[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 28 (Wednesday, March 13, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1841-S1848]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001--Continued
Mr. REID. For the information of all Senators, Senator Daschle has
indicated he would like a vote about 4:30 this afternoon. So everyone
should arrange their schedules accordingly. This vote is on the
Campbell amendment. Senator Campbell has asked for the yeas and nays.
They have been ordered. Unless there is a change by the two managers of
the bill, we will have that vote about 4:30 this afternoon. We will
have announcements at a later time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. What is the pending business?
Amendment No. 3007
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is No. 3007, offered by the
Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I rise to speak in favor of the amendment of my
colleague from Colorado.
Is there a time agreement or allocations on the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is none.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I rise to speak in favor of the amendment put forward
by my colleague from Colorado, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, on the
vehicle scrap provision that is in the underlying energy bill.
The Senator from Colorado has hit it right. This program is not a
good idea. It is not a good idea to put forward Federal funds to
purchase used cars as a way of trying to improve fuel efficiency. This
is unproven, not wise, and expensive in the process. Plus, by the
number of calls and letters we have been getting in my office, a lot of
people do not think it is a very bright idea to go with this program.
They do not see the benefits. A number of car enthusiasts think this is
a program aimed at getting at them.
This provision creates a federally funded program giving grants to
States to establish scrappage programs for vehicles 15 years or older
or pursue repairs to improve fuel economy. Owners who turn in such
vehicles receive a minimum payment and future credit toward purchasing
a new vehicle, meeting certain DOE guidelines.
The stated intent is to retire fuel-inefficient vehicles, the first
program of its kind. All prior State scrappage programs sought to
address poor emissions. The provision requires a vehicle to be
scrapped, not stripped for parts.
To make a couple of points, this provision has no guaranteed
environmental benefit. Vehicle scrapping requires States neither to
determine the fuel efficiency of vehicles being scrapped nor to certify
that scrapped vehicles are replaced by more fuel-efficient vehicles. A
carowner could scrap an older but more fuel-efficient compact car and
replace it with a newer but less fuel-efficient vehicle. While
revisions have been made to address this problem, the fundamental issue
remains: There is no guarantee that the scrapped car is actually
replaced by a more efficient one. That is point one.
Under this provision, cars rarely or never driven, vehicles that have
minimal or no impact on overall fuel economy, may be turned into scrap.
DOE would be required to pay and give credit to carowners for these
cars, although they are just sitting there.
This provision could possibly hurt low- and fixed-income families and
individuals. Even if, as proponents claim, section 822 did improve
emissions somewhat, the program will definitely create a burden on the
used car market and the low- to middle-income families who buy them.
If the vehicles are scrapped, then their parts are destroyed. A
reduced supply of older auto parts translates into an increased demand
for these parts, raising the cost for anyone who desires to responsibly
maintain his or her older vehicle. Low- and fixed-income car occupiers
who cannot afford to purchase a new DOE-approved vehicle are affected.
I don't think the authors of this provision desire that sort of
feature. That is the likely impact.
If the Department of Energy gets into a State grant program and buys
up a bunch of older used cars, it will drive up the market price for
the cars. That is not an impact we want on lower or moderate-income
families, or families seeking to buy a first-time car for a younger
member of the family. They should not be competing against the
Government for that car, nor should they compete against the Government
for replacement parts for that car because the older vehicles are being
scrapped.
Vehicle scrappage hurts small business by encouraging the destruction
of older, and in some cases vintage, cars and the parts necessary for
maintenance. This provision would have a detrimental effect on the
automotive industry on aftersales. After the new car is sold, there is
a huge industry that supports the auto industry in the automotive sales
after the original sale; 98 percent of that business is comprised of
small businesses.
The potential cost of the program to taxpayers is unclear. Certainly
the benefits are unclear, but the costs are unclear. This provision
states neither how much DOE will pay for each scrapped vehicle nor the
value of the credit toward a new vehicle purchase. The State programs
do not offer a clear precedent. The State of California Bureau of
Automotive Repair pays $1,000 for each donated car. However, this
program addresses the State's poor air quality, not fuel efficiency.
Moreover, no State provides interested car donators with credits toward
the purchase of new cars. This vehicle scrap program does not meet its
own intended goals. It hurts low- and middle-income families who are
the predominant buyers of used cars or families buying for first-time
car users.
It is the wrong way to dedicate our Federal resources. We all want a
better environment, but this is not the way to achieve it. I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of the Campbell amendment to take out this
provision.
This impacts a lot more people than what might appear on the surface.
It has broad impact for the public. It is not being well-received by
the public. We are getting a number of calls and letters in our office
saying this is a bad idea for a program. It seems highly
[[Page S1842]]
controversial and questionable in its ability to impact in a positive
way fuel efficiency. With the lack of support from the public, this
provision should be scrapped--not the vehicles.
For that reason, I call on my colleagues to vote for the Campbell
amendment.
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.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken to the managers of this
legislation and, as a result of that, I ask unanimous consent that at
4:20 p.m. this afternoon there be 10 minutes of debate in relation to
Campbell amendment No. 3007, equally divided between Senators Campbell
and Bingaman prior to the 4:30 vote in relation to the amendment, with
no second-degree amendments in order prior to that vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Campbell in
opposing section 822 of S. 517, which is pending. I support the
amendment by Senator Campbell to strike that. The section creates a
federally funded program requiring States to establish scrappage
programs for vehicles 15 years and older, or pays such car owners to
improve the fuel economy. Owners who turn in such vehicles receive the
minimum payment and a future credit towards purchasing a new vehicle
that meets certain DOE guidelines.
