[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 99 (Tuesday, July 17, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7789-S7796]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--Continued
Mr. REID. Madam President, it is my understanding that we are now
back on the energy and water appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, be recognized to speak on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to praise the managers of
the energy and water appropriations bill for their commitment to
renewable energy. I particularly want to thank Senator Reid for his
leadership in bringing additional funding to advance the cause of clean
energy in this Nation.
Growing problems associated with fossil fuel energy use, including
fine particulates and global warming, make it critically important that
renewable energy play a much larger part in future energy needs.
Each year, the important role renewable energy should play in meeting
our future energy needs becomes more apparent. This year 61 Senators
joined Senator Bingaman and myself in requesting an increase for
renewable energy in this year's budget. I am happy to say that this is
seven more Senators than we had last year.
I am also happy to say that Chairman Reid and Ranking Member Domenici
provided almost $60 million more than last year for renewable energy
and $160 million more than was requested by the administration. They
recognize the importance of renewable energy and once again
demonstrated their strong Senate leadership on this issue.
For many years, I have come to this Chamber to offer an amendment on
renewable energy. This year is the second year in a row that I come to
ask Members to praise--not raise--the renewable energy budget. This is
a practice to which I could easily become accustomed to.
There is perhaps no better time to push these technologies forward.
Our Nation is focused on energy issues unlike it was in the last
decade. We are at crossroads where we can begin to see the end of the
path toward a clean, sustainable energy future. Renewable energy is the
most important landmark on that path.
Today, renewables are beginning to take hold. Our faith in these
clean energy sources has not been without merit. Wind power, for
example, is the fastest growing form of energy in the world. In the
United States, my home
[[Page S7790]]
State of Vermont is a leader in the use of wind power. My wind energy
bill with representatives Blanchard and Mineta started this program in
the late 1970's. Worldwide almost 4,000 megawatts of new wind energy
capacity were added in the year 2000. This year will likely see a
similar, if not larger increase.
Although much of that capacity was added outside the United States,
many of the high-tech jobs needed to make that possible came from
inside the United States. And as the use of wind energy goes up, the
costs will only come down. The best news of all is that our own wind
resources remain largely untapped.
Other forms of renewable energy--such as solar, biomass and
geothermal--have the same kinds of benefits:
These technologies provided high-tech jobs for U.S. workers.
They help reduce acid rain and other forms of air pollution,
including greenhouse gas emissions.
They are not subject to the kinds of supply changes that lead to
large fluctuations in the price of fossil fuels and they help us reduce
our dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels.
This is good for the health of citizens and for the health of our
economy.
I thank Senators Reid and Domenici, once again, for their leadership
on this issue. I will continue to assist in whatever way I can to
ensure that the strong statement made by the Senate today will be
included in the final energy and water appropriations bill.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I say to my friend from Vermont, there are
a lot of reasons that we increased the funding for renewables, but
there is no reason more than the diligence the Senator from Vermont has
shown over the past several years on this issue. As a result of his
tenacity, every year we have had to increase the funding in this bill.
Senator Domenici and I thought: We are not going to do this anymore.
The Senator should know his handprints are all over this part of the
bill dealing with renewables. But for his efforts, it would not be
here.
I am a real believer in renewables. Any long-term energy policy we
are going to have in this country will not be successful unless a large
segment of it deals with renewables. I express my appreciation to the
Senator.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I thank the Senator for those kind
comments, and I assure him I will continue to work to improve our
situation in this regard.
I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 987, As Modified
Mr. REID. Madam President, there is a matter pending. The Senator
from Michigan has a modification to her amendment to have the amendment
accepted.
On behalf of Senator Domenici and myself, I send a modification to
the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 2, line 18, before the period, insert the
following: ``, of which such sums as are necessary shall be
used by the Secretary of the Army to conduct and submit to
Congress a study that examines the known and potential
environmental effects of oil and gas drilling activity in the
Great Lakes (including effects on the shorelines and water of
the Great Lakes): Provided, That during the fiscal years 2002
and 2003, no Federal or State permit or lease shall be issued
for oil and gas slant, directional, or offshore drilling in
or under 1 or more of the Great Lakes (including in or under
any river flowing into or out of the lake)''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I inquire of the Senator from Nevada,
is this the amendment we worked out when we put in a quorum call?
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from New Mexico, that is right. Our
staffs have done just exactly what we asked them to do.
Mr. DOMENICI. Not only do we not have any objection, but we think it
is a good compromise and ought to be accepted. We will do our best in
conference to retain it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I thank my colleagues and leader who
are working so hard. I very much appreciate both Senator Reid and
Senator Domenici working with us to fashion a 2-year ban on any
drilling of oil and gas in the Great Lakes, coupled with a study that
would be commenced by the Army Corps of Engineers as to the
environmental impacts of any future drilling.
I am very appreciative of the leadership on both sides of the aisle
from our colleagues and their willingness to work with me to make sure
the Senate language is adopted by the Congress in the conference
committee.
I also thank staff who have worked very hard on this amendment--
Sander Lurie, Noushin Jahanian, and my chief of staff, Jean Marie
Neal--for all their hard work.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, it is my understanding Senator Reid
was on the floor with reference to the amendment regarding the Great
Lakes. It was his and my understanding we had agreed to that amendment.
I think we stopped short of the magic words ``agreeing'' to it.
I indicate there is no further debate on the amendment, and we yield
back all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
987, as modified.
