Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I am now prepared, after that slight detour, to get back on amendment No. 3274, which is a very important amendment. Many of us have worked on this amendment now for many weeks in an attempt to try to find and establish a fairer way to fund the new transmission lines that are necessary to move electricity from one part of this country to another, to meet the growing demand of our transmission grid system. Let me begin by sharing a chart that I have used several times in this Chamber to show what the problem is and to ask the Senate to consider, very strongly, this proposed solution to our current dilemma. We have a great dilemma on our hands. We have, some people might describe, a crisis on our hands. We have a system that we are moving to, a deregulated, more market-based system, which I believe ultimately, with the right safeguards, will be very good for all of us, for all of our States. Most importantly, our constituents and our businesses, both large and small--our consumers, our retailers--all of us will benefit from this new efficient system. Why? Because costs will be lowered, efficiencies will be increased. And we can make sure that when people go to turn their light switch on, the light will actually come on. It is very important. Part of the problem is that we are not producing enough energy or electricity in our own country. Part of the problem is we are not doing our part at conserving what we should. So there is a mismatch between what we need and what we are producing. But also, even if we got that balance right, which I hope we are going to try to do through this bill, the problem is, because we are producing electricity in some parts of the country and using it in others, some parts of the country produce more than they use, and some parts of the country do not produce as much as they need, we have to move it. As you can see from this chart I have in the Chamber, the demand for electricity, represented by this blue line, has been increasing substantially. But the investment in building these transmission lines has been decreasing. So this gap right here is a real problem. It has to be closed or even if we would drill the way the Senator from Alaska and I would hope we would drill, and produce more oil and gas and other fuels for electricity, and invest in more nuclear power, we still need to have more transmission lines built. The reason we are not is because there is a flaw in the system where the incentives are not in the right place. My amendment, in short, will create a participant funding mechanism so that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can issue rules governing the pricing of these transmission services. I am reminded of a quote I have become familiar with and actually like that says: All some folks want is their fair share, and yours. The problem is, we have to create a system that is very fair and smart so that we put the incentives in the right places, and when the cost allocations to build these transmission lines are set by FERC, that they are set in a way that whomever is using them, pays for them. If we don't do that, there will be no incentive to build them because people who don't need them won't build them. The people who need them won't get charged for them, and they won't get built. And blackouts and brownouts will become more of the rule as opposed to the exception. This amendment will provide a platform for true fairness in electricity pricing, paving the way for much needed transmission expansion at the national level. Over the past 10 years, as I have shown, peak demand growth for electricity has increased by 17 percent, while transmission investment has declined by 45 percent. What is even more troubling is that current demand for electricity is projected to increase by 25 percent over the next 10 years with only a modest increase in transmission capacity. Again, if we don't do something, we are going to continue to have a situation where power does not reach the people who need it. The current transmission pricing mechanism at wholesale levels still employs an old, what I would call, socialized rate method of pricing. Its effect is to continuously increase the rates for local customers, even though most of the beneficiaries may be outside of the region. This antiquated pricing method has dampened the push to enhance capacity in energy-producing States such as Louisiana and others--and this is not just a Louisiana-specific amendment; it affects us all in many States--as State regulators are reluctant, understandably so, to pass excessive transmission costs off to local customers when the beneficiaries will primarily be out-of-State or out-of-region customers. Meanwhile, energy-dependent regions--and there are some regions that are more dependent than others--are denied cheap and reliable electricity. Electricity price spikes in the Midwest in the summer of 1998 were caused in part by transmission constraints, limiting the ability of the region to import electricity from other regions of the country. You may remember during the summer of 2000, our dilapidated transmission infrastructure limited the ability to sell low-cost power from the Midwest to the South during a period of peak demand, resulting in higher prices. I could go on and on with examples. In California, path 15 is a notorious transmission bottleneck. The east coast has also suffered. So no region of the country has been spared. Surely there must be a fairer and smarter way to allocate costs which would stimulate growth instead of having this decline. It is not fair to expect customers in energy-generating States such as Louisiana to pay for transmission expansion when it is primarily being developed for out-of-State use. In addition, the lack of transmission capacity under this archaic pricing method continues to deny customers in energy-importing States the benefit of cheaper electricity from other regions of the country. The best policy for efficient, competitive wholesale pricing is therefore participant-funded expansion. In this system, market participants fund expansions to the transmission network in return for transmission rights created by that investment. This approach gives proper economic incentives for new generator location and transmission expansion decisions. The participant funding concept is not new. This is not something we have dreamed up in the last few weeks. It is not something with which the industry itself is not familiar. It has been a concept that has been successfully implemented in the natural gas industry through incremental pricing. As a result of incremental pricing in the natural gas industry, proposed annual additions in 2002 to natural gas pipeline capacity have increased by 100 percent relative to 1999. In other words, we are in the process in this energy bill of building national systems to move fuel and energy and power from States that produce it to States that need it. Just as we built an interstate highway system, we are building an interstate natural gas pipeline system. We also have to build an interstate electric grid system. And we are moving from something that was very regulated and very parochial and very State oriented to one that regional and national. We have to create that grid. If we do not put this in place, the incentives simply will not be there, and much of our work will be for naught. It is important to note this amendment provides FERC with the option. There are many people who think this amendment is a mandate. It is an option to permit participant funding for certain new transmission facilities upon request of RTOs or other FERC-approved transmission organizations. The amendment does not make participant funding mandatory. It is simply a pricing option for FERC. Initially, I knew there were many different opinions about this amendment. We tried to build a consensus. But unfortunately, there is a lot of self-interest and parochialism in this debate. We have struggled to overcome it. Electricity policymaking should not be governed by what is popular, but what is necessary. There is not unanimous consensus in Louisiana for this amendment. It is not going to win me a popularity contest. But I know there has to be a better system of pricing for electric transmission so that we can move power from one part of the country to the other and get everybody what they need when they need it at a fair and reasonable price. The growth of our economy depends on it. Jobs depend on it. Businesses depend on it. This is what we should do. I realize this amendment has unfortunately been the subject of a pretty strong campaign of disinformation. I hope what I have shared and shown, in as simple a way as I can, helps to clear up the fact that it is not a mandate. The current path has us going in the wrong direction. We have to come up with something new, something that is flexible, something that is fair, something that will work. I hope most certainly that we can get past the inertia. Therefore, I have consulted with Senator Bingaman of New Mexico and the Senator from Alaska. I have proposed, instead of calling for a vote at this particular time, that the Energy Committee take up further study of transmission pricing; that the committee would hold a hearing in a short period of time with the Commissioners of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, as well as industry leaders. I believe this issue has significant merit, and it is the right approach to solving a real and serious problem for our Nation. We need to build a stronger, more reliable transmission grid. So I want to, at this time, ask Senator Bingaman for his comments and thank him for his cooperation. We must push forward with a good system. He has indicated that he would be amenable to a hearing, et cetera. At this time, I ask him if that is his understanding.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I say to the Senator, I was recognized to offer an amendment. The amendment has been called up. We are on amendment No. 3274, which we discussed and is in order. But Senator Durbin has asked to lay down an amendment that will take 1 minute, and then we will go back to this amendment, if that would be OK with you and the Senator from Alaska.

Ms. LANDRIEU. It is 2 minutes to Senator Durbin, and then I will get right on with my amendment, and we will move through with others who are waiting.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3274, the participant funding amendment, for its immediate consideration.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator for his willingness to work with me and with the coalition of Senators--both Democrats and Republicans--and believe this is the right step to take to create the kind of transmission grid necessary. I look forward to working with him at that hearing to focus more attention on this important subject. Madam President, at this time, after submitting more material for the Record, I would like to ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3274 be laid aside.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I see my colleague, Senator Durbin, in the Chamber. I would not mind yielding 1 minute necessary for him to just lay down an amendment, if that would be in order.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a rather unpleasant subject. I wish to offer a resolution offering the condolences of the United States Senate to the families and loved ones of those Canadian servicemen who were killed and wounded in Afghanistan last week. The Canadian and American armies have fought side-by-side since the first world war and that tradition has continued during our current war on terrorism. The servicemen and women of Canada have always proven to be brave and courageous fighters and they are certainly keeping up that reputation in engagements such as Operation Anaconda. Without the assistance of our Canadian allies, the burden of this present war would be much heavier on our own Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines. It is with heavy heart that I offer this measure. Not since the Korean War has a Canadian soldier died in a combat zone. It is my hope that Canadian servicemen and women will not be again called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice for a long time. I would like to honor today the Canadian soldiers of the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group, who have been in Afghanistan since late January as part of Operation Apollo and have distinguished themselves for their heroism and professionalism. No doubt today is a sad day amongst that unit as they mourn the loss of their comrades. Despite this horrible setback, the Canadian Army is focusing on the task at hand and is still fully engaged in its mission. For these reasons and for the countless acts of friendship between our two nations, I offer this resolution to extend the sympathy of this Senate to the people and fighting forces of Canada.