The section's stated intent is to retire inefficient vehicles. This
is really the first of its kind. All prior State scrappage programs
sought to address primarily poor emissions standards.
Who is affected by this? Although section 822 is a voluntary program,
everyone who opts in is penalized. A reduced supply of auto parts
translates to increased costs to everyone who wants to responsibly
maintain their older vehicles. Since section 822 disproportionately
impacts or penalizes low-income and fixed-income vehicle owners, car
owners who cannot afford to purchase a new Department-of-Energy-
approved vehicle are particularly affected by the increased costs of
parts as they translate to increased maintenance as the car grows
older.
Section 822 would have a detrimental impact on small businesses. Mr.
President, 98 percent of the aftermarket parts industry are really
small businesses. Some people would refer to them as car yards, yards
and so forth. But particularly for young people growing up and people
on modest income, that is where they get their parts.
Section 822 does not require States to determine the fuel efficiency
of vehicles being scrapped, where scrapped vehicles are being replaced
by more fuel-efficient vehicles. A car owner could scrap an older but
more fuel-efficient compact car and replace it with a newer but less
fuel-efficient vehicle.
Section 822 would require the Department of Energy to give credit to
car owners who turn in cars that are rarely or never driven--vehicles
that have minimal or no impact on overall fuel economy.
Further, this section requires the States to create a program that
provides public notification of the intent to scrap and allow the
salvage of ``valuable parts'' from the vehicle without providing for
the costs or the regulation of this operation; determines the
registration, operational status, and repair needs of vehicles as well
as the dissemination of funds for these procedures; and provides
reports on the program's fuel efficiency to the DOE.
Since we have spent a good deal of time here on safety and costs,
what about the cost? We don't know what the cost to the taxpayer will
be.
Section 822 requires all U.S. taxpayers to pay for some to purchase
new cars. It does not state how much the DOE will pay for the vehicle
or the value of the credit towards the purchase of the new vehicle.
No State currently provides new car buyers with ``credits'' towards
the purchase of new cars. Since there is no precedent concerning
``credits'' and section 822 provides no guidance, no one knows the
total cost to the U.S. taxpayers.
Section 822 would establish the voluntary repair programs for
vehicles without detailing guidelines or costs of those repairs.
I am told there are over 38 million cars 15 years old or older on the
roads right now. Current State programs currently pay $1,000 for each
donated car. This translates into at least $38 billion in potential
Department of Energy costs for scrappage payments alone and does not
include repair or purchase incentive costs included in the provisions
of this section.
As Citizens Against Government Waste states:
This provision has all the symptoms of developing into a
costly government program that can be handled far more
efficiently and inexpensively by the private sector.
What we have here is an effort to take the older cars that are paid
for off the road--not because of concern over emissions but rather a
concern over taking away parts availability of these cars as a
consequence of removing them from the highways.
A lot of collectors and others who want to have good used cars
clearly look upon this as an intrusion of the Federal Government into
their own privacy which they treasure.
I support the amendment by Senator Campbell, which is section 822 of
the bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think this energy bill is critically
important. The whole question of how we consume and produce energy in
relationship to the environment is critically important, especially in
my State of Minnesota at the other end of the pipeline where we import
our oil in barrels and natural gas, and we export our dollars.
I will be in the Chamber talking about energy policy a lot,
especially as we focus on renewables and clean fuel.
I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Wellstone are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry: Mr. President, are we still on
the bill and on an amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is on the energy bill and on
amendment No. 3007 by Senator Campbell.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have no amendment to offer at this
time, but I ask unanimous consent that I be given up to 7 minutes as in
morning business for some comments on the economy, which is indirectly
related to the energy bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair and thank the Senate.
(The remarks of Mr. Domenici are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I was in the office when the
electricity portion was discussed. First, I compliment the staffs who
worked so hard to reach an accord, Senator Bingaman and his staff, our
staff. The adoption of the bipartisan package of amendments was a good,
encouraging start in this long process to resolve the electricity
issue. I have long advocated moving forward to promote competition in
the electric power industry. Competition certainly benefits consumers,
increases supply, helps reduce the cost of power.
I have long promoted the three guiding principles for good electric
legislation: To deregulate where we can, streamline where we can, and
not interfere with the States protecting retail customers.
It would be appropriate to basically underline what we have been able
to accomplish. I also thank a number of my colleagues. Senator Craig
Thomas, particularly, had the initiative under the leadership's
guidance to coordinate this for the minority. I want to take a few
minutes to recognize what we were able to do from what the underlying
bill addressed.
Under section 202, mergers, there was a concern. The concern was that
it would be a major expansion of FERC
[[Page S1843]]
authority over traditional State matters with no time limit on FERC
review and action. By this bipartisan effort, we were able to come up
with a solution. The solution reduces the expansion of FERC authority,
raises the threshold for FERC review of asset sales from $1 million to
$10 million, excludes from FERC review acquisition of generation that
is under State jurisdiction, and establishes procedures for expedited
action on merger applications.