The amendment (No. 987), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment
was agreed to and I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, we have the bill before the Senate and
have recently accepted an amendment, and we have had a number of
statements on the bill. Senator Domenici and I hope to move forward
with amendments. I have spoken to the Senator from Idaho who has an
amendment to offer, although he will not offer it this evening. We are
waiting for him to offer that amendment.
Senator Domenici and I will be patient for the next little bit, but
tomorrow afternoon if we do not have people offering amendments, we
will move to third reading. It is not fair to everyone else. I say to
my friends in the minority, they have been very anxious to move forward
on nominations. We have the President's choice to lead his consumer
safety board and we have agreed to go forward on that. It has been
reported out of the committee. We have a time set for debating that
nomination. That cannot take place until we finish this bill.
In addition to that, Senator Daschle wants to work on the
Transportation appropriations bill. We have a number of things we need
to do this week. We are not accomplishing them now. Part of it is not
the fault of the minority or the majority who have interests in this
bill. Part of the problem is having been interrupted by the bankruptcy
legislation which takes our eye off the mark. We are back on it now and
there is nothing to take us off this until we complete the bill.
We have submitted an unanimous consent agreement not on a filing
deadline for amendments but, rather, a finite list of amendments. That
is now being circulated. We hope that can be approved.
As chairman of this subcommittee and also the Transportation
Subcommittee under the Environment and Public Works Committee, I spend
a lot of my time thinking about and worrying about the State of our
Nation's physical infrastructure. The American Society of Civil
Engineers' 2001 report card for America's infrastructure gives the
Nation's infrastructure a cumulative grade of D+. That is pretty low.
The two prime reasons for the rating include explosive population
growth, lack of current investment, and growing obsolescence of an
aging system, identified as problems in California and in the Nation's
decaying water structure. We have created some of the problems in
Washington by setting, for example, water quality standards that
[[Page S7791]]
rural America simply does not have the money to meet. With these
problems, our infrastructure is in a deep state of distress.
In Nevada, we are witnessing these problems on a daily basis. We have
the most urban State in America. It is surprising to people when they
learn Nevada is more urban than California, Illinois, Michigan, New
York, and Florida. The reasons for that is 90 percent of the people
live in the metropolitan areas of Las Vegas and Reno. Only 10 percent
of the people live outside those metropolitan areas. However, in that
10 percent, it is very rural and it is an example of what we have in
rural America.
The growth in the Las Vegas area has been phenomenal. We are having
to build schools, roads, water systems, and all other basic
infrastructure for modern life for the exploding population. We are
having trouble keeping up. We have to build one school each month to
keep up with the growth of school districts. We were the sixth largest
school district a few months ago; we are now the fifth largest school
district. There were 240,000 students in that school district, one new
school each month. We hold the record in America for dedicating 18 new
schools in one year.
The superintendent of education in Clark County where Las Vegas is
located it not a superintendent of education; that person is a
superintendent of construction. He spends a great deal of his time
simply dealing with construction
At the same time, smaller communities throughout rural Nevada do not
have clean drinking water due to natural contaminants in the ground
water. The costs for moving the contaminants is several times the
annual budgets of most small communities. Flooding problems throughout
Nevada continue to devastate lives and property. As I said yesterday,
people wonder, how can you have flooding problems in Nevada?
The Senator from Washington, the Presiding Officer, knows the whole
State of Washington is not like Seattle, but as you move east in the
State of Washington it becomes much the same as some parts of Nevada. I
don't know if it could be called desert, but it sure doesn't rain very
much so the Presiding Officer understands what I am talking about when
I talk about the fact that these rural, arid areas can suffer from real
flood problems. It happens. When the rains come the waters come, and
they cause all kinds of degradation to property and sometimes lives are
lost.
Environmental projects are sorely needed when we restore the natural
areas of our environment, not only in Nevada but all over the country.
Our Nation's medium and large cities have similar problems as well.
Hartford, Atlanta, Chicago, and Richmond have antiquated storm systems
that allow sewage and storm water runoff to be collected by the same
system and sent to a treatment plant. During heavy rains, these systems
are overwhelmed and raw sewage is dumped into our Nation's waterways.
Many of our citizens still live with the threat of flooding.
Environmental restorations of degraded ecosystems are needed throughout
our country. The infrastructure that makes up our inland and coastal
waterways is really aging. The Corps of Engineers operates 276
navigation locks at 230 sites around the country. One hundred fifty of
these locks are more than 50 years old. Nearly 100 of the remaining
locks are nearly 25 years old. Most of these structures continue to
perform as designed, but evidence of the need for reconstruction and
modernization is becoming, very evident. Some facilities have reached
their capacity and have reached the end of their design lives.
The Army Corps has been serving our Nation's infrastructure needs for
more than 200 years, primarily in the areas of navigation and flood
control. While some may quibble with individual projects that Congress
instructs the Corps to undertake, no one can question the value that
the Corps has historically played and continues to play in our Nation's
development. However, we are slowly but surely strangling the Corps and
our Nation's infrastructure to death with our fiscal inattention.
Financial shortfalls year in and year out in the water accounts of
the Army Corps have now resulted in the backlog of $40 billion in
authorized projects. They are awaiting the first dollar of funding; $40
billion of authorized projects have yet to receive their first dollar
of funding.
This shortfall just takes into account the Corps' historic missions
of navigation and flood control and does not take into account some of
the new directions Congress has pushed the Corps in recent years. It is
wrong to give short shrift to important components of our Nation's
infrastructure. Flood control projects protect human lives and
property. Navigation projects ensure that our Nation's economic engine
continues to hum.
