[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.

                          ____________________