[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 34 (Thursday, March 21, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2231-S2239]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Amendment No. 3057 To Amendment No. 3016
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk numbered
3057.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment
numbered 3057.
Mr. KYL. 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:
On page 9 after line 7 insert:
``(n) Protection of Consumers.--Upon certification by the
Governor of a State to the Secretary of Energy that the
application of the Federal renewable portfolio standard would
adversely affect consumers in such State, the requirements of
this section shall not apply to retail electric sellers in
such State. Such suspension shall continue until
certification by the Governor of the State to the Secretary
of Energy that consumers in such State would no longer be
adversely affected by the application of the provisions of
this section.''
Mr. KYL. I will take a couple of minutes to explain this amendment.
It is very straightforward. Since we have been through the debate, we
do not have to have a great deal more. We have tried twice, once myself
and once Senator Murkowski, to give the States more authority to deal
with the problem of renewable energy. Both of our amendments have been
rejected. We accept that.
This amendment is one last attempt to preserve some semblance of
ability by the States to protect their electric consumers in the event
the costs of this Federal mandate program should be too great and
allows, therefore, the Governor to opt out or waive the provisions of
the program in that one eventuality.
From the Energy Information Administration of the Department of
Energy, we have an account of every single utility in the country in
every single State, by State, showing exactly what this Federal mandate
in the Bingaman provision is expected to cost retail consumers. It
averages around a 4-, 5-, 6-percent per year increase, but it varies
from region to region and utility to utility.
The point is, when customers begin to feel the pinch of the Federal
mandate in the Bingaman amendment, they will ask you or your Governors
is there anything they can do. My amendment says, yes, the Governor
would have the ability in that event to waive the provisions of the
Federal mandate, if he finds those provisions are adversely affecting
the retail customers of the State.
These figures may not be accurate. If that is the case, fine. But if
these figures are accurate, I suspect your constituents, your voters,
your retail electric customers, are going to want some relief.
This is the last liferaft, folks. We have been defeated on everything
else. This is at least a liferaft that provides some ability of the
program to be waived so it would not adversely affect them. I ask my
colleagues to consider not the utilities in your State; what we are
saying is, if it should transpire that the Bingaman amendment adversely
affects people, shouldn't we have some kind of escape valve, some
ability for
[[Page S2232]]
the Governor to say: We are going to opt out until the situation
transpires in a better way for the people of our State, for our
electric customers. That is what this amendment does. I hope my
colleagues will support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I would like to ask a question of the
Senator from Arizona on the renewable energy matter. I was looking at
the information he has provide and saw that under the Bingaman
provision electricity bills in Virginia would increase by 5.5 percent
on average--some, for example at Virginia Power, would go up by 4.8
percent.
Having served previously as Governor of Virginia, we would take a
bunch of businesspeople up to New York City. We called it a report to
top management. We talked about the attributes of coming to Virginia
and locating businesses in our State. We talked about taxes, right-to-
work laws, and regulations. But a key factor was the cost of
electricity. Virginia's electricity costs are generally lower than
those of the national average.
A Governor heads up economic development efforts. Do I understand
your amendment correctly that a Governor who knows how to attract more
jobs into a State, as that usually is a priority for a Governor, if he
or she saw this was harmful for creating jobs in his or her State,
could waive out of this Federal mandate if it was harming the
competitiveness of the State and businesses?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the only way a Governor could waive the
provisions with respect to his State would be if he found that the
renewable portfolio standard would adversely affect consumers in his
State. So he would have to find it is adversely affecting the retail
electric consumers in his State for him to be able to waive the
mandated provisions of the Bingaman proposal.
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator.
In view of this, we ought to trust the people in the States. The
Governors can determine whether this is adversely affecting their
consumers and the ability of their citizens to get good jobs. The
definition of consumers is not restricted just to individuals. They are
also business enterprises. We ought to trust the people in the States
who have the same concerns as everyone in this body to make this
determination as to how it may affect their respective States.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the Senator from
Arizona.
Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent Senator Helms be listed as a
cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes and there are 4
minutes on the side of the opponent.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, one would hope we would not have to
continue with the barrage of amendments that attempt to deprive the
American public access for increased renewable resources. Make no
mistake, the American public has made it very clear they support
renewable energy. Poll after poll indicates the overwhelming majority
of Americans support requiring utilities to produce electricity from
renewable energy resources.
Americans want clean energy. They want technology that leaves the air
clean, that does not contribute to lung cancer, that does not sicken
their children. They want to diversify or domestically produce energy
to buffer against price instability, and to lessen the vulnerability of
our energy infrastructure through terrorist attack.