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, last week I joined with Senator Kerry in offering an amendment dealing with small business energy efficiency. That particular amendment dealt with the Energy Star Program, which is an important program in helping small businesses become more energy efficient. The amendment I offer today, which was developed with the help of Senators Kerry, Ensign, Cantwell, Lieberman, and Carnahan, complements that language. First I would like to take a moment to thank Senators Bingaman and Murkowski and their staffs for helping us to address this issue given relatively short notice. Despite the fact that they have been very busy with many other aspects of this bill, they took the time to help us work out some language that everyone could accept. I would also like to echo Senator Kerry's remarks last week thanking Byron Kennard at the Center for Small Business and the Environment and Carol Werner at the Environmental and Energy Study Institute for their role in bringing this important issue to the forefront. Simply put, this amendment addresses the need for Federal agencies to help small businesses become more energy efficient. I just want to take a minute to explain why I believe this language is necessary. Small businesses are often the hardest hit by energy unreliability and big price hikes. Many operate on slim profit margins, so the threat of big increases in electric bills can force small businesses to lay off workers or even to close their doors. Restaurants, for example, are highly energy intensive and they tend to use energy inefficiently. As my colleagues know, restaurants were some of the hardest-hit businesses following the slump in tourism after the September 11 attacks. Restaurants are also unique because they also operate on narrow margins of profit, so money saved on energy bills can easily equal a big boost in revenue. According to EPA, saving 20 percent on energy operating costs--something that's easily achievable-- can increase a restaurant's profit as much as one-third. Small firms, however, often lack access to capital and the know-how to purchase and install new energy efficient products, and to fund the research and development stage of such innovations. As Senator Kerry expressed in his remarks yesterday, Federal agencies, the Small Business Administration in particular, have the resources, contacts and personnel necessary to give a real helping hand to small businesses in these situations. The SBA, for instance, deals with thousands of small businesses across the country on a regular basis, serving as a clearinghouse for information, a counselor, and a guarantor of loans for these businesses. It would be quite simple for the SBA to expand its role to provide assistance in the area of energy efficiency. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Department of Agriculture also have roles to play in these efforts. Let me share a success story from a small business in my own State of Louisiana. There is a law firm in Baton Rouge, Jerry F. Pepper, APLC. The firm recently remodeled its offices to make them more energy efficient. Thermostats, air filters, and lights were all replaced with newer, more efficient models. The firm believes that, in addition to a savings of $6,100 annually-- let me repeat that amount, $6,100 per year--the upgrades will improve employee morale and productivity, reduce indoor pollution, and improve safety. Additionally, the upgrade for this firm--for one law firm in Baton Rouge--is estimated to reduce over 100,000 pounds of carbon dioxide annually. I want my colleagues to imagine for a moment that every small business in America upgraded its energy efficiency with similar results. The savings in energy, pollution, and money would be incredible. But these businesses cannot do it on their own. Their profit margins are too tight; their resources are too limited. But Federal agencies like the SBA have the resources and know-how to assist these businesses in these efforts. That is why I am proud to join other members of the Small Business Committee to offer this important language to help our Nation's small businesses become more energy efficient.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, with all due respect to my dear friend and wonderful colleague from Washington, I rise to oppose the position she has outlined and to support the amendment by the Senator from Alaska. I think it is very important for us to spend time on this issue. One of the previous speakers said: Why would we spend so much time on this issue? Why would the Senate, all 100 Members of the greatest deliberative body in the world today, spend so much time on this issue? The answer is because this is not a small matter. This is not an insignificant debate. This is not a minor point. This is a major point in the debate on the future of this Nation and in what our energy policy is going to look like and how we can strengthen and improve upon it. It is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But given what I have heard in this Chamber, I say that balance must be in the eyes of the beholder as well because those of us both for and against this amendment continue to say we are for a balanced policy. Yet we argue the different aspects of what balance really is. So I am going to give it one more shot by saying what I think balance is. The Senators from Alaska have done a magnificent job of making clear that we are not for drilling everywhere; we support a balance. When this area was created, the areas in dark yellow, light yellow and green, there was a balance in the creation of this piece of land, land that is as large as the State of South Carolina. Here we have a balance: part of a refuge set aside for wildlife of all kinds, and a small part where we could drill. Why would we want to drill here? Because it is the largest potential onshore oilfield in the entire United States. It is not a minor field. It has major resources of oil potentially, as well as gas. So a balance was struck. A deal of sorts was created. We said let's set aside a huge piece of land for a refuge, for a wilderness area, and then let's set aside a part of it to drill. The reason I feel so strongly about opening this section of ANWR to drilling--and it took me a while to come to this position because I have heard a lot of other arguments--is because of this precedent I feel this will set. If we overturn the original dual intent of ANWR and block all drilling there, where will we stop? Instead of adding to production in the United States, either on our shores or off of our shores, we keep taking places off of the map for production. We are not going in the right direction, and we need to change course. That is why this is so important. I have said this 100 times. The Senator from Alaska has said it, the senior Senator from Louisiana did a magnificent job of saying it this morning, but let me also quote from a person we all respect--both Democrats and Republicans--Richard Holbrooke, whom we know well. I would say there would be no disagreement in this Chamber that this man is an expert in international relations and national security policy. I will read what he said in February this year: Our greatest single failure over the last 25 years-- Not one of our great failures, not something that we should have done a little better-- was our failure to reduce our dependence on foreign oil-- which would have reduced the leverage of Saudi Arabia. Why does he say this? Because of headlines such as these: ``Suicide Bomber Kills 6 as Powell's Talks Begin,'' ``Chavez Reclaims Power in Venezuela,'' ``Powell Meets Arafat, Makes Little Progress.'' Mr. Holbrooke knows the uncertainty of the Middle East and we are all learning of the difficulties in Venezuela. He represented our country in the United Nations. He knows what it takes for America to be strong to get to the negotiating table free to make the best decisions we can. He knows our energy policy is in lockstep with our national security policy. We have a chance to reverse course and not make the same mistake again. Let's have a balance. Again, we have in ANWR the original intent to have some refuge area, some wilderness area, and some drilling area. Not all drilling. Not drilling everywhere, but where we can. An area for wildlife, for general recreation, and one for the bottom line, businesses, workers, companies, and our economy. This is balanced. Instead, we get no more drilling, a moratorium. Let me show the other moratoria in the country. In addition to Alaska being taken off the map, we have--Democrats and Republicans are both guilty here--imposed moratoria along the entire east and west coasts of the United States. There are places in the interior States where, because of rules, regulations, slow permitting, lawsuits, and filings on behalf of certain groups, the production has slowed down, forcing us to continue to increase our imports, year after year. These imports do not always come from friendly nations, from nations that share our values, but sometimes from nations that are in direct opposition to U.S. foreign policy and the democratic values for which we stand. My second point is, are we asking something of Alaska that we have not asked of other States? The senior Senator from Louisiana showed this chart, and Senator Murkowski showed it earlier. It is worth showing again. We are only asking to allow drilling in the kind of places where other States are already allowing it. Drilling is taking place in nine refuges in Texas; 12 in Louisiana; 1 in Mississippi, 1 in Alabama. You can see the rest. These are ongoing drilling operations in refuges. Someone in my office the other day, a great labor leader from Louisiana, asked: Senator, why are people against drilling? I was trying to explain. I said: Some people said this area is the last great place. He said: Would you tell them America is full of great places? Louisiana has great places. I loved when he said, ``America is full of great places.'' There are great places in all of our States. We will preserve them. We will fight to keep them wilderness when we can. But when we refuse to tap domestic sources of oil and gas that would help our Nation, help our economy, create jobs, and release us from our dangerous dependency on imported oil and gas, it just makes no sense to me. We have been spending a lot of time on this issue because it is at the heart of the debate. We have a weak production policy and, I might say, a weak conservation policy. That is the wrong direction. We need to turn around and go the other way: Strong production and strong conservation. If we don't, I predict there will be a huge price to pay. We will pay it one way or another, either through the lives of servicemen, or through compromised foreign policy. Americans know this. There is no free lunch. We don't seem to know that inside the beltway, but working Americans of all stripes, of all political backgrounds, understand that. It is important. It is about balance. And we need it. People say ANWR will not produce a lot of oil, that it will not come online for several years--and I agree it will take time. But there is enough oil, even using the lowest estimates, to replace the oil we get from Saudi Arabia for about 8 to 10, maybe 8 to 12 years. Ask the American people, Would you like to drill on