Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. It is important to ensure sufficient levels of funding for all programs related to the National Fire Plan. For example, Congress specifically instructed the agencies to target hazardous fuel reduction funds near communities that are at high risk from wildfire. In addition, the Rural Fire Assistance program strengthens the wildland fire protection capabilities of rural fire departments by providing technical assistance, training, and supplies. Moreover, economic action programs assist rural communities in developing and marketing products created from the little trees removed as part of fuels reduction efforts. Other cooperative fire protection programs, that provide assistance for complementary hazardous fuels reduction projects on non- Federal lands in the wildland/urban interface and educate homeowners about the proper way to fire proof their homes, are also essential elements of our cohesive efforts to diminish fire risks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. The spring and summer of 2000 will not soon be forgotten in my home state. A series of fires burned more than 65,000 acres in New Mexico, including the Cerro Grande fire that destroyed more than 400 homes. As a result of these fires and others that raged throughout the country, Congress took a step in the right direction last year by providing substantial funding for fire prevention efforts. In addition, Congress appropriated additional funds to implement the National Fire Plan. This plan, issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior, contains recommendations to reduce the impacts of wildland fires on rural communities and ensure sufficient firefighting resources in the future. I would like to clarify that it is the Senator's intent that this amendment maintains, at a minimum, current levels of funding for the National Fire Plan and base fire programs.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, I commend my colleague, Senator Corzine, for this amendment and indicate that I am very glad to be a cosponsor of it. It is an important amendment. Second, I would like to engage Senator Corzine in a brief colloquy at this time.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and thank Forest Service Chief Michael Dombeck. He served as Chief for four years, beginning in 1997 until his retirement from Federal service last week. During his tenure, Chief Dombeck was a good friend to New Mexico. His assistance was critical in crafting the Community Forest Restoration Act. Enacted into law last year, this program provides grants to New Mexico communities to team up with the Forest Service to reduce hazardous fuels in and near national forests. I believe this program will set a good precedent for communities and Federal land management agencies to work in a collaborative manner to take care of our forests. Chief Dombeck also quadrupled the budget for the Youth Conservation Corps, ``YCC''. YCC programs provide extraordinary benefits to both our youth and our natural resources. Through YCC, desperately needed restoration work is completed on our public lands. At the same time, young people, particularly those living in rural communities in New Mexico and throughout the West, engage in meaningful summer employment and gain new skills. This program also promotes collaboration between communities and Federal land managers. Thanks in large part to his efforts and support, YCC is now one of the programs eligible for funding set aside by Title VIII of last year's Interior Appropriations Act, referred to as the ``Land Conservation, Preservation and Infrastructure Improvement'' account. Last year, Chief Dombeck provided invaluable expertise as Senator Domenici and I worked to provide relief to communities at high risk from wildfire that are located in the vicinity of Federal lands. Specifically, he assisted us in targeting additional hazardous fuel reduction funds near these communities to reduce the threat of fire. In addition, he supported our plans to create employment opportunities in these communities. To accomplish this objective, we provided new authority for the land management agencies to give a preference to local people and YCC work crews when awarding contracts and agreements to complete the projects and conduct monitoring. I commend Chief Dombeck for his efforts to both sustain community well-being and enhance the ecological integrity of the national forest system. I wish him well as he embarks on a new chapter in his life.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, briefly, I do not claim a close relationship with Norm Sisisky, but I have had the great privilege of serving on the Armed Services Committee with Senator Warner for the last 18 years, and I can remember every year when we would go into conference with the House of Representatives, Norm would be there. He would be championing the positions he felt strongly about and that were important to the people of Virginia. I also mourn his loss and recognize the important loss it is to Virginia and to this Congress.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his comments. I understand the concerns he has raised. Let me make one thing very clear. Snowe-Jeffords is a prohibition against certain acts by certain groups. Now, that is a very different kettle of fish than what I am proposing. My amendment does not in any way prohibit anyone from running ads. All my amendment says is that if an independent group wants to run an ad that attacks or opposes a candidate, then the candidate is entitled to an opportunity to respond to the ad. That is a very different thing than saying, during certain periods of time, groups cannot run ads. So I think the constitutional problem that people have raised with regard to Snowe-Jeffords is much less of a concern than the kind of amendment that I have proposed. This amendment is designed to deal with a particular type of advertisement run by groups other than the candidate and the candidate's committee during certain periods of time. I think we have clearly defined what we are talking about. There are many advertisements that would not fall within the definition of attacking or opposing a candidate. Certainly, there is nothing here that would in any way obligate broadcasters, when they take those kinds of ads. But when they are running ads that do attack or oppose a candidate, then they would be under an obligation to provide an opportunity to respond. I think that is eminently fair, constitutional, and consistent with the general obligation that I believe broadcast stations ought to have to present both sides of an issue during a campaign when a candidate has become qualified for a Federal office. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, again, if the Senator will yield, they would certainly be able to run that ad. But if they say we oppose Senator McCain, then Senator McCain should have an opportunity to come on and say, ``I believe people should still vote for me'' in spite of the fact that the Sierra Club, or whoever, opposes him.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I just point out to the Senator that this legislation would not apply at all to any candidate who wanted to run an ad such as the Senator has proposed.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I greatly appreciate the courtesy of all Members, particularly the Senator from Connecticut and his statement in support of this amendment. There were several questions raised. Let me be clear so there is no confusion about this. If an independent group or a party committee or anybody else wants to run an advertisement endorsing or supporting a candidate for office, this amendment does nothing to restrict that, prohibit it, impose obligations on broadcasters, or anything else. That is perfectly appropriate. If anybody wants to take an ad out for my opponent and run ads in favor of my opponent, they should be able to do that. If they want to run ads that contrast my opponent's position with my position, that would be these ads that are reflected by the green line on the chart, it is entirely appropriate, no obligation on the part of broadcasters. This amendment only deals with advertisements which attack or oppose a legally qualified candidate. The question has been raised by the Senator from Arizona, who will decide whether this is a negative ad, whether this is an ad that attacks or opposes a candidate for public office. My initial reaction is to refer to Justice Stewart's great comment when he was told that he could not define ``pornography.'' He said: I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it. Government can regulate pornography because of that. The American people know a negative television ad or a negative radio ad when they see it or hear it. The answer to who will decide initially, the person who will decide is the candidate who is being attacked or the candidate's campaign who is being attacked; they would detect an advertisement that is attacking them by a group is being run by a broadcasting station and they would presumably go to that broadcasting station and say, this is an advertisement that falls within the definition of this statute and we would like our time to respond. That is how it would work. We have been very specific about what kinds of ads they would be entitled to respond to, what kinds of ads they would reply to. The term ``attacked'' or ``opposed'' means, with respect to a clearly identified candidate, first, A, any expression of unmistakable and unambiguous opposition to the candidate. So that is pretty easy to determine. You can listen to an advertisement on radio. You can see an advertisement on television and determine whether it is, in fact, an unmistakable and unambiguous statement in opposition to the candidate. Or, B, if