We have received some criticism in this bill that we spent too much
money on dredging, having water areas made clear so dredges can come up
and down. There are examples given that a lot of these projects that we
have, there is not much commerce moving. But think what it would do if
we did not have this barge traffic. It would only add to the trains
that are already overwhelmed. It would only add to the number of
trucks, and in my opinion there are too many of them on the roads
anyway. So we have to understand that these projects are important.
In the western United States, the Bureau of Reclamation is facing
similar issues as the Army Corps, an aging inventory of projects and a
shrinking budget. Many do not realize Reclamation has been around for
almost 100 years. Next year will be the 100th anniversary of the first
ever Bureau of Reclamation project. It took place in Nevada. It was the
Newlands Project named after the Nevada Congressman and it was to
supposedly make the desert blossom like a rose.
A few problems developed as it was blossoming. It dried up one river.
Lake Winnemucca is as dry as this table. Pyramid Lake is beautiful.
There are only 21 lakes like it in the world, desert terminus lakes. We
have two of them in Nevada. It almost dried up, but it is now on the
road to recovery because of actions taken by this Congress to reverse
some of the bad parts of the Newlands Act. But the Army Corps does the
best it can, as has been said, with the tools it has.
The Newlands Project has done good for Nevada but also bad. We have
to keep changing these projects. I cannot imagine what this part of
Nevada would look like today without what has happened with water, but
I can imagine what it used to look like with water going into these two
lakes, one of which is now dried up.
Still, we continue to underinvest in both of these agencies. The need
for water for municipal and industrial uses is not declining. The need
for flood control is not declining. The need for a modern navigation
system to transport products to market is not declining. Yet the
budgets of these two agencies seems to continue to dwindle.
For example, I talked about the Newlands Project. One hundred years
ago, people were enticed to come there. We said: This is going to be
great for you and generations to come. People did come there. They have
been farming for generations. Now the Federal Government has
interfered, causing a disruption in their lives. It is not the fault of
the farmers, but certainly the people who put in these reclamation
projects did not understand what the full brunt of these programs would
be.
So I repeat, we need to go back. We need to go back and review and
change some of these projects. We have not had the money in the past to
do that. We still don't. As I have indicated, we continue to
underinvest in both of these agencies.
The need for water for municipal and industrial uses is not
declining. The need for flood control is not declining. The need for a
modern navigation system to transfer products to market is not
declining. Yet the budgets of these two agencies continue to dwindle.
Public investment including authorization for water infrastructure in
1960 amounted to 3.9 percent of the gross domestic product. Today that
figure is down to 2.6 percent, approximately. That may not sound like
much of a change, but let's look at the Corps during that period.
In the mid-1960s, the country was investing $4.5 billion annually in
new water infrastructure. Today, it is less than $1.5 billion. That is
a significant change. From 1960 to now, we have gone from $4.5 billion
to $1.5 billion. Our water resource needs are no less
[[Page S7792]]
today than they were 40 years ago; They are more. Yet we are investing
one-third as much.
One major impact of that reduction is the increasingly drawn out
construction schedules forced by underfunding these projects. These
artificially lengthened schedules cause a loss of some $5 billion in
annual benefits and increase the cost of these products by some $500
million.
When many of these reclamation projects came into being, the main,
the only intent was for agricultural purposes. Over the years, it has
been found that some areas are very interested in these reclamation
projects because of the recreation aspects of them. People like to
water ski. They like to fish. They like to boat. They like to have
picnics on the beach. Now they are competing with these farming
projects. We need to go back and take a look at them.
These artificially lengthened schedules cause the loss, as I have
indicated, of some $5 billion in benefits, either agricultural or
recreational, and increase the cost of these projects by some $500
million--and that is each year. Failure to invest in maintenance, major
rehabilitation, research and development, and new infrastructure
resulted in the gradual reduction in the value of our capital water
resources stock and, in turn, the benefits we receive.
The value of the Corps' capital stock peaked in 1981 with a
replacement value of $150 billion. Today its estimated value has
decreased to $124 billion. We need to reverse this trend. Public
infrastructure is too important to our lives.
Federal waterway projects, including ports and inland waterways,
handle more than 2.2 billion tons of our Nation's cargo, valued at more
than $660 billion. As I said before, we could try to put that on
trains, on trucks, on airplanes--2.2 billion tons of our Nation's
cargo. I do not think that would be a good idea.
These waterways generate more than 13 million jobs, and Federal taxes
collected at ports generate more than $150 billion a year. Federal
flood control projects prevent more than $2 billion per year in
damages, and my being from Nevada, I can vouch for that. Even though
Las Vegas gets 4 inches of rain a year, the flood control projects
probably save hundreds of millions of dollars more than that in
property damage, loss of production, and certainly in lives.
Federal flood control projects prevent more than $2 billion per year
in damages. Recreation provided by Federal water projects provide more
than 500,00 jobs and provide recreational opportunities to more than 10
percent of the U.S. population. Water stored at Federal projects
provides more than 250 million acre-feet of water for municipal, rural,
and industrial users.
How much water is that? Las Vegas with 1.6 million people uses just a
little more water than that. Two-hundred and fifty million acre-feet of
water is stored at Federal projects. That is important.
Finally, Federal water projects provide nearly 30 percent of our
Nation's hydropower or about 4 percent of our total electric capacity.
In the west, Federal hydropower project provide an even higher
percentage of the total electric capacity--as we have recently learned
with the California energy crisis.
