Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I rise to make a couple of comments in response to the presentation by the Senator from Arizona. He has clearly thought through this and done a fair amount of homework. He brought some charts with him and gave some examples of why he thinks this is bad legislation. I think he makes a terrible mistake by suggesting that this is not national in scope. The implication of the proposal by the Senator from Arizona is to say: If it is to be done, let's let the States do it. This is not something that ought to be a matter of national policy. Let me make a couple of comments about that. We would have had the same kind of discussion over 20 years ago when we first discussed the Clean Air Act in Congress. People said: Let's leave it to the States. This isn't something we ought to do nationally. This is not a national responsibility or a national goal. Let the States do it. We didn't do that. We said: As a matter of national purpose, this country deserves clean air. We passed clean air standards. Why? Because the Congress demanded it and said: This is a matter of national purpose and a matter of developing national standards, and national aspirations for our country. On the issue of energy, the question is: Are we going to write a national energy bill and have an energy policy that turns the corner and moves us in a different direction in certain areas--Yes or no? It is not a question of can we do it. We can. The question proposed by the Senator from Arizona is, Should we do it? He says no. Now, can we do it? Let me show you this chart. This is from the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory. This chart shows the biomass resources in this country. The dark shades of green represent the potential kilowatts per county in America. Solar, geothermal, and wind resources: all of these represent real potential to extend America's energy supply with renewable energy. Now, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to say, I don't think we ought to do it. I don't think it is a matter of national policy. It is a perfectly reasonable position--wrong, but reasonable. If we are going to address energy policy in the Senate, then we have to begin describing a new policy, and we have to begin describing it as a sense of national purpose. I recall a story about Mark Twain being asked to debate. He said he would be happy to debate as long as he could be on the negative side. They said: You don't even know the subject yet. He said: The negative side requires no preparation. The affirmative proposal that is offered by Senator Bingaman is to develop a renewable portfolio standard. That is an affirmative proposal. Why? Because it will advance the interests of this country, extend America's energy supply, reduce our reliance on foreign energy, and improve America's security. What are the consequences of doing nothing? My colleague mentions the free market. The free market has allowed us to import 57 percent of our oil supply from overseas, largely from Saudi Arabia. Is that the free market that helps this country? I don't think so. I think it makes our country and our economy more dependent on an oil supply that comes from one of the most unsettled areas in the world. What if, God forbid, tomorrow morning a terrorist should shut off that supply of oil from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to the United States? Our economy would be flat on its back. If we wake up tomorrow morning at 6:30 and turn on the morning news and discover that, God forbid, somebody has interrupted this flow of energy from the Middle East, our country's economy is going to be flat on its back. We all know that this puts America's economy in jeopardy. That is why, as we develop a new energy policy, it is incumbent upon us to look at these new approaches. The renewable portfolio standard can be controversial, yes, I understand that. Every new idea is controversial. But it is essential to pull this new policy along and to say that it is good for our country, good for our economy, and good for American security. That is our requirement in the Senate. Now, my colleague from Arizona said that the State of North Dakota doesn't have a renewable portfolio standard. That is true. It should. I am not in the State legislature. If I were, I would propose it. But North Dakota doesn't have an RPS. That is precisely why we need a national policy. Some might have an RPS at the State level; some states might not. Some might care about it; some might not. Some might think it would be fine to go from a 57- to a 70-percent reliance on foreign oil. Some might think that is fine because the cheapest oil in the world comes from the Persian Gulf. But it is not fine. We all understand that. It puts our economy in jeopardy. It imposes on our national security in a very significant way. So the question is not, Do we understand these things? The question is, Are we as a Congress going to do something about it? Are we really going to decide there are certain national energy goals and aspirations that we have as a country? Let me end as I began. We have had this debate before. We had this debate on clean air and clean water standards over two decades ago. We had people who didn't want those standards. ``Don't you dare impose these burdens on State and local governments,'' they said. Good for those policymakers. Good for them for having the courage to say, let's do this as a country, let's make progress in addressing this national issue. That is exactly what the Bingaman renewable portfolio proposal in this energy bill is