it does not fall within that description, it would be any communication that contains a phrase such as ``vote against,'' ``defeat'' or ``reject'' or campaign slogan or words that when taken as a whole and with limited reference to external events, such as proximity to the election, can have no reasonable meaning other than to advocate the defeat of one or more clearly identified candidates, regardless of whether or not the communication expressly advocates a vote against the candidate. If it could have no reasonable meaning other than to advocate the defeat of the candidate, then it is an advertisement that would entitle the candidate who is being attacked or being opposed the opportunity to respond. That is, we have given a tight definition. It would be up to the candidate or his campaign, first of all, to identify that such an ad is running, and then they would presumably go to the broadcast station and say: Look, this is what this advertisement is. I should get equal time to respond. Of course, the broadcast station at that point has to either say yes or no. If they say no, then of course it goes, as all other matters in our society, to some judge, presumably. If the candidate wants to push the issue, the judge will decide whether the candidate should have the right to respond on that station. A second objection that was raised is, what if the station in question has already sold all their time. If they have sold all their time, and some of it, of course, to the organization that is running the attack ads, they would have to make room for the candidate to respond during the time period between then and the election on a basis that would be considered equal. He asked: What is fair in ad placement? And we have used general language here that the candidate would be entitled to respond for the same amount of time during the same period of the day and week as was used by the person who is doing the attack. I am sure there are details of this that will be debated and discussed, if this becomes law, as there always is in every piece of legislation we pass. It is pretty clear what we are talking about. We are talking about a limited time period, 30 days before a primary, 60 days before a general election. We are talking about ads that involve attacking or opposing a candidate for Federal office, and we are providing a pretty precise definition of what ``attack'' or ``oppose'' means for purposes of this statute applying. I believe this would be an enforceable provision. It would be an understandable provision. I think it would add greatly to the quality of the campaigns that we run in this country. It would be fair to the candidates in the sense that they would have the opportunity to respond. That is all we are saying. In this country, we used to have a fairness doctrine. I know that has become something of a dead letter, but there used to be an obligation on the part of broadcasters to provide equal time for people to respond when there were particularly controversial positions taken and attacks. This is not a fairness doctrine, but this is the same basic concept. When a candidate has been qualified to run for Federal office, clearly that candidate is fair game for any attack that the candidate's opponent or opponents want to make. There is no obligation on any broadcaster who wants to take those ads by opponents of that candidate. But if the candidate is attacked or opposed by people who are not in the race, by organizations that are not part of the campaign, then that is where the candidate should, once again, be given a chance to respond. I believe it is a good amendment. I hope very much we can get a favorable vote on it. I know my colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, had indicated earlier he might want to make some comments in reference to this amendment. I don't know if he is prepared to do that at this point or if I should yield back my time. I will withhold at this point and yield the floor so my colleague from Nevada can speak on the issue.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am here for two reasons: First, to express my strong support for the bill we have been considering this week and last, this bipartisan campaign finance reform bill which we have come to refer to as the McCain-Feingold bill; second, I am here to offer this amendment which I believe will further improve the bill. Our colleague from Kentucky said, as he gave his short statement a few minutes ago, now that all the important amendments have already been offered and dealt with, he wanted to go ahead with his comments. I beg to differ with him on that conclusion, that all the important amendments have been offered. This amendment I am offering today I believe is very important, and I believe it will substantially improve this legislation. It will help to address the increasingly negative nature of today's campaign advertising, and it will assist those candidates, whether they are challengers or incumbents, in responding to that negative advertising. The debate we are engaged in is long overdue. Congress has not revised its campaign finance laws in any meaningful way since I came to the Congress in 1983. The last significant reform of campaign finance laws was in 1974. Nearly everything about campaigns has changed radically since 1974, from the tremendous amount of money that has been spent on campaigns to the technologies and methods used to communicate with voters. I congratulate Senator McCain, my colleague from Arizona, and I congratulate Senator Feingold, my colleague from Wisconsin, on their determination in finally bringing this bill to the Senate floor. I can think of no two individuals in recent memory who have worked harder on a bipartisan basis in pursuit of basic reform than these two Senators. They have traveled the country, one of them, of course, during the time he was running for President. They have taken the campaign finance reform message to every corner of this country. We all in this Senate, in my view, owe them a debt of gratitude. I hope our effort is worthy of their significant effort. It has been a true labor of genuine reform in the interest of better and cleaner democracy, and I am very pleased to cosponsor this legislation. Mr. President, turning to the amendment I have offered, it is a relatively simple amendment. It proposes to accomplish a central goal, and that is to provide candidates for Federal office who are confronted with sham negative issue ads the opportunity to respond to those ads. The amendment states that if a broadcast station, whether it is a television station or radio station, permits any person or group to broadcast material opposing or attacking a legally qualified candidate for Federal office, then that station, within a reasonable period of time, must provide, at no charge to the candidate who has been attacked, an equal opportunity to respond to those attacks. This requirement would apply in this same period that is discussed in the legislation pending before us in the so-called Snowe-Jeffords language; that is, 60 days prior to a general election, 30 days prior to a primary election. It is in those two periods of time that the requirements apply. All of us who have run for Federal office in recent years have been in the situation about which I am concerned. As a candidate, you are out on the hustings; you are conducting a campaign that you hope is addressing the issues voters care about; you are trying to give the people in your State, or the people in your congressional district, the best vision you can for where this country should go, what should be done in the State; and you turn on the television in your hotel room and see an ad attacking you for some issue on some basis that you probably did not anticipate. You ask yourself the questions: Who is paying for the ad? Who is this group? Who do they represent? Where did they get the information that they are using in this attack? The process leaves the candidate, more often than not, unfairly accused of a position. It leaves voters increasingly cynical about the growing negative nature of our campaigns. Unfortunately, this is the new world of campaigns in which we live. This is true whether you are Republican, whether you are Democrat, whatever your party affiliation, regardless if you are a challenger or incumbent. Through the loopholes in our current campaign finance laws, outside interest groups and political parties are funding hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of political ads in many of our States. Most of those are very negative and have minimal issue content. Most of those ads flood our airwaves right before the election when they will have the biggest impact on the minds of the voters. As noted, congressional authority Norm Ornstein said these ads often dominate and drown our candidate communications, particularly in the last weeks of the campaign. While the ads are often effective in a raw and practical sense, they are incredibly corrosive; they are frequently unfair; they are sometimes very personal in the attacks they make; and they breed voter cynicism and voter apathy toward the electoral process. We know all too well the gross aspects of the advertising, but now, thanks to a number of dedicated reform-minded groups and academicians, we have some real data to back up what we have all known as a matter of common sense for some time. The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU, New York University, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison have teamed up to develop a national database of political television advertising from the 2000 election cycle. They monitored political advertising in the Nation's top 75 media markets, and researchers, through that monitoring, have documented the frequency, the content, and the costs of television