[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 24 (Thursday, March 7, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1621-S1658]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 517, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 517) to authorize funding the Department of 
     Energy to enhance the mission areas through technology 
     transfer and partnerships for fiscal years 2002 through 2006, 
     and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Daschle/Bingaman further modified amendment No. 2917, in 
     the nature of a substitute.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S1622]]

  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak for 2, maybe 3 minutes as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Smith of Oregon are printed in today's Record 
under ``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


     Amendment No. 2983 To Amendment No. 2917, As Further Modified

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Voinovich], for himself, Mr. 
     Bingaman, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Domenici, Ms. 
     Landrieu, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Thomas, 
     Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Bond, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Frist, 
     Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Craig, proposes an amendment numbered 2983 
     to amendment No. 2917.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

            (Purpose: To reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act)

       On page 115, strike line 5 and all that follows through 
     page 119, line 10 and insert the following:

             Subtitle A--Price-Anderson Act Reauthorization

     SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Price-Anderson 
     Amendments Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 502. EXTENSION OF INDEMNIFICATION AUTHORITY.

       (a) Indemnification of Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
     Licensees.--Section 170 c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
     (42 U.S.C. 2210(c)) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``LICENSES'' and 
     inserting ``LICENSEES''; and
       (2) by striking ``August 1, 2002'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``August 1, 2012''.
       (b) Indemnification of Department of Energy Contractors.--
     Section 170 d.(1)(A) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 
     U.S.C. 2210(d)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``, until August 
     1, 2002,''.
       (c) Indemnification of Nonprofit Educational 
     Institutions.--Section 170 k. of the Atomic Energy Act of 
     1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(k)) is amended by striking ``August 1, 
     2002'' each place it appears and inserting ``August 1, 
     2012''.

     SEC. 503. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY LIABILITY LIMIT.

       (a) Indemnification of Department of Energy Contractors.--
     Seciton 170 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2210(d)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(2) In agreements of indemnification entered into under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary--
       ``(A) may require the contractor to provide and maintain 
     financial protection of such a type and in such amounts as 
     the Secretary shall determine to be appropriate to cover 
     public liability arising out of or in connection with the 
     contractual activity; and
       ``(B) shall indemnify the persons indemnified against such 
     liability above the amount of the financial protection 
     required, in the amount of $10,000,000,000 (subject to 
     adjustment for inflation under subsection t.), in the 
     aggregate, for all persons indemnified in connection with 
     such contract and for each nuclear incident, including such 
     legal costs of the contractor as are approved by the 
     Secretary.''.
       (b) Contract Amendments.--Section 170 d. of the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)) is further amended by 
     striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) All agreements of indemnification under which the 
     Department of Energy (or its predecessor agencies) may be 
     required to indemnify any person under this section shall be 
     deemed to be amended, on the date of the enactment of the 
     Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2002, to reflect the amount 
     of indemnity for public liability and any applicable 
     financial protection required of the contractor under this 
     subsection.''.
       (c) Liability Limit.--Section 170 e.(1)(B) of the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(e)(1)(B)) is amended
       (1) by striking ``the maximum amount of financial 
     protection required under subsection b. or''; and
       (2) by striking ``paragraph (3) of subsection d., whichever 
     amount is more'' and inserting ``paragraph (2) of subsection 
     d.''.

     SEC. 504. INCIDENTS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Amount of Indemnification.--Section 170 d.(5) of the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)(5)) is amended 
     by striking ``$100,000,000'' and inserting ``$500,000,000''.
       (b) Liability Limit.--Seciton 170 e.(4) of the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(e)(4)) is amended by 
     striking ``$100,000,000'' and inserting ``$500,000,000''.

     SEC. 505. REPORTS.

       Section 170 p. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2210(p)) is amended by striking ``August 1, 1998'' and 
     inserting ``August 1, 2008''.

     SEC. 506. INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.

       Section 170 t. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2210(t)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (2) by adding after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) The Secretary shall adjust the amount of 
     indemnification provided under an agreement of 
     indemnification under subsection d. not less than once during 
     each 5-year period following July 1, 2002, in accordance with 
     the aggregate percentage change in the Consumer Price Index 
     since--
       ``(A) that date, in the case of the first adjustment under 
     this paragraph; or
       ``(B) the previous adjustment under this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 507. CIVIL PENALTIES.

       (a) Repeal of Automatic Remission.--Section 234A b.(2) of 
     the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2282a (b)(2)) is 
     amended by striking the last sentence.
       (b) Limitation for Not-for-Profit Institutions.--Subsection 
     d. of section 234A of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 
     U.S.C. 2282a(d)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``d. (1) Notwithstanding subsection a., in the case of any 
     not-for-profit contractor, subcontractor, or supplier, the 
     total amount of civil penalties assessed under subsection a. 
     may not exceed the total amount of fees paid within any one-
     year period (as determined by the Secretary) under the 
     contract under which the violation occurs.
       ``(2) For purposes of this section, the term `not-for-
     profit' means that no part of the net earnings of the 
     contractor, subcontractor, or supplier inures, or may 
     lawfully inure, to the benefit of any natural person or for-
     profit artificial person.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall not apply to any violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 
     1954 occurring under a contract entered into before the date 
     of enactment of this section.

     SEC. 508. TREATMENT OF MODULAR REACTORS.

       Section 170 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2210(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5)(A) For purposes of this section only, the Commission 
     shall consider a combination of facilities described in 
     subparagraph (B) to be a single facility having a rated 
     capacity of 100,000 electrical kilowatts or more.
       ``(B) A combination of facilities referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) is 2 or more facilities located at a single 
     site, each of which has a rated capacity of 100,000 
     electrical kilowatts or more but not more than 300,000 
     electrical kilowatts, with a combined rated capacity of not 
     more than 1,300,000 electrical kilowatts.''.

     SEC. 509. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by sections 503(a) and 504 do not apply 
     to any nuclear incident that occurs before the date of the 
     enactment of this subtitle.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today to offer the Price-
Anderson reauthorization bill as an amendment to the Energy Policy Act. 
Last year, as the former chairman of the Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, I 
introduced the Price-Anderson reauthorization bill, S. 1360, that 
reauthorizes the insurance program for commercial nuclear reactors.
  The Price-Anderson Act was first passed back in 1957 and has been 
renewed three times since then. The current authorization expires on 
August 1 of this year.
  This amendment provides the insurance program for commercial nuclear 
powerplants and Department of Energy contractor employees. In my State 
of Ohio, this is very important for the contractor employees who are 
currently working at the Mound and Fernald facilities, former sites of 
nuclear facilities of the Department of Energy.
  This is the type of must-pass legislation that keeps the trains of 
Government running on time.
  I think it is important to note that during the previous 
administration, both the Department of Energy and the

[[Page S1623]]

Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued reports to Congress recommending 
the reauthorization of Price-Anderson.
  The DOE and the NRC reports also called for a doubling of the annual 
premium paid by the nuclear reactors from $10 million to 20 million.
  This recommendation was made prior to the relicensing process. At 
that time, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission projected that up to half 
of our nuclear reactors would be retired instead of being relicensed. 
We have something like 103 nuclear reactors out there.
  However, thanks to regulatory improvements made in the process, 
largely due to the oversight of the Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, the 
NRC believes that most of our nuclear reactors will be in fact 
relicensed. Therefore, the NRC issued a statement last year revising 
their projections and recommending that the annual premium not be 
increased. This amendment follows those recommendations.
  It is important for the American public to understand how the Price-
Anderson liability program works. First of all, it is important to 
understand it is not a Federal subsidy. The nuclear industry actually 
funds the program. Each nuclear powerplant purchases liability 
insurance to cover the first $200 million from private insurers for 
immediate response in the case of an accident. If the costs exceed $200 
million and additional funds are needed, all the other nuclear 
reactors--and there are 103 of them--contribute up to $88 million each. 
That totals $9.3 billion.
  These funds are contributed by other reactors in increments of $10 
million per year. If more than the $9.3 billion would be needed, 
Congress could then go back to the industry and demand a larger 
contribution.
  I know of no other industry in which all of the competitors agree up 
front to pay for the mistakes or acts of God that impact upon any one 
company.
  In addition, I know of no facilities of any type anywhere in the 
country which are insured for $9.3 billion. It is incredible.
  It is also important to note for the American public that the 
industry does something else that is very unusual. It waives its 
traditional tort defenses so that the fund begins making payments 
immediately instead of fighting out claims in the courts. If we had 
some kind of a nuclear disaster somewhere, as we did at Three Mile 
Island, immediately the insurance companies start paying out claims. As 
a matter of fact, after Three Mile Island, claims offices were on the 
site within 24 hours. It provides more insurance coverage for Americans 
and provides the coverage up front.
  America's nuclear energy industry currently provides approximately 20 
percent of our energy, while fossil fuels, such as oil, coal, and 
natural gas, provide the bulk of the remainder. Nuclear energy is 
particularly used in the northeast part of the United States.
  Nuclear power is a safe and reliable energy source. It is also a 
zero-emission source of energy.
  As I discussed in the Senate on Tuesday, just since the nuclear 
energy has prevented 62 million tons of sulfur dioxide, a key component 
of acid rain, and 32 million tons of nitrogen oxide, a precursor to 
ozone, from being released into the atmosphere. It has probably 
contributed more to a reduction in emissions than any other source of 
energy but for solar and wind and hydroelectric.
  This has had a tremendous positive effect on the environment and 
public health. In my view and in the view of many, coal and nuclear 
power have been inappropriately demonized over the last few years. 
These characterizations are patently unfair if we look at the record.
  Both are efficient and cost-effective sources of energy, and given 
our current energy consumption rates, we are going to be dependent upon 
them for the foreseeable future.

  The truth is, we are not meeting our energy needs currently 
domestically. And if we look at 20-year projections, we are going to 
need another 30 percent production of energy if we are going to be 
competitive.
  We are taking steps to make coal a cleaner burning fuel. We should 
also do whatever we can to promote a safe and efficient nuclear energy 
industry for our Nation and encourage the development of new nuclear 
reactors such as modular reactors which we have been discussing of 
late. Reauthorizing the Price-Anderson Act is a major step in that 
direction.
  I thank my colleagues for cosponsoring this amendment: Senators 
Bingaman, Bob Smith, Inhofe, Murkowski, Domenici, Landrieu, Hagel, 
Crapo, Thomas, Bond, Campbell, and Frist. I urge all of my colleagues 
to support this amendment. This should not be something that is 
extremely controversial. It is long overdue. It is something we have 
had since 1957. We should get on with it and make it part of Senator 
Daschle's energy legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I commend the Senator for offering 
this amendment. I am cosponsoring the amendment. Title V of the 
underlying bill we are debating renews the provisions of the Price-
Anderson Act that relate to Department of Energy contractors, but it 
does not renew those that relate to NRC licensees.
  The reason is that jurisdiction over the contractor provisions was in 
the Energy Committee, which was where we were largely developing this 
bill. The jurisdiction over the NRC licensee provisions is in the 
Environment Committee that Senator Smith chaired. Some members of the 
Environment Committee asked us not to include provisions that were 
under its jurisdiction in this substitute. The pending amendment 
Senator Voinovich has offered now provides a substitute for the Price-
Anderson provisions in the underlying bill.
  It repeats the provisions that renew DOE contractor portions of 
Price-Anderson that are already there, and in addition, it adds the new 
provisions related to the NRC licensee part of the act.
  Let me give a short summary of what the pending amendment would do. 
Section 502 of the amendment extends the NRC's indemnification 
authority for another 10 years. That has been recommended by the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and it is part of what Senator Voinovich 
is proposing. It extends the indemnification authority of the 
Department of Energy indefinitely. That is also consistent with the 
1998 report of the Department of Energy.
  Section 503 of the amendment raises the liability limit for DOE 
contractors and hence the amount that DOE indemnifies its contractors 
up to $10 billion, which would be adjusted in the future for inflation.
  Under current law, the liability limit for DOE contractors is tied to 
the maximum liability of Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensees, which 
is currently at $9 billion.
  Section 504 increases the liability limits and indemnification for 
accidents involving government-owned nuclear facilities or devices 
located outside the United States from the $100 million, where it 
presently is, to $500 million. This increase also was recommended by 
the Department of Energy. It is consistent with international nuclear 
liability standards.
  Section 505 requires both the Department of Energy and the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission to submit new reports on the need to continue or 
modify the act in 2008.
  Section 506 requires the Secretary of Energy to adjust the $10 
billion liability limit every 5 years for inflation. This is consistent 
also with the provision in existing law that requires the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission to adjust the limit for Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission licensees.
  Section 507 repeals two provisions in current law that exempt 
nonprofit Department of Energy contractors from civil penalties for 
nuclear safety violations.
  Section 507 subjects nonprofit contractors to set civil penalties. It 
limits the total amount of those penalties to the fee the contractor 
receives in any year under the contract.
  Finally, section 508 provides two or more so-called ``modular'' 
reactors that are located at one site should be treated as a single 
nuclear powerplant for purposes of assessing premiums under the Price-
Anderson Act. This provision has been added to allow for the use of 
some of the new advanced technology reactor designs that make use of 
several small reactor modules to do the work of a single large nuclear

[[Page S1624]]

reactor. The provision will permit the NRC to treat a collection of 
these modules at a single site as a single reactor for Price-Anderson 
purposes.
  In summary, the Price-Anderson Act has served this nation well for 45 
years, by enabling utilities to generate 20 percent of our Nation's 
electricity with nuclear power, universities to conduct important 
nuclear research, and corporations to build nuclear weapons for our 
national defense without the threat of unlimited liability.
  At the same time, the act has ensured that the public will be 
compensated in the event of a nuclear accident, that adequate funds 
will be available to pay claims, and that victims will be able to 
recover through an efficient no-fault liability system, which waives 
many of the legal obstacles that would confront victims in the absence 
of the act.
  The important pending amendment renews this important law with a 
minimum number of changes, and in ways consistent with the strong 
recommendations we have received from the two agencies charged with 
administering it. I urge its adoption.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire is 
recognized.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise in very strong 
support of the Voinovich-Bingaman Price-Anderson amendment.
  Senator Voinovich has long been a leader at the EPW Committee on 
nuclear issues. I am proud to join him as a cosponsor of this 
amendment. Last year, Senator Voinovich introduced S. 1360 to 
reauthorize Price-Anderson for NRC licensees--a bill of which I was an 
original cosponsor, as the ranking member of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee. I am also pleased to be joining my colleagues on both 
the Energy Committee and on my own committee in cosponsoring this 
amendment. I especially thank Senator Bingaman for his cooperation with 
us on this issue.
  Price-Anderson addresses two classes of nuclear facilities: 
commercial nuclear reactors and Federal nuclear facilities operated by 
``DOE contractors.'' It combines both NRC licensee and DOE contractor 
provisions of Price-Anderson.
  I want to speak for a couple of minutes to the provisions of the 
amendment that deal with NRC licensees, as that is where the EPW 
Committee has focused its efforts. It does two very simple things. No. 
1, it reauthorizes Price-Anderson for NRC licensees for an additional 
10 years--consistent with NRC recommendations. Secondly, the amendment 
recognizes that new nuclear technologies--technologies that provide 
smaller, modular, cost-effective, and even safer reactors--are on the 
horizon. That is the future. This amendment allows for that new 
technology to come forth and to be used.
  For the purposes of secondary protection requirements, this amendment 
treats modular reactor facilities containing modules of 100 to 300 
megawatts, up to a total of 1,300 megawatts, as a single facility.
  These modular units--now being developed--are the future of nuclear 
power, and it is important that Price-Anderson recognize the difference 
between these smaller modular units and the current larger facilities. 
Again, this legislation--this amendment--will allow for this modular 
concept to take hold and bring us into the future with nuclear power.
  The background has been stated on Price-Anderson by my colleagues, 
but just briefly to summarize, it was a law passed in 1957 in order to 
provide immediate compensation in the event of a nuclear accident.
  Price-Anderson is the best mechanism for providing the highest level 
of compensation in the shortest period of time, without having to put 
victims through an arduous and protracted legal process.
  Equally important, it is the best deal for the taxpayer. With Price-
Anderson, if there were a nuclear accident or incident, up to $9.5 
billion would be available to compensate any victims. Not one dime of 
that money would come from taxpayers. It comes from a combination of 
insurance coverage and the industry itself--the entire nuclear industry 
pooling their collective resources--and this is compensation without 
having a lengthy judicial process to determine liability or 
culpability. So the law requires the insured and the insurers to waive 
most standard legal defenses. Fault does not need to be established. 
That is very important. Absent Price-Anderson, victims would have to 
rely on the court system, and damages would effectively be limited by 
the assets of a single company.
  It is unlikely that any one company, on its own, would ever be 
capable of paying out $9.5 billion in damages in the case of an 
accident. So the bottom line is that without Price-Anderson there would 
be less money available and it would take years for the dollars to work 
their way through the courts and then to those who need immediate 
assistance. That assumes there would be something left after the 
lawyers have taken their share. We don't know whether that would be the 
case or not. It is likely that the taxpayer, via Congress, would 
already have stepped in and provided whatever financial assistance was 
needed. The events of September 11 showed how quickly Congress can act 
in a disaster situation.
  Price-Anderson is a good deal for the taxpayers, for the industry, 
and for victims seeking damages.
  I understand there are those who don't like nuclear energy and will 
see the Price-Anderson debate as a means to stop nuclear power. I 
respect the rights and integrity of those who hold this view. I don't 
think they are right. We will have a lot of energy needs in the coming 
decades, and nuclear power can provide them cleanly and efficiently.
  There are enormous benefits to nuclear power. The majority of energy 
generated in New Hampshire is from nuclear power from the Seabrook 
nuclear powerplant--about 60 percent of it to be exact. I wonder where 
we would be today for our energy needs had that reactor not been built, 
in spite of the controversy and hard times we had to get it built. 
Seabrook Station has proven to be a safe, reliable source of power, not 
only for New Hampshire but for a large part of New England.
  These are great benefits. They are tremendous benefits. It can't be 
overlooked. I have spent the better part of 2 years working to come up 
with a bipartisan plan for reducing utility emissions without 
compromising our long-term energy security. In fact, Senator Voinovich 
has been a valued partner in that effort.
  Nuclear power allows us to generate enormous amounts of energy at low 
cost and with zero emissions. I know the issue of the waste comes up 
and it is very controversial; that is an issue we are going to have to 
confront. But when you are talking about emissions, this nuclear power 
is safe and efficient. It allows us to generate this power, as I said, 
at low cost with zero emissions, no SOX, NOX, 
mercury, and no carbon dioxide. Zero.
  Nuclear provides 20 percent of our Nation's energy production, with 
no emissions. We need to be able to not have that diminished further as 
these powerplants get older and older. One way to do that is with this 
modular concept for which we provide. If we want clean air and energy 
security, nuclear has to be a part of any reasonable energy plan.
  We should be encouraging the development of new, more effective and 
safe nuclear technologies. I am not saying this to the exclusion of 
other sources of power--renewables such as water, wind, solar, and 
others; we are not excluding those. We want to continue to do research 
there. I want to make it clear from this Senator's position, it is not 
only about nuclear power, it is all sources of power that can be 
efficient, clean, and produce what we need.
  At a minimum, we ought not to be discouraging this kind of technology 
and what this nuclear industry can do. If we don't reauthorize Price-
Anderson, we effectively kill all the new promising technologies that 
are the next generation of emissions-free power production. We can't 
afford to do that.
  This amendment recognizes the recommendations made by the NRC, and 
they should be adopted. Price-Anderson enjoys strong bipartisan support 
in this body, as well as on the other side of the Capitol in the House.
  Again, I thank Senator Voinovich and Senator Bingaman for their 
leadership. It has been a pleasure to work with them and Senator Inhofe 
on nuclear issues in the committee. They deserve a great deal of 
credit--Senators

[[Page S1625]]

Voinovich and Inhofe--for the work they have done. I particularly thank 
my friends on the Energy Committee for their collective effort in 
bringing this bipartisan amendment to the floor--in particular, 
Senators Murkowski, Domenici and, again, Senator Bingaman.
  Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan 
amendment to reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I join my colleague from New Hampshire in 
thanking Senator Voinovich, Senator Inhofe, a good number of folks on 
our side of the aisle, and certainly a good number on the Democratic 
side of the aisle for crafting what I think is truly a bipartisan 
amendment to a necessary and important mix of our energy portfolio in 
this country.
  As you know, the Price-Anderson Act provides a substantial amount of 
the necessary insurance protection for the commercial sector to deal 
with nuclear energy in our country.
  The Price-Anderson Act removed the deterrent to private sector 
participation in nuclear activities when there was a substantial threat 
of liability.
  As we know, the historic management of our nuclear facilities on the 
private side, the commercial side of the equation has proven to be very 
successful and very safe throughout their operation.
  The kind of protection we have offered in no way has ever deterred or 
lessened the desire or the responsibility of good management. In fact, 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not only ensured that by its 
constant and vigilant oversight--and certainly the private sector in 
operating these reactors for the benefit of the country has known 
that--but has demonstrated that very clearly. It is truly one of the 
great success stories of energy generation in our country that is not 
often told.
  Why? Because when we talk nuclear, there are automatic reactions and 
some risks are argued even though those risks have never effectively 
played out in an area of effective regulation, quality management of 
the kind we have seen historically within the nuclear industry of this 
country.
  Price-Anderson is an act that has been working well since its 
origination in 1957. We will need nuclear energy as we meet the growing 
energy needs of our country. My colleague from New Hampshire was just 
talking about clean energy and its importance. There is no cleaner 
energy than that which is produced by a nuclear reactor and electrical 
generator. That has clearly demonstrated itself historically.
  All I can say today is, thank goodness that 20 percent of our energy 
basket in this country is nuclear. I wish it were more. If it were 
more, I think we would have less concern today about the climate change 
issue and other issues such as greenhouse gases released into the 
environment. That is going to push us, as it should, toward ever-
increasing higher levels of technology and the application of that 
technology to make cleaner fuels.
  While doing that, many of us in this body and the other body have 
recognized the value of advancing nuclear reactor design. Over the last 
several years, Senator Domenici from New Mexico, chairing the 
Appropriations Energy Subcommittee, and I have worked to increase 
budgets to allow for that kind of experimentation and development.
  The administration in its new budget has come forth with a proposal 
called 2010 to invest money in the new technologies of nuclear 
reactors, to get that technology to the marketplace and to the private 
sector and to allow an ever-increasing amount of our energy portfolio 
to become nuclear generated.
  As a result, reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act is absolutely 
critical because without it, and without that kind of protection, the 
reality of expanding that energy base simply would not happen.

  As we know, just in the last 3 weeks the President has proposed a new 
and dramatic direction for climate change in our country with the 
bringing together of science, the application of new computer models, 
and the idea of not picking winners and losers but allowing the great 
technology and the human mind in this country to lead the world to a 
cleaner environment.
  We cannot get there and have an abundance of energy that will drive 
this wonderful economy of ours and create the jobs that it can and has 
created without nuclear energy as a part of it. There is no technology 
today that builds at those levels of commercial power production 
without nuclear energy being a part of it and an increasing part of 
that overall energy basket.
  That is why we are here today. I think that is why we have arrived at 
a bipartisan approach to this issue. Some of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle who a decade ago were archcritics of nuclear energy 
are quietly saying today: We recognize that new technology in this 
area, new reactor design, has to come about if we are going to lead the 
world and have safer and more abundant forms of energy. That is why 
this overall energy bill is critical, with all of the new approaches 
that we bring, along with assuring current levels of hydrocarbon 
production and new levels of hydrocarbon production, and, at the same 
time, clearly technology and the application of that brings us to a 
cleaner environment that can be and must be abundant in energy.
  I do appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly on the 
reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act. It is an important part of 
any national energy policy for our country. I am confident it can pass 
because it has been brought before this body in a bipartisan effort.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to express my concern about the 
provisions of this amendment, and state my reasons for opposing it.
  As Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, which 
has jurisdiction over the licensing and regulation by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission of the Nation's commercial nuclear power plants, 
I have a very strong interest in the application of the provisions of 
Price-Anderson.
  Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission has the obligation to assure the safety and security of our 
Nation's nuclear power plants, and to oversee compensation to the 
public in the event of a catastrophic accident. This is the most 
serious of responsibilities.
  My State of Vermont receives much of its power from the Vermont 
Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. While I am supportive of nuclear power and 
the many benefits it brings, I am deeply and personally aware of the 
potential dangers to the public that a nuclear power plant could pose, 
should something go wrong.
  Since the events of September 11, of course, intense scrutiny has 
been given to security at nuclear plants, and chairman of the EPW 
Committee, I am committed to ensuring that our obligations to protect 
the public are fully met. Because this amendment fails to satisfy that 
responsibility,I must oppose it.
  The Price-Anderson Act establishes a system of liability, and 
compensation to the general public for damages in the event of a 
nuclear accident, an ``extraordinary nuclear occurrence'' in the 
language of the Atomic Energy Act. The current language provides that 
every commercial reactor having a rated capacity of 100,000 electrical 
kilowatts or more must obtain insurance as provided in the act.
  Section 508 of the amendment would make an exception for modular 
reactors, which are small reactors in the 100 to 110 kilowatt range, 
that must be clustered together in order to be economically viable. The 
amendment would treat them as a group of units comprising a single 
nuclear reactor. This would prevent each module from being treated, for 
purposes of liability coverage under Price-Anderson, as an individual 
reactor. Without this protection, construction of these modular 
reactors would not in all likelihood be economically viable.

[[Page S1626]]

  The safety and performance of these reactors is still a matter of 
considerable speculation. I am not satisfied that these issues have 
been sufficiently reviewed within my committee or elsewhere to justify 
encouraging their continued development at this time. Particularly with 
the events of September 11 heavy in our hearts and in our minds, I 
believe we must act with due caution in authorizing activities which we 
are not fully satisfied meet our obligations for protection of the 
public health and safety.
  Along those same lines, there are a number of issues relating to the 
adequacy of Price-Anderson that should be given greater scrutiny 
following the events of September 11. We must determine whether 
liability limits established under the Act are sufficient, given the 
potential for terrorist attack as we now perceive it. In so doing, we 
must carefully examine what are likely to be the full scale impacts to 
the public from a terrorist attack resulting in an ``extraordinary 
nuclear occurrence.''
  We have requested this information from the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, but have not yet received a full response. I intend to work 
with my colleagues to develop language to address some of these 
concerns. I do not believe the amendment adequately addresses these 
issues, and for that reason, I will oppose it.


                Amendment No. 2984 to Amendment No. 2983

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2984 to amendment No. 2983.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In lieu of the matter to be inserted, insert the following:

     SEC. 5____. FINANCIAL PROTECTION FOR LICENSEES.

       (a) Standard Deferred Premium.--Section 170b.(1) of the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(b)(1)) is amended 
     in the third sentence by striking ``$63,000,000 (subject to 
     adjustment for inflation under subsection t.), but not more 
     than $10,000,000 in any 1 year'' and inserting ``$88,000,000 
     (subject to adjustment for inflation under subsection t.), 
     but not more than $20,000,000 in any 1 year (subject to 
     adjustment for inflation under subsection t.)''.
       (b) Financial Hardship.--Section 170b.(2)(A) of the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(b)(2)(A)) is amended by 
     striking ``paragraph (1)'' and all that follows and inserting 
     ``paragraph (1) for any facility if more than 1 nuclear 
     incident occurs in any 1 calendar year.''.
       (c) New Licenses.--Section 170c. of the Atomic Energy Act 
     of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Commission'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Licenses issued on or before august 1, 2002.--The 
     Commission''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Licenses issued after august 1, 2002.--After August 
     1, 2002, as a condition to receiving a license for a 
     utilization facility under this Act, the applicant, before 
     receiving the license, shall obtain insurance coverage from 
     the private insurance market for the full potential liability 
     (including the public liability and any other liability) of 
     the person that might arise as a result of a nuclear incident 
     at the utilization facility.

     SEC. 5____. GUARANTEE OF DEFERRED PREMIUM; FINANCIAL 
                   QUALIFICATIONS.

       Section 170b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2210(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Guarantee of deferred premium.--
       ``(A) Condition of indemnification.--Not later than 180 
     days after the date of enactment of this paragraph, and not 
     less frequently than each year thereafter, the Commission, in 
     consultation with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 
     shall, as a condition of indemnification, require each 
     licensee to demonstrate that the licensee has the financial 
     ability to pay the full potential retrospective premium for 
     each reactor through 1 or more of--
       ``(i) a surety bond;
       ``(ii) a letter of credit or loan;
       ``(iii) an insurance policy; or
       ``(iv) maintenance of an escrow deposit of government 
     securities in reserves, a trust, or an equivalent instrument.
       ``(B) Reorganization proceedings.--If a licensee or 
     creditors of a licensee file a petition under chapter 11 of 
     title 11, United States Code, for reorganization of the 
     licensee, the Commission--
       ``(i) shall review the ability of the licensee to--

       ``(I) pay the full amount of prospective and standard 
     deferred premiums; and
       ``(II) ensure that adequate funds will be available for 
     safe operation of the licensed facility; and

       ``(ii) if the Commission determines that the licensee is 
     unable to meet the requirements of clause (i), shall not 
     renew any indemnification of the licensee under this section.
       ``(6) Financial qualifications.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Commission, in consultation with the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission, shall establish criteria 
     and procedures for determination of the minimum financial 
     qualifications for new licensees (including license 
     transferees) to ensure that the new licensee has the 
     resources and instruments necessary to--
       ``(i) operate safely if it becomes necessary to shut down a 
     reactor for 12 months or longer; and
       ``(ii) ensure payment of prospective and deferred premiums 
     under this subsection.
       ``(B) Condition.--A license shall be conditioned on meeting 
     and maintaining the minimum financial qualifications 
     established under subparagraph (A).''.