designed to accomplish. It says, let's address this issue, let's aspire to higher goals, let's understand that energy comes not just in a pipe or by digging it out of the ground. It comes from the sun, wind, biomass, and geothermal resources. There isn't any reason that this country ought not aspire to do more in these areas. That is what this standard is about. As I said, it is easy to take the opposing side. It is more difficult to assume the responsibility to be on the affirmative side. But the affirmative side here is saying, let's do this as a country. That is the right side. I hope when the Senate finishes this debate, it will say, yes, this is the right thing to do--not State by State, but as a nation. This is what we aspire to do as a nation, to extend our energy supply, to make us less dependent upon Middle East oil, and to use limitless and renewable sources of energy to help strengthen our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me make a final point that I think is important. The mandate here is going to strengthen this country's national security and energy security. We can decide to do nothing. We can decide, as my colleague from Arizona has, that we ought to essentially ignore this and let State-by-State judgments be made. We can decide that whatever the free market determines is our future. But that, in my judgment, does not resolve the need for a national energy policy that stretches this country and moves it in a different direction--one that I believe will strengthen national security by reducing our reliance on foreign oil. Does anybody in the Senate want to stand at their desk in the Senate and say: We really think it is good for the country, we really believe it strengthens America's national security to have 57 percent of our oil coming from the Middle East or from foreign sources? Is anyone missing what is happening in the Middle East these days? Does anybody believe it does not injure our national security to be so dependent on that source of oil? If you believe--and I think almost everyone in this Chamber does believe--it actually hurts our national security to be that dependent, then we ought to strive as a nation to find ways to change that. I am not talking about Arizona, Alaska, North Dakota, or New Jersey by themselves. The Nation ought to strive to back away from that dependency. If my colleagues believe that, the question is, What is the menu of changes that allows us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? One answer is the Bingaman proposal in the energy bill that aspires to have a renewable portfolio standard of 10 percent; 10 percent coming from renewable, limitless sources of energy.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Let me finish my thought. I have the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. DORGAN. My colleague from New Mexico will speak next and will describe some of the policies with respect to public lands. I say this to the Senator from Alaska. If you take a look at this chart--the import of this chart--it shows a fairly balanced representation across the country, to be able to achieve limitless, renewable sources of energy that we don't really aspire to harness these days. We are trying to see if we can pull the country along with a national standard to actually harness energy from these renewable resources. I understand there are some concerns about certain areas of the portfolio standard, and we can have some discussion about those concerns. But I do believe that the principle here to aspire to have the country using more renewable energy. The Senator from Arizona, I think, toward the end of his presentation, described his real objection. It is not with some problems over resources on public lands. His problem is he believes that we ought not to mandate anything and that the free market ought to help increase our use of renewables. That is the underlying objection. I do not know whether the import of the question of the Senator from Alaska is----

Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. I say to my colleague from Nevada, that is the case. We cannot produce our way out of this problem. We certainly can produce. We had a vote in the Senate about production in the Gulf of Mexico. I supported that. I also support incentives to increase production of oil and natural gas. Yes, I do think we have to increase production and do it in an environmentally sensitive way. We have to do a lot of other things and do them well as a matter of national policy. That is the point of having an energy policy debate on the floor of the Senate. If, in fact, the result of an energy policy debate is to say let the States do whatever they want to do, that is a kind of yesterday-forever strategy. Members of the Senate will, 25 years from now, be having the same debate. The suits will have changed, the names will have changed, and the people occupying the desks in the Senate will have changed, but nothing else will have changed.