[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 23 (Wednesday, March 6, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1567-S1575]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001--Continued
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we will have before us over the next
several weeks a historic opportunity to change the direction of energy
use in this country.
I know you will hear from many of my colleagues that the events of
September 11 have changed how we must view energy, and on that point we
must all surely agree. An increasing reliance on energy imports from
politically unstable areas of the world is not in America's best
interests, and we must reassert our dominance over our own energy
production and innovation. One of the most important ways to achieve
this is to wean ourselves from foreign oil in our transportation
sector, and to diversify the energy base for our electricity generation
into clean, domestically produced renewable resources.
We have before us a piece of comprehensive energy legislation that
quite frankly is one of the best to emerge from this body in some time.
Senators Daschle and Bingaman have brought forward, in their
comprehensive amendment to S. 517, legislation that would spur the
development of renewable energy resources, that will advance efficiency
in our transportation, building and electricity sectors, and that will
begin to address global climate change. I support many of the
provisions of this legislation, particularly those that encourage the
production of renewable energy, and those that provide additional
funding for energy assistance to low income households.
As chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I have
considerable interest in several areas within the committee's
jurisdiction. These include issues relating to regulation of commercial
nuclear power plants, and to air and water quality issues such as
global climate change, the use of reformulated fuels, and air emissions
from the transportation sector. I support the bill's provisions on
efficiency standards for homes, schools, and public buildings, as well
as the efficiency standards for appliances and other consumer and
commercial products. I also support increased funding for the Low
Income Energy Assistance, LIHEAP, program, and for expanded R&D for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting efficiency and
renewables. I look forward to inclusion of the tax provisions passed
out of the Finance Committee, particularly those provisions which
extend and expand the production tax credit for renewables, and provide
credit for alternative fuels and alternative fueled vehicles. As
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have
particular interest in those provisions of the bill which address the
protection of our environment through reductions of emissions and
pollutants affecting air and water quality.
Earlier this Congress, the EPW Committee reported out S. 950, the
Federal Reformulated Fuels Act. This bill provided recognition of the
need to reduce MTBE contamination of water supplies and enhance fuel
suppliers' flexibility in meeting market demand. We have also
recognized the need to grow the renewables share of the transportation
fuels market. I commend the leader, Senator Daschle, for convening a
broad and diverse group of stakeholders to craft an agreement on these
issues in the fuels section of S. 517. I support the provisions in the
Daschle bill that will raise CAFE standards, a long overdue action that
will dramatically decrease the amount of gasoline consumed on our
highways.
Both the reformulated fuels and CAFE provisions will benefit the
environment, and reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign fuels. I am
supportive of the provisions in the Daschle bill that set us on a path
to seriously address global climate change. I am however deeply
concerned that administration of the greenhouse gas database is not
placed with the EPA, the agency most clearly qualified to run this
program. No other agency has the experience with air emissions data or
capability to run such a program more effectively. The agency already
collects detailed carbon dioxide emissions information from the utility
sector, and leads the Federal agencies in preparation of the national
inventory, pursuant to the Global Climate Protection Act of 1978 and
other authorities. Placing this responsibility elsewhere in the Federal
bureaucracy seems duplicative and illogical.
As chairman of the Environment Committee, the environmental and
[[Page S1568]]
public health impacts of emissions are on the top of my list of
concerns. These issues are not directly addressed in S. 517. As this
session moves forward, the EPW Committee will be considering
legislation that would cap greenhouse gas emissions from the
transportation sector, which is responsible for approximately one-third
of U.S. emissions. I support the inclusion in the electricity section
of the bill of a net metering standard, which would give consumers
credit for their own production of solar or wind energy. I am however
concerned that the bill fails to include provisions, either through a
public benefits fund or an electric efficiency mandate, to ensure the
continuation of programs to encourage electricity efficiency
innovations by utilities. Efficiency in electricity generation is a
vital component of consuming less fuel, and lack of a provision
addressing this issue is a major failing in the legislation. I am also
concerned that the definition of biomass in various places in S. 597
does not exclude incineration of municipal solid waste, a process which
results in emissions of mercury and sulfur dioxide. Measures which seek
to encourage increased use of clean renewable energy should not provide
new incentives for incineration of municipal solid waste.
One of the most important aspects of the legislation is its
provisions for increasing the use of renewable energy in our nation.
Unlike the House bill, Senator Daschle's bill includes a renewable
portfolio standard which will guarantee that a greater portion of
America's electricity needs are met by renewable energy. To date, the
administration, like the House, has not endorsed this most basic of
concepts, and I strongly commend Senator Daschle and Senator Bingaman
for stepping forward on this crucial issue. This notwithstanding, I
cannot support the Daschle renewable portfolio standard. My primary
concern with his provision is that it does not go far enough to provide
the level of environmental protection and market stimulation that a
national renewable portfolio standard should provide.
S. 597, Senator Daschle's bill, contains a renewable portfolio
standard requiring the generation of 10 percent of renewable energy
electricity by the year 2020. While moving in the right direction, this
will not provide the level of investment and growth achievable by my
amendment. We must be aggressive in finding alternatives to fuels that
pollute, or present unacceptable security risks. I will be introducing
an amendment today that will ensure that by the year 2020, 20 percent
of the electricity Americans use will be supplied by clean and safe
renewable energy from wind, solar, biomass or geothermal sources.
The United States today relies heavily on coal, nuclear power, and
natural gas to generate its electricity. Yet the United States is also
blessed with an abundance of renewable energy resources including wind
power, intense solar energy, vast sources of biomass, and geothermal
energy. These renewable energy resources do not pollute, they need not
be bought from foreign markets, they do not leave behind piles of toxic
wastes, and they will not run out.
Because renewable energy has been with us forever, we tend to
disregard it. We tend to think of it as too simplistic to meet our
modern energy needs. Like this windmill pictured from the old American
West, we tend to think of wind, and other forms of renewable energy as
quaint, but outdated vestiges of our past. We could not be more wrong.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy wind energy has been the
fastest growing source of electricity generation in the world in the
1990s.
Today, the U.S. wind industry generates about 3.5 billion kilowatt-
hours of electricity each year, enough to meet the annual electricity
needs of 1 million people. The costs of wind energy in the United has
dropped more than 80 percent in the past two decades, with today's
prices being competitive with electricity being delivered by fossil and
other fuels. As you can see in this picture of a modern windmill farm
in Texas, times have changed. In Texas alone, wind power generation has
more than doubled in the past three years, and estimates are that up to
1,000 megawatts of new renewable energy capacity will be operating by
the end of this year. This jump is attributed in large part to a State
renewable energy standard signed into law by Governor Bush in 1999.
Throughout the country, utilities are installing wind turbines and
other renewable energy facilities as customer demand for clean energy
grows, and costs drop.
These pictures illustrate but a few examples, such as this wind farm
in Colorado; or the Northern States Power wind farm in Minnesota; the
Vanscycle Ridge wind farm in Oregon; this wind facility providing
electricity to the people of Traverse City, MI.