     SEC. 5____. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON INCIDENT CONSEQUENCES.

       Section 170(l) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2210(l)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``1988'' and inserting 
     ``2002'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``not less than 7 and 
     not more than 11 members'' and inserting ``6, 8, 10, or 12 
     members''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``not more than a mere 
     majority of the members are of the same political party'' and 
     inserting ``there are equal numbers of members of each major 
     political party''; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Duties.--
       ``(A) In general.--The study commission shall conduct a 
     comprehensive study of the economic, public health, and 
     environmental impacts of nuclear incidents that may result in 
     a full breach of containment and uncontained meltdown at a 
     facility built in accordance with an existing design or a 
     proposed design.
       ``(B) Inputs.--The matters to be studied under subparagraph 
     (A) include--
       ``(i) for each existing and proposed facility--

       ``(I) the public health effects; and
       ``(II) the economic costs attributable to public health 
     effects, property damage, environmental damage, and 
     evacuation and resettlement of affected populations;

     of a worst-case nuclear incident; and
       ``(ii) the ability of the licensee of each existing or 
     proposed facility to pay the standard deferred premium for a 
     potential occurrence at each covered facility of the licensee 
     and at a facility that is not covered by the licensee.
       ``(C) Sensitivity analysis.--
       ``(i) In general.--In studying the matters under 
     subparagraph (B)(i), the study commission shall conduct a 
     sensitivity analysis based on various modeling input 
     assumptions to determine the maximum potential consequences 
     of a worst-case nuclear incident.
       ``(ii) Assumptions.--The assumptions on which the 
     sensitivity analysis is based shall include assumptions 
     regarding--

       ``(I) nuclear incident scenarios;
       ``(II) weather patterns;
       ``(III) traffic patterns; and
       ``(IV) human behavior that may have an effect on evacuation 
     of persons threatened by a nuclear incident.''.

     SEC. 5____. ACTS OF TERRORISM.

       Section 11q. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2014(q)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``q. The term'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``q. Nuclear Incident.--
       ``(1) In general.--The term''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Occurrences.--
       ``(A) In general.--In paragraph (1), the term `occurrence' 
     includes an act that the President determines to have been an 
     act of domestic terrorism or international terrorism (as 
     those terms are defined in section 2331 of title 18, United 
     States Code).
       ``(B) No judicial review.--A determination of the President 
     under subparagraph (A) shall not be subject to judicial 
     review.''.

     SEC. 5____. TREATMENT OF NUCLEAR REACTOR FINANCIAL 
                   OBLIGATIONS.

       Section 523 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Treatment of Nuclear Reactor Financial Obligations.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this title--
       ``(1) any funds or other assets held by a licensee or 
     former licensee of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or by 
     any other person, to satisfy the responsibility of the 
     licensee, former licensee, or any other person to comply with 
     a regulation or order of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
     governing the decontamination and decommissioning of a 
     nuclear power reactor licensed under section 103 or 104b. of 
     the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134(b)) shall 
     not be used to satisfy the claim of any creditor in any 
     proceeding under this title, other than a claim resulting 
     from an activity undertaken to satisfy that responsibility, 
     until the decontamination and decommissioning of the nuclear 
     power reactor is completed to the satisfaction of the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission;

[[Page S1627]]

       ``(2) obligations of licensees, former licensees, or any 
     other person to use funds or other assets to satisfy a 
     responsibility described in paragraph (1) may not be 
     rejected, avoided, or discharged in any proceeding under this 
     title or in any liquidation, reorganization, receivership, or 
     other insolvency proceeding under Federal or State law; and
       ``(3) private insurance premiums and standard deferred 
     premiums held and maintained in accordance with section 170b. 
     of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(b)) shall 
     not be used to satisfy the claim of any creditor in any 
     proceeding under this title, until the indemnification 
     agreement executed in accordance with section 170c. of that 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 2210(c)) is terminated.''.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, the Price-Anderson Act was created nearly 
50 years ago to stimulate the fledgling nuclear power industry by 
shielding owners from the full cost of an accident. The nuclear 
industry is now a mature electric industry and is no longer in need of 
liability protection.
  The Price-Anderson Act has actually led to a decrease in the amount 
of private insurance available instead of increasing it. In the 1950s, 
the private insurance industry was willing to insure an accident for 
$50 million despite limited experience with the new technology. Today, 
the private insurance industry only provides $200 million in insurance. 
I say only, Madam President. Think about that. One accident, think what 
it would do.
  On public radio today, there was a segment that dealt with your 
State, New York. What would happen if a dirty bomb were dropped on New 
York? What is a dirty bomb? A dirty bomb could be TNT surrounded by the 
same piece of equipment that is used to irradiate food. That little 
piece of equipment would cause 1 out of 100 people in New York City to 
develop cancer.
  Madam President, $200 million sounds like a lot of money, but it is 
not very much money when we talk about the damage nuclear power can 
cause.
  Today, Price-Anderson serves to shield the nuclear power industry 
from the true costs of producing power, providing an unfair economic 
advantage over other traditional and alternative electrical sources. 
For example, wind has a tax credit--or, if we extend it, will have and 
has had one--solar, geothermal, nothing; biomass, nothing; but yet we 
give this sweetheart deal to nuclear power. The nuclear power industry 
must assure compensation to the public in the event of an accident, as 
any other business. The nuclear power industry must not shirk its 
responsibility.
  Although an event we hope is unlikely, we are also hopeful that an 
accident never occurs. We must acknowledge the possibility of a 
catastrophic event. We know that the Titanic was unsinkable but, of 
course, it sank on its first voyage.
  To address the shortcomings I have spoken about, and more, my 
amendment would modernize the Price-Anderson coverage for existing 
reactors and would require new reactors to obtain private insurance to 
cover the full amount of a nuclear accident. It would raise the maximum 
annual contribution for reactor owners from $10 million to $20 million. 
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recommended this increase in 1998 and 
then backed down.
  My amendment also would require each reactor owner to guarantee the 
full financial commitment of each reactor using hard money resources 
such as surety bonds, letters of credit, private insurance, escrow 
deposit accounts. Currently, the NRC requires only a 3-month cashflow 
statement to demonstrate the reactor owner can pay $10 million. Based 
upon Enron accounting and Andersen accounting, this is not the way to 
do it.
  My amendment would establish a Presidential commission to examine the 
public health and environmental consequences of a catastrophic 
accident. My amendment would protect the Price-Anderson payments for 
victims if the owner of a reactor filed for bankruptcy.

  Finally, my amendment would require the President to determine if an 
intentional act against a nuclear powerplant was an act of terrorism 
covered under Price-Anderson.
  Together, these amendments make Price-Anderson a viable system, 
perhaps, or at least a more viable system, for existing reactors and 
take away the training wheels for the next generation of nuclear 
powerplants so they can succeed on their own merits. Taken together, 
this amendment will let the nuclear industry stand on its own two feet. 
Taken together, these amendments will protect the environment and the 
American people for generations to come.
  This is a very serious issue with which we are dealing. A resident of 
the Chair's State, Christy Brinkley, who is a famous woman--not only 
because of how she looks but how she thinks--has become really involved 
in things nuclear. She has testified at hearings in Washington.
  Our committee, of which the Presiding Officer is a member, held a 
hearing on Price-Anderson. We do not have all the jurisdiction of 
Price-Anderson. The Energy Committee that is handling this bill has 
some of the jurisdiction. But if there were ever things legislative 
that the Environment Committee should deal with, it would be nuclear 
power. Christy Brinkley is one of many who recognize the problems 
involved.
  Every environmental--I should not say every environmental group; 
there may be a few missing, but most environmental groups in Washington 
signed a letter supporting the amendment I have offered, recognizing 
that it is important Price-Anderson be changed. It is not fair the way 
things now are. Why should they have the benefit of government 
handouts, really, when other electricity generators do not? My 
amendment would give financial protection for licensees. It would be a 
guarantee of preferred premium. There would be financial 
qualifications. We would have a Presidential commission on incident 
consequences.
  Of course, the section clarifies acts of terrorism involving nuclear 
licensees would be covered under Price-Anderson, but this section 
directs the President to determine whether an attack on a nuclear 
powerplant is an act of terrorism or an act of war for the purposes of 
paying claims for public liability.
  The act and regulations under Price-Anderson are really flawed. Most 
operators meet the current provisions through a loophole. That is to 
make sure they are financially sound to respond to what largess the 
Federal Government has given them. But even there they ``Enron'' us. 
The acting regulations are flawed in this regard. Most operators meet 
the current provisions through a loophole by providing only an annual 
certified financial statement, which is essentially an auditor's 
statement. The public deserves, especially in light of what has 
happened since the Enron debacle, more protection than that offered by 
a potentially misleading certified financial statement, particularly, 
as I have mentioned, after the Enron mess involving its financial 
auditor, Arthur Andersen.
  The amendment I have submitted would ensure real financial safeguards 
such as a bond, a letter of credit, or a loan. Escrow funds, or even 
insurance, would be the only measure of a nuclear operator's ability to 
meet its financial obligations to the public.
  Under the present legislation, I repeat, all that is needed is an 
annual certified financial statement showing there is a cashflow or 
something can be generated, not then but within 3 months. All operators 
who propose to build new plants to produce electricity from nuclear 
power, particularly in the context of deregulated wholesale electricity 
markets, should be expected to incorporate the cost of obtaining 
insurance, the economics of generating electricity, but not under 
Price-Anderson. Many of these companies are owned by limited liability 
corporations, thinly capitalized, highly leveraged, legally structured 
to avoid exposing their parent corporate entity to liability in the 
event of insolvency and, of course, in the event of accident.
  This amendment establishes minimal financial qualifications to ensure 
operators can meet their monetary obligations to the public in the 
event of an accident or terrorist attack. This amendment is supported 
by the U.S. PIRG, the Environmental Defense Fund, Union of Concerned 
Scientists, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, 
Nuclear Information Resources, League of Conservation Voters, Taxpayers 
for Common Sense, National Environmental Trust, National Resources 
Defense Council, Public Citizens Critical Mass, STAR, Safe Energy 
Communications Council, and Greenpeace.

[[Page S1628]]

  A 1992 analysis of energy subsidies by the U.S. Department of Energy 
indicates a Federal regulation that continues to have a cost-reducing 
effect on the nuclear power industry is simply unfair. These liability 
limits provide a subsidy to the nuclear industry to the degree private 
insurance premiums paid by operators of individual plants are reduced.
  In 1983--almost 20 years ago--the NRC concluded the liability limits 
were sufficiently significant to constitute a subsidy, and it has 
really been magnified during the last 19 years. However, a 
quantification of the amount of subsidy was not attempted at that time.
  One of the questions raised is: Are acts of terrorism covered by 
Price-Anderson? The Nuclear Regulatory Commission indicated, in 
response to questions from the same hearing I have talked about 
earlier, on January 23, courts would likely have to settle the 
question. We had leading scholars present from the legal academic 
world, and they said it would lead to significant delay or even 
termination of victim compensation.
  Are victims guaranteed to receive payments from reactors that file 
chapter XI bankruptcy? In the same hearing we had in January, the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission stated that the NRC could potentially 
face a conflict with other claims in a bankruptcy proceeding if there 
were an accident sufficient to trigger these industry payments. The NRC 
would presumably require a licensee to pay the assessment, but the 
bankruptcy court could order the licensee to pay it. The NRC also 
indicated it would support legislation to address this concern.
  In the Economist magazine, they have a very in-depth article about 
nuclear power generally. Among other things in this long article of May 
19 of last year, they talk about when costing nuclear power, it is 
essential to remember the scope, scale, and subtlety of the subsidy it 
receives. Liability insurance is a good example of this subsidy. The 
American industry's official position is there is no subsidy involved 
in Price-Anderson. To do that, you would have to be without any common 
sense, let alone academic prowess.

  Since there is no subsidy involved, why not let the act lapse when it 
comes up for renewal next year? What we were told by our Vice President 
is that it needs to be renewed; if not, nobody will invest in nuclear 
powerplants.
  That answers the question.
  In the end, the article continues, nuclear energy's future may be 
skewed by the same sword that is making it fashionable today, the 
deregulation of electricity markets.
  Why is that? Because, Madam President, right now nuclear power is the 
most expensive, even with the subsidies. Yet the article continues: 
Liberalization is also exposing the true economics of new plants and is 
aiming a fierce spotlight at the hefty subsidies that nuclear power has 
long enjoyed. As these fade, the industry once again will be brought 
down to earth.
  Now, this is not me speaking. This is from the Economist magazine. 
They say these are significant subsidies and once they are attached, 
nuclear power will no longer be in vogue.
  The New York Times published an article entitled ``Hard Questions On 
Nuclear Power,'' written last year. Among other things, they say the 
Congress will need to take a close look at whether it should renew one 
of the industry's economic underpinnings, the so-called Price-Anderson 
Act, that limits companies' liability in the event of an accident. If 
the industry is safe, they may not need such subsidized protection.
  A lot of this has come to light following September 11, and whether 
we have to be more concerned about acts of terrorism. I know the 
Presiding Officer, this Senator, and the junior Senator from 
Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, have looked closely at the safety of 
nuclear powerplants. He is right. They have different standards at 
different plants, different companies, different private contractors. 
If someone going through a baggage checkpoint is examined by someone 
who works for the Federal Government, should we not have a system 
whereby nuclear powerplants have Federal employees? The answer is yes. 
They should not have rent-a-cops determining the safety of those 
facilities.
  Today, thinly capitalized, limited liability corporations operate 
nearly half of the Nation's nuclear reactors. Taxpayers, I suggest, by 
default, shoulder secondary insurance costs whenever it is determined 
insurance claims would constitute undue hardship.
  It is reported the NRC did not require the company purchasing the 
single largest fleet of 16 reactors to provide adequate evidence of 
financial stability as a condition of granting a license. Some 
advocates of Price-Anderson argue that because the Government indemnity 
has never been used, we don't need to worry about it. Price-Anderson is 
not a subsidy, they say. However, every legal scholar has said it is. 
Price-Anderson allows utilities to commit less capital to insuring 
nuclear plants so that the act results in a reallocation of resources 
away from more highly valued uses, so it is indeed a subsidy. Think of 
its advantage over solar, geothermal, biomass, clean coal, and 
certainly natural gas.
  Despite continuing claims concerning the safety of nuclear power, the 
amount of private liability insurance available has actually declined 
in real terms since 1957. The reason is they figured ways to get around 
that. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission report states it is unlikely 
that the amount of available liability insurance would increase much 
beyond the $200 million level without strong pressure from outside 
the insurance industry. The obvious question is, What could be expected 
with repeal of Price-Anderson? One could argue, as Richard Howell does, 
that the more likely result is that sufficient insurance will be 
provided to maintain the viability of the industry.

  These companies make a lot of money. As every other business, they 
will buy insurance to cover their liability. Why should the Federal 
Government have to provide that? Utilities needing more liability 
insurance would have an incentive to accept stricter safety standards 
from insurance companies. An increase in the role of the insurance 
industry would be a welcome development by regulators and an economic 
incentive for safe operating methods and not relying on the Federal 
Government to give them a subsidy.
  If Price-Anderson were allowed to expire, the determination for what 
sort of tort liability, strict liability, or negligence to which the 
plants are subject reverts to States. We have been debating in the 
Senate for the many years I have been here whether or not we will have 
a national standard for product liability. The answer is no. We let the 
States determine that. That is the way it should be.


                     Amendment No. 2984, Withdrawn

  I will withdraw my amendment. I hope people will vote against this 
amendment. I know there will be people wanting to vote for this simply 
because the two managers of the legislation support this legislation. I 
have the greatest respect for my friend from New Mexico. He has been 
somebody I have looked up to the entire time I have been in the Senate. 
I will continue to look up to him even though he is wrong on this 
issue. He is simply wrong. Price-Anderson needs to be changed.
  I hope Senators vote against this mischievous and unworthy amendment. 
It is not good for the country. It is not good for the country for so 
many reasons, not the least of which is the liability aspect of it, not 
the least of which the Federal Government should get out of subsidizing 
nuclear power. But also, if we got rid of this amendment, people living 
near nuclear powerplants would know there is sufficient insurance to 
take care of their family if something went wrong.
  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Without objection, the amendment 
is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 2984) was withdrawn.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Voinovich amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There does not appear to be a sufficient second.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I will mention that I have the highest 
regard for Senator Reid. Much of what he just discussed came up in the 
committee hearing we had. Perhaps the Presiding Officer was at the 
meeting.

[[Page S1629]]

  Mr. REID. Could I ask my friend to yield for a brief second?
  I will ask for the yeas and nays on the Senator's amendment. It is my 
understanding everyone wants to vote on it. We did not get a second 
from the Republicans.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the Voinovich amendment No. 2983.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I apologize to the majority whip and the manager of 
the bill. I apologize. I have not been active in the discussion this 
morning. But as I understand it, the Senator from Nevada offered a 
second degree which he intends to withdraw--or is it withdrawn? It is 
withdrawn, so we are on Price-Anderson. I certainly support the call 
for the yeas and nays.
  It is my understanding the majority side will introduce the next 
amendment. At this time I wonder if they will indicate what that 
amendment might be.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in response to my friend from Alaska, 
once the debate is concluded on the Price-Anderson amendment Senator 
Voinovich has offered, it is our intent to set that aside and go to an 
amendment on hydraulic fracturing, which I would offer. I think Senator 
Inhofe and various other Senators are cosponsoring that.
  Then I believe it is the whip's intent to have us stack a couple of 
votes on those two issues right after lunch.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield for a minute, we are now showing 
to the minority the proposal. We have two votes at 2 o'clock, with the 
time between now and 2 o'clock to be divided to speak on both 
amendments, Price-Anderson and also the hydraulic fracturing. We would 
have a vote on both those. We are not in a position to offer that as a 
unanimous consent agreement because we have to clear it with the two 
leaders, but that is the intention.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, what I am concerned about is the whip 
indicated 2 o'clock. Will we break for lunch or is it the intention to 
go right through?
  I just have been alerted there are a couple of our Members who are 
going to want to speak on the fracturing amendment. Unless there is any 
extended debate, I am certainly willing to agree to a vote at 2 
o'clock. Obviously, we are about through with Price-Anderson.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator from Alaska will yield, I think we are just 
about finished on Price-Anderson. The Senator from Ohio wants to speak, 
and maybe the Senator from New Mexico, briefly, on it. But I think we 
will have quite a bit of time on fracturing.
  I will propound that at a subsequent time.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I assure the whip we want to work with him. We have a 
couple of more Members, I am advised, who want to speak very briefly on 
Price-Anderson. We are going to urge them to come here now and speak, 
and then we will have no objection to moving to the fracturing.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, it doesn't matter if they come 
now or later. The agreement will be that during this next period of 
time they can speak on either amendment.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Either amendment; that is certainly fair enough.
  I am going to make a short statement on Price-Anderson. Since the 
second degree has been withdrawn, I will not belabor that other than to 
say I am very pleased the Senator from Nevada saw fit to withdraw it 
because had his amendment prevailed, clearly it would have basically 
amounted to the demise of the nuclear industry from the standpoint of 
any future facilities being built, because that is the whole 
justification of Price-Anderson. I will put that behind me and simply 
support speaking of the Price-Anderson reauthorization amendment.
  I think Congress has been derelict in not resolving this issue some 
time ago. It is an important issue, to encourage further development of 
our nuclear industry.

  For those who are critical of the nuclear industry, I remind you it 
has an extraordinary safety record, considering the hyperpublicity 
given to almost any irregularity associated with the operation of the 
plants.
  The point is, to a large degree the system has worked. Any mechanical 
function has a certain degree of exposure. So you back it up with 
checks and balances. When you talk about Three Mile Island and the 
mistakes that were made, the reality is the system worked. If you talk 
about what happened in Chernobyl, you recognize human activity overrode 
the systems, which is just what happened when the Exxon Valdez went on 
the rocks. It was human activity--inattentive, in spite of the bells 
and whistles--that simply allowed this ship in a 10.5-mile-wide channel 
to hit a rock.
  My point is I think the nuclear industry in this country deserves a 
fair assessment of its extraordinary record. As a consequence, I think 
we must recognize the significant contribution nuclear energy makes.
  It is emission free. As we look at concern over global warming/
emission reductions, the one area that generates tremendous potential, 
even further than the 20 percent of the electric power generation that 
comes from nuclear energy, is the nuclear industry.
  The critics who would like to see this industry simply go away and 
not expand have to come up with an alternative, other than 
conservation, because conservation is simply not enough. Conservation 
will not pick up for the 20 percent of our energy mix that comes from 
nuclear energy. So we must continue to recognize the nuclear industry 
is going to play a greater role in the future if we want to meet our 
energy needs and protect our air quality.
  It is interesting to look on occasion at what the Joneses do. In 
France, obviously, nuclear power has been accepted. It is the area of 
technology that has the highest recognition in the higher educational 
system of France. The Japanese are moving towards greater dependence on 
nuclear energy because of the significant advantages associated with 
that.
  One of the problems, of course, is the nuclear waste issue. We will 
be getting into that at a later time. But I think it represents the 
frustration here in the United States with our nuclear industry, not 
being able to come to grips with what we do with the waste that is 
generated by the reactors that, of course, are subject to yearly 
examination when their fuel rods are removed. The question is, What is 
done with that high-level waste and how is it stored? It is not 
designed to be permanently stored necessarily in casks. We even 
embarked on an effort to try to find a repository. The solution appears 
to have been a selection in Nevada, at Yucca Mountain.
  I think it should be recognized we have expended some $7 billion of 
taxpayers' money on this repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. I 
think we should also recognize the ratepayers have paid, for this 
nuclear power, into a special fund, which was supposed to fund the 
construction of a site, that expended approximately $11 billion. So the 
Federal Government entered into a contractual relationship to take that 
waste in 1998.
  Mr. President, 1998 has come and gone and the Federal Government has 
not lived up to the terms of its contractual agreements. It is in 
violation of its contract. As a consequence, litigation associated with 
suits filed against the Federal Government are somewhere in the area of 
$40 billion. As we simply put off the decisionmaking process, what to 
do with this waste, clearly the liability to the taxpayer continues. So 
we simply have to come to grips with this issue.
  I am pleased to say this administration is facing it head on with a 
series of steps and procedures that will eventually get us to a final 
decision on how and on what terms this waste is stored, so we can get 
on with a clear bridge, if you will, to what we are going to do with 
the waste. That will, to a large degree, address the expansion of 
nuclear energy in this country because we are not going to expand 
nuclear production, nuclear energy, until we resolve what to do with 
that waste.
  It is important we get this issue behind us. But an important part of 
this, indeed, is Price-Anderson because that supplies, if you will, the 
necessary underwriting by the Federal Government of catastrophic 
exposure.
  Solid nuclear baseload power provides our grids with stability and 
reliability. In California alone, nuclear

[[Page S1630]]

supplies about 16 percent of the energy. Without it, last summer the 
California energy situation would have faced a collapse. High natural 
gas prices and low uranium prices help to make electricity produced by 
nuclear some of the cheapest in the country. Perhaps someday we might 
reach the fabled ``too cheap to meter'' goal. I am not sure that is 
going to happen, but nevertheless it is a reasonable objective.
  We have had, as I have indicated, safe and efficient operation of 
U.S. plants. They are operating at record efficiencies as they have 
recognized the procedural efficiencies.
  The point is that they are very efficient, and as a consequence they 
have become very attractive investments. We have seen more 
concentration by utility companies picking up some of the newer and 
more efficient plants.
  In 1999, U.S. nuclear reactors achieved close to 90 percent 
efficiency. The total efficiency increase during the nineties at the 
existing plants was the equivalent to approximately 23 1,000-megawatt 
powerplants. I think that is pretty significant. During the 1990s, a 
10-year period of existing plants, the equivalent efficiency was 23 
1,000-megawatt powerplants. I think that more or less speaks for itself 
relative to the advantages and attractiveness of nuclear power. Keep in 
mind that this is clean, it is nonemitting generation.
  With that efficiency, the industry is on an upswing. Four or five 
years ago, you wouldn't have thought you would hear talk about buying 
and selling plants, or even building new plants. Today the discussion 
is occurring.
  By the end of the 2002, the Chicago-based Exxon corporation will have 
invested a total of $25 million in a South African venture to build a 
pebble bed modular reactor.
  I see my friend from New Mexico, the senior Senator, in the Chamber. 
He is very familiar with this particular technology, which I think 
provides greater attractiveness for the nuclear industry.
  If we ever hope to achieve energy security and energy independence in 
this country, we cannot abandon the nuclear option which is an 
important and integral part of our energy mix. Our economy depends on 
nuclear energy. Our national security depends on nuclear energy. Our 
environment depends on nuclear energy. And our future, to a large 
degree, depends on nuclear energy.
  Critical to the future continuation of this industry is Price-
Anderson. I have been a strong advocate of reauthorization of Price-
Anderson. Senator Bingaman and I have worked together with our staff to 
agree on language in the last Congress to renew the Price-Anderson Act. 
Both of our comprehensive energy bills introduced in the first session 
of this Congress contain the same language based on recommendations 
from the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
Renewal of the act was supported by the last administration. Renewal of 
the act was also one of President Bush's 105 recommendations in the 
national energy policy. For over 40 years, the act has ensured ample 
insurance for the industry, and it will provide a mechanism for the 
prompt payment to victims in the unlikely event of a nuclear exposure 
of some kind. Renewal of this act is necessary if we are to continue 
nuclear energy, new plants, and ensure the relicensing of our existing 
plants.
  I don't understand really why the majority leader excluded the NRC 
licensees from the substitute. But this amendment is going to rectify 
that oversight.
  I am very pleased to see the level of support on the floor of the 
Senate. I thank the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, for his 
leadership in this area, and Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman, 
chairman of the Energy Committee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am very pleased that early in the 
discussion of the energy bill an amendment on Price-Anderson extension 
is before the Senate. I am also very pleased that it has so many 
cosponsors and that it is very bipartisan, in particular on the issue 
of nuclear power and its role in America and the world's future. If we 
are looking for the energy of the future and if we are looking to have 
clean air, obviously nuclear power has to be looked at.
  I am grateful that today Senator Bingaman, the manager of the bill 
and chairman of the committee, is a cosponsor of the Voinovich 
amendment. It also has a number of other Senators as cosponsors, all of 
whom from time to time have expressed great interest in nuclear energy.
  I also would like to commend the manager of the bill, even though we 
didn't mark up all the way through the committee. Senator Bingaman's 
staff, the majority staff, are fully aware of the nuclear power issues 
that confront our country.
  If there are Senators who wonder why there are not a series of 
amendments on nuclear power and its future that are going to be 
offered--there will be two or three--it is because this bill contains 
general type language that will permit nuclear power to be a player in 
the future. If, in fact, there are utility companies here and elsewhere 
in the world privately and publicly owned that want to produce nuclear 
power because of its efficiency and, equally important, because clean 
electricity is produced, and if we are worried about underdeveloped 
countries developing and using a lot of energy, and because America 
needs more energy over the next 20 or 30 years, it is good that we have 
not locked out the option of nuclear energy.
  There are some things that could be said about nuclear power in terms 
of the shortage we have found ourselves in. Just the past year, we 
found that of all the power sources in the country, the cheapest after 
hydropower is, and has been for some time, nuclear power. Per unit of 
electricity, the cheapest power generation of any major size in America 
has been nuclear power.
  Nuclear powerplants have gone without incident or accident for years. 
As a matter of fact, they have increased productive capacity in the 
neighborhood of from 70 to 75 percent of capacity to the low 90s for 
this entire period of time when we needed more energy because we were 
in the position as a nation of being sort of ambivalent about our 
energy supply. We weren't quite sure where we were going.
  There are also some exciting occurrences in terms of the next 
generation of nuclear powerplants. Perhaps before we finish we will 
have time to discuss events that are occurring around the world. Even 
American companies are thinking about nuclear plants in terms of future 
supply of electricity.
  The future is very bright. New technology will make nuclear power 
safer, if that can be. It will make it cheaper. It will permit us to 
locate nuclear powerplants more easily. They won't have to be the 
large-megawatt plants. They can be small and rather mobile plants built 
much more easily than in the past, and with far less permit time with 
the kind of work we have to do in that regard.
  Already the United States is ahead of the crisis. We have begun to 
build back into our Department of Energy some significant nuclear 
activities. We have had an Energy Department during the last 25 years 
when the Department was acting as if it were embarrassed about nuclear 
power and didn't even want it to be part of the Department of Energy. 
It is back, and we are now spending some money every year to help 
generate enthusiasm among engineers and those who would join the corps 
of experts in physics and chemistry and the like who will work on 
nuclear powerplants in the future.
  In producing this bill, Senator Bingaman took many of the things we 
had appropriated and made them permanent law with reference to the 
future of nuclear power.
  I will insert in the Record at a later time, rather than itemize them 
now, the numerous areas where the bill already takes into consideration 
the need for us to put nuclear power on a neutral footing with other 
kinds of power and to see if we can't come out winners both as to 
energy and as to the environment.
  So I want to state my very strong support for the renewal of Price-
Anderson, which is going to expire later this year--I think in August. 
It has been extended by Congress three times since becoming law in 
1957. Price-Anderson provides a framework for payment of public 
liability claims for any accident at a commercial nuclear powerplant. 
This law is vital to ensure that our taxpayers continue to receive the 
benefits

[[Page S1631]]

of nuclear energy and allows the industry to consider the construction 
of new plants.
  The Price-Anderson amendment, as it is structured--the one that is 
pending--takes care of and provides coverage for future plants. Some 
have wanted to cover the past but not the future. I am very pleased, 
and am certain that those who think there is a new day for the 
production of energy in the United States ahead, and that it might 
involve nuclear power, are also strongly supportive and delighted that 
this amendment is the broad amendment that also covers the future, not 
just the past.
  Many bills pending before the Senate incorporate renewal of Price-
Anderson. As I indicated, I have introduced a bill, S. 472, which 
contained renewal provisions. I was very pleased that 18 cosponsors 
joined me in that bill. Earlier bills from Senator Bingaman and Senator 
Murkowski had also incorporated renewal.
  This renewal amendment should enjoy strong bipartisan support in the 
Senate. I am very pleased that it will receive strong support because 
that in and of itself sends a signal that was not around 10 or 15 years 
ago when we thought we had an abundance of energy and the supply was 
not a problem. There was a small cadre of those who did not like nor 
want us involved in nuclear power. They prevailed. It would appear that 
we are moving in the direction of a neutral approach and that nuclear 
power will have to prove itself alongside all the other energy sources 
as being efficient and safe and the kind of power that we would truly 
like to have in our country, and it would be good for the world.
  In addition to coverage of commercial nuclear plants, Price-Anderson 
enables companies to accept the challenges that are involved in the 
cleanup of past nuclear weapons activities without charging the 
Government for insurance for coverage of very large possible, although 
highly unlikely, claims. It assures the availability of funds to 
provide prompt compensation to any member of the public who is harmed 
by nuclear activities. Without renewal, no new nuclear powerplants 
would be covered and progress on the cleanup of weapons activities 
could indeed be seriously jeopardized.
  That will not be the case once we have reported out a bill. 
Hopefully, before this year ends, the Senate and the House will find a 
way to do that.
  Since taxpayer funds are not used to pay claims resulting from a 
nuclear incident, there is no ``subsidy'' to industry, as some claim. 
Over the last 43 years of Price-Anderson protection, the insurance 
pools, never the Federal Government, have paid claims totaling $180 
million. Price-Anderson, with its risk-pooling among all nuclear 
companies, provides a far greater measure of certainty to the public 
for any liabilities that any one company could provide.
  Again, I appreciate Senator Bingaman's work on the basic bill, the 
underlying bill, as it pertains to nuclear power and various activities 
that will bring it into the future and line itself up along with other 
major energy sources not only for America but for the world.
  One area involves the appropriate treatment for 
nonprofit contractors. We have agreed that these contractors should 
have some degree of liability, but we have carefully limited their 
liability to the fee they are receiving at the time of any penalty. 
Without such a limitation, nonprofits could undertake a contracting 
role with the Department, but they would have to charge excessive fees 
to the Government and, obviously, would not be awarded any kind of 
work.