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, my understanding is we are awaiting midafternoon for an amendment that will be offered, we are told, by Senator Kyl. I should not speak for him, but I am told the amendment will strike the renewable portfolio standard in its entirety. What is the renewable portfolio standard? To some, when we talk about an energy policy, debate on that term sounds like a foreign language--a renewable portfolio standard. It means an attempt by this country to develop different approaches, using renewable, limitless supplies of energy to produce electricity in our country. There are some who despair this energy bill that is designed to try to take us into a new day and a new approach to energy policy, does not have the CAFE standard that was voted on last week. Some are concerned about that. Frankly, with or without the CAFE standard, this piece of legislation does include some significant areas of improvement in dealing with the efficiency of the transportation sector. It does, for example, provide very significant financial inducements for people to buy automobiles that have new sources of power: fuel cell automobiles, hybrid automobiles, and others. We recognize that if you are going to deal with this country's energy problem, you have to deal with efficiency of the energy used in transportation. That is true. I understand that. There are many ways to do that. Remaining in this bill are important provisions, including significant tax benefits to consumers with which they can purchase a car that meets certain specifications, or a vehicle that meets certain specifications with respect to gas mileage, the kind of power train it has, and other issues. So while some despair about the vote we had last week, let me say there remain in the bill significant areas of efficiency dealing with transportation. But that is not the issue now. The issue is a renewable portfolio standard with respect to the production of electricity. The question for all of us has always been, when we debate energy on the floor of the Senate, will we develop new policies? Will we really turn a corner or will we simply repeat the debate we had a quarter of a century ago and beef it up just a little bit so we can debate it again a quarter of a century from now? Will our policy simply be yesterday forever? Is that our policy? It is that just to dig and drill and dig and drill represents our policy for the next 25 years? Look, I support digging and drilling, provided it is done in an environmentally acceptable way. We must produce new energy. We must and will produce new oil and natural gas and use coal. We must do that because we cannot solve our energy problem without producing more, but we must do it also in a way that is environmentally acceptable. As we transition toward more production and more efficiency and more conservation, we also must, then, turn to this other issue of trying to find new sources of energy so we do not just rely on digging and drilling: new sources of energy such as wind energy, biomass, solar energy, geothermal, and more. When we produce electricity in this country, there are several ways for us to do it. We have in the past traditionally mined coal and used coal in power plants to produce electricity and move that electricity over a series of transmission wires to places in America where it is needed. Other plants use natural gas as the principal fuel. But there are other ways to produce electricity. We now have newer technology--wind turbines. Those wind turbines have the capability, with much more effectiveness, to take that energy from the air and, through those turbines, create electricity. That electricity can be moved around the country where it is needed. Likewise, with solar energy, geothermal energy, biomass--we also can produce electricity using renewable and limitless supplies of energy. We must, when this bill leaves the Senate, have a renewable portfolio standard that is reasonably aggressive, and one that is workable. The renewable portfolio standard of 10 percent is one that we agreed to, generally speaking, when we wrote the bill earlier. Some have talked about 20 percent, which others have said is too aggressive. There are still others in our Chamber who say there should be no renewable portfolio standard, there should be no standard by which we achieve more in limitless and renewable sources of energy for the production of electricity. I could not disagree more with that position. For us to write an energy bill in the Senate and say, let's just keep producing electricity the same old way, let's not really have any changes, let's not stretch ourselves, let's not turn the corner with respect to energy supply, I think is not a step forward at all. That is not new policy. That is, as I said, yesterday forever. We will not be here in most cases, 25 years from now, someone will have a new idea for a new energy policy. It will be digging more and drilling more. That is not new, and it does not resolve our issues in the long term that are so important for this country. September 11 described for all of us the fact that this is a pretty uncertain and dangerous world in some respects. We have talked a great deal since September 11 about national security. Madmen, sick, twisted, demented people who live in caves in Afghanistan, plot the murder of thousands of innocent Americans in America's cities. So we talk about national security and we prosecute a war against terrorism and we talk about homeland security and it is all very important. But there is another part of national security that is also very important. That is the security or the lack of it that comes with the need to get 57 percent of our oil, our energy supplies of oil and natural gas from abroad--most of which come from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, in one of the most unsettled regions of the world. Connecting our country's need for oil to a supply from a region that is so unstable and so uncertain is not a smart policy for this country. We have ratcheted this up to almost 60 percent of our energy supply coming from abroad--most of it coming from a region that is a very unstable region. We need to begin stepping