Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I further ask unanimous consent that it be in order to also consider amendment No. 3141, relating to fuel cell vehicles, and that all four amendments I have referred to be agreed to en bloc.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Finally, I ask unanimous consent amendment No. 3028 and amendment No. 3070 be withdrawn.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask that the Senate now proceed to the following amendments that are at the desk. There are nine. First is an amendment for Senator Cantwell relating to the high-power density industry program; the second is an amendment for Senator Reid relating to precious metal catalysis research; the third is an amendment for myself relating to energy savings associated with water use; the fourth is an amendment for Senator Schumer relating to appliance rebates; the fifth is an amendment for Senator Landrieu relating to small businesses; the sixth is an amendment for Senator Corzine relating to public housing; the seventh is an amendment for Senator Kennedy relating to schoolbuses; the eighth is an amendment for Senator Lincoln relating to a decommissioning pilot program; and the ninth is an amendment for Senator Murkowski relating to a clean coal technology loan. I ask for the immediate consideration of these amendments, en bloc.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3141

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the consideration en bloc of the following amendments: Amendment No. 3015, relating to a National Academy of Sciences study on certain spent nuclear fuel shipments; amendment No. 3024, relating to nuclear powerplant licensing and regulation; amendment No. 3078, relating to a review of Federal procurement initiatives, and that those amendments be modified with changes at the desk.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will summarize some points we have made several times before. I think this debate has been useful in that all the arguments have been heard extensively. I do think it is an important issue. I commend the Senators from Alaska for their efforts to move ahead. I do not favor going ahead with opening ANWR to drilling, and I think this is a debate which has continued, frankly, for decades in this Senate and in this country. My own view is the long-term energy needs of our country can be best met with a balanced, comprehensive bill, which we are trying hard to enact and perfect in the Senate, that encourages domestic production in ways that are not environmentally objectionable to a substantial portion of our population. I mentioned those. There are substantial opportunities for us to increase production on the North Slope of Alaska. There are substantial opportunities for us to increase production in the Rocky Mountain region, and I know that is going to be objectionable to some people, but we have a lot of production in my State. I think there are opportunities for additional production. There is a lot of opportunity for increased production in the gulf that we can benefit from substantially. In addition to that domestic production, though, we need to have a heavy emphasis on increased efficiency. There is no reason we cannot use the new technology that has been developed to reduce dependence on foreign sources of oil. I regret some of the earlier votes we have had on this bill in that regard. I will not revisit that right now, but I will say there are opportunities for us to pursue an enlightened policy that positions us better in the future with regard to our energy needs. Meeting those needs and opening ANWR to drilling is not a necessary part of that. I do not support it as an environmental policy, and I do not support it as part of this energy bill. We will have a good opportunity to express views on that in these upcoming two votes, and Members know exactly what the issues are. There is no mystery about that. With regard to the first of the votes we are going to cast, it is complicated by the fact that we have had loaded in there provisions relating to the steel industry and the legacy issues related to the steel industry. I have said before, and I reiterate, this is not the right place to deal with those issues. I support trying to find a solution to those problems, but this is not the right place to do so.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in response to some of the comments that have been made, I want to make two points, very simply. First of all, the projections for the extent of our dependence on foreign oil in the future are not my projections. They are the projections of the current administration, the Bush administration, the Department of Energy, the Energy Information Agency within the Department of Energy. They have said if we do not change policies in some other significant respects, we will be 75-percent dependent upon foreign sources of oil by the year 2030 if ANWR is opened, and we will be 75-percent dependent on foreign sources of oil if ANWR is not opened. So that is the point I was trying to make. The second issue I want to clarify--I believe Senator Stevens raised the question or disputed that the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska, had been opened for drilling. My information, which I believe is accurate, is that the Bureau of Land Management held a sale, an oil and gas lease sale in May of 1999, during the Clinton administration. It generated a high level of industry interest. There were 3.9 million acres that were offered for lease at that time. In fact, 132 leases were issued covering 867,000 acres. The bonus bids on that lease sale were $104.6 million. So there has been a significant lease sale in the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska. I know there is another lease sale scheduled for June of this year, which I support, with which Secretary Norton is going forward. And I know there are plans being made for even a more substantial lease sale in the next few years. So there certainly is the opportunity for oil and gas development in those areas. I have a press release dated May of last year, 2001, saying Phillips Alaska, a wholly owned subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum, and Anadarko Petroleum have announced the first discoveries in the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska, since the area was reopened for exploration in 1999. So there has been real success for developing oil and gas in that area. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I welcome a chance to speak for a few additional minutes on this important issue. In my view, opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not good environmental policy for our country and also it distracts us from the effort we are making to craft a comprehensive energy policy the country can support and with which we can move ahead. I urge my colleagues to vote against the cloture motions. I have several reasons for that. One point that needs to be made very clearly is one that I think has sort of not been said but has been part of the background discussion, and that is that nothing that is proposed with regard to drilling for oil in the wildlife refuge would in any way reduce the price of gas for Americans. The suggestion has been made, well, the price of gas is going up. Therefore, we have to rush out and drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. The truth is, there is nothing in these proposals that is going to affect the price of gas to the American consumer. I think everyone sort of concedes that point when asked the question, but I wanted to make it very explicit. Also, there is nothing in this proposal to help us with our short- term needs. The Energy Information Agency says that even if we were to pass legislation this year to permit drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, there would be no production out of that area for at least 7 years, perhaps for as long as 12 years. We had a hearing in the Energy Committee where the representative from ExxonMobil said it would be at least 8 years, and more realistically probably 10 years. So there is no solution to our short- term needs in these proposals. I would also make the point, which we have tried to make in several ways, that there is really no solution to our long-term needs in this proposal to open the wildlife refuge either. I have a chart that we have shown before, but I think it is a very instructive chart. It is based on information from the Energy Information Agency, which is part of our Federal Government, part of the administration. We asked them first a pretty obvious question. We said, let us look long-term in the year 2020. How dependent will we be on foreign oil if we do not open ANWR to production? They said, we will be 62 percent dependent. The exact figures they gave us show we are about 55 percent dependent this year on foreign sources of oil. In 2020, we will be 62 percent dependent if we do not open ANWR. Everybody said, great. Let us think about opening ANWR then. We said, how dependent would we be if we did open ANWR to drilling? They said we would be 60 percent dependent. That is the issue. It is a 2-percent difference in the year 2020. Then we asked the next question: Longer term, what about 2030? How dependent will we be in 2030 if we don't open ANWR to drilling? The answer is, 75-percent dependent upon foreign sources of oil. This is assuming we don't change any of our other policies with regard to CAFE standards, with regard to use of hydrogen power for fuel cells or anything else. They said 75 percent; we said, if we do open ANWR to drilling, how dependent? And they say 75 percent. The truth is, their projections indicate that whether ANWR is opened or is not opened for drilling and production, by the year 2030 it is all gone and we are at 75-percent dependence upon foreign sources of oil. So there is nothing in these proposed amendments we are going to be voting on that solves our long-term problems. The controversy, I do believe, has diverted our attention from other real opportunities to enhance our domestic energy production. Let me recount briefly what some of those are. Senators from Alaska made the point very strongly, and I agree with them, that a tremendous opportunity for our country as far as meeting our energy needs in the future is concerned is getting the gas that is produced in the Arctic down to the lower 48 so we can use it. We have 32 million cubic feet of natural gas that is immediately available, substantially more natural gas that is expected to be available if there is a way to transport that--a pipeline--from the North Slope down to the lower 48. We have provisions in this bill that will facilitate the construction of that pipeline. We have worked with the Senators from Alaska to try to devise other provisions, incentives, ways to reduce the risk, the financial risk involved, so that pipeline can be constructed. It is very much in our national interest that be done. I very much hope as a result of the legislation, we are able to do this. Talking now again about oil rather than natural gas, there are substantial prospects for increased production of oil on the North Slope of Alaska in the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska. There are 23 million acres of Federal land that have been set aside to secure our petroleum reserves. That is the orange area on this map. This is very promising. The previous administration leased a substantial area for drilling. Those leases were certainly sought by the industry. There is another lease sale being prepared for this June. There are additional lease sales planned in the future. They all have the very high interest of the oil and gas industry. I strongly support going ahead with that development. It is something we need to do to meet our needs. I hope we do. In addition, there is a substantial area of State and Native lands between the Arctic Refuge and the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska, between the green area, which is the wildlife refuge area, and the orange area, which is the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska area. That is State and Native land. There is an aggressive State leasing program going forward there. That benefits, of course, everyone and increases domestic production. Even when we get away from the North Slope of Alaska and look at the Gulf States, we have today 32 million acres offshore of Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi, that have been leased for drilling and have not yet been drilled and developed. We need to figure out what we can do through policies and incentives to encourage the development of those resources. Clearly, there is a substantial benefit to our country there. The point I made repeatedly throughout the 5 or 6 weeks we have been on this bill--I am losing track at this point--the