  There is a second provision for the treatment of modular reactors. 
When Price-Anderson was first drafted, it was assumed that all 
commercial reactors would be very large, maybe 1,000 megawatts or even 
more. But lately, there is growing interest in very small powerplants 
that might utilize modular construction and deliver much less power, 
perhaps only 100 megawatts per module.
  These small plants have some very interesting features, of which the 
most important is the ability to make them absolutely safe against 
meltdown incidents. Yes, that is a reality. That is what those who are 
inventing and putting together these new modular constructed 
powerplants, with new technology, will be able to do. They will not, by 
their own physics, be able to have a meltdown.
  I appreciate that this version of an extended Price-Anderson law 
provides equitable treatment for modular reactors to ensure that the 
act becomes viable in the future and is not a disincentive to 
considering new technology of the kind that is exciting many people.
  The renewal of Price-Anderson is one of the key actions needed to 
ensure that nuclear energy continues to provide clean, safe power for 
our Nation.
  Again, I am grateful for the leadership shown by the chairman of the 
committee. I am hoping that before this year is out, we will come out 
of conference with a Price-Anderson that is intact and that contains 
the language that is before the Senate today. We will have done 
something worthwhile.
  For those who wonder if anything is happening on this energy bill 
that is good and healthy and salutary and futuristic, I hope they will 
join us in saying that we did one thing, and it became less and less 
controversial, that is to extend the underpinnings, in terms of 
liability coverage, the underpinnings of nuclear power for today and 
nuclear power for the future.
  I yield the floor and thank the Chair for recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Lincoln be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I think it is significant, Mr. President, that the two 
Senators from New Mexico--one a Republican and one a Democrat--are both 
cosponsors of this amendment. I do not believe there is anyone in this 
country who speaks out more eloquently on behalf of nuclear power than 
Senator Domenici. This has been a cause of his for many years. I think 
it is important that he underscored the fact that not only does this 
deal with the nuclear power industry, but it also deals specifically 
with the cleanup of over 100 DOE facilities; that without this 
legislation the contractors would not be willing to go forward with the 
work they are now doing at those facilities. And it also provides a 
situation so that in the event that new reactors come on board--that 
is, more nuclear power facilities are built--that it would include 
those new facilities.
  Before I conclude on this amendment, I would like to point out and 
clarify the fact that the $10 million this bill continues to be asked 
for is adequate to get the job done.
  With the Presiding Officer's permission, I would like to read from 
the testimony of William F. Kane, who is the Deputy Executive Director 
for Reactor Programs because I think, in a nutshell, he can clarify to 
our colleagues just exactly what this is about.
  In his testimony on January 23rd, he said:

       Further developments in the electric generating industry 
     since the 1998 report to Congress have led the Commission to 
     review its 1998 recommendations and to reevaluate its 
     recommendation that Congress consider increasing the annual 
     installment to $20 million. There is now a heightened 
     interest in extending the operating life for most, if not 
     all, of the currently operating power reactors, and some 
     power companies are now examining whether they wish to submit 
     applications for new reactors or complete construction of 
     reactors that have been deferred. As a result, contrary to 
     our former recommendations, the commission does not 
     believe there is now justification for raising the maximum 
     annual retrospective premium of $10 million. The level is 
     adequate and does not need to be changed.

  He went on to say:

       In summing up, I would like to leave these thoughts with 
     you: To date, the United States Government has not paid a 
     penny for claims against nuclear power licensees. In the 
     event a serious accident were to occur, over $9 billion would 
     be available to pay compensation for any personal injury or 
     off-site property damage. The money will come from insurance 
     policies bought by the industry and from retrospective 
     premiums that will be paid by the industry. If these funds 
     are inadequate, Congress will be called upon to decide what 
     action is needed to provide assistance to those harmed. We 
     believe the public is protected by the broad base of prompt 
     funding. The Price-Anderson Act further aids the public by 
     establishing important procedural reforms for claims arising 
     from nuclear accidents. It channels liabilities to the 
     licensee, establishes a single Federal form for all claims, 
     eliminates the need

[[Page S1632]]

     to prove fault, requires waivers of other significant 
     defenses, makes prompt settlements possible, and if 
     litigation is needed, establishes the legal management 
     process to assure fairness and equity and distribution of 
     damages.

  That lays it out in a nutshell in terms of why it is that we need to 
reauthorize Price-Anderson.
  It is my understanding the Senator from New Mexico will be 
introducing another amendment. For the Members of the Senate, those who 
still would like to speak on Price-Anderson will be able to continue to 
do that, as well as those who will be supporting Senator Bingaman's 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, just a couple of other words about the 
Price-Anderson amendment: First, I thank my colleague from New Mexico 
for his kind words about provisions that are included in this bill. He 
has authored many of those provisions, particularly the ones related to 
nuclear power, and he has been a tireless advocate for peaceful use of 
nuclear power in this country for many years. We are all well aware of 
that.
  We have included in the bill those provisions he suggested which 
clearly do contemplate and envision continued contributions by the 
nuclear power industry to our energy needs. That is certainly my 
purpose and, I know, the purpose of Senator Voinovich as well. We were 
talking in one of the asides about the fact that the Price-Anderson Act 
was originally proposed by Representative Price from Illinois, Mel 
Price, and also by Senator Clinton Anderson from New Mexico. It has 
served the country well for 45 years, as we have indicated before. We 
think it is important that it continue to do so.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set 
aside, and it be in order for me to send another amendment to the desk 
for consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, I would like to ask the 
Senator from New Mexico, could I have maybe 2 minutes to say something 
about Price-Anderson? I am anxious to get to the next amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I withdraw my request, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have been talking about a complete 
energy policy for America. This is a bipartisan effort. I tried to get 
the Reagan administration to do it, then the Bush administration, the 
Clinton administration. None of them had done it. Now we have an 
opportunity to do it. An essential part of that is going to be nuclear 
energy. Maybe it has been said before, but I only want to put into the 
Record that after going through this long arduous thing on ambient air 
and the problems of other forms of energy, each year the U.S. nuclear 
powerplants prevent 5.1 million tons of sulphur dioxide, 2.4 million 
tons of nitrogen oxide, and 164 million metric tons of carbon from 
entering the earth's surface.
  Consequently, there are many people who were out protesting against 
nuclear energy just 20 years ago who now realize this is an abundant 
and safe and cheap form of energy.
  It is necessary in order to do that to have the Price-Anderson Act 
reauthorized.
  I yield the floor


                Amendment No. 2986 To Amendment No. 2917

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself, 
     Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bond, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Conrad, 
     Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Inhofe, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. 
     Thomas, proposes an amendment numbered 2986 to amendment No. 
     2917.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To study whether there is a need to regulate hydraulic 
                              fracturing))

       At the end of title VI, add the following new section:

     ``SEC. 610. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.

       ``Section 1421 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 300h) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas Production.--
       (1) Study of the effects of hydraulic fracturing.--
       ``(A) In general.--As soon as practicable, but in no event 
     later than 24 months after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection, the Administrator shall complete a study of the 
     known and potential effects on underground drinking water 
     sources of hydraulic fracturing, including the effects of 
     hydraulic fracturing on underground drinking water sources on 
     a nationwide basis, and within specific regions, States, or 
     portions of States.
       ``(B) Consultation.--In planning and conducting the study, 
     the Administrator shall consult with the Secretary of the 
     Interior, the Secretary of Energy, the Ground Water 
     Protection Council, affected States, and, as appropriate, 
     representatives of environmental, industry, academic, 
     scientific, public health, and other relevant organizations. 
     Such study may be accomplished in conjunction with other 
     ongoing studies related to the effects of oil and gas 
     production on groundwater resources.
       ``(C) Study elements.--The study conducted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall, at a minimum, examine and make 
     findings as to whether--
       ``(i) such hydraulic fracturing has endangered or will 
     endanger (as defined under subsection (d)(2)) underground 
     drinking water sources, including those sources within 
     specific regions, states or portions of States;
       ``(ii) there are specific methods, practices, or 
     hydrogeologic circumstances in which hydraulic fracturing has 
     endangered or will endanger underground drinking water 
     sources; and
       ``(iii) there are any precautionary actions that may reduce 
     or eliminate any such endangerment.
       ``(D) Study of hydraulic fracturing in a particular type of 
     geologic formation.--The Administrator may also complete a 
     separate study on the known and potential effects on 
     underground drinking water sources of hydraulic fracturing in 
     a particular type of geologic formation.
       ``(i) If such a study is undertaken, the Administrator 
     shall follow the procedures for study preparation and 
     independent scientific review set forth in subparagraphs 
     (1)(B) and (C) and (2) of this subsection. The Administrator 
     may complete this separate study prior to the completion of 
     the broader study of hydraulic fracturing required pursuant 
     to subparagraph (A) of this subsection.
       ``(ii) At the conclusion of independent scientific review 
     for any separate study, the Administrator shall determine, 
     pursuant to paragraph (3), whether regulation of hydraulic 
     fracturing in the particular type of geologic formation 
     addressed in the separate study is necessary under this part 
     to ensure that underground sources of drinking water will not 
     be endangered on a nationwide basis, or within a specific 
     region, State or portions of a state. Subparagraph (4) of 
     this subsection shall apply to any such determination by the 
     Administrator.
       ``(iii) If the Administrator completes a separate study, 
     the Administrator may use the information gathered in the 
     course of such a study in undertaking her broad study to the 
     extent appropriate. The broader study need not include a 
     reexamination of the conclusions reached by the Administrator 
     in any separate study.
       ``(2) Independent scientific review.--
       ``(A) In general.--Prior to the time the study under 
     paragraph (1) is completed, the Administrator shall enter 
     into an appropriate agreement with the National Academy of 
     Sciences to have the Academy review the conclusions of the 
     study.
       ``(B) Report.--Not later than 11 months after entering into 
     an appropriate agreement with the Administrator, the National 
     Academy of Sciences shall report to the Administrator, the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate, on the--
       ``(i) findings related to the study conducted by the 
     Administrator under paragraph (1);
       ``(ii) the scientific and technical basis for such 
     findings; and
       ``(iii) recommendations, if any, for modifying the findings 
     of the study.
       ``(3) Regulatory determination.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 6 months after receiving 
     the National Academy of Sciences report under paragraph (2), 
     the Administrator shall determine, after informal public 
     hearings and public notice and opportunity for comment, and 
     based on information developed or accumulated in connection 
     with the study required under paragraph (1) and the National 
     Academy of Sciences report under paragraph (2), either:
       ``(i) that regulation of hydraulic fracturing under this 
     part is necessary to ensure that underground sources of 
     drinking water will not be endangered on a nationwide basis, 
     or within a specific region, State or portions of a State; 
     or
       ``(ii) that regulation described under clause (i) is 
     unnecessary.
       ``(B) Publication of determination.--The Administrator 
     shall publish the determination in the Federal Register, 
     accompanied by an explanation and the reasons for it.
       ``(4) Promulgation of regulations.--
       ``(A) Regulation necessary.--If the Administrator 
     determines under paragraph (3) that regulation by hydraulic 
     fracturing

[[Page S1633]]

     under this part is necessary to ensure that hydraulic 
     fracturing does not endanger underground drinking water 
     sources on a nationwide basis, or within a specific region, 
     State or portions of a State, the Administrator shall, within 
     6 months after the issuance of that determination, and after 
     public notice and opportunity for comment, promulgate 
     regulations under section 1421 (42 U.S.C. 300h) to ensure 
     that hydraulic fracturing will not endanger such underground 
     sources of drinking water. However, for purposes of the 
     Administrator's approval or disapproval under section 1422 of 
     any State underground injection control program for 
     regulating hydraulic fracturing, a State at any time may make 
     the alternative demonstration provided for in section 1425 of 
     this title.
       ``(B) Regulation unnecessary.--The Administrator shall not 
     regulate or require States to regulate hydraulic fracturing 
     under this part unless the Administrator determines under 
     paragraph (3) that such regulation is necessary. This 
     provision shall not apply to any State which has a program 
     for the regulation of hydraulic fracturing that was approved 
     by the Administrator under this part prior to the effective 
     date of this subsection.
       ``(C) Existing regulations.--A determination by the 
     Administrator under paragraph (3) that regulation is 
     unnecessary will relieve all States (including those with 
     existing approved programs for the regulation of hydraulic 
     fracturing) from any further obligation to regulate hydraulic 
     fracturing as an underground injection under this part.
       ``(5) Definition of hydraulic fracturing.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, the term `hydraulic fracturing' means the 
     process of creating a fracture in a reservoir rock, and 
     injecting fluids and propping agents, for the purposes of 
     reservoir stimulation related to oil and gas production 
     activities.
       ``(6) Savings.--Nothing in this subsection shall in any way 
     limit the authorities of the Administrator under section 1431 
     (42 U.S.C. 300i).''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is a bipartisan amendment offered 
by myself, Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma, and by various other of our 
colleagues--Senators Baucus, Bond, Breaux, Campbell, Conrad, Dorgan, 
Landrieu, Lincoln, and Thomas. I thank my colleagues.
  The proposed amendment concerns hydraulic fracturing. That is a 
valuable tool in reducing our dependence on foreign energy supplies. It 
is one that the oil and gas industry uses on a very regular basis. It 
is necessary if we are to develop the majority of our onshore natural 
gas wells. Hydraulically fractured wells produce about 10 trillion 
cubic feet of natural gas annually. Through injecting fluids under high 
pressure, hydraulic fracturing creates pathways for gas to flow to the 
well.
  The amendment I have sent to the desk and have offered sets up a 
study process to determine whether high fracturing should be regulated 
by the Federal Government under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Let me 
give the context for this proposed amendment.
  States already have the authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing. 
They do that through measures such as requiring casing or lining of oil 
and gas wells where those wells cross through aquifers. The State 
regulatory programs have been effective to date. And although there 
have been over a million hydraulic fracturing jobs conducted in the 
last 5 years, there have been zero confirmed instances of hydraulic 
fracturing contaminating drinking water. There is not one time that 
contamination has been established.
  Where no one has been able to confirm any harm from hydraulic 
fracturing, it is sensible to study whether there is a real problem 
before we rush forward to impose additional Federal regulation. That is 
precisely what the amendment I have sent to the desk would do.
  The Environmental Protection Agency must first study whether 
hydraulic fracturing has any effects on underground sources of drinking 
water. After that, the National Academy of Sciences, as an independent 
scientific body, would review EPA's study. Then based upon all the 
evidence, EPA must determine whether in addition to State regulation, 
Federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking 
Water Act is necessary to protect underground sources of drinking 
water.
  While the study is being prepared, States would fully retain their 
own existing programs and EPA would fully retain its emergency powers 
to prevent any contamination of drinking water that would immediately 
threaten public health.
  The proposed amendment's reliance on existing State programs while a 
study is prepared has received extensive bipartisan support. It has 
received that support both in the Senate but also in the executive 
branch. During both the previous administration, the Clinton 
administration, and the current administration, the EPA has maintained 
that Federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing is not required.
  In fact, the previous administration's EPA argued in Federal court--I 
quote from one of their briefs:

       Alabama is appropriately regulating production of methane 
     via hydraulic fracturing. There is no need for EPA to 
     supplant these efforts.

  The previous administration's EPA also cited the absence of any 
evidence that hydraulic fracturing has harmed drinking water and 
Alabama's close regulation of hydraulic fracturing in denying a 1994 
petition to impose Federal regulations on Alabama.
  Mr. President, let me at this point submit for the record a letter 
from Carol Browner, then the head of the EPA, sent to David Ludder, 
general counsel for the Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation. This 
is a 1995 letter in which she says:

       EPA does not regulate--and does not believe it is legally 
     required to regulate--the hydraulic fracturing of methane gas 
     production wells under its UIC program.

  Continuing the quotation:

       There is no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing at issue 
     has resulted in any contamination or endangerment of 
     underground sources of drinking water.

  I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record at 
the end of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, a cautionary word. We will need to use 
hydraulic fracturing of gas wells over the next decade. An unneeded 
regulation of hydraulic fracturing could make some of these wells 
uneconomical to produce and could defeat our important efforts to 
increase our energy independence--particularly as it relates to natural 
gas.
  My proposed amendment would sensibly allow hydraulic fracturing to 
assist efforts to increase our energy independence, while studying 
whether there is any known environmental harm that would require 
Federal regulation. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to vote for 
this amendment.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                          EPA,

                                      Washington, DC, May 5, 1995.
     David A. Ludder, Esq.,
     General Counsel, Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, 
         Inc., Tallahassee, FL.
       Dear Mr. Ludder: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
     has received and carefully reviewed your May 3, 1994, 
     Petition for Promulgation of a Rule Withdrawing Approval of 
     Alabama's Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. Based 
     on that review, I have determined that Alabama's 
     implementation of its UIC Program is consistent with the 
     requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 300h, et seq.) and EPA's UIC regulations (40 C.F.R. Part 
     145). EPA does not regulate--and does not believe it is 
     legally required to regulate--the hydraulic fracturing of 
     methane gas production wells under its UIC Program.
       There is no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing at issue 
     has resulted in any contamination or endangerment of 
     underground sources of drinking water (USDW). Repeated 
     testing, conducted between May of 1989 and March of 1993, of 
     the drinking water well which was the subject of this 
     petition failed to show any chemicals that would indicate the 
     presence of fracturing fluids. The well was also sampled for 
     drinking water quality and no constituents exceeding drinking 
     water standards were detected. Moreover, given the horizontal 
     and vertical distance between the drinking water well and the 
     closest methane gas production wells, the possibility of 
     contamination or endangerment of USDWs in the area is 
     extremely remote. Hydraulic fracturing is closely regulated 
     by the Alabama State Oil and Gas Board, which requires that 
     operators obtain authorization prior to all fracturing 
     activities.
       Accordingly, I have decided to deny your petition. Enclosed 
     you will find a detailed response to each contention in your 
     petition, which further explains the basis for this denial.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Carol M. Browner.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I ask that Senator Tim 
Hutchinson and Senator Voinovich be added as cosponsors of this 
amendment and the Price-Anderson amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S1634]]

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank my colleague from 
New Mexico. I am happy to join him in proposing this amendment. I think 
it is very important for a number of reasons. I just came from the 
Senate Armed Services Committee, where we had all four of the chiefs of 
the services. We were talking about this war that we are prosecuting 
right now. We were talking about the Nation's security.
  I can remember all the way back in the 1980s, when then-Secretary of 
the Interior Don Hodel and I went around the country and talked about 
the fact that an energy policy is something that is important to our 
Nation's security. It is a national security issue, not an energy 
issue. Consequently--and I said this a minute ago--this has not been a 
partisan thing. We tried to get President Reagan to come up with an 
energy policy. He would not do it. I thought George ``the first,'' 
coming from the oil fields, would have one, but he didn't do it either. 
The last administration didn't do it.
  A national energy policy is really necessary for national security 
reasons. Right now, we are dependent upon foreign countries for 57 
percent of our energy supply--something that is not acceptable, 
particularly right now in a time of war.
  Where does this issue of hydraulic fracturing come in? I am from 
Oklahoma, and I understand we have a tremendous reserve down there in 
terms of marginal production. I started many years ago--probably before 
many fellow Members were born--in the oil fields in cable tool rigs--
something they used before rotaries--the pounding method. I realized at 
that time how much this meant to the country and how much our shallow 
production meant.
  When we talk about energy policy, we talk about nuclear, as we did in 
the last amendment, and we talk about ANWR--and it is necessary to get 
into some of the deep stuff.
  In terms of marginal production--wells that have 15 barrels a day, or 
less, and a comparable amount for gas wells--this has a tremendous 
prospect to be an important ingredient in a national energy policy. If 
we had all of the gas wells that have been plugged in the last 10 
years, or oil wells that have been plugged, producing today--marginal 
wells, producing 15 barrels or less--it would equal more than what we 
are currently importing from Saudi Arabia. So it is necessary to have 
these wells.
  How does hydraulic fracturing fit into this equation? This system has 
been used--I remember using it myself--since the 1940s. In the 1940s, 
we had a system of injection in order to get maximum production in both 
oil and gas wells. Not one time in that period of time--after over a 
million wells have used this process--has there been any kind of damage 
to the environment. In the last 15 years, there have been over 100,000 
wells using this, with no damage to the environment.
  As the Senator from New Mexico points out, this is not a partisan 
thing. The Clinton administration supported this, the Bush 
administration supports this, and Carol Browner supported this when I 
served as chairman of one of the subcommittees of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee. This is necessary to have, and it does no harm 
to the environment.
  I am honored to join my colleague, Senator Bingaman, in supporting 
this amendment and in saying this is a necessary part of the national 
energy policy.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Carl Smith Assistant 
Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy, of the Department of Energy be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                         Department of Energy,

                                    Washington, DC, March 7, 2002.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As the Senate considers legislation to 
     address our growing dependence on imported oil and to 
     consider ways to promote the production on of our domestic 
     energy resources, I am concerned that the impact of possible 
     restrictions on the use of hydraulic fracturing, the most 
     commonly used technique to stimulate domestic oil and gas 
     wells, may not be well known or fully understood. Therefore, 
     I thought it would be useful to provide you with some 
     information on the essential role this technology plays in 
     today's oil and gas industry.
       Hydraulic fracturing is used on approximately two thirds of 
     the onshore gas wells drilled in the United States today and 
     since its inception in 1947, it has enabled the production of 
     over eight billion barrels of North American oil reserves 
     that otherwise would have been unrecovered. It is estimated 
     that hydraulically fractured gas wells produce 10 Tcf of 
     natural gas annually, or nearly sixty percent of the gas 
     produced from domestic gas wells. Further, production of one 
     of our fastest growing sources of onshore natural gas 
     supplies, coalbed methane, would be seriously diminished if 
     hydraulic fracturing was unavailable. Approximately seventy-
     five percent of the 1.5 Tcf of coal bed methane produced 
     annually comes from wells that were hydraulically fractured.
       I would also point out that hydraulic fracturing offers 
     several environmental benefits. By increasing the production 
     of oil and gas from reservoirs that have lower flow rates, 
     hydraulic fracturing reduces the number of wells needed to 
     deplete the reservoir, thereby protecting the environment by 
     minimizing the waste volumes and surface disturbance 
     associated with oil and gas drilling. Also, by increasing the 
     amount of methane recovered from mineable coal seams prior to 
     the start of mining activities, hydraulic fracturing promotes 
     coal mine safety and lowers the amount of methane gas that 
     escapes during mining operations, a significant source of 
     greenhouse gas emissions.
       On August 24, 2000, while still Secretary of Energy for the 
     State of Oklahoma, I had the opportunity to raise these 
     points at a workshop held here in Washington by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Also speaking at that 
     workshop was Tom Stewart, Executive Vice President of the 
     Ohio Oil and Gas Association. I managed to find a copy of his 
     remarks on the internet and I thought you might be interested 
     in them. They mirrored many of the comments I heard from my 
     colleagues during the workshop. Tom noted that, ``With very 
     limited exceptions, hydraulic fracturing was used to complete 
     over 55,000 Ohio wells drilled since 1970. Exploitation of 
     the tight Clinton sand would not have been possible without 
     fracturing. The hydraulic fracturing process made the modern 
     Ohio oil and gas industry.''
       In September 2001, the Department of Energy's concern with 
     the impact of proposed restriction on the use of hydraulic 
     fracturing, led the Office of Fossil Energy to ask the 
     National Energy Technology Laboratory's Strategic Center for 
     Natural Gas to conduct a study on, ``Quantifying the Impact 
     of Hydraulic Fracturing in Meeting U.S. Natural Gas Supply 
     Requirements''. The number and types of stimulation 
     treatments (hydraulic fracturing) will be quantified, 
     treatment costs will be identified, and natural gas 
     production and price relationships will be reviewed and 
     projected. Results of this study will be available in May of 
     this year but I anticipate that some useful information 
     regarding the important role of hydraulic fracturing will be 
     available over the next few weeks. I will provide this 
     information to you as it becomes available.
       I welcome the opportunity to bring this very important 
     matter to your attention. If you need more information or 
     have any questions please contact Peter Lagiovane of my 
     office. He can be reached at, 202-586-8116 or via email at, 
     [email protected].
           Sincerely,
                                               Carl Michael Smith,
                                          Office of Fossil Energy.
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I wish to express my opposition and deep 
concern to the amendment being offered from my good friend from New 
Mexico, Senator Bingaman.
  This amendment would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency 
from regulating hydraulic fracturing, an oil and gas operation which 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held should be 
regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. As chairman of the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works, which has jurisdiction over 
the Safe Drinking Water Act, I am very disappointed that this matter is 
being added to the Energy bill without my committee having held 
hearings on the matter. Hydraulic fracturing is a method for 
stimulating recovery of natural gas and coalbed methane by fracturing 
rock formations through the injection of highly pressurized water 
treated with various additives. There is substantial question as to the 
nature of these additives--which are not closely regulated under most 
state and Federal laws--and whether they have the potential to migrate 
to public sources of drinking water when hydraulic fracturing occurs.
  The amendment would in essence overturn the finding by the Court of 
Appeals that hydraulic fracturing must be regulated under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. The amendment would require EPA to conduct a study 
to determine whether hydraulic fracturing would contaminate 
groundwater. Only after completing the study would EPA

[[Page S1635]]

be free to regulate the activity and protect drinking water wells, 
unless during the interim the EPA found emergency circumstances. I do 
not believe the record provides ample support for a conclusion that 
little harm will occur during the course of this study, and the EPA 
should not be barred from regulating hydraulic fracturing until the 
study is completed. Further, I do not believe the EPA should be the 
sole determiner of whether these activities should ultimately be 
regulaed. That issue is properly within the realm of Congress to 
decide. Such a decision should be made after the benefit of full 
congressional review. That has not occurred here.
  This is not a question of blocking oil and gas development. Oil and 
gas development has been proceeding briskly within the State of Alabama 
since the EPA instituted new regulations under the Safe Drinking Water 
Act for hydraulic fracturing operations, pursuant to the order of the 
court. Nobody has gone out of business. The industry simply objects to 
additional costs they are incurring, costs which appear to be 
relatively minor, and which are directed solely to helping protect the 
adequacy of the public's drinking water supplies. This matter is 
squarely within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works, and as chairman, I must object to inclusion of this 
amendment within the energy bill, without the matter being properly 
examined and dealt with within the committee.
  For the above reasons, I oppose the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 
2 p.m. today be for debate with respect to the following amendments: 
the pending Voinovich amendment No. 2983, and a Bingaman or designee 
amendment regarding hydraulic fracturing to be offered; with the time 
to be equally divided and controlled with respect to these amendments; 
that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to a vote in 
relation to these amendments; that the votes with respect to these 
amendments occur in the order offered; and that if an amendment is not 
disposed of, the Senate continue the vote sequence which was not 
disposed of previously.
  Before asking that the request be agreed to, I yield to my friend 
from New Mexico for sending a modification to the desk.