that back. One way to start doing that is by reaffirming this afternoon that we believe in a renewable portfolio standard; that is, we believe in a standard by which we want this country to aspire to a goal, an achievable goal and a real goal of having 10 percent of its electric energy produced by renewable and limitless sources of energy. I mentioned wind a moment ago. Wind energy is something that has, now, the capacity to produce a substantial amount of new energy for us. My home State of North Dakota is last in numbers of trees, as I have told my colleagues from time to time. We rank 50th in native forestlands, so we are dead last in numbers of trees. But according to the U.S. Department of Energy, we are No. 1 in wind. We are what they call the Saudi Arabia of wind energy. Putting up a turbine with the capability to take the energy from the wind and, through that turbine, turn it into electricity and move it across transmission lines makes good sense for this country. It is renewable; it is limitless; it is good for our environment; it just makes good sense. That is why just one step in this energy bill that would be helpful for this country--just one--is to reaffirm today that we believe in this standard, in stretching our country to at least achieve the 10- percent level on alternative energy for the production of electricity. That is all we are talking about. In North Dakota, for example, we have some transmission issues we have to deal with in order to produce more wind energy. I hope we can move to produce more energy from wind, from biomass, from solar, but we also have to find ways to transmit it through transmission lines. We are talking now in this legislation that Senator Bingaman brought to the floor about new technologies for transmission lines. It is for a range of initiatives. I was helpful in working on some incentives to try to move us toward composite conductor technology, for example, which is one technology, to double or triple the efficiency of transmission lines. If you can triple the efficiency of transmission lines, you don't have to build new corridors. You can move substantially more electricity across the grid system in this country to where it is needed. The point is, we have a lot to do. This legislation does a lot. I believe this afternoon we will be confronted with an amendment that says, no, let's step back and not do quite as much. In the area of a renewable portfolio standard, it would be awful, in my judgment, for the Senate not to stand for and perhaps even improve that which is already in the bill. The 10-percent standard that is in the bill, with respect to some agreements, as I understand it, has been changed a bit. Perhaps we could even strengthen that. The point is, we ought not retract; we ought not step backwards on this issue. So when Senator Kyl offers his amendment, I hope we can have an aggressive debate today and have a vote in which this Senate, by a very strong majority, says: We insist on a renewable portfolio standard in this bill. It is the right way and the right step for this country, to make a break towards less dependence on foreign oil and more national security for this country, by having a renewable and limitless source of energy well into the future. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the minority leader was asking about the definition of a derivative. I ask the Senator from Texas, could he not find the definition of a derivative by talking to people who used to run Long Term Capital Management? As the Senator from Texas will recall, it lost a fortune sufficient so that it almost took down the American economy. The Fed had to have a Sunday night rescue package to try to prevent LTCM from collapsing. I would expect an awfully good definition of derivatives. They are risks that are now falling through the cracks of regulators, which come from an understanding of Long Term Capital Management.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from Texas yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, first of all, I thank the Senator from Nebraska for his leadership on this issue. We are talking about the energy bill today in the Senate Chamber. We have been on this bill for some while, and we hope very much we will conclude it soon. But one piece of the energy bill deals with what is called the renewable fuel standards. For those who are not accustomed to what the titles mean, it simply means alternative fuels, such as ethanol. Ethanol is an awfully good example--there are others--of what would help us reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy. I have been to ethanol plants around the country, and a couple of them in North Dakota. It makes good sense, from a kernel of corn or a kernel of barley, to be able to take the drop of alcohol from that kernel of corn to extend America's energy supply, and, at the same time, have the protein feed stock left to feed the cattle. So you have a circumstance where you grow your fuel. Frankly, I did not know much about this a couple of decades ago. I saw an ad in one of the big daily newspapers, and it was by one of the largest oil companies in the country. It said: We oppose ethanol production because it really isn't very viable and doesn't contribute much. I thought: Well, if the biggest oil companies are opposing this, I ought to take a look at it. And I did. I discovered, sure enough, using the approach to take alcohol from grain, for example, to extend America's energy supply, holds great promise for our country. Since that time we have, of course, seen additional plants be developed in