our own land, land that we control, land that we set regulations on, and that we can depend on, or do you want to continue to import oil from Saudi Arabia for 15 years? I don't think there would be many Americans who would choose the latter. The third good reason is jobs. We continue to make decisions in this Congress that keep Americans from getting good paying jobs. Every time they want to apply for a job, there may as well be a sign that says: Congress doesn't think we should drill. So go look elsewhere for work. I don't know about the Presiding Officer, but I have thousands of people in Louisiana who want to work. I have heard Senators say 60,000 jobs doesn't matter. This Senator believes 60,000 jobs is a lot of jobs. We should allow more production, which will lead to more than 60,000 jobs. We should promote investments in conservation and alternative fuels. There are lots of jobs, in science and other high- end jobs, associated with alternative fuels. Why not have good jobs for both production and conservation? Why turn down these job-making opportunities when it is so important to produce jobs for people in Louisiana, for people in Alaska, for people in Delaware, for people in New Mexico? I don't understand it. We can create good, skilled jobs, where people can make a very good living working 40 or 50 hours, overtime, onshore, offshore, whereby they can buy a home, contribute to their community, send their children to get an equal or better education than they did. I think it is very important. The fourth reason we need to support drilling in ANWR besides the fact we need it, besides the fact it is balanced, besides the fact we are doing it in many other States in the same way we would be asking Alaska to contribute, besides the fact that it means thousands and thousands of good-paying jobs that people in America would like and need at this time, it is the right thing to do for our environment. I mean that sincerely. I know I said some things on the floor about some environmental organizations, and I believe their positions, with all due respect to the great work they have done, are leading this country in the wrong direction. I work very well with environmental groups in Louisiana and many of our environmental groups around the Nation. But I will say it again: When we drill and extract resources in America, we can do it in the most environmentally sensitive way in the world. Why? Because we have the strictest rules and regulations. Even the former executive director of the Sierra Club agrees, and he is on the record saying that by pushing production out of America, all we are doing is damaging the world's environment. We have the best rules and the best laws. We have a free press and the ability, to punish those who pollute the environment. That does not happen in other places around the world, places without the same confidence in the law that we can have here in the United States. So the pro-environmental position--and I mean this sincerely--is to drill and explore and extract resources where we can watch it, where we can control it and where we can make sure it is done correctly. If I am wrong I would like someone to come to the floor and tell me: Senator, you are not thinking clearly about this. Apart from the many troubled parts of the world where production is taking place, I don't know where else we would drill. And the saddest part of that to me, or the most hypocritical part of that to me, is that we consume more than everyone else. If we were not consuming that much, I would say fine. But we go to poorer countries with less infrastructure, fewer rules, and weaker laws and enforcement, not because they need the oil but because we need it. And we degrade the environment and support illegitimate regimes because we will not drill in our own country. I do not understand it. I will make another point about Louisiana. I have heard some of my colleagues come to the floor and say: I will not drill in ANWR, but boy I will come drill in the Gulf of Mexico. I want to show the map of these States that are net producers of energy. There are only a few of us. There are only 15. There are only 15 States in the entire country, just 15, that produce at least 50 percent of the energy they consume. You can see the States represented here. We love all of our States, wish them all well, and we are all part of this great Union, but the red States on this chart produce less than half the energy they consume, which means they do not produce oil, they do not produce gas, they do not produce nuclear, they do not produce wind, solar, or hydro, but they want their lights to come on whenever they want and they want to power their businesses and industries. Nobody can look at this map and say this is fair. I know there are products produced in some States that other States do not produce. I am clear. But there are no moratoria on growing corn, no moratoria on growing cotton. People are not opposed to that or think it harms the environment to grow corn or grow wheat. But we have a policy growing in this country that we do not want to produce anything but we want to continue to consume. I am for strong conservation measures. I voted against the proposal to reduce CAFE standards, not because I don't agree with the goal, but because the method was wrong. It would have cost too many jobs in my State. There is a better way to get there. I would vote for even more stringent measures but not that particular measure. There are strong conservation measures that I and many Members support. But this attitude has to change. We have to have an attitude among all of these States that you either reduce your consumption significantly or you decide how to produce the energy. You have your choice. You can produce it any way you want. But what you cannot do is sit on the sideline, complain and complain, prevent other States from drilling, and then just continue to consume. I have an amendment. I am thinking about offering this. I hope people who vote against ANWR will think about ways we can encourage our States, in a fair way, to make their own choices about how they would like to generate more energy or consume less, and to put it in balance, so our Nation can truly achieve energy independence. I hope we can do that. Let me show one more chart. This is the Gulf of Mexico. You can see the red areas here where there is active drilling. We have been doing this now for 50 years. We have made some mistakes. I am the first one to admit it. We didn't know all the things that we know now back in the 1940s and 1950s. We did not have the science and the technology. But we have made tremendous progress, and we in Louisiana are happy to produce hundreds of millions of barrels of oil and gas, and host pipelines that light up the Midwest and New York and California. We want to do it. We are proud of the industry, and we are getting better and better at it every day. But it is grossly unfair for our State, and Mississippi and Alabama and Texas, to bear the brunt of this production when other States don't want to produce. Then, to pour salt on the wound, we get no portion of the revenues that are generated. Taxpayers may not realize this, but the royalties that come into the Treasury every time you produce a natural resource can keep our personal income taxes lower. When we do not drill, royalties do not come into the Treasury, so taxes have to go up to support Government. So a fifth really good reason to explore natural resources is so we can bring money into the Treasury, again in a very balanced approach, and keep taxes minimal for taxpayers. However, all that money that goes to the Federal Treasury right now, from production in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama, is not shared with those States. Since 1950, we sent $120 billion to the Federal Treasury. Louisiana, which has produced the lion's share of the offshore production for the whole Nation, has not received a penny. This is a true story. I know my time is almost to the end, but I am going to end with a couple of points on this. Two years ago the mayor of Grande Isle, a tiny little place down here at the foot of Louisiana, told me of a lot of their unique problems. The mayor called me and said: Senator, I have a problem. I don't have a sewer system and a water system that is able to bring the fresh water that I need. I have children in school drinking rainwater out of a barrel, dipping a cup into a barrel, drinking the rainwater, because we do not have the right sewer and water system. Because it is a small town, they do not have the necessary resources. I was sitting in my office in Washington thinking about these children dipping that cup and drinking that rainwater. I know if they just looked up and out just a few miles they could see a rig, producing the Nation's oil and gas. The money it produces is not going to help them get a sewer system which they desperately need. It will not help these children get a road so that when it floods or the weather is bad they can get to school. That money is coming all the way up to Washington for us to spend on all the States in the Nation. When I ask to have a sewer system for them, I have to come back, ask and plead for money from the budget to get the kids in Grande Isle a drinking water system. That isn't fair. I will propose and will continue to propose that we have more drilling and that the communities that host drilling share in those revenues. We need infrastructure for the people and families living there, for the workers and the businesses that are participating, and for the associated environmental impacts, which can be minimal. Sometimes they are a little more challenging. But with good science and the old yankee ingenuity and southern ingenuity, we can get that done for the people of our State. In conclusion, I have given five good reasons why this is so important. Let me close by reading something out of the Atlantic Monthly, ``The Tales of a Tyrant'', written by Mark Bowden, author of ``Black Hawk Down.'' We are familiar with the incident. Many of us have seen the movie. It is very riveting. I would like to read about the kind of people from whom we are getting our oil. Wearing his military uniform, he walked slowly to the lectern and stood behind two microphones, gesturing with a big cigar. His body and broad face seemed weighted down with sadness. There had been a betrayal, he said. A Syrian plot. There were traitors among them. Then Saddam took a seat, and Muhyi Abd al-Hussein Mashhadi, the secretary-general of the Command Council, appeared from behind a curtain to confess his own involvement in the putsch. He had been secretly arrested and tortured days before; now he spilled out dates, times, and places where the plotters had met. Then he started naming names. As he fingered members of the audience one by one, armed guards grabbed the accused and escorted them from the hall. When one man shouted that he was innocent, Saddam shouted back, ``Itla! Itla!''--``Get out! Get out!'' (Weeks later, after secret trials, Saddam had the mouths of the accused taped shut so that they could utter no troublesome last words before their firing squads.) when all of the sixty ``traitors'' had been removed, Saddam again took the podium and wiped tears from his eyes as he repeated the names of those who had betrayed him. Some in the audience, too, were crying--perhaps out of fear. This chilling performance had the desired effect. Everyone in the hall now understood exactly how things would work in Iraq from that day forward. If we cannot get enough of the Senate to vote in favor of this amendment, in spite of articles like this, because of movies that we see, because of headlines like this, and the disruptions not only in the Mideast but in Venezuela, I don't know what will make the Members of this Senate decide that we must produce where we can produce. We can set aside lands where we can set aside land, create jobs for our people and security for our Nation. I am giving the best I can give. I don't think we have the votes. But I submit this for the Record, and hope people will reconsider their positions.