Wind production can be especially beneficial in rural and remote
areas, as we can see by this wind turbine in remote Kotzebue, AK, which
displaces diesel fuel generation.
Geothermal, biomass and solar are also making increasing
contributions to local and regional electricity generation. This Nevada
geothermal power plant produces electricity for 100,000 people. This
geothermal facility in California has produced the energy equivalent of
over 250 million barrels of oil, and currently provides electricity to
over one million people. This geothermal plant in Hawaii provides
electricity for 60,000 people. This modern complex in Lousiville, KY is
heated and cooled by geothermal heat pumps.
Energy produced from biomass has the potential to account for almost
as much renewable energy electricity production as wind. Here a biomass
facility in Shasta County, CA converts wood wastes into electricity.
This tractor is harvesting switchgrass in Charington Valley, IA where
farmers planted over 4,000 acres of switchgrass, which when burned will
generate a continuing 35 megawatt flow of clean burning energy. If
successful the project will be scaled up to 50,000 acres and involve
200 to 500 farmers. This bioenergy plant in Fayetteville, AR is testing
new bioconversion processes. This photovoltaic charging station in
Tampa, FL recharges batteries for hybrid electric vehicles, then
contribute excess generated power back to the electric grid. This
cattle rancher in Idaho uses wind energy to power his home and ranch
under a program sponsored by the Idaho Power Company. This shows the
solar array at BP Solarex headquarters in Frederick, MD. BP solar, a
subsidiary of BP International, is a leading world developer of
photovoltaic technology, with offices and manufacturing sites around
the world. This solar concentration system at Sandia National
Laboratory in New Mexico produces utility grade electric power.
Despite these exciting advances in U.S. renewable energy, the United
States and American businesses still lag far behind advances being made
in Europe and the rest of the world. Compared to the roughly 1 million
American homes that are served by renewable energy, installed
international wind capacity is enough to satisfy the electricity needs
of 23 million people. The U.S. wind industry is actively seeking to
utilize marketing opportunities outside the United States.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy's National Wind Technology
Center, these prospective wind energy markets could translate into
several billion dollars in sales for the U.S. wind industry. U.S. firms
have already installed turbines in Canada, The Netherlands, Mexico,
South America, Spain, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. Nonetheless, 90
percent of the world's wind turbine manufacturers are European, with a
combined annual turnover of more than one billion Euros.
These potential markets are only likely to increase. As the European
Wind Energy Association states:
Whereas the cost of most forms of energy are bound to rise
with time, the costs of wind energy are actually coming down.
Offshore European wind projects at various stages in the pipeline
amount to more than 5,000 megawatts. Even accounting for the
understandable enthusiasm of those in the industry, it is clear that
both the international and American wind energy markets have the
potential for great expansion.
The faster expansion in international markets is due in great measure
to governmental policies that favor such expansion. As the U.S.
Department of Energy states,
Wind energy is the fastest growing source of electricity
generation in the world in the 1990's. However, the majority
of growth has
[[Page S1569]]
been in Europe, where government policies and high
conventional energy costs favor the use of wind energy.
Even with advances to date, American renewables still account for
little more than 2 percent of total U.S. electricity production. There
is more than enough room for them in the U.S. energy market. The United
States is the world's largest single energy market, representing more
than 25 percent of world energy consumption.
The real question is the extent to which we in this country will take
advantage of our abundant renewable resources, and the assistance we
will be willing to provide our American companies in competing in this
market. Are we going to allow American companies to miss the boat? Is
the United States going to lag behind while the rest of the world makes
investments, develops infrastructure and outpaces us in the profitable
manufacture and production of renewable technologies? Will we once
more, as we are now for fossil fuels, be dependent on other nations for
the means to provide our domestic energy, but this time because the
technology and manufacture of renewable energy rests largely in other
countries?
My amendment would provide an important step in providing market
strength to U.S. renewable industries. It would create a renewable
portfolio standard under which utilities would be required to gradually
increase the amount of electricity from renewable energy resources sold
to consumers, starting at 5 percent by 2005, and leveling out at 20
percent in 2020. This will be achieved by a system of renewable energy
credits, that electric retailers can either generate themselves, or buy
from someone else who has generated electricity from a renewable
resource.
Those selling tradeable credits to the retailers need not themselves
be connected into the grid. So long as someone has generated
electricity from a listed renewable energy resource, and either used it
himself or sold it to someone else to use, he can sell the credit to a
retail electric supplier. My amendment would allow credits from
existing renewable energy production, thereby encouraging expansion of
existing facilities as well as creation of new sources of renewable
energy. It would be hydropower neutral in that it would require the use
of renewable energy credits to offset only production of non-hydropower
electricity sold by the retailer. It would define renewable energy to
include wind, solar, geothermal, landfill gas, certain biomass, and
incremental hydropower added by increasing efficiency. It would not
include industries which generate substantial amounts of pollution such
as incineration of municipal solid waste, as renewable energy for which
credits could be obtained.
This flexible, market-driven system, will help reduce market barriers
for renewable energy, and stimulate domestic investment in new
renewable energy throughout the nation. It will allow our companies to
grow domestically, and establish sufficient stability to compete
successfully in the world market. It will encourage the successful,
long-term integration of these important renewable technologies into
the energy sector, and will help grow the U.S. renewable energy
industry into a world leader of renewable energy technology. My
amendment will be good for the environment. It will improve air
quality, by reducing use of fossil fuels which produce nitrogen oxides,
sulfur dioxide, and mercury emissions. These harmful pollutants are
linked to smog, acid rain, respiratory illness, and water
contamination.
This is an urgent issue. As reported in today's Washington Post, a
study recently published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association concludes that long-term exposure to fine particles of air
pollution from coal-fired powerplants, factories, and diesel trucks
increases an individual's risk of dying from lung cancer by 12 percent.
This is particularly important to my home State of Vermont. We in the
Northeast live downwind from virtually the entire nation. The
prevailing wind patterns bring ozone-causing nitrogen oxide straight to
our front door.
There are days I can stand on Mount Mansfield, and not be able to
make out the water tower on Mount Elmore barely 20 miles away.
My amendment would cut carbon dioxide emissions, a major contributor
to global warming, by almost 19 percent, or 137 million metric tons by
2020. The Daschle 10-percent standard would achieve only a 7-percent
reduction, or 56 million metric tons.
A 20-percent renewable energy standard that stimulates investment in
renewable energy will be good for our economy. It will create thousands
of new, high quality jobs and bring significant new investment to rural
communities. It will create an estimated $80 million in new capitol
investment here at home and create new opportunities in the
manufacturing and high-tech sectors. The market demand for renewable
energy will also bring jobs to rural areas, where it is estimated that
wind energy alone could provide $1.2 billion in new income for farmers,
ranchers and rural landowners, and $5 billion in new property tax
revenues to communities.
My amendment will advance national security. Renewable energy
technologies will reduce dependence on fossil fuels, alleviating
pressure on those markets. Because they are domestically produced, they
will reduce our vulnerability to foreign threats. Because they are
distributed in nature, they will reduce our reliance on centralized
resources and the vulnerability of our energy infrastructure to
terrorist attack.
