Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thought I would take this time, as we are still debating and proceeding with consideration of amendments to the energy bill, to finish the comments I started before the vote. I hope Members on both sides can understand the importance of this debate. It always has been important. But I think there has to be some renewed urgency given what has happened over the last 2 weeks--the unfortunate escalation of violence in the Mideast, the pressure that has now come to bear on our Nation in terms of the diplomacy underway to try to find a peaceful and certain way out of the situation in the Mideast. All of this has a direct bearing on the discussion we are having in the Senate about energy and the underlying policy and our dependency on this oil that comes in large measure--not solely--from Middle Eastern countries or from foreign sources. It has a direct impact, I believe, on whether we are ultimately going to be successful in the short and long run in our negotiations for peace and in combating terrorism. I wish to finish my remarks along those lines and to start with a chart. I know people in Louisiana understand this. I am hoping to share this chart with the other Members in the Senate. As Americans everywhere went to the gas stations over this weekend and the last few weeks, they really began to feel this. They not only understand it but they actually feel it, and it is hurting right in their pocketbooks. This chart shows us clearly what happens when the price of oil, which is demonstrated by this blue line, goes up and what happens to our gross domestic product, which is represented by the red line, when that price goes up. It is very easy to read this chart. It reminds me of one of the charts my colleague, Senator Conrad, brings to explain complicated budget issues, and it really helps to clarify it. This clarifies the situation to me, and I hope to people who are seeing this chart. When oil prices are low, then the U.S. gross domestic product is high. When the price of oil begins to rise, as it has precipitously in the last 2 weeks, the growth of the U.S. economy dives. When the economy takes a dive like this, what this means is there are more people who are out of work. When this red line goes down, it means children do not go to college. This red line means somebody has to walk into their house and look in their kids' eyes and tell them they lost their job. This means a guy who worked his whole life--when he was 45 years old and started a business and took his life's savings and his wife's savings and said: Honey, I am going to go out and start a business--has to come back and tell her he could not make it. Not because they did not have a good product, not because he was not a hard worker, not because his spouse did not do everything she should and could do, but because we cannot get a handle on the price of gasoline and it drove him out of business. That is what this line means when the gross domestic product in our country goes down. It means pain. It means suffering. We could stop the pain and stop the suffering if we could get an energy policy that would stabilize this price and reduce our dependency on oil that comes from outside of this Nation. One way to do it, not the only way to do it, is to drill more in the United States of America. We have oil reserves in many of our States, if not most of our States. We have reserves onshore and offshore, and we have technologies unlike 50 years ago, 40 years ago, or 25 years ago, that we can produce and find those reserves at less financial risk and less environmental risk. I am in the Senate because I promised the people of my State I would try to keep this red line up as high as possible, because I have a promise to send as many kids to college as I can possibly help get there and give them the skills they need to function. I have made a lot of promises to them about giving them an atmosphere where they can take their dream of starting a business and actually make it work. I have made promises to my school boards and my public officials back home to try to help improve the highway system, which is not very good in our State. I have hospitals that cannot keep their doors open, and there is a Senate that has the resources and the opportunity to pass an energy bill that could produce more but for some reason will not. Let me show what the Sierra Club says about domestic production because I have sometimes been accused of having an anti-environmental position. I actually think this position is a pro-environmental position, it is the right environmental position, and I will say why. The director of the Sierra Club evidently agrees with that line of thinking, although I do not want to indicate he agrees with the exploration in ANWR or my amendment, but he agrees with the principle. He says exactly what I would say: 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. I could even go further to say: To develop elsewhere is to accept the inevitability of wholesale environmental destruction, because that is what happens when you do not have good laws. That is what happens when you do not have good regulations. That is what happens when you do not have good court systems where polluters are determined not to follow the rules if they had them, or to go ahead even without the rules and proceed to extract those resources. That is what happens when you drive production off the shores of the United States of America. The environment is harmed more than if you could drill in a country that had the strongest rules, the best courts, the highest fines, and the ability to vigorously prosecute polluters. We do not want to do that. We want to get oil from countries--and we use 18 million barrels of oil every day from places such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq; and from such stable governments in a lot of trouble now such as Colombia, Angola, Kuwait, and Yemen, just to name a few. If we drilled more in Alaska, in Louisiana, off the coast, on the gulf coast, in other interior States, and we did it in the right ways, we could make the lines in that chart I showed earlier move in a different direction, in a direction of hope for the American people. Let me also say we need to do it for the purposes of our economy. We also need to drill more in the United States for the purposes of our security and for the purposes of long-term domestic and international security for our Nation. We call the underlying bill we are debating, and on which Senator Bingaman and Senator Murkowski have worked exceedingly hard, the Energy Policy Act. It could be the energy security act, but I would really like it to be named the energy independence act because only by energy independence will America ever be secure. Let me say that again: Only with energy independence will we ever really be secure. If we and our democratic allies--not countries that do not believe in democratic principles, not countries that do not allow women to vote, not countries that do not have high standards when it comes to child protection and the rights of children and families. I am talking about democratically elected governments. When we and our allies, such as in Europe and in other places of the world, can diversify our portfolio of energy, then we can relieve ourselves of being dependent on countries that do not share our values, that are not democratic nations, and that do not compromise. When I see statements that are in the press--and I have been reading a lot of things about the Mideast--it is very concerning to me when I hear anyone say the people who have strapped dynamite and other explosives to themselves, who have gone into places such as hotels where people are eating a meal or into daycare centers, or in pubs where mothers might take their daughters or sons out for an afternoon cup of tea or a rest, and people refer to these individuals as freedom fighters. These are not freedom fighters. These are terrorists. That is what terrorism is. That is what the definition and embodiment of terrorism is. It is not fighting army to army or armed person to armed person. It is an individual, desperate, strapping explosives to their body, giving up their life and harming innocent men and women and children for the purposes of terrorizing a nation and either bringing it to its knees, or bringing it to a negotiating table, or forcing it to