Public water infrastructure is the only Federal program that is
required to be analyzed on a strict benefit to cost basis. The water
infrastructure provided by the Army corps alone provides an annual rate
of return of approximately 26 percent. The steam of benefits are
realized as flood damages prevented, reduced transportation costs,
electricity, recreation, and water supply services.
Society's values are increasingly emphasizing sustainability and
ecological considerations in water infrastructure management and
development. Like most people, I support these considerations.
The Army corps and reclamation expend nearly a quarter of their
annual budgets on environmental projects. These ranges from major
restoration projects such as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration,
to smaller projects, such as oyster recovery efforts in the Chesapeake
Bay. Both agencies will continue to meet the nation's challenges in
this arena.
As you can see, I am one who firmly believes that investments in our
nation's infrastructure more than pay for themselves through improved
productivity and efficiency. To ignore these needs in the short term is
going to cause us problems over the long haul.
All of this is to say that we, as a body, need to think about the
state of our nation's infrastructure comprehensively and soon.
Our physical infrastructure sustains our way of life, so we must
sustain it.
We are here today to discuss energy and water matters, but, in the
next few weeks, I hope to come back to the floor to discuss our
nation's transportation infrastructure, another area of concern.
Before I close, I want to say some words of praise for the Federal
employees and contractors that populate the departments, agencies, and
other organizations that are funded under this bill.
Members of Congress are frequently critical of Federal agencies and
departments, particularly ones where we have an oversight role. As I
mentioned earlier, I have been a frequent critic of the Department of
Energy.
But I have said that I think things are greatly improving as a result
of some work done by Senator Domenici and some of his colleagues.
None of that is to suggest that I, or any other Member, am anything
other than proud of the hard work and accomplishments of our Federal
workforce, including, contractors, lab employees, and others that make
these important organizations run.
I invite everyone who has the opportunity--as I have had--to go to
the Federal Laboratories and some of our test sites where they have
done things relating to the cold war--places where Federal employees
are in love with their jobs. They spend long hours with little
recognition. Many of these agencies, such as the Corps of Engineers,
the Bureau of Reclamation, and Department of Energy, that we fund in
this bill I think do a wonderful job. I have very few criticisms of the
employees. There is a tiny fraction--as in any organization--that tries
to cause trouble to the whole organization, but as far as I am
concerned, they haven't succeeded.
I throw a bouquet to those entities funded within this bill, and I am
very proud of working with them. We expect a lot of these
organizations. With very few exceptions, they live up to all of my
expectations and the demands we impose on them. I think they serve our
Nation with distinction. I think I speak for Senator Domenici when I
say we appreciate all the work they do.
My friend from New Mexico has been very patient with me. We are
waiting for somebody to come and offer the next amendment. The floor is
open. This is a good time to do it. After 5 o'clock, we are happy to
work, if the leader wants to work awhile tonight. But because I think
we are not coming in until 10:30 tomorrow because we have a special
order in the morning dealing with our dear friend, Paul Coverdell, we
are not going to be able to start on this bill until 10:30 in the
morning. I hope we can get some work done tonight.
I repeat that we are not going to be able to go to the nomination
until we complete this bill. There are, I believe, 7 hours on it. All
that time probably won't be used. But then we have the Transportation
appropriations bill on which we need to also work this week. I hope
Members will come and help work through this bill. If there are
problems, tell us. We have had a number of Members come to us during
the vote--some Democrat--and we have been able to recognize what the
problems are, and we have been able in most instances to satisfy the
problems.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
Let me say to the Republican Senators that it is important you begin
to tell us what amendments you have. Obviously, we haven't been on this
bill very long. For anybody who thinks we are wasting time, when you
consider all the time we took off this bill to do other things, we have
been on it only a few hours. This is a serious bill with a lot of
serious issues.
Once again, we are hopeful that Senators will be able to come up with
amendments. If in fact we can't complete that list this evening, we
will do
[[Page S7793]]
our best, and we will inform the distinguished chairman of our best
efforts. For now, I once again ask if you have amendments, let us know
through the Cloakroom. We can start listening. I think we only have a
few at this point. We have specifically requested amendments on our
side.
I do not know about our distinguished friend, the chairman of the
subcommittee. Have you begun to accumulate a list? Is it small like our
list?
Mr. REID. Yes. We are getting our Senators to tell us what amendments
they want to offer. That is also being done on the other side.
Hopefully, within a short time we will have at least a finite list, and
hopefully we will be able to work through that. Of course, our very
able staff will work through them also. I hope we can have that done
pretty soon.
Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you.
Mr. President, let me proceed with some discussion while we wait for
the activities and desires of our Senators, both Democrat and
Republican.
First, I want to make a comment about the President's energy policy.
Then I would like very much to talk about the future in terms of the
economies of the world, prosperity and growth, and how it is related to
energy, and how I see that future compared with others.
First, let me talk about the President's energy policy. It is
contained in notebook form. For anyone who wants to read it from cover
to cover, it is a cover-to-cover approach. It covers almost every
issue. They have assessed almost every kind of energy and conservation
issue that I believe has been in or around Washington, or anywhere in
this Nation. They have begun to list what our energy needs of the
future are and to come up with them in a rather basic way to let people
challenge what we need in the future. That is all well and good.
But essentially, I would like to make a point that has not been made
very often. If you look at the whole policy on energy that the
President submitted to us--which was worked on for weeks on end by the
Vice President and a distinguished staff, some of whom used to serve us
here in the Senate--let's talk just a bit about how much new energy we
are going to need out to 2020. They worked on it with economic experts,
with projectors of growth, and with those who could estimate the
electricity needs of our country for certain episodes during the next
20 years.