                    Amendment No. 2986, As Modified

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his 
amendment. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2986), as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of title VI, add the following new section:

     ``SEC. 610. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.

       ``Section 1421 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 300h) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas Production.--
       ``(1) Study of the effects of hydraulic fracturing.--
       ``(A) In general.--As soon as practicable, but in no event 
     later than 24 months after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection, the Administrator shall complete a study of the 
     known and potential effects on underground drinking water 
     sources of hydraulic fracturing, including the effects of 
     hydraulic fracturing on underground drinking water sources on 
     a nationwide basis, and within specific regions, States, or 
     portions of States.
       ``(B) Consultation.--In planning and conducting the study, 
     the Administrator shall consult with the Secretary of the 
     Interior, the Secretary of Energy, the Ground Water 
     Protection Council, affected States, and, as appropriate, 
     representatives of environmental, industry, academic, 
     scientific, public health, and other relevant organizations. 
     Such study may be accomplished in conjunction with other 
     ongoing studies related to the effects of oil and gas 
     production on groundwater resources.
       ``(C) Study elements.--The study conducted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall, at a minimum, examine and make 
     findings as to whether--
       ``(i) such hydraulic fracturing has endangered or will 
     endanger (as defined under subsection (d)(2)) underground 
     drinking water sources, including those sources within 
     specific regions, states or portions of States;
       ``(ii) there are specific methods, practices, or 
     hydrogeologic circumstances in which hydraulic fracturing has 
     endangered or will endanger underground drinking water 
     sources; and
       ``(iii) there are any precautionary actions that may reduce 
     or eliminate any such endangerment.
       ``(D) Study of hydraulic fracturing in a particular type of 
     geologic formation.--The Administrator may also complete a 
     separate study on the known and potential effects on 
     underground drinking water sources of hydraulic fracturing in 
     a particular type of geologic formation.
       ``(i) If such a study is undertaken, the Administrator 
     shall follow the procedures for study preparation and 
     independent scientific review set forth in subparagraphs 
     (1)(B) and (C) and (2) of this subsection. The Administrator 
     may complete this separate study prior to the completion of 
     the broader study of hydraulic fracturing required pursuant 
     to subparagraph (A) of this subsection.
       ``(ii) At the conclusion of independent scientific review 
     for any separate study, the Administrator shall determine, 
     pursuant to paragraph (3), whether regulation of hydraulic 
     fracturing in the particular type of geologic formation 
     addressed in the separate study is necessary under this part 
     to ensure that underground sources of drinking water will not 
     be endangered on a nationwide basis, or within a specific 
     region, State or portions of a state. Subparagraph (4) of 
     this subsection shall apply to any such determination by the 
     Administrator.
       ``(iii) If the Administrator completes a separate study, 
     the Administrator may use the information gathered in the 
     course of such a study in undertaking her broad study to the 
     extent appropriate. The broader study need not include a 
     reexamination of the conclusions reached by the Administrator 
     in any separate study.
       ``(2) Independent scientific review.--
       ``(A) In general.--Prior to the time the study under 
     paragraph (1) is completed, the Administrator shall enter 
     into an appropriate agreement with the National Academy of 
     Sciences to have the Academy review the conclusions of the 
     study.
       ``(B) Report.--Not later than 11 months after entering into 
     an appropriate agreement with the Administrator, the National 
     Academy of Sciences shall report to the Administrator, the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate, on the--
       ``(i) findings related to the study conducted by the 
     Administrator under paragraph (1);
       ``(ii) the scientific and technical basis for such 
     findings; and
       ``(iii) recommendations, if any, for modifying the findings 
     of the study.
       ``(3) Regulatory determination.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 6 months after receiving 
     the National Academy of Sciences report under paragraph (2), 
     the Administrator shall determine, after informal public 
     hearings and public notice and opportunity for comment, and 
     based on information developed or accumulated in connection 
     with the study required under paragraph (1) and the National 
     Academy of Sciences report under paragraph (2), either:
       ``(i) that regulation of hydraulic fracturing under this 
     part is necessary to ensure that underground sources of 
     drinking water will not be endangered on a nationwide basis, 
     or within a specific region, State or portions of a State; or
       ``(ii) that regulation described under clause (i) is 
     unnecessary.
       ``(B) Publication of determination.--The Administrator 
     shall publish the determination in the Federal Register, 
     accompanied by an explanation and the reasons for it.
       ``(4) Promulgation of regulations.--
       ``(A) Regulation necessary.--If the Administrator 
     determines under paragraph (3) that regulation by hydraulic 
     fracturing under this part is necessary to ensure that 
     hydraulic fracturing does not endanger underground drinking 
     water sources on a nationwide basis, or within a specific 
     region, State or portions of a State, the Administrator 
     shall, within 6 months after the issuance of that 
     determination, and after public notice and opportunity for 
     comment, promulgate regulations under section 1421 (42 U.S.C. 
     300h) to ensure that hydraulic fracturing will not endanger 
     such underground sources of drinking water. However, for 
     purposes of the Administrator's approval or disapproval under 
     section 1422 of any State underground injection control 
     program for regulating hydraulic fracturing, a State at any 
     time may make the alternative demonstration provided for in 
     section 1425 of this title.
       ``(B) Regulation unnecessary.--The Administrator shall not 
     regulate or require States to regulate hydraulic fracturing 
     under this part unless the Administrator determines under 
     paragraph (3) that such regulation is necessary. This 
     provision shall not apply to any State which has a program 
     for the regulation of hydraulic fracturing that was approved 
     by the Administrator under this part prior to the effective 
     date of this subsection.
       ``(C) Existing regulations.--A determination by the 
     Administrator under paragraph (3) that regulation is 
     unnecessary will relieve all States (including those with 
     existing approved programs for the regulation of hydraulic 
     fracturing) from any further obligation to regulate hydraulic 
     fracturing as an underground injection under this part.
       ``(5) Definition of hydraulic fracturing.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, the term `hydraulic fracturing' means the 
     process of creating a fracture in a reservoir rock, and 
     injecting fluids and propping agents, for the purposes of 
     reservoir stimulation related to oil and gas production 
     activities.
       ``(6) Savings.--Nothing in this subsection shall in any way 
     limit the authorities of the Administrator under section 1431 
     (42 U.S.C. 300i).

[[Page S1636]]

     ``SEC. 611. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency $100,000 
     for fiscal year 2003, to remain available until expended, for 
     a grant to the State of Alabama to assist in the 
     implementation of its regulatory program under section 1425 
     of the Safe Drinking Water Act.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for Members, we have until 2 p.m. today to 
debate these two amendments. We have been told other people want to 
speak on Price-Anderson, and certainly others want to talk about 
hydraulic fracturing. We also have some people who have indicated to me 
and others that they wish to do so. This would be an appropriate time 
to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield the Senator from Alabama 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank Senator 
Inhofe for giving me this time. I particularly thank Senator Inhofe and 
Senator Bingaman for their leadership in moving forward on the 
hydraulic fracturing issue.
  The purpose of this bill is to help us produce more energy, and 
cleaner energy, to meet our energy needs more at home from our domestic 
sources, but also to do it in a cleaner way. There are a lot of things 
we can do to make that happen.
  One significant and important event is to deal with the hydraulic 
fracturing issue. I believe we can make some progress. This is a 
process that is used for the production of coalbed methane. They use 
high-pressure water, carbon dioxide and sand to create microscopic 
fractures in coal seams, and that releases the methane that is in that 
coal seam. That is the basic process.
  Of course, carbon dioxide is readily available in the atmosphere. It 
is not a pollutant, the sand is not a pollutant, and water is not a 
pollutant. They have never believed that this process in any way was a 
polluting enterprise.
  Most States in which hydraulic fracturing is used--including my State 
of Alabama--have implemented regulations to ensure that hydraulic 
fracturing continues to be used in a safe manner. The technique has 
been used safely by coalbed methane oil and gas producers for over 15 
years, and there has never been a single event of contamination to 
underground drinking sources.
  The history of this issue is kind of simple. Currently, EPA has 
directed the state of Alabama to regulate hydraulic fracturing under 
the Safe Drinking Water Act. Neither EPA nor Congress ever intended to 
be regulating this procedure. However, in 1995 a lawsuit was filed 
against EPA.
  This was Carol Browner's EPA, which was very aggressive in regulating 
anything that needed to be regulated. They claimed that the hydraulic 
fracturing in Alabama should be regulated under not an obscure but a 
significant rule called the Underground Injection Control Program that 
was established by the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  The Underground Injection Control Program was designed to regulate 
the disposal of hazardous waste underground, but fluids and sand used 
in hydraulic fracturing certainly are not hazardous waste.
  The lawsuit was filed and the EPA defended it. They said we should 
not be regulating this. They defended it in court: It did not fit 
within the purposes of the UIC Program, and that the State of Alabama 
already sufficiently regulated the process, and the procedure itself 
posed little risk to underground drinking water sources or to the 
environment.
  In 1997, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in analyzing the 
statute written by Congress, found that the language in the statute, 
whether Congress intended to cover it or not, reading the plain 
wording, covered injection of carbon dioxide and sand in the ground and 
it is covered by the Safe Drinking Water Act. We have been trying to do 
something about this situation for quite some time. It has been a 
burdensome process.
  Congress has come up with a number of ideas. The EPA pretty well 
indicated at the beginning they supported fixing this problem, and we 
have moved forward on it. I believe this compromise which Senator 
Bingaman and Senator Inhofe have talked about--a thorough scientific 
review--will show that there is no environmental degradation 
whatsoever. Once that is done, we can fix this process and get it back 
into the normal scheme of things.
  This is a big impact on my State. We are the second-largest producer 
of coalbed methane in the country. It is a process that started in 
Alabama. The technology was developed in Alabama. I guess that is why 
they picked on our State to file the lawsuit. As a result, this has had 
a significant adverse impact on the State of Alabama.
  We have had 300 new hydraulic fracturing proposals submitted since 
the lawsuit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cleland). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask I be allowed 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield another 5 minutes to the 
Senator.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. That is very 
generous.
  It has fallen particularly hard on the Alabama Department of 
Environmental Management whose budget is strapped at this time. Their 
financial problems have made a lot of news, frankly. Since this is a 
matter of national importance, I believe it is appropriate that 
Alabama, which is the State most adversely impacted at this time within 
the Eleventh Circuit where the court ruling applies, be given some 
compensation toward the cost of administering and reviewing these 300-
plus proposals.
  I am pleased we were able to work out an agreement that $100,000 will 
be authorized for that purpose. I am pleased Senator Bingaman and 
Senator Inhofe, as I understand it, have agreed that if this continues 
to be a problem or if there is sound evidence that additional moneys 
are required to do this--more than the $100,000 that will be approved--
they will consider that in conference as we move forward with the bill.

  Methane is one of the cleanest of all burning fuels. Methane produces 
good energy and, at the same time, it is very clean energy. The fact 
that we can draw the cleanest of all burning fuels from land within the 
United States is a good thing that we should be promoting. This is the 
kind of energy production that should be promoted in the country. I am 
glad we are moving forward finally to get this settled so we can 
enhance the production of coalbed methane throughout the country. It 
will be a good step forward.
  In conclusion, this is a new source. Every Btu of energy we take from 
gas, or from gasoline and oil, that we purchase from outside our 
country is a drain on the wealth of this country. It generates economic 
activity in the country from which we purchase it. It does not generate 
economic activity in the United States. It is a net transfer of 
American wealth. That is why I believe this is not just an oil industry 
issue, this is not a big business issue, this is not simply an 
environmental or non-environmental issue. I believe we need to increase 
energy production in America because it is a matter of economic 
importance. It generates jobs and wealth in our country, not in 
Venezuela and the kind of government they have there, or Saudi Arabia, 
or Iraq. It creates wealth in the United States. It keeps our dollars 
here. It generates jobs here.
  To me, there is no more worthwhile energy production than one of the 
cleanest of all: Coalbed methane. I am pleased we are moving forward, 
even though it is going to take a little longer than I would like, to 
get this regulatory matter settled and to enhance this production. It 
will be good for America.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama. We have 
been working on this for a long time. For 4 years, we have actually had 
an amendment that would accomplish this. The approach we are taking now 
is the right approach because it is letting scientists decide, not 
people who come to this Chamber and say hysterically there is going to 
be harm done to the environment. We can look at history, and, as we 
have said several

[[Page S1637]]

times before, of the over 1 million of these processes that have taken 
place, there is not one bit of evidence of a problem to the 
environment.
  I have a letter from the Ground Water Protection Council. It is a 
group of EPAs throughout America. They strongly endorse this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                         GWPC,

                                 Oklahoma City, OK, March 7, 2002.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) 
     strongly encourages you to support the Bingaman-Inhofe 
     Hydraulic Fracturing Amendment.
       The GWPC is a national association of state agencies who 
     regulate the nation's ground water and underground injection 
     control programs. Our members and Board of Directors are 
     professional geologists, hydrologist, geo-chemists and 
     petroleum engineers.
       As the state agencies charged with protecting the nation's 
     ground water supplies and regulating the oil and gas 
     industry, we are very concerned that failure to pass the 
     amendment would result in an additional and unnecessary 
     regulatory burden on both states and the industries they 
     regulate, with no environmental benefit.
       We are aware of a March 6, 2002 letter to you opposing the 
     Bingaman-Inhofe Hydraulic Fracturing Amendment and have the 
     following comments:
       In no state is the oil and gas industry exempt from the 
     requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. A number of 
     activities conducted as part of oil and gas exploration and 
     production are regulated under the UIC program, including 
     injection of produced water and some related wastes. 
     Hydraulic fracturing is fundamentally different because it is 
     part of the well completion process, does not ``dispose of 
     fluids'' and is of short duration, with most of the fluids 
     being immediately removed.
       Fracturing fluids do not contain MTBE. Fracturing fluids 
     may contain small amounts of other hazardous chemicals but 
     constituents such as benzene do not appear in fluids that 
     would be used in fracturing shallow formations. Such fluids 
     are used in deeper formations that are usually thousands of 
     feet below the strata that drinking water wells actually tap 
     into.
       Any ``regulatory rollback'' would occur only after careful 
     EPA study and only if EPA determined, based on the study and 
     the peer review by NAS, that federal regulation of hydraulic 
     fracturing is not necessary.
       The letter ignores the fact that states already regulate 
     underground injection and hydraulic fracturing. In fact, the 
     ``exclusive deal'' for the oil industry that is alleged in 
     the letter was in actually a recognition by Congress in 1980 
     that states were already effectively regulating oil and gas 
     exploration and production activities and had done so for 
     years. Congress further recognized that it did not make sense 
     to change these effective state programs by making the states 
     comply with redundant federal regulations.
       The letter alleges that hydraulic fracturing threatens 
     underground sources of drinking water. The letter does not 
     allege that hydraulic fracturing has actually resulted in 
     adverse impacts to USDWs because no such impacts have ever 
     been confirmed.
       The proposed amendment would not ``overturn two Court of 
     Appeals decisions.'' It certainly would not overturn LEAF II. 
     In fact, it codifies LEAF II. It doesn't even overturn LEAF 
     I, but would allow EPA to determine that the current state/
     EPA regulatory partnership is working effectively and that 
     additional federal regulation is not necessary
       The proposed amendments would not ``fully suspend'' 
     regulation of hydraulic fracturing. Current state regulations 
     would be unaffected and remain in force.
       On behalf of the Ground Water Protection Council, we again 
     urge you to support the Hydraulic Fracturing Amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Michel J. Paque,
                                          GWPC Executive Director.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, again, we are saying let's not get 
emotional about this. Let's not come up with all kinds of accusations. 
Instead, let's let science decide. Right now, scientific studies 
subjected to an independent peer review is an appropriate way to 
determine if Federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing is necessary. 
The required National Academy of Sciences review of EPA's findings 
approves an independent verification of the study's results. When the 
study does come in, it does not necessarily mean EPA has to follow the 
dictates, the results of this study, but they can and they may decide 
to do another study. At least we are letting the scientists make a 
decision as to who is right.
  I cannot overemphasize, as the Senator from Alabama talked about how 
clean natural gas is, how clean it is. That is not even debatable. It 
is in such plentiful supply. We need this.
  Eighty percent of the wells that are done have to use this technique 
in order to produce the natural gas that is necessary to fully utilize 
that source. So I think this is a very balanced approach, and it is 
certainly bipartisan.
  I applaud our Senator from New Mexico, along with others who have 
joined us in supporting this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I also commend the Senator from Alabama 
for his effort in this regard. I do think his proposed modification of 
our amendment makes a good deal of sense, and we were very pleased to 
accept that. He does have some peculiar problems in Alabama in trying 
to implement their regulatory program, and I think clearly we want to 
see that State succeed. That is his objective as well. So I am glad we 
could accommodate that concern.
  I yield the floor.
  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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
during the quorum call be counted equally against all the Senators who 
are controlling time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to share some thoughts as 
we move toward a vote on the Price-Anderson nuclear liability amendment 
that will be coming up later this afternoon. It is an important 
amendment. It represents an extension of current policy, and it is 
something we should do. The reason we should do that, I am so firmly 
convinced, is that nuclear power is an important component of our 
national energy mix. One out of every five times Americans turn on 
their light bulbs, one out every five times Americans turn on their 
refrigerators, or turn on anything else, one out every five times 
Americans use electricity, that electricity is produced thanks to 
nuclear power.
  Currently, 20 percent of our supply comes from nuclear power. I think 
it is time for us to consider not only maintaining that but actually 
increasing that percentage. The Palo Verde Nuclear Generation Station 
in Arizona, for example, generates more electricity annually than any 
other power plant of any kind, including coal, oil, natural gas, and 
hydropower. We simply have to realize the potential of this energy 
source and join many of the other leading nations in the world in 
continuing to implement nuclear as a major component of our energy mix.
  The Energy Information Agency predicts a 30-percent increase in the 
demand for electricity in this country by the year 2015--a 30-percent 
increase in demand over the current level. Twenty percent of our power 
today comes from nuclear power. France produces over 60 percent from 
nuclear. Japan produces nearly 50 percent of its electricity from 
nuclear power sources. In 10 countries, there are 29 nuclear plants 
currently under construction. The United States has none. We should be 
following suit. We simply do not need to allow the rest of the world to 
get ahead of us on the question of producing power by nuclear energy.
  I have enjoyed visiting our nuclear plants in Alabama. The Tennessee 
Valley Authority is setting records for safety, reliability, and 
productivity at their Browns Ferry plant. They have 1,000-plus 
employees making high wages and producing a steady source of energy 24 
hours a day. They have the time to shut down those plants for 
refurbishing, and the cost has been reduced quite significantly. It is 
an important part of our energy mix.
  Shortly after I came to the Senate, I attended the 44th Annual 
Session of

[[Page S1638]]

the North Atlantic Assembly in Scotland. Members of parliaments from 
throughout the North Atlantic nations attended. At that meeting, the 
Ambassador to the United Nations International Energy Agency appointed 
by President Clinton, John B. Ritch, III, stated in his presentation 
that electricity demands will double in the world by 2050 and the one 
technology capable of meeting a large baseload with negligible 
greenhouse emissions is nuclear power.
  He added:

       In the century ahead, mankind must place great reliance on 
     harnessing the nuclear genie and using it to maximum effect, 
     if our needs are to be met and our security preserved.

  In fact, he went into some detail about the cost and the benefits of 
alternative sources of power. He concluded that they all have some 
benefit but that none can even come close to meeting this huge surge in 
demand the world is going to be facing in the decades to come.
  Nuclear energy is a clean source of energy. It is environmentally 
friendly. I am astounded we have the debate that we have over whether 
or not nuclear energy is a positive thing for the environment. It most 
certainly is. Nothing else can produce this kind of source of power 
with no air pollution from it.
  We would never have air as clean as we have today if we dropped all 
our nuclear plants and started producing that energy with coal or oil. 
We could not come close to that. According to a study conducted by 
Energy Resources International, nuclear energy has prevented the 
release into the atmosphere of 219 million tons of sulfur dioxide, 98 
million tons of nitrogen oxide, and 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide 
since 1973.
  Annually, nuclear power prevents the release of 5.1 million tons of 
sulfur dioxide, 2.4 million tons of nitrogen oxide, and 33 million 
metric tons of carbon.
  In Alabama, there are currently two nuclear powerplants: Browns Ferry 
and Farley. In 1999, those powerplants avoided the release of 
approximately 163,000 tons of sulfur dioxide emissions, 90,000 tons of 
nitrogen oxide emissions, and 6.8 million metric tons of carbon 
emissions.
  The building blocks of ozone, that we know is not a good thing in our 
atmosphere, as we have created it in manmade quantities--an irritant to 
our lungs, a health risk to children and the elderly--are not emitted 
at all by nuclear powerplants. Ozone precursors are fossil fuel 
produced.
  Implementing nuclear energy is the only way we can meet our projected 
energy demand while simultaneously reducing the release of sulfur 
dioxide and nitrous oxides. Furthermore, nuclear energy does not emit 
carbon dioxide, which is what people blame for global warming. That is 
a matter I think people cannot dispute.
  It strikes me as hypocritical that those who complain most and 
express the most fear about global climate change are, in general--but 
not always--the same people who are against nuclear power. Many of 
these people, I believe, unfortunately, are not rational on this 
subject. People have referred to them as ``nuke kooks.'' But, whatever, 
they are obsessed with blocking nuclear power.
  A few years ago the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, a 
reputable professional organization composed of innovative individuals, 
engineers, who design solutions to meet our energy needs, issued a 
paper regarding climate change. In the paper, they made numerous 
statements regarding the importance of nuclear to our energy mix. They 
stated:

       It is unlikely, however, that a worldwide, stable 
     atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration--

  That is, a stable amount of carbon dioxide in the air--

     can be reached without the use of nuclear, renewable, and 
     biomass energy for electric power generation.

  Our legislation significantly promotes biomass and renewable energy. 
There is little in this bill to really increase nuclear power.
  I continue to quote:

       Assuming that the historical trend continues in which 
     electricity consumption follows economic growth, it becomes 
     essential that the U.S. environmental policies include 
     retention of existing nuclear power generation capacity. 
     Indeed, these policies should include development and 
     implementation of additional nuclear power reactors to meet a 
     growing demand for electricity. . . .

  Looking at this matter objectively, just at the overall picture of 
our energy demands, it is clear to me that nuclear energy is the only 
viable solution to meeting both our energy demands and our 
environmental objectives. It will produce power required to meet our 
energy needs in a safe and environmentally friendly way.

  People say: It is risky. It is dangerous. The people who live near 
the nuclear reactors in Alabama with whom I meet and talk are very 
strong supporters of nuclear power. The overwhelming majority of 
Americans favor nuclear power. They favor the expansion of nuclear 
power.
  But let's talk about the safety record.
  The nuclear energy sector has, in any way you look at it, a stellar 
safety record. We have not lost one life in this country--ever--as a 
result of a nuclear power accident in the history of this country. How 
many people have we lost in accidents with trucks and trains carrying 
coal, or with pipelines carrying natural gas, or in coal mines, or in 
other ways where lives are lost in the production of other unclean 
sources of energy, the kind of sources of energy that produce NOx and 
SOx and the kind of adverse exposures to health that come from fossil 
fuels? So we have those kinds of unhealthy actions, too, in addition to 
just the safety factor in producing the energy.
  The main reason the nuclear industry is so safe is that it is 
overseen--originally by the Atomic Energy Commission and now the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As a member of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee at the time, we had a number of hearings about 
the oversight by NRC. They are meticulously reviewing and monitoring 
nuclear plants all over America. They do that on a constant basis. They 
are exceeding other countries in the cost of their supervision and in 
the minutiae of it. But we have not had any accidents.
  We had the problem at Three Mile Island. A major sea change has 
occurred since then. A recent study has shown that no one suffered 
injury from the Three Mile Island accident, even though, if you asked 
Americans, they would probably think people were injured from it. But a 
scientific study has indicated there were no injuries, whatsoever, as a 
result of that accident.
  But since then, we have learned and we have stepped up, even to a 
much higher degree, our supervision by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission of nuclear plants. I do not believe we will see that ever 
happen again. I believe we would react so much better, if anything were 
to begin to happen like that, that we would not see that kind of event 
occur again.
  We are also looking at new and special ways to produce nuclear power, 
new kinds of reactors where it would be impossible to have a nuclear 
reactor explosion or break.
  Last June, at the Economic Club of Chicago, in a major address, Alan 
Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board--the architect, I 
suppose, of our economy--talking about what America needed to do, made 
this statement:

       Given the steps that have been taken over the years to make 
     nuclear energy safer, and the obvious environmental 
     advantages it has in terms of reducing emissions, the time 
     has come for us to consider whether or not we can overcome 
     the impediments to tapping its potential more fully.

  Doesn't he always have a nice way of saying those things?
  I think it is time for us to consider the impediments to the 
expansion of nuclear energy. I agree with him, especially in light of 
our goal of cleaning up our air.
  Every year, the Federal Government provides tax credits and financial 
incentives for solar cells and wind turbines and biomass sources. I 
supported many of those. We are not providing anything here for nuclear 
energy. I think we need to consider that.
  Many people have objected, saying, you have no place to put nuclear 
waste, and this is, somehow, the Achilles' heel of nuclear power. They 
act as if the amount of nuclear waste would cover the entire State of 
Rhode Island, I suppose, and that nuclear waste is so hazardous, if you 
move it on a rail or truck, it could blow up and kill us all.

[[Page S1639]]

  The truth is, if a truck loaded with nuclear waste were to roll over 
or a train were to roll over, as Senator Murkowski says, it does not 
blow up, it does not flow off into the air; you just pick it back up, 
put it on the track, and send it off.
  We can move nuclear waste. There is no danger in that. It is an 
irrational thing that we have created this idea that somehow it is 
greatly disastrous and risky to move nuclear waste to an acceptable 
site to store it.
  I applaud the work of the Secretary of Energy, Spence Abraham, a 
former Member of this body, and President Bush who are moving forward 
with a decision on Yucca Mountain to store this waste. It is the 
culmination of decades of scientific study, consultation with science 
and environmental advisers, and meetings with leaders and citizens in 
Nevada. Finding a safe and central repository is mandated by a law 
passed years ago, and it is also necessary for America's homeland 
security. For example, 40 percent of our Navy's fleet is powered by 
nuclear power. The lack of a repository drives up the cost of nuclear 
power, rendering this clean power generation less economical than it 
would be and less competitive.
  Certainly one of the main reasons we are not building new plants 
today is because of the waste problem. Of course, those who oppose 
nuclear energy, I strongly believe--and a fair person would agree--have 
used this as a tool to attack nuclear power and not allow us to proceed 
in a rational way.
  Nuclear materials are now stored in 131 aboveground facilities in 39 
States in America; 161 million Americans live within 75 miles of these 
sites. One central site in the Nevada desert, where we exploded nuclear 
bombs on the surface when we were first learning how to make nuclear 
bombs, provides much more protection for America, much more security, 
and is much cheaper than keeping all these other sites that have been 
ongoing.
  Nobody has ever been injured from the 131 sites we now have. They are 
going to bury it in the ground, spending billions of dollars paid for 
by the nuclear energy companies, part of the rates they charge, to fund 
this site. We need to use that. We have the ability to solve this 
problem, to move ahead with it. The only objection I can see, other 
than some of the people in Nevada that oppose it, is that it would 
relieve an objection, it would remove an objection that the antinuclear 
supporters have used to hide behind in their opposition to nuclear 
power.
  This nuclear liability amendment we will be voting on this afternoon 
is critical to helping us maintain, not expand but maintain our current 
clean source of 20 percent of our electricity. We ought to pass that. 
We ought to open our eyes to the possibilities for the world for the 
expansion of nuclear power.
  It has been said that the lifespan of human beings on this globe who 
have ready access to nuclear power electricity is twice that of 
countries where it is not readily available. Electricity is one of the 
great discoveries in the history of mankind. If you don't think so, 
what would it be like to have to cook by fire every day or wash your 
clothes in the river? It is an energy system that has done so much for 
the world.
  We have large portions of this world--think about India, China, South 
America, not nearly at full capacity on electricity--that could use 
much more electricity. How are we going to produce it? What will happen 
to our global warming theorists when they start using coal and other 
fossil fuels in huge numbers to meet their growing demands for power 
around the world? Do they think they are not going to expand their 
electricity? How could we ask them not to? How could we ask a poor 
country where people are dying at 40 and 45 years of age, with all the 
adverse consequences, not counting the quality of life, to not expand 
their energy? They are not going to be able to do it solely with solar 
and windmills and biomass. It is just not there; the numbers are not 
there.
  Yes, we can do conservation. Yes, we can reduce our use. Yes, we 
could be more efficient. I visited an Alabama plant not long ago that 
makes refrigerators. That product they produce uses one-half the 
electricity of one of the same size used 10 years ago, but you can't go 
much lower. It takes a certain amount of electricity to run a 
refrigerator. We have a limit on how much we can conserve.