do something that is against its will or its long-term best interests. We are fighting terrorism here with all the strength and breath we can in our Nation. We had two of our mightiest buildings collapse. We don't call the people who got in the airplanes freedom fighters. We call them terrorists. But we can't call some of these other people exactly what we need to be calling them. Why? Because we are too dependent on oil from that region. We are debating an energy bill and we will not make the decision to produce more oil in the United States because we would rather compromise our foreign policy. I will be for more drilling in the United States, when and wherever possible. And I don't believe we can drill everywhere. But where there are reserves, where our technology shows we can drill, the more oil we can drill here the better. In addition, what we can do, and Senator Bingaman has led this fight so ably and so well, is to diversify our portfolio so we are not held hostage by oil, period. I am from an oil-producing State. But do you know what my own producers tell me? They don't want our Nation to be held hostage by fossil fuels, even though we produce a lot of oil and produce a lot of gas. Louisiana believes, as an oil- and gas-producing State, that we need to develop alternative sources. As an investor with your life savings, you don't invest it in just one company, in the event that company goes belly up and you lose everything you worked for. With investments, investors want a diverse portfolio. Why? To spread the risk. Any good investor knows that spreading risk is very important for long-term security. Why, then, do we have an energy policy, or the lack of an energy policy, that allows all of our eggs to be in one basket. It is too much in oil, and in some ways too much in gas, and not enough in other developing technologies such as wind, solar, hydropower, and other ways of generating energy. The most promising technology we have discussed on the floor is in the transportation sector, in hydrocells, for our automobiles. It is the transportation sector that uses most of the oil. Our industrial sector and our electric generators use a lot of gas, a lot of coal, and a lot of nuclear. The bottom line is, while we have to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, particularly from nondemocratic nations, particularly from nations that do not have stable governments, particularly from nations that do not believe in the rule of law, that do not allow women the right to vote, that do not allow children, girls in particular, to go to school, why do we compromise our foreign policy because we need that resource when we could drill more domestically? In addition, not only do we have to drill more in the United States, but we have to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels over time and try to come up with renewable resources because all of these resources are finite. To broaden our pool, to diversify our portfolio of sources is good for the consumer and good for business because it will keep prices very competitive. If gas is too high, people could switch to nuclear. If nuclear is too high, producers of energy could switch to hydro. If hydro is too high, they could move to coal. If coal is too high, we can move to biomass. We need more diverse sources of fuel, homegrown, and limit our imports of fuel from nations that are not democratic nations. I am not speaking about Canada. Canada is a great ally of the United States. We import a lot of gas from Canada. Let's continue to do it. Canada is a democracy. It is our ally. We can rely on it. That is smart politics. Relying on other countries that do not share those values, that do not have democratic values, gets us dealing with places where people tie dynamite to themselves and blow up themselves and innocent people. It confuses us whether it is a terrorist or freedom fighter. We have freedom fighters in America. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a freedom fighter. That is the kind of freedom fighter who we believe in in this Nation. Gandhi was a freedom fighter. That is the kind of freedom fighter who ultimately wins peace and security and justice and changes when things are unjust. Not suicide bombers and not terrorists. It must be rejected every day, every month, every year, every time--in the United States, in Israel, and in the Middle East. Our energy policy puts us in a position where that gets foggy; it does not get clear. It is dangerous. It is not going to serve us well, not this week, not next week, and not in the near future. Our dependency on oil imports from places that are not democratic nations, our refusal to broaden our portfolio of sources of energy, and our inability to separate this from our negotiations is not good for America. Let us begin by supporting Senator Murkowski's amendment on ANWR. Let us go further and support drilling. Let us fight very hard with Senator Bingaman to try to put dollars into research and technologies for new alternatives. Let's be careful with the tax credits we give so we build a domestic industry, creating new jobs and keeping our environment clean and investing in the States and the localities so when they are impacted, we can fix them. When we lose wetlands, we can restore them. When some places are disrupted, we can do our very best to fix them and have the kind of infrastructure necessary so we can have a good, solid, and clean industry. That is why, in conclusion, this is getting a lot of momentum. This is why the President is receiving a tremendous amount of support in some areas of his policy, and why, today, there was a great meeting and press conference of some of the major Jewish organizations throughout this Nation. B'nai B'rith, the oldest and largest Jewish organization, has finally and eloquently stated why it is so important to join this fight, along with veterans, along with our military, particularly the veterans who have been there. They have been to Europe; they have been to Korea; they have been to Vietnam. They know the price that is paid when American foreign policy is based on anything outside of our core values of freedom and democracy. When we start fighting over oil and sacrificing the lives of our young men and women, it is just not worth the fight. Let me say again, it is not worth the fight. Other issues are worth the fight: democracy, freedom, and justice. Oil is not worth the fight, especially when we could have energy security by drilling in our own country. It is too high of a price to pay. I don't think we should pay it. We should continue the effort to get a good, strong bill out of the Senate and get it into conference so we can have a bill that produces, that encourages more domestic drilling, expands our portfolio of energy to include other things, that invests in research and development. This country leads the world in technology. When we make up our minds to create anything, we can do it. And we hardly ever fail. I can't think of a time we failed. We most certainly would be successful in new technologies and getting us off, eventually, fossil fuels, a finite resource, and getting us to renewables, so we are truly independent and our people can have hope. In addition, I hope we can then balance this bill in conference. I urge the President to take as balanced an approach as possible in helping shape a bill that works for our economy, that works for our foreign policy, and, most importantly, a bill that is true to values that America has stood for now for 225 years. It does not cause us to have to be hypocritical or to turn our eye or to be foggy in our outlook. We want to see clearly, to be honest with ourselves, about this issue. It is very serious. It is a very serious issue. Now it is affecting our national security. People at home would like to see strong steps taken in that regard. I am going to be offering an amendment for energy independence in the morning. I have a series of amendments that I will be offering over the course of this debate. I will lay that out to my colleagues for their consideration and I hope we will be strong enough to take the actions necessary to set our Nation on the course for independence. I yield the remainder of my time.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I will have no objection to that, as long as I have an opportunity to offer the amendment sometime this afternoon.