ads in the 2000 election, which duplicates a similar study they conducted in 1998. The findings are stunning. Let me give a brief summary of what they found. First, the independent groups alone spent, conservatively estimated, about $98 million on media buys for political TV commercials in the year 2000. That is roughly a sixfold increase from what they spent 2 years before. This is not an inflationary increase; this is a sixfold increase in spending by the independent groups on these ads. Second, in the 2000 Presidential election, voters received the largest share of political advertising messages from independent groups and party committees, not from the candidates themselves or from the candidate's committees. Third, while all of the unregulated issue ads produced by the parties and independent groups are supposed to theoretically cover issue positions, since they do not contain these so-called magic words that there has been a lot of discussion about on the Senate floor in the last 2 weeks, the words ``noted by the Supreme Court in the Buckley decision,'' the public does not see these as issue ads. Virtually all ads sponsored by party committees are viewed as electioneering ads. Within 60 days of the election, 86 percent of the ads produced by independent groups are viewed by voters as electioneering. They are not seen as issue ads. Fourth, the chart from the Brennan Center dramatically makes the point I am trying to make; the sham issue ads that are run by these groups become increasingly negative in tone as election day approaches. Issue ads by independent groups are far more likely than candidate ads or even party ads to attack candidates. Fully 72 percent of the issue group ads aired in Federal races last year directly attacked one of the candidates in the race in which they were run. This chart is entitled ``Growth of Negative Tone of Electioneering Issue Ads as Election Day Nears.'' There are three lines on this chart. One is the red line which represents the attack ads. This is according to the Brennan Center study. The green line is the contrast ads. The blue line is the ads to promote a particular candidate, positive advertising, ``vote for me, I'm your best candidate,'' on Social Security, Medicare, or whatever issue. Finally, the Brennan Center notes that issue ads that are targeted at candidates are decisively negative in tone and pursue the tact of attacking a candidate's character. These ads do not discuss substantive issues; they often focus on personal histories of the candidate. The dramatic thing about the chart, which covers the period from January to the beginning of November of the year 2000, the negative ads are virtually nonexistent, very low level negative ads, until June; and then in the last couple of months of the campaign, the negative ads overwhelm the rest of the advertising. These are the negative ads that are being run almost exclusively by the independent groups--not by the candidate. The candidates do not want to be associated with negative ads, so they stay out of this and let the independent groups run the very negative ads. I believe this study I have referred to provides the hard data to back up what we have all known for some time. That is, that sham issue ads are increasing sevenfold each election. They are casting a negative and personal tone to campaigns and are particularly effective and dominant in the last few weeks before election day. There is not a voter in any one of our States who would not validate these findings from their personal experience of watching television or listening to the radio. I heard this refrain from people in my State of New Mexico constantly during the last campaign cycle. They thought the airwaves were clogged with ads and that the majority of them were too negative. The complaint is constant by the public. It is well justified. That brings me back to the amendment I am offering. Again, the amendment is straightforward. Let me make it very clear to people what the amendment does not do. First of all, the amendment does not in any way restrict the ability of any candidate to run any ad they want. It does not put on broadcasters, radio or television broadcasters any obligation with regard to those ads, except to run the ads, obviously. That obligation is already there. The amendment does not affect ads sponsored by the candidate or the candidate's committee. Second, the amendment does nothing to restrict either the candidate or a party or an independent group from running any and all ads they want that are positive or that are contrast ads. On the chart, the green lines are contrast ads and the blue line is for ads that promote the candidate. We are in no way talking about those in this amendment. There is no requirement on broadcasters to take any action with regard to those. They can take those ads sponsored by anybody they want without incurring any obligation. In the case of an independent group or a party that wants to run attack ads, which they are free to do, there is no prohibition against running attack ads, if they want to run attack ads. The broadcasters who run those ads then have an obligation to provide the candidate who is attacked with an opportunity to respond. This is a level playing field kind of amendment. We are saying to broadcasters, if you want to accept these attack ads during these short periods of time, 30 days prior to a primary, 60 days prior to a general election, you are not required to, of course; there is no obligation under the Constitution or anything else that you accept ads from noncandidates; but if you want to accept these ads, fine, just provide an opportunity for the candidate who is attacked to respond. That is what the amendment does. I think it is a straightforward amendment. The reason I am offering it is because I believe it will help improve this bill in a very dramatic way. It will say to all candidates, whether they are challengers or whether they are incumbents in the office, that there will be an opportunity for them to respond when they are unfairly attacked. The Brennan Center report--let me quote from that report: Candidate ads are much more inclined than group sponsored ads to promote candidates or to compare and contrast candidates on issues. Conversely, issue ads that are sponsored by groups tend to attack candidates and attempt to denigrate their character. These ads tend to be very negative in tone. They do not discuss substantive issues and frequently they focus on personal histories of the candidate. As election day nears, electioneering issue ads become increasingly negative and personal in tone. That is what this graph demonstrates. That is why this red line goes up and up and up as you get closer to the election. I hope very much we can agree to this amendment. While McCain- Feingold's legislation goes to the very heart of the issue that plagues us today, the soft money loophole that has allowed sham issue ads to proliferate, I believe outside groups will continue to run those ads and this brand of negative issue advocacy is, unfortunately, here to stay. In that environment, I believe it is essential we provide a way to hold outside groups accountable for the content of the ads they run by providing the opportunity for candidates who are the targets of the ads to respond no matter how poorly or how well their campaigns may be funded. That is what the amendment does. I commend it to the consideration of my colleagues. I think it will substantially improve the legislation before us. I hope it will be favorably voted on. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to offer another amendment. I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia has asked that he be given permission to speak for 4 or 5 minutes before I offer this amendment. I am certainly pleased to do that. I will yield the floor to him at this point.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is a noncontroversial amendment that would simply require that contributions made to a Presidential inaugural committee be publicly disclosed, and also it would require that the same rules that govern foreign contributions to our political campaigns be applied as well to inaugural events. As I understand it, this is an acceptable amendment. At this time, I believe we are prepared to go ahead and vote on this by voice vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my colleagues very much. I have two amendments, the first of which I believe is acceptable to the managers of the bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the focus of the article is the fact that overall the last decade a number of States reduced their commitments to energy efficiency at a cost of 15,000 megawatts in power savings, and that now many States, through the National Association of State Energy Officials, are refocusing their attention on energy efficiency--the easiest and least cost source of energy. Energy-efficient lighting, appliances, and buildings generate benefits in terms of energy savings, emission reductions and human health improvements. Improvements to installation practices for heating and cooling systems, including duct-work, could take considerable pressure off the power grid and natural gas supplies almost immediately. We have included a number provisions that will help bring the next generation of ultra efficient appliances into the marketplace sooner. We would also establish a new program to make grants to local school districts to improve energy efficiency of school buildings and expand the use of renewable energy. Research has shown that better lighting, heating and cooling systems improve students' performance. We are urging the Secretary of Energy to work with energy-intensive industries to negotiate voluntary agreements to improve their energy intensity. This bill also takes on the issue of energy efficiency in vehicles. That is a controversial issue. A lot has been said on this floor about the undesirability of depending on foreign sources of oil. But most of that oil goes into transportation fuel uses. If we're really serious about energy policy, climate policy, and national energy security, then we need to address vehicle fuel efficiency. Hardly a speech is given on the Senate floor that does not talk about how unfortunate it is that our dependence on foreign oil continues to grow. We need to recognize what the main cause of that increased dependence is that we are consuming more and more petroleum in the transportation sector of our economy. The top line on this chart shows the amount of consumption of petroleum in the transportation sector. This is up to the year 2000. Then you can see what is expected in the next 20 years with this enormous increase in the amount of petroleum going into our transportation sector. The debate on fuel efficiency has often been sidetracked into a discussion of specific proposals to change the corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE standards. Disagreements on CAFE have kept us from making progress on fuel efficiency in this country at a huge cost to consumers and our economy. At the same time, U.S.