Secondly, under section 203, the market-based rates, there was a
concern that it gave FERC broad authority to take ``any action''--that
startled a lot of people--any action to initiate unjust rates,
including divestiture and mandatory RTO participation. It specified six
specific factors FERC must use when granting/revoking market-based
rates which possibly intrude on State ratemaking.
Again, the question was the broad authority to take any action. What
we did in the solution was FERC can only fix the rate itself, if found
to be unjust. And the six specific criteria modified to be three
general criteria that FERC can use if FERC considers them to be
relevant. So we took the authority from any action and conditioned it.
If they found it to be unjust, then they have the authority to fix it.
The other one in section 204, refund effective date: The concern was
the provision created an open-ended period for FERC to act to establish
a ``refund effective date.'' Refunds, of course, might never go into
effect. The solution was: Restore existing law which provides a 5-month
window for FERC to establish the refund effective date.
Section 205, transmission interconnections: The concern there was
whether it gave FERC authority on own motion to order construction of
transmission and sale of electricity. It didn't have to be requested by
a third party.
Eliminated protections in existing law--Bonneville, for example--and
their retail wheeling issue: A solution to that was to strike section
205 entirely. We eliminated that concern.
Section 209, access to transmission by intermittent generators: The
concern there was: Gave transmission subsidies to ``intermittent''
generators; created a presumption that intermittent generators do not
create any reliability problem; did not allow utilities to recover all
costs of transmitting electricity for intermittent generators. The
solution: Eliminate transmission subsidies; eliminate presumption on
reliability; ensure that utilities recover all transmission costs.
The next section was 241, real-time pricing: The concerns: Did not
include time of use metering. The solution was: Add time of use
metering.
Section 245, net metering: The concern there was: Establishing a
Federal net metering program that preempted 35 existing State net
metering programs. The solution was: Convert PURPA section 111(d)
requirement that State PUCs and nonregulated utilities consider the
Federal standard.
Section 256, State authority: The concerns there were: Preempted
State consumer protection laws and regulations to the extent they are
inconsistent with FTC regulations. The solution was: Eliminate
preemption.
Section 263: The concern is: Required the Federal Government to
purchase renewable power--regardless of the cost. That was somewhat
contentious. The DOD needs to spend money on the war--not renewables.
The solution was: ``Best efforts'' only to purchase renewable power.
So we went from a mandate requiring the Federal Government to
purchase renewable power, regardless of the cost, to a solution that
was to use the best efforts only to purchase renewable power.
I thought that explanation was in order because there are a lot of
terms and technology involved here. I think it is meaningful that we
have a solution and we have a bipartisan agreement.
I thank my colleague, the Senator from New Mexico, and others who
were active in this, including the professional staff who worked so
hard to achieve it.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill 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. Corzine). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 2995
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thought I would take a moment to speak
about an amendment that has already been accepted. I was very proud to
offer this amendment along with Senator Domenici and Senator Craig
yesterday. I thank the chairman for his leadership in this effort.
Because the time was short yesterday and we really did not get to
present the amendment, I thought I would say a few words about it while
we have time pending a vote.
This amendment by Senator Domenici, Senator Craig, and myself says
will contribute to the strengthening of this bill.
It says that as we develop our nuclear reactors in the future, they
will be designed with new technologies that look very promising, not
only to make our nuclear industry more powerful and more effective, but
also to create the opportunity to produce hydrogen which can help us in
meeting our energy needs.
I will explain for the record why this is so important.
As most Members know, nuclear energy now provides one-fifth of all
the electric power used in this country. I do not think that is clear
to everyone in the United States. Some people think we have shut our
nuclear industry down or that we have shut our nuclear powerplants
down. That is not true. The truth is, 20 percent of the power we use in
this Nation is generated by nuclear energy.
Nuclear power produces energy without compromising air quality and
without dangerous reliance on fuel exports from politically unstable
regions of the world.
When we look a few years into the future, the projected demand for
increased electric power is staggering. That is one of the reasons we
are considering this legislation: because the demand for power and the
demand for energy is far outpacing our ability to produce it. Because
we have different views about production, we have conflicting views
about conservation; that does not mean the demand, or the challenge, is
going to go away.
It means we have to work harder to find solutions, and this is one
solution. According to the Energy Information Administration, by the
year 2020 the U.S. will need, under current trends, 400,000 megawatts
of additional electric power capacity. That is the equivalent of 400
new coal plants or gas-fired plants to be built in this country before
the year 2020.
I am in no way opposed to burning coal. We are doing it in a much
cleaner and better way for our environment. I am obviously not opposed
to domestic natural gas production or imported natural gas. That also
meets our new environmental standards. We have to meet some of this
demand, but for environmental and energy security reasons we cannot
completely rely on these sources.
Just to maintain the existing proportion of nonemitting nuclear power
in our energy mix, we will have to construct 50 nuclear plants. So we
have to build more nuclear powerplants, and our amendment helps to
build them in the right ways.
It is clear to this Senator that the environmental and energy
security benefits of nuclear power are so compelling that not only must
we ensure the continued operation of our existing plants, but we must
also encourage the construction of new plants in this country to help
meet this extraordinary demand.