point I have made repeatedly is we need to begin looking to other sources of energy. We need to be looking at other ways to meet our energy needs: Better energy conservation, more attention to research and development, more attention to renewable energy sources. Clearly, that needs to be a major thrust of what we do. There are provisions in one of the amendments we will vote on related to the steelworkers and to the steel industry. The Senator from Pennsylvania was here a few minutes ago and spoke to that. Many Members in the Senate are sympathetic to the problems the steel industry has encountered, particularly the workers, the retirees from that industry, the legacy issue relating to the steel industry. I am persuaded this is not the right place to try to deal with that issue. We should not be trying to deal with that issue as an add-on to a proposal related to the opening of the Arctic Refuge. I also don't believe we should be trying to deal with any of our commitments or assistance to Israel as part of this effort to open the Arctic Refuge for drilling. Those are separate issues. There is strong support in the Senate for dealing with both of those issues, but it is not appropriate, in my view, to try to roll those into these amendments. This energy bill has got enough on it and enough issues to deal with without adding these provisions. Clearly, they complicate the issue substantially and do not hold out a real prospect for solving either of those problems. There is a lot of talk about jobs. I believe sincerely this energy bill overall, if we can pass it, if we can get it to the President for signature, will create substantial jobs in this country. We will do that in a variety of ways. We will create substantial jobs if we incentivize construction of the gas pipeline from the North Slope down to the lower 48. We will create substantial jobs if we are able to move ahead with more use of renewable energy throughout our country. That will create substantial jobs. There are all sorts of provisions in the bill that will create jobs. I believe it is far better in the job creation arena than the bill passed by the House of Representatives last summer. I conclude by saying I hope Senators will vote against cloture on these two amendments so we can move on to some other issues and conclude action on this very important energy bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am informed Senator Daschle wishes to speak and is going to be coming to the floor in a few minutes to do that. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I concur with my colleague that this issue deserves more discussion. I look forward to further analysis and discussion of this in conference in order to arrive at a final position.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time as well.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have no objection. Following that, I expect to yield back most of my time. I gather we are ready for a vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the key part of this is some comment on the amendment my colleague, Senator Murkowski, is now offering. It says: Mr. Murkowski wants to ban Iraqi oil imports. We have done this before. Libyan oil was banned. Iranian oil was banned. But oil is a commodity, and import bans make little difference in the global market. Unless all importers join the boycott, the oil will find a buyer. The main point is pretty clear: If Iraq is going to decide at the end of this 30 days to commence exports again, it will find a buyer for that oil. It will likely continue to sell at a discount in the world market. If we prohibit the importation of that oil into the United States, that is not going to hurt Saddam Hussein. That is not going to hurt Iraq. Iraq will find a buyer for that oil. We will be buying the oil we need from another source, but we will be buying on the world market just as we are today. As I say, I think there is less here than meets the eye as far as actually trying to impact or strike a blow against Saddam Hussein. I do not see that this amendment does that. I think, if anything, it puts our President in the awkward position of having to send a certificate to the Congress saying that, in his view, we should go ahead and continue to import Iraqi oil. Maybe that is what the President would like. Maybe that is what the Secretary of State would like. Maybe that is what the Secretary of Energy would like. I have not heard that from any of them, and I think the appropriate course would be for us to solicit their opinion on an important amendment such as this before we adopt it. My initial reaction to this kind of amendment, and I am sure the initial reaction of most Senators, is: Fine, this is an anti-Saddam Hussein vote. How do you go wrong, how do you lose support in your home State by voting against Saddam Hussein? I would venture to say nobody does. However, this is a sensitive area of foreign policy and I do not know whether the Foreign Relations Committee has considered anything like this. It might be something they would be interested in looking at. I do not know if Senator Biden, who is chairman of that committee, has had a chance to look at this and formulate a position on it. I do not know that many Senators would want to vote against an amendment of this type, but if it is going to be pushed to a vote, I hope before the vote occurs--and I know it is expected to occur very soon under the unanimous consent agreement--I hope we can get some communication from the White House as to whether or not they support the amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Dallas Morning News, Apr. 15, 2002] In Oil, Profit Often Beats Politics Washington.