The conclusion was that the current ratio between energy demand and
the gross domestic product might remain constant. Now gross domestic
product is what we all reference to measure how much growth we have and
how much we grow is measured as an addition to gross domestic product.
When it is growing over a sustained period of time at a powerful rate,
in America we equate that with prosperity, with jobs, with more
opportunity, and higher pay for those who are not earning so. I don't
think they have estimated the gross domestic product increase for the
next 20 years at any exceptional rate, but rather sustained--something
like blue chip experts estimate.
In doing that, we concluded we would need 77 percent more energy in
2020 than we are producing today.
If we drew a pie chart of a certain size which showed how much we are
using today and then drew one around the outside, you would add 77
percent. Or you could take 2020 and draw one big pie. Then you would
show a piece of it that is current needs and another piece that is
future. In any event, the piece that is future needs would be 77
percent more than we are using today.
Most interesting, this national energy policy recommends conservation
and efficiency measures that would reduce that increase by over half,
resulting in us only needing to produce 29 percent in real energy
additions.
The rest of it would be made up by enhancing and increasing our
conservation and our efficiency. And there are numerous examples there
on how you would increase efficiency, which equals a lot of research on
products that will use less, on conservation. All kinds of things that
we have already learned to do and are doing well, we would do more and
do better.
Frankly, the President and some of the President's spokesmen may have
started off talking about supply. We might have gotten a little bit
excited about it. Some people in the country asked: What about
conservation?
Well, I am just recalling, when it is all finally done, this is what
it is: 77 percent new energy need; only 29 percent of it with new
powerplants. They may use natural gas, which seems to be almost the
singular source of every new powerplant in the country, and that can't
continue forever. We will have to do some others. There's not been many
new coal-burning powerplants, even though we are applying clean coal
technology and, yes, not a new nuclear plant for two decades or so. But
everything is moving in the direction of ``let's do it better.'' Let's
do it more efficiently; let's do it cleaner. And let's permit America
to grow.
That is for starters. I am not changing any of that when I speak of
this bill being a very good start in implementing an energy policy that
moves us in the direction of diversity of energy, not just one kind;
diversity so there is competition; diversity so that, in fact, you can
address some overarching issues such as ambient air pollution that
produces global warming.
We ought to be able to address some of those issues in our future
thinking, because they are caused by certain types of energy being used
to produce our energy supply, by kinds that produce the carbon dioxide
and other things that go into the atmosphere and cause pollution. What
if we can produce energy that causes little or none of those gases or
much less of those. You can understand that clearly we don't have to be
worried about global warming to the extent that we reduce the very
essence of global warming pollutants in the basic supply of energy for
electricity in our country.
Obviously, we are not talking as much about automobiles and their
pollution here, but clearly, it is a very powerful thing to just look
at the electricity needs and see if we can do that in a way that truly
helps us with reference to global warming instead of hurting us.
There are a lot of people around that say there is a Kyoto agreement
and we should follow it, even though the Senate voted about 2\1/2\ to 3
years ago, 95-0, that the Senate would not ratify the Kyoto agreement
if they sent it to us. It seems to me every time we get in this debate
in this country and the President is talked to about Kyoto, or for
those who argue with him overseas, nobody even brings up the subject:
``What about the Senate which voted 95-0 that we did not want to
enforce that kind of program because it would put too much pressure on
our future in terms of prosperity and, yes, indeed, may put a lot of
pressure on countries that truly need to build new electric
generating capacity so they can prosper.''
What I am suggesting is, this bill moves in the direction of what we
might very well call ``beyond Kyoto'' or what we may call ``prosperity
beyond Kyoto.''
I will go through some of the very exciting things that are done in
this bill that permit us to move in the direction of having a mindset
beyond the Kyoto agreement, having a mindset for great prosperity for
the underdeveloped countries and the developed countries in terms of
being able to use energy for growth and prosperity without concern
about global warming.
This is a pretty big vision, a pretty big idea, but frankly, I
believe America should do it. I believe our President should take the
lead.
I will go through a few things we are doing here and then fit them
into a wrap-up as to how that could be America's vision beyond Kyoto.
First, the renewable energy programs in this country have made great
strides in terms of innovation, proving concepts, but today it is still
a very small portion of the energy production in our country. We ought
to do what we did in this bill--increase our focus on renewables, ask
that more be done in that area, and that it be part of a great
inventory of potential products for this ``beyond Kyoto'' idea.
In this bill we made a good start. We funded renewable programs to
the tune of $435 million. This is not legislation saying we shall have
solar and who will do what. It just says we have these programs going,
the Department of Energy shall manage $435 million during this year for
the various renewable programs we have. That is 16 percent higher than
current levels. There is no
[[Page S7794]]
question that if we keep the pressure on and have a broader vision,
this would be part of what we can do better. We can impose on that kind
of technology to do more.
Then there are hydrogen-based technologies. Some think the world
ought to be on a hydrogen diet for energy in the not too distant
future, and some think it could be the basis for future growth
projections. I am not quite there yet, but clearly it belongs in the
equation. We have added about 30 percent to the research in that area.
This might end up decreasing our use of petroleum products in
transportation, even though our basic agenda here is not with reference
to the automobile and the internal combustion engine and the like. That
research is largely being moved ahead in another appropriations bill.
High temperature superconductivity is important because it causes us
to waste a lot less electricity as you run the electricity down the
lines. Superconductivity would make it such that you would lose very
little, if any, a very dramatic step forward. We have increased that
about 20 percent, hoping that our great scientists can move into
superconductivity and capture some of the waste that now goes into
transmitting electricity--an exciting kind of idea.