Mrs. LANDRIEU

Mrs. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, many years ago Arnold Glasow said that ``all some folks want is their fair share--and yours.'' Today, I rise to offer an amendment that provides for true fairness in electricity pricing and in doing so paves the way for much needed transmission expansion at a national level. Over the past 10 years demand for electricity has increased 17 percent while transmission investment during the same period has continuously declined about 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 of 4 percent. With projected demand exceeding projected additional capacity five times over, problems seem imminent. It is no surprise to this Senator that in recent years electricity shortages due to transmission constraints have plagued the country from one coast to another and various points in between. Unless we deviate immediately from the past ways of doing business, our economy will be held hostage to transmission constraints with rolling blackouts becoming the norm rather than the exception. Our existing electrical transmission system was designed to serve local customers from utility-owned generation on a State-by-State basis. However, in recent years more and more ``merchant generation'' operated by independent companies have begun to connect to the electrical grid in order to transmit electricity to local as well as out-of-region customers. Though this increased generation added much needed competition, it began to strain the current transmission system. The pricing mechanism at the wholesale level still employs the old socialized rate method of continuously increasing the rates for local customers even though most of the beneficiaries are out-of-region customers. This antiquated pricing method has dampened the push to enhance transmission capacity in energy producing States as State regulators are reluctant to pass excessive transmission cost off to local customers who are not benefitting from the electricity. Meanwhile energy dependent regions of the country are denied cheap and reliable electricity. Electricity price spikes in the Midwest during 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. In the summer of 2000, transmission constraints limited the ability to sell low-cost power from the Midwest to the South during a period of peak demand, resulting in higher prices for customers. Recent blackouts in northern California were the result of transmission constraints in southern California due to California's Path 15 transmission route. The east coast has also suffered from transmission constraints and price spikes in recent years. Surely, there must be a more equitable way to allocate cost while simultaneously enhancing our transmission capacity. It is not fair to expect customers in energy generating States to keep paying for transmission expansion when this increased transmission is primarily being developed for out-of-region 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 power markets is ``participant-funded'' expansion. In this system, market participants ``fund'' expansions to the transmission network in return for the transmission rights created by the expansion investment. This approach gives proper economic incentive for new generator location and transmission expansion decisions. In the new world, the numbers and volumes of interstate transactions are large and growing every day. In my home State of Louisiana, there are enough new merchant generation plants planned to almost double the amount of generation in the State today. Those who favor socializing these costs may argue that ``rolled in pricing is ok because transmission is such a small part of a consumer's total bill.'' This was true in the past but not anymore. If we must build enough transmission to export just a portion of this new generation--10,000 megawatts--the estimated cost would be $2 billion to $4 billion. Louisiana's share of this cost would be $90 to $180 million per year, and impose a retail rate increase of 5 to 11 percent. All with no significant benefit to local customers. The opponents of this amendment argue that transmission upgrades may be more expensive than the delivered power is worth. If it is too expensive to build facilities to move the power, then the plant is being built in the wrong place. No one should bear these costs, least of all local consumers. The developers need to take these costs into account when they site their plants--just like they consider gas costs, water costs, and environmental permits. The participant funding concept is not new--this concept 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 has increased by nearly 100 percent relative to 1999. The opponents of this legislation want the risk and consequences of bad siting decisions to be socialized, so that all the ``little guys'' will pick up the tab. In contrast, participant funding gives proper price signals for new generator location, and it assures an economically efficient level of grid expansion. I realize this amendment is generating quite a bit of discussion; however, electricity transmission policy is not a popularity contest, it is about making tough but fair decisions. The electricity debate reminds me of something that Mark Twain once said: ``Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.'' I therefore ask my fellow colleagues to pause for a moment and reflect over the content of this amendment, what it has meant to the natural gas industry and what it will mean for our economic prosperity in the future. Let's work together in an equitable manner toward building efficient and reliable electrical highways by adopting this amendment. Thank you, Mr. President, and I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be laid aside.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Kyl.

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

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside so that I may offer an amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Ten minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent that we simply alternate during the time of the amendment, within the amount of time allocated.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Kyl amendment. I wish to speak for a few minutes to add to my remarks of just a few moments ago.

Ms. LANDRIEU. The fifth reason is it is American technology that is at the base of these technological advances in renewable energy. However, we are not using them. They are being used by European nations. Our technology is developed at our universities, in our laboratories, with our scientists, with our engineers, but we are not taking advantage of these renewables. The Europeans have done it in a period of 5 years, from 1990 to 1995. As I said earlier, Spain increased its renewable resources by 300 percent, Denmark by 150 percent, and the Netherlands over 50 percent. In conclusion, I think a solution to our dependence on foreign oil is more robust domestic production with a real commitment to renewables. If we do those two things, we can reach independence, which I think our country and our citizens, whether they live in California, Louisiana, or New York, would cheer about. That is why I am opposing the Kyl amendment and supporting Senator Bingaman. Again, I hope for perfection through the conference process, but I also hope this bill retains a renewable portfolio and sends an important message to the American people that we can stake our claim to an independent future.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico has done an extraordinary job in leading us through this obviously quite contentious energy debate. It is the result of so many different views of different regions, with each having its own set of natural resources and demands. It is very hard to come up with a national policy that works for our Nation and also respects our regions and States. If we do not change the direction in which this Nation is headed-- dependent and unable to produce the energy necessary for our Nation to grow and develop--our economy and our national security will be jeopardized. I commend the Senator from New Mexico for staying tough and holding the line and trying to move a bill out of the Senate and into conference where it can be perfected. I oppose the Kyl amendment and support Senator Bingaman's efforts on renewables. There might be a better way, a better method than mandates. Recognizing that the House did not put in any substantive provisions for renewables in its energy bill, I hope we can explore this issue between the time this bill leaves the floor and gets to conference where I hope it will be perfected and balanced in promoting renewables. While the Senator from Texas does not evidently think windmills might work and does not like the way they look, many people do like the way windmills look. There are many regions that are having success with wind power. In Spain, Germany, and Denmark, wind power supplies over 20 percent of their electricity. It really is a wonderful thought that we can use the brains God has given us to create technology to generate power from wind. I am sure it is somewhat more expensive. I am sure there are kinks to be worked out, but do not lead people to believe that it is not being done in an efficient way. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a fact sheet from the Union of Concerned Scientists, an EIA study that says: ``National Renewable Energy Standard of 20 Percent is Easily Affordable.''