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 minutes as allocated under the previous order.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am proud that the Senate today confirmed Lance Africk for Federal District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Again, I must commend President Bush for this nomination. He has chosen an exceptional man with a fantastic reputation for the Federal Bench. I cannot say enough about Lance. Lance brings over 25 years of legal experience to this job, and for the past 12 years, he has served as the U.S. Magistrate for Civil and Criminal Matters. His commitment to community and country has permeated his career as an Orleans Parish District Attorney, a United States Attorney and most recently as a Federal Magistrate. I know that he looks forward to continuing his service. He presents a true model of honor and professionalism to the bar. Numerous letters of support have poured into my office praising Lance's qualities. Everyone who has ever talked to me about Lance has used the same words: fair, courteous, and intelligent. Not only does Lance possess these values, but he has instilled them in his family. His wife Diane and his four children mean the world to him and inspire his service. Today's action in the Senate only confirmed what I and everyone in Louisiana already knew; that Lance Africk will be an asset to the Federal Judiciary. We need more people like Lance Africk on the Federal Bench. He is a true patriot who desires to serve his country to the best of his ability. He recognizes the importance of our judicial system and has dedicated his life to the system of laws that makes our country so unique. It is for these reasons that I wholeheartedly supported his nomination and am elated by the action of the Senate today.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I am delighted to participate in a colloquy with Senator Kennedy on the important issue of the Low Income Energy Assistance Program. I want to recognize Senator Kennedy's tireless work on behalf of the people in need that this program strives to serve. In particular, I want to laud his efforts to increase LIHEAP authorizations. For too long, this program has not kept pace with Congress' original intent. No one has been more acutely aware of this than Senator Kennedy himself. He has worked diligently to ensure LIHEAP is fully funded, including an effort to commit $3.4 billion to the program. Unfortunately, it takes more than the tireless work of even such a distinguished Chairman as Senator Kennedy to make this change. It takes each of us in Congress, and a willing administration as well. Unfortunately, that will has not yet been there. In fact, LIHEAP's average annual appropriation since 1984 has been $1.4 billion. Mr. President, 22 years ago, LIHEAP was amended, following its original enactment in 1981. With the 1984 amendments, Congress put in place an elegant, simple and straightforward mechanism to ensure these scarce Federal resources got to those low-income Americans in greatest need. It accommodates: Annual updates of State expenditures for low- income home energy requirements--regardless of fuel source--for heating and cooling. Changes in weather--including heating/cooling degree days and fuel price volatility--for electricity, fuel oil, liquid petroleum gases and natural gas. I have just described to you as near-perfect a means as possible to get the funds to those low-income Americans in greatest need. This mechanism can get funds to low-income Californians reeling from gas and electric price shocks, or Georgians who last summer endured crushing gas bills. However, LIHEAP funds do not flow to all the places they are needed today but instead where they were needed in 1979 and 1980. Back then, it was assumed that LIHEAP appropriations would rise, and the allocation mechanism mentioned above has been cast aside. The law states that unless LIHEAP appropriations exceed $1.975 billion, the elements described above do not control. Instead, the controlling factor is a state's receipt of funds in 1981. Much can happen in 22 years. For example, from 1980 to 2000: Dallas' population grew from 904,074 to 1,118,580; Clark County, NV's population grew from 463,087 to 1,375,765; Greater Phoenix, Arizona grew from 1,509,000 to 3,072,000. It would be unfortunate, if we were unable to respond to such situations, in these areas, or to the needs of the citizens of my own State of Louisiana, merely because LIHEAP was locked into the past. We need to address today's problems as well.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to thank the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, for his interest and commitment to addressing this issue during reauthorization. I look forward to working closely with Chairman Kennedy on this matter next year as well as the opportunity to testify before his committee. Throughout the South and the Southwest there is an urgent need for this reform and I am grateful for Senator Kennedy's support. Renewable Portfolio Standard

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I want to introduce a very important piece of legislation, the Family Privacy Protection Act. Let me just take a few minutes to explain this bill to my colleagues. In this age of high-technology, we are blessed with many things that our ancestors did not have. Cell phones and e-mail allow us to communicate quickly. Advances in medical science are allowing our citizens to live much longer and healthier lives. And advances in computers and other equipment help make workers and businesses many times more productive. However, technology is a double-edged sword. Sometimes the bad comes with the good. This fact hit home in the most tragic way when it was learned that the September 11 hijackers had communicated through e-mail and cell phones. As frightening as this is, it is not the only example of the problems associated with advances in technology. There are day-to-day issues that must be resolved. For instance, technology has exposed our citizens to breaches of privacy that could never have taken place before the days of the Internet and other advances. Former Chief Justice Earl Warren once said, ``The fantastic advances in the field of communication constitute a grave danger to the privacy of the individual.'' If Chief Justice Warren were alive today to offer his remarks, he might substitute the word ``technology'' for ``communication.'' Let me give one example of an incident which highlights this fact. In the early 1990's, a shocking thing happened to a family in Monroe, Louisiana. Monroe is a relatively small city, at least by the standards of most parts of the country, but it is the largest city in the northeastern section of my state. I want to talk about a family who lives in Monroe, the Wilsons. Susan Wilson was just an average woman with an average family. Unfortunately, something terrible happened, which tore apart the quiet life of this family. A family friend, a former deacon at the Wilson's church, did something despicable. While the Wilson's weren't home, this man broke into their house and planted a video camera in their bathroom. The Wilson's eventually learned that, for almost 2 years, video cameras had been filming everything in their bathroom. This man filmed all of their private moments for the past years for his own sick and twisted purposes. But even then, the family's nightmare wasn't over. You see, under Louisiana state law, and the law of most States, there was no crime under which this man could be charged for filming the family without their consent. Although he was eventually charged with unauthorized entry, there was no way to punish this man for the more serious crime he committed. The State legislature remedied this in 1999, passing a law making video voyeurism a crime. This was thanks in large part to Susan Wilson, who spoke with the media, testified before committees--in short, give up her privacy and put her life on public display, doing everything she had to do to call attention to this problem. In short, she has sacrificed so that women such as herself will not have to experience the pain of watching the individuals who devastated their lives walk away virtually untouched by the law. And she continues to make this sacrifice to this day. There was even a recent movie detailing Susan's story, some of my colleagues may have seen it. It aired February 6 on Lifetime, starring Angie Harmon. It was a very compelling, though obviously disturbing, film, and if my colleagues have not seen it I would urge them to do so. Since the law was passed in Louisiana, several individuals have been prosecuted under it. Let me just give a couple of examples. Two years ago, a New Orleans man was arrested under the law after a video camera was found in his neighbor's air conditioning vent. In nearby Marrero just a couple of months before, a man was arrested for allegedly pointing a video camera in someone's window. And just before that, a man was arrested under the video voyeurism law and charged with videotaping a woman during intercourse and then trying to sell the tape. And, just over a month ago in Lafayette, LA, a man was charged for undressing a sleeping woman and videotaping her in his apartment. This law has also be used in conjunction with laws already on the books, to give police another tool with which to charge offenders. For instance, last year in Slidell, LA, a man was charged with seven counts of video voyeurism in addition to various pornography-related charges. And in Leesville, LA, a year ago, three people, including a Sheriff's deputy, were arrested and charged with video voyeurism and juvenile pornography. Louisiana is not the only State to pass this law, or to charge offenders with violating it. A principal in Arkansas was charged with the crime, although the charges were later dropped. And in Milwaukee, a man was arrested late last year and charged with videotaping guests in his house while they showered and undressed. These are terrible crimes; they are a violation of privacy, and more. They strike at the very heart of one of our most cherished personal freedoms, the right to live our lives free of the fear of people watching us perform the most regular of tasks, bathing, getting dressed, or sleeping. In the past, someone who looked in another person's window at night was called a ``Peeping Tom.'' We are not dealing with people looking in windows anymore, we are dealing with technologies like video cameras small enough to fit in an air conditioning vent. In the past, that person looking in the window could be caught by police and charged with a crime. Unfortunately, for the person who plants the camera in the air conditioning duct, as things stand now, except for a few states that have passed this type of legislation, that person can at best only be charged with a crime like unlawful entry. This brings me to the first provision of the legislation that I am introducing today. I met with Susan last year, and promised her I would introduce Federal legislation addressing this crime. Currently, only five states have laws dealing with video voyeurism. This is one of the reasons I am here today to introduce my legislation, the Family Privacy Protection Act. This measure contains several important provisions, but the first one I want to focus on today is the video voyeurism section. This bill will make it a Federal crime to film someone in these circumstances without their consent. The bill provides exceptions for legitimate purposes such as police investigations and security; but the bottom line is that this legislation would hold these individuals responsible for their actions. Actress Judy Garland, speaking of her lack of privacy, once said, ``I've never looked through a keyhole without finding someone was looking back.'' How frightening it would be for all of our citizens to feel this way; that they are not safe from prying eyes in their own home. The video voyeurism component, while important, is only one part of this bill. This bill also contains a provision to protect children from Internet websites with pornographic material. A recent study showed that 31 percent of