--Gasoline prices climbed 31 cents a gallon in the last eight weeks. Israelis and Palestinians are at war again. Saddam Hussein says Iraq will halt oil production for 30 days to protest. None of this is encouraging, but neither is it a description of an oil crisis. When one spigot closes, another opens. There's 7 million barrels a day of spare production capacity available to make up for Iraq's 1.7 million barrels a day of exports. The 11 members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries hold 90 percent of that spare capacity. OPEC has tried since the 1973 Arab oil embargo to convince the world that it is an economic club rather than a political weapon. Saudi Arabia, with 3 million barrels a day of spare capacity, is expected to cover any Iraqi-induced shortage, as it has before. Gasoline prices have risen rapidly in recent weeks but remain about 10 cents a gallon below last year's levels. Dallas experienced its highest price for unleaded regular on May 12, when the average was $1.66 a gallon. Oil is the most political commodity. It was largely Saudi Arabia's political will to produce more that sent oil prices down after Sept. 11, and Saudi curbs on oil that sent them back up again. The oil workers in Venezuela and Nigeria flexed their political muscles last week in showdowns with their governments that coincided with the agonies of the Middle East. Nigeria's unrest centered on unpaid oil workers, and quieted quickly. Venezuelan oil deliveries were disrupted, and the strikers persuaded the military to join them in an abortive coup Friday against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Mr. Chavez returned to office Sunday, 48 hours after being ousted. Iraq and Venezuela supply a major portion of oil refined in the United States. Venezuela sends half its 2.4 million barrels a day of exports to the United States, both as gasoline and crude oil. More than half of Iraq's exports also land in the United States. Given the enmity between our countries, that seems crazy. But economics beats politics with Iraqi oil, whose price discounts seem irresistible to U.S. refiners. Republican Sens. Frank Murkowski of Alaska and Larry Craig of Idaho are incensed by Iraq's presence in the market. They say that every time a U.S. motorist fills up, he or she is putting money in the pockets of suicide terrorists. (Iraq has offered $25,000 to their families.) Mr. Murkowski wants to ban Iraqi oil imports. We have done this before. Libyan oil was banned. Iranian oil was banned. But oil is a commodity, and import bans make little difference in the global market. Unless all the importers join the boycott, the oil will find a buyer. The same logic applies to export bans. Iraq can quit producing, and Saudi Arabia covers the deficit. Iraq and Venezuela can stumble together, and if the Saudis don't cover it all, prices will rise around the world and tempt other nations to increase their production. OPEC, in fact, can ill afford to see its oil production used as a political weapon. The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects OPEC production to be down 1.9 million barrels a day this year as the cartel tries to defend a price band. This lures others, particularly the Russians, to fill the gap. Non-OPEC production is expected to increase this year by 1.1 million barrels a day. Because profit has more pull than political kinship, rival producers will rush to capitalize upon a slowdown in Iraqi and Venezuelan oil exports. That logic founders if something happens to disrupt Saudi oil production. No one can take Saudi Arabia's place in the market. Today's regime in Saudi Arabia shows no sign of repeating the 1973 oil embargo. Tomorrow's regime? Who knows?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me make a few comments with regard to the amendment, and I do not know that I will be in opposition, but I have some concerns I wish to express--and perhaps ask a few questions-- I have the amendment in front of me--my understanding of what the amendment is that first of all, it does not in any way prohibit Iraq from exporting oil. I think that is clear. Iraq has made a decision just recently to suspend its exports of oil for 30 days. So that is in place, as I understand it. But this amendment does not prohibit Iraq from exporting oil or does not commit us to any action which would in any way prohibit Iraq from exporting oil. Second, it does not prohibit us from importing oil from other sources. What it basically says is, we can continue to import whatever the percentage is--50 percent, 56 percent--of our oil needs from the world market. We just cannot import from this source. Also, it does not really by its language impose a legal prohibition against importing from Iraq. What it says is, as I read it and this is on page 3 of the amendment. It says: This Act prohibits imports until such time as the President, after consultation with the relevant committees in Congress, certifies to the Congress that resuming the importation of Iraqi-origin petroleum and petroleum products would not be inconsistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. Basically, it takes the decision, which has been our national policy, that we would import legally exported Iraqi oil, just as we would import other oil. It says that in order for us to continue with that activity, the President has to give us a certification that it is not inconsistent with our national security or foreign policy interests to do so. Obviously, our relations with Iraq are a very serious foreign policy issue for our country at this time, and I am persuaded that most Members of the Senate would be very anxious to work in cooperation with the administration and with the President in formulating our policy toward Iraq. I do not know where the administration stands on this amendment. I do not know if there has been any request for their views on it. I would be anxious to hear from the sponsor of the amendment if he has had a reaction from the administration. We have made some informal inquiries, and we have been unable to get a response from the administration. I, frankly, think the responsible course would be for us to give the administration a chance to tell us its views. If the President wants this legislation enacted, then obviously that would carry great weight with many Senators. If the President believes this puts him in an awkward position, in that it requires him to issue a certificate to permit continued imports of Iraqi oil, then I think we should know. Obviously, there are many Members of this body who do not want to put the President in an awkward position relative to our relations with Iraq. I also have concerns about how an amendment such as this could be interpreted in world oil markets. We are very concerned that the price of gasoline has been going up in recent weeks, and we heard a lot about that during the ANWR debate that just concluded. Of course, that is a reflection, to some extent at least, of the rising price of oil on world markets. The price is up around $26 a barrel today, which is substantially higher than it was a few months ago. People are concerned about that. However, the information I have is that one reason why we import oil from Iraq is that we are able to do so at a discount. Why is Iraq forced to sell its oil at a discount in the world market? Because it is considered by the market to be a somewhat unreliable source for oil, so they are not able to get the premium price that some other producers are able to get. U.S. refiners benefit from that, and U.S. consumers benefit from the fact that we are buying that oil at a discount. I have an article that I will ask be printed in the Congressional Record after my statement, from the April 15 edition of the Dallas Morning News. The title of it is: ``In Oil, Profit Often Beats Politics.'' I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record after my statement.