this country as well as more production of renewable fuels. But, it seems to me, everyone here understands that we have an enormous amount of our energy coming from a part of the world that is inherently unstable: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, part of the Middle East, and Central Asia. We have all of this oil and natural gas coming from parts of the world that are unstable. And our economy depends on that constant source of supply. That is an enormous risk to our economy in this country. What do we do about that? We do a lot of things, one of which is to create a renewable fuel standard by which we aspire, as a country, to get more of our energy supply in renewable fuels. We can do that. We can have that kind of future if we set goals and reach those goals. Today, ethanol reduces the demand for gasoline and for MTBE imports by 98,000 barrels a day. That makes great sense, as I said, to take the alcohol from a kernel of corn and extend America's energy supply. The American Petroleum Institute now supports this. The National Corn Growers, the Renewable Fuels Association, the National Farmers Union, and the Farm Bureau all have sent letters to Senator Daschle and Senator Lott expressing their support for this version. Madam President, 1.8 billion gallons of pure ethanol are currently produced in our country. This provision that we are debating would add 3.2 billion new gallons of ethanol, for a total of 5 billion gallons by the year 2012. That translates, for example, into a new market for American corn of 1.19 billion bushels of corn. That helps family farmers, obviously, to be able to produce a crop, and use that crop, on a renewable basis, to extend America's energy supply. It means new opportunities for farmers to invest in value-added processing of a product they are already growing. I might, while I am here, also say there are some other interesting and exciting things happening in my home State of North Dakota. The Aerospace Program and the Environment and Energy Research Center, both at the University of North Dakota located in Grand Forks, are researching potential uses of ethanol as aviation fuel. Aviation fuel is the last fuel in the United States that still contains lead. Ethanol, in our judgment, could be used for aviation fuel, and so the University of North Dakota is teaming with South Dakota State University and the FAA on a program to get ethanol approved and certified to help replace lead-based aviation fuel. The University of North Dakota, in fact, is hosting a conference on this subject in the month of May. And they are going to bring together aviation fuel distributors, pilots, plane manufacturers, and others, to determine the future role that ethanol can play in the aviation industry as an aviation fuel. We are talking, in this energy bill, about a lot of things. As I have indicated before, we are talking about electricity. We are talking about a renewable portfolio standard in that area. We are talking about limitless and renewable fuels in this area, the renewable fuels standard. There are a lot of people who deserve credit for bringing us to this position, because it has been a lot of hard work. We have had a lot of opposition over the years for ethanol production. But I think, finally, we have broken through, and this represents a kind of a new beachhead for opportunities in our country to understand what ethanol and what renewable fuels can do to extend America's energy supply. I indicated yesterday the I have been recently, in the last couple of months, to Central Asia. Those of us who have traveled in the Middle East and Central Asia understand that we cannot continue to hook America's economy to a constant fuel supply that comes from parts of the world that are so inherently unstable. We need to do better than that. We need to produce more of our own energy. Part of that is, yes, digging and drilling for natural gas, oil, coal, and doing that in an environmentally sensitive way, and the underlying bill does that. But a significant part of it is also in the area of limitless and renewable sources of energy. That is exactly what we are talking about today. That is what the Senator from Nebraska began talking about this morning. I am really pleased to be in this Chamber to support this. I want to see a series of ethanol plants dotting the prairies in the Northern Great Plains in this country which can take kernels of corn, barley, and other grains, put them in an ethanol plant, extract the drop of alcohol, extend America's energy supply and still have protein feed stock left for animals. That makes good sense for family farmers and good sense for America. It is not just national security; it is also energy security, which translates into national security. And that has its roots in this renewable fuels standard. So I thank my colleague from Nebraska. I am pleased to be with him and so many others in this Senate Chamber who have worked hard on this for a long period of time. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for his courtesy. I ask for the immediate consideration of amendment No. 2993.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, yesterday I offered an amendment that subsequently was set aside. It is amendment No. 2993. The amendment is to establish a National Power Plant Operations Technology and Education Center. The amendment, I believe, is noncontroversial. I know the Senator from Alaska indicated he would accept the amendment. I believe the Senator from New Mexico indicated the same. I ask that it be immediately considered favorably by the Senate.

