that. Our country faces many serious challenges. The fiscal condition of our country has to be dealt with in the next 6 years. It has to be dealt with. The challenge of energy independence has to be dealt with. Our health care system has to be dealt with. We can't do that with a dysfunctional Senate. We simply can't do that. So we need to dedicate ourselves to working across party lines and to putting the country first and partisan considerations second. I think most of us would rather do that. But there are a few here who prevent that, and perhaps we just need to overcome it. Maybe we are spending all our spare time in too many partisan meetings. Maybe we need to spend more together. But I stayed to listen to Senator Coburn because I respect him. There are very few Senators who are more valuable in our Senate than he. He is obviously here not for some partisan purpose. He has a sense of purpose about our country and about our Senate. I commend him for it, and I am glad I had the privilege of hearing him speak this afternoon. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Alabama, one of the parts of the Republican proposal is to make plug-in electric cars and trucks commonplace, which sounds like a startling idea the first time you hear it, the idea that you would just take your car or your truck and plug it into the wall at home and fill it up with electricity instead of gasoline. But the fact is, Nissan announced in Tennessee the other day that it will have a pure electric car out in about 3 years. General Motors, Toyota, Ford--they are all going to be selling these cars. We are going to have the cars. The Tennessee Valley Authority, which serves the region where we live, says it has plenty of electricity at night which it can sell at low cost. So we have the cars coming. We have the electricity. All we need is the cord. We could use a debate and discussion on the Senate floor to help make this country a place in which plug-in electric cars and trucks would succeed. That is part of our amendment. I ask the Senator from Alabama, don't you think there is widespread support for plug-in cars and trucks on that side and widespread support on this side? Why don't we have some amendments about that? Why aren't we allowed to do it?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, that is exactly my view. What makes it especially appealing is that the Government is not in charge of it. The car companies are making the cars. The utilities have the electricity. It is estimated that we could electrify half of our cars and trucks in America without building a single new powerplant.

Mr. ALEXANDER. How much time remains?

Mr. ALEXANDER. It would. I see the Senator from South Dakota, who has been in many ways the foremost champion of renewable energy here. We often hear him say that in the Dakotas they have more opportunity for wind energy, which, to the extent we use it, would reduce the amount of oil we use if we plug in electric cars and trucks, as an example, or use biofuels that are an alternative fuel. I wonder if the Senator from South Dakota would not agree that using less oil, giving big oil some competition, is not a big part of the Republican proposal?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the Senator who has helped us frame the debate has arrived on the floor, the Republican leader. I have heard him say repeatedly that we want a result. This is not a time for playing games. This is not a time for scoring points. This is a time when Americans--South Dakotans, Alabamians, Tennesseans--we are all hurting. I get stories from marines who do not have money for their vacation with their family after 18 months in Iraq, from moms who are losing their job because they cannot afford the commute. We have an opportunity. We could be doing it this day. We could be debating Senator Thune's proposals on wind and renewable energy and biofuels, Senator Sessions' proposals on conservation and plug-in vehicles. Yet we are in this parliamentary procedure to block us from offering anything that has to do with finding more and using less-- except the one proposal. I see the Republican leader in the Chamber. I wonder if he would agree with me that the American people are ready for the Senate to act and get a result on $4 gasoline, and the Republicans are at least as interested in using less oil, giving big oil some competition, as we are in finding more?

Mr. ALEXANDER. We should start today. I wonder if the Senator would agree with me. What I hope I never hear on the Senate floor again is it will take 10 years or it will take 5 years because, I wonder what we are supposed to do, not look ahead for the kind of country we want for our children? What if President Kennedy said: I would like to go to the Moon, but it will take 10 years, so forget it. What if President Roosevelt had said: We need to build an atom bomb to win World War II, but it is going to take 3 years, so we better drop that idea. Or what if Benjamin Franklin had said: I would like to see a republic for these colonies, but it might take 50 years, so let's not do that. Our job is to look down the road a few years and try to create a better environment for people. In addition, the price of gasoline today is based upon the expected supply and expected demand tomorrow. So if this world saw the United States of America take major steps today to change the supply and demand in the world for oil and gas, the price would be affected today, in my view. I wonder if the Senator from South Dakota would agree that the family budget--

Mr. ALEXANDER. Would the Chair be so kind as to let me know when 1 minute remains?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the Senate just voted, because of the way Republicans voted, to stay on $4 gasoline until we can find a serious solution to this problem. This is the biggest problem facing our country. The point we are trying to make is that we think we ought to take it up, take a week, take several days, offer our ideas, and the Democratic ideas--there are many about which we agree--and see if we can make some substantial progress to finding more oil and gas and using less oil and gas, which is the way we lower price if you believe in the law of supply and demand. What we have discovered, to our surprise--we are willing to do both, to find more and use less, but the Democratic leader, at least, is not. Whenever we say we want to use more, he says: No, we can't. More oil shale: No. More offshore drilling: No. So what we would like to emphasize in these next few minutes is that, unlike the way the Democratic leader has characterized our proposal, we are equally interested in using less oil and finding more. After all, the United States uses 25 percent of all the oil in the world. So if we really want to reduce the demand for oil as a way of affecting price, we need to get serious about using less oil as well as finding more. I went to Oak Ridge National Laboratory in May and suggested we need a new Manhattan Project for clean energy independence, to put us on a path, over the next 5 years, toward clean energy independence. We would start with doing the things we already know how to do, such as building more nuclear powerplants--we know how to do that--offshore drilling, for which 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf is now, by law, off limits. But I mentioned, then, several things we do not know how to do. We ought to have crash programs and do them quickly. One was to make solar energy cost competitive with fossil fuels in 5 years. Another was research in advanced biofuels so we can make alternative fuels from crops we do not eat as well as crops such as corn that we do eat. That is another way to use less oil. Another is to make all new buildings green buildings. We waste a lot of energy, and much of it is in our buildings. Another goal is to make plug-in electric cars and trucks commonplace. That is another way to use less oil. The Senator from Alabama has been an effective spokesman not only for using and finding more American energy but for using less of it. I heard him on the floor yesterday, and I would ask the Senator, isn't it true that an essential part of the Republican plan--but let's call it the American plan--for really dealing with the price of gasoline today is to deal with both supply and demand, and that we are equally interested in the demand part and using less part as we are in the supply part?

Mr. ALEXANDER.--that the family budget is more important than the legislative calendar, and that the family budget in America is more important than a legislative vacation, and what we ought to be doing today and over the weekend and next week is figuring out what to do about $4 gasoline by finding more and using less.