Following the attacks of September 11, we can no longer afford to
take this responsibility lightly.
Mr. President, on September 19, James Woolsey, former Director of the
CIA, Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, and Robert C. McFarlane, former National Security Advisor to
President Reagan, sent a letter to myself and other Members of this
body urging in the strongest terms that we take immediate action to
address our energy security. Among other recommendations, they state
that they ``urge the Energy Committee to immediately adopt the
Renewable Portfolio Standard. . . .''
I ask unanimous consent that this letter, signed by all three, be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
September 19, 2001.
Senators Thomas A. Daschle, Tom Harkin, Robert C. Byrd, Carl
Levin, Jeff Bingaman, James S. Jeffords, Max Baucus, Joseph
R. Biden Jr., Trent Lott, Richard Lugar, Ted Stevens, John
W. Warner, Frank H. Murkowski, Robert C. Smith, Charles E.
Grassley, Jesse Helms.
Dear Senators: Americans are aware of the enormous and
complicated tasks ahead in dealing with the consequences of
the unprecedented September 11th attack against our nation.
There are many corrective actions that require lead-times
that could be months or even years. But, there are actions
that can and must be taken now. One of those critical actions
is to advance America's energy security. The Congress will
soon act on that issue.
It is not enough just to ensure uninterruptible supplies of
transportation fuels and electricity. We must also act to
advance the security of those supplies, and the nation's
ability to meet its needs in all corners of the country at
all times. Our refineries, pipelines and electrical grid are
highly vulnerable to conventional military, nuclear and
terrorist attacks.
Disbursed, renewable and domestic supplies of fuels and
electricity, such as energy produced naturally from wind,
solar, geothermal, incremental hydro, and agricultural
biomass, address those challenges. Fortunately, technologies
to deliver these supplies have been advancing steadily since
the Middle East fired its first warning shot over our bow in
1973. They are now ready to be brought, full force, into
service.
But, while the U.S. Government has committed intellectual
and monetary resources to developing these technologies, the
status quo marketplace is unwilling to accommodate these new
supplies of disbursed and renewable fuels and electricity.
Speedy action by the Administration and the Congress is
critical to establish the regulatory and tax conditions for
these renewable resources to rapidly reach their potential.
Fortunately, such actions are under consideration by the
Energy, Environment, and Finance Committees. We urge the
Energy Committee to immediately adopt the Renewable Portfolio
Standard (for electricity) as well as provisions to ensure
ready interconnection access to the electric grid, and cost-
shared funds to the state public benefit funds to continue
essential support for emerging technologies and the
provisions of electricity to the truly needy. We urge the
Environment Committee to immediately adopt the Renewable
Fuels Standard in conjunction with measures to deal with
environmental issues. Finally, we urge the Finance Committee
to immediately adopt residential solar credits and renewable
energy production tax credits, including a provision for
[[Page S1570]]
fuels (liquid, gaseous and solid fuels), or their Btu
equivalent, similar to the fuel provision tax credit made
available in Section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code.
These actions will also develop new industries and jobs,
strengthen communities, enhance the environment, and assist
in the stabilization of greenhouse gases. On the
transportation fuels issue, ethanol, biodiesel and other
biofuels will slow the flow of dollars to the Middle East,
where too many of those dollars have been used to buy weapons
and fund terrorist activities.
Consequently, we also recommend a major and concerted
effort to assemble the talent and resources needed to launch
a ``Liberty Ship'' type program to convert agricultural
wastes and cellulosic biomass into biofuels, biochemicals and
bioelectricity. The technology to do so is in place; all that
is lacking is the political will to deploy it.
Sincerely yours,
R. James Woolsey,
Former Director, Central Intelligence.
Robert C. McFarlane,
Former National Security Advisory to President Reagan.
Admiral Thomas H. Moorer USN (Ret),
Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Mr. JEFFORDS. A 20-percent renewable energy standard by 2020 is
affordable. The Department of Energy's information administration found
a 20-percent renewable energy standard by 2020 would result in only
modest increases in consumer electricity bills of up to 4 percent as
compared to prices if no renewable energy standard were imposed.
Polls have indicated Americans are willing to accept such moderate
price increases in exchange for the benefits derived from the greater
renewable energy production.
These same EIA studies showed that while households will experience
modest increases in electric bills, a 20-percent renewable energy
standard will actually reduce overall energy costs, which include the
costs attributable to home heating and commercial and industrial energy
consumption by approximately 0.1 percent by the year 2020.
With these very modest costs, the provisions in my amendment will
increase renewable energy production by a total of roughly 2 million
megawatts. Higher numbers are distinctly possible. In the Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, for example, if every new home built in
California subdivisions each year had photovoltaic energy roofs similar
to the ones shown in this chart, they would produce the equivalent of a
major 400- to 500-megawatt powerplant every year.
This amendment is the right thing to do. It is supported by the
Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America, along with
hundreds of businesses, associations, labor and consumer advocacy
groups, environmental groups, faith-based organizations, academies, and
local communities.
I ask unanimous consent a list of approximately 450 groups and
individuals supporting my amendment be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Supporters of a 20% by 2020 National Renewable Energy Standard
Associations
American Bioenergy Association, American Corn Growers
Association, American Corn Growers Foundation, American Lung
Association of Colorado, American Lung American Lung
Association of Houston, American Lung Association of Maine,
American Solar Energy Society, American Wind Energy
Association, Angus Duncan, President, Bonneville
Environmental Foundation, California Wind Energy Association,
CalSEIA (California Solar Energy Industries Association,
Clean Fuels Development Coalition, Clean Fuels Foundation,
Colorado Renewable Energy Society.
Foundation for Communities & Environment, Heartland
Renewable Energy Society, Heartland Solar Energy Industries
Association, Illinois Solar Energy Association, Iowa
Renewable Energy Association, Maine Nurses Association,
Midwest Renewable Energy Association, Minnesota Farmers
Union, Minnesota Renewable Energy Society, Inc., Missouri
Native Plant Society, Nebraska Farmers Union, North American
Butterly Association, Northern Great Plains Inc., Rose
Foundation for Communities and the Environment, South Dakota
Farmers Union, Texas Solar Energy Society.
Business
AMECO, Antares Group, Applied Agricultural Technologies,
Inc., Aqua Sun International, ASE Americas, Astropower,
Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation, Automated Power
Exchange, Biofine, Biorefiner, Bob Lawrence and Associates,
BP Solar, BZ Products, Inc., Calpine Corporation, Cape Wind
Associates, Capital Sun Group, Ltd., Cargill Dow, Carson
Solar, Inc., Clean Edge, Inc., Colorado Energy Group, Inc.
Communications Consortium Media Center, EAPC Architects
Engineers, Eco Energies Inc., Endless Energy Corporation,
Energy Management Inc., Energyscapes, ENTECH Engineering,
Environmental Services, Inc., Field and Forest Company,
FlexEnergy, Future Energy Resources Corporation, Genencor
International, GreenLine Paper Co., Inc., The Hamilton Group,
Heliotronics, Inc., The Hendler Law Firm, Hurshtown
Alternative Power, Microgy Cogeneration Systems, Inc.,
Micropower Corporation, Midwest Solar Solution.