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

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak generally today about the energy policy in this country and especially about the energy bill we are debating in the Senate. I also want to offer an amendment--a noncontroversial amendment. I think both sides have been apprised of it. I would like to get it pending. I will not ask that we vote on it today. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment now pending be set aside so I might offer an amendment.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce an amendment to establish a national energy technology training and education center. This amendment is critical, because, as of yet, no comprehensive education program exists for electric system operators. Meanwhile, our energy sector and electricity grid are becoming increasingly complex. These changes in the electric industry and changes in electricity market structures require educated, highly-skilled operators and technicians. In addition, electric system operators are essential to reliable and safe generation, transmission, and distribution of electric power. Education programs that provide training specific to the electric industry are rare, because of the way the industry has been structured and because, for example, most transmission system operators are promoted from within and trained on the job, rather than having had formal training. One goal of an energy training center, such as the one this amendment would create, would be to provide quality education programs for workers who often are unable to participate in college programs, due to their shift hours or other reasons. These programs would be offered via the Internet, for example, to accommodate these workers. The programs offered through this Energy Center would be directly related to the industry, to ensure that a pool of multi-skilled workers are trained to meet the future needs of the industry. The energy industry needs an Internet program to train power plant and other technicians to be experts in the various aspects of the energy industry. To respond to this growing need, a certificate and degree program is being developed in collaboration with regional transmission representatives, utility experts, the Electric Power Research Institute, and others. The objectives of this program are (1) to prepare well-trained electricity system operators who can adapt and be productive in power plant and process plant technologies and environments; (2) to provide anywhere, anytime learning opportunities through Internet courses for presently employed personnel who are unable to leave their workplaces to attend courses and/or are restricted by 12-hour work shifts or location in relation to the educational site, and (3) to provide an associate degree option in this field. Over the next 10 years, the demand for electric power is expected to increase by approximately 25 percent. Constraints on electric transmission line capacity will result in additional transmission line construction and improvements that will increase the need for skilled line workers. Due to technological advances, line operators will continue to need to update their knowledge base. Moreover, we will need specially trained people to ensure the continued reliability of our energy infrastructure. The Energy Center would: Work in conjunction with the North American Electric Reliability Council to promote flexible continuing education opportunities for system operators to help maintain their required certifications; Offer flexible education opportunities related to the security of the electric industry infrastructure and emergency preparedness; Provide flexible education offerings directly related to the generation, transmission and distribution sectors; Provide national communication to the electric industry by hosting conferences, forming national advisory boards, and facilitating chat rooms and web-casts; and Provide simulation opportunities for students to operate sophisticated control stations and distributive control systems in a supervised environment. This is an amendment to which I believe both sides will agree. We have had discussions with both sides. As I indicated, I will wait until later to ask that it be voted on. I don't believe it would require a record vote. This amendment would establish a national energy technology training and education center. Changes in the electric industry, and especially changes in the electricity market structures, require a different set of skills, a different education for operators and technicians of electric powerplants. In addition to trying to establish that, we would establish an energy training center, which would provide quality education programs for workers who were often unable to participate in other programs that would give them the kinds of disciplines that are necessary in this new energy climate. Let me talk more generally about the energy bill on the floor of the Senate. I spoke last week at some length about it. The energy bill includes four pieces. First, we need to produce more energy. All of us agree on that. We are going to have a disagreement on the issue of ANWR, but there is no disagreement over whether we should or whether we need to produce more energy. The answer is yes, of course, we must. We have had votes on the floor in recent months on the subject of opening up portions of the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Florida for additional energy production. I voted for that. We have also had discussions and votes and other legislative consideration in other areas to enhance incentives for the production of oil, natural gas, and coal to be used in an environmentally sensitive