children aged 10-17 who used the Internet have accidentally come across a pornographic website. That includes 75 percent ages 15-17. One of the problems is that companies and individuals who have websites make money from ``hits'' by Internet users. It doesn't matter whether someone intentionally visits a website or does so on accident, it still counts as a ``hit''. So some of these companies that set up pornographic websites specifically choose names that will cause people to accidentally find them. Let me give a quick example. As I'm sure all of my colleagues know, the web address for the White House is www.whitehouse.gov. But if you make a mistake--and it's not a difficult mistake, I know many people who have made it, and type a slightly different address, www.whitehouse.com, you will access a different site altogether, a pornographic website. While I'm sure these companies are not targeting children specifically, they inevitably come across these inappropriate sites. I have already mentioned some statistics on how many children have accidentally visited inappropriate websites. I just want to share a few examples. An 11-year-old boy was searching for game sites, typed in ``fun.com'', and a pornographic site came up. A 15-year-old boy was looking for info on cars, did a search for ``escort'', and an escort service site came up. And, in one of the most disturbing examples that I came across, in one instance a 15-year-old boy was doing a report on wolves, and found a site on bestiality. I just want my colleagues to imagine for a moment this happening to their son or daughter. I think we can all agree that this is something that we need to be concerned about. The American people are certainly concerned about it. In the same Kaiser study, 84 percent of the American people worry about the availability of pornography online, and 61 percent say the government should regulate it. Sixty-one percent. And I am certain that number is much higher among parents. That is why I believe this legislation is so important. I understand that these websites are protected by the First Amendment. This bill does not intrude upon these sites' right to free speech. Instead, it would set up a whole new domain name for pornographic material. A domain name, as my colleagues know, is the three letters at the end of the web address. Dot-com, dot-gov, dot-org, dot-net--these are all domain names. My legislation would instruct the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to set up a new domain name for pornographic websites. The owners of these sites would have 12 months to move their sites to the new domain. This is a very simple yet effective method of protecting our children from these sites. A new domain would make ``filter'' programs, which screen out these pornographic sites, much more effective. It would eliminate mistakes like the whitehouse dot-gov, dot-com, problem that I mentioned earlier. And, I firmly believe this bill passes First Amendment tests for freedom of speech. I understand that some people will not agree with me, saying that this bill does not go far enough and that this type of material should be banned altogether. But the First Amendment to the Constitution protects even material of this kind, whether or not we may agree with it. My bill would not infringe on the right of free speech, but would simply restrict where this type of speech could be presented on the Internet. As one of my constituents from Louisiana said, ``We need to put it where the people who want to see it can get to it, and the ones who don't want to see it don't have to.'' That is all this provision does. Finally, a similar provision in the bill provides protection for children from pornographic e-mails. This language is very similar to a bill that was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California. I wanted to take a second to acknowledge Congresswoman Lofgren for her efforts, and I hope to work with her on this initiative. In short, the bill would require that e-mail advertisements be clearly labeled as containing sexually oriented material. We are all familiar with receive e-mails with subjects that say ``Lose weight now'' or ``You have won!'' that in reality contain pornographic material. Many of us simply delete these e-mails without look at them, knowing them to be deceptive or junk. However, it is easy to be fooled. I have received letters from several constituents who were offended, and rightly so, after opening falsely labeled e-mails. As you can imagine, children are particularly vulnerable to this type of deceptive e-mail. In a study done for Congress by the Crimes Against Children Research Center, 25 percent of children studied were exposed to unwanted sexual pictures in the previous year. Of these exposures, 28 percent occurred by opening or clicking on an e-mail. There is one case that upsets me in particular. A 12-year-old girl, a little girl who collects Beanie Babies, received an e-mail with a subject line saying ``Free Beanie Babies.'' As you can imagine, this excited little girl quickly opened the e-mail, only to be confronted with pictures of naked people. Again, I'd like my colleagues to stop for a moment and imagine that this was their child. Let me just conclude with a few more facts. The Kaiser study also looked at the consequence on these children from encountering these pornographic websites and e-mails. Fifty-seven percent of those age 15- 17 who were studied believed that exposure to online pornography could have a serious impact on those under 18. And 76 percent of children surveyed by Kaiser said that pornography that kids can see is a ``big problem.'' I just want to add that I am hopeful that, in the future, we can take even stronger steps to address the problem of pornographic e-mails. However, at the moment, this bill will at least ensure that Internet users, particularly children, know that an e-mail contains sexually oriented material before opening it. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important legislation. It is intended to protect our most vulnerable citizens, our children, while protecting the right of individuals to free speech. I believe this is something that we can all support.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I want to introduce a very important piece of legislation, the Family Privacy Protection Act. Let me just take a few minutes to explain this bill to my colleagues. In this age of high-technology, we are blessed with many things that our ancestors did not have. Cell phones and e-mail allow us to communicate quickly. Advances in medical science are allowing our citizens to live much longer and healthier lives. And advances in computers and other equipment help make workers and businesses many times more productive. However, technology is a double-edged sword. Sometimes the bad comes with the good. This fact hit home in the most tragic way when it was learned that the September 11 hijackers had communicated through e-mail and cell phones. As frightening as this is, it is not the only example of the problems associated with advances in technology. There are day-to-day issues that must be resolved. For instance, technology has exposed our citizens to breaches of privacy that could never have taken place before the days of the Internet and other advances. Former Chief Justice Earl Warren once said, ``The fantastic advances in the field of communication constitute a grave danger to the privacy of the individual.'' If Chief Justice Warren were alive today to offer his remarks, he might substitute the word ``technology'' for ``communication.'' Let me give one example of an incident which highlights this fact. In the early 1990's, a shocking thing happened to a family in Monroe, Louisiana. Monroe is a relatively small city, at least by the standards of most parts of the country, but it is the largest city in the northeastern section of my state. I want to talk about a family who lives in Monroe, the Wilsons. Susan Wilson was just an average woman with an average family. Unfortunately, something terrible happened, which tore apart the quiet life of this family. A family friend, a former deacon at the Wilson's church, did something despicable. While the Wilson's weren't home, this man broke into their house and planted a video camera in their bathroom. The Wilson's eventually learned that, for almost 2 years, video cameras had been filming everything in their bathroom. This man filmed all of their private moments for the past years for his own sick and twisted purposes. But even then, the family's nightmare wasn't over. You see, under Louisiana state law, and the law of most States, there was no crime under which this man could be charged for filming the family without their consent. Although he was eventually charged with unauthorized entry, there was no way to punish this man for the more serious crime he committed. The State legislature remedied this in 1999, passing a law making video voyeurism a crime. This was thanks in large part to Susan Wilson, who spoke with the media, testified before committees--in short, give up her privacy and put her life on public display, doing everything she had to do to call attention to this problem. In short, she has sacrificed so that women such as herself will not have to experience the pain of watching the individuals who devastated their lives walk away virtually untouched by the law. And she continues to make this sacrifice to this day. There was even a recent movie detailing Susan's story, some of my colleagues may have seen it. It aired February 6 on Lifetime, starring Angie Harmon. It was a very compelling, though obviously disturbing, film, and if my colleagues have not seen it I would urge them to do so. Since the law was passed in Louisiana, several individuals have been prosecuted under it. Let me just give a couple of examples. Two years ago, a New Orleans man was arrested under the law after a video camera was found in his neighbor's air conditioning vent. In nearby Marrero just a couple of months before, a man was arrested for allegedly pointing a video camera in someone's window. And just before that, a man was arrested under the video voyeurism law and charged with videotaping a woman during intercourse and then trying to sell the tape. And, just over a month ago in Lafayette, LA, a man was charged for undressing a sleeping woman and videotaping her in his apartment. This law has also be used in conjunction with laws already on the books, to give police another tool with which to charge offenders. For instance, last year in Slidell, LA, a man was charged with seven counts of video voyeurism in addition to various pornography-related charges. And in Leesville, LA, a year ago, three people, including a Sheriff's deputy, were arrested and charged with video voyeurism and juvenile pornography. Louisiana is not the only State to pass this law, or to charge offenders with violating it. A principal in Arkansas was charged with the crime, although the charges were later dropped. And in Milwaukee, a man was arrested late last year and charged with videotaping guests in his house while they showered and undressed. These are terrible crimes; they are a violation of privacy, and more. They strike at the very heart of one of our most cherished personal freedoms, the right to live our lives free of the fear of people watching us perform the most regular of tasks, bathing, getting dressed, or sleeping. In the past, someone who looked in another person's window at night was called a ``Peeping Tom.'' We are not dealing with people looking in windows anymore, we are dealing with technologies like video cameras small enough to fit in an air conditioning vent. In the past, that person looking in the window could be caught by police and charged with a crime. Unfortunately, for the person who plants the camera in the air conditioning duct, as things stand now, except for a few states that have passed this type of legislation, that person can at best only be charged with a crime like unlawful entry. This brings me to the first provision of the legislation that I am introducing today. I met with Susan last year, and promised