Let me be very clear, when push comes to shove, we have a very short
list of energy options for the foreseeable future: oil, natural gas,
coal, nuclear, hydropower, conservation, and renewables such as solar
and wind. All of these have substantial roles to play in our future
energy mix, but none of these by themselves is enough to address the
huge demand that is facing us.
Again, that is one of the compelling reasons, if not the principal
reason, that we are fighting to shape an energy bill that will meet
this demand. Why? Because it is important our economy continue to grow
so we can be not only
[[Page S1844]]
the great military power we are, but the greatest economic power as
well.
Nuclear power is perhaps unique in this list in that there is a large
potential for expansion in the relatively near term with little
downside in terms of environmental damage or an increase in our
reliance on foreign sources. Furthermore, as many Members are aware,
there is an exciting next generation of nuclear reactors being
developed which take a good product and make it even better.
These reactors, which should be available by the end of this decade,
are meltdown proof, substantially more efficient than the old
generation, produce less high-level waste, and are more proliferation
resistant than existing reactors. That, in this post-September 11 day
and age, is a goal we need to be mindful of. We need to be mindful that
this material in the wrong hands could cause a lot of trouble, a lot of
destruction, and that is why this new design is exciting.
Indeed, one of these designs, the gas turbine modular helium reactor,
is even designed to be built underground and therefore better suited to
the threats that now present themselves post-September 11.
The Federal Government should work closely with the nuclear industry
and with our utilities to see that these new reactors live up to the
claims being made about them and that they are brought to market as
soon as possible.
Let me turn now to another aspect with which our amendment attempts
to address. We have spent a great deal of time this morning speaking
about the transportation sector, CAFE standards, and what can we do to
make our transportation sector more efficient. All of those are very
important issues. But one of the most interesting solutions that might
be found as we develop a new generation of nuclear powerplants is the
byproduct of these new plants--hydrogen.
The administration recently announced some interesting facts
regarding the development of a new generation of hydrogen-powered car.
They call it the freedom car. But we should be mindful that we could
call it the freedom truck, the freedom bus. This is not only about
cars.
Every Member probably realizes the importance of ultimately changing
the coinage of the energy and transportation sector from oil to
something else. Although we are an oil- and gas-producing State, and I
am proud of the oil and gas that we produce, we know even in Louisiana
that the future calls for a greater mix, and the new nuclear reactors
could really be what we need in terms of freeing ourselves from
imported oil.
Our recent engagement in the Middle East and the festering
instabilities there, make it very clear the sooner we wean ourselves
from imported oil the better. Hydrogen, either through direct
combustion or through fuel cells, seems to have all the hallmarks of an
ideal, non-polluting fuel for transportation that might ultimately
supplant imported oil. However, the President's announcement and much
of the subsequent excitement seems to miss one very important question:
Where are we going to get the hydrogen in the quantities necessary to
fuel the cars or trucks or buses on our Nation's highways in the
future?
Please remember that hydrogen is not an energy source. Hydrogen is an
energy carrier. It must be produced by either splitting water or
reforming fossil fuels. Right now, industrial scale quantities of
hydrogen are produced from natural gas or other fossil fuels, but it
does not make sense from an environmental or energy security point of
view to produce hydrogen from fossil fuels. What progress would we be
making if we go down that road?
So what is the alternative? Fortunately, nuclear power is offering to
us an alternative, a very promising way to produce large amounts of
hydrogen required to move towards a hydrogen economy in the relatively
near term.
The more promising way to produce hydrogen is to utilize the next
generation of nuclear reactors that operate at much higher
temperatures. The higher temperatures of these reactors make possible a
process called thermochemical water splitting. The process has received
only minor research dollars in this country but has received
substantial research dollars in funding from other parts of the world,
including Japan.
Thermochemical water splitting is very promising as it is
environmentally benign and has a very high rate of efficiency. Indeed,
it is up to 50 percent more efficient in converting the heat of a
reactor into hydrogen energy.
The amendment we have offered and that has been accepted recognizes
the importance of developing a next generation of reactors that is
safer, more economical, more proliferation resistant, and creates less
waste. It also recognizes the importance of developing hydrogen
production capabilities with the next generation of nuclear reactors.
The promise of a hydrogen-based transportation sector is indeed very
exciting. As the chairman has pointed out on numerous occasions, it is
the transportation sector demand that is driving our dangerous and
unwise, in my opinion, reliance on foreign oil imports. We must begin
to free ourselves from that relationship, and this amendment, with the
underlying technology, gives us a real opportunity, not in 50 years,
not in 20 years, but within the next few years, in this decade, to
begin exploring new technologies that keep our environment clean, that
give us the freedom we deserve and we expect, and also is well within
our economic means of achieving.
It is very exciting, but unless we plant the seeds of a realistic
means of producing the large scale amounts of hydrogen required, this
dream will never be realized. Based on the acceptance of this
amendment, I think the Senate has decided that the next generation of
nuclear powerplants we are going to have to build in this Nation anyway
could provide that answer.
It has been a great pleasure working on this amendment with my
colleagues and being part of this energy debate.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me congratulate my colleague, the
junior Senator from Louisiana, on her amendment. I think the
realization of what the advanced technology would mean, particularly on
high-level nuclear waste in recovery of hydrogen for a number of
purposes, including fuel cells and others, is something that would tend
to focus in on high-level waste, and would have a potential value there
that may lead us to recognize it is not sufficient to just concentrate
on burying this waste.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 10 minutes
of debate on the amendment of the Senator from Colorado. Who yields
time?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may have 1 minute to compliment the Senator from
Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will take it off of our time.