Millenium Energy LLC, Moose, Inc., Mountain Energy
Consulting, Ozark Solar, People's Power and Light, Pioneer
Forest, Potomac Resources, Inc., Powerlight Corporation,
Power Shift, Pure Energy Corporation, Renewable Energy
Corporation, Limited, Sealaska Corporation, Sea Solar Power
International LLC, Sol-Air Company, Solar Energy Corporation,
Solar-Fit, Solar King Supply, Inc., Solar Plexus, Solar
Services, Inc., Solar Works, Inc., Spire Corporation, The
Stella Group, Ltd., Sun Power Electric, Sun Systems, Inc.,
SUN Utility Network, Trans-Pacific Geothermal Corporation,
Veizades and Associates, Vermont Energy Investment
Corporation, Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corporation.
Labor Organizations
AFSCME (District Council 47), SEIU #199, Maine Labor Group
on Health, Communications Workers of America.
environmental organizations
20/20 Vision, A World Institute for a Sustainable Humanity,
Abalone Alliance Safe Energy Clearinghouse, Action for a
Clean Environment, Alabama Environmental Council, Alaska
Coalition of Missouri, Alaska Coalition of Pennsylvania,
Alaska Wilderness League, Alliance for Affordable Energy,
Alliance for Sustainability, Alliance for Sustainable
Communities, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy, American Lands Alliance,
American Oceans Campaign, American Public Information on the
Environment, Chairton Valley RC&D (Iowa), Citizens Action
coalition of Indiana, Citizen Action of Illinois, Citizens
for Quality Drinking Water, Clean Air--Cool Planet, Clean
Power Campaign, Clean Air Council, Clean Water Action, Clean
Water Action Alliance of Michigan, Clean Water Action
Alliance of Minnesota, Clean Water Action Alliance of North
Dakota, Clean Water Action Alliance of Rhode Island.
Climate Action Now, Climate Solutions, Cloud Forest
Institute, Coalition for Clean and Affordable Energy, Coal
River Mountain Watch, Coastal Georgia Center for Sustainable
Development, Colorado Environmental Coalition, Communities
for Responsible Energy, Communities United for Responsible
Energy, Connecticut Citizen Action Group, CTPIRG (Connecticut
Public Interest Research Group), Dakota Resource Council,
Defenders of Wildlife, Don't Waste Connecticut, Earth Action
Network, Earth Care, Earth Day Coalition, Earth Day New York,
Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund, Ecology Center of Southern
California, Ecological Health Organization, Endangered
Habitats League, Environmental Advocates of New York,
Environmental Background Information Center, Environmental
Defense, Environmental Defense Center, Environmental and
Energy Study Institute.
American Rivers, Americans for a Safe Future, Anacostia
Watershed Society, Arizona Audubon Council, Arizona Solar
Action Network, Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Blue
Heron Environmental Network, Bluewater Network, Bolingbrook
Earth Watch, CALPIRG (California Public Interest Research
Group), California Global Warming Campaign, California League
of Conservation Voters, Center for Biological Diversity,
Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies,
Center for Environmental Citizenship, Center for
International Environmental Law, Center for Resources
Solutions, Environmental Health Coalition, Environmental
Health Watch, Environmental Law and Policy Center,
Environmental League of Massachusetts, Environmental
Awareness Committee, SE Iowa Synod, Florida League of
Conservation Voters, Florida PIRG (Florida Public Interest
Research Group), Friends of the Earth, Friends of the
Moshssuck River, Friends of the River, Galveston-Houston
Association for Smog Prevention, Georgia Audubon Society.
Georgians for Transportation Alternatives, Global Green,
USA, Global Possibilities, Global Response, Global Exchange,
Grand Canyon Trust, Great Basin Mine Watch, Greater Tucson
Coalition for Solar Energy, Greater Yellowstone Coalition,
Greenhouse Network, GreenPeace, Gulf Restoration Network,
Heartland Operation to Protect the Environment, Hoosier
Environmental Council, Illinois Audubon Society, Illinois
PIRG (Illinois Public Interest Research Group), Illinois
Student Environmental Network, Institute for Environmental
Policy and Implementation, Iowa Citizen Action Network, Iowa
Environmental Council, Iowa PIRG (Iowa Public Interest
Research Group), Iowa Policy Project, Iowa SEED Coalition,
Izaak Walton League of America, Izaak Walton League, Ohio
Division, Kyoto Now!, Land and Water Fund of the Rockies.
League of Conservation Voters, League of Conservation
Voters Education Fund,
[[Page S1571]]
Leopold Group of the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club,
Louisiana Audubon Society, Maryland Public Interest Research
Group, Massachusetts Climate Action Network, MASSPIRG (MA
Public Interest Research Group), Michael Fields Agricultural
Institute, Mid-Nebraska Pride, Minnesota Center for
Environmental Advocacy, Minnesota PIRG (MN Public Interest
Research Group), Minnesotans for an Energy-Efficient Economy,
The Minnesota Project, Missouri PIRG (Missouri Public
Interest Research Group), Missouri Coalition for the
Environment, MTPIRG (Montana Public Interest Research Group),
Montana Environmental Information Center, MORE (Missouri
Renewable Energy), National Audubon Society, National
Environmental Coalition of Native Americans, National
Environmental Trust, National Parks Conservation Association,
National Wildlife Federation, Native American Rights Fund,
Natural Resource Defense Council, NHPIRG (New Hampshire
Public Interest Research Group).
New Jersey Environmental Lobby, NMPIRG (New Mexico Public
Interest Research Group), New Mexico Wilderness Association,
New Uses Council, NCPIRG (North Carolina Public Interest
Research Group), Northwest Energy Coalition, Northwest SEED--
Sustainable Energy for Economic Development, Nuclear Energy
Information Service, Nuclear Information Resource Services,
The Ocean Conservancy, Ohio Environmental Council, OHPIRG
(Ohio Public Interest Research Group), Oregon Environmental
Council, OSPIRG (Oregon State Public Interest Research
Group), Pace Energy Project, PennPIRG (Pennsylvania Public
Interest Research Group), Pennsylvania Environmental Network,
People's Action for Clean Energy, Prairie Rivers Network,
Rainforest Action Network, Redwood Alliance, RENEW Wisconsin,
Renewable Northwest Project, Safe Energy Communication
Council, St. Louis Audubon Society, Scenic America, Sierra
Club, Sierra Club Rhode Island Chapter.