-based automobile manufacturers have entered into voluntary agreements with European countries to significantly increase the fuel efficiency of vehicles sold in Europe. While I recognize that there may be differences between Europe and the U.S., the concept of requiring a negotiation to see what can be done to further fuel efficiency in this country sounds like a reasonable idea to me. We ought to let the Department of Transportation take the lead, and authorize as much flexibility as possible in how an agreement is structured and what mechanisms are used to ensure the development of a vibrant market for fuel-efficient vehicles. That is exactly what this bill does on fuel efficiency does. It keeps the focus on the ultimate goal--how much petroleum gets consumed by light-duty vehicles. It allows consumption to grow slightly over the next few years, but requires implementation of policies that would cap the increase in fuel use in the light vehicle sector by the year 2008 by no more than 5 percent above the level of use in 2000. The effect of this proposal is to increase fuel efficiency by more than just closing the light truck ``loophole'' in the CAFE standards, while at the same time ensuring the light trucks needed by farmers, ranchers and businesses are still available. The flexibility with respect to the mechanisms, but not the final result, will protect U.S. manufacturing jobs. Let me show another chart that relates to this. The chart is entitled ``Potential Oil Supply From Arctic National Wildlife Refuge versus the Oil Savings From Improved Vehicle Fuel Economy.'' You can see the amount of oil supply anticipated from ANWR, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. It is this first column. If you double that, if you assume that estimate is wrong and double it, you get this volume. Vehicle fuel economy by the year 2010 will yield a much greater savings to us in oil usage than we could possibly achieve by drilling in ANWR, and by the year 2020 there is absolutely no comparison, as I am sure this chart aptly demonstrates. Beyond increases in vehicle fuel efficiency, this bill also seeks to relieve stress on our fuel system by studying how to move to regional or national fuel standards, so that there is more flexibility in the fuel delivery system to accommodate refinery shutdowns or pipeline problems. The bill would also require Federal fleet vehicles with alternative dual fuel capability to increase their use of the alternative fuel to 50 percent of the total use by 2003, and 75 percent by 2005. In addition, State highway agencies would be permitted to allow alternative fuel vehicles to use High Occupancy Vehicle lanes on highways, regardless of the number of passengers carried. Along with the commitment to implementing available technologies must come a long-term commitment to development of new technologies. This bill would establish the framework for a comprehensive research, development and deployment program to reduce energy intensity by 1.9 percent per year through 2020, reduce total consumption by eight quadrillion Btu in 2020 and reduce total carbon dioxide emission from expected levels by 166 million tons per year by 2020. This kind of commitment to a coordinated, comprehensive research and development program is essential if we are to meet the challenges that lie before us. One of the biggest disappointments of the new administration to date is its lack of attention to the importance of science and technology in general, and of energy R&D in particular. By all accounts, the new Bush administration is preparing to savage DOE energy technology programs, particularly in renewables and energy efficiency, in the detailed budget that it will be sending to the Congress in early April. I don't see how the administration can have a credible energy strategy at the same time that it is cutting energy R&D. The bill that I am introducing recognizes that our energy future depends crucially on our ability to innovate to produce more energy, at lower cost, and to use the resulting energy more efficiently. The Clinton administration--the previous administration-- prepared a comprehensive plan for boosting energy research and development spending, but it could find very little support for that proposal in Congress. That was in 1997. We have taken that blueprint and we have updated it to reflect some of the past appropriations by the Congress. I believe that we have come up with a broad approach to boost research and development spending for energy efficiency and for every energy supply option that is on the table. This bill also supports basic science that is related to energy that may lead to discoveries that could create entirely new energy technologies, such as happened when high-temperature superconductivity was discovered in the late 1980s. The Department of Energy's Office of Science has had a stagnant budget throughout the 1990s. We now see evidence that this lag negatively affected our productivity in basic areas such as chemistry, physics, and material sciences. The U.S. scientific productivity in these disciplines, which support both energy research and develpment as well as research and development in other high-tech areas, is markedly lower now than during the 1970s and 1980s. Many of us in Congress are talking about the need to double the budget for the National Institutes of Health. The administration is talking about that as well. I support doing that. But there is a similar national need to greatly increase our support for basic energy research and development. This effort to maintain research and development in this energy area is absolutely essential if Congress is going to do what needs to be done in this area. Tax Policy. Along with the programs outlined above, we need to consider the use of tax incentives to encourage commercial activities that will meet the goals for increased efficiency and diversification of our energy supplies. To accomplish this we have included tax credits and incentives to accompany the policy programs that we have authorized, such as, stimulus for residential and commercial energy efficiency, renewable energy development, clean coal technology, and distributed generation. To complement these incentives and encourage further development of new traditional supplies we have also provided for tax incentives for heating fuels and storage and oil and gas production. Mr. President, the lights went off again this week in California. We are all aware of that. Electricity bills throughout the West are causing businesses to shut down because they can't afford to operate. We are threatened with that in my own state of New Mexico. Citizens across the country have seen their gas bills double and in some cases triple the level they were a year ago. If you drive up to the gasoline pump you will see numbers that would have surprised and shocked you not too long ago. I think the citizens of this Nation know that the energy industries are in trouble, and that actually will mean trouble for them. We in Congress--we in Washington--need to respond. This bill is an attempt to further the dialogue that has already begun in this Congress. Consider it as an outline. We need to hold hearings. We need to debate how best to respond. We need to develop a balanced response that takes advantage of all the options that are available to us. We can't supply our way out of this unfortunate circumstance. We can't just conserve our way out of it either. We must do both. I expect many changes in the content of this bill before we are finally finished. But this is a good beginning toward a comprehensive and balanced energy policy for the Nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of both bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today, I, along with many of my colleagues in the Senate, members of the Democratic caucus, have introduced two bills: the Comprehensive and Balanced Energy Policy Act of 2001, and its companion measure, the Energy Security and Tax Incentive Act of 2001. I expect the first of those will be referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the other will be referred to the Committee on Finance because it does contain tax provisions. Mr. President, the Nation is facing important challenges to its energy future. For decades, we have been able to rely on the fact that our energy supplies were abundant, dependable, and affordable. Events in recent months have shaken the faith of many in that reliance. Volatile prices, high prices and outright failures of supply are reported in