Geothermal: We know there is a lot of it out there. We have added
some research money, although we have been doing this for many years;
that is, spending money on this system. We think we should try harder
and do more.
Wind systems: They are already in existence. Now I am not one who
thinks that wind energy can be as big a component of the future as
others, just because I have observed what we currently do and I can't
visualize doing 10 times as much or 50 times as much. But in any event,
we said let's proceed with a little more dispatch.
And then on the side that we would call nuclear: The problem is that
when you say nuclear power, people think of driving by a nuclear
powerplant. Incidentally, you don't see any smoke come out of the
chimneys because there is none. You don't see any pollution because
there is none.
The spent fuel rods are inside that machine, and to the extent they
are not careful with those, that creates some source of problem for
human beings. But these are gigantic nuclear powerplants. They are
almost all of one type. It is amazing how the American people, over the
last 15 years, have grown more accustomed to driving by them and living
with them, such that today in America there is a willingness to take
another look at nuclear.
I know as soon as we take another look there will be those who would
like to blindfold us right now and say: ``Stop that. It is terrible,
bad for everything.''
Let me tell you, it is not bad for global warming; I will guarantee
you that. If any group of environmentalists are really committed to
solving the problem of global warming, let them at least listen to a
proposal that would bring the world into contact with a new generation
of nuclear powerplants. We might be able to set a goal for 10 or 15
years from now when we would be diminishing the pollution that would be
commensurate with that growth, as far as global warming is concerned.
Why should that be dismissed when it is that profound and gigantic a
potential? Why would we dismiss clean coal, moving it to the furthest
level of cleanliness, even if it costs a lot of money to do the
research? Why would we say that would not work? What are we supposed to
live on?
Right now, people would say: Your State will continue to flourish,
Senator Domenici. Natural gases will do it. New Mexico is the fourth
largest producer, and it is going up and away. Every new powerplant we
have heard of, including the three in New Mexico--that won't be for our
people but for somebody else--will be built with natural gas, as far as
we know. We didn't have any for many years. The price is causing people
to invest in natural gas. For the long term, you need natural gas, but
you also need some other things.
What does this bill do about nuclear? Well, first, there are some
very significant increases and some very interesting approaches to
keeping this option alive. For the 21 percent that we already get from
nuclear power today, we need to make sure we don't close those plants
down prematurely but continue them for their entire useful life and do
what we can to make sure that transition is smooth, functional, and
safe.
Now, let me go through some of the things we are doing to create this
option. This bill pushes nuclear power forward with the following
initiatives: $19 million for university research reactor support--that
is a $7 million increase--to make sure our country has the educational
resources necessary for an economy that continues to rely substantially
on nuclear power--the old ones plus new ones. After all, we came up
with this technology. Some of our great companies built these
powerplants. They are all over the world, although we didn't build all
of them in foreign countries
Seventy-eight percent of France's electricity comes from nuclear
power. If you tell people that, they say they don't believe it, or so
what? Well, they have a lot less problems with greenhouse gases than we
do--sufficiently less that Mr. Chirac can lecture our President about
it. That is pretty interesting. If we had 68 or 70 percent of our
electricity from nuclear plants, we might be lecturing him. But we
don't; we have 21 percent. Germany has around 35 percent, and Japan is
building new ones--in fact, as we speak, they are building new ones.
The United States is sitting on this problem of not having enough
energy so we can maintain our prosperity in the future. We say our
universities used to be the pride of the world in terms of creating
nuclear physicists and design engineers who worked in this field. All
of the universities, except a few, have dramatically reduced these
programs and are very excited about building some of this back into
their programs through intramural-type grant programs, where they can
do research and learn these particular scientific professions.
There is a $4 million increase in a program to improve the
reliability of our 103 existing nuclear powerplants. Let me suggest
another thing that is little known. While we had some brownouts in
California and some shortages elsewhere, they were minimized because
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the nuclear powerplant industry
in America had been working so well together, and the licensing process
and the regulatory processed worked so well during the last decades,
that more energy was produced by the nuclear powerplants by upping
their capacity in total safety, such that, on average, they increased
by the equivalent of 22 new powerplants. Nobody knows that, but that
happened.
So while we are looking around for new sources, these licensed
facilities, getting up in years, ratcheted up a bit and produced the
energy equivalent of 22 new nuclear powerplants on top of the 100-plus
we have in the United States.
This bill continues with an increase of $7 million for a total of $14
million, in an area which is very exciting. I hope it will be used
prudently. In fact, I hope it will be used to join with partners in the
world to produce something really important. This is for the next
generation of nuclear reactors. Some people call it generation IV
reactors. There are a couple of them in the design stage today, and
some people have read about them. They are very exciting new
technology.
They are going to produce nuclear reactors that are passively safe.
That means that their makeup, in terms of the physics, is such that
they can't melt down. They will not have a meltdown possibility in the
generation IV reactors that will be produced. In addition, they will
have much less left over, much less unused, enriched uranium, so there
is much less risk. This reduces greatly the proliferation concerns,
with reference to the byproduct from the reactors.
This bill also addresses the Nuclear Regulatory Commission--which,
incidentally, has been doing an outstanding job. The chairman now is a
Democrat appointee. We urged the President to keep him on. He has been
so exciting and powerful and such a force in terms of leading that
Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the right direction toward the safety
and well-being of our people, and maintaining the essence of our
nuclear industry. We
[[Page S7795]]
hope he is going to remain as the chairman. Now, I don't think I was
saying anything out of school there. I think the chairman knows what is
thought of him. I think I may have indicated that he is going to stay
on and he wants to stay on.