Sierra Club Rocky Mountain Chapter, Sky Island Alliance,
South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, Southern Alliance
for Clean Energy, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project,
Southwest Environmental Center, Sustainable Energy and
Economic Development Coalition, Texas Campaign for the
Environment, Texas SEED Coalition, Toxics Action Center,
Tulane Free the Planet!, Union of Concerned Scientists,
USPIRG (U.S. Public Interest Research Group), Utahns for an
Energy Efficient Economy, VPIRG (Vermont Public Interest
Research Group), WAPIRG (Washington Public Interest Research
Group), WISPIRG (Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group),
Western Nebraska Resources Council, Western Organization of
Resource Councils, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, West
Virginia Rivers Coalition, West Virginia Sierra Club, West
Virginia Trout Unlimited, Wheeling (WV) Environmentalists,
The Wilderness Society, Wildlife Action, Windustry Project,
Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Women for Sustainable
Technologies, Women's Health & Environmental Network, World
Wildlife Fund.
Consumer Organizations
Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Citizens for Consumer
Justice, Citizen Power, Citizens Protecting Ohio, Consumer
Federation of America, Consumers Union, Foundation for
Taxpayer & Consumer Rights, Massachusetts Energy Consumers
Alliance, Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy, Pressure
Point, Southern Arizona Alliance for Economic Justice, The
Utility Reform Network, Westchester People's Action
Coalition, West Virginia Citizen Action Group.
Faith-Based Organizations
Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, Coalition on
the Environment and Jewish Life of Southern California,
Commission on Religion in Appalachia, DFW Disciples Peace
Fellowship, Earth Ministries, Eco Justice
Ministries, Episcopal Diocese of Missouri, Episcopal Power
and Light, First Presbyterian Church of Kirkwood,
Interfaith Center for Peace and Justice, Interfaith Global
Climate Change Coalition of WV, Lutheran Campus Ministry,
Maine Interfaith Climate Change Initiative, National
Coalition of Jewish Women of Los Angeles, New Mexico
Council of Churches, North Highland Assembly of God, Inc.,
Pennsylvania Central Conference United Church of Christ,
Pennsylvania Council of Churches, Philadelphia Coalition
on the Environment in Jewish Life, Southern California
Ecumenical Council, Temple Emanu-El, (Dallas, Texas),
United Methodist General Board of Church and Society,
United Methodists--Iowa Conference, Board of Church and
Society, Yellow Springs (OH) Unitarian Universalist
Church.
Academics, Doctors, Politicians & Other Individuals
Dr. Paul Arnold, Biology Dept., Young Harris College, Dr.
J.R. Bak, University of Washington, Dr. Douglas Bachtel,
Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Dr. Sarah
Badran, University of Southern California, Dr. Ray Barber,
Chair, Division of Science & Mathematics, Abraham Baldwin
Agricultural College, Dr. David Bechler, Department of
Biology, Valdosta State University, Dr. Linda Bell,
Department of Women Studies, Georgia State University, Dr.
Dianne Benjamin, Assistant Professor of Educational
Psychology, University of Missouri--Kansas City, Dr. Brad
Bergstrom, Department of Biology, Valdosta State University,
Dr. Ross Bowers, Program Director Respiratory Therapy
Program, Armstrong Atlantic State University, Lon Burman,
Texas Representative (District 90), Dudley J. Burton Ph.D.,
P.E., Professor, Baylor University, Linda Calvert, Director--
New Orleans Mayor's Office of Environmental Affairs, Dr.
Richard Coles, Professor of Ecology, Washington University,
Antony Cooper, Assistant Professor of Biology, University of
Missouri--Kansas City, Douglas Crawford, Associate Professor
of Biology, University of Missouri--Kansas City, Dr. Ben
Dennis, Professor of Economics, University of the Pacific,
Dr. Alexander Dent, Indiana University, Paul R. Epstein,
M.D., Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard
Medical School, Dr. Lyle Fagnan, Oregon Health and Science
University, Alan Fantel, University of Washington, Todd
Forman, M.D., University of Southern California, Edward
Gogol, Associate Professor of Biology, University of
Missouri--Kansas City, Dr. Gary Goldbaum, King County
Hospital, Dr. Brenda Hull, Dept. of Biology, Young Harris
College, Mark Jacobson, Associate Professor, Stanford
University Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering,
Stephen J. Jay M.D., Indiana University.
Dr. Sandra Juul, University of Washington, Daniel M.
Kammen, Director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy
Laboratory, Dennis H. Knight, Professor Emeritus, University
of Wyoming, Randy Korotev, Professor of Earth & Planetary
Sciences, Washington University, Dr. Margaret Lieb,
University of Southern California, Dr. Lee March, Department
of Political Science, Young Harris College, Dr. Diana
Matesic, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Mercer
University, Dr. J.A.P. McCrary, Department of Natural
Resources, Albany State College, Dr. Kent Montgomery,
Department of Astrology, Young Harris College, Richard B.
Norgaard, Professor of Energy and Resources, UC Berkeley,
Margie Oleksiak, Research Associate, University of Missouri--
Kansas City, Richard Ottinger, Dean Emeritus, Pace Law
School, Dr. Thomas Michael Power, Professor and Chair,
Economics Department, University of Montana, Don Preister,
Nebraska State Senator, Dr. Ron Pulliam, Institute of
Ecology, University of Georgia, Dr. Richard Rich, Professor
and Chair, Institute for Environmental and Energy Studies,
UVA, Dr. Gary Rischitelli, Center for Research in
Occupational and Environmental Toxicology, Michael
Rosenzweig, Professor of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology,
University of Arizona, Stephen Ruoss, M.D., Stanford
University, Dr. Arnold Schecter, Professor, School of Public
Health at Dallas, Everett Shock, Professor of Earth &
Planetary Sciences, Washington University, Leonard Stitelman,
Ph.D., Professor, School of Public Administration, University
of New Mexico, Larry Waldman, Ph.D., Department of Economics,
University of New Mexico.
Other Groups
American Lands, Arizona Center for Law in the Public
Interest, Audubon's Appleton-Whittle Research Ranch, Better
World Group, Bicycle Coalition of Maine, Center for Energy &
Environmental Policy (University of Delaware), Center for
Rural Affairs, Charleston Bicycle Advocacy Group,
Childhood Lead Action Project, Citizens for Missouri's
Children, Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future, City of
Creve Coeur (MO) Recycling & Environment Committee,
Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities in Illinois,
Coalition to Advance Sustainable Technology, Collaborative
Center for Justice, Inc., Common Cause, Concerned Citizens
of Roane, Calhoun, and Gilmer Counties, WV, Concerned
Citizens of Jefferson County, GA, Democratic Party of
Dallas, TX, Development Center for Alternative
Technologies, Downwinders at Risk.
Education for Sustainable Living, Emerald Resources
Solutions, Environmental and Human Health, Inc., Friends of
Merrymeeting Bay, Full Circle Environmental, Green Party of
Lancaster County, PA, Green Party of York County, PA,
Hispanic Political Action Committee, Indian-American
Political Forum of Connecticut, Institute for Agriculture and
Trade Policy, Intertribal Council on Utility Policy, Jobs
with Justice, Dallas TX, Kansas Rural Center, Keystone Action
Network, Local Power, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Loyola
University Enviro Action, Maine Center for Economic Policy,
McKeever Institute of Economic Policy Analysis, Minuteman
Media.