newspaper headlines almost daily. Why are we seeing these problems emerge now? Energy prices remained relatively stable over the last decade due to increased productivity, lower energy use per dollar of GDP, and introduction of market competition. All of these factors acted to hold down prices, in spite of robust economic growth and increasing demand for energy. Before the introduction of competition into energy markets we had policies that required large excess capacity margins. We paid a lot for that excess capacity in the past, but we also benefitted from that buffer. It kept the system functioning as markets restructured with low prices and relatively minor bumps along the way. As the economic growth of recent years has used up that excess capacity in the fuels, power and natural gas sectors, the frictions and imperfections in those markets have become apparent. That is what we are seeing today. Three weeks ago, when Senator Murkowski, Chairman of the Energy Committee on which I serve, introduced the Republican energy message bill, I gave an outline of what I thought should be included in comprehensive energy legislation for the Congress to put together a balanced and adequate response to the energy issues that confront the Nation. At that time I said that I strongly believed that a package with equal emphasis on both supply and demand side measures developed with bipartisan support is the only way we can pass energy legislation this Congress. The key word is balance. The bill introduced by my Republican colleague is strong on the supply side and I support many of its provisions but short on the demand side of the equation. Many provisions of the Republican package I support, as do a number of my Democratic colleagues. However, after reviewing that bill overall, I believe it is appropriate to introduce a countermeasure, a measure that addresses our energy needs as I see it in a more balanced and comprehensive way. This will help our discussion for final legislation in this area and help focus in on what the priorities need to be as we move forward. The first of the issues left out of the Republican bill for any real consideration was the issue of climate change. In 1992, the Senate ratified the Rio Treaty calling for a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. I know some in this body do not believe we should have acted to approve that treaty, but we did. Last year, instead of reaching those 1990 levels by the year 2000, we were 17 percent above those levels. We and the rest of the world have recognized the vital importance of preventing the potential for catastrophic climate change, that our human activities are, in fact, threatening. We have made commitments, but we have not met those commitments. We need to do so, not as some isolated exercise undertaken without regard to the economy, but as an integral part of our energy policy for the 21st century. In my view, we cannot separate climate change policy from energy policy. To do one is to inextricably affect the other. The policy bill I am introducing creates a bipartisan national commission on energy and climate change to be appointed by this President and to conduct a study of measures that could achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions in this country at 1990 levels by the year 2010--and below 1990 levels by the year 2020. The commission would then develop recommendations concerning measures appropriate for implementation, for legislation, and for administrative action to implement this goal. There are some who believe we should be looking at even deeper cuts to our emissions than to return to 1990 levels by 2010. I have some sympathy for that perspective. But if we are to take a bipartisan approach to the task of integrating climate change policy with energy policy, it is more realistic to start with a point that the Senate is on record as agreeing to. Most Members who were here at the time the vote occurred in 1992 on the Rio Treaty believe that commitment to go to 1990 levels by the year 2000, although on a voluntary basis, was a good-faith and reasonable commitment. I believe there should not be objection to reaching that same goal given an extra 10 years in which to achieve it. The answer to how we get to this point may help illuminate the issues of what more aggressive actions are needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The bill I am introducing calls for a much more vigorous effort by the U.S. Government to get U.S. clean energy technology into developing countries that are expected to experience major increases in their greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade. The United States cannot solve the greenhouse gas problem by itself, and we all know that. Other countries need to do their part. But since our particular strength in this country has been the development of technology, we should be making every effort to help those developing countries adopt the cleanest technologies in each energy area that we have to offer. It makes good business sense, it makes good climate sense, and the appropriate Federal agencies should help facilitate the process. Another missing element in the Republican bill is the area of how to site energy infrastructure. There has been a lot of talk about the problem, but not much action beyond finger-pointing in this area. I believe we need to recognize the wisdom of the old Pogo adage, ``We have met the enemy and he is us.'' Even communities that are experiencing energy crunches are having trouble siting new energy infrastructure because of local sentiment against it. This is not principally a problem with environmental regulations, as some would suggest. It is NIMBY-- ``not in my backyard''--pure and simple. If we are to effectively deal with this siting problem, we will need new tools and models. One that I think is particularly promising is regional cooperation, partly because most energy markets are regional. For example, as technologies for transmitting electricity have improved, electric utilities have come more and more to depend on the wholesale market for electricity supply. Those markets are increasingly regional in scope. A similar picture can be painted for the natural gas market. In order to meet the challenges of these new market realities, we must change the regulatory institutions to reflect the structures of the market. The markets are regional. So we must think regionally. We have seen regional bodies help site other important societal infrastructure, such as highways. But if a similar construct is to be helpful in the energy area, there will be a great need for technical assistance and for a regular forum where regional leaders and decision makers in Federal agencies can meet to discuss the real issues and problems. For that reason, the bill I am introducing has provisions that have the DOE meet these needs. I realize that this is a small beginning, but I believe this is an important piece of this bill. I know that a number of States, particularly in the West and the Northeast, as well as other regions, are already engaged in varying degrees of cooperative effort to address the regionalization of energy markets. I look forward to working with the States, and with Federal agencies to develop a framework to support these efforts. The bill that I am introducing requires a review of the adequacy of FERC transmission policies and its interpretation of market power. It calls for an investigation of the possibility using existing rights-of- way owned by Federal Power Marketing agencies for siting energy facilities. As the electricity industry has changed, the structure for assuring the reliability of the power grid has come under fire. Many in the industry and the regulatory community believe that the old system of self-policing, voluntary compliance with rules generated by the suppliers will not continue to provide the reliability that we have come to expect. Last year the Senate passed a bill that addressed this issue by creating a new entity to develop and enforce electric reliability rules. I have included that bill as part of this package, and the text is identical to what was included in the Republican bill I mentioned earlier. This bill also contains a number of provisions intended to provide additional protection for electricity consumers. Among these are protections against such unfair trade practices as slamming and cramming; encouragement to the States to ensure universal and affordable service; a rural construction grant program; a comprehensive Indian energy program; greater transparency of information on the availability transmission and generating capacity; and a public benefits fund to help States with various energy efficiency, renewable energy and low income energy programs and to support investments in climate change mitigation. Perhaps most importantly, this bill contains language to address the immediate crisis being experienced by California, both in terms of electricity and natural gas. We cannot ignore the problem of California, or simply sit back and give speeches heaping blame on their politicians and then think that we've done our job. The motto carved in stone over the desk of the Presiding Officer in this Chamber is ``E Pluribus Unum,'' or, ``Out of Many, One.'' A more colloquial version of that might be, ``We're all in this together.'' The market in California for electricity and gas is broken in several respects. In the two hearings we have held before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, it is clear that the prices received by many generators are far above the cost of production. It is also clear that market signals are not getting through to consumers. The provisions of this bill, which I have inserted at the request of Senator Feinstein, take on both of those issues. These provisions to