  In fact, many of our better and easier steps toward improving 
efficiency have already been found. We are using them. The new steps to 
make ourselves more energy efficient are out there. Many more can be 
done. But they will not make as big an impact as the ones we have 
already undertaken. That is the law of science.
  It would be an error of colossal proportions for our environment, for 
safe energy, and for low-cost power, if we do not deal with the 
question of nuclear liability. I believe we will do that. I am 
confident we will pass it later on this afternoon.
  We also need to, as a nation, shake off the misinformation about 
nuclear power. Look at it. Consider the fact that we lost not one life 
in America as a result of the production of nuclear power, that we have 
not lost any lives as a result of breathing pollutants, as we probably 
have, as we certainly have, from coal and other plants, as a result of 
breathing the air around nuclear plants.
  This is a good environmental issue. It is a good energy issue. It has 
the potential to move us forward. We need to be thinking about the 
great potential to make the plants that are more modern and more 
efficient and even more safe than today. In fact, some can be designed 
that make it impossible to release radioactive material.
  I know we will be voting later on this afternoon on this amendment. I 
yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote that 
is now scheduled for 2 o'clock today be rescheduled for 2:15 p.m. under 
the same conditions of the previous unanimous consent agreement, and 
the only change I request is between the first and second vote there be 
2 minutes equally divided for those who wish to speak on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have some further comments 
specifically addressing the Price-Anderson insurance program for 
nuclear powerplants that we will be voting on a little later this 
afternoon, maybe around 2:15. Making some points about the details of 
it, 45 years ago the nuclear power industry said if they were going to 
go forward with this new source of power, they wanted to be able to 
develop an insurance program that would work and that would assure the 
communities in which they are building these plants they would be 
operated safely, and if something bad occurred that everybody would be 
compensated.
  Those communities have been confident in that process ever since, but 
the act does expire and it is time for us to extend it. It would be a 
terrible mistake if we did not. It would cause quite a bit of 
heartburn.
  I will share a few thoughts about how this insurance program works. I 
believe people would feel good about it and want to go forward with it. 
The average business in America that does the things they do every day 
may have products on their premises that are somewhat dangerous. If a 
terrorist or somebody blows it up and it kills people, it is not their 
fault. They are not liable. They did not do anything wrong. They were 
not negligent. They were not irresponsible. They were not reckless, and 
they did business in a safe way.
  Of course, the nuclear power industry operates precisely the way the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission tells them to

[[Page S1640]]

operate, in a safe fashion. At any rate, they are doing what they can 
to comply with the law and the regulations, and they have had 
this insurance policy. Each plant has a $200 million policy for which 
they are personally responsible. If anything happens, they carry their 
own $200 million policy. The entire industry has come together and 
pooled up to $9 billion of a policy, and this is sort of structured by 
the Price-Anderson Act, and it is all paid for by the nuclear power 
industry.

  Above that, if something were to happen so badly above that, then the 
Federal Government would have liability to pay under Price-Anderson. 
That is what our American communities have had a right to expect. They 
were told that when the plants were built, and we need to continue that 
policy today. We certainly do not need to stop it. I believe the votes 
are there, and we will pass an extension of Price-Anderson. It would be 
a bad thing, cause unnecessary heartburn, would be a breach of the 
fundamental promises of the Federal Government that we do that if we 
did not extend it, and also it could weaken the nuclear power industry, 
further containing any hope of expansion of this 20 percent of our 
electric-generating capacity that produces no pollution.
  As I noted earlier, the U.S. nuclear powerplants prevent 5.1 million 
tons of sulfur dioxide from being emitted into the atmosphere, 2.4 
million tons of nitrogen oxide, NOX, and 164 metric tons of 
carbon from entering the Earth's atmosphere. That is the kind of thing 
they do on a regular basis, producing power cleanly and safely for the 
benefit of humankind throughout this country.
  For over 45 years, Price-Anderson has provided a guaranteed 
compensation to the public in the event a nuclear accident were to 
occur. It provided coverage for precautionary evacuations and out-of-
pocket expenses, reducing delays that are inherent in any kind of 
lawsuit that would have been filed, maybe taking years. It guaranteed 
prompt payment by the insurance companies; no lawsuits. You are liable. 
You accept strict liability, which is not the law, as I noted, for 
other businesses, and it consolidated the matters in a single Federal 
court so promptness and efficiency and fairness can occur. That is a 
good policy. We ought not to end it now.
  It is important for safe and clean power to be continued to be 
produced for America, and I believe we will have a strong vote in favor 
of it this afternoon. Thus, I note there is concern by people, but even 
in Three Mile Island the total amount expended was less than $200 
million, compensating everybody and doing all the things necessary to 
test and examine and make sure the community was safe; $191 million. 
That would all be covered by that insurance company's own policy, that 
power company's own policy. If it went above that, up to $9 billion, 
then the industry would pay for it. Only above that would the taxpayers 
have any risk. I think it is a good bargain for America. It is a sound 
program. We ought to continue it.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I was with Senator Lott during the lunch 
hour and was not able to hear all the remarks of the Senator from 
Alabama, my friend, Mr. Sessions, but my staff did outline for me some 
of the things he said.
  This is not the time and the place for a discussion, debate, on 
things nuclear in the true sense of the word. That time will come.
  Price-Anderson points up the problems we have with nuclear power. If 
in fact nuclear power was such a good deal, why does it need a subsidy? 
Wouldn't any other utility love to have the Federal Government backing 
its liability? That is, in effect, what Price-Anderson does.
  Many years ago, when nuclear power was an experiment and was in its 
infancy, and we, the Government, Congress, the President, decided to 
give it a shot in the arm to see if it would work, even back then 
everyone recognized the dangers of nuclear power. We have had since 
then Three Mile Island and other problems. It was simply a question 
that they could not get the places insured.
  We are now told these places are so safe, there is no reason for the 
subsidy. If these places are so safe, they should be able to buy 
insurance. If they can't buy insurance, then the amendment I offered 
should have been followed; that is, there should be real, true 
accounting in determining liability of these companies. It is clear the 
nuclear power industry is now a mature electricity industry that no 
longer needs liability protection.
  Price-Anderson has actually led to a decrease in the amount of 
private insurance available. In the 1950s the private insurance 
industry was willing to insure an accident for $50 million, despite 
experience with the new technology. Today, the private insurance 
industry only provides $200 million insurance. That does not keep up 
with inflation.
  One of the things that is wrong with Price-Anderson is, how do they 
determine the $200 million that they have available in case there is an 
accident? What they should do is have a surety bond, a letter of 
credit, some type of escrow account, or perhaps government securities 
or insurance.
  If there were ever an Enron example, it is this. They have a showing 
that they either have a cashflow or cash reserve that can be generated 
and would be available within 3 months. Not now--within 3 months. That 
is, as far as I am concerned, sheer foolishness.

  I wasn't born yesterday. I know this amendment is going to be agreed 
to, but it should not be agreed to. I think nuclear power should stand 
on its own two feet. In Nevada, we are trying to develop large windmill 
factories to produce electricity. They are going to put up their own 
money. There is no Government assurance if somebody gets hurt out there 
the Government will pick up the expense. The same is true with solar, 
geothermal, biomass, coal, and natural gas. So Price-Anderson should 
fail.
  As I have indicated earlier today, virtually every environmental 
group in America is opposed to this legislation.
  I offered an amendment. I talked about it this morning. Every 
environmental group was in favor of my amendment. But we have a 
situation now where this amendment is being pushed forward. As I said 
in the presence of my friend, the junior Senator from New Mexico, I am 
disappointed he is cosponsoring this amendment. I think it is wrong. I 
think we should follow the Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, 
Environmental Defense Fund, the Union of Concerned Scientists, 
Defenders of Wildlife, USPIRG, Safe Energy Communications Council, 
Natural Resources Defense Council, National Environmental Policy Act 
Trust, Nuclear Information Resource Service, League of Conservation 
Voters, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Public Citizens for Critical Mass, 
and STAR. These are entities that are concerned about the environment 
and they say Price-Anderson is not good for the environment.
  So I hope Members will look closely at what they are doing. There 
will be a few votes against this. There should be a lot more. I am very 
disappointed that we cannot slow this down.
  This bill is important legislation for the country, and I recognize 
that. I think the work we did yesterday was so important, to allow a 
pipeline to come from Alaska. That would have 50 million tons of steel 
to construct the pipeline. It would be 2,100 miles of pipe creating 
400,000 jobs. That is what we should be doing.
  About 40 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can come down that 
pipeline. That is big. Of course, this is relatively new. It wasn't 
many years ago that natural gas was just pumped out into the 
environment. It served no purpose. Now, of course, we use it to power 
many of our powerplants in America today.
  As I said earlier, there is going to be a time in the next several 
months to talk in more detail about nuclear waste, but this is not the 
time or the place to do it. I look forward to a vote in approximately 
20 minutes to take care of the matter that Senator Bingaman offered 
dealing with hydraulic fracturing, and also the amendment

[[Page S1641]]

dealing with the Price-Anderson legislation. I hope the Price-Anderson 
legislation gets a significant number of votes against it.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask how much time remains on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma, on his side of the 
aisle, has no time remaining.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator from Oklahoma wishes time, how much time 
does he wish?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has 21 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. INHOFE. Five minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for giving 
me some of his time, particularly since we are not in agreement with 
each other on one of the two votes that will be taking place.
  I spent 30 years of my life in the insurance business. I know the 
Chair knows a little bit about this business--he spent some time there, 
too. I think the Price-Anderson program as an insurance program is a 
good deal for the public. For over 45 years, Price-Anderson has 
provided immediate and substantial private compensation to the public 
in the event of a nuclear accident. It has provided coverage for 
precautionary evacuations, out-of-pocket expenses, has reduced delays 
that are inherent in court cases, and has consolidated all cases into a 
single Federal court.
  I think it is also important to recognize it has never cost the 
Government any money. This is not a Government program.
  Going back to my third point, if we didn't have something like this, 
then we would be dependent upon the tort system in this country. We are 
going to hear about the delays and the cost. This is one of the 
programs that has been successful for 45 years. When it gets down to 
some of the people who are opposing the program, they are actually 
opposed to nuclear energy.
  I am old enough to remember back in the 1960s and 1970s, the hysteria 
that hit the streets when they were talking about nuclear energy and 
picketing and protesting. As the years went by, other problems came up 
with other forms of generation of energy.
  We went through a long period of time during the Clinton 
administration with the EPA coming up with some ambient air targets 
that were not realistic. It created great problems. So we started 
talking about all the pollutants, emission problems, refineries--
keeping in mind all during that discussion our refineries were at 100 
percent capacity. Yet we were trying to add more and more problems to 
them with new source review and other programs, making it just a very 
expensive program.
  During that time, a lot of the people who 20 years before had been 
picketing because they were opposed to nuclear energy, realized that 
nuclear energy is safe now, it is clean, and it is abundant.
  The thing that I stress when we are talking about energy is we want 
all forms of energy--we want renewables, we want nuclear energy, we 
want fossil fuels, we want all the forms of energy because we do not 
want an energy crisis.
  As far as nuclear energy is concerned, we are only dependent on that 
for 20 percent of our energy needs. France is 80 percent dependent. I 
think we will see in the future that percentage is going to have to go 
up until some of the renewables and other experimental systems come 
into play where we can depend on them for an abundance of energy. Until 
then, we are going to have to be using some of the energy sources that 
we know work and work today. Certainly this is one of them.

  The assistant majority leader also mentioned we will have two votes 
starting at 2:15. The other is on hydraulic fracturing. I think it is 
important to talk about that in the same vein because there you are 
talking about natural gas. I am from Oklahoma. We know a little bit 
about natural gas. We know it is among the cleanest forms of energy out 
there. It is plentiful. It is inexpensive. But as far as being 
plentiful, one of the problems we are having is we have to be sure that 
we can maintain what we are doing right now in bringing natural gas out 
of the ground.
  Right now, and for the next couple of years, we will be able to do 
that. However, because of the court decision that has already been 
discussed on the floor by a number of the Senators, we could be having 
a problem. The system, the procedure of hydraulic fracturing where you 
are forcing the natural gas or the oil out of the rock formations, is 
one that has been proven and has been used since the 1940s.
  We are talking about 60 years we have been doing this. In 60 years 
and over 1 million wells where we have used this procedure, we have yet 
to have any environmental problem. So it kind of blows my mind there 
would be people, after 60 years of success, who would say there might 
be an environmental problem with it. There is no environmental problem 
with it.
  The only problem right now is a court case for which we are going to 
have to go ahead and complete a study.
  It is important for all my colleagues to realize on this vote today 
all we are talking about is completing the study that is underway right 
now. The EPA does not have to follow the guidelines of that study. They 
can authorize another study. But this amendment is to at least let 
science step in and say: Since there has not been a problem before, 
here are the risks of a problem in the future. If there is not a 
problem, we need to go ahead and eliminate that obstacle so we will be 
able to continue using that system.
  Mr. President, 80 percent of the wells right now--and it is a higher 
percentage when you go to my State of Oklahoma because most of those 
are marginal wells, wells with 15 barrels a day or less--but 80 percent 
of them are going to have to use hydraulic fracturing. That system is 
necessary in order to come up with the natural gas we need.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I started out my legal career as an attorney 
for insurance companies. I did lots of trial work representing insurers 
in automobile accidents, hospitals, and hotels. I have some knowledge 
of insurance. I have no question that Price-Anderson gives the nuclear 
generators a subsidy and an unfair advantage.
  Having said that, I want to comment briefly on some of the things my 
friend from Alabama said, I am told, about nuclear power and the high-
level nuclear repository that is being contemplated in Nevada.
  First of all, the GAO said there are 292 scientific investigative 
reports for which the Department of Energy is waiting. It wasn't time 
to go forward with that.
  In addition to that, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, led by 
the prominent American scientist, Jared Cohon, who was dean of the 
forestry department at Yale and is now president of Carnegie Mellon, 
and his group have said that the science at Yucca Mountain is poor.
  I think before we get into a long debate here on the floor, which we 
are not going to do--I said there will be another time to do that--
Leader Gephardt issued a statement just 2 days ago decrying the 
Department of Energy's action recently dealing with nuclear waste 
saying that, among other things, St. Louis passed a resolution saying 
nuclear waste should not be brought through their city. There are other 
things, and we will talk about those later.
  I hope we can move forward generally on this legislation. By tomorrow 
we will have spent a whole week on this. I am not certain how much more 
time Senator Daschle can afford to stay on this. We have debt limits, 
campaign finance, and a lot of other things to deal with. I hope those 
who believe this bill needs a lot more work will move forward as 
quickly as possible and do what they think in the way of amendments 
will improve this legislation, of course recognizing that a conference 
committee will take place. I think we should do everything we can to 
move this legislation as quickly as possible.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I know our side is out of time. I would

[[Page S1642]]

like to ask if I could have a couple minutes.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, does the Senator from North Dakota wish to 
speak prior to the vote at 2:15?
  The Senator from Oklahoma may have 3 minutes. Will that be adequate?
  Mr. INHOFE. That is fine.
  Madam President, I respectfully disagree with what the Senator from 
Nevada said about the subsidy. The Federal Government does not use 
taxpayer money to pay claims in the event of a nuclear incident. There 
has been no subsidy in the 43 years of Price-Anderson protection. The 
nuclear insurance pool is not the Federal Government. It has paid a 
total of, I believe, $191 million in claims. The Price-Anderson Act 
ensures that full compensation will be available in the event of a 
nuclear attack. In the absence of the law, members of the public filing 
claims would need to overcome substantial obstacles of tort law for 
recovery. As we all know, that is very expensive and very time 
consuming.
  I think the key here is that no public funds have ever been paid out. 
For that reason, there is no way one can say this is a subsidized 
program.
  The Federal Government provides insurance mechanisms for losses 
associated with agricultural disasters, floods, banks, savings and 
loans; to pay for home mortgages, Social Security, Medicare, crime, and 
maritime accidents. It is not unusual for the Federal Government to do 
it. But under the current law, the limitation on liability exists for 
oil spills, bankruptcy, and workers compensation, but not in the case 
of nuclear accident. While it is very common for the Federal Government 
to expend moneys to underwrite and to be in the insurance business many 
times to compete with the insurance industry, in this case it isn't 
true. There is no subsidy involved.
  I am sure my time has expired. I yield the floor. 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 the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is to vote on amendment No. 2983.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Is that vote to occur immediately or is there time to 
speak?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 2:15.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I see Senator Voinovich.
  That is the Price-Anderson amendment, I believe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the chair.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2983

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on agreeing to amendment No. 2983 offered by the Senator from Ohio. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 21, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 42 Leg.]

                                YEAS--78

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--21

     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Clinton
     Collins
     Dayton
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 2983) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INHOFE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 2986, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 2 
minutes evenly divided prior to a vote on the Bingaman amendment No. 
2986, as modified. Who yields time?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Rockefeller be listed as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, this amendment sets up a study process 
to determine whether hydraulic fracturing should be regulated by the 
Federal Government under the Safe Drinking Water Act. It is a 
bipartisan amendment with many cosponsors. It is good policy. It is a 
policy that was supported by the Clinton administration. It is now 
supported by the current administration.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following Senators be added as cosponsors: Senators Enzi, Murkowski, 
Sessions, and Nickles.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I wish to add to the remarks of the 
Senator from New Mexico. This procedure is being used today. It has 
been used since the 1940s. Over 1 million wells have used hydraulic 
fracturing. There has never been any documented case of any 
environmental damage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields 
time in opposition?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. May I take the remainder of the time? I simply want to 
advise Senators that, indeed, this matter has been cleared by both the 
minority and majority, and we concur in its adoption. It is the right 
thing to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2986, as modified.
  Mr. THOMAS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 21, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 43 Leg.]

                                YEAS--78

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--21

     Biden
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Jeffords
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wellstone

[[Page S1643]]



                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 2986), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. INHOFE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. At this point, I believe Senator Craig has an amendment 
he wishes to offer that we can agree to and voice vote. Then I have 
amendments on behalf of Senator Akaka that I would like to handle the 
same way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.


                           Amendment No. 2987

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2987.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide for multiple-year authorization for the fusion 
                        energy sciences program)

       Strike subsection (e) of section 1254 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--From amounts 
     authorized under section 1251, the following amounts are 
     authorized for activities under this section and for 
     activities of the Fusion Energy Science Program:
       ``(1) for fiscal year 2003, $335,000,000;
       ``(2) for fiscal year 2004, $349,000,000;
       ``(3) for fiscal year 2005, $362,000,000; and
       ``(4) for fiscal year 2006, $377,000,000.''.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this amendment authorizes outyear funding 
levels for the Department of Energy Fusion Energy Sciences Program.
  I appreciate Chairman Bingaman incorporating provisions of my bill on 
fusion science research in the Daschle-Bingaman substitute bill. 
However, the Daschle-Bingaman substitute did not incorporate outyear 
funding authorizations for the Fusion Energy Sciences Program. This 
technical amendment authorizes funding for fiscal years 2003 through 
2006.
  While we grapple with short-term remedies to our energy problems, we 
need to stay focused on long-term investment in those areas which have 
the potential to help secure our energy future. I believe fusion energy 
has the potential.
  I appreciate the support of the chairman on this issue. It is our 
understanding we might be able to voice vote this.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I support the amendment. I think this 
will improve the bill. I urge all Senators to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2987) was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am informed Senator McCain is ready to 
offer his amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2979

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2979 which is at 
the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, Mr. 
     Hollings, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Smith of 
     Oregon, Mr. Domenici, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. Wyden, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2979.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment can be found in the Record of Tuesday, March 5, 2002, 
on page S 1542.)
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Alaska has a 
second-degree amendment to the pending amendment. I know the Senator 
from Alaska is very busy. I have a statement which is probably about 10 
or 15 minutes long, but if the Senator from Alaska wishes to propose 
his second-degree amendment, I am willing to delay in my statement.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I can wait.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, over a year ago the Senate passed S. 235, 
the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act. That bill was approved by a vote 
of 98-0 on February 8, 2001, and is designed to promote both public and 
environmental safety by reauthorizing and strengthening our Federal 
pipeline safety programs which expired in September 2000.
  While the Senate has now passed pipeline safety legislation in both 
the 106th and the 107th Congresses, the other body has yet to take 
meaningful action to address pipeline safety. Despite efforts to 
encourage the other body to approve pipeline safety legislation and 
help prevent not only needless deaths and injuries but also 
environmental and economic disasters, there has been little movement by 
the House on this important issue. Therefore, the Senate must take 
whatever action we can to advance pipeline safety legislation.
  Today I offer the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act as an amendment to 
the pending energy bill. I believe it is appropriate to consider this 
issue in the context of energy legislation. I believe it is appropriate 
to consider this issue in the context of the post-September 11 
environment. I think it is appropriate to consider this issue in the 
context that it is an issue which really needs to be addressed.
  The Senator from Alaska, it is my understanding, will be proposing an 
amendment that has to do with the damage to the Alaskan pipeline, which 
is probably an important amendment.
  When one looks at this chart of the natural gas and hazardous liquid 
pipelines of the United States, the first conclusion one draws is that 
there is a need for pipeline safety and security. I don't need to draw 
scenarios as to what could happen in the event of the disruption or 
destruction of one of these pipelines, many of which carry material 
which is highly toxic and hazardous. I am pleased to be joined in this 
bipartisan effort by Senators Hollings, Murray, Bingaman, Breaux, 
Smith, Domenici, Hutchison, Wyden, and Torricelli. Our goal is to enact 
comprehensive legislation for pipeline safety for the public, the 
environment, and the economy.

  The Office of Pipeline Safety, within the Department of 
Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration, oversees 
the transportation of about 65 percent of the petroleum and most of the 
natural gas transported in the United States. The Office of Pipeline 
Safety regulates the day-to-day safety of 3,000 pipeline operators with 
more than 1.6 million miles of pipeline. I repeat, 1.6 million miles of 
pipeline. It also regulates more than 200 hazardous liquid operators 
with 155,000 miles of pipelines, as depicted on this chart. This chart 
shows the red lines as the liquid pipelines and the dark-colored lines 
as natural gas pipelines.
  Given the immense array of pipelines that traverse our Nation, 
reauthorization of our pipeline safety programs is critical to the 
safety and security of thousands of communities and millions of 
Americans nationwide. That is why it is appropriate to include pipeline 
safety provisions as a key component of any comprehensive energy 
legislation under consideration.
  The amendment being offered today is the product of many months of 
hearings, bipartisan compromise, and cooperation that began during the 
106th Congress. During the past 2 years, my colleagues and I have made 
repeated statements discussing the critical need to enact pipeline 
safety improvement legislation.
  That necessity has been demonstrated by a number of tragic accidents 
in recent years.
  For example, In June 1999, a fatal pipeline accident occurred in 
Bellingham, WA, when gasoline leaked from an underground pipeline and 
was subsequently ignited. That accident resulted in the deaths of two 
boys and a young man, in addition to a number of injuries and severe 
environmental damage to the area.
  Other tragedies have occurred. On August 19, 2000, a natural gas 
transmission line ruptured in Carlsbad, NM, killing 12 members of two 
families. On September 7, 2000, a bulldozer in Lubbock, TX, ruptured a 
propane pipeline, resulting in the death of a police office. In total, 
71 fatalities have occurred as a result of pipeline accidents over the 
past 3 years.
  I think that number is worth repeating: 71 fatalities over the last 3 
years

[[Page S1644]]

have occurred. Meanwhile, Congress has not acted to enact legislation 
which, in the view of many experts, possibly could have prevented these 
fatalities. That is a pretty onerous burden, it seems to me, that is 
placed on us as legislators in our failure to act.
  I regret to report that just yesterday, there was a pipeline 
explosion near Jeffersonville, KY. Thankfully, no fatalities have been 
reported, but I am informed it caused a fire so intense that it was 
picked up on a Federal Government satellite. Clearly, the amendment we 
are proposing today is not only timely but urgent.
  As I mentioned, the Senate has worked to improve pipeline safety and 
reduce the risk of future accidents. During the last Congress, with the 
assistance of a bipartisan group of Senators, including Senators Slade 
Gorton and Patty Murray, the Senate passed the Pipeline Safety 
Improvement Act of 2000. Unfortunately, the House failed to approve 
pipeline safety legislation so we were never able to send a measure to 
the President.
  When the 107th Congress convened, one of the first legislative 
actions taken by the Senate was to consider and pass S. 235, the 
pipeline safety Improvement Act of 2001, a measure nearly identical to 
what we passed in the prior Congress. Early attention by the Senate 
demonstrated our firm commitment to improving pipeline safety. Once 
again, my colleagues and I are seeking to advance pipeline safety 
legislation by offering this amendment.
  I would be remiss if I didn't point out that despite the tragic 
accidents I highlighted earlier, the pipeline industry generally has a 
good safety record relative to other forms of transportation. According 
to the Department of Transportation, pipeline related incidents dropped 
nearly 80 percent between 1973 and 1998, and the loss of product due to 
accidental ruptures has been cut in half. From 1989 through 1998, 
pipeline accidents resulted in about 22 fatalities per year--far fewer 
than the number of fatal accidents experienced among other modes of 
transportation. But this record should not be used as an excuse for 
inaction on legislation to strengthen pipeline safety.
  The pipeline safety program expired nearly 18 months ago. Congress as 
a whole must address this critical public and environmental safety 
issue. We need to reauthorize the pipeline safety programs. We need to 
provide additional funding for safety enforcement and research and 
development efforts, as well as provide for increased State oversight 
authority and facilitate greater public information sharing at the 
local community level.

  Let me describe the major provisions of the amendment which is nearly 
identical to S. 235:
  First, it would require the implementation of pipeline safety 
recommendations issued in March 2000 by the Department of 
Transportation Inspector General to RSPA. The Inspector General found 
several glaring safety gaps at Office of Pipeline Safety and it is 
incumbent upon us all to do all we can to ensure that the Department 
affirmatively acts on these critical problems.
  The amendment would also require the Secretary of Transportation, the 
RSPA Administrator, and the Director of the Office of Pipeline Safety 
to respond to all NTSB pipeline safety recommendations within 90 days 
of receipt. The Department's responsiveness to the National 
Transportation Safety Board pipeline safety recommendations has been 
poor at best. while current law requires the Secretary to respond to 
the NTSB no later than 90 days after receiving a safety recommendation, 
there are no similar requirements at RSPA. Therefore, this legislation 
statutorily require RSPA and Office of Pipeline Safety to respond to 
each and every pipeline safety recommendation it receives from the NTSB 
and to provide a detailed report on what action is plans to initiate in 
response to the recommenation.
  The amendment would require pipeline operators to submit to the 
Secretary of Transportation a plan designed to improve the 
qualificaitons for pipeline personnel. At a minimum, the qualificaiton 
plan would have to demonstrate that pipeline employees have the 
necessary knowledge to safely and properly perform their assigned 
duties and would require testing and periodic reexamination of the 
employees' qualifications.
  It would also require the Department of Transportation to issue 
regulations mandating pipeline operators to periodically determine the 
adequacy of this pipeline to safely operate and to implement integrity 
management programs to reduce identified risks. The regulations would 
require operators to base their integrity management plans on risk 
assessment to periodically assess the integrity of their pipeline and 
to take steps to prevent and mitigate unintended releases, such as 
improving leak detection capabilities or installing restrictive flow 
devices. The integrity management provisions will not only be critical 
to advancing pipeline safety, but also to addressing potential security 
concerns, which is a shared goal among all the sponsors of this 
amendment.
  The amendment also would require pipeline operators to carry out a 
continuing public education program to advise municipalities, school 
districts, businesses, and residents about a variety of pipeline 
safety-related matters, including pipeline locations. It would also 
direct pipeline operators to initiate and maintain communication with 
State emergency response commissions and local emergency planning 
committees and to share with these entities information critical to 
addressing pipeline safety and mitigating risks.

  The amendment further directs the Secretary to develop and implement 
a comprehensive plan for the collection and use of pipeline-related 
data in a manner that would enable DOT to conduct incident trend 
analyses and evaluations of operator performance. Operation would be 
required to report incident releases greater than 5 gallons, compared 
to the current reporting requirement of 50 barrels. In addition, the 
Secretary would be directed to establish a national depository of data 
to be administered by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics in 
cooperation with RSPA.
  In recognition of the critical importance of technology applications 
in promoting transportation safety across all modes of transportation, 
the legislation directs the Secretary to focus on technologies to 
improve pipeline safety as part of the Department's research and 
development efforts. Further, the amendment includes provisions 
advanced by Senator Bingaman, myself, and others, to provide for a 
collaborative R&D effort directed by the Department of Transportation 
with the assistance of the Department of Energy and the National 
Academy of Sciences.
  The amendment would provide for a 3-year authorization, with 
increased funding for Federal pipeline safety activities, the State 
grant program, and research and development efforts.
  Additionally, the amendment requires operators, in the event of an 
accident, to make available to the DOT or NTSB all records and 
information pertaining to the accident and to assist in the 
investigation to the extent reasonable. It also includes provisions 
concerning serious accidents that provide for a review to ensure the 
operator's employees can safely perform their duties. In addition, 
pipeline employees would be afforded the same whistle-blower 
protections as are provided to employees in other modes of 
transportation. These protections are nearly identical to the 
protections aviation-related employees were granted in the Wendell H. 
Ford Aviation and Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century, P.L. 106-
181.
  I want to point out this amendment includes a few minor modifications 
to the Senate-passed version of S. 235. It extends the authorization 
period for an additional fiscal year which is necessary to reflect the 
fact that a year has passed since we considered S. 235. The amendment 
would fund pipeline safety programs for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 
2005 at $64 million annually.
  The amendment also includes two new provisions intended to address 
pipeline security concerns heightened in the wake of the September 11 
attacks. While the pipeline safety provisions were not originally 
developed as security legislation, I believe it is our duty to address 
identified security concerns and will certainly consider any security-
related proposals brought to our attention in the future by the 
administration and other interested parties.