Remember, just a few years ago we didn't have any money in these
programs that I am talking about. We decided it was best to have an
Energy Department for this great United States. But back then, when you
walked in the door, what we wanted was no nuclear energy and nothing
nuclear in the Department of Energy for the greatest nation on Earth.
That is the end to which we had gone in terms of our anti-nuclear-power
sentiments. I am not exaggerating; that is a truism.
I was fortunate to be chairman of the subcommittee for 6 years. My
good friend was ranking member part of the time--Senator Reid. We
started to build a little bit of nuclear energy capacity back up, so
that now they are no longer ashamed. Obviously, they have divisions and
departments that are doing nuclear work, so they can't hide anymore. I
think they are very forward-thinking about it.
But just remember, with generation IV we are not talking about the
kind of reactors we have now, although they are pretty safe and people
now are excited about how clean they are.
The only thing people who oppose nuclear power are saying is: What
about the waste that comes out of them? We are doing well when we can
produce energy that will no longer cause any global warming, but we
have a problem of how do we get rid of the waste. Just think of this.
What is the dimension of this problem?
I want to speak of it in physical dimensions. A football field--you
have a number in your great State, Mr. President. A football field 12
feet deep is the waste problem of America. That is how big it is. When
people scare us to death about it, the truth is, it is just a matter of
human beings deciding with technical excellence, engineering expertise,
and resources what to do about that. You can either bury it, put it
away for an interim period of time, or change it from its current form
to another.
In Europe, they are not in a hurry to bury it permanently. They are
doing other things with it--interim storage--and they are moving ahead
with other technologies to make the end product far less toxic.
This bill says we are not going to fund Yucca Mountain, the permanent
repository, as much as we have in the past. Although we will go to
conference, where the House has a higher number to keep it going. We
will have that debate in conference, and we do not always win every
nickel and every penny. So we are looking forward to going to
conference and seeing what can be done.
There are two other technologies that are right there ready to go.
One of them is called accelerator transmutation. This is very exciting
new technology, proven out beyond the experimental stage, and we have
$70 million to continue the work.
It is an accelerator, therefore it is not a nuclear reactor, that
will change what high-level waste is as this accelerator does its work
on the waste product. Ultimately, just to make it simple, what it will
produce is a residue that instead of having a half-life in the
neighborhood of tens of thousands of years, the residue will have a
half-life in the neighborhood of 700 years. After 300 years, it would
be no more dangerous than uranium ore from the ground.
If we can get a byproduct like that, there is nobody who would stand
up and say we cannot handle that. What is difficult to handle is
proving modular-wise and scientific-wise what will happen 10,000 years
from now when we put something underground and leave it there. That is
what makes the problem and the job for nuclear power of the future a
difficult one. I repeat. We are singularly the only country saying
let's put it underground and forget about it forever, when it has only
used up 5 percent of its energy. Ninety-five percent of the energy is
still in the rod that you put in the ground.
So true and so powerful is that statement that you cannot talk to the
Russian leaders at any level about energy. You cannot talk to any of
them about getting rid of the waste product in any way other than using
it, which is amazing. As a matter of fact, they just put out word the
other day that if we are so frightened about the waste product, they
would accept it. Nobody is seriously thinking about that, although
maybe some are. But it just shows you the difference, the mentality
between those who have worked that problem in Russia. Some of them
learned from us; we learned some from them.
They had the greatest nuclear scientists; we had the greatest. We
never did decide who had the best. They both had so much respect for
each other in nuclear weaponry; I think that kept us from ever having
war. You can bet the greatest scientists working on our nuclear weapons
knew exactly who the greatest scientists were over there. And they were
the greatest. They were not just getting a degree in physics and going
over and taking on a program. They were fantastic people. That
expertise has come down to nuclear reactor waste and they understand
it. They even moved to the next generation of nuclear power, breeder
reactors, which we have become so frightened about that even Senator
Domenici does not talk about it. So we moved to an interim discussion
of the kind of nuclear reactors we are talking about today.
We have transmutation, a big word which means changing the makeup and
content of this product into something far less toxic.
Incidentally, it has two other uses that are very positive that come
out of this accelerator process, one of which is to produce all the
radioactive isotopes you need for the medical programs of the country.
One of these major accelerators would provide all you need.
Plus another use that is rather significant would be to back up our
tritium production; it will do that, too. We are currently going to use
reactors to do that job. Under Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson we
decided to do it down in Tennessee at one of their TVA nuclear
reactors. So that is where the tritium in the program will be produced.
This could even be a backup for that reactor in the event we moved
ahead.
Some people talk about the estimated costs of transmutation. They use
the numbers wrong because the total number over a long period of time,
when they tell you how much that is, does not take into consideration
how much electricity it produces. It is just telling you what it costs.
That would be like saying the next 10 nuclear powerplants, my gosh, are
going to cost $1.5 billion each, but you don't know how much
electricity it produces. You just hold to the $15 billion number.
Let me emphasize I want to stop using the word ``waste'' and use
``spent fuel'' because I just gave you an example of how much of the
energy is still in the spent fuel. It is 95 percent. It is still energy
that can be used. As long as we have cheap uranium, it is obvious we
are not going to go full speed ahead to produce byproducts that cost a
lot of money. In the process we do know these are some of the
approaches to making sure we have options in the future.