I commend the Senator for her recognition of the value of high-level
nuclear waste and the utilization of it.
I also commend the Senator from Louisiana on her bioenergy amendment,
which we have accepted. This amendment expands the authorization for
bioenergy research to include biochemical processes that can create
certain replacements. There is promising research in these areas. It is
wise to continue to work on this. We support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from
Louisiana for these two amendments. I am a cosponsor of both. On a
bigger scale than that, we are both from oil and gas States. Yet the
Senator has taken a position that it is not just oil and gas that make
up the future for the United States. We have to look at a variety of
alternatives.
The Senator has done a superb job working on nuclear issues. The two
proposed amendments on nuclear are clearly relevant. We are moving
ahead in those areas in the appropriations process. The Senator will
have the assurance that both are covered by appropriations if, indeed,
Senator Bingaman and the others bring it back from conference with the
amendments.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?
[[Page S1845]]
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I appreciate those remarks. The Senator from New Mexico
has been an extraordinary leader in this field of nuclear energy.
I compliment the industry. The Senator from New Mexico understands
that the oil and gas industry has been, in the last couple of years,
broadening its horizons and outlook in welcoming these new sources of
energy. They are turning themselves from oil companies to energy
companies, from gas companies to energy companies, opening up
possibilities for new sources of energy.
I commend the industry and hope this bill that Senator Domenici has
worked on so hard will compliment the work in the private sector to
help this country get to the freedom we need from imported sources so
we can set our own destiny.
I am proud to be a sponsor of this amendment and others like it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I compliment the Senator from Louisiana also for her
amendment earlier agreed to. We worked hard with her and her staff to
be sure this amendment could be included in the bill. I am glad it is
in the bill.
What is the regular order?
Amendment No. 3007
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a vote at 4:30 with respect to the
Campbell amendment.
Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes thirty seconds on the Senator's
time and 2 minutes for the Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have Senator
Smith of New Hampshire added as a cosponsor of this amendment, and I
yield myself the remainder of the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Colleagues, section 822 is a bad idea. Under section
822, we are going to allow the DOE to give grants to take 15-year-old,
and possibly more, fuel-efficient cars, which would rarely be driven,
off the highways and then turn around and offer another grant of
taxpayer-funded money to people who want to purchase a new car which
may be less fuel efficient than the ones to be taken off the highway
and will probably be driven more because they are newer.
How do we sell that under the guise of fuel efficiency? States have
the ability to have scrappage programs--many do. Some offer between
$1,000 and $2,000 per car to be scrapped. In the suggested grant to
take older cars out of circulation, if one-fourth of the 38 million
cars 15 years or older were funded, it would cost taxpayers $19
billion. Maybe I am missing something, but I did hear we have lost our
huge surplus of last year and may, in fact, be in deficit this year. It
seems to me we have a better place to use our money. This is not the
time to spend $19 billion.
The authors of the section 822 say it is voluntary, but who will turn
down a potential $1,000 to turn in an old car and another $1,000 of
taxpayer money to buy a new one when someone else is paying?
I ask my colleagues to vote down section 822 at 4:30.
As Senators, we have an obligation to make decisions based on
information. Here, the authors of section 822 are asking you to make a
decision based on no information because no studies or hearings were
ever held that would legitimize the Federal subsidization of car
scrappage programs.
Again, the authors of 822 argue that compelling states to establish
scrappage and repair programs to get older cars off the road is a
voluntary program. Further, they argue that some states already have
scrappage programs.
Well, if States want scrappage programs then they should be able to
establish their own--why should the Federal Government have any role in
that which States can do already do?
Furthermore, the authors of section 822's reliance on some states
choosing to establish scrappage program is misleading. Current state
programs seek to address poor emissions quality, a serious health
concern.
Section 822 assumes that older cars have poor fuel efficiency and
creates an expensive carrot and stick approach to compel states and
individuals to participate in a completely new and untested program.
In any event section 822 does not provide any means testing ensuring
that only fuel inefficient vehicles are scrapped. Therefore, a 1986
Ford Escort getting 41 city miles per gallon would be treated the same
as a Cadillac Seville of the same year that gets a mere 17 miles per
gallon. The only qualifying criteria would be that they are both 1986
automobiles.
The authors of section 822 state that no one is penalized, that only
individuals choosing to participate would be affected. Yet, the truth
is that everyone is captured by this program.
The reduced supply of car parts translates to increased costs for low
and fixed income people who cannot afford to buy a federal government
subsidized, DOE approved vehicle.
Further, there are 38 million cars that could be affected. If just
one quarter of those owners chose to get $1,000 for scrapping their
car, and then another tax payer subsidized $1,000 credit to buy a new
DOE approved vehicle, the total cost to all U.S. taxpayers, whether
they ``volunteer'' to participate or not, would be $19 billion.
Well, that seems to be a lot of money--that's because it is. I would
have my friends note that at no time did the authors of section 822
state that this provision would not be terribly expensive. They didn't
defend their measure as fiscally responsible because they don't know if
it is or not.