But we have yet another amendment that would weaken efforts to
encourage production of renewable energy. This amendment allows a State
to opt out of the energy program at any time the Governors certify it
would adversely affect the consumers of the State. Clearly, this is no
standard at all.
First, a certification that something ``may adversely affect''
consumers is pretty close to being as loose a statutory requirement as
anyone can craft. The obvious effect is to allow States to opt out,
leaving a piecemeal and unpredictable program.
As I said before, one of the overarching benefits of the Federal
renewable energy standard is that it encourages regional generation and
distribution of renewable energy. State provisions often limit credit
to renewable energy generated within the States. A Federal standard
encourages utilities to meet these renewable energy requirements by
purchasing and selling renewable energy beyond State boundaries.
This recognizes a reality that our electricity generation is in fact
regional in nature, with customers in California using energy provided
from New Mexico, and a variety of New England States receiving their
power from New York. Exempting States on a piecemeal basis serves to
significantly weaken the regional application of a nationwide standard.
A national standard must be uniformly applied to be effective.
When the American public says they want laws supporting renewable
energy, they do not mean sham laws that, on their face, are going to do
nothing.
We have already spoken at length about all the reasons we need it. We
have mentioned the health benefits, et cetera, so I am not going to
spend any more time doing that, other than to say this amendment should
be defeated.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me speak briefly, and I will yield the remainder of
my time, and I hope the Senator from Arizona will as well.
This will be the third time we have had essentially the same vote:
The Kyl amendment earlier this morning, and then the vote we just had
on the Murkowski amendment, and now this one. This amendment says that
although we have a renewable portfolio standard, the majority of the
Senate has agreed that makes sense, any Governor who doesn't agree with
it can take his State out. He can sign a certification saying in his
opinion----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. BINGAMAN. The point I was making is this amendment would
essentially give Governors the option of taking their State out of this
program by signing a certification to the effect that in their opinion
this adversely affects folks in their State.
The reality is the majority of the Senate has expressed their view.
The majority of the Senate has indicated they believe putting a
reasonable renewable portfolio standard in the law makes sense and this
proposal does that in a gradual, moderate way.
I think it would be a terrible mistake for us at this point to
totally gut that provision, as the Kyl amendment would do. Anyone who
voted against the Kyl amendment earlier today should oppose this
amendment as well. Anyone who voted against the Murkowski amendment
just now should vote against this amendment as well.
I am advised there may be others wishing to speak, so I reserve the
remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have had several of my colleagues say
don't worry, this is a green vote; it will be dropped in conference.
Let me tell you what we have done here. We have excluded the right of
States to have a choice. We have mandated that one size fits all.
As this chart shows, under the previous vote we just completed, we
were going to give recognition to the States that addressed the
initiative of coming up with renewables. But what we were going to do
was force the others that had not to perform under the 10-percent
mandate.
The idea of the Senator from Arizona, to give the Governor some
discretion, I think is responsible legislation. Why should we sit here
and mandate that one size fits all? The States know what is best for
them, and we should concur with that and recognize, indeed, that they
have their own best interests at heart and they are responsible people.
They are elected just as we are.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I was struck in listening to our dear
colleague from Vermont tell us about how many people are for this
renewable energy and what a strong base of support there is for it. I
guess the logical question is: If everybody is for it, why are
[[Page S2233]]
we making them do it? If everybody is for it, why would any Governor
opt his State out when he has to stand for re-election?
The problem is, not everybody is for it and the costs may be--in some
States and under some circumstances--prohibitive. So I urge people,
take into account that things in your State may align in such a way
that you would want the option, under those circumstances, to opt out.
On that basis, I urge people to please vote for the Kyl amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, all time has expired
on the Republican side. I think we are prepared to yield back the
remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. DASCHLE. I will say, this will be the final vote for tonight.
There will not be any votes tomorrow. But I do hope we can come back in
2 weeks, and we are all going to help finish this bill on time; right?
The week we get back.
With that understanding, there will be no votes tomorrow, and the
first vote will be on Tuesday, the second day of the week we come back.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMM. Let no one say the final action before the recess is not
bipartisan.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. We yield back the remainder of our time.
Mr. BINGAMAN. We yield our time.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3057.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the
Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Alaska (Mr.
Stevens), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond), and the
Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 58, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 59 Leg.]