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, Senator Bingaman is rightly arguing that while this amendment may need to be perfected, we must develop a portfolio of renewable fuels in this Nation if we are to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and other sources of power. Let me show a chart that will clearly illustrate that. This is electricity generation by fuel. We, right now, have most of our electricity generated from coal sources with a rising number of generators and powerplants fueled by natural gas. Since Louisiana is the second largest producer of natural gas, I most certainly represent the interests of people wanting to see more domestic production of natural gas. However, we have not been able to move very much this line representing renewables. We hope to increase renewables because by improving our domestic sources of energy, or increasing them, whether from coal, natural gas, nuclear, or renewables, we by virtue of that reduce our dependency on foreign oil sources. By increasing renewables, we can improve our domestic fuel supply. There are several reasons, I suggest, why this is a good thing to do. First, as I said, we need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. Even as someone who comes from a State that produces a lot of oil and gas, I know that one of these days those wells are going to dry up. I certainly hope this does not occur in the foreseeable future, but one day they will, because they are a finite source. Renewables are infinite. They are, as their definition says, renewable. We can get renewables, create renewable energy, and continue generating power for our industries. Domestic energy production, whether it is through oil, gas, wind, coal, biomass, or solar, increases jobs in our country. One of the things we spend a great deal of time talking about is how we can create good-paying jobs, jobs where people can make a living, have a living wage, save, send their children to college, purchase a home. Those things are really very important. They are important to all of our States. Investing in renewables technology generates jobs. Domestic production creates jobs in America. We are all for helping the world create jobs. We would like to see a great middle class created in every country in the world, but our first objective is to create jobs for the citizens of this Nation. The third reason renewables are a good thing is that they give us diversity. Why do we need diversity? We need diversity because in a competitive system no industry, no generator of electricity, or no region should be held hostage in the event natural gas prices soar. They potentially could switch to another source of fuel. If that source of fuel were too high, they could switch to another source of fuel, thereby keeping prices stable and low, and generating and increasing competition. So by increasing renewables, we increase the options for businesses and electric generators so the consumers are ultimately benefitted. Consumers see their prices rise when there are monopolies, and when people have no choice but to get power from either gas or oil. So as we write a bill that helps this country to expand the choices of fuel, consumers will be helped and taxpayers will see their bills lowered. The fourth reason I support renewables is that they are the cleanest option. Now I have been in this Chamber talking about natural gas. I am very proud of the work we do in Louisiana, as well as Texas, and Mississippi. We produce a lot of natural gas. It meets the standards set by the EPA and our own state laws and regulations. We hope to continue to produce natural gas for this country. I will put up the other chart which shows how much the natural gas comes off the shores of Louisiana and is literally piped through an extensive system of pipelines to other parts of the country. We are proud of this. We would like to see more pipelines coming from different places so we could provide clean natural gas for the Nation. People in Louisiana, even though we are proud of our natural gas and proud to be able to contribute it to the Nation, believe in renewables because they also give us additional sources that will come into the country from a variety of different places. Renewables are theoretically better dispersed around the country because they can be created through solar, wind, or biomass. So the advantage of renewables is not only that they are clean and efficient, but they also help us redistribute the sources of power, giving us a greater balance, so there are not blackouts in California or brownouts on the east coast. That is something in this debate I believe we have to keep foremost in our mind.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield an additional 1 minute?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, may I inquire if, under the previous order, we are entitled to alternate from one side to the other on the amendment, given the time allocated to us?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I rise, Mr. President, to speak about the pending business, which is the energy bill that has been laid down by Senator Bingaman and worked on very aggressively on both sides of the aisle. We are trying to fashion an energy bill that works for our Nation and accomplishes a couple of very broad goals. One of those goals that I think is most crucial and critical to meet in terms of the outcome of this debate is the goal of energy independence for the United States of America. The goal is self-reliance. It is a value, a tradition of America that has served this Nation very well, that we produce what we consume. We relied on our strengths and our resources to lift this country from a cluster of small colonies over 200 years ago, to a great nation, perhaps the greatest nation ever to be born and developed in this world, using a political system that, while not perfect, is admired by many countries and used as a model. We have also proven that our free enterprise system, our economy, the rule of law, the transparency of our financing, the ability to gather capital and invest in business, really produces great wealth, not just for the few but for the many. That is the challenge of this world. It is not just to enrich a few, but it is to build a broad middle class, to lift those up off the bottom and to provide opportunity as far as the sky for those at the top. We, again, are perfecting that in the United States. We are not there yet. I would like to see this continue. I came to the Senate to try to work on a lot of different ideas, frankly, about how we could continue this great progress. One of the goals central to the continuation of this is--what does our economy need besides good ideas and a infusion of capital? What else does our economy need to grow? One of the things it needs is power. It needs electric power. It needs power to run the various factories and enterprises and systems that undergird this economic growth. We find ourselves debating how we can achieve greater efficiencies as well as greater supplies of energy to generate this power. There is a debate about what are the best ways to generate this power. That is part of what the Kyl amendment is about. I think the renewable portfolio that we are debating is something worth fighting for. Before I get into that, let me make a few broad comments. I spent some time last week on this floor, arguing that we have declared one Declaration of Independence, but we need now, after over 200 years of living under that declaration, to declare a new Declaration of Independence, and that would be an independence from foreign sources of oil and gas. In my book, the No. 1 reason for that is national security. That is very clear to the American people now, post-September 11. The American people are beginning to put together the compromises that unfortunately have to be made in our foreign policy when we depend so heavily on sources of energy from some of the most unstable and unfriendly places in the world. Americans are starting to ask the question: Why would we import millions of barrels of oil from Iraq when we have sanctions against that country, when we are flying sorties over that country and bombing them at least once a week, trying to protect America's interests? Our veterans are starting to ask this question: Why are we sending our young people to try to protect these oil and gas supplies when we have such an ample supply here in the United States? Last week I spoke about why it was important for us to develop the supplies of oil and gas in our Nation. In Louisiana we have off our shores one of the great sources of energy for this country. There are any number of leases, both active and those that have not been leased yet, tracts of land, that can produce ample supplies of gas and oil which can move our country forward. We have to ask ourselves: Why would we be dependent on foreign sources when there are resources right here at home? There are resources not only off the shore of Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama, but off Florida, some parts of the east coast and the west coast, as well as in a small portion of Alaska which could provide a tremendous resource for this Nation. Veterans are beginning to ask that question. Senior citizens are beginning to ask that question, as are taxpayers, who pick up the tab for this war on terrorism. Believe me, it is a heavy burden. It is a burden we are willing to bear. This chart shows the riches of offshore Louisiana. We have been proud to help this Nation produce the oil and gas necessary to fuel the greatest economy on Earth and we are doing it in a much more environmentally sensitive way. There is tremendous potential out here. The reason I am in the Chamber today is not to go into more detail