Lisa Murkowski: “I thank my good friend from Iowa for reminding Members we are talking about considerable expense to the taxpayer…”

“I thank my good friend from Iowa for reminding Members we are talking about considerable expense to the taxpayer, providing a domestic source of energy that would ordinarily come from the technological advancements of looking for oil either offshore or on land. We already had a debate on ANWR; I will not go back into that. However, I call my colleagues' attention to a couple of realities. I am sympathetic to the concerns raised by the Senators from California and New York. I don't like mandates of any kind. I find it ironic that the same Senators who voted for a renewable portfolio standard argue against a renewable fuel standard. This forces some $88 billion in higher costs to consumers and forces consumers in California and New York to pay 3 cents per kilowatt for electricity they are not going to use. Again, I ask why they voted for the renewable portfolio standards. No new energy supply was created, no national security benefit. So although we do not like mandates, the renewable portfolio standards have increased our energy supply. As the Senator from Iowa said, it certainly enhances our national security. If we are not going to have the courage to develop our domestic oil and gas reserves in an environmentally sound manner, the only option we have to extend our supply is to reduce dependence on imported oil in provisions such as ethanol. Again, mandates I find unacceptable, but they are a part of the price.”