her I would introduce Federal legislation addressing this crime. Currently, only five states have laws dealing with video voyeurism. This is one of the reasons I am here today to introduce my legislation, the Family Privacy Protection Act. This measure contains several important provisions, but the first one I want to focus on today is the video voyeurism section. This bill will make it a Federal crime to film someone in these circumstances without their consent. The bill provides exceptions for legitimate purposes such as police investigations and security; but the bottom line is that this legislation would hold these individuals responsible for their actions. Actress Judy Garland, speaking of her lack of privacy, once said, ``I've never looked through a keyhole without finding someone was looking back.'' How frightening it would be for all of our citizens to feel this way; that they are not safe from prying eyes in their own home. The video voyeurism component, while important, is only one part of this bill. This bill also contains a provision to protect children from Internet websites with pornographic material. A recent study showed that 31 percent of children aged 10-17 who used the Internet have accidentally come across a pornographic website. That includes 75 percent ages 15-17. One of the problems is that companies and individuals who have websites make money from ``hits'' by Internet users. It doesn't matter whether someone intentionally visits a website or does so on accident, it still counts as a ``hit''. So some of these companies that set up pornographic websites specifically choose names that will cause people to accidentally find them. Let me give a quick example. As I'm sure all of my colleagues know, the web address for the White House is www.whitehouse.gov. But if you make a mistake--and it's not a difficult mistake, I know many people who have made it, and type a slightly different address, www.whitehouse.com, you will access a different site altogether, a pornographic website. While I'm sure these companies are not targeting children specifically, they inevitably come across these inappropriate sites. I have already mentioned some statistics on how many children have accidentally visited inappropriate websites. I just want to share a few examples. An 11-year-old boy was searching for game sites, typed in ``fun.com'', and a pornographic site came up. A 15-year-old boy was looking for info on cars, did a search for ``escort'', and an escort service site came up. And, in one of the most disturbing examples that I came across, in one instance a 15-year-old boy was doing a report on wolves, and found a site on bestiality. I just want my colleagues to imagine for a moment this happening to their son or daughter. I think we can all agree that this is something that we need to be concerned about. The American people are certainly concerned about it. In the same Kaiser study, 84 percent of the American people worry about the availability of pornography online, and 61 percent say the government should regulate it. Sixty-one percent. And I am certain that number is much higher among parents. That is why I believe this legislation is so important. I understand that these websites are protected by the First Amendment. This bill does not intrude upon these sites' right to free speech. Instead, it would set up a whole new domain name for pornographic material. A domain name, as my colleagues know, is the three letters at the end of the web address. Dot-com, dot-gov, dot-org, dot-net--these are all domain names. My legislation would instruct the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to set up a new domain name for pornographic websites. The owners of these sites would have 12 months to move their sites to the new domain. This is a very simple yet effective method of protecting our children from these sites. A new domain would make ``filter'' programs, which screen out these pornographic sites, much more effective. It would eliminate mistakes like the whitehouse dot-gov, dot-com, problem that I mentioned earlier. And, I firmly believe this bill passes First Amendment tests for freedom of speech. I understand that some people will not agree with me, saying that this bill does not go far enough and that this type of material should be banned altogether. But the First Amendment to the Constitution protects even material of this kind, whether or not we may agree with it. My bill would not infringe on the right of free speech, but would simply restrict where this type of speech could be presented on the Internet. As one of my constituents from Louisiana said, ``We need to put it where the people who want to see it can get to it, and the ones who don't want to see it don't have to.'' That is all this provision does. Finally, a similar provision in the bill provides protection for children from pornographic e-mails. This language is very similar to a bill that was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California. I wanted to take a second to acknowledge Congresswoman Lofgren for her efforts, and I hope to work with her on this initiative. In short, the bill would require that e-mail advertisements be clearly labeled as containing sexually oriented material. We are all familiar with receive e-mails with subjects that say ``Lose weight now'' or ``You have won!'' that in reality contain pornographic material. Many of us simply delete these e-mails without look at them, knowing them to be deceptive or junk. However, it is easy to be fooled. I have received letters from several constituents who were offended, and rightly so, after opening falsely labeled e-mails. As you can imagine, children are particularly vulnerable to this type of deceptive e-mail. In a study done for Congress by the Crimes Against Children Research Center, 25 percent of children studied were exposed to unwanted sexual pictures in the previous year. Of these exposures, 28 percent occurred by opening or clicking on an e-mail. There is one case that upsets me in particular. A 12-year-old girl, a little girl who collects Beanie Babies, received an e-mail with a subject line saying ``Free Beanie Babies.'' As you can imagine, this excited little girl quickly opened the e-mail, only to be confronted with pictures of naked people. Again, I'd like my colleagues to stop for a moment and imagine that this was their child. Let me just conclude with a few more facts. The Kaiser study also looked at the consequence on these children from encountering these pornographic websites and e-mails. Fifty-seven percent of those age 15- 17 who were studied believed that exposure to online pornography could have a serious impact on those under 18. And 76 percent of children surveyed by Kaiser said that pornography that kids can see is a ``big problem.'' I just want to add that I am hopeful that, in the future, we can take even stronger steps to address the problem of pornographic e-mails. However, at the moment, this bill will at least ensure that Internet users, particularly children, know that an e-mail contains sexually oriented material before opening it. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important legislation. It is intended to protect our most vulnerable citizens, our children, while protecting the right of individuals to free speech. I believe this is something that we can all support.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am happy to have some time this morning to speak about the important issue that is before the Senate and has been for some time. It is very important legislation that will help us set the course of our energy policy for perhaps the next several decades. While we have spent a great deal of time on this bill, I am glad we have spent this time because this is one of the most, if not the most, important issue we could be addressing at this time. It relates to our national security posture and it relates to the issues that are before our eyes and on our hearts: what is happening in the Mideast and around the world. Although I understand the leadership wanting to move to other issues, hopefully, we can have the final votes and move on to other issues. I have come to this Chamber a number of times to relay what people in Louisiana are thinking and hoping for in this bill, and I have tried to express their frustration in some ways over what they and I also perceive as a conflicting policy. It seems as though our Nation has a test of our will every 20 or so years: Are we willing to take the steps necessary to become more energy independent? The last time we had this test was in the 1970s when oil spiked because of international circumstances. Our gas lines were very long. It put a clamp on our economy, helped to raise interest prices and threw our economy into a tailspin. We failed the test. Over the last 25 years, we have not become more energy independent. We have become more efficient. Our technologies have improved significantly in terms of environmental impacts, but we have not passed the test for energy independence. It is now 25 years later and we are taking this test again. It is my hope that as we cast these last important votes on this energy bill that we will this time pass the test and move our country on a steady and sure march toward energy independence. Instead of reducing our reliance on imported oil over the last 25 or 30 years, we have increased our reliance on foreign oil and energy sources, the exact reverse of what we were hoping to do. And we have not increased renewables in our energy portfolio nearly to the point where they can help us reach that self-reliance. I do not have to explain to the Presiding Officer, who knows this issue well, or to my colleagues, how important it is for us to pass this test now because it has a direct relation to our national security. It has a direct relation to our ability to fight clearly, and without compromise, our war on terrorism. It helps us to broker a peace and a compromise in the Mideast based on our values of freedom and democracy. I have a chart which I hope will help people understand how important this is. As I said, 25 years ago we failed the test of trying to help our country march towards energy independence. Instead of standing still, we have actually taken a reverse course. In the last 30 years, instead of putting more places on the map for production of oil, gas, coal, and other traditional fuels, as well as nuclear power, hydro and alternatives, we have actually taken places off the map. So in 2002, we have this great, mighty, and very wealthy United States of America that consumes more energy per capita than any nation on Earth and any nation in the history of man, and yet we refuse to produce it. We want to consume it. We do not want to produce it. We have been misled to believe that we cannot produce oil and gas without great environmental damage. This is simply not true. What is true is when we began producing oil and gas in the 1930s, the 1940s, and the 1950s, prior to rules and regulations, before the science was clear and before we were able to understand some of the great negative consequences, we did make a lot of environmental mistakes. We have now minimized the risk financially, economically, as well as environmentally in our drilling, whether it is onshore or offshore. Are there still problems? Yes. Are there some environmental risks associated with drilling? Yes. I do not know any exercise in life that is without risk. The question is: what is the measure and the weight of the risk? I say unequivocally, coming from a State that has done a lot of oil and gas drilling, the benefits of drilling outweigh the environmental risks if rules are followed and polluters are prosecuted. When we are free of Mideast-set oil prices it helps our Nation be secure internationally. Every time violence escalates in the Mideast, it drives prices higher causes our economy to tailspin. When our economy takes a tailspin, as I have tried to explain, it is not only charts and graphs where the lines start moving. Dreams are shattered. Houses are lost. Businesses are lost. People lose their jobs. Kids do not go to school. Families