about this exactly, but to also say that as strongly as I feel about increasing the production of fossil fuels, I also am aware--which is why I am going to oppose the Kyl amendment--this Nation needs to do a great deal more to pursue and develop our renewable portfolio. We need new sources of power that are not finite, sources such as solar and wind power. While I do not like all the details of the mandates, I do think we would be very remiss in the Senate if we did not attach to Chairman Bingaman's bill a renewable mandate. Our ultimate goal is not only low emissions. Not only do renewables lower our emissions and improve our environment, but most importantly it helps relieve our dependence on foreign sources of oil and gas. So I am opposing the Kyl amendment and joining with Senator Bingaman, asking both Democrats and Republicans to let us have a strong vote for renewables. I do not agree exactly with the way this amendment has been crafted. I am hoping in conference it will be perfected to make sure we are providing the right incentives for renewables in such a way that consumers do not have to pick up too great a tab. I think this amendment can be worked with. But to pass this energy bill off the floor of the Senate without a real commitment to renewables would be a mistake. It will not get us any closer any faster to a point where Americans can say we don't need Iraq, we don't need Saddam Hussein, and we don't need places in the Mideast to send us oil. With renewables, with a focus that Senator Domenici is leading us on in a more robust, safe, environmentally friendly nuclear infrastructure--which now produces 20 percent of the power in our Nation--with Domenici and Landrieu and others' amendments that have been offered to this bill, we can increase nuclear production in a smart and sophisticated way and provide even additional power. The third leg is opening up domestic production in our Nation. The Gulf of Mexico is divided into the western section, which is off Texas, and the middle section, which is off Louisiana and Mississippi. Then the eastern section, which is part of Alabama and Florida, has been closed to drilling. In the middle section, each one of these dots represents 3 miles. We are looking at about 200 miles off our shore. The red dots and red squares are leases that are actually under production. There is gas coming into our Nation through huge pipelines which distribute gas and power to many States in this country. It is estimated by MNF that there is 100 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in just this one section of the gulf. Natural gas meets the new environmental emission standards. Natural gas burns cleaner. Natural gas taken from the Gulf of Mexico is distributed to people all over the southern part of the United States. Supplies are shipped to the southern parts of the United States, thereby generating wealth, creating jobs, and creating opportunities-- good jobs where men and women can feed their families, pay the mortgage on their house, send their children to school, and put some money in the bank for their families so they can be upwardly mobile and become a solid part of the middle class--not jobs flipping hamburgers or carrying luggage that are in some ways dead-end jobs. They are good for starter jobs, but they are not good if you are trying to send kids to school or college. These are good jobs that can be created right here in the United States. We have 100 trillion cubic feet of gas. Technology allows us to get it. We could supply the Nation for 5 years from just this part of the gulf. We need about 22 trillion cubic feet a year. Imagine if we could have a bill that could leave this floor. That would be quite a miracle. I believe in miracles. I have seen quite a few of them in my life. If we had a bill that could leave this floor and open domestic production in an environmentally safe and sound way-- open production around the country that is closed, including ANWR--and have attached to this bill a real effort to create and generate renewable energy, we could potentially within a few years wean ourselves off the oil and gas coming from places in the world that we don't want to have to be involved in unless absolutely necessary, because it requires the support of the Treasury and the life and health of Americans. I know there will be Members who do not agree and want to support the Kyl amendment. But I oppose it on the principle that we need a strong, renewable portion. The Senator from New Mexico, understanding there were some initial objections, has modified his original amendment that was laid down. He has tried to hone it down to an acceptable principle on renewables. Again, we can fix it, enhance it, and massage it in conference. But we can make a strong statement on this floor about renewables and about independence and getting away from our dependence on foreign oil and gas sources. I will be back in the next couple of days to talk about some specific things that Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, and other producing States are doing. The technology is advancing. We are making many improvements to the environment. We are minimizing the footprint and maximizing the advantages for the American public so the necessary power can be provided for the growth and development in this Nation. I wanted to speak about the Kyl amendment and to urge adoption of this particular amendment which will make renewables and conservation a strong part of our equation, and also to give us the independence we deserve, for which our veterans have fought. We will continue to fight for liberties, freedoms, and values. We will succeed in the long run. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I begin by adding my compliments to Senators Feingold and McCain for their extraordinary efforts in passing and helping to usher through a far-reaching piece of legislation that will hopefully close the loopholes and help Members conduct campaigns that truly meet the spirit and intent of the reform laws we have passed over the course of the last couple of years. We need to have the kind of campaigns of which we can all be proud, ones that allow people in this Nation to express their views, yet have campaigns and financing and funding that are fully and completely disclosed. I thank them and acknowledge their work.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Neil Naraine, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on the energy bill.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. The Senator is aware that there is a great injustice on which I hope we can make some headway before this bill leaves the Senate. The injustice is that Federal law allows interior States--and I think rightfully so, and I most certainly support it and would even argue it should be increased--but in the interior States, when they do any kind of mining or resource recovery on Federal land, the State that hosts that Federal land and the surrounding communities share 50 percent to compensate for impacts because there are roads that have to be built. There are other impacts where if the Federal Government is going to benefit from drilling within your State, even on State land, we think the State should share the benefit. But the tragedy is that for coastal States, such as Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and, to some degree, Alaska, you must drill within 3 miles of your coast to get any compensation. So we are sending $4 and $5 billion in royalties and revenues to the Federal Treasury. In addition to sending the oil, in addition to sending the gas, we are also sending huge amounts of money to the Federal Treasury, and our States get nothing, nothing in direct aid. My next amendment is going to be about changing that. I have an amendment that is going to ask for a portion. I hope everyone will support that. I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't, considering what I have just shown. I thank the Senator for raising this issue.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thought I would come to the floor and speak for just a moment about an amendment that I propose to lay down sometime either today or tomorrow, for, hopefully, a good debate next week. This amendment is rather simple. I am sure it is going to cause a lot of interest and debate. I am going to explain it in a moment, but it will be proposed because of what I have come to believe after studying now for several years the current situation with our energy policy. Senator Bingaman and Senator Murkowski have worked so hard on the bill before us, and I have supported many of their efforts. I have nothing but the most wonderful things to say about the two of them and the patience they displayed trying to bring the bill together into one that can unite this body and one that can really help move this country forward. I am going to vote for the bill, whether ANWR is in it or not. I am supporting Senator Murkowski's effort to open up more domestic drilling in this Nation because I think he was absolutely correct. But I want to say I think it is going to take a more fundamental shift in attitude and policy. Although the bill gives us great hope in tax credits for more production, great hope in tax credits for more alternatives, we are still, if you will, arguing about the margins and missing the big picture. The big picture is really this: I think the solution is for this country to get serious about becoming energy independent. I think the President is absolutely right when he talks about a freedom car or a freedom truck or a freedom system. This is about freedom. This is about being able to be a leader in the world based on what our real values are, and not being held hostage because we need something that someone