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains in opposition?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today entitled the ``Community Health Workers Act of 2002'' would improve access to health education and outreach services to women in medically underserved areas in the United States-New Mexico border region. Lack of access to adequate health care and health education is a significant problem along the United States-New Mexico border. While the access problem is in part due to a lack of insurance, it is also attributable to non-financial barriers to access. These barriers include a shortage of physicians and other health professionals, and hospitals; inadequate transportation; a shortage of bilingual health information and health providers; and culturally insensitive systems of care. This legislation would help to address the issue of access by providing $6 million in grants to State, local, and tribal organizations, including community health centers and public health departments, for the purpose of hiring community health workers to provide health education, outreach, and referrals to women and families who otherwise would have little or no contact with health care services. Recognizing factors such as poverty and language and cultural differences that often serve as barriers to health care access in medically underserved populations, community health workers are in a unique position to improve health outcomes and quality of care for groups that have traditionally lacked access to adequate services. The positive benefits of the community health worker model have been documented. Research has shown that community health workers have been effective in increasing the utilization of health preventive services such as cancer screenings and medical follow up for elevated blood pressure. Preliminary investigation of a community health workers project in New Mexico suggests that community health workers also help to increase enrollment in health insurance programs such as Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. According to an Institute of Medicine, IOM, report entitled, ``Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare,'' ``community health workers offer promise as a community- based resource to increase racial and ethnic minorities' access to health care and to serve as a liaison between healthcare providers and the communities they serve.'' Although the community health worker model is valued on the United States-Mexico border as well as other parts of the country that encounter challenges of meeting the health care needs of medically underserved populations, these programs often have difficulty securing adequate financial resources to maintain and expand upon their services. As a result, many of these programs are significantly limited in their ability to meet the ongoing and emerging health demands of their communities. The IOM report also notes that ``programs to support the use of community health workers . . . especially among medically underserved and racial and ethnic minority populations, should be expanded, evaluated, and replicated.'' I am introducing this legislation to increase resources for a model that has shown significant promise for increasing access to quality health care and health education for families in medically underserved communities. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today entitled the ``Community Health Workers Act of 2002'' would improve access to health education and outreach services to women in medically underserved areas in the United States-New Mexico border region. Lack of access to adequate health care and health education is a significant problem along the United States-New Mexico border. While the access problem is in part due to a lack of insurance, it is also attributable to non-financial barriers to access. These barriers include a shortage of physicians and other health professionals, and hospitals; inadequate transportation; a shortage of bilingual health information and health providers; and culturally insensitive systems of care. This legislation would help to address the issue of access by providing $6 million in grants to State, local, and tribal organizations, including community health centers and public health departments, for the purpose of hiring community health workers to provide health education, outreach, and referrals to women and families who otherwise would have little or no contact with health care services. Recognizing factors such as poverty and language and cultural differences that often serve as barriers to health care access in medically underserved populations, community health workers are in a unique position to improve health outcomes and quality of care for groups that have traditionally lacked access to adequate services. The positive benefits of the community health worker model have been documented. Research has shown that community health workers have been effective in increasing the utilization of health preventive services such as cancer screenings and medical follow up for elevated blood pressure. Preliminary investigation of a community health workers project in New Mexico suggests that community health workers also help to increase enrollment in health insurance programs such as Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. According to an Institute of Medicine, IOM, report entitled, ``Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare,'' ``community health workers offer promise as a community- based resource to increase racial and ethnic minorities' access to health care and to serve as a liaison between healthcare providers and the communities they serve.'' Although the community health worker model is valued on the United States-Mexico border as well as other parts of the country that encounter challenges of meeting the health care needs of medically underserved populations, these programs often have difficulty securing adequate financial resources to maintain and expand upon their services. As a result, many of these programs are significantly limited in their ability to meet the ongoing and emerging health demands of their communities. The IOM report also notes that ``programs to support the use of community health workers . . . especially among medically underserved and racial and ethnic minority populations, should be expanded, evaluated, and replicated.'' I am introducing this legislation to increase resources for a model that has shown significant promise for increasing access to quality health care and health education for families in medically underserved communities. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, under the unanimous consent, I believe the Senator from Wisconsin is the next Senator to speak.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I don't want to argue with the Senator's basic point. I am in general agreement with him, that we ought to be drilling some places where we are not drilling today. But the chart the Senator has seems to indicate you are not drilling in northwestern Mexico. That is one of the largest gasfields in this country, the San Juan Basin. We are drilling at an amazing rate up there. I support the drilling that goes on there, by and large. I do not know about all the rest of the Rocky Mountain region, if that map is intending to indicate you cannot drill in it. But an awful lot of our State is being drilled in, and appropriately so.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Would my friend from Louisiana yield for a question?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I welcome a chance to speak about the pending amendments. There are two amendments that have been proposed related to ANWR: A first-degree amendment by my friend Senator Murkowski relates to the proposal to open ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge area, to drilling, and the second-degree amendment by Senator Stevens proposes to do that but also proposes a major relief program related to the U.S. steel industry primarily. I will try to talk about the ANWR-related provisions of the bill, and particularly the energy aspects of those today. I oppose opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development, and there are many reasons why. Some of those reasons relate to the energy security issues with which we are trying to deal. Some relate to environmental concerns. I am strongly committed, as I believe most Members of this body are, to our Nation's energy security, and the energy bill we have put forward tries to emphasize domestic energy supply and the importance of energy in national security. However, developing the oil and gas resources in this Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge, this area known as the 1002 area, is simply not a necessary component of a progressive energy policy for this country. The development of the Coastal Plain has been debated in this country and in this Congress for nearly 40 years. Experts still disagree about the actual reserve potential. In May of 1998, the Geological Survey released new estimates of oil in the refuge. In that analysis, the USGS's mean estimate of economically recoverable oil on Federal lands within the 1002 area was from 3.2 to 5.2 billion barrels, and that was assuming a price of $20 to $24 per barrel using 1996 dollars. Today the United States consumes about 19 million barrels of oil each day, almost 7 billion barrels of oil each year. We have a chart I will put up which I think begins to make that point. As this chart indicates, production from the Arctic Refuge would not contribute significantly to solving this problem. I will make the point by reference to this chart. Domestic oil production, as shown on this chart, has been declining since 1970 and continues to decline today. That is this green line toward the bottom of the chart. Total oil demand, on the other hand, in the United States has been going up and is expected to continue going up. This chart goes from the year 1950 to the year 2020. We can see demand continuing to go up. This middle line is transportation demand, and one of the points this chart makes is that total oil demand is driven directly by transportation demand. I think people can see that pretty readily. This little red line down in the right-hand side is domestic oil production with ANWR. So we can see that domestic oil production, although it continues to decline, would uptick. For a period starting at about 2012, we would see an increase in domestic production under ANWR, if ANWR was open to development. It does not reverse the long-term trend, which is less U.S. production, more imported oil, but for a relatively short period, considering our Nation's history, we would see an increase in domestic production. The estimate we have from the Energy Information Agency is we would see about a 2 to 3 percent of oil demand in a given year coming out of the ANWR production at the peak of that production. The Energy Information Agency assumes it will take 7 to 12 years before we have any production from ANWR. We had a hearing in our Energy Committee. We invited representatives of some of the major oil companies that have interests on the North Slope, and the representative from ExxonMobile was asked that very question: How long will it take to bring production to market if we go ahead and enact legislation? His estimate was 10 to 12 years. He said: Assuming there are no legal problems that need to be overcome, it would take as few as 8 years; more likely, it would take something in the range of 10 years. According to the Energy Information Agency, peak production would not occur for nearly 20 years after initial production. So development would not address the near-term prices or shortages with which people are faced. The figures the Energy Information Agency has given me indicate their estimate is 54 percent of the oil we consume, as of January, was imported oil. That is why I believe clearly we need to address the problem. We need to try to pass comprehensive energy legislation. As I said before, though, opening the Arctic Refuge is not the answer to this dependence on foreign oil. The recent report that the