help Californians deserve full and careful attention by the Senate, because this issue is worsening as we speak. One of the best ways to protect against market volatility in energy is to diversify supply sources. I believe that much can be done to increase energy supplies from traditional resources, and the bills that I am introducing, taken together have a robust mix of tax and policy provisions to see that we continue to develop our domestic energy resources effectively. Of particular importance are countercyclical tax measures that kick in when prices fall to very low levels, so that new domestic production does not come to a standstill. If we can even out some of the boom-and-bust quality of our domestic oil and gas drilling, we will maintain both the production and the skilled labor force in oil and natural gas exploration and production that this country needs. The bill that I am introducing does not open ANWR to oil and gas drilling. I find it ironic that, at the same time the President is seeking to open up ANWR a wildlife refuge, he is being importuned by his brother, the Governor of Florida, to put a large and promising tract in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico off limits to oil and gas leasing. The policy bill that I am introducing today mandates that the lease sale go forward on its current schedule. Let me just make reference to that with this chart. This chart shows the area at issue. It is called the Sale 181 area. As you can see most of it is over 100 miles from Florida: It is this area fully 100 miles from Florida we believe should be offered for development without hesitation. It is scheduled for December, and we do not believe it is good public policy for us to back away from developing resources in an area where we have a demonstrated history of safe and environmentally sensitive development. This area in the deepwater should be made available for leasing and exploration, and we believe it will be if this legislation becomes law. Although the Democratic energy legislation does not open ANWR, it does take what I think is a meaningful step to make sure that the abundant natural gas in Alaska, which is produced around Prudhoe Bay, makes it to the lower 48 States where it is needed. The Democratic energy tax bill contains a tax incentive for any Alaskan gas that enters interstate commerce before January 1, 2009. This should be a significant inducement to producers to get the various proposals for pipelines between Alaska and the lower 48 sorted out, and to start building a pipeline to bring that gas to our markets as soon as possible. In addition to traditional energy sources, both bills that I am introducing encourage alternative energy supplies. This bill gives a great deal of attention to renewable resources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, hydroelectric and other renewable generation options, as well as encouraging development and deployment of fuel cells, distributed generation and combined heating and power facilities. We require Federal energy facilities to set the example by meeting targets for percentages of their electricity supply to be derived from renewable resources. We also require that the rules for interconnection of electricity customers who self-generate, especially with renewable resources, be spelled out and made equitable. The bill would ease access to the transmission system for intermittent sources such as wind generators. That is a brief summary of what the Democratic bill does on energy supply. But, as I mentioned in the beginning of my remarks, this bill balances its emphasis on supply with a strong emphasis on demand reduction and efficiency. Increasing the efficient use of energy is the single most effective and least-cost energy policy for the short term and long term. Just yesterday, the Wall Street Journal ran an article titled ``States Rediscover Energy Policies''. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, following my remarks, to have printed in the Record this article from yesterday's issue of the Wall Street Journal.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my friend and colleague, Senator Reid, from Nevada, and my friend and colleague from Kentucky, also, for their courtesy in allowing me to speak as in morning business. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized. (The remarks of Mr. Bingaman pertaining to the introduction of S. 596 and S. 597 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the focus of the article is the fact that overall the last decade a number of States reduced their commitments to energy efficiency at a cost of 15,000 megawatts in power savings, and that now many States, through the National Association of State Energy Officials, are refocusing their attention on energy efficiency--the easiest and least cost source of energy. Energy-efficient lighting, appliances, and buildings generate benefits in terms of energy savings, emission reductions and human health improvements. Improvements to installation practices for heating and cooling systems, including duct-work, could take considerable pressure off the power grid and natural gas supplies almost immediately. We have included a number provisions that will help bring the next generation of ultra efficient appliances into the marketplace sooner. We would also establish a new program to make grants to local school districts to improve energy efficiency of school buildings and expand the use of renewable energy. Research has shown that better lighting, heating and cooling systems improve students' performance. We are urging the Secretary of Energy to work with energy-intensive industries to negotiate voluntary agreements to improve their energy intensity. This bill also takes on the issue of energy efficiency in vehicles. That is a controversial issue. A lot has been said on this floor about the undesirability of depending on foreign sources of oil. But most of that oil goes into transportation fuel uses. If we're really serious about energy policy, climate policy, and national energy security, then we need to address vehicle fuel efficiency. Hardly a speech is given on the Senate floor that does not talk about how unfortunate it is that our dependence on foreign oil continues to grow. We need to recognize what the main cause of that increased dependence is that we are consuming more and more petroleum in the transportation sector of our economy. The top line on this chart shows the amount of consumption of petroleum in the transportation sector. This is up to the year 2000. Then you can see what is expected in the next 20 years with this enormous increase in the amount of petroleum going into our transportation sector. The debate on fuel efficiency has often been sidetracked into a discussion of specific proposals to change the corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE standards. Disagreements on CAFE have kept us from making progress on fuel efficiency in this country at a huge cost to consumers and our economy. At the same time, U.S.-based automobile manufacturers have entered into voluntary agreements with European countries to significantly increase the fuel efficiency of vehicles sold in Europe. While I recognize that there may be differences between Europe and the U.S., the concept of requiring a negotiation to see what can be done to further fuel efficiency in this country sounds like a reasonable idea to me. We ought to let the Department of Transportation take the lead, and authorize as much flexibility as possible in how an agreement is structured and what mechanisms are used to ensure the development of a vibrant market for fuel-efficient vehicles. That is exactly what this bill does on fuel efficiency does. It keeps the focus on the ultimate goal--how much petroleum gets consumed by light-duty vehicles. It allows consumption to grow slightly over the next few years, but requires implementation of policies that would cap the increase in fuel use in the light vehicle sector by the year 2008 by no more than 5 percent above the level of use in 2000. The effect of this proposal is to increase fuel efficiency by more than just closing the light truck ``loophole'' in the CAFE standards, while at the same time ensuring the light trucks needed by farmers, ranchers and businesses are still available. The flexibility with respect to the mechanisms, but not the final result, will protect U.S. manufacturing jobs. Let me show another chart that relates to this. The chart is entitled ``Potential Oil Supply From Arctic National Wildlife Refuge versus the Oil Savings From Improved Vehicle Fuel Economy.'' You can see the amount of oil supply anticipated from ANWR, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. It is this first column. If you double that, if you assume that estimate is wrong and double it, you get this volume. Vehicle fuel economy by the year 2010 will yield a much greater savings to us in oil usage than we could possibly achieve by drilling in ANWR, and by the year 2020 there is absolutely no comparison, as I am sure this chart aptly demonstrates. Beyond increases in vehicle fuel efficiency, this bill also seeks to relieve stress on our fuel system by studying how to move to regional or national fuel standards, so that there is more flexibility in the fuel delivery system to accommodate refinery shutdowns or pipeline problems. The bill would also require Federal fleet vehicles with alternative dual fuel capability to increase their use of the alternative fuel to 50 percent of the total use by 2003, and 75 percent by 2005. In addition, State highway agencies would be permitted to allow alternative fuel vehicles to use High Occupancy Vehicle lanes on highways, regardless of the number of passengers carried. Along with the commitment to implementing available technologies