The authors argue that they ``fixed'' their provision by requiring
the states to hold a public notification of the intent to scrap
vehicles and then provide for parts salvage. How will a state possibly
manage that, and what will it cost the federal government? Again, we
don't know.
A few short hours ago, my friend Senator Bingaman stated, ``I don't
see why it is in the public interest to strike a provision that enables
the Secretary of Transportation to pursue this to the extent that the
Appropriations Committee puts funds in to support the program.''
Normally, we know how much money something costs before we buy it.
I ask you not to buy this ill conceived Federal subsidization
scrappage program of old cars and welfare for the wealthy. Section 822
will hurt the most vulnerable of our citizens, hurt small businesses,
and hurt U.S. taxpayers.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, as I indicated, I am disappointed
the Senator from Colorado felt obligated to offer this amendment.
Having heard his concerns and the concerns of others, I urge all
Senators to support his amendment. My view is this is not an amendment
that justifies having a vote on the Senate floor, but he is insisting
on one, so evidently we will go through it and have a rollcall vote and
bring all Senators to the floor to vote for the amendment.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.
Mr. CAMPBELL. If our colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not
need a recorded vote, we do not, either. If he is willing to accept
this amendment, I am sure the minority would, too, and I ask unanimous
consent to vitiate the recorded vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, before we do the voice vote, which I
gather is what the Senator from Colorado would like on his amendment,
let me read some provisions or sections of a letter we received from
the Automotive Service Association.
This is a letter to Senator Daschle, dated February 25, an
organization with 15,000 members nationwide. It has 300 members in
Colorado, my colleague's home State. It says:
Dear Senator Daschle: I want to thank you for your efforts
on behalf of the automotive aftermarket in the development of
Senate Bill 517, the energy policies act of 2002.
The Automotive Service Association is the largest and the
oldest trade association representing independent automotive
repair facilities in the United States. . . .
Your revised Section 832, Assistance for State Programs to
Retire Fuel-Inefficient Motor Vehicles, includes both a
repair and recycling facilities. This assists mechanical and
coalition repair facilities. Quite frankly, many of these
older vehicles would not receive fuel-efficiency related
repairs without
[[Page S1846]]
some incentive. This legislation will provide the opportunity
for these vehicles to receive the necessary maintenance.
Allowing the salvage of valuable parts enhances competition
in the parts marketplaces as well as makes sense for the
environment.
We appreciate the efforts that you and Chairman Jeff
Bingaman have made to alleviate many of the concerns our
industry has had with this legislation. We support the bill
and look forward to a continued working relationship with you
and your staff.
ASA is contacting automotive repairers in South Dakota and
New Mexico to inform them of your efforts.
Signed by Robert Redding, Jr., on behalf of the Automotive Service
Association.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this entire letter be printed
in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I believe this is good public policy to
enact, along the lines we have talked about here. But since my
colleague and others have indicated concern about including it in the
energy bill, I have no problem with it being deleted.
I urge all Senators to support the amendment of the Senator from
Colorado.
I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
Automotive Service Association,
Bedford, TX, February 25, 2002.
Hon. Tom Daschle,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Daschle: I want to thank you for your efforts
on behalf of the automotive aftermarket in the development of
Senate Bill 517, the Energy Policy Act of 2002.
The Automotive Service Association is the largest and
oldest trade association representing independent automotive
repair facilities in the United States. These collision,
mechanical and transmission small business members are
located in all fifty states and several foreign countries.
Your revised Section 832, Assistance for State Programs to
Retire Fuel-Inefficient Motor Vehicles, includes both a
repair and recycling option. This assists mechanical and
collision repair facilities. Quite frankly, many of these
older vehicles would not receive fuel-efficiency related
repairs without some incentive. This legislation will provide
the opportunity for these vehicles to receive the necessary
maintenance.
Allowing the salvage of valuable parts enhances competition
in the parts marketplace as well as makes sense for the
environment.
We appreciate the efforts you and Chairman Jeff Bingaman
have made to alleviate many of the concerns our industry has
had with this legislation. We support the bill and look
forward to a continued working relationship with you and your
staff.
ASA is contacting automotive repairers in South Dakota and
New Mexico to inform them of your efforts.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Redding, Jr.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time and
urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Mexico yield back
his time?
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3007) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3009
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have an amendment with reference to an
Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research. I send it to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) proposes an
amendment numbered 3009.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To establish an Office within the Department of Energy to
explore alternative management strategies for spent nuclear fuel)
On page 123, after line 17, insert the following:
SEC. 514. OFFICE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL RESEARCH.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) before the Federal Government takes any irreversible
action relating to the disposal of spent nuclear fuel,
Congress must determine whether the spent fuel in the
repository should be treated as waste subject to permanent
burial or should be considered an energy resource that is
needed to meet future energy requirements; and
(2) national policy on spent nuclear fuel may evolve with
time as improved technologies for spent fuel are developed or
as national energy needs evolve.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Associate director.--The term ``Associate Director''
means the Associate Director of the Office.
(2) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the Office of Spent
Nuclear Fuel Research within the Office of Nuclear Energy
Science and Technology of the Department of Energy.
(c) Establishment.--There is established an Office of Spent
Nuclear Fuel Research within the Office of Nuclear Energy
Science and Technology of the Department of Energy.