[[Page S1645]]

  In the meantime, the amendment seeks to strike a balance between 
public access to pipeline information and the need to restrict security 
sensitive information. It would tie the new information disclosure 
requirements of the legislation to the existing Freedom of Information 
Act standards that restrict the release of certain information based on 
national security and national defense concerns. Again, it would apply 
current FOIA exemption standards to the public disclosure provisions to 
protect information critical to national security and defense. As this 
and other security-related measures continue through the legislative 
process, I plan to work with my colleagues to ensure the proper 
handling of security sensitive data within the Federal Government. 
Security sensitive information must not be released into the wrong 
hands. This amendment should afford useful protection in the near term.
  Finally, the amendment would authorize the Secretary to provide 
technical assistance to pipeline operators and state and local 
officials to ensure that they are adequately prepared to respond to 
terrorist attacks or threats that could impact pipelines.
  We must ensure that the Department has the tools it needs to carry 
out its critical pipeline safety responsibilities, to advance research 
and development efforts, and to protect pipeline security sensitive 
data. I urge my colleagues to join with me in demonstrating their 
strong support for improving pipeline safety by voting for this 
amendment. I remain hopeful that the Congress will approve pipeline 
safety legislation before we receive another call to action by another 
tragic accident.
  We have not reauthorized pipeline safety. It is important that we do 
so. It has lapsed.
  We can see by this chart the miles and miles of pipeline that cross 
America. Many of them are perfectly safe. There are others that clearly 
need renewed attention and renewed regulations as embodied in this 
bill. There are 3,000 gas pipeline operators with more than 1.6 million 
miles of pipeline and 200 hazardous liquid operators with 155,000 miles 
of pipeline.
  I don't like to refer to nor discuss various scenarios for acts of 
terror, but I think this chart in itself depicts the urgent need for 
reauthorization of this legislation. Also, it is of interest and value 
to put a human face on some of these issues and the importance of them.
  As I mentioned in my remarks earlier, there was a tragic accident in 
Bellingham, WA. Two young boys were killed. I will not describe the 
circumstances of their deaths. It aroused the entire community.
  With the assistance of Senator Murray and Senator Gorton, hearings 
were held in Bellingham on this issue, its cause, and what needed to be 
done. The people, the families, and the mayor of Bellingham came to 
Washington, DC, to testify before the Commerce Committee.
  Senator Murray, other Senators, and I made a commitment to the people 
of that community who were directly impacted by the tragic deaths of 
these children and to the people of this Nation that we would do 
everything we could to enact legislation--to act as is our 
responsibility--to see that there wouldn't be a recurrence of the 
tragedy and that no other family in America would undergo the agony and 
pain of the families of Bellingham, WA.
  We passed that bill on February 8, 2001. Yet the other body has not 
acted. I think that is very unfortunate. That is why I feel compelled 
to come today with this amendment on the energy bill in hopes that it 
will now either be part of this bill or the other body will act on this 
very important legislation which not only has to do with spillage of 
toxic waste, or hazardous materials, or fires, such as just happened 
yesterday, but which in some cases tragically endangers the lives of 
our citizens. I know of no greater responsibility than to try to do 
everything in our power to prevent a recurrence.
  I thank the managers of the bill for their consideration of this 
legislation. I again applaud Senator Murray for her tremendous efforts 
and dedication on this issue--not only the issue but for her sympathy 
and the concern she showed to the families and the people in that 
community who were deeply impacted by the accident.
  I hope we can do this to fulfill our responsibilities.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I compliment Senator McCain and members 
of the Commerce Committee for bringing this matter up.
  I would like to be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.
  As all are aware, Senator McCain's amendment is similar to the one 
submitted last February. It passed this body by a vote of 98 to 0. I 
feel quite confident that we can dispose of it favorably. Certainly, 
Senator McCain and others have been diligent in making sure Congress 
addresses the issue. Safety is an extremely important component of 
energy policy.
  Senator McCain has indicated the highlights of the legislation. I 
will not be repetitive.
  The pipeline, as we know, provides this country with supplies of oil 
and natural gas in a very efficient manner. I believe we will hear from 
the Senator from Washington relative to the tragedy that occurred in 
Bellingham and New Mexico as well.
  But clearly these incidents highlight that some pipelines are aging, 
and the increased demand for energy is putting more and more pressure 
on these pipelines. It is appropriate that there be oversight adequate 
to ensure that wear and tear does not result in tragedies such as we 
have already seen. The public must have confidence in safety. This 
legislation will facilitate that.
  We are fortunate in this country to have a network of pipelines, as 
the Senator from Arizona has shown on the map, because it is much more 
efficient than moving by rail or by truck. I think it enables us to 
have relatively abundant and inexpensive energy in the manner in which 
we move it. No other country has a network as efficient as the United 
States as far as pipeline transfer of energy is concerned. But we 
cannot become complacent. We must improve the safety of these 
pipelines.
  I certainly welcome the changes to existing law made by the 
legislation that will improve the overall safety of the pipelines. When 
this legislation is enacted, it will be the strongest and most 
comprehensive safety measure ever approved by Congress. At the same 
time, it will avoid responses that would lead to a lack of investment 
in pipelines without any measure to improve safety.
  I think we can all agree, given our a reliance on energy in our 
everyday lives, that we recognize the significance of this legislation 
and the contribution it is going to make of ensuring the confidence of 
the American people that indeed the pipeline network is safe. 
Accordingly, I urge the Senate to agree to this amendment.
  Mr. President, I am going to offer a second degree amendment, which I 
understand has been circulated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                Amendment No. 2988 to Amendment No. 2979

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me outline the necessity of the second-degree 
amendment.
  We have a unique situation in Alaska with the 800-mile Trans-Alaska 
Pipeline which moves about 20 percent of the total crude oil produced 
in this country but is not protected in the sense of the pipeline 
safety act because our pipeline is completely within the State's 
borders. I am not going to argue with those who have analyzed this. But 
clearly our rivers are in interstate commerce. The fish in the rivers 
are in interstate commerce. But even though our pipeline goes basically 
from the Arctic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean it apparently may not be 
protected under the criminal penalties of the pipeline safety act.
  As a consequence, the amendment I am about to offer includes 
intrastate pipelines that transport gas in interstate commerce within 
the criminal penalty section of the pipeline safety act that currently 
only protects interstate pipelines.
  An incident occurred in my State of Alaska last fall where an 
individual fired a weapon and hit the 800-mile Trans-Alaska Pipeline.
  The evidence indicates that perhaps the individual fired 
approximately 5 or 6 shots. Ordinarily, we are told, the steel in a 
pipeline is such that it is

[[Page S1646]]

very unlikely there could be a penetration by a bullet more than the 
circumference of the bullet, and very doubtful if that.
  It is interesting to note the history of that pipeline. It has been 
bombed. It has had dynamite wrapped around it. And it has been shot at, 
and finally an individual did penetrate the surface of the pipeline 
with a bullet.
  Now, the defendant was allegedly intoxicated at the time, so we 
really do not know how many times he shot at it or whether he kept 
moving up closer until he hit it. But despite the importance of the 
contribution of the pipeline to the Nation's flow of oil--as I have 
indicated, once contributing 25 percent, and now it is at about 20 
percent; it has a capacity unused of a million barrels a day--we were 
unable to prosecute due to the loopholes in Federal law. Instead, the 
State prosecuted the individual for the wrongdoing.
  We believe there is no reason the Federal Government should not have 
been able to prosecute this crime since it involved infrastructure that 
is so important to our Nation's energy. This amendment closes that 
loophole in the Pipeline Safety Act and ensures that the Federal 
Government will be able to prosecute such cases in the future. It 
assures that both natural gas pipeline facilities and hazardous liquid 
pipeline facilities that are intrastate are protected as well.
  It will protect those facilities even if the facility is within the 
confines of one individual State's borders, as long as the pipeline is 
used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting 
interstate or foreign commerce. I think this is important because even 
though some pipelines may be confined to one State, such as ours, the 
Trans-Alaska Pipeline, they certainly affect interstate commerce.
  The amendment will enable the Federal Government to prosecute 
individuals who threaten infrastructure which is integral to the 
transportation of important energy resources throughout our country. 
And I think from the standpoint of our State of Alaska, it relieves 
some of the responsibility on our State troopers in recognizing, 
indeed, this would be considered a Federal responsibility as well.
  So, Mr. President, I send to the desk a second-degree amendment to 
the McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2988 to amendment No. 2979.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR DAMAGING OR DESTROYING A 
                   FACILITY.

       Section 60123(b) of title 49, United States code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' after ``gas pipeline facility'' and 
     inserting a comma; and
       (2) by inserting after ``liquid pipeline facility'' the 
     following: ``, or either an intrastate gas pipeline facility 
     or an intrastate hazardous liquid pipeline facility that is 
     used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity 
     affecting interstate or foreign commerce''.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, my understanding is that the floor 
manager has indicated we would have a vote on this at some point. I do 
not need a rollcall vote on my second degree. I would leave it up to 
the Senator from Arizona to determine his intent for a vote on his 
underlying amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield, I am told it is the preference 
of the majority leader that a vote would be set for sometime tomorrow 
morning.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if my friend will yield, I have spoken to 
the Senator from Arizona. He has agreed to accept a vote on this in the 
morning. We believe that even though this vote will, I think, be 
overwhelmingly in support for the McCain amendment, we need to send a 
strong message to the House, so we want a rollcall vote on this. So the 
plan is to work on this as long as anyone else wants to speak on it.
  It is my understanding the Senator from New Mexico will accept the 
second-degree amendment of the Senator from Alaska and that we will 
then have other people speak on the McCain amendment. When that is 
completed, the Senator from California will offer an amendment. We will 
not complete the amendment of the Senator from California because the 
Senator from Texas and others wish to speak on that. However, there is 
another amendment that the Senator from New Mexico is going to offer 
later today.
  We would vote first on the McCain amendment in the morning, probably 
at about a quarter to 10, and then we would vote, subsequent to that, 
on the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico. But we have to work 
this out. The majority leader knows about this, but not the details. We 
will confirm that with him and the minority leader at a subsequent 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I think this is a good second-degree 
amendment. I suggest we go ahead and adopt it at this point, and then, 
as the Senator from Nevada indicated, have the scheduled vote on the 
McCain amendment tomorrow.
  I know Senator Murray from Washington is waiting to speak on the 
McCain amendment, as is Senator Breaux from Louisiana.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to discuss with my 
colleagues an issue that relates to pipeline safety. I am concerned 
about an incident that occurred in Alaska last fall. The Senator may 
recall hearing in the news about an individual who fired a weapon and 
hit the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.
  Mr. McCAINE. I do recall hearing about that incident.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I remember reading about the incident as well.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Well, the individual was allegedly intoxicated when 
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was damaged. Unfortunately, the U.S. 
Attorney's Office was unable to prosecute the individual for damaging 
the line due to some loopholes in the Federal law. One of those 
loopholes will be closed by my amendment to pipeline safety that 
includes intrastate pipelines that transport gas in interstate commerce 
within the criminal laws that currently only protect interstate 
pipelines. However, there was another problem with the case. The 
defendant was allegedly intoxicated at the time, and the statute 
requires proof that he ``knowingly and willfully'' damaged the pipeline 
pursuant to Section 60123(b) of title 49, United States Code. 
Therefore, due to this higher standard of intent, known as specific 
intent, it appears that he had a diminished capacity defense. It does 
not seem that this type of vandalism crime should be held to such a 
standard.
  Mr. McCAIN. I understand the Senator's concern but also know that if 
we lower the intent standard in Section 60123(b) of title 49, we want 
to ensure that a person cannot be held criminally liable for 
negligence.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I understand that concern as well and certainly do not 
want someone criminally prosecuted unless there was intent. I was 
wondering if the Senator would agree to work with me to see if we can 
find a compromise that would address the intent issue.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would be happy to work with the Senator on the issue.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I would be interested in working on it as well.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I understand the concerns of the issue also and would 
agree to work with all Senators to see if we can address this intent 
issue prior to the end of consideration of energy legislation.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor an amendment 
to modernize our nation's pipeline safety programs. As you know, the 
Senate passed this legislation on February 8th of last year, by a vote 
of 98-0. Because it has not yet been acted on in the House, I am 
pleased to see that we are working to get this important legislation 
enacted in another way.
  As we all remember, the issue of our country's pipeline safety came 
to the forefront after tragic explosions in Bellingham, Washington, and 
later, in my own state of New Mexico.
  On August 19, 2000, twelve members of an extended family were on a 
camping and fishing trip along the Pecos River near Carlsbad, New 
Mexico. Just after midnight, a natural gas pipeline exploded, sending a 
350 foot high ball of flame into the air. Six of the campers died 
instantly. The six remaining family members later died from their 
horrific injuries.

[[Page S1647]]

  We have to make sure that tragedies like this do not occur again. 
What I am here to do today, is to work so that we don't have to think 
twice before camping with our families and friends.
  Pipelines carry almost all of the natural gas and 65 percent of the 
crude oil and refined oil products. Three primary types of pipelines 
form a network of nearly 2.2 million miles, 7,000 of which lie in my 
own state of New Mexico.
  Pipelines stretch across our country. They allow us to obtain energy 
resources quickly and economically.
  In light of the energy crisis in California, and in the west in 
general, the value of our nation's pipeline system is obvious. We must 
have access to energy.
  Therefore, pipelines and the potential hazards they pose affect us 
all. It is time that we do something to ensure our safety while 
protecting our access to energy.
  This amendment:
  Significantly increases States' role in oversight, inspection, and 
investigation of pipelines.
  Improves and expands the public's right to know about pipeline 
hazards.
  Dramatically increases civil penalties for safety and reporting 
violations.
  Increases reporting requirements of releases of hazardous liquids 
from 50 barrels to five gallons.
  Provides important whistle blower protections prohibiting 
discrimination by pipeline operators, contractors or subcontractors.
  Furthermore, the legislation would provide much needed funding for 
research and development in pipeline safety technologies.
  In fact, technology currently exists that might have detected 
weaknesses in pipelines around Carlsbad. Unfortunately, due to 
insufficient funding those products have yet to reach the market.
  La Sen Corporation in my own state of New Mexico has developed 
technology that can detect faulty pipelines where current pipeline 
inspection technology is not usable. La Sen's Electronic Mapping System 
can be very effective even in pipelines where conventional pig devices 
cannot be used.
  Pipeline inspection is costly and slow. Innovative new technologies 
could allow us to inspect all 2.2 million miles of pipeline each year 
in a cost effective manner. Today, pipeline inspection technology only 
covers 5-10 miles per day at a cost of $50 per mile. Again, La Sen's 
technology can survey 500 miles per day at a cost of $32 per mile.
  The bottom line is that today, we can take action that will hopefully 
make pipelines safer.
  I encourage my colleagues to recognize the potential dangers that 
pipelines pose and to minimize those dangers by agreeing to this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the second-degree 
amendment No. 2988?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If not, the question is one agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2988) was agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the chairman and the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 2979

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of this 
amendment. I take this opportunity to thank the Senator from Arizona, 
Mr. McCain, for his leadership, his perseverance, and his tremendous 
work on the issue of pipeline safety.
  As he said, many of us became aware of this issue on June 10, 1999, 
when a gasoline pipeline ruptured in my home State of Washington, 
killing three young people and really shattering our sense of security.
  The Senator from Arizona was tremendous in his work with us as we 
brought that family here to Washington, DC. As he stated, the 
community, the mayor, so many people came here. His commitment to 
follow through with hearings and legislation, and to pass it out of the 
Senate, has just been really noted and respected in the State of 
Washington. And like he, I have difficulty standing here and speaking 
to those families today and telling them the House has still not acted, 
which is why we are on the floor of the Senate during the energy 
debate, once again, passing this legislation.
  As I said, when that tragedy happened, I discovered that there were 
inadequate laws, insufficient oversight and inspection, and a real lack 
of public awareness about the dangers of these pipelines. So I began to 
work on a national effort to raise pipeline safety standards. I 
testified before Congress, and I introduced the first pipeline safety 
bill in the 106th Congress.
  As the Senator from Arizona said, we passed legislation in the Senate 
in September of 2000, and again in February of 2001; and those bills 
passed without dissent, on a bipartisan basis, with leadership from 
both sides.

  I am proud to have worked with several Senators, including Senators 
Hollings, Inouye, Breaux, Wyden, Brownback, Bingaman, Domenici, 
Corzine, Torricelli, and my colleague, Senator Cantwell, in this 
Congress, and my colleague in the previous Congress, Senator Gorton.
  But, again, I especially thank Senator McCain for his work on 
pipeline safety. I have to say that without his attention to this issue 
over the last several years, I really doubt we would have accomplished 
what we have so far. I know that all of the advocates and I appreciate 
Senator McCain's leadership on this issue, and I am looking forward to 
continuing to work with him on this and many other critical safety 
issues before us.
  The bill that the Senate passed was the strongest pipeline safety 
bill ever passed by either body of Congress. It improves the 
qualification and training of pipeline personnel. It improves pipeline 
inspections and prevention practices. It expands the public's right to 
know. It raises the penalties for safety violators. It increases the 
States' ability to expand their safety activities. It invests in new 
technology to improve pipeline safety. It provides whistle-blower 
protection. It increases funding to improve pipeline safety. And it 
recognizes State citizen advisory committees.
  Despite the Senate's quick, measured, and deliberate work on this 
issue, as I stated, and as the Senator from Arizona said, the House of 
Representatives has blocked progress on this initiative. A couple of 
weeks ago, the House finally held a hearing on pipeline safety; and 
that was the first one that was held in 2 years on this issue. I 
understand they intend to move to a markup very soon, and that is 
encouraging. I am also encouraged that House Members from the 
Washington delegation, especially Representative Rick Larsen, are 
working really hard to make progress on this issue.
  I have to say, unfortunately, that the bill they intend to mark up 
excludes many of the important safety measures we put into the Senate 
bill, including strong inspection and testing requirements and adequate 
operator qualification standards. So overall I remain skeptical that 
the House will eventually pass a comprehensive bill, and that is why I 
am especially pleased that Senator McCain has introduced this 
amendment. I am here to support that effort.
  The amendment before us is nearly identical to the bill that has 
passed the Senate unanimously 2 years in a row. We did, however, make a 
needed change for national security purposes. September 11 has shown us 
that our transportation infrastructure is vulnerable to attack by 
terrorists, so we included a provision that would give the Secretary of 
Transportation the discretion to withhold public information about 
pipelines if the Secretary believed it would compromise national 
security. The standard would be the same as the current one used under 
the Freedom of Information Act.
  I am very proud to cosponsor this amendment. We all know if we want 
meaningful legislation to move on to the President, it will have to be 
attached to a piece of legislation such as the energy bill. The history 
of this legislation in the House requires that we proceed in this 
manner.
  In addition to working on this bill, I am also using my position as 
chair of the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee to keep 
the pressure up and to secure the funding we need to hire inspectors, 
to enforce safety regulations, and to support the States with their 
efforts. I have held several hearings in Washington, DC, and I have 
questioned the Transportation Secretary and others about our progress 
on pipeline safety. I have met

[[Page S1648]]

with the new head of the office that oversees pipeline safety at the 
Department of Transportation, and I told her exactly what I expect the 
department to do to improve pipeline safety. I have not hesitated to 
push the department to issue new pipeline safety rules and regulations.
  In my position as chair of the Senate Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee, I worked to pass a bill that provides record funding for 
the Office of Pipeline Safety. Overall it provides more than $58 
million for that office. That is $11 million more than the fiscal year 
2001 funding level. That budget included funding for 26 new staff 
positions, from safety inspectors to researchers. OPS requested those 
positions, and my bill fully funds those new hires.
  Finally, it provides needed resources within OPS for critical 
testing, safety programs, and R&D. I plan to continue to work in the 
Appropriations Committee to make sure the funding is there to do the 
adequate testing and oversight of our pipeline infrastructure.
  When it comes to pipeline safety, we have taken a major step forward, 
especially in funding, but we still have to raise the standards 
nationally with legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to move this critical 
legislation forward to the President for his signature. From Carlsbad, 
NM, to Bellingham, WA, communities across this country are counting on 
us to protect them.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment and 
would like to take a few minutes to describe why this is so important.
  I have stood on this floor before and described an incident that 
occurred in my State just 3 years ago. In a park near Bellingham, WA, 
an aging pipeline burst, sending a blast of flames that engulfed two 
10-year-old boys. Both of those boys died in that blast and one young 
man drowned after being overcome by fumes. But that incident wasn't the 
first, nor the last. This was only one of numerous pipeline accidents 
in the State of Washington, which has suffered 47 reported incidents 
and more than $10 million in property damage in just the 15 years from 
1984 to 1999.
  I would like to think that many of those accidents could have been 
prevented if the agency responsible for regulating that industry had 
been more diligent. This week we begin a substantial debate about 
increasing the domestic supply of affordable energy, but a significant 
part of that debate hinges on the integrity and reliability of our 
Nation's energy infrastructure. And that debate must not overlook the 
critical importance of our citizens' safety as we work to secure and 
transport increasingly larger amounts of these resources. For many of 
us in this body, the issue of safety has hit close to home. We have 
seen the loss of human life; the devastation to families and 
communities; and the significant property damage associated with 
mismanagement of our pipeline infrastructure. But this is not simply 
about the personal tragedies in our states.
  The tremendous efforts to finally pass this legislation--by the 
sponsor of the pipeline safety bill, Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, 
my colleague Senator Murray, and so many others--are based on a 
continuing pattern of oversight failures by the Office of Pipeline 
Safety. Many of my colleagues have already referenced the June 2000 
report by the GAO, which found persistent failures by OPS to implement 
congressional mandates. That report indicated that in 22 of 49 cases, 
OPS ignored congressional direction and failed to follow statutory 
requirements. And since 1990, our Nation has suffered literally 
hundreds of pipeline-related deaths. Now, we have more than 2.2 million 
miles of pipelines traversing this nation, carrying almost all of the 
natural gas and 65 percent of the crude oil and refined oil products. 
Obviously, we don't want to hinder the effective transportation of 
these products that are so critical to our national economy. But we can 
and must do a better job of ensuring the public safety.
  My colleague Senator Murray has been instrumental in the ongoing 
efforts to improve the public disclosure of pipeline information. 
Obviously we need to employ common sense in restricting access to 
information that poses a real national security threat to our 
communities and our nation--but I believe that we must apply the 
highest standards in assessing those security risks and providing the 
most complete information possible to our public safety officials and 
to the public at large, so that they can take steps to protect their 
own communities from potential disasters.
  This amendment seeks to balance these equally important objectives--
security and public disclosure--that are both intended to enhance the 
public safety. I am also pleased that this amendment maintains a 
critical provision that I had worked to pass along with my colleagues, 
Senator Corzine, Senator Torricelli, and Senator Murray, which would 
ensure the assessments of nearly all pipeline systems at least once 
every 5 years. This is an issue of tremendous importance if we are 
going to make real strides in prevention of accidents. If we do not 
know the fundamental state of integrity of these systems and 
facilities, we cannot identify real threats to our communities. We 
passed this legislation by a wide margin last year and the other body 
has failed to finish the job. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this amendment and finally getting the job done to better 
protect our constituents, and better protect our fuel supply.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in supporting the 
legislation and amendment pending before the Senate. This will be the 
third time the Senate has passed this legislation. You would think that 
eventually it is going to get done. It has failed to pass the House, 
although the House at one point had an identical provision and it 
passed. It passed with a majority, but they took it up under suspension 
of the rules, and they needed two-thirds majority, so it did not pass.
  This legislation will now pass the Senate for a third time and is 
still waiting on the House to take action on it, which will send it 
ultimately to the President for his signature.
  There are literally millions and millions of gas and hazardous liquid 
pipelines that cover the United States. Every State has natural gas 
pipelines and oil pipelines that traverse through various parts of 
individual States and carry literally billions and billions of cubic 
feet of natural gas every day, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days 
out of the year.
  Gas comes from my State of Louisiana, from the Gulf of Mexico. It 
goes to California. It goes to Florida, to Maine, to New Jersey. It 
goes all the way up to the Midwest and throughout the United States. We 
have gas coming from the north that serves markets in the southern 
lower 48. This is an intricate pattern, a complicated transportation 
system that is absolutely needed and necessary. Without the extent of 
the natural gas pipeline system, this country would simply not be able 
to operate.
  It provides energy for plants. It provides energy for factories. It 
provides heat and also cooling elements to family homes, to businesses, 
to offices throughout the United States. This, indeed, is one of the 
most sophisticated, complicated systems that man has ever devised in 
order to transport energy.
  Is there potential and likely sometimes accidents that happen? The 
answer is yes. There were two tragic accidents--one in the State of 
Senator Murray, Washington, one in the State of Senator Bingaman, New 
Mexico--that were tragic and unfortunate. They should never have 
happened. But if you look at it from the perspective of the millions 
and millions of miles of the transportation system, with the good that 
it provides, it is absolutely clear that these systems must be 
protected.
  We need to do a better job of ensuring their safety and security, 
their protection from normal accidents, as well as insulate them to the 
maximum extent possible from terrorist activities and even from 
deranged activities such as of the drunk shooting out the Alaskan 
pipeline in the State of Senators Stevens and Murkowski. We can do 
that.
  There is not a form of transportation in this country that does not 
have accidents that happen: Airplanes crash; trains run off tracks; 
trucks run off highways; accidents happen; people are injured; people 
are killed.

[[Page S1649]]

  The answer is not to eliminate the system but to better ensure the 
security of the systems, to build better trucks, to better investigate 
the drivers, to better inspect their licenses, to build better 
airplanes, to correct deficiencies in airplanes, to require better 
training for pilots.
  As we do those things for those other means of transportation, it is 
also incumbent that we provide better and adequate inspections and 
guarantee that pipelines are built to the highest standards possible 
from an engineering and technical capability, and also that people are 
involved in the decisions as to where pipelines are actually built and 
where they are laid in order to let the public know what is near them 
in order for them to be aware.

  It is interesting to note that pipelines are things you never see. 
Every day, every hour, every minute they are providing efficiency in 
terms of transportation of energy. Pipelines are buried under the sea, 
under the ground. People don't see them. They don't know they are 
there. But they are there to do a very effective job to provide for the 
security of this country.
  This legislation will also provide for better security and better 
safety for the general public to make sure that while we are 
transporting billions and billions of cubic feet of natural gas, we are 
also doing it as safely as we possibly can.
  Previous speakers have talked about the structure of the legislation. 
I support it. It is good legislation. It has brought both the pipeline 
companies, as well as citizens, to the same table to negotiate with 
government officials to get a system in place that we can be proud of 
and will assure the system continues to work as it has in the past with 
the maximum degree of safety that is humanly possible. This legislation 
goes a long way toward doing that.
  This is the third time the Senate will pass this legislation. We urge 
our colleagues in the other body to do it just once.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I know the Senator from California is here to offer her 
amendment. Before we set this amendment aside, let me speak briefly 
about it.
  It is very important that we pass the McCain amendment once again to 
make the point to the House of Representatives that this is a priority 
for our Nation and this is vitally needed legislation.
  In my State, we lost 12 people as a result of a tragic breach or 
break in a high-pressure gas pipeline south of Carlsbad, NM. I visited 
the site. I saw the tremendous damage that was done when that pipeline 
broke without any warning and essentially killed a great many people 
who were there camping beside the Pecos River. This is a tragedy that 
should have been enough to galvanize action in Washington. When you add 
it to the other tragedy, which has been talked about here several 
times, in Washington State, it is clear to me this is legislation that 
should be passed quickly and moved to the President for signature.

  I very much hope, when we vote tomorrow on the McCain amendment, 
there will be a resounding vote, as there has been in the past, and 
that we will finally get the House of Representatives to give attention 
to this issue and to pass it quickly.
  As I understand it, at this point it is the desire of the Senator 
from California to offer an amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside so that she may offer her amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2989 to Amendment No. 2917

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce an amendment on 
behalf of Senators Cantwell, Wyden, Boxer, Leahy, and Durbin to provide 
price transparency when energy derivatives are traded and to give the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversight authority for such 
transactions. Let me set the framework for this amendment.
  I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself, 
     Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. 
     Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 2989 to amendment No. 
     2917.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendment, Submitted.'')
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I will quote from a March 5 letter of 
the American Public Gas Association by its president, out of Fairfax, 
VA:

       As you know, Enron operated in what was essentially an 
     unregulated environment. While there will be much more to 
     come in the wake of Enron, one thing is perfectly clear 
     today--our Federal Government has an obligation to make sure 
     that no important trading activities fall between the cracks, 
     leaving some energy markets without a Federal agency with 
     oversight authority. Your amendment remedies this glaring 
     deficiency.
       The American Public Gas Association is fully committed to 
     support our effort to reverse the action Congress took just 
     15 months ago in the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. 
     The Commodities Futures Modernization Act amended the 
     Commodity Exchange Act by allowing some energy contracts to 
     be traded with no Government oversight. We firmly believe 
     that the CFTC must have at its disposal the necessary 
     jurisdiction and authority to protect the operational 
     integrity of energy markets so that (1) transactions are 
     executed fairly, (2) proper disclosures are made to 
     customers, and (3) fraudulent and manipulative practices are 
     not tolerated.