Missouri Botanical Garden, MoveOn.org, National Educational
Resource Center, Inc., Nebraska Farmers Union, Ohio Family
Farm Coalition, Oil and Gas Accountability Project,
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Physicians for Social
Responsibility, Maine Chapter, Physicians for Social
Responsibility, Philadelphia, Physicians for Social
Responsibility of South Carolina, Project Underground, Public
Allies, Sautee-Nacochee Community Association, Scenic
Missouri, Living Resource Center, Sierra Students at West
Virginia University, Southwest Research Information Center,
Springfield (IL) Urban League, State University of New York
(SUNY), Students Against Violating the Earth, Sunrise
Sustainable Resources Group, Texas Black Bass Unlimited,
Webster Groves Nature Study Society, Western Colorado
Congress.
Mr. JEFFORDS. My standard is achievable. To date, 12 States have
successfully enacted renewable standards, several of which exceed the
20 percent by 2020 standard of my amendment.
[[Page S1572]]
States and utilities, recognizing the cost and environmental benefits
of clean energy, are setting goals similar to mine for their use of
renewable energy. Governor Pataki of New York, for example, recently
ordered all agencies in the State of New York to produce 10 percent of
their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2005 and 20 percent
by 2010.
While good as far as it goes, Senator Daschle's amendment would
result in about half of the renewable energy generation that would be
achieved under my amendment. Yet a 20-percent standard by 2020 is
reasonable, achievable, and will provide for the important capital
investment, market security, and environmental benefits for which we
should be aiming.
We have an obligation to act now to take the actions needed to secure
clean, domestically produced, reliable sources of energy. We must not
lag behind the weak standards or no standards at all.
I urge my colleagues to vote for me in favor of this amendment.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has approximately 7\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Let me share my long-term interest in this matter. I
came into the Congress in 1975. In that year, this Nation was in
terrible shape. The oil from the Mideast had been interdicted. We had
long lines of cars, and everybody was in dire straits. A number of us
at that time formed a coalition to do something about energy. The
reason I bring it up is that much of what we are talking about today is
much of what was proposed.
First, Norm Mineta, then in the House with John Blanchard of Michigan
and me, introduced the wind energy bill. It passed. We drew lots as to
how it would be named. It turned out to be Blanchard's bill. That was a
major move forward in wind energy.
Photovoltaics was another great interest of mine. I have a fond
memory of the coalition we put together at that time. We had over 80
members of the energy coalition, the solar coalition as it was called.
So I went on to the House floor to offer an amendment. The amendment
would have taken a large step forward in solar energy.
The chairman of the subcommittee came to me and said: Son, you do not
offer amendments to appropriations bills unless you check with me
first. He said: Come in and I will see if I can get you a couple of
million dollars for this project.
I said: I am sorry, but I cannot do that.
He said: Why can't you?
I said: Because I have 80 cosponsors.
He said: You have 80 cosponsors?
Yes.
Well, I guess we are going to have to battle it out.
And we did. It passed, although they cut part of it off for other
solar energy. So that was the beginning of the photovoltaics industry
in the United States. It was a proud moment, and it was a fun one to
look back upon, especially as to the shock on the chairman's face when
I told him how many cosponsors we had.
At that time also, we went on to form the Alliance to Save Energy,
which included myself, and at that time it was Jeff Bingaman and the
Senator from Illinois who were with us on that issue, and that has
proved to be a very interesting and excellent benefit to our energy
situation. Chuck Percy was the Senator's name.
I commend Jeff Bingaman, who is in the Chamber with me, for his work
over those years. Together we are still working as hard as we can to do
what we can about the energy situation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Wisconsin is recognized for up to 10 minutes.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
(The remarks of Mr. Feingold are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. FEINGOLD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am delighted that we are into the energy
package. We have been talking now for some time, of course, about an
energy policy in this country. The President has talked about it for a
very long time. He has put forth, with the help of the Vice President,
an energy policy. So I am pleased that we are into that, and I hope we
continue to work on it until we are able to successfully put together a
bill that will meet our collective notions.
I ask unanimous consent several letters I received this morning be
printed in the Record. This one comes from the Vietnam Veterans
Institute. These are all directed to Senator Daschle in support of the
energy program.
This one is from the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States,
also voicing their support for energy policy. This one comes from the
AMVETS, this one from the Catholic War Veterans, and this one from the
American Legion.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Vietnam Veterans Institute,
March 5, 2002.
Hon. Tom Daschle,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Daschle: As the Chairman and Founder of the
Vietnam Veterans Institute, I write today out of a sense of
urgency concerning our national security as it relates to our
energy supply. Veterans groups with a combined membership of
nearly 5 million support the President's energy bill. I am
proud to be joined by the American Legion, the Veterans of
Foreign Wars, AMVETS, and the Catholic War Veterans of the
USA.
I respectfully urge you to pass the President's energy
bill, H.R. 4, and the provisions it contains. Further, I
agree with the President, who during the State of the Union
address, said ``We must act, first and foremost, not as
Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans.'' He went on
to say that we must continue at home and abroad with the same
spirit of cooperation. I believe it is imperative to our
national security that we stand together as Americans. Make
no mistake, responsible exploration of ANWR is a matter of
national security.
You have expressed concern with ANWR, stating that an
energy plan should not include opening wilderness areas to
oil drilling. Senator, do you know that exploration is
already taking place in wildlife refuges in 13 states,
including Senator Blanche Lambert Lincoln's state of Arkansas
and in North Dakota, Senator Kent Conrad's state? It is
important to note that in all of those wilderness areas,
there has been no harm to the wildlife caused by the
exploration in any of those states.
It is crucial for the American public to have the facts.
And if the truth is told, the American public will learn that
the native peoples of Alaska who actually live in the
affected area are 100% supportive of exploration of ANWR--
and--do not believe it will be any threat to the environment.
Why is it that we are not willing to let the people who live
there decide their future and the future of their lands?
The native peoples of Alaska who have opposed ANWR do not
live in the affected area and have leased their own lands for
oil exploration. I do not know if this has ever been
reported. I believe the American public has the right to
know.
Please pass the President's energy bill and help us rebuild
America!
With the support of our members,
J. Eldon Yates,
Chairman and Founder.
____
Veterans of Foreign Wars
of the United States,
October 29, 2001.
Hon. Tom Daschle,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Daschle: The 2.7 million members of the
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies
Auxiliary supports H.R. 4, the ``Securing America's Future
Energy Act of 2001'' or SAFE Act of 2001. We applaud the
House of Representatives for its bipartisan work in
addressing our energy vulnerability by passing H.R. 4. We
believe the Senate should consider and vote on H.R. 4 so that
our nation has an energy plan for the future and can move
forward quickly with a comprehensive plan to develop our
domestic energy resources.
Keeping in mind the horrific events of September 11 and
mindful of the threats we are facing, we strongly believe
that the development of America's domestic energy resources
is a vital national security priority. We need to take steps
to reverse our growing dependence on Middle East oil as
quickly as possible. By passing H.R. 4, the Senate will be
supporting our troops serving in combat on Operation Enduring
Freedom, the American people, and our national security with
a comprehensive energy legislation that is desperately needed
to diversify the energy for our country and chart a course
for the future.