way to extend America's energy supply. We have to do that. The point is, if that is all we do when we come to the floor of the Senate in March of 2002, just to increase the supply of energy, this country will be consigned to a strategy that I call ``yesterday forever.'' Twenty-five years ago, when we debated energy, this is what we discussed; 25 years from now, when we debate energy, this is what we will discuss. It is a ``yesterday forever'' strategy--just dig and drill, dig and drill, and somehow, that represents America's policy. That is not enough. Digging and drilling is important. It is important to do it, and it is important to do it the right way, but there is much more to be done. So production, No. 1. Second, conservation. We waste an enormous amount of energy in our country. We need a title in this energy bill, which is included in the bill that is now on the floor of the Senate, that talks about conservation--conservation in a range of areas. One important area in this legislation that will be controversial will be a new SEER standard for air-conditioners, called SEER 13. We will have people try to knock that out, but the fact is conservation means conservation in transportation, conservation with respect to efficiency of appliances, and a whole range of areas by which you can save a barrel of oil. A barrel of oil saved is just the same as a barrel of oil produced. So it is important for us, it seems to me, to be concerned about those areas. We also need to be concerned about additional production of energy from renewables and limitless sources of energy. That includes biodiesel, biomass, wind energy, and a range of others--especially something I am very interested in, called fuel cells. When I talked about ``yesterday forever,'' I talked about the fact that the automobile has not changed in a hundred years. You still pull up to the tank and put the hose in the tank and pump gas. They did it 100 years ago, and we do it now. The internal combustion engine still sucks gas and uses oil. The fact is, we have some interesting work on the horizon suggesting to us, perhaps for the first time, that there will be significant changes. An article in Energy Tech Online by Drew Robb is titled ``Houston, We've Got a Solution; Fuel Cells Come Back to Earth.'' It talks about much of the initial fuel cell research that was funded by NASA, and although the technology of fuel cells showed enormous promise, sky-high costs kept any commercial interest pretty much as low ebb. Then, in the 1990s, investment poured in as a method of reducing toxic emissions and greenhouse gases, and we began to see some real progress. Commercial interests--many which are in the development of funding for fuel cells--now come from the transportation power generation and oil suppliers. I drove a fuel cell vehicle on the grounds of the Capitol Building some months ago. It did not make any noise. It did not have an internal combustion engine. It used oxygen and hydrogen that combine to create a fuel supply by which this automobile moved, and it pushed water vapor out the back end. That is a pretty good deal, it seems to me: A fuel cell engine, and the effluent from the back end of that automobile is water vapor. Does all of that make sense? It does to me. DaimlerChrysler, for example, plans to spend over $1 billion in the coming years on fuel cell research. In April of last year, it unveiled its hydrogen-powered car called NECAR 4, based on the Mercedes A series. They developed a prototype hydrogen fuel cell, which is one- third the size of previous versions. Ford, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, and others are pursuing similar projects. The reason I talk about the fuel cell is because it is one of those new technologies that offers the promise of unlimited, clean, quiet, safe, and low-cost energy for the long term. It just makes sense for us to move in that direction if we can. How do we do that? As I said, we have been putting gas in our automobiles the same way for a century. Just because every debate in the Senate for 25 years has been a debate about doing more tomorrow that which we did yesterday--that is not a debate, that is just a thoughtless policy. I come from a State that produces a fair amount of energy. We produce oil, coal, some natural gas. We also have the capacity to produce a substantial amount of wind energy. Last Friday's vote in the Senate to extend the production tax credit for wind energy and renewables is very important. Taking the energy from the wind and using it to turn the blades of a new technology turbine, create electricity, and have that electricity course through transmission lines and be sent to somewhere in the country that needs it is a very important step in changing our energy mix from an overreliance on natural gas, oil, and coal to a reliance as well on limitless and renewable energy supplies. One of the amendments we are going to be discussing in the Congress in the next week or so will be what is called the renewable portfolio standard. That is creating an aspiration or a goal on the part of this country to have a certain percent of our energy needs coming from renewable energy sources by the year 2020. If we have a renewable portfolio standard of 10 percent, utilities will be required to sell 10 percent of their electricity from renewable energy by the year 2020. That makes good sense to me. We will have people in the Chamber of the Senate who think it is not a good idea. I think they are wrong. Recently, I was in that part of the world that has so much instability. I was in central Asia. I was in the ``stans'' countries-- Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan. One only has to go to the Middle East and central