  I ask unanimous consent that the full letter be printed in the Record 
following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Let me also quote from the Texas Independent 
Producers and Royalty Owners Association:

       [This association] believes that this measure will tend to 
     improve price transparency in natural gas markets, leading to 
     a more efficient and stable marketplace. The relatively 
     modest requirements outlined above should not unduly reduce 
     liquidity for gas traders. Accordingly, TIPRO endorses your 
     amendment.

  I ask unanimous consent that that be printed in the Record following 
my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 2.)
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This letter is from the MidAmerican Energy Holdings 
Company out of Omaha, NE:

       I am writing in support of your effort to ensure that there 
     is transparency and appropriate Federal oversight of energies 
     futures trading markets.
       As I testified before the Senate Energy and Natural 
     Resources Committee last month--

  This is the chairman and CEO--

       I have long been concerned that the type of exchange run by 
     Enron before its collapse offered opportunities for 
     manipulation. Enron was the largest buyer, the largest seller 
     and operator of an unregulated exchange. In view of the 
     revelations of the last several months regarding Enron, the 
     unregulated nature of these markets has raised serious 
     concerns regarding the ability of the Federal Government to 
     ensure that energy trading and futures markets are operating 
     in the interest of the public and market participants.

  I ask unanimous consent that this letter, and also a similar letter 
from PG&E, be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 3.)
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment would provide the same 
transparency and oversight that is provided for every other traded 
tangible commodity. All this amendment says is that electronic 
exchanges which change energy derivatives are subject to the same 
requirements as other exchanges, such as the Chicago Mercantile 
Exchange and the New York Mercantile Exchange. Incidentally, these two 
organizations support this legislation.
  Additionally, it says that if you are trading energy derivatives off 
an exchange, you simply need to keep a record of that transaction; and 
if it turns out that there is a complaint, the CFTC will have a record 
to review.
  The problem, and why we need the legislation: Presently, energy 
transactions are regulated by the FERC, Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, when there is an actual delivery of an energy commodity. 
Let me give you an example. If I buy gas from you and you deliver that 
natural gas to me, FERC has the authority to ensure that

[[Page S1650]]

this transaction is both transparent and reasonably priced. That is a 
direct delivery. However, energy transactions have gotten so complex 
over just the past decade, most energy transactions no longer result in 
delivery; thus, with these nondelivery trades and transactions, a giant 
loophole has opened, where there is no oversight and no transparency.
  Let me explain. Mr. President, I can purchase from you a promise that 
you will deliver natural gas to me at some point in the future. This is 
referred to as a derivatives contract. I may never really need to 
physically own that gas, so I can sell that gas to someone at a small 
profit, who can then turn around and sell it to yet someone else, and 
so on and so forth. This promise of a gas delivery can literally change 
hands dozens of times before the commodity is ever delivered. Even 
then, it may never get delivered if the spot market price is lower than 
the future price that comes due on that day.
  In fact, 90 percent of energy trades represent purely financial 
transactions, not regulated either by FERC or the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission. As long as there is no delivery, there is no price 
transparency. So we don't know the price or the terms for 90 percent of 
the energy transactions taking place.
  Again, this lack of transparency and oversight only applies to 
energy. It does not apply if you are selling wheat, or pork bellies, or 
any other tangible commodity. So, as I said, there is a very big 
loophole here.
  Why is this type of trading so important? Many of these transactions 
provide needed insurance so a company can lock in set prices in the 
future without necessarily ever having to receive delivery. For 
example, knowing the price of natural gas in the future allows an 
energy company to, in turn, contract out its electricity, since it will 
know the price of natural gas, the main cost of production.
  These transactions are here to stay. What this amendment simply does 
is shed light on them. Futures transactions do affect market prices for 
consumers, and that is why we need this transparency. That is precisely 
why other commodities, except for excluded financial commodities, are 
already regulated by the CFTC.
  One simple example of how energy derivatives can affect delivered 
energy prices is the long-term energy electricity contracts that 
California and other Western States entered into last year, which were 
priced according to the long-term future costs for natural gas. As soon 
as the future price of natural gas plummeted after the contracts had 
been signed, electricity prices fell substantially. All of a sudden, 
these States looked foolish for signing these contracts.

  How did this happen? How did it come up all of a sudden? The simple 
answer is that the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, signed into law 
in 2000, exempted energy and minerals trading from regulatory oversight 
and also exempted electronic trading platforms from oversight.
  In a sense, what that legislation did was set up two different 
systems treating electronic trading platforms differently from all 
other platforms and treating energy commodities differently from other 
commodities.
  Up until 2000, energy derivative transactions were regulated just 
like other transactions, and electronic trading platforms were treated 
like other platforms. I repeat, these were the standards that were in 
place all the way up to 2000.
  Up until that time, if a gas or electricity commodity was delivered, 
FERC had oversight. If there was not delivery, the CFTC had the 
authority. So the loophole arose just 2 years ago.
  At the time of the 2000 legislation, nobody knew how the exemptions 
would affect the energy market. We have a much better idea today 
because of what we have learned since then.
  It did not take long for Enron Online and others in the energy sector 
to take advantage of this new freedom by trading energy derivatives 
absent any regulatory oversight or transparency. Thus, after the 2000 
legislation was enacted, Enron Online began to trade energy 
derivatives--not deliveries, but derivatives--bilaterally over the 
counter in a one-to-one transaction without being subject to any 
regulatory oversight whatsoever. If the trade has delivery, again, it 
is regulated by FERC. If it does not, it falls into the abyss. Enron 
Online was able to trade back and forth without records and in secret. 
The result, of course, was higher prices.
  Let me give an example of how that secret trading has affected 
California and the western energy markets.
  On December 12, 2000, the price of natural gas in southern California 
on the spot market was $50 a decatherm, while it was $10 a decatherm 
close by in San Juan, NM. A decatherm is 1,000 cubic feet or enough gas 
to power about 100 kilowatt hours of electricity for a typical 
powerplant. It is enough gas to provide electricity for about 900 homes 
for 1 hour.
  This problem lasted from November of 2000 to the end of April 2001--a 
full 6 months--while energy price spikes affected the entire western 
energy market. And all this time, hardly anyone understood what was 
happening in nondelivered energy transactions.
  In 1999, California's total electricity price for the entire State 
was $7 billion. In 2000, it was $27 billion, and in 2001, it was $26.7 
billion. You can see there are serious ramifications when markets are 
secret without any Federal oversight or investigation of dramatic price 
spikes. You cannot investigate it because there is no evidence because 
all this trading was done in secret with no records.
  The Senate Energy Committee, of which I am a member, examined this 
issue last year, but we were not able to piece together the pieces at 
that time. In the wake of Enron's bankruptcy, we are beginning to learn 
a lot more. By controlling a significant number of energy 
transactions affecting California, and by trading in secret, Enron had 
the unique opportunity to drive up prices. Only time will tell whether 
that can be proved because of the absence of records and transparency.

  Let me explain how this amendment works. First, the bill repeals the 
provisions of the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act which 
exempted energy derivatives from regulatory oversight. As I said 
before, these transactions were regulated by the CFTC until 2000, so 
this is not an entirely new authority for the CFTC.
  As a result of this provision, all electronic trading exchanges will 
once again be subjected to the same oversight as other exchanges when 
it comes to energy transactions.
  Companies trading energy commodities off the exchange will simply 
have to keep a record of that transaction, just as they do for other 
traded commodities. That is certainly not too much to ask.
  The amendment also requires FERC and the CFTC to work together to 
ensure that energy trading markets are, one, transparent, not in 
secret; two, regulated, which they should be; and three, working.
  This will close the regulatory loopholes that allowed entities, such 
as Enron Online, to operate unregulated trading markets in secret.
  I have received a letter from Pat Wood, the Chairman of FERC. 
Chairman Wood writes that neither FERC nor CFTC has adequate authority 
to determine price transparency and ensure that the energy market is 
functioning as it should. He supports this amendment. FERC 
Commissioners Brownell and Massey do as well.
  This amendment does one more important thing. It ensures that 
entities running online trading forums must maintain sufficient capital 
to carry out their operations and maintain open books and records for 
investigation and enforcement purposes.
  This last point is very important. Enron saw its future as a 
``virtual'' company. As such, it sold off many of its physical assets 
over the past few years. So when investors and customers lost 
confidence and stopped trading out of fear that bankruptcy was in the 
offing, they learned that Enron had no collateral to back up these 
trades, and this was a major factor in Enron's final spiral into 
bankruptcy.
  Who is supporting this bill? The New York Mercantile Exchange, the 
Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Cambridge Energy Research Associates who 
asked for just this, the American Public Gas Association, the American 
Public Power Association, Pacific Gas & Electric, Calpine, Mid-America 
Energy Holding Company, Texas Independent Producers and Royalty 
Association,

[[Page S1651]]

the Consumers Union, and the Consumer Federation of America, all 
because they believe the time has come to see there are no trading 
markets in secret that do not keep records, and to shine the light of 
day on these trades.
  Now, who is opposed to the amendment? Some energy companies oppose 
this bill. One lesson some of these companies seem to have learned from 
the recent energy crisis was they make more money when they can operate 
without any transparency, in secret, without any reporting requirements 
or oversight of any kind, and that cannot continue to exist.
  I am very much encouraged that not all energy companies want to 
operate this way. As I mentioned, PG&E, Calpine, Apache, Mid-America 
Energy, and others support this bill, and many other energy companies 
are sitting on the sidelines waiting to see what may happen.
  There are still some who fail to recognize the glory days of 
operating in secret are over. Regardless of what happens with this 
amendment, I want to go on record saying I will do everything in my 
power to see the energy sector is exposed to the same price 
transparency and oversight as every other sector of our economy. Make 
no mistake, this debate boils down to the issue of whether energy 
companies should be able to operate in continued secrecy.
  Some of these companies have argued this amendment creates unfair 
reporting and oversight over energy companies. So let us again look at 
what this provision would do. It would treat electronic trading 
exchanges like any other exchange since, as I said before, there is 
neither price transparency nor regulatory authority over those 
exchanges where there is not a direct delivery. So with this provision, 
the same reporting requirements that CFTC requires of the New York 
Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Exchange would now be required of 
electronic exchanges. This means simply that CFTC would be able to 
assert the same oversight and require the same transparency of 
electronic exchanges that are already required of nonelectronic 
exchanges.
  I have a very hard time understanding why this is so burdensome and 
unfair. Additionally, some of these companies have also asserted this 
amendment would create unfair burdens on companies engaged in bilateral 
transactions. Here is what they are complaining about: With our 
amendment, any entity engaging in bilateral transactions in energy 
commodities would have to keep a record of those transactions, and the 
CFTC would have the authority to look for fraud and manipulation.
  Again, let me repeat, a company engaged in bilateral trading has to 
keep a record of that transaction, and the CFTC has the authority to 
investigate fraud. That is it. It is the same authority that was there 
before 2000 and the same standard that traders of all other commodities 
are required to meet.
  So with all we now know about the energy sector and Enron, I 
challenge anyone to explain to me why energy companies should continue 
to have a loophole so they can trade in secret, not keep any records, 
and therefore there is no evidence that can be proven as to 
manipulation of price. The day has come to close that loophole.
  I note one of the main original cosponsors is in the Chamber and 
wishes to speak to this amendment. I have had the pleasure of working 
with the Senator from Oregon on the Energy Committee, as I have with 
the Presiding Officer. The Senator from Oregon has been a leader and 
very focused on this issue. I want to thank him for his help, and I ask 
the Chair recognize him.

                               Exhibit 1


                              American Public Gas Association,

                                       Fairfax, VA, March 5, 2002.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: The American Public Gas Association 
     (APGA) is very pleased that you have taken the lead to amend 
     the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). Your revisions to S. 517, 
     which amends the CEA, brings the trading of energy products, 
     including natural gas spot and forward prices, under the 
     appropriate jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading 
     Commission (CFTC). As a result, your amendment will reduce 
     the various risks imposed on consumers by a partially 
     unregulated energy trading market.
       As you know, Enron operated in what was essentially an 
     unregulated environment. While there will be much more to 
     come in the wake of Enron, one thing is perfectly clear 
     today--our federal government has an obligation to make sure 
     that no important trading activities fall between the cracks 
     leaving some energy markets without a federal agency with 
     oversight authority. Your amendment remedies this glaring 
     deficiency.
       APGA is fully committed to support your effort to reverse 
     the action Congress took just 15 months ago in the 
     Commodities Futures Modernization Act (CFMA). The CFMA 
     amended the CEA by allowing some energy contracts to be 
     traded with no government oversight. We firmly believe that 
     the CFTC must have at its disposal the necessary jurisdiction 
     and authority to protect the operational integrity of energy 
     markets so that (1) transactions are executed fairly, (2) 
     proper disclosures are made to customers, and (3) fraudulent 
     and manipulative practices are not tolerated.
       In December of 2000, when the CFMA was under consideration 
     in the Senate, APGA submitted a Statement for the Record to 
     the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
     during a hearing on the ``Status of Natural Gas Markets.'' In 
     the statement, we expressed a concern that the proposed 
     legislation would codify an exemption for energy commodity 
     transactions that would shield those energy transactions from 
     the oversight and review of the CFTC. Enron took advantage of 
     this gap in regulatory oversight. Your amendment will close 
     that gap. Consumers across the country will benefit from your 
     efforts because they are less likely to be victimized by 
     activities that occur in a market where the CFTC exercises 
     oversight.
       Again, public gas utilities and the hundreds of communities 
     that we serve commend you for your thoughtful and deliberate 
     leadership on this very important issue. While there may be 
     some who will oppose this amendment, one need not look far to 
     see whether the opposition is looking out for the best 
     interests of Wall Street or Main Street. We pledge to work 
     with you in any way we can to pass this much-needed 
     amendment. Please let me know how I can assist you.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Bob Cave,
     President.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2

                                     Texas Independent Producers &


                                   Royalty Owners Association,

                                       Austin, TX., March 6, 2002.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: We understand that later today, you 
     will introduce an important measure designed to bring greater 
     transparency to natural gas markets. We believe that improved 
     transparency will reduce price-markups charged in 
     transactions that take place after natural gas leaves the 
     wellhead and before it reaches the burner tip. Thus your 
     measure will benefit both consumers and producers. We support 
     the modified version of S. 1951 that you intend to offer as 
     an amendment to the Senate Energy Bill.
       We understand that the amendment:
       (1) will not grant any price control authority under the 
     Federal Power Act or Natural Gas Act;
       (2) will continue to allow energy commodities (actually all 
     commodities other than agricultural commodities) to be traded 
     on electronic trading facilities that currently qualify as 
     exempt commercial markets, provided that the trading 
     facilities register, meet net capital requirements, file 
     reports, and maintain books and records;
       (3) will require participants in such markets to maintain 
     books and records; and
       (4) will apply these requirements to electronic trading 
     facilities which permit execution with multiple parties and 
     non-binding bids and offers, and will require books and 
     records to be kept by participants in facilities that permit 
     bilateral negotiations.
       TIPRO believes that this measure will tend to improve price 
     transparency in natural gas markets, leading to a more 
     efficient and stable marketplace. The relatively modest 
     requirements outlined above should not unduly reduce 
     liquidity for gas traders. Accordingly, TIPRO endorses your 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,

                                             Gregory Moredock,

                                             Natural Energy Policy
     Committee Chairman.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 3


                              MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co.,

                                        Omaha, NE., March 5, 2002.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: I am writing in support of your 
     effort to ensure that there is transparency and appropriate 
     federal oversight of energy futures trading markets.
       As I testified before the Senate Energy and Natural 
     Resources Committee last month, I have long been concerned 
     that the type of exchange run by Enron before its collapse 
     offered opportunities for manipulation. Enron was the largest 
     buyer, the largest seller and the operator of an unregulated 
     exchange. In view of the revelations of the last several 
     months regarding Enron, the unregulated nature of these 
     markets has raised serious concerns regarding the ability of 
     the federal government to ensure that energy trading and 
     futures markets are operating in the interest of the public 
     and market participants.
       As the Senate addresses this issue, it is important to 
     remember that electric and gas

[[Page S1652]]

     markets as a whole responded to the Enron collapse without 
     disruption, so legislation should not compromise the 
     liquidity of these markets. I applaud your determination to 
     keep your amendment focused on oversight and transparency and 
     am encouraged that you, along with Senators Cantwell and 
     Wyden, have pledged to work with market participants to 
     continue to perfect this proposal as debate on the 
     comprehensive energy bill continues.
       Ensuring public confidence in the integrity of energy 
     futures markets is a critical component of establishing a 
     modernized regulatory framework for the electric and natural 
     gas industries. I am pleased to support your effort and 
     commend you on your work on this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                   David L. Sokol,
     Chairman and CEO.
                                  ____



                                             PG&E Corporation,

                                    Washington, DC, March 6, 2002.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: We are writing today in reference 
     to the amendment you will be offering to the Senate Energy 
     bill, containing the substance of legislation you and several 
     of your colleagues introduced earlier to provide regulatory 
     oversight over energy trading markets, as amended.
       At the outset, we applaud your efforts to ensure public and 
     consumer confidence in the operation and orderly functioning 
     of the energy marketplace. As you know, the industry relies 
     heavily on these markets and products to manage risk for the 
     benefit of consumers of electricity. We thus appreciate your 
     willingness to work with us and other market participants to 
     address areas of interest and concern as the provisions of 
     your amendment have been debated and refined. As presently 
     drafted, we view your amendment as providing an increased 
     level of oversight, while ensuring the continued ability of 
     market participants to utilize these instruments as part of 
     overall risk management strategies. We therefore support your 
     amendment.
       Thank you for your hard work in this area, and we look 
     forward to continuing to work with you and others on matters 
     of national energy policy.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Steven L. Kline.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I want to commend Senator Feinstein for 
leading all of us in this critically important effort. It has been a 
pleasure to team up with her. She has been the catalyst in this whole 
effort and it is a pleasure to stand with her.
  I also want to note that Senator Cantwell has been a tremendous voice 
for consumers in the Pacific Northwest and our country, and I have 
enjoyed teaming up with her as well as Senator Feinstein. I am going to 
be very brief because I think our colleague from California has laid it 
out very well.
  Today, as the Senate turns to a number of important amendments that 
are going to relate to the consumer protection issue, I think it is 
important to note this is an opportunity to end the Enron exemption. 
For years, Enron and other energy traders have operated back room 
trading floors where energy has been bought and sold as a commodity 
while the public has been kept in the dark. I think the question that 
colleagues may be asking is: Had this amendment been law during the 
time when all of the damage associated with Enron was being 
perpetrated, what would have been the difference? What would have been 
different had the Feinstein-Cantwell-Wyden effort been law at the time?
  It seems to me there would have been two very significant benefits 
had this legislation been law. First, I think it would have been less 
likely that there would have been market manipulation. Certainly, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is investigating that question. 
That has not yet been determined. Certainly, conceptually it is much 
tougher to manipulate a market if in fact the transparency and the 
openness is there that this legislation calls for.
  Second, had this legislation been law, if in fact there was market 
manipulation it would be possible to find that out very quickly. As all 
of our colleagues know, as a result of the request from west coast 
Senators, virtually all of us have joined into it. The Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission has written to the west coast Senators saying 
they are going to investigate whether Enron manipulated our markets, 
but it will take them several months to conduct this investigation.
  Had Enron's energy trading been regulated, as called for in this 
amendment, we would not have had to wait months to determine if Enron 
manipulated the market. Information about energy trading operations 
would have been immediately available to regulators and the public 
instead of shrouded in secrecy.
  I think it is important for colleagues to note, first, this amendment 
makes it less likely that anybody can manipulate a market; and, second, 
if there is that kind of conduct taking place, it would not take months 
to ascertain what went on. One could find it out much more readily 
because information would be made available more quickly.
  Before it collapsed, Enron was the biggest energy trader in the 
country, controlling one-quarter of all wholesale energy trades. 
Despite the great impact on energy markets, they were able to hide the 
facts about the trading operations from public scrutiny by securing 
exemptions from regulation for their energy and derivatives trading.
  Evidence is emerging that Enron may have secretly used its market 
power to manipulate prices in energy markets. A witness testified 
before the Senate Energy Committee that the price of forward contracts 
for electricity dropped as much as 30 percent after Enron filed for 
bankruptcy, suggesting, according to this witness, Enron was 
artificially inflating prices in western markets.
  There is a well-regulated system in place for trading pork bellies 
and other commodities to protect the public from market manipulation, 
but energy, a commodity that we all regard as essential, has been 
completely exempt. It seems to me if energy is going to be bought and 
sold as a commodity, the public should at least have the same 
protections that exist for trading any other commodity. There must be 
transparency for the markets to work.
  Let me conclude with one last point, and then I know we are going to 
hear from our colleague from Washington. There has been considerable 
discussion as to whether this is somehow granting vast new powers to 
Government, and that Government is in some way reacting to what 
happened in the Enron situation.
  First of all, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission had this 
authority before. This is not a brand new idea. They had this authority 
and essentially they gave it up. What this bill does is restore 
authority to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to regulate 
energy the same way it regulates every other commodity.
  I hope when my colleagues vote on this amendment, they recognize this 
is something that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission used to 
have. It is authority that was on the books before the agency granted a 
blanket exemption from regulating energy as a commodity. As my 
colleague from California noted, Congress later went along as part of 
an appropriations rider. But this bill does not give the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission vast new powers nobody has ever heard about, 
and constitute in some way a rush to judgment in reaction to the Enron 
situation. This is restoring a power the agency should not have given 
up.
  I compliment my colleague from California. She has been the leader in 
this effort, as has the Senator from the State of Washington.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, before Senator Cantwell is 
recognized, I ask unanimous consent Senator Fitzgerald of Illinois be 
added as an original cosponsor, and that he be called on to speak 
directly following Senator Cantwell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I, too, rise in support of this very 
important legislation, the Feinstein-Cantwell-Wyden energy derivatives 
legislation. I thank my colleagues for articulating the importance 
passing this amendment.
  It is no secret that the States of California, Oregon, and Washington 
have been greatly impacted by the high prices of energy that our 
consumers are still paying and that have had a very negative impact on 
our economies. That is why this legislation is so important.
  I applaud Senator Feinstein for her hard work in driving this 
legislation. Basically, this amendment closes a very dangerous 
loophole, which was actually created by Congress and which

[[Page S1653]]

Enron may have used--I say ``may'' have used--to turn political 
influence into profit at the expense of consumers. That is why we must 
act today.
  The Enron loophole created by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act 
actually allowed Enron Online and other companies like it to sell 
futures behind closed doors, without the regulatory oversight or the 
safeguards that this nation's ratepayers deserve.
  At its core, our amendment allows the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission to treat energy futures like all other regulated commodity 
futures. It does not give the CFTC any new powers that it does not 
already have when it is regulating other futures markets. This is a 
very important point. Our amendment places currently unregulated energy 
futures trading exchanges, such as Enron Online, under the CFTC's 
regulatory authority.
  Closing this loophole, as Senator Feinstein said, has the support of 
many organizations, such as NYMEX, Calpine, and Cambridge Energy 
Research Associates. But more importantly, consumers are counting on 
us. The Consumers Union, the Consumers Federation, and Public Interest 
Research Group all support this amendment. They support it for one very 
basic reason: They support it because it requires open books and 
transparency for markets that currently operate in secret. It is 
important because if there have been patterns of irregular energy 
trading, we want those patterns to be found and made abundantly clear.
  What we are saying is that there should not be special rules for 
Enron. If agricultural products, minerals, and even certain other types 
of energy futures transactions are regulated by there CFTC, there is no 
good reason we should allow online energy trading exchanges to operate 
in the dark.
  After all we have learned about Enron, shouldn't it be clear to all 
that exposing its trading activities to the light of day is essential? 
Closing the loopholes will open books and require transparency. It will 
give us the ability to do important things like compare Enron Online 
prices to competitors, compare forward markets with physical market 
pricing, and investigate the books of online traders to search for what 
those potential irregularities might be.
  Being able to answer these questions will be incredibly valuable in 
reinforcing the strength and integrity of our energy markets. Why is 
this so important to the State of Washington? Many people may not 
realize that Enron continues to hold gigantic long-term contracts with 
utilities throughout the country, at least $900 million worth in my 
home State. We are now learning that these contracts may have been the 
result of market manipulation by Enron.
  In one case alone, the Bonneville Power Administration has long-term 
contracts with Enron of over $700 million. At today's market price, 
those contracts would only cost $350 million. That means BPA--and that 
means, ultimately, Washington state ratepayers, who have to pay for 
those energy costs are paying Enron about $350 million more than the 
current market value.

  Contracts like these have translated into unacceptably high utility 
bills for ratepayers throughout the West who deserve relief as soon as 
possible. That is why I have joined my colleagues in urging FERC to 
investigate and determine whether Enron manipulated these energy prices 
in the West, and if so, make sure that if these contracts are unjust 
and unreasonable, our consumers are let out of having to pay these high 
prices for the next 3 to 5 years.
  Until we change this and require open books and transparency from 
Enron Online and businesses similar to it, the public will not be 
protected in the future for having the same kind of market 
manipulations, perhaps, happen to them. That is why passing this 
legislation is so important. We have to close the Enron loophole and 
restore the faith that the public needs to have in our energy markets--
the faith that consumers deserve. They deserve to know that these 
entities are being regulated and are operating in the light of day.
  I again thank my colleague from California who has worked so 
diligently on this important legislation, which is a key part of our 
energy strategy. We need to make sure and consumers need to believe 
that we are on the right track.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If the Senator from Illinois who is next under the 
unanimous consent agreement will yield for just a second, I thank 
Senator Cantwell. She also is on the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee. She also has been very concerned, very diligent, working 
very hard at what has been a very difficult onion to peel. I am very 
grateful for her leadership.
  I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Corzine as an original 
cosponsor. I believe he wants to speak to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam President, I am pleased to rise in support of 
this amendment by my colleague from California. I support it and 
congratulate her for introducing it. Illinois, specifically Chicago, is 
home to some of the largest futures exchanges in the world. Certainly, 
I was very involved in the Commodity Exchange Act Reauthorization a 
couple of years ago. Since that time, in the wake of the Enron 
bankruptcy, the Enron exemption that allowed Enron Online to operate 
without any regulatory oversight has come to light, and it has drawn 
some criticism.
  I say at the outset, I think probably Enron Online may not have had 
all that much to do with Enron's bankruptcy. I have also been very 
involved in the Enron investigations in the Senate, and as far as I can 
tell, Enron was running what amounts to a gigantic shell game or 
pyramid scheme, essentially borrowing money and booking borrowed money 
as income by filtering the borrowings through partnerships. They had 
the debt parked on the books of the off-the-balance-sheet partnerships 
rather than on their direct books.
  At the end of the day, when Enron filed bankruptcy, it was because it 
had several billion dollars in indebtedness coming due that it, Enron, 
could not pay.
  I don't know that Enron Online and their energy trading, per se, was 
responsible for it. I have seen many transactions that Enron engaged in 
that were simply borrowing money and reporting it as income. We will 
have to wait for a full autopsy. Nonetheless, I think it is appropriate 
to close the Enron exemption in the Commodities Exchange Act. That is 
what this bill does.
  Right now, in an electronic exchange in which energy contracts are 
traded, that exchange is exempt from regulation under the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission or by the FERC. FERC only comes in if energy 
is actually delivered, and in most cases energy is not actually 
delivered. You have contracts traded back and forth and many times an 
actual delivery of the commodity is put off.
  I have been troubled to some extent by the wholesale exemption that 
is given to online futures exchanges. The exchanges at the Board of 
Trade and the Mercantile Exchange face a great deal of overhead to 
comply with their regulatory burden. I think that is appropriate. I 
think sometimes it is unfair to set up an offline exchange and say this 
is an offline exchange because online does not have any regulation. I 
like to see industries competing on a level playing field. I think that 
is what America is all about. I do not think there should be regulatory 
advantages given to one side or the other.
  I do think this would be a protection for consumers, even 
sophisticated principals who may be trading energy contracts on 
electronic exchanges. I think there would be benefits by having some 
CFTC oversight. There would be greater transparency. It would be easier 
for prices to be discovered.
  I think Senator Feinstein's amendment accomplishes a great deal. It 
repeals the exemptions and exclusions for bilateral derivatives in 
multilateral markets in energy commodities. All would be again subject 
to direct CFTC oversight. That was the case prior to our 
reauthorization of the Commodities Exchange Act. We would correct that. 
Also, it ensures that energy dealers in derivatives markets cannot 
avoid full price transparency and escape regulatory oversight.
  Third, the amendment subjects all multilateral markets and bilateral

[[Page S1654]]

dealer markets in energy commodities to registration, transparency, 
disclosure, and reporting obligations and requires entities running 
online trading forums to maintain sufficient capital to carry out their 
operations. It seems very reasonable to me.
  Fourth, parties engaging in bilateral energy transactions must keep 
books and records. That does not seem so onerous to me.
  Fifth, all energy transactions not regulated by FERC would be 
regulated by the CFTC.
  And sixth, the amendment requires FERC and the CFTC to meet quarterly 
and discuss how energy derivatives markets are functioning and 
affecting energy deliveries. I do think that is reasonable in light of 
the great runup we saw in energy prices last year, particularly in 
Senators Feinstein and Boxer's great State of California.
  It is unclear why the price rose so quickly and why then ultimately 
it plummeted again back to reasonable levels. Whether this amendment, 
had it been law at the time, would have prevented that I do not know. 
But I think it will promote greater price transparency. I think that 
can't hurt. I think there is a minimal burden here, and I think it is 
worthy public policy. I compliment my friend from California, and I am 
proud to stand in support of her amendment.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair.
  I, too, rise to strongly support the amendment the Senator from 
California is offering to roll back this Enron exemption in the 
derivatives market. Being an old bond trader who operated in the 
derivatives markets for many years, the idea that we do not need basic 
registration of dealers, we do not need capital adequacy or capital 
rules, that there is no price transparency, whether in over-the-counter 
markets or on electronic exchanges, or there are not audit trails that 
are fundamental to any kind of regulation of financial transactions 
anywhere in the world, seems strange to me and offers an opportunity 
for those who want to take advantage of the lack of transparency and 
create patterns of manipulation to easily operate in these markets. It 
seems very strange that we pick a very narrow slice, the energy 
markets, to have such a gaping lack of transparency.
  I have heard people say there is no creativity in markets, that they 
will not develop, there will not be the liquidity in overseeings. That 
is just flatout not the fact. If you look at the derivatives markets in 
financial securities, or financial instruments, you will see some of 
the deepest, broadest, most liquid markets in the world. As a matter of 
fact, confidence comes when the participants who enter into markets 
will know where prices are taking place, the price discovery mechanism 
is quite obvious, where there are audit trails, so that if there are 
differences of views about whether transactions were actually executed, 
you can go back and find out where those prices actually took place. 
And you know your counterparts have enough capital to be able to stand 
behind the transactions. And then you have some simple qualifications 
to be a participant in those markets.
  I think all these are simple, straightforward fundamentals in finance 
101 for anyone who deals with financial transactions, whether it is 
derivative transactions that relate to hog bellies, Treasury bills, or 
stocks, and no different for energy in my mind, and I find it 
incredibly lacking in consistency with our oversight regime which has 
produced maybe the broadest, deepest markets we have anywhere in the 
world, in the history of the world, frankly, and I see no reason why we 
should not have that applying to energy markets just as we do any other 
market.
  On that basis, I strongly support the amendment. I think Senator 
Feinstein is definitely on the right trail to produce markets that will 
provide consumer protection, protection against price manipulation, and 
a greater quality of activity in the underlying energy markets. I think 
they will be broader and deeper because of it.
  So I am proud to stand in support of the amendment of the Senator 
from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator 
from New Jersey for his support. In view of his background, his 
knowledge, and his expertise, I am particularly grateful for that 
support. It is one thing to stand here and feel in your gut what is 
right for the consumer, but it is another in the mystical world of 
finance. His wisdom and his knowledge hopefully will gain additional 
votes for this amendment. I am very grateful to the Senator. I thank 
him very much.
  Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be set aside so that I can send an amendment to the desk for 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2990 To Amendment No. 2917

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself and 
     Mr. Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 2990 to 
     amendment No. 2917.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To promote collaboration between the United States and Mexico 
              on research related to energy technologies)

       After section 1413 insert the following:

     SEC. 1414. UNITED STATES-MEXICO ENERGY TECHNOLOGY 
                   COOPERATION.