(d) Head of Office.--The Office shall be headed by the
Associate Director, who shall be a member of the Senior
Executive Service appointed by the Director of the Office of
Nuclear Energy Science and Technology, and compensated at a
rate determined by applicable law.
(e) Duties of the Associate Director.--
(1) In general.--The Associate Director shall be
responsible for carrying out an integrated research,
development, and demonstration program on technologies for
treatment, recycling, and disposal of high-level nuclear
radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, subject to the
general supervision of the Secretary.
(2) Participation.--The Associate Director shall coordinate
the participation of national laboratories, universities, the
commercial nuclear industry, and other organizations in the
investigation of technologies for the treatment, recycling,
and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste.
(3) Activities.--The Associate Director shall--
(A) develop a research plan to provide recommendations by
2015;
(B) identify promising technologies for the treatment,
recycling, and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste;
(C) conduct research and development activities for
promising technologies;
(D) ensure that all activities include as key objectives
minimization of proliferation concerns and risk to the health
of the general public or site workers, as well as development
of cost-effective technologies;
(E) require research on both reactor- and accelerator-based
transmutation systems;
(F) require research on advanced processing and
separations;
(G) include participation of international collaborators in
research efforts, and provide funding to a collaborator that
brings unique capabilities not available in the United States
if the country in which the collaborator is located is unable
to provide for their support; and
(H) ensure that research efforts are coordinated with
research on advanced fuel cycles and reactors conducted by
the Office of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology.
(f) Grant and Contract Authority.--The Secretary may make
grants, or enter into contracts, for the purposes of the
research projects and activities described in this section.
(g) Report.--The Associate Director shall annually submit
to Congress a report on the activities and expenditures of
the Office that describes the progress being made in
achieving the objectives of this section.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I introduce an amendment creating a new
DOE Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research. This new Office would
organize a research program to explore new, improved national
strategies for spent nuclear fuel.
Spent fuel has immense energy potential--that we are simply tossing
away with our focus only on a permanent repository. We could be
recycling that spent fuel back into civilian fuel and extracting
additional energy. We could follow the examples of France, the U.K.,
and Japan in reprocessing the fuel to not only extract more energy, but
also to reduce the volume and toxicity of the final waste forms.
It is too bad we did not start with this emphasis and organization
within the last 15 or 20 years. But we were on a path that said under
no conditions would we do this. We thought it would add to the
nonproliferation potential. We thought we would set an example and
nobody would do it, so we would not produce any additional plutonium.
What happened is we stayed in our rut, thinking it was going to be
worldwide, while other countries decided ours was a rather imprudent
policy and they have proceeded. I just enumerated the countries that
have done that.
I support continued progress at Yucca Mountain and appreciate the
President's decision to move ahead toward licensing of it as our
Nation's first permanent repository for high
[[Page S1847]]
level waste. But, I have frequently suggested that our single-minded
focus on this ``solution'' for spent fuel does not serve our Nation
well. It is simply not obvious that permanent disposal of spent fuel is
in the best interests of all our citizens. It's even less obvious to me
that we should equate the terms ``spent fuel'' and ``waste.''
Since Yucca Mountain can't accommodate all the spent fuel from our
current generation of nuclear plants, we clearly either need a better
solution or more repositories. Given the level of local public support
enjoyed by Yucca Mountain, I don't think any of us should relish the
prospect of creating more Yucca Mountains.
Depending on our future demands and options for electricity, we may
need to recover the tremendous energy that remains in spent fuel. And
strong public opposition to disposal of spent fuel, with its long-term
radio toxicity, may preclude use of repositories that simply accept and
permanently store spent fuel.
If the research program led by this new office is successful, we can
recover the residual energy in spent fuel. And we could produce a final
waste form that is no more toxic, after a few hundred years, than the
original uranium ore. I was very pleased that the President
specifically endorsed these studies of reprocessing and transmutation
in the national energy policy.
I am well aware that reprocessing is not viewed as economically
practical now, because of today's very low uranium prices. Furthermore,
I fully recognize that it must only be done with careful attention to
proliferation issues. But I submit that the U.S. should be prepared for
a future evaluation that may determine that we are too hasty today to
treat spent fuel as waste, and that instead we should have been viewing
it as an energy resource for future generations.
We do not have the knowledge today to make this decision. This
amendment establishes a research program to evaluate options to provide
real data for such a future decision.
This research program would have other benefits. We may want to
reduce the toxicity of materials in any repository to address public
concerns. Or we may find we need another repository in the future, and
want to incorporate advanced technologies into the final waste products
at that time. We could, for example, decide that we want to maximize
the storage potential of a future repository, and that would require
some treatment of the spent fuel before final disposition.
This amendment requires that a range of advanced approaches for spent
fuel be studied with the new Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research. It
encourages the Department to seek international cooperation. I know,
based on personal contacts, that France, Russia, and Japan are eager to
join with us in an international study of spent fuel options.
It requires that we focus on research programs that minimize
proliferation and health risks from the spent fuel. And it requires
that we study the economic implications of each technology.
With this new Office and its research program, the United States will
be prepared, some years in the future, to make the most intelligent
decision regarding the future of nuclear energy as one of our major
power sources. Maybe at that time, we'll have other better energy
alternatives and decide that we can move away from nuclear power. Or we
may find that we need nuclear energy to continue and even expand its
current contribution to our nation's power grid. In any case, this
research will provide the framework to guide Congress in these future
decisions.