else has and because we will not produce it, even though we have it. Our foreign policy is compromised and the lives of our men and women are put in danger. It is not right. It is not smart. It is dangerous. If we did a better job of communicating to the American people this reality, I think they would rise and demand a fundamental change. So the amendment I am going to lay down is a simple one. It says this: All States are to submit a plan to the Secretary of Energy within 1 year to show how they can become basically energy self-sufficient. Whatever they are consuming, they must come up with a plan of producing--not 100 percent, because I think that would be very difficult for some States, recognizing that some States are small. So my amendment is going to say that whatever you consume, you must try to produce 85 percent of what you consume. The money in this budget, the money that the Federal Government--taxpayers--provide, is contingent upon the State submitting such a plan. If you do not submit a plan, you are not permitted to receive any money. I will tell you why. On the floor I said one of the founding principles of this Nation was: He who doesn't work doesn't eat. It is why the Plymouth Colony survived. It is why this Nation not only is surviving but thriving; it is because it is an American principle that we live by every day--not perfectly, but it is an undergirding principle of this Nation. It is not the communistic principle, not other principles. The principle in America is you live by the fruit of your labor. You work and use the talents that God has given you. When you produce, you can live and consume. But if you don't work, if you don't produce, you should not pick up the paycheck. We have done it in welfare reform. We do it everywhere. But we do not do it in energy. I will show you why we do not do it. This is a chart of the States that produce power. The purple States shown here produce enough power for themselves, and are net exporters of power. They produce it in all different ways. Some produce it by coal, some produce it by oil and gas, some produce it by using their great water resources with which their regions are blessed. These States have figured out what resources they have. They are trying--I admit with a lot of mistakes in the past. When we didn't have the great science and technology of today--using basically just carriages and horseback--we were just trying to make it work and build this country. So they found all these resources and started putting them together, to give power to a nation that is truly the light of the world. Now notice the red States here. They are consuming much more--in some cases dramatically more--than they are producing. That is the problem. I will submit for the Record the numbers that are quite dramatic for these consuming States which indicate their unwillingness and their reluctance to produce the energy they need to sustain their economy and their dependence on others to produce. If that were as far as we have gone, maybe we could even live with that. Not only are these States not willing to produce, but they are telling other States they can't produce--not only not in my backyard, but not in your backyard. I think that kind of attitude is driven by populations that might not quite realize what is at stake. It is, I think, jeopardizing our Nation and causing us to work around the margins and not really work on the core points. We cannot conserve our way out of where we are. We have to produce more domestically. Let me give you another reason why I am very passionate about this. Every time we drive domestic production off our shores, it goes somewhere else. It doesn't go away. It just goes somewhere else. When it goes to Canada, it is not bad because Canada is a stable country with good laws and good environmental rules and regulations. We in some ways benefit when it goes to Canada--not only as a nation but as a world--because Canada is a developed, progressive, and friendly country. But that is about it. It might go to Mexico and to South and Central America. Mexico is a friend. Our relations are warming. They are an ally, but I would not say that Mexico or Central America or Latin America have the strongest environmental policies. I think they have fairly transparent business operations. I am not so sure they have the highest level of ethics in terms of their business, at least compared to the United States. When we drive production off the shores of the greatest country in the world, which has the best regulations, the best laws, the most transparent system, and an assurance that drilling is done in the right way, we drive it to places in the world where environmental destruction is inevitable because they do not have the technology. They do not have the laws. They do not have the organized environmental groups. In our great righteousness of trying to clean up the United States of America, we are messing up the rest of the world. It doesn't make sense from an environmental perspective. It doesn't make sense from a security perspective. Children, young people, spouses, and parents are dying today over this issue. Why can't we help Israel anymore? Because we are so dependent on Arab countries to supply us with oil, and so we don't have to drill anywhere in the United States for oil. We see in the paper every day that another 60 people have died in Israel, and we say we are sorry. This Senator is going to do everything in her power to help change this view in the United States. When a person runs for President in this country, they have to go to California to get a lot of votes. They have to go to Florida to get a lot of votes. They have to go to other big States to get a lot of votes. There are some interest groups there that I think have captured and held hostage some of the general public in those States and convinced them that they can just continue to consume. They don't have to produce anything. They do not have to produce it by coal. They don't have to produce it by nuclear. They don't have to produce it by hydro. They don't have to produce it by gas. They don't have to produce it. They can just consume. Again, the States in red on this chart are importers of electricity. They consume sometimes 3, 5, 10, and 15 percent more than they produce. The States in purple produce more than they consume. They are net exporters. The amendment that I am going to lay down later today is a message amendment. I think this message is compelling. I think this is a message worth giving. I hope somebody will listen to it. States are to submit a plan to the Secretary of Energy within 1 year. In that plan, every State has to show how they are going to become energy independent within 10 years. If they do not submit a plan, they are not allowed to get one penny from this energy bill for any projects because then they go on their own. The country was founded on the principle of those who work eat, and those who do not work don't eat. Let me say something about by State. This isn't just about Louisiana. I am proud of what my State does. We are trying to do a better job of protecting our environment. We are making a lot of strides. Our universities are doing great, and our businesses are trying. We acknowledge that we have made some mistakes. I am very proud of my State. We produce a lot, and we consume a great amount. I will show you on this chart, but you can understand that our consumption is not just for ourselves. We have a lot of industry that makes a lot of products that go everywhere in the country and in the world. Not only do we produce everything that the 4.5 million of us need every day for our lives, but we also produce enough to run this great industrial complex. Even then, we send another half of what we produce out to everybody else. We do it because we are very blessed to have oil and gas. We thank God for it. We didn't make it. It was there where our State was founded. But we are wise enough to try to recover it and use it for the great growth of the Nation. In addition, we sit on the greatest river system that drains the entire Nation, that produces fish, and we have levy systems, at some sacrifice to our environment. Who in America would say we don't need the Mississippi River? I don't know what we would do without it. I do not know what our farmers in the Midwest would do without the mighty Mississippi and its tributaries. The people in Louisiana have done more than their fair share. It is not just about Louisiana. It is about the principles that we need to get straight. This chart is an illustration of how much natural gas comes from offshore. This is the big trunk--Louisiana and Mississippi. This represents where our gas comes from that is firing our economy and meeting new environmental clean air standards. Why? Because natural gas is a clean way to produce energy. It helps keep our air clean. That is the benefit when you have a pro-production attitude. Just imagine if we had a pro-production attitude in other places in this Nation. Instead of one tree trunk, we could have 10 tree trunks. So in the event that some terrorists tried to shut down one of these tree trunks, we might have several others. Or in the event of some natural catastrophe, such as a major hurricane, or some other event that might shut down some of the infrastructure here, we could be self- reliant. But we are not self-reliant because we have one big trunk, and it comes right off the Mississippi and Louisiana coast. Nowhere else. It cannot come off anywhere here as shown on this portion of the chart because we have blocked everything else. We are just like sitting ducks. We have one tree trunk. If that tree trunk gets cut down, we are out of business. Let me show you another chart. This shows you the other fallacy. I