To wrap up the vision, the vision is to take these resources and
others the administration might need to ask us for and produce a
commitment by the United States of America, led by our President, to
put together a 10-, 15-, or 20-year plan that says ``beyond Kyoto'' and
say to the world: ``Let's bring together the electricity-producing
resources we have been discussing--renewables, biomass, clean coal,
nuclear--let's bring them together and decide in a scheduled approach
to begin to produce them so that we can begin to use them in the world
without any effect on global warming.
It is very doable. We ought to be excited about it. It means this
problem in America might have brought out the best in us. We may be
able to tell poor countries with these new reactors that we can put one
in every country. They will be very small. They will be modular in
size. Perhaps they will be 50 megawatts each instead of 1,000
megawatts. Perhaps they have the characteristics I described here. But
let's set the world under our leadership to working on these kind of
criteria and then develop the science and technology with our
businesses and other countries to do it.
[[Page S7796]]
I have asked the President to think about this. I call it now
``reaching beyond Kyoto,'' but it may be ``prosperity in abundance for
everyone post-Kyoto.'' It may be an equal title because if, in fact, we
have to restrain the growth substantially because the energy source is
polluting and thus causes some problems with reference to global
warming, then it is an admission that other people cannot become as
wealthy as we are; that they cannot have as many things as we have.
We constantly remind the world how much energy we use, and, yes, we
do; we use more than any other country. We use maybe 25 percent. But
this little country, America, also produces about 25 percent of the
gross domestic product of the world, too.
We have a chance to reach beyond this bill, beyond the discussions
about an energy policy in detail with reference to each of these
different things on transmission lines, using the public domain for
more gas and oil, and to set a goal beyond all of that which would say
to the United States and the world: You can almost pick your resource
because if you do not have any coal, you can use uranium; you can use
these new fourth-generation reactors. If you have coal, we are
developing the cleanest of coal technology so you can use that, be a
nonpolluter and grow.
I think it makes a lot of sense. I am pleased to have thought it
through a little bit and to have spoken to it a couple times. The
Senator can tell I might have spoken about it one time or another. Yes,
I have. It is a pretty good message to be accompanying an energy and
water bill if, in fact, this bill is supposed to be doing something
about the energy crisis.
We have discussed the approach that there might be something in
America that says it is good enough for an America of the future and an
America that can help lead the world in the future. I yield the floor.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today in support of
S. 1171, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal
year 2002.
The Senate bill provides $24.96 billion in discretionary budget
authority, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $16.2 billion.
When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account,
discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total $24.7 billion in 2002.
Of that total, $15.2 billion in budget authority and $14.9 billion in
outlays is for defense spending. The Senate bill is within its Section
302(b) allocations for budget authority and outlays for both general
purpose and defense spending. Further, the committee has met its target
without the use of any emergency designations.
I again commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens for their
bipartisan effort in moving this and other appropriations bills quickly
to make up for the late start in this year's appropriations process. I
also commend subcommittee Chairman Reid and Senator Domenici for not
only bringing this important measure to the floor within its
allocation, but also for providing significant additional resources
above the President's request for both the Department of Energy's
Atomic Energy Defense Programs, which will help dramatically reduce the
threat of proliferation of nuclear warheads, materials, and expertise
in the former Soviet Union, and for renewable energy resources, which
will help ensure an energy portfolio that balances the Nation's long-
term needs for both energy and the environment. I hope all Senators
will join me in thanking our able colleagues from Nevada and New Mexico
for their vision and good work.
I urge the adoption of the bill.
I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee
scoring of this bill be inserted in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1171, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, 2002; SPENDING COMPARISONS--
SENATE REPORTED BILL
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
purpose Defense Mandatory Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
Budget Authority............. 9,713 15,247 0 24,960
Outlays...................... 9,782 14,908 0 24,690
Senate 302(b) allocation: \1\
Budget Authority............. 9,713 15,247 0 24,960
Outlays...................... 24,916 0 0 24,916
House-passed:
Budget Authority............. 9,670 14,034 0 23,740
Outlays...................... 9,806 14,122 0 23,928
President's request:
Budget Authority............. 9,003 13,514 0 22,517
Outlays...................... 9,336 13,758 0 23,094
SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED
TO:
Senate 302(b) allocation: \1\
Budget Authority............. 0 0 0 0
Outlays...................... (226) 0 0 (226)
House-passed:
Budget Authority............. 43 1,213 0 1,256
Outlays...................... (24) 786 0 762
President's request:
Budget Authority............. 710 1,733 0 2,443
Outlays...................... 446 1,150 0 1,596
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2002 budget resolution includes a ``firewall'' in the Senate
between defense and nondefense spending. Because the firewall is for
budget authority only, the appropriations committee did not provide a
separate allocation for defense outlays. This table combines defense
and nondefense outlays together as ``general purpose'' for purposes of
comparing the Senate-reported outlays with the subcommittee's
allocation.
Notes.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. For enforcement
purposes, the Budget Committee compares the Senate-reported bill to
the Senate 302(b) allocation.
LAKE BOND
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I would like to thank the Senator for his support of
continued funding for a small flood control project for Bono, Arkansas,
which is very important to me. I appreciate his efforts to help me
secure language in the statement of managers which would fund this
project under the section 205 small flood control projects program.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to my good friend from Arkansas that I understand
the situation in Arkansas and the reason for his amendment. I am happy
to support report language which will take care of this project in
place of the Senate voting on your amendment.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the ranking member and I also thank the
honorable chairman, Senator Reid, for his help with this vital flood
control project.
I withdraw my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
____________________