Energy Information Agency came out with has a quotation in it that I think is very important. This is on page 6 of a report that the Energy Information Agency issued in February of 2002. That was 2 months ago. They say: The increase in ANWR production would lead to a decline in the U.S. dependence on foreign oil for the 2002 referenced case. Net imports are projected to supply 62 percent of all oil used in the United States by 2020. Opening ANWR is estimated to reduce the percentage share of our imports to 60 percent. I will put this second chart up to make the point very graphically. What the Energy Information Agency is telling us is there will be less need for us to import oil if we open ANWR, and that reduced need for imports would come in about 2012. It would be about 2 percent. Instead of importing 62 percent of our oil in the year 2020, we would be importing 60 percent of our oil in the year 2020. The other thing the Energy Information Agency says, which I think is very instructive, if we carry their projections out--and these are all their projections; this is technically recoverable oil from ANWR as they see it--if these are carried out, by the year 2026 those two lines come together again and we are back in a situation where we are as dependent on foreign oil in the year 2027, for example, as we would have been absent any drilling in ANWR. By the year 2030, their projection is we are going to be 75-percent dependent upon imports for our oil if ANWR is open for drilling and we are going to be 75-percent dependent upon imports of foreign oil if ANWR is not open for drilling. So from their perspective, if we look at a 28- or 30-year timeframe, they see absolutely no difference in the extent of our dependence whether we open ANWR or we do not open ANWR. Another point I think is important to make is this focus on developing the Arctic Refuge has drawn attention away from real opportunities we do have to enhance our domestic energy production and reduce our reliance on imported oil and help us attain energy security. Let me mention some of these opportunities from which I think we have had our attention deflected. First is the development of the abundant gas resources on other parts of the North Slope that are already open for development, coupled with the construction of a natural gas transportation system, a pipeline to bring that gas from the North Slope down to the lower 48. I will speak some more about each of these in a moment. A second opportunity I think we have not given enough attention to is that production from the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska. This is a highly prospective area for recent oil and gas leasing activity, and it is one where I think we have great potential to produce additional oil. A third opportunity is new production from lands already under lease that are not being developed. There are many such lands offshore Louisiana, Texas, and Alabama, and we need to give more focus to how we incentivize production out of those areas. Fourth is the reliance on other forms of energy. We have been trying to make that point throughout the debate on this energy bill. Long term, if we are going to avoid the projection on this chart, which is that we will be 75-percent dependent upon foreign sources of oil by 2030, we have to find alternative sources of energy as a substitute for this imported oil. That needs to be a very high priority for our research and development effort and for the provisions we have in this bill. I believe the most important energy issue in Alaska is not the Arctic Refuge--although hearing the debate one would think that was the central issue as to whether we did what should be done to meet our energy needs in the future. The most important issue is Arctic gas. The North Slope of Alaska contains rich supplies of natural gas. There is more than 32 million cubic feet of natural gas immediately available in existing oil fields in the Alaskan North Slope. The total natural gas estimates are in the area of 100 trillion cubic feet. We do not need new legislative authority in order to produce this gas. However, currently, the natural gas that is produced with oil on the North Slope is being reinjected because there is no transportation system, there is no pipeline with which to bring that gas from the North Slope to the lower 48. Congress dealt with the issue in 1976 when it enacted the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System Act. Responding to the energy crisis of that decade, Congress called for the immediate construction of a gas transportation system and an expedited process for accomplishing that goal. Due to changed economics, due to other intervening factors, there have been more than two decades that have passed and we still do not have any pipeline. We do not have any kind of transportation to bring that gas to the lower 48. The energy bill pending in the Senate tries to address the issue. The House-passed bill does not try to address the issue. This bill does. We would increase the supply of domestically produced natural gas to U.S. consumers by expediting the construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline. It provides for streamlined procedures for permits, for rights-of-way and certificates needed for the U.S. segments of the pipeline, as well as financial incentives to reduce the risks of the project. We have had a lot of discussion about jobs as part of this debate about ANWR. This natural gas pipeline I am talking about, which is distinct from ANWR, the natural gas pipeline creates more than 400,000 new jobs. This is in contrast to the Congressional Research Service estimate of 60 to 130,000 jobs that would be created by opening the Arctic Refuge. Senator Reed, who chairs the Joint Economic Committee, released a new report last month estimating that opening the Arctic Refuge results in the creation of 65,000 jobs nationwide by 2020, an employment gain of less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the U.S. workforce as a whole. Building the pipeline would not only create thousands of new jobs but also provide a huge opportunity for the steel industry. The project requires up to 3,500 miles of pipe, 5 million tons of steel. The Senate bill encourages the use of North American steel and union labor in the construction of the pipeline. The total cost of the pipeline would be in the range of $15 to $20 billion. I strongly support going forward with