       (a) Finding.--Congress finds that the economic and energy 
     security of the United States and Mexico is furthered through 
     collaboration between the United States and Mexico on 
     research related to energy technologies.
       (b) Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, shall 
     establish a collaborative research, development, and 
     deployment program to promote energy efficient, 
     environmentally sound economic development along the United 
     States-Mexico border to--
       (A) mitigate hazardous waste;
       (B) promote energy efficient materials processing 
     technologies that minimize environmental damage; and
       (C) protect the public health.
       (2) Consultation.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, shall 
     consult with the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
     Energy in carrying out paragraph (1)(B).
       (c) Program Management.--The program under subsection (b) 
     shall be managed by the Department of Energy Carlsbad 
     Environmental Management Field Office.
       (d) Cost Sharing.--The cost of any project or activity 
     carried out using funds provided under this section shall be 
     shared as provided in section 1403.
       (e) Technology Transfer.--In carrying out projects and 
     activities under this section to mitigate hazardous waste, 
     the Secretary shall emphasize the transfer of technology 
     developed under the Environmental Management Science Program 
     of the Department of Energy.
       (f) Intellectual Property.--In carrying out this section, 
     the Secretary shall comply with the requirements of any 
     agreement entered between the United States and Mexico 
     regarding intellectual property protection.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2003 and $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 
     through 2006, to remain available until expended.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, this is an amendment which tries to 
address some very serious health and energy production issues, 
environmental issues, along the 2,000-mile common border that we have 
with Mexico.
  There are tire dumps in that region that routinely catch fire and 
which have been determined to breed airborne dengue fever, which is a 
major health risk that we will face in the next decade.
  There are brick kilns that use wood and plastic and cause serious 
health-related problems in the metropolitan area of Juarez/El Paso. 
There are serious water contamination issues with regard to ground 
water along the United States-Mexico border.

[[Page S1655]]

  This amendment, which I am offering on behalf of myself and Senator 
Domenici, is one which directs the transfer of Department of Energy 
environmental management technologies to help clean up many of these 
serious and pressing health-related problems along the border.
  The amendment will develop joint research programs between U.S. and 
Mexican universities on technologies to help develop clean materials 
processing technologies such as leadless solders for microelectronics 
plants, techniques to control air pollution from border region heavy 
manufacturing plants, and energy-efficient methods to recover 
nonpotable water for irrigation.
  This is an amendment that was passed unanimously as S. 397 in the 
last Congress, the 106th Congress. That was after we had a full markup 
of the legislation in the Energy Committee.
  It is consistent with the current administration's views on 
developing close ties with Mexico in both the fields of environmental 
sciences and energy production.
  It is a very good amendment, which I understand I will be given the 
opportunity to explain again tomorrow morning before a vote occurs. It 
is one of the amendments the majority leader has indicated he would 
like to have a vote on tomorrow morning.
  So I will not, at this point, belabor the issue but indicate to my 
colleagues that it has been supported unanimously, on a bipartisan 
basis, in the prior Congress. It is a good piece of legislation and one 
that I would very much like to see added to this pending energy bill. I 
hope we will do that tomorrow morning when the issue comes up for a 
vote.
  Madam President, with that, I once again yield the floor and 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. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2991 To Amendment No. 2917

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Akaka and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be set aside, and the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for Mr. Akaka, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2991 to amendment No. 2917.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To modify the provision requiring an assessment of the 
               dependence of the State of Hawaii on oil)

       Strike section 1702 and insert the following:

     SEC. 1702. ASSESSMENT OF DEPENDENCE OF STATE OF HAWAII ON 
                   OIL.

       (a) Assessment.--The Secretary of Energy shall assess the 
     economic implications of the dependence of the State of 
     Hawaii on oil as the principal source of energy for the 
     State, including--
       (1) the short- and long-term prospects for crude oil supply 
     disruption and price volatility and potential impacts on the 
     economy of Hawaii;
       (2) the economic relationship between oil-fired generation 
     of electricity from residual fuel and refined petroleum 
     products consumed for ground, marine, and air transportation;
       (3) the technical and economic feasibility of increasing 
     the contribution of renewable energy resources for generation 
     of electricity, on an island-by-island basis, including--
       (A) siting and facility configuration;
       (B) environmental, operational, and safety considerations;
       (C) the availability of technology;
       (D) effects on the utility system, including reliability;
       (E) infrastructure and transport requirements;
       (F) community support; and
       (G) other factors affecting the economic impact of such an 
     increase and any effect on the economic relationship 
     described in paragraph (2);
       (4) the technical and economic feasibility of using 
     liquefied natural gas to displace residual fuel oil for 
     electric generation, including neighbor island opportunities, 
     and the effect of such displacement on the economic 
     relationship described in paragraph (2), including--
       (A) the availability of supply;
       (B) siting and facility configuration for onshore and 
     offshore liquefied natural gas receiving terminals;
       (C) the factors described in subparagraphs (B) through (F) 
     of paragraph (3); and
       (D) other economic factors;
       (5) the technical and economic feasibility of using 
     renewable energy sources (including hydrogen) for ground, 
     marine, and air transportation energy applications to 
     displace the use of refined petroleum products, on an island-
     by-island basis, and the economic impact of such displacement 
     on the relationship described in paragraph (2); and
       (6) an island-by-island approach to--
       (A) the development of hydrogen from renewable resources; 
     and
       (B) the application of hydrogen to the energy needs of 
     Hawaii.
       (b) Contracting Authority.--The Secretary may carry out the 
     assessment under subsection (a) directly or, in whole or in 
     part, through 1 or more contracts with qualified public or 
     private entities.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 300 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare, in 
     consultation with agencies of the State of Hawaii and other 
     stakeholders, as appropriate, and submit to Congress, a 
     report detailing the findings, conclusions, and 
     recommendations resulting from the assessment.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this section.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, this amendment makes technical 
corrections in section 1702 of the substitute bill that is before us, 
which requires the Secretary of Energy to study the economic risk posed 
by the dependence of Hawaii on oil as the State's principal source of 
energy.
  The changes in the original text were proposed by the minority. They 
are acceptable to Senator Akaka, who was the original proponent of 
section 1702. They have been cleared on both sides. So I urge that they 
be agreed to at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2991) was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know there are amendments that have 
been laid down and are open for discussion, but I want to take this 
opportunity to give a statement for the record in regard to the energy 
debate.
  I will begin by thanking the chairman and our excellent leader, 
Senator Bingaman, for laying down a bill that is a real building block, 
a real stepping stone toward the kind of energy policy with which our 
Nation could grow and prosper. I thank him for including many of the 
issues I raised with him on behalf of the State of Louisiana and other 
petroleum- and gas-producing States, as well as provisions that Senator 
Domenici, Senator Voinovich, and I have worked on relating to 
electricity generation, expansion of nuclear energy, and others. He has 
been very open to many of the ideas we have suggested. The bill, 
however, is only a starting point.
  I believe we have to build some additional provisions into this 
underlying bill.
  To begin with, I am reminded of the words of Thomas Edison. He once 
said:

       Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes 
     dressed up in overalls, and it looks like work.

  I think, as we begin this energy debate, that is an appropriate quote 
of which to be mindful. The situation that presents itself here--energy 
policy--rarely captures the attention of Congress, but at this very 
moment it really is a wonderful opportunity for us. We have a real 
opportunity--an opportunity to impact our economy and our environmental 
and foreign policy, all through the adoption of an effective and 
coherent national energy policy. But getting there is going to require 
some real work and some real compromise.
  I am concerned that this is an opportunity dressed up like hard work. 
I am

[[Page S1656]]

hoping that the Senate is appropriately dressed. I am not quite sure. I 
know many of us have worked diligently, and, hopefully, with leadership 
on both sides and with strong leadership from the President, we can 
actually get a bill that makes sense for where our Nation is today--
but, more importantly, where we need to be in the future.
  The American people are ready for a different kind of energy policy. 
A recent poll found that three-fourths of the public believes that if 
we don't address our energy needs now, in 20 years Americans will not 
be able to live their lives in the way they choose. I think the 
American people, even prior to September 11, were very mindful of this 
fragile situation in which we find ourselves. But now, post-September 
11, I know the people in my State are very concerned about our 
overdependence on foreign oil and energy sources. Of course, the 
American people are right. They recognize our vulnerability. This is 
the moment, and we must seize it.
  I thank the chair of our committee again for his excellent work, and 
I thank Senator Daschle for bringing this bill to the floor for our 
consideration.
  Many, including myself, have stated really inaccurately before that 
we don't have a national energy policy. Unfortunately, we do have one. 
The policy, whether expressed or implied, though, is perfectly clear. 
That policy, unfortunately, is that this Nation is to try to import as 
much cheap oil as possible. It doesn't seem to us that the sources of 
this imported oil matter much. All other national policies, such as 
human rights, conservation, and geopolitics, have seemingly taken a 
back seat to this overriding policy.

  Let's look at the nations we are willing to deal with in order to 
secure cheap oil. The United States imports nearly 600,000 barrels of 
oil a day from Iraq. This is a country that we have been bombing an 
average of once a week. Can you imagine what the public would say if we 
were buying steel from Germany while undertaking the D-Day invasion? 
Yet that is the same kind of corrupting power that this shortsighted 
policy has on other interests.
  I believe it is time--and I know many of my colleagues join me in 
saying this--for our country to forge a new ``declaration of 
independence.'' About 226 years ago, we decided the people of our 
Nation needed to control their own destiny politically and 
economically. We need to do so again today. In order to have that 
control, we must have energy independence. While we will never achieve 
that 100 percent, we have to get much closer to that goal than we are 
today. Getting there is going to be tough, but that is what this debate 
is about. It is what it should be about; it is what the American people 
want this debate to be about.
  While we are achieving that end, it may require efforts equal to the 
Manhattan project, or the Apollo project, but I believe it is within 
our grasp. Again, with strong Presidential leadership, with a 
bipartisan group of leaders on this floor and in the House, and with 
the support of the American people, I believe we are up to the 
challenge.
  Our new declaration must center around three principles. I will start 
with the principle that I truly believe is the most important, and that 
is that this country must produce more energy. We must produce cleaner 
fossil fuels; more nuclear power generation; and, yes, more oil and gas 
by small and independent companies; and, as Senator Bingaman has 
advocated, significant new investments for alternative and renewable 
fuels. The occupant of the chair has advocated using biomass and other 
agriculturally-based projects.
  There are tremendous incentives in this bill for us to expand our 
supply of energy so that we are not held hostage or captive by only one 
fuel supply. We have an ample and a varied supply, but that supply has 
to be increased, not decreased and diminished.
  Secondly, we will conserve energy wherever possible, particularly in 
transportation and the industrial sector, and do it in a way that 
enhances our chances of creating jobs in America, not driving them away 
to other nations. We have to be more committed to a balance, of 
conserving our natural resources, conserving our clean environment, and 
making our environment even cleaner. But I strongly believe we have to 
focus as intently on conserving and expanding jobs here--in my State of 
Louisiana, in your State, Mr. President, and in all of our States--
because if we are not careful, changes that we make can drive good, 
high-paying jobs away from our Nation to other nations. It is not fair 
to our workers, and it is not fair to our communities when there are 
good alternatives.
  The principle of increased energy production really hearkens back to 
a principle deeply ingrained in our American culture; namely--and I 
remember studying this in my earliest grades--the dictum of Captain 
John Smith: ``He who works eats; he who doesn't work doesn't eat.'' The 
Jamestown colony would not have survived without following that simple, 
clear and, in some ways, profound statement. We cannot allow mindless 
energy consumption on one hand while allowing a ``not in my backyard,'' 
attitude toward energy production. We must restore balance to the 
equation. Louisiana makes more than its fair share of a contribution 
through oil and natural gas production.
  We also house the Nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. However, 
while every State should be free to determine how to make its 
contribution--solar energy perhaps from New Mexico, hydroelectric power 
from Washington, clean coal plants from West Virginia--every State 
should be free to make its choices, but every State must make a 
contribution.
  If we are consuming 26 percent of the world's oil supply but 
producing only a fraction, we clearly are eating without working. 
Sixty-five percent of this Nation's energy supply comes from oil and 
gas. Yet States continue to express a reluctance to contribute their 
natural resources to our common needs. These natural resources belong 
to all the people of our Nation. Yet we see a policy permitting repeal 
of laws that were strict about using natural resources for our common 
need, which is real and I would say urgent.
  It is important to contrast this with our allies in Europe who have a 
reputation for being more environmentally sensitive. While we have 
moratoria on drilling for oil and gas all over this Nation, from the 
west coast to the east coast, and in parts of the Gulf of Mexico, 
France has high-sulfur petroleum production in Paris--in Paris; not in 
the countryside but in Paris. The United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and 
Norway all permit offshore oil and gas drilling in their fishing 
grounds, some of the finest fishing grounds in the world. Yet there is 
a tremendous amount of environmentally sensitive, very strictly 
regulated production operating off those shores.
  Such actions would set our environmental community in this Nation in 
a frenzy. In Europe, however, they have managed to accept a fundamental 
reality: If you need oil and gas, you must produce it. What is more, 
every possibility needs to be on the table. If you need more power from 
nuclear, you have to build the nuclear powerplants to produce it. You 
cannot just wish it so and turn on the lights.
  Our allies have recognized this, but in this country we have not 
quite grasped this reality. We are seeing a trend toward creating 
something like Fritz Lang's Metropolis, but on a statewide scale, with 
some States getting to live in the clouds with an unspoiled 
environment, consuming to their heart's desire, while other States must 
live on Earth and bear the brunt of this carefree lifestyle.
  This growing dichotomy must stop. We must have more domestic 
production to balance out our consumption. It is just as simple as 
that.
  The second principle of our declaration, of course, is conservation. 
We must consume less. Everyone knows the American economy is the 
largest consumer of energy in the world.
  Everyone also understands that we have the largest gross domestic 
product in the world. While we produce more goods than any other people 
on Earth and in the history of the world, the ratio between how much we 
produce to how much energy we use to produce it is the worst in the 
world. In other words, we are hugely inefficient when it comes to the 
use of energy. This is not only an environmental dilemma, but it is an 
economic dilemma as well.
  We have squeezed efficiency out of our American workers through 
greater productivity gains, longer work hours, a more flexible and 
skilled workforce,

[[Page S1657]]

and particularly new technologies. However, we have not squeezed enough 
efficiency out of our power distribution networks to make U.S. 
manufacturing cheaper and, as a result, more competitive.
  I congratulate Senator Bingaman, again, for making this a focus of 
this legislation. It is truly one of the best pieces of this 
legislation, and, if we can build on this piece, it will be a real step 
in the right direction. I look forward to working with him in this 
debate. Already we have accepted several amendments toward this end 
that have strengthened this position so that we can make it even 
stronger.

  We must, as I said in the first principle, we must be committed to 
robust domestic production. Then we also have to be committed to real 
efficiencies in our electric market, on which Senator Voinovich and 
others have worked so diligently.
  Finally, we must institute the third principle, and that is, if you 
are taking on the burden of production, whether it is in Louisiana, 
which produces oil and gas and other energies for this Nation, or other 
States, our Nation should compensate those regions fairly.
  Louisiana is the second-highest energy-producing State in the 
country. We have 16 percent of the total refining capacity, and we 
supply about 25 percent of all domestic petroleum, half of the imported 
liquefied natural gas, and about 13 percent of the crude oil shipped 
into the United States comes through Louisiana. Yet this contribution, 
while my State is proud of it, has not come without cost to our coast, 
to our environment, and our infrastructure.
  In the past 50 years, Louisiana has lost over 1,000 square miles of 
its coast. Let me be clear, this loss is not 100 percent directly 
related to this activity. This activity has been a portion of this 
loss. There have been many other factors. But still the facts remain 
that because of the drainage and the shipping we provide for the Nation 
through the Mississippi River and the Delta so that all the Great 
Plains States and our great interior can ship products out and receive 
products, as well as the production taking place in this fragile 
environment, it has had some environmental consequences.
  This loss represents 80 percent of all wetlands loss within the 
United States. While my State suffers these losses, we contribute to 
the Federal Treasury anywhere from $2 billion to $4 billion a year, 
just through oil and gas production. This figure does not take into 
account the taxes and wealth and prosperity generated for the whole 
Nation because of the shipping and the commerce allowed by our rivers.
  In fact, since the year I was born, 1955, our State and other coastal 
States have contributed $120 billion to the Federal Treasury, and 
Louisiana has received nothing of this $120 billion directly. We have 
received less than 1 percent of the money that has come into the 
Treasury from offshore oil and gas drilling and yet bear most of the 
cost of the infrastructure required.
  Louisiana's coastal wetlands contribute 28 percent to the total 
volume of U.S. fisheries. Our coastal wetlands are being lost at a rate 
of one football field every 15 minutes. Let me restate that: One 
football field every 15 minutes.
  In short, we should sometimes ask ourselves: Why are we doing this? 
Why don't others do it? We have developed a system of retrieving our 
natural resources. In the old days, we did not do a very good job of 
it, but in these days of new horizontal drilling, directional drilling, 
with new technologies, new rules and regulations, some local and some 
national, we have learned to pool our natural resources for the benefit 
of our State and our Nation and minimize that environmental footprint.
  We want to continue to do that, but we cannot continue under the 
present regime or set of circumstances unless we are more fairly 
compensated.
  Interior States that produce their natural resources, whether it is 
to contribute to the energy sector or other sectors, receive 50 percent 
of their royalties in revenues. Two years ago the State of Wyoming, 
through severance taxes that levied from their mining operations, kept 
$200 million and spent it as they would to reinvest in their State and 
the local communities that supported that mining operation.
  Yet Louisiana and the Gulf Coast States that bear a tremendous 
responsibility for the production now of oil and gas do not share a 
penny of those offshore revenues, and yet serve as a platform for that 
production.
  The helicopters cannot get into the central gulf unless they take off 
from somewhere. The pipes, the equipment, the computers, the people, 
the technology are launched from the coast of Texas or Louisiana or 
Mississippi or Alabama.
  I am going to be laying down amendments--there is already a provision 
in this bill, thanks to Senator Bingaman--that would authorize for the 
very first time a coastal impact assistance provision that will give 
Louisiana and the Gulf Coast States a share of these revenues. It is an 
authorization. I believe we need a direct appropriation, and I will be 
working to strengthen that provision. But for the first time, the 
Senate, I hope, will accept this responsibility and fashion part of our 
overriding energy principle or declaration of independence that if you 
are going to produce, you should be rewarded for that production. 
Again, produce what you will, produce what you can, produce what you 
choose, but whatever you do, you should be rewarded or compensated for 
that production.
  Frankly, for those States that refuse to produce and only want to 
consume, then I think we should think very strongly about that 
situation and what we might do to encourage those States to do more to 
meet their obligation. It did not work 226 years ago, and that kind of 
attitude is not going to work today. So for producing States, I believe 
this is a very strong policy.
  I look forward to this debate. It is a rare moment in our history. I 
hope there is enough pressure that can be brought to bear to move us to 
make the kind of compromises necessary. It is time for us to declare 
our independence. We will not get there 100 percent, but we need to get 
much closer to independence than we are today because not only is our 
economy at stake, our environment is as well. The security of our 
Nation rests on how successful we will be in getting more independent.
  If another tragedy strikes or, shall I say, when another tragedy 
strikes, with the new and emerging threats confronting our Nation, we 
can make wise decisions based on our principles, based on America's 
economic interests, based on what is right in terms of leading the 
Nation, and not be held hostage because we have simply not learned how 
to either live within our means so we can have the kind of independence 
necessary to make wise decisions for ourselves as we help to lead this 
world.
  This is a very important debate. I have really appreciated working 
again with Senator Domenici. He has almost singlehandedly reengaged us 
in understanding the importance of nuclear energy for our Nation--it is 
20 percent of the source today--and rallied many different entities to 
realize we have safer nuclear reactors. The new technologies are quite 
promising, with the production of hydrogen as well as the traditional 
fuels and what that might mean to help us reach that independence.
  Senator Voinovich and I will continue to work on building an electric 
grid for this Nation much like our transportation grid, our interstate 
system. No one would argue that without the interstate system our 
economy could not grow. We could not move our products. We could not 
build our businesses. We could not have the international trade that is 
now the lifeblood of our Nation. That is the kind of electricity system 
that we need to create.
  It was not created that way initially. It was all State developed, 
regionally developed, and we have to now open that up so our 
electricity and power can get on onramps, off offramps, with limited 
speed bumps, and move throughout this Nation to create the kind of 
conservation and efficiency our businesses need to compete in the 
world.
  As I said, there are many goals and objectives. I have laid out some 
of these principles, and I look forward to advocating for the people of 
my State and for many States that are producing oil and gas to make 
sure we are justly compensated so we can take those just compensations 
and reinvest for our children and for our grandchildren.
  One day these oil and gas wells are going dry up. We wanted to make 
sure we were good stewards of the taxes

[[Page S1658]]

that were levied on those oil and gas wells. Therefore, we have laid 
down new investments for cleaner technologies, for new opportunities 
for Louisiana and for our Nation.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am glad to have the opportunity today 
to speak on the critical issue of energy security. In order to secure 
our country's economic and national security, we need to have a 
balanced energy plan that protects the environment, supports the needs 
of our growing economy, and reduces our dependence on foreign sources 
of energy.
  Every man, woman, and child in the United States is a stakeholder 
when it comes to developing a responsible, balanced, stable, long-term 
energy policy.
  When natural gas prices soared last winter, low-income families and 
the elderly were the hardest hit. Not too long ago, $2-per-gallon gas 
took a great toll on our economy. Trucking companies went bankrupt, 
small businesses and factories were forced to lay off workers, and 
farmers suffered a devastating blow of spiked input costs.
  We found ourselves, after 8 years of inaction by the Clinton 
administration, without a comprehensive energy policy. I questioned 
officials from the Clinton administration and encouraged them to 
provide to Congress a plan to deal with the rising cost of energy. I 
even authored an amendment to require them to compile a report 
detailing their plan to address the energy shortage. I never received 
such a plan.
  I was pleased that President Bush, soon after taking office, pledged 
to make the energy security of our country one of his highest 
priorities.
  It is unfortunate that since the release of the President's National 
Energy Policy report last year, it took over 10 months for the Senate 
to begin this debate. Even more troubling is the process by which this 
bill was put together. In October, the majority leader and the chairman 
of the Energy Committees chose to remove this bill from further 
consideration by the committee, and instead put together this bill 
without the input of the minority members of the Senate Energy 
Committee, and that is also unfortunate.
  The events of September 11 have made very clear to Americans how 
important it is to enhance our energy independence. We can longer 
afford to allow our dangerous reliance on foreign sources of oil to 
continue.
  It is time to get serious about implementing energy efficiency and 
conservation efforts, investing in alternative, renewable fuels and 
improving domestic production of traditional resources.
  I support a comprehensive energy policy consisting of conservation 
efforts, development of renewable and alternative energy resources, and 
domestic production of traditional sources of energy.
  As my colleagues well know, I have long been a supporter of 
alternative and renewable sources of energy as a way of protecting our 
environment and increasing our energy independence.
  In 1992, I authored legislation to provide the first-ever tax 
incentive for wind energy production. In 1997, I led the successful 
effort to extend for 10 years the tax credit for corn-based ethanol.
  The energy bill we are currently debating includes a number of 
provisions regarding conservation and renewable energy development. For 
example, included in this legislation is a renewable fuels provision 
which requires a small percentage of our Nation's fuel supply to be 
provided by renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.
  I strongly support the production of renewable domestic fuels, 
particularly ethanol and biodiesel. As domestic, renewable sources of 
energy, ethanol and biodiesel can increase fuel supplies, reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil, and increase our national and economic 
security.
  I thank the majority leader and Chairman Bingaman for including this 
renewable fuels standard, which is very similar to the standard that 
the Senate Energy Committee Republicans supported early last fall.
  The renewable fuels standard, supported by a broad coalition, is good 
for America's farmers, good for the environment, good for consumers, 
and good for national security.
  However, while this bill addresses conservation efforts and 
alternative energy, it falls well short on domestic energy development 
of traditional sources. Critical provisions to support new development 
of nuclear energy and domestic oil and gas exploration and production 
were unfortunately left out of the package.
  At a time when the United States is dependent on foreign countries 
for over 58 percent of our oil needs, this legislation does little to 
support development of resources on our own land. We currently import 
more than 750,000 barrels of oil a day from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Yet 
this bill remains silent on the development of just 2,000 acres of land 
in Alaska that could supply the equivalent of the oil we import from 
Saudi Arabia for 30 years.
  We must do more to develop, in an environmentally sensitive way, the 
resources that God gave us. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to ensure that the bill before the Senate does more to 
protect our national security, and reduce our dependence on foreign 
oil.
  I also look forward to debate on an amendment that I plan to offer 
with Senator Baucus. As ranking member of the Finance Committee, I have 
had the opportunity to work with Chairman Baucus to develop an energy-
related tax amendment.
  Unlike the underlying bill, this amendment strikes a good balance 
between conventional energy sources, alternative and renewable energy, 
and conservation.
  Among other things, it includes provisions for the development of 
renewable sources of energy like wind and biomass, incentives for 
energy efficient appliances and homes, and incentives for the 
production of non-conventional sources of traditional oil and gas.
  I believe the Finance Committee did a good job to address our 
nation's energy security in a balanced and comprehensive way, and I 
look forward to the Senate's consideration of the energy-related tax 
package.
  In conclusion, I am please that the Senate has finally begun to 
address an issue with such a direct impact on our national and economic 
security.
  For the sake of our children and our grandchildren, we must implement 
conservation efforts, invest in alternative and renewable energy, and 
improve development and production of domestic oil and natural gas 
resources. I hope that during this process we can develop a bill that 
is truly comprehensive.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________