Mr. President, while I have the floor, I also want to speak briefly
to three other amendments on nuclear energy issues, presented by my
colleagues, Ms. Landrieu and Mr. Craig. I greatly appreciate their
interest in this important technology. I strongly support these
additional amendments and am a cosponsor of each one.
Ms. Landrieu has two amendments. One notes the important role that
hydrogen may play in future transportation strategies for the nation,
either directly as a fuel or in fuel cells. Either of these approaches
could lead to a transportation sector that is virtually emission free.
This is a great vision, but it depends on, among several challenges,
identification of a cheap reliable supply of hydrogen.
Hydrogen can either be made from water using electricity, or from
several chemical processes involving heat. Senator Landrieu's amendment
asks that the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative specifically explore
the use of nuclear reactors for hydrogen production.
Reactors are well suited to such a challenge. They could supply
electricity in off-peak hours. Or, some types of advanced reactors
would provide an ample heat resource. In fact, in Japan, their research
on one form of advanced reactor is focused on hydrogen production.
Her second amendment encourages the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
explore licensing issues, which may arise with advanced reactor
designs. Her legislation would allow the NRC to pursue this research
without tapping income collected from licensees, through use of
appropriated funds. This is a good idea, and one that is already
encouraged in the appropriations process.
Mr. Craig's nuclear energy amendment authorizes the Nuclear Power
2010 program, as proposed by the Administration to begin in fiscal year
2003. This builds on and expands the work pursued in the Nuclear Energy
Technology Program that has been funded for the last two years.
Under this new program the DOE would seek industrial proposals for
joint venture teams to participate, including development of business
arrangements for building and operating new plants in the United
States. I appreciate that it would pursue development of the two most
promising classes of advanced reactors, either water- or gas-cooled
systems.
Mr. Craig's inclusion of international collaboration is also
critical, just as I want to encourage such participation in development
of improved strategies for spent fuel. Many countries have strong
nuclear energy programs, we can achieve mutual goals faster and cheaper
if we work together, just as is now happening with the ten-nation
effort toward the Generation IV reactor.
I share the vision of Mr. Craig that the Nuclear Power 2010 program
will result in a new reactor in this country in the next decade. That
will be an important step in demonstrating to our citizens and to the
world that the United States is not going to be left by the wayside
while other countries pursue this vital energy source.
Tomorrow or next week, whichever is most accommodating, I will take
the floor and tell the American people what is in this bill regarding
the future for nuclear energy. Many things have already been adopted
and put in the bill by the sponsors, but we now have, with this
amendment before the Senate or put in the bill, all of the amendments
that Senators who have been following and working in this area thought
were important to its future. They will now be encapsulated in this
with the adoption of this, which is our last one.
nuclear waste
Mr. REID. I want to confirm that acceptance of this amendment does
not create any opportunity to discuss nuclear waste issues in
conference.
Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with the Senator's view. I will be a conferee
on this bill. I assure the Senator that I will resist any attempt to
open the conference to discussion of waste issues. I would also like to
note that, as stated in the amendment, the national laboratories will
play strong roles in this work. In fact, from our positions on the
Energy and Water Development Subcommittee on Appropriations, let's work
together to ensure their participation.
I thank Senator Bingaman in advance of agreeing to this for his help
on it, for what he has done in the bill with reference to not only the
Price-Anderson, which he took the lead on even though it was not his
amendment, but all the other provisions he has put in that will create
a level playing field and modernize Americans' ability to utilize
nuclear power if they choose, since it will not pollute the environment
and can be part of a national program to do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me say with the colloquy my
colleague from New Mexico has entered into the
[[Page S1848]]
Record between himself and Senator Reid, I think all concerns that have
been raised on our side are resolved. There is no objection to the
adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3009) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment by
the senior Senator from New Mexico. I appreciate the junior Senator's
acceptance of it.
The amendment, as noted, establishes an Office of Spent Fuel within
the Department of Energy. It is important that Congress address the
range of alternatives to deal with spent fuel from nuclear reactors.
This amendment goes a long way to accomplish that.
I have served here 21 years with Senator Domenici. He has been a
tireless advocate of pursuing the advancement of nuclear energy. Last
year he introduced S. 472, which is a comprehensive energy bill and
nuclear bill, and the committee held several hearings. He understands
we must have a diverse and responsible energy mix if we ever hope to
reduce our dependence significantly on Saddam Hussein and his oil.
Currently, nuclear energy provides 20 percent of the electricity in
this country. It is taken for granted by many. It is a clean,
nonemitting generation and produces no greenhouse gases, no
SOx, no NOx. There are 103 operating reactors in
31 States.
Senator Domenici's Office of Spent Fuel is an important part of the
future of nuclear energy in this country, and we must deal with the
issue of spent fuel. This will require research on all fronts.
The language of the amendment was part of S. 1287, the Nuclear Waste
Act amendments that passed the Senate in the last Congress. The office
would examine the treatment, recycling, and disposal of high-level
reactive wastes and spent fuel, and consequently I strongly urge its
support. I thank the Members for the adoption of this amendment.
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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________