must come a long-term commitment to development of new technologies. This bill would establish the framework for a comprehensive research, development and deployment program to reduce energy intensity by 1.9 percent per year through 2020, reduce total consumption by eight quadrillion Btu in 2020 and reduce total carbon dioxide emission from expected levels by 166 million tons per year by 2020. This kind of commitment to a coordinated, comprehensive research and development program is essential if we are to meet the challenges that lie before us. One of the biggest disappointments of the new administration to date is its lack of attention to the importance of science and technology in general, and of energy R&D in particular. By all accounts, the new Bush administration is preparing to savage DOE energy technology programs, particularly in renewables and energy efficiency, in the detailed budget that it will be sending to the Congress in early April. I don't see how the administration can have a credible energy strategy at the same time that it is cutting energy R&D. The bill that I am introducing recognizes that our energy future depends crucially on our ability to innovate to produce more energy, at lower cost, and to use the resulting energy more efficiently. The Clinton administration--the previous administration-- prepared a comprehensive plan for boosting energy research and development spending, but it could find very little support for that proposal in Congress. That was in 1997. We have taken that blueprint and we have updated it to reflect some of the past appropriations by the Congress. I believe that we have come up with a broad approach to boost research and development spending for energy efficiency and for every energy supply option that is on the table. This bill also supports basic science that is related to energy that may lead to discoveries that could create entirely new energy technologies, such as happened when high-temperature superconductivity was discovered in the late 1980s. The Department of Energy's Office of Science has had a stagnant budget throughout the 1990s. We now see evidence that this lag negatively affected our productivity in basic areas such as chemistry, physics, and material sciences. The U.S. scientific productivity in these disciplines, which support both energy research and develpment as well as research and development in other high-tech areas, is markedly lower now than during the 1970s and 1980s. Many of us in Congress are talking about the need to double the budget for the National Institutes of Health. The administration is talking about that as well. I support doing that. But there is a similar national need to greatly increase our support for basic energy research and development. This effort to maintain research and development in this energy area is absolutely essential if Congress is going to do what needs to be done in this area. Tax Policy. Along with the programs outlined above, we need to consider the use of tax incentives to encourage commercial activities that will meet the goals for increased efficiency and diversification of our energy supplies. To accomplish this we have included tax credits and incentives to accompany the policy programs that we have authorized, such as, stimulus for residential and commercial energy efficiency, renewable energy development, clean coal technology, and distributed generation. To complement these incentives and encourage further development of new traditional supplies we have also provided for tax incentives for heating fuels and storage and oil and gas production. Mr. President, the lights went off again this week in California. We are all aware of that. Electricity bills throughout the West are causing businesses to shut down because they can't afford to operate. We are threatened with that in my own state of New Mexico. Citizens across the country have seen their gas bills double and in some cases triple the level they were a year ago. If you drive up to the gasoline pump you will see numbers that would have surprised and shocked you not too long ago. I think the citizens of this Nation know that the energy industries are in trouble, and that actually will mean trouble for them. We in Congress--we in Washington--need to respond. This bill is an attempt to further the dialogue that has already begun in this Congress. Consider it as an outline. We need to hold hearings. We need to debate how best to respond. We need to develop a balanced response that takes advantage of all the options that are available to us. We can't supply our way out of this unfortunate circumstance. We can't just conserve our way out of it either. We must do both. I expect many changes in the content of this bill before we are finally finished. But this is a good beginning toward a comprehensive and balanced energy policy for the Nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of both bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today, I, along with many of my colleagues in the Senate, members of the Democratic caucus, have introduced two bills: the Comprehensive and Balanced Energy Policy Act of 2001, and its companion measure, the Energy Security and Tax Incentive Act of 2001. I expect the first of those will be referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the other will be referred to the Committee on Finance because it does contain tax provisions. Mr. President, the Nation is facing important challenges to its energy future. For decades, we have been able to rely on the fact that our energy supplies were abundant, dependable, and affordable. Events in recent months have shaken the faith of many in that reliance. Volatile prices, high prices and outright failures of supply are reported in newspaper headlines almost daily. Why are we seeing these problems emerge now? Energy prices remained relatively stable over the last decade due to increased productivity, lower energy use per dollar of GDP, and introduction of market competition. All of these factors acted to hold down prices, in spite of robust economic growth and increasing demand for energy. Before the introduction of competition into energy markets we had policies that required large excess capacity margins. We paid a lot for that excess capacity in the past, but we also benefitted from that buffer. It kept the system functioning as markets restructured with low prices and relatively minor bumps along the way. As the economic growth of recent years has used up that excess capacity in the fuels, power and natural gas sectors, the frictions and imperfections in those markets have become apparent. That is what we are seeing today. Three weeks ago, when Senator Murkowski, Chairman of the Energy Committee on which I serve, introduced the Republican energy message bill, I gave an outline of what I thought should be included in comprehensive energy legislation for the Congress to put together a balanced and adequate response to the energy issues that confront the Nation. At that time I said that I strongly believed that a package with equal emphasis on both supply and demand side measures developed with bipartisan support is the only way we can pass energy legislation this Congress. The key word is balance. The bill introduced by my Republican colleague is strong on the supply side and I support many of its provisions but short on the demand side of the equation. Many provisions of the Republican package I support, as do a number of my Democratic colleagues. However, after reviewing that bill overall, I believe it is appropriate to introduce a countermeasure, a measure that addresses our energy needs as I see it in a more balanced and comprehensive way. This will help our discussion for final legislation in this area and help focus in on what the priorities need to be as we move forward. The first of the issues left out of the Republican bill for any real consideration was the issue of climate change. In 1992, the Senate ratified the Rio Treaty calling for a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. I know some in this body do not believe we should have acted to approve that treaty, but we did. Last year, instead of reaching those 1990 levels by the year 2000, we were 17 percent above those levels. We and the rest of the world have recognized the vital importance of preventing the potential for catastrophic climate change, that our human activities are, in fact, threatening. We have made commitments, but we have not met those commitments. We need to do so, not as some isolated exercise undertaken without regard to the economy, but as an integral part of our energy policy for the 21st century. In my view, we cannot separate climate change policy from energy policy. To do one is to inextricably affect the other. The policy bill I am introducing creates a bipartisan national commission on energy and climate change to be appointed by this President and to conduct a study of measures that could achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions in this country at 1990 levels by the year 2010--and below 1990 levels by the year 2020. The commission would then develop recommendations concerning measures appropriate for implementation, for legislation, and for administrative action to implement this goal. There are some who believe we should be looking at even deeper cuts to our emissions than to return to 1990 levels by 2010. I have some sympathy for that perspective. But if we are to take a bipartisan approach to the task of integrating climate change policy with energy policy, it is more realistic to start with a point that the Senate is on record as agreeing to. Most Members who were here at the time the vote occurred in 1992 on the Rio Treaty believe that commitment to go to 1990 levels by the year 2000, although on a voluntary basis, was