am so tired of hearing people say: Senator, even if we opened up drilling everywhere, we could only get enough gas to last us for a year or 2 years or 3 years. Let me just say something: Hogwash. Hogwash. It is not true. I say to anybody who says it, please come to this Chamber and let's debate the numbers because I am going to show you what I just learned this week, after being here several years. I was looking at these charts, and then something very significant dawned on me. As seen on this chart of the United States, for those areas shown in the gold-orange color, we have said, either through law or through regulation, you cannot drill here. It was not always this way; we did not start the country this way--but in the last several years, a small group of people who think you can consume and not produce have convinced enough people of that mistruth, and successfully blocked production in these areas. Here are the areas shown on the chart. You cannot drill anywhere up the east coast and the eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico. You cannot drill in California or any place such as Washington or Oregon. But what these charts are not accurate about is this: Minerals Management Service, for instance, offers these estimates. MMS does a beautiful job. It isn't that they are trying to mislead, but I just learned how they calculate these numbers and they are not really accurate or show the right picture. They are calculating, if we open this area, we could maybe get 2.5 trillion cubic feet of gas. The United States needs 22 trillion cubic feet of gas a year. So that would only be such a small percentage, you could ask yourself: Is it worth it? I would ask myself that. Is it worth it to open it up if you could only get a few months' worth of gas? Maybe that answer would be wrong. I will show you the reason these charts are very misleading. On this chart, look at the Gulf of Mexico, where we have been drilling since about 1950. It is a very developed field. We know what is there because we have taken a lot out. Our industry is very knowledgeable about this area. Look what this chart says: Gas, 105.52, which means this is 105 trillion cubic feet of gas in just one part of the gulf. But right over this line, between Alabama and Florida, the estimate drops to 12.31 trillion cubic feet of gas. So I tell you again, that could not possibly be true because any geologist--and I am not a geologist--but any geologist can tell you that the formations do not stop at State boundaries. They do not stop at political boundaries. If these formations are true for the western part of the gulf, it has to be true for the eastern part. So when we say no drilling anywhere in the eastern part of the gulf because there might be only a little bit of gas--so why go there? It is not just a little bit of gas. It is the difference between imports and freedom. It is the difference between being hostage to enemy countries and freedom. It is a big difference. And it is a big decision. And we mislead our people when we say: Why drill? There is just not a lot of gas there. There is a lot of gas in the gulf. There is enough gas, just in my little place to keep the country going for 5 years--just in one part. Five years--just in my part. And we are willing to do it. But why should we try to keep it going for the next 20 years? Can't someone else contribute? For 5 years we could keep it going. And that is on one little part. And we have already taken half of our gas out. So I am just going to make a rough estimate that if Florida would open up--not close to the shore because I do not want to put oil rigs off the coast of Florida. I have spent my life growing up off the Florida coast. I am used to seeing oil rigs. I understand people do not like them. I think they are pretty nice. I have been on them. But I understand that. I am not talking about right off the coast. I am talking about 25 miles out. You cannot even see them. And with the directional drilling now, you could drill with a minimal footprint and provide this Nation with 10 years of freedom. You could tell Saudi Arabia, no. You could say: No, we are not sending our soldiers. But, no, we have people who think: Fine. Send the soldiers. I don't want to send my son. He is only 9. I hope I can keep him home. That is what this debate is about. I do not want him to go when he is 18. If I have to come to this Chamber every day until he is 18 to fight on this point, it is worth it--for him, for my family, for everybody's family. But I am not going to listen to ``because MMS says.'' I asked MMS this morning. I asked: How do you all come up with these numbers? They said: Senator, since we have done no exploration there, we really don't know. We just low-ball it. These are just bare minimum numbers. But I can use my brain and figure out what the truth is. Today I figured it out. There is a lot of gas. There is a lot of oil. There is enough in that little part in Alaska where Senator Murkowski and Senator Stevens want to drill. And it is not the last great place on Earth, which is something else I want to talk about. With all due respect to the environmental leaders who have done a good job in our country helping us to find a balance, we have, in this case, gone too far, in my opinion. It is not the last great place on Earth. This Earth has a lot of great places left. There are a lot of wonderful oceans and rivers and streams and things that are getting cleaner and brighter every day. It is not the last great place. But they would drive drilling off the most sophisticated Nation on Earth into places that are worth preserving in this world. But they are not going to exist anymore because the environmental movement itself is going to destroy them. Because there are no regulations in other countries--not up to our standards--there is no oversight, there are no democracies, there is no free press to tell you when you have gone too far. We have a free press in this country. And, believe me, that is a great thing because if the industry goes too far, the press will be right there, writing: You didn't abide by your permit. You went too far. You have polluted this stream, and you should not do it. Then we respond to it and we shut them down. That does not exist in places like Brazil or Honduras, and other places, to that great of an extent. So I challenge the environmental community: Could you think about somebody else besides us for a change? Could we think about the world? We are not thinking about the world. We are leading the country in the wrong direction. I challenge the leadership to tell the people the truth. Just tell them the truth. We are not telling them the truth. And, as a result, when they do not have the truth, they cannot then respond in a way that is right. It is our job to say the truth, and I am going to say it every day in hopes that we will get energy independent in this Nation. We can do it. And we can do it by producing more in the right ways, and by--as Senator Bingaman has been so good at--focusing on new freedom technologies, such as fuel cells and hydrogen and new reactors that Senator Domenici has been leading us on for the nuclear industry. And soon it will be wonderful to live in a country where we are energy independent. Then we can set our goals and our principles according to our values and according to the reason we fought and died in every war: The values for which this country stands. I hope I see that day. I am young enough that hopefully I will see it. I have a lot of years left to fight. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these numbers that show which States produce and which States do nothing but basically consume.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Then I am going to submit other things for the Record and lay down the amendment when the Senator from Alaska suggests we lay it down. I yield whatever time I have remaining.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for one moment? I would ask him if he could imagine if we put some kind of chart up like this where there were some States that said: We want to produce food. And then other States said: No, we are not going to produce any food. We want you to produce the food, and we don't want to produce the food. Not only do we not want to produce the food, but we want to have a moratorium on food production. Not only are we going to have a moratorium on food production in our State, we are going to tell you, the purple States, what kind of food you can grow and how you can grow it, and that is just the way it is going to be. I realize this might be stretching this analogy, but we have to break through to the American people in some way and explain that there are certain things we all need. We all have to be able to produce them. Food is one. Energy is one. Then some people will come down here and argue: Senator, this is not right, because some States produce food, some States produce energy, some States produce this, some States produce that, and that is what a union is all about. I have thought about that. But there will not be a moratorium on food. Nobody is saying don't grow food in my State. But, about energy, they are saying we don't want to produce energy in our State. We don't want the gas plants, don't want the oil; we don't want to produce it through nuclear or through coal. Some States are even going so far as to say: We don't want the electricity lines. They are not nice to look at. We don't want merchant powerplants. How in the heck do they think, when you walk into a building, these lights go on? There is some electricity line, or a powerplant, or there is some man or woman in a coalfield working for power production. We have done a great disservice to our country by not making this connection. It is very dangerous. I thank the Senator from Alaska.