[[Page S1573]]
The VFW strongly urges the Senate to consider and vote on
H.R. 4 as passed in the House in this session of Congress.
Sincerely,
Robert E. Wallace,
Executive Director.
____
American Veterans,
Lanham, MD, March 6, 2002.
Hon. Tom Daschle,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Daschle: AMVETS urges your favorable
consideration of H.R. 4, the Securing America's Future Energy
Act of 2001.
As you know, our current reliance on foreign oil leaves the
United States vulnerable to the whim of individual oil-
exporting countries, many existing in the unpredictable and
highly dangerous Persian Gulf. And it cannot be overstated
that energy supplies touch nearly every aspect of our lives
from our economy to our national security.
H.R. 4, as approved by the House, is a critical part of an
overall policy America requires to promote dependable,
affordable, and environmentally sound production and
distribution of energy for the future. We cannot wait for the
next crisis before we act.
Thank you for your service in the United States Senate and
please remember that this issue is vital to our nation's
security and the brave men and women who serve in the Armed
Forces.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Jones,
National Legislative Director.
____
Catholic War Veterans of the
United States of America,
March 5, 2002.
Hon. Tom Daschle,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Daschle: We write today on behalf of our
membership to encourage you to pass the President's energy
bill, H.R. 4. We support this bill because we believe our
national security demands that America be less dependent on
foreign oil producers.
The September 11th attacks on democracy have expedited the
need for increased oil self-sufficiency. Reliance on other
countries, especially during these times of war and
international terrorism, threatens our national security and
economic well-being.
The Catholic War Veterans of the USA respectfully urge you
to support the provisions contained in the House passed
version of the ``Securing America's Future Energy Act of
2001.'' The legislation is a major step toward achieving
energy independence and ensuring our national security.
Sincerely,
Joseph Satriano,
National First Vice Commander.
____
The American Legion,
Washington, DC, March 5, 2002.
Hon. Tom Daschle,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Daschle: On behalf of the 2.8 million members
of the American Legion, I urge you to support a comprehensive
energy policy that will improve the nation's energy
independence and strengthen national security.
War and international terrorism have brought into sharp
focus the heavy reliance of the United States on imported
oil. During times of crisis, such reliance threatens the
nation's security and economic well being. The import of more
than 55 percent of the nation's petroleum from foreign
countries further compounds our foreign trade balance. This
is a time when the country's energy demands continue
unabated. It is important that we develop additional reliable
sources of domestic oil.
The American Legion understands the sacrifices being made
by the men and women in uniform. The members of America's
all-volunteer force have been tasked with the demanding
mission of combating terrorism worldwide and strengthening
our homeland security. In addition to active-duty forces,
seventy-six thousand National Guard and Reserve members have
put their lives on hold and left their families, following
the terrorists' acts of September 11. Now, it is the duty of
a grateful nation to ensure these brave men and women have
the resources that they need to successfully carry out that
mission.
The development of America's domestic energy resources is
vital to national security. The American Legion respectfully
urges you to support the provisions contained in the House-
passed version of the ``Securing America's Future Energy Act
of 2001.''
I thank you for considering our view on this critical
national security issue.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Santos,
National Commander.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we had a meeting this morning with the
veterans. Over the last several months we have had a number of press
conferences and meetings with all kinds of different interests in this
country that support us doing something, in a balanced way, about
energy policy. We have heard from agriculture, the Farm Bureau, the
Farmers' Union. Of course, the labor unions have been very much in
support of what is there so we can get on with energy production. We
have had small businesses. We have had Native Alaskans here and the
veterans associations.
I have been impressed with the breadth of support for an energy
policy. I think it indicates in some ways the depth of involvement, how
this touches everyone in this country, having an affordable, adequate
energy supply, and doing it in a balanced way. It touches everyone's
life.
Unfortunately, in terms of moving on something, when last year we
were having all the problems in California, of course, the shortage of
electricity and the high prices, and gasoline prices were very high,
there was great interest in it. Now gasoline prices are down. The
California crisis is over. But I hope we do not lose our intensity,
knowing that is not going to last unless we have a policy that leads us
in the direction, in the future, of having an adequate domestic supply
so we are not 60-percent dependent on foreign imports.
Beginning to move towards more diversity in energy certainly ought to
be part of our plan. We ought to do that. In a balanced bill, we will
have research money to be able to look for new sources of energy, to
have clean coal research so we can use those resources more thoroughly,
and we should have renewables. All of us are interested in that.
At the same time, we have to do something about production. I guess
that is my main criticism of the bill before us, that it leans so much
toward conservation and renewables, but it does not take into account
what our needs are going to be in the next number of years. If nothing
else, we have to look at a balanced energy policy that recognizes that
we have to modernize and increase conservation, we have to modernize
and expand our infrastructure, we have to have diversity in our
supplies, and we have to improve environmental protection--among other
things.
We have spent a good deal of time on transportation of electric
energy. It is also true of gas and oil, but you can generate all the
electricity of the world right here, and if you don't have a way to get
it to the market, then you have not accomplished your goals. We need to
do something dramatic in this whole area of transportation of
electricity. We need to build a network. We have an interstate grid
that moves wholesale power, and hopefully we would have regional
transportation organizations, RTOs, along there to take it into areas--
run by the States. These are things that are pretty much accepted as
being necessary ingredients as we move forward with an energy bill.
One of the things that is troublesome--I happen to be on the Energy
Committee--is the process that has brought us here. The committee did
not have an opportunity to deal with these difficult and detailed
questions. That should be done at least initially in committees. We did
not do that. The majority leader determined to take the bill out of the
committee and bring it here to do this. It has been changed several
times since we have been on the floor. That makes it difficult to deal
with the details of an energy bill.
Every amendment that comes up here is going to have to be dealt with
in such detail, you would think, my gosh, that is the kind of thing
that ought to be done in committee. But given the situation, the fact
that the majority leader chose to do it that way--I happen to think it
is a flawed process--nevertheless we are here. We have had no hearings,
no markups, so we are going to be trying to do some of those things.
We will be dealing right now with an amendment having to do with a
$20 billion pipeline from Alaska which never had a hearing, never had
an opportunity to find out the facts. That is not a good way to
legislate.
We will be pushing forward on those issues. I am hopeful that we can
move forward. I am hopeful we will have an opportunity to deal with
some of the difficult issues such as CAFE standards. I don't think
anybody would argue with the idea that we would like to have vehicles
that do what we need to do with better mileage. But we cannot be
unrealistic, moving it over in just several years, given the costs
associated with that --particularly to those who live in the West.
Live where I live and look on the road and you seldom see anything
except a pickup and an SUV. I realized
[[Page S1574]]
part of the reason for that when I was there. I would never have gotten
out of my driveway without a four-wheel drive.
This is realism. This is the way it is. We can make some changes, but
we can't substitute those future movements for where we need to be now.
With regard to the security of this country, military security,
terrorism--these things require that we have an adequate supply of
energy. Much of it comes from the Middle East. Because we are having
the problems we are having over there--and foreseeably we will be
having them for some time--we have to do more.