a good-faith and reasonable commitment. I believe there should not be objection to reaching that same goal given an extra 10 years in which to achieve it. The answer to how we get to this point may help illuminate the issues of what more aggressive actions are needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The bill I am introducing calls for a much more vigorous effort by the U.S. Government to get U.S. clean energy technology into developing countries that are expected to experience major increases in their greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade. The United States cannot solve the greenhouse gas problem by itself, and we all know that. Other countries need to do their part. But since our particular strength in this country has been the development of technology, we should be making every effort to help those developing countries adopt the cleanest technologies in each energy area that we have to offer. It makes good business sense, it makes good climate sense, and the appropriate Federal agencies should help facilitate the process. Another missing element in the Republican bill is the area of how to site energy infrastructure. There has been a lot of talk about the problem, but not much action beyond finger-pointing in this area. I believe we need to recognize the wisdom of the old Pogo adage, ``We have met the enemy and he is us.'' Even communities that are experiencing energy crunches are having trouble siting new energy infrastructure because of local sentiment against it. This is not principally a problem with environmental regulations, as some would suggest. It is NIMBY-- ``not in my backyard''--pure and simple. If we are to effectively deal with this siting problem, we will need new tools and models. One that I think is particularly promising is regional cooperation, partly because most energy markets are regional. For example, as technologies for transmitting electricity have improved, electric utilities have come more and more to depend on the wholesale market for electricity supply. Those markets are increasingly regional in scope. A similar picture can be painted for the natural gas market. In order to meet the challenges of these new market realities, we must change the regulatory institutions to reflect the structures of the market. The markets are regional. So we must think regionally. We have seen regional bodies help site other important societal infrastructure, such as highways. But if a similar construct is to be helpful in the energy area, there will be a great need for technical assistance and for a regular forum where regional leaders and decision makers in Federal agencies can meet to discuss the real issues and problems. For that reason, the bill I am introducing has provisions that have the DOE meet these needs. I realize that this is a small beginning, but I believe this is an important piece of this bill. I know that a number of States, particularly in the West and the Northeast, as well as other regions, are already engaged in varying degrees of cooperative effort to address the regionalization of energy markets. I look forward to working with the States, and with Federal agencies to develop a framework to support these efforts. The bill that I am introducing requires a review of the adequacy of FERC transmission policies and its interpretation of market power. It calls for an investigation of the possibility using existing rights-of- way owned by Federal Power Marketing agencies for siting energy facilities. As the electricity industry has changed, the structure for assuring the reliability of the power grid has come under fire. Many in the industry and the regulatory community believe that the old system of self-policing, voluntary compliance with rules generated by the suppliers will not continue to provide the reliability that we have come to expect. Last year the Senate passed a bill that addressed this issue by creating a new entity to develop and enforce electric reliability rules. I have included that bill as part of this package, and the text is identical to what was included in the Republican bill I mentioned earlier. This bill also contains a number of provisions intended to provide additional protection for electricity consumers. Among these are protections against such unfair trade practices as slamming and cramming; encouragement to the States to ensure universal and affordable service; a rural construction grant program; a comprehensive Indian energy program; greater transparency of information on the availability transmission and generating capacity; and a public benefits fund to help States with various energy efficiency, renewable energy and low income energy programs and to support investments in climate change mitigation. Perhaps most importantly, this bill contains language to address the immediate crisis being experienced by California, both in terms of electricity and natural gas. We cannot ignore the problem of California, or simply sit back and give speeches heaping blame on their politicians and then think that we've done our job. The motto carved in stone over the desk of the Presiding Officer in this Chamber is ``E Pluribus Unum,'' or, ``Out of Many, One.'' A more colloquial version of that might be, ``We're all in this together.'' The market in California for electricity and gas is broken in several respects. In the two hearings we have held before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, it is clear that the prices received by many generators are far above the cost of production. It is also clear that market signals are not getting through to consumers. The provisions of this bill, which I have inserted at the request of Senator Feinstein, take on both of those issues. These provisions to help Californians deserve full and careful attention by the Senate, because this issue is worsening as we speak. One of the best ways to protect against market volatility in energy is to diversify supply sources. I believe that much can be done to increase energy supplies from traditional resources, and the bills that I am introducing, taken together have a robust mix of tax and policy provisions to see that we continue to develop our domestic energy resources effectively. Of particular importance are countercyclical tax measures that kick in when prices fall to very low levels, so that new domestic production does not come to a standstill. If we can even out some of the boom-and-bust quality of our domestic oil and gas drilling, we will maintain both the production and the skilled labor force in oil and natural gas exploration and production that this country needs. The bill that I am introducing does not open ANWR to oil and gas drilling. I find it ironic that, at the same time the President is seeking to open up ANWR a wildlife refuge, he is being importuned by his brother, the Governor of Florida, to put a large and promising tract in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico off limits to oil and gas leasing. The policy bill that I am introducing today mandates that the lease sale go forward on its current schedule. Let me just make reference to that with this chart. This chart shows the area at issue. It is called the Sale 181 area. As you can see most of it is over 100 miles from Florida: It is this area fully 100 miles from Florida we believe should be offered for development without hesitation. It is scheduled for December, and we do not believe it is good public policy for us to back away from developing resources in an area where we have a demonstrated history of safe and environmentally sensitive development. This area in the deepwater should be made available for leasing and exploration, and we believe it will be if this legislation becomes law. Although the Democratic energy legislation does not open ANWR, it does take what I think is a meaningful step to make sure that the abundant natural gas in Alaska, which is produced around Prudhoe Bay, makes it to the lower 48 States where it is needed. The Democratic energy tax bill contains a tax incentive for any Alaskan gas that enters interstate commerce before January 1, 2009. This should be a significant inducement to producers to get the various proposals for pipelines between Alaska and the lower 48 sorted out, and to start building a pipeline to bring that gas to our markets as soon as possible. In addition to traditional energy sources, both bills that I am introducing encourage alternative energy supplies. This bill gives a great deal of attention to renewable resources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, hydroelectric and other renewable generation options, as well as encouraging development and deployment of fuel cells, distributed generation and combined heating and power facilities. We require Federal energy facilities to set the example by meeting targets for percentages of their electricity supply to be derived from renewable resources. We also require that the rules for interconnection of electricity customers who self-generate, especially with renewable resources, be spelled out and made equitable. The bill would ease access to the transmission system for intermittent sources such as wind generators. That is a brief summary of what the Democratic bill does on energy supply. But, as I mentioned in the beginning of my remarks, this bill balances its emphasis on supply with a strong emphasis on demand reduction and efficiency. Increasing the efficient use of energy is the single most effective and least-cost energy policy for the short term and long term. Just yesterday, the Wall Street Journal ran an article titled ``States Rediscover Energy Policies''. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, following my remarks, to have printed in the Record this article from yesterday's issue of the Wall Street Journal.