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thought I would take a moment to speak about an amendment that has already been accepted. I was very proud to offer this amendment along with Senator Domenici and Senator Craig yesterday. I thank the chairman for his leadership in this effort. Because the time was short yesterday and we really did not get to present the amendment, I thought I would say a few words about it while we have time pending a vote. This amendment by Senator Domenici, Senator Craig, and myself says will contribute to the strengthening of this bill. It says that as we develop our nuclear reactors in the future, they will be designed with new technologies that look very promising, not only to make our nuclear industry more powerful and more effective, but also to create the opportunity to produce hydrogen which can help us in meeting our energy needs. I will explain for the record why this is so important. As most Members know, nuclear energy now provides one-fifth of all the electric power used in this country. I do not think that is clear to everyone in the United States. Some people think we have shut our nuclear industry down or that we have shut our nuclear powerplants down. That is not true. The truth is, 20 percent of the power we use in this Nation is generated by nuclear energy. Nuclear power produces energy without compromising air quality and without dangerous reliance on fuel exports from politically unstable regions of the world. When we look a few years into the future, the projected demand for increased electric power is staggering. That is one of the reasons we are considering this legislation: because the demand for power and the demand for energy is far outpacing our ability to produce it. Because we have different views about production, we have conflicting views about conservation; that does not mean the demand, or the challenge, is going to go away. It means we have to work harder to find solutions, and this is one solution. According to the Energy Information Administration, by the year 2020 the U.S. will need, under current trends, 400,000 megawatts of additional electric power capacity. That is the equivalent of 400 new coal plants or gas-fired plants to be built in this country before the year 2020. I am in no way opposed to burning coal. We are doing it in a much cleaner and better way for our environment. I am obviously not opposed to domestic natural gas production or imported natural gas. That also meets our new environmental standards. We have to meet some of this demand, but for environmental and energy security reasons we cannot completely rely on these sources. Just to maintain the existing proportion of nonemitting nuclear power in our energy mix, we will have to construct 50 nuclear plants. So we have to build more nuclear powerplants, and our amendment helps to build them in the right ways. It is clear to this Senator that the environmental and energy security benefits of nuclear power are so compelling that not only must we ensure the continued operation of our existing plants, but we must also encourage the construction of new plants in this country to help meet this extraordinary demand. Let me be very clear, when push comes to shove, we have a very short list of energy options for the foreseeable future: oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydropower, conservation, and renewables such as solar and wind. All of these have substantial roles to play in our future energy mix, but none of these by themselves is enough to address the huge demand that is facing us. Again, that is one of the compelling reasons, if not the principal reason, that we are fighting to shape an energy bill that will meet this demand. Why? Because it is important our economy continue to grow so we can be not only the great military power we are, but the greatest economic power as well. Nuclear power is perhaps unique in this list in that there is a large potential for expansion in the relatively near term with little downside in terms of environmental damage or an increase in our reliance on foreign sources. Furthermore, as many Members are aware, there is an exciting next generation of nuclear reactors being developed which take a good product and make it even better. These reactors, which should be available by the end of this decade, are meltdown proof, substantially more efficient than the old generation, produce less high-level waste, and are more proliferation resistant than existing reactors. That, in this post-September 11 day and age, is a goal we need to be mindful of. We need to be mindful that this material in the wrong hands could cause a lot of trouble, a lot of destruction, and that is why this new design is exciting. Indeed, one of these designs, the gas turbine modular helium reactor, is even designed to be built underground and therefore better suited to the threats that now present themselves post-September 11. The Federal Government should work closely with the nuclear industry and with our utilities to see that these new reactors live up to the claims being made about them and that they are brought to market as soon as possible. Let me turn now to another aspect with which our amendment attempts to address. We have spent a great deal of time this morning speaking about the transportation sector, CAFE standards, and what can we do to make our transportation sector more efficient. All of those are very important issues. But one of the most interesting solutions that might be found as we develop a new generation of nuclear powerplants is the byproduct of these new plants--hydrogen. The administration recently announced some interesting facts regarding the development of a new generation of hydrogen-powered car. They call it the freedom car. But we should be mindful that we could call it the freedom truck, the freedom bus. This is not only about cars. Every Member probably realizes the importance of ultimately changing the coinage of the energy and transportation sector from oil to something else. Although we are an oil- and gas-producing State, and I am proud of the oil and gas that we produce, we know even in Louisiana that the future calls for a greater mix, and the new nuclear reactors could really be what we need in terms of freeing ourselves from imported oil. Our recent engagement in the Middle East and the festering instabilities there, make it very clear the sooner we wean ourselves from imported oil the better. Hydrogen, either through direct combustion or through fuel cells, seems to have all the hallmarks of an ideal, non-polluting fuel for transportation that might ultimately supplant imported oil. However, the President's announcement and much of the subsequent excitement seems to miss one very important question: Where are we going to get the hydrogen in the quantities necessary to fuel the cars or trucks or buses on our Nation's highways in the future? Please remember that hydrogen is not an energy source. Hydrogen is an energy carrier. It must be produced by either splitting water or reforming fossil fuels. Right now, industrial scale quantities of hydrogen are produced from natural gas or other fossil fuels, but it does not make sense from an environmental or energy security point of view to produce hydrogen from fossil fuels. What progress would we be making if we go down that road? So what is the alternative? Fortunately, nuclear power is offering to us an alternative, a very promising way to produce large amounts of hydrogen required to move towards a hydrogen economy in the relatively near term. The more promising way to produce hydrogen is to utilize the next generation of nuclear reactors that operate at much higher temperatures. The higher temperatures of these reactors make possible a process called thermochemical water splitting. The process has received only minor research dollars in this country but has received substantial research dollars in funding from other parts of the world, including Japan. Thermochemical water splitting is very promising as it is environmentally benign and has a very high rate of efficiency. Indeed, it is up to 50 percent more efficient in converting the heat of a reactor into hydrogen energy. The amendment we have offered and that has been accepted recognizes the importance of developing a next generation of reactors that is safer, more economical, more proliferation resistant, and creates less waste. It also recognizes the importance of developing hydrogen production capabilities with the next generation of nuclear reactors. The promise of a hydrogen-based transportation sector is indeed very exciting. As the chairman has pointed out on numerous occasions, it is the transportation sector demand that is driving our dangerous and unwise, in my opinion, reliance on foreign oil imports. We must begin to free ourselves from that relationship, and this amendment, with the underlying technology, gives us a real opportunity, not in 50 years, not in 20 years, but within the next few years, in this decade, to begin exploring new technologies that keep our environment clean, that give us the freedom we deserve and we expect, and also is well within our economic means of achieving. It is very exciting, but unless we plant the seeds of a realistic means of producing the large scale amounts of hydrogen required, this dream will never be realized. Based on the acceptance of this amendment, I think the Senate has decided that the next generation of nuclear powerplants we are going to have to build in this Nation anyway could provide that answer. It has been a great pleasure working on this amendment with my colleagues and being part of this energy debate. I yield back the remainder of my time.