Asia to understand how fragile our energy supply is in this country. A substantial amount of our energy, 57 percent, comes from imported oil. A substantial amount of that comes from the Middle East and central Asia. If, God forbid, a terrorist tonight after midnight found a way to create an act of terror against the energy supply that comes from the Middle East, our economy would be flat on its back tomorrow morning. It is just that simple. Shouldn't we be concerned about that? Of course. The answer is yes. Today is the 6-month anniversary of the terror that was visited upon this country on 9-11 last year. We have talked a lot in these last 6 months about American security, national security, and it is important to understand that national security also means energy security. When you take a look at what is happening in the Middle East today, look at what is happening in central Asia, then ask yourself: Does it make sense for the biggest, the strongest, the largest economy in the world to be this overly dependent on energy supplies from the Middle East and central Asia? The answer is no. How do we decide to change that? We pass legislation that has some real bite to it in a number of important areas. One of them is, as I mentioned, renewable portfolio standards by which we describe that we want the generation of electricity in our country in the future to come increasingly from renewable and limitless sources of energy. We can do this if we decide we want to do it, or we can just slip back into the same comfortable debate we have had decade after decade. Will Rogers once said: When there is no place left to spit, you either have to swallow your tobacco juice or change with the times. On energy there is really no place left. It is an indelicate way, perhaps, of describing our situation, but anyone who understands it understands we have a requirement to do this differently. It is our obligation now to make a difference with respect to energy policy. This is not the best time to be debating energy. I bought gasoline yesterday for $1.08 a gallon. In fact, go to a gas station these days and buy a gallon of gas or buy 4 quarts of water. They sell water now in quart jars in the cooler. It will cost you more to buy the 4 quarts of water than it will a gallon of gasoline. It says a little something about priorities, I suppose. But it is not a great time to be debating an energy bill when gasoline costs less than water at a gas station. Nonetheless, we would be ill advised as a Senate to believe this is a good time for America's energy supply because somehow the prices are low and that reflects stability for the future. It does not. We must pass an energy bill now. In this next several-week period, it is the right thing for this Congress to pass a comprehensive energy bill. It ought not be a bill like that which the House of Representatives passed which, as I said, is a yesterday forever policy. It ought to be legislation that is balanced, that has all four pieces: Encouraging additional production, encouraging additional conservation, paying attention to additional efficiencies, and providing incentives for additional renewable and limitless supplies of energy. All four of those elements are part of a comprehensive and smart energy policy for this country. It is not a smart energy policy to do as the House of Representatives did and simply say we rest our future on the basis of increased production. That is not a smart energy policy. Senator Bingaman and my colleagues on the Energy Committee have worked on this legislation. It has some significant points of disagreement, no question about that. ANWR will be hotly debated. My colleague from Alaska has a passionate feeling about that, as do some others. CAFE standards will be passionately debated, and the Senate will make decisions about both of them. In the longer term, the question of whether we succeed for this country in developing an energy policy that moves this country ahead, reduces its dependence on foreign sources of energy, and increases this country's energy and national security will depend on whether we pass legislation that is balanced in all four areas I have mentioned. At the start of my presentation, I offered an amendment. It is now pending. I believe it will be accepted by both sides at some point when they have considered other legislation. I thank the Senator from Alaska for allowing me to proceed. He has something like 564 charts or close to that. I suspect he will be making a long presentation on a subject about which he is very passionate. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Alaska, I have visited Alaska. It is a wonderful State. We might have disagreements about certain production in Alaska, but I think he certainly speaks aggressively on behalf of his view of those issues. I do think he is right on the point that we must produce more. The question is not whether; the question is how do we produce more and where do we produce more. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I inquire about the order this afternoon. My understanding is the ranking member on the Energy Committee intends to make a presentation. I want to inquire about the opportunity to make an opening statement on the bill. I inquire of the majority whip what the circumstances are.

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that I might be recognized following the opening presentation by Senator Murkowski.

Mr. DORGAN. I guess I do not understand whether we are going to go back and forth. If we are, I ask unanimous consent that I might be recognized following whatever time is taken by Senator Murkowski.

Mr. DORGAN. Perhaps 20 minutes or so. I do not know what order has been established, if any.