fall into despair. These are serious issues. These economic trends affect real people, in my State, and all over our country. Let us take a step now for more domestic drilling. We have no amendments to open these places shown here where moratoria exist. But we must consider opening drilling both on and off of our shores because there are rich, significant reserves of meaningful proportion. Let me give one example. In the Gulf of Mexico, where we see this blue area where we have been drilling for many years, the red dots indicate all current and active leases. Where it says ``gas, 105.52 trillion cubic feet,'' that is the estimated reserves of the gas that is located in this part of the gulf. Notice this is only the central and the western part of the gulf, not the eastern part, off of the Florida coastline. One hundred and five trillion cubic feet of gas is a lot of gas. In the whole Nation, we use 22 trillion cubic feet a year. So in this one small part of the gulf, if we drilled it in its entirety and were committed to a good drilling program, we could supply enough gas for the entire United States, according to my math, for between 4 and 5 years. I have to assume that the geology does not stop at this line. Just because the political boundaries divide Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida does not mean the geographic or geological formations stop. So there are tremendous gas and oil reserves in this part of the gulf. There are probably tremendous reserves all along our Nation's shorelines. Does that mean we have to drill within sight of the coast? No. It used to be that way 20 years ago, where drilling would have to be in shallow water. But one of the great advances that has occurred because of wise tax credits, encouragement, research, and development is that we now can drill safely in deeper water. What does that mean? That means we can have great beaches, wonderful coastlines, a tremendous tourism industry, and never see an oil rig. The technology is there to drill, and drill safely, and move gas and oil throughout this country. We would not have to rely on Iraq or Saudi Arabia and be held hostage to world oil prices. We need more oil and more gas. It is simply hogwash when people say it will not help. That is not true. It will help, and we can do it. Regarding the ANWR situation, people might not be clear. It was not to me until I visited Alaska and began to understand how huge Alaska is. I asked my staff to place Alaska on the map of the continental United States so we could appreciate how big the State is. We are lucky to have purchased this land, this wonderful State with so many resources. It is a great asset for the United States of America. When we purchased Alaska, people thought it was a folly. We have the last laugh. It has given us great natural resources, an abundance of wildlife, timber, and oil and gas. We cannot turn all of Alaska into a national park. We cannot afford to do it. We have set aside some areas of Alaska. One area the size of the State of South Carolina is a refuge. It is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Are we suggesting to drill in the whole refuge? No, the debate over ANWR is regarding 1.5 million out of 19 million. That is what the fear is about. A huge number of people say we absolutely, positively, cannot drill in this little dot because a major catastrophe will befall our environment or Nation. Other nations hear this and say: What is the United States thinking? They have so much land, so much more than we do, so many more resources than we do. What is keeping them from drilling in a place far removed from any urban population? If they will not drill here, the question is, where will these people in America drill? That is my question. While some of the Democratic leadership is getting blamed for this position, neither party has been instrumental in opening up lands for drilling. This motto of not in my backyard, not in anyone's backyard, not now, not ever, is going to bring this country to its knees. I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but we cannot maintain the great military strength we have, and the great economic strength we have, if we refuse to produce the energy we consume. We have to produce more. We have the land. We have the skill. We have the technology. We have people who want jobs, good jobs. I have thousands of workers out of a job. They want a job that can pay $20, $25, $30, $35, $40 an hour; scientists who can make a fabulous living exploring new ways for drilling; engineers, geologists, truckers, suppliers, small business owners. More domestic production in little areas like this or in places in the gulf or in some parts of California and some parts of the east coast would be very helpful. I hope we can do it. In addition, we must diversify our fuel source. We need more oil and gas. If anyone says we don't, they are leading you astray. We also need more nuclear power. There is also a byproduct of hydrogen that will help America move to hydrogen fuel cells in our transportation sector. That is very exciting. The Presiding Officer and Members from agricultural States know we can help develop fuels from excess agricultural byproducts and help to produce the kind of fuels for our automobiles, from corn, wheat and sugarcane. This is a careful way to produce our food: consume what we need, and use the excess to produce energy to run the new vehicles of the next decade--this is truly exciting--and wean ourselves off of the oil and gas that is so necessary today and will be for the next several years. The second important area is improving the transmission grid. I compare it to the National Highway System. If you came to Louisiana or Mississippi before we had a National Highway System, you would reach the State line and the highway might end because we in Louisiana decided to build the road in a different way. Imagine not being able to get to Texas because we had our highway going north when we needed it going west. That is what would have happened. But we came together a number of years ago and said: We are going to have a National Highway System so we can move goods from the East to the West. To do that, the Federal Government is going to have some say about how this highway system is built. We need to do the same thing with transmission. Let me show the problem with transmission. Even if we drilled more, we don't have adequate infrastructure to move electricity. Even if we increase our production, we have to be able to move it from the source to the user. What this chart shows is the increase in system demand. There is an increase in demand. Why? Because we are using more electricity. This country is moving aggressively to using more power, not less. So, this is our demand curve. Here, though, is the net transmission investment, which is going down, not up. This is what causes blackouts and brownouts, this separation. The reason for this is 50 States are doing their own thing. Senator Bingaman he has some wonderful language in this bill to help us build, if you will, an interstate, national transmission system to move electricity to the places that need it. I would like to improve upon this language, so I am going to be offering an amendment next week that will produce more transmission capacity through participant funding. The current electricity pricing system is a tremendous obstacle to enhanced transmission capacity. This system dictates that new transmission capacity be rolled in, or socialized across the system, but when power moves from one system to another, customers who receive no benefit, like those in my State, still shoulder the burden of the cost of building more transmission. This situation leads to state utility commissioners and consumer groups to oppose badly needed expansions of the transmission grid. Prior to recess, I introduced an amendment, along with Senator Kyl, to establish an option of participant funding, whereby the utility customers who give rise to, and benefit from the expansion of transmission, pay the associated costs. Now let me clear about one thing: this amendment does not mandate anything. Rolled-in pricing would continue to be the rule while participant funding would become an option. Unfortunately, there has been a persistent tendency to misread or misinterpret this amendment to the contrary. In order to clarify this issue, I have made a series of changes to the amendment which make absolutely clear, beyond any doubt, that the amendment is not a mandate. We are building support for this amendment. Again, besides increasing production, we have to build a national transmission system, similar to our highway system, and we have to do it in this bill right now or all the discussions about energy reliability are going to be for naught. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I want to show another part of the problem: the need for some reinvestment in our energy infrastructure. Let me put up the chart that shows drilling in the gulf. All of these red dots represent wells that are being drilled out in the gulf. It is really a sight to see. There are thousands of people working out in the gulf on these rigs. But they do not just get there from heaven. They have to come from some shore, usually from Texas, Louisiana, or Mississippi where the pipes, the supplies, and helicopters are located. We serve as the platform that allows this activity to go on. We are happy to do that. But we have been doing it now for 50 years and getting no compensation whatsoever. In other words, all the taxes paid in this area do not come back to Louisiana. We do not see a penny of the royalties that are paid, and it is a lot of money. It is $120 billion, since 1955; $120 billion since 1955 has been paid to the Federal Government from the drilling. Some of it is off the shore of Florida, but most of it is off Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Since 1955, these wells and energy have produced, for Washington, $120 billion. Yet for the parishes, the States, and the communities that support that drilling, we get zero. It has to change. It is just not fair, it is not right, and it makes no sense. This is what happens. This is Highway 1, the highway that goes down the boot of Louisiana to the gulf. This is what the highway looks like because we cannot get one penny, under the current law, to broaden or improve this highway. This is what happens when there is an accident on this narrow two-lane highway. These are all workers in these trucks. This is what we cause our citizens to have to deal with because we refuse to design a system, for coastal States, that interior States have. Interior States, when they drill for resources, get to keep 50 percent of their money. That goes to help them fund their highways, their schools, to counter any negative environmental impacts, to invest in those local communities. Coastal States, for some reason, have not been able to share in that way. My amendment, which is in this bill, establishes an authorization for that. I am going to ask this body to take a further step and make a direct appropriation--if we are going to drill in the gulf--for Alabama, for Mississippi, for Louisiana, and for Texas. We certainly deserve to keep a portion of those revenues so we can invest back in our communities and make this situation more tenable for the workers and for the community of people who produce energy for this Nation. We think it is our patriotic duty, but we cannot continue without just compensation. That is a picture of what Highway 1 looks like on a bad day when there has been an accident. Frankly, on a good day when there has not been an accident, it looks a lot like that. There can be 1,000 trucks a day trying to get down to the gulf to produce oil. First, we need to drill more in this Nation in places where we can. We can have protected waters so the beaches of Florida or the coast of Louisiana or places in Alaska can be protected and preserved. But we can drill in places where we can become more energy independent and self-sufficient. Second, we should double our efforts to diversify our sources of energy and concentrate on developing renewables. Third, we should create a transmission grid much like our national highway system so that wherever the power is created, we can move it to wherever the Nation needs it, efficiently and at low cost. It will be fabulous for our consumers and for our businesses. Finally, we need to make sure we compensate the States such as Louisiana that are producing and give them a fair share of these revenues so we can invest in our economic future, fix highways such as Highway 1, and restore the damage to our coastal wetlands. I thank the Presiding Officer for the attention and the time to speak on this important issue. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as a member of the Small Business Committee, I just want to echo the remarks of my chairman and colleague, Senator Kerry, concerning the amendment that we have proposed today. I also want to thank Chairman Bingaman for offering this amendment for us. I know he has been exceptionally busy with the energy bill the past few weeks, and I am grateful that he took the time to allow us to raise this issue. I am proud to join Senator Kerry in support of this important amendment. The Energy Star Program is an excellent program which can provide a great deal of assistance to small businesses; but to participate in the program, these same businesses must be aware of the program. That is why coordinated outreach efforts by agencies like the Small Business Administration, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency is so important. Of particular importance, as Senator Kerry stated, is to get SBA involved in this effort. We need to provide for both the financial assistance and the information that our small businesses need to upgrade to more energy-efficient products. Because for every dollar that these businesses spend on energy efficient products now, several dollars will be saved down the road. So this is something that makes good economic sense. As a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I also believe that this amendment is important in the context of an overall energy policy. After all, one of our priorities in the energy bill is to make our Nation more energy efficient, and less dependent on foreign sources of oil. If small businesses use more than half of all commercial energy in North America, it makes a great deal of sense from a national security perspective to help these businesses become more efficient. So this is much more than a one-time purchase; this is a long-term investment. And the Federal Government, through the SBA in particular, has a clear role in helping these small businesses make these investments, both through financing assistance and the dissemination of relevant information. Again, I am happy to join Senator Kerry in support of this amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Ten minutes is fine.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I need about 15 minutes, if I could?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Nevada, and I thank the Senator from California for allowing me to interject a few thoughts on a related subject but not the same as the pending amendment. The subject is about energy independence. Let me put up my first chart to talk about this issue. Before I begin with that, let me say this: There are a lot of issues such as the issue Senator Feinstein has raised, and other issues, that I suggest are maybe not the exact heart of our problem when it comes to energy security or energy dependence. The heart of our problem is simply that we consume much more than we produce. When you consume more than you produce, and when you do not have an electric grid in this system that can move power from the places where it is produced to the places, such as California and Florida, that consume a lot--and also California does produce a great deal--you have blackouts. You have power shortages. You have price hikes. It is the natural end result of demand outstripping supply. It works that way every time. There is no surprise about it. It works that way today. It worked that way yesterday. It will work that way tomorrow. The core of this debate is energy security. We cannot have energy security in this Nation unless we have energy independence. I know people hear this and they say: Senator, it is not possible. We could never be energy independent. I want to say: Yes, we can. Maybe not tomorrow. Maybe not in 5 years. But if we set our mind to it and make some very wise strategic decisions in this body this week and in this Congress this year, this country most certainly could be energy independent in the next decade or so. Not in my grandchild's lifetime but in my children's lifetime, and in my lifetime, we could be energy independent. But it is going to take a lot of work. One of the things we are going to have to do is produce more oil and gas and fuel domestically. It is not just oil and gas. It is oil, gas, clean coal, hydro--and particularly new and exciting fuels such as solar and wind. We are not doing nearly enough with that. And we are not doing enough on the production side. When we think oil, we think automobiles. We think oil, we think gasoline. While oil in the transportation sector consumes most of our oil, let me name a few other things that we need oil for to produce household items: toothpaste, footballs, ink, lifejackets, tents, sunglasses, house paints, shampoos, lipsticks--maybe we could find alternative sources, some other ways to produce these items. I am sure there are scientists and researchers doing that at this time, but we need oil in this Nation to run our automobiles the way we have the engines structured right now, as well as to produce all these products which Americans use every single day. Can we reduce our consumption? Can we conserve? Absolutely. But should we continue to import 67 percent of our oil from other places in this world? I don't think so. Let me share with you where we are, the outstripping of production by demand. Oil consumption will continue to exceed production. This red area of this chart is our problem. It is our problem. You can see it very clearly. It is the shortfall. This is basically what we produce. This is what we consume. And this is what causes, in many instances, blackouts or shortages or high prices--this shortfall. We have to correct that. We can correct it by conserving. There are very good suggestions, mostly by Senator Bingaman, about how to do that. And we must increase our production. Let me show you where our production is, currently, in the United States. Our production is currently in the Gulf of Mexico and in Texas and in Alaska. Should we drill in Alaska, and more? Absolutely. Should we drill in the Gulf of Mexico? Absolutely. Should we drill in Texas more? Absolutely. Should we drill more in California and places in other States? Absolutely. The reason is these States consume. They need to produce. Our whole Nation consumes and we need to produce more. But we want, in America, to have a policy where we basically do not have oil wells anywhere except off the coast of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. We expect this area then to supply all the needs of our Nation. We need to have a stronger policy about drilling domestically, and to acknowledge the States that do drill and can drill in a more environmentally sensitive way, minimizing the risk to the environment, should be compensated for the impacts that are associated. It is not always negative environmental impacts; it is infrastructure impacts. On each oil rig off the State of Louisiana, we have about 6,000 people. It is almost like a city out in the gulf. I know a lot of people have never been to an oil rig, but I have, many times. Senator Breaux and others have visited many times. These men and women consume water, they consume food, there are transportation requirements, and there are roads and bridges that need to help this offshore development. One of the things we can do--and I hope we will do, Democrats and Republicans, regardless of how we may vote on many of these amendments--is to cast favorable votes when it comes to more domestic drilling. It is important for us to close the gap of conservation and drilling in places where we can. We have rich reserves in Alaska, in the Gulf, and in the central part of this Nation. It is misleading to say otherwise. Let me also give you another reason why domestic production is so important. This is from the Sierra Club's executive director, Doug Wheeler, who said: The exploration and development of energy resources in the United States is governed by the world's most stringent environmental constraints, and to force development elsewhere is to accept the inevitability of less rigorous oversight. Let me repeat this, because this is the Sierra Club. The exploration and development of energy resources in the United States is governed by the world's most stringent environmental constraints, and to force development elsewhere is to accept the inevitability of less rigorous oversight. What we do by not allowing more drilling in the United States is exactly this: We force development elsewhere, and we wreak environmental havoc. Why? Because in many parts of the world there are no democracies, and there are big oil importers, which is very problematic. In other countries, they do not have rigorous rules. There is no transparent rule of law. There are no court systems. There are no investigators to find the polluters. There are no systems of fines. They have no consequences for pollution. It happens day after day. In our country, if a company violates a local or Federal rule, they are prosecuted. They are fined. They can be put out of business for destroying the environment. Do you think that happens in some places in Africa, South America, or the Mideast? I don't think so. Let me make a statement. People will say Senator Landrieu just gets on the floor and talks about big oil issues. She is a supporter of big oil. Let me say for the record that big oil is maybe not that interested, frankly, primarily in more domestic production. Leaders of some of the environmental organizations want to push production off of our shores because they do not want production anywhere. They are absolutely totally against fossil fuels and think we can run the country and the world can run on something other than fossil fuels. I hope that happens in the future, but it is not going to happen today or tomorrow. It is in their interest to push production off the shores of the United States and use their self-interest to basically push development in places where regulations are less; where, if you do something wrong, you can't get caught, and where it is cheaper to produce. There is sort of an unholy alliance, if you will--I say this with great respect--between the industry and the environmental movement. I understand this is an unholy alliance that sometimes pushes us to a place we don't want to go. I will tell you why we don't want to go there. Because it is dangerous. If the headlines in the newspapers don't convince people that we are on a collision course, I don't know what is. In the paper this morning, we read about the escalation of war in the Mideast. We see our foreign policy compromised. Why? Because we can't really fight terrorism in a way that we know we should. We know that we could be effective. We have beaten every foe that has stood before us. We can certainly beat the foe of terrorism. It would be hard. It would be expensive. But the American people are willing to give their time and their treasure to do it. But we can't because we are compromised by the fact that the countries we are trying to negotiate with are large exporters of oil. We sent Colin Powell, our Secretary of State, over to the Mideast with one hand tied behind his back. He cannot negotiate as strongly as he might because of our dependency on oil from other places in the world. I know my time has expired. I am going to stay on the floor after the vote and ask for some additional time. I thank the Senator for yielding. If the clerk is ready to call the roll, I will yield the floor.

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