I live in a part of the country where we are one of the large energy
producers in this Nation. We are the highest producer of coal. We have
large reserves of gas, methane gas, and oil. But much of it is very
difficult. We need to have access to public lands, among other things.
We need to be able to utilize those resources in an environmentally
sound way. We have done that and can do that.
So I think the idea that somehow we can substitute production with
some kind of renewables or some kind of scientific process that we do
not even have before us is a little bit of dreamland, I am afraid.
I am hopeful we can move forward and be realistic in what we do. We
ought to have an opportunity, certainly, to be able to deal with these
issues in a way in which everyone gets an opportunity to have
amendments and to get something together that will be generally
acceptable to all of us.
As I said, I come from a State that is rich in resources. We have
very high coal and oil and gas reserves. We also have an adequate
supply--sometimes overadequate supply--of wind. We can convert some of
that into electricity, of course. We should, indeed, do it.
We need a realistic policy that encourages fuel diversity, that
utilizes all of our domestic resources in a very broad way, that takes
economic and environmental factors into account. In relation to
economic factors, we need to be realistic about what we are going to
do. We need to provide a cleaner and more secure energy future. We need
an overall energy strategy that increases conservation and energy
efficiency and boosts supply and promotes alternative energy. I think
we can do that.
Some of what I hear in this Chamber, however, would indicate that we
do not need to worry about increasing our gas and oil supply because we
are going to take care of it with renewables or with raising the
standards in mileage. Fine, but you are not going to do that
immediately. There is no way. I hope we are realistic enough to deal
with it.
One of the areas, of course, that is going to be very controversial
is ANWR. We will all have to deal with that and see if we can't
determine what the real impact is. I have been to Prudhoe Bay and out
in that area particularly. I have seen the work they are doing there
now, which, by the way, is very impressive. I have a little idea of
what the wildlife refuge looks like.
Sometimes we hear in this Chamber it would be a brandnew idea to have
production on a wildlife refuge. It is not a new idea. It is done on a
number of wildlife refuges now. The proposition is to have a very small
footprint to be able to have a rather large impact. That is the kind of
coming together there has been that makes that a possibility, that
makes it a necessity, as a matter of fact, to do something there.
We need to move forward with coal. We need to move forward with
nuclear. We can do that. We can get more clean coal technology. That is
our greatest reserve of energy for the future.
Everyone in this country is affected by electricity, its availability
and price. So this isn't just theoretical; this is something that
really impacts everyone very directly.
One of the issues we have to understand as thoroughly as we can is
technology breakthrough. We need incentives for that, but they do not
happen overnight. You cannot just regulate that they are going to do
that. They don't just happen. That is not the way it is. Furthermore,
it takes away the choices we have, where we ought to be able to do
some things by incentive which I think are very possible. I am hopeful
we can move forward through our differences and have legislation that
will work.
One of the areas that some of us have been working on, and I suspect
will continue to work on for some time, is the electric component.
Again, there have been debates and discussions about this. The House
bill currently does not have an electric title. But there are a number
of issues, certainly, that most people would agree need to be reviewed
and that we need to do some things in the electric area. We have an
opportunity to deal with some of those issues.
One of them is reliability. We have talked about reliability for a
very long time. We talked about it in great detail during the time we
were having difficulty in California. We really have not done a great
deal about that, but we have an opportunity to do so.
We are going to have to make some choices about the way we handle
these matters. Quite frankly, we have been through this for some time.
We have been through it in terms of reregulation and deregulation.
I thought we had come to the conclusion that those things that are
clearly interstate could fairly well be defined and those things that
clearly belong on the national level with FERC could fairly well be
defined, that those things that have to do with retail and distribution
and the unbundled distribution of electricity to homes and businesses
within the State would be done by the State. Certainly, that is the way
I believe it ought to be done. Having had a little bit of experience
and background in the electric business through the rural electrics, I
really think that is the way it ought to be. The needs you have in
Pennsylvania and the needs you have in Wyoming are sometimes not the
same. So we need to have some flexibility to do that. I am hopeful we
will.
This bill, as presented to us now, is really heavy on FERC. It gives
FERC all the decisionmaking authority in almost every aspect of
electricity. Many of us do not believe that is the way we ought to
proceed. Many of us believe we can fix that. There needs to be some
overall jurisdiction, of course, with FERC, which is the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, but there are also opportunities for the North
American Reliability Council, for Governors, and others.
As a matter of fact, the Western Governors have put forth very
detailed ideas of what they would like to do. I happen to agree
generally with what they are doing.
So I hope we can deal with this language and deal with how we can
best establish a reliable distribution and generation system.
Things have changed. It was not many years ago when you had an
electric system, you had the service area, and whoever had that service
area generated the electricity they needed. So it was sort of self-
confined.
Now we find ourselves more or less deregulated in the generation
aspect of it. You have many private market generators that are dealing
in it by selling to the distributors. So you have to move it. That is
some competition there. I think it can work.
We have to recognize times have changed and we have to do the same
thing.
I think we have some unrealistic demands for renewables in this bill.
We ought to be moving on renewables, but the idea to put in the bill
that it is going to be this percentage or this many tons or this many
kilowatt hours by renewables I don't think is a realistic way to do
that. We ought to offer incentives, that type of thing. But to put
those numbers in there, and say this is the way it is going to be, I
think is unrealistic.
We have a number of areas in which we could modify what FERC's
authorities are going to be in terms of some things that could better
be done on the State level. There are a number of things in the bill
that preempt States' rights. I think most of us, or many of us at
least, are not of the mind that that is the way we ought to do that.
The Daschle bill basically gives FERC exclusive authority over
reliability. It has a renewable portfolio mandate, billions of dollars
in consumer cost. It has FERC authority over State matters. It does not
need to be that way.
So I think we are in the process of developing a number of amendments
which we hope to file and offer as we go
[[Page S1575]]
forward, particularly in this area. I am sure there will be many
amendments in other areas as well which is proper, particularly since
we didn't have committee involvement. We are really doing committee
work now on the floor, and that will take some time and effort, but it
is necessary in order for us to come out of here with a bill that can
be accepted by the Senate, can go to a conference committee, can come
out and be accepted by the President.
We have a real challenge before us. I look forward to it and hope we
can stick with this issue until it is finished and not come back to
campaign finance or something in the middle. We ought to stay with it
and keep working, keep as open as we can to other people's ideas,
recognizing that it is going to take a long time. But the way it has
been brought to us, it has to take a long time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, my understanding of the status of
business is that we are still considering the amendment Senator Daschle
offered earlier, of which I am a cosponsor, along with Senators Reid
and Murkowski and others. That amendment is still pending and is being
considered for possible second-degree amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I have also been informed by the floor manager for the
majority it is his intention that the Senate will go into recess at
1:30 to allow Senators to attend a briefing Secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld is going to conduct for Senators from 1:30 to 2:30. Then we
would be back at the same place we are now. That is for the information
of Senators.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to 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.
____________________