that and putting whatever we can in this legislation to encourage its construction. In addition to these enormous supplies of natural gas from existing oilfields, there is another substantial opportunity to obtain additional oil and gas from the Alaska North Slope. This is the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska. We have a chart that shows something of which most Americans are not aware. The map shows a large area, the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska (NPRA), which is the orange area on this chart. It is a very large area. This is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and includes the 1002 area. There are 23 million acres of public land in the NPRA. It is approximately the size of Indiana. It was created to secure the Nation's petroleum reserves. It is administered by the Bureau of Land Management which, in 1999, offered 4 million acres in the northeast portion of the NPRA. They offered 4 million acres in that area for leasing. The result was very successful. It was a very successful lease sale. There was a high level of industry interest, with over $104 million in bonus bids for 133 leases on 867,000 acres in this NPRA area. Exploration drilling has occurred. The industry has made major finds. A second lease sale is scheduled to take place in June of this year in another part of the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska. The planning is also being undertaken to open additional portions of the NPRA after the sale that takes place in June. This is an opportunity that does not require any change in the law in order for drilling to go forward. As the map indicates, there are vast areas of Federal and State land on the North Slope that are already open to oil and gas leasing and development. The yellow portions on the chart are already under lease. In addition, under the current 5-year leasing plan, the State of Alaska plans an aggressive leasing program in the areas between the NPRA and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Not only do I believe these parts of the North Slope other than the Arctic Refuge can contribute significantly to meeting our oil and gas needs, there are Federal lands currently under lease elsewhere that are also not being produced. Let me show a chart with our Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. This chart shows 32 million acres in the Outer Continental Shelf that have already been leased by the government to oil companies for exploration and development that have not yet been developed. We do not need to pass a law in order to have drilling in those areas, either. In addition to my belief there are many other good opportunities to increase domestic oil and gas production, and I mentioned some here, I am particularly concerned this controversy about the Arctic Refuge diverts attention from an important underlying goal which we need to have in this bill, and that is to diversify our energy mix. What we are trying to do in the bill to support more research and development, to support development of alternative sources of energy, in the long run will do more to solve our national energy problems than what we have done so far. I will comment for a minute on the issue of CAFE standards because that has come into the debate in various ways. I will show another chart that shows why, in my view, we should have gone ahead and required higher CAFE standards for vehicles. This chart shows a blue line, which is net imports of oil, given current law. The green line indicates net imports if we open ANWR to drilling. It shows the amount required to be imported for a period of 20 years is reduced under that scenario. Then if we had net imports with CAFE, had we raised the CAFE standards, we would see that net imports would not only be more than the imports would be in the case of drilling in ANWR but they would stay lower. That is the advantage of it. In the case of drilling in ANWR, you have a relatively short-term benefit which goes away once the oil is used up. In the case of CAFE standards, you have a continuing benefit for the indefinite future. I do think we need to revisit that issue. I hope we can. I hope we can get some support from the administration to do something more significant. I received a letter--I know my colleague, Senator Murkowski, had it printed in the Record yesterday afternoon--from Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, our former colleague, for whom I have great respect. He was citing the various things he is doing as Secretary of Energy to help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I gather he sent this letter to all Members of Congress. He said: I will be meeting this week with the American Automobile Association--AAA--to identify ways to encourage Americans to drive smarter, to prepare their cars to operate more efficiently to save fuel and money. I am not opposed to him meeting with the AAA to encourage Americans to drive smarter, but that is not an adequate response to the energy challenges this country faces. We need to do better. This administration should be supporting increased CAFE standards. It should be supporting provisions of this bill to encourage efficiency in the use of energy and not just depend upon Americans to drive smarter. You can put a little more air in your tires. You can, perhaps, get your car tuned up. But the truth is, if the car is manufactured to run at 12 or 14 miles per gallon--14 miles for each gallon that you buy-- you cannot do a whole lot to solve that problem. I know there are others who want to speak. There will be opportunities later for me to add to my comments. Let me conclude by saying that opening the Arctic Refuge is not, in my view, good environmental policy. More importantly, it is far from necessary as part of a national energy policy. Oil and gas development on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge does little for our Nation's energy security. If you take the long-term view, which is 2030, it does nothing to deal with our energy security needs. It is a diversion from the efforts we should be taking as a country to address the important subject of energy, a subject that is crucial to our economy, to our way of life and our future. I urge my colleagues to join me in the effort to oppose opening this area for drilling. I believe Senator Breaux was expecting to speak at this time in favor of one or both of the amendments, so I yield the floor.