YEAS--37
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cleland
Cochran
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Frist
Gramm
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Thomas
Thompson
Warner
NAYS--58
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--5
Enzi
Hutchison
Stevens
Thurmond
Voinovich
The amendment (No. 3057) was rejected.
Mr. BINGAMAN. 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.
Amendment No. 3058 To Amendment No. 3016
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent, I believe
the Senator from Maine now is in order to offer her amendment which is
an agreed-to amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senator from
Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Snowe, I
send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself and Ms.
Snowe, proposes an amendment numbered 3058 to amendment No.
3016.
Ms. COLLINS. 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 clarify the definition of ``repowering or cofiring
increment'')
On page 8, line 15, delete the period and
add ``, or the additional generation above the average
generation in the three years preceding the date of enactment
of this section, to expand electricity production at a
facility used to generate electric energy from a renewable
energy resource or to cofire biomass that was placed in
service before the date of enactment of this section.''
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment that
recognizes the value of America's existing renewable energy resources.
The Bingaman amendment does not give credit to existing renewable
energy facilities. I believe a facility should receive credit at least
for new renewable energy generation that is higher than the facility's
average generation over the previous three years. My amendment would
allow existing facilities to receive credit for increased generation of
renewable energy.
I support increasing our use of renewable energy. I believe it is
important that any comprehensive energy legislation significantly boost
the use of electricity produced from clean resources such as biomass,
wind, geothermal, and solar energy. I support a significant renewable
portfolio standard, which requires electricity suppliers to sell
electricity that has a minimum amount of renewable energy.
Promoting our renewable energy resources will help diversify our
energy supplies, increase our energy security, and reduce pollution. It
will move us one step closer to a cleaner energy future that reduces
our reliance on fossil fuels.
States are leading the way in demonstrating the benefits of clean
energy standards. Twelve States, including Arizona, Connecticut, Iowa,
Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico,
Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin, have already adopted a renewable
portfolio standard. A national RPS will complement and enhance the
groundbreaking efforts by these states and will provide particular
benefits to hard-pressed agricultural and rural areas. Perhaps most
important, a national RPS would create a new and vibrant national
market across all states, and help to maintain America's international
leadership in these energy technologies of the future.
I commend the efforts to develop renewable energy in my home State of
Maine. Maine has been a leader in developing renewable energy. In fact,
Maine has enacted a state-wide renewable portfolio standard of 30
percent. No other State has adopted as high a standard as Maine.
Even though I am emphatically in favor of increasing renewable energy
production, we must do so in a fair and equitable way. The proposal
before us, offered by my friend from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman,
unfairly discriminates against existing renewable energy resources.
Unfortunately, the Senator from New Mexico has drafted legislation that
does not properly give credit to existing renewable energy production.
Why should we discriminate against States which have been proactive
and invested heavily in renewable energy? I know my home State of
Maine, as well as California and a number of other States, have
invested huge resources into developing our renewable energy resources.
These States have developed new technologies and set an example for
other States to follow. Let's not penalize those States which have
worked to develop our renewable energy industry from the ground up.
Ideally, every existing renewable energy resource should receive full
credit. I would like to see existing renewable energy resources receive
100% credit. Doing so would help bring our total renewable energy
generation to a higher level at less cost. Under the Bingaman approach,
existing renewable energy resources will find themselves in an unfair
competitive environment with new renewable energy
[[Page S2234]]
sources. Existing renewable energy facilities will shut down, and new
ones will be built next door. That is a poor use of resources. It will
cost more money and raise electricity prices. Wouldn't it be better if
States could form partnerships with each other to develop renewable
energy resources in the most cost efficient manner possible? Surely we
should allow States which don't have a lot of existing renewable
resources to save money by buying inexpensive, existing credits from
other States.
I am offering this amendment that would provide at least partial
recognition of those hard working Americans who have built our existing
renewable energy resources. I would like to see all existing renewable
energy resources included in this standard. However, my amendment does
not go that far in an attempt to accommodate Senator Bingaman.
My amendment merely says that increased output at existing renewable
energy facilities should be counted. If an existing renewable energy
facility were to increase its renewable energy output by 50%, then
under my amendment that facility would receive credit for that 50%
increase. Thus, consistent with the interest of Senator Bingaman's
proposal, my amendment only gives credit to new renewable energy
production.
Those who have developed America's existing renewable energy
resources should have their efforts recognized. At a minimum, I hope my
colleagues will at least join me in giving these hard working Americans
who have led the way on renewables partial credit. I ask my colleagues
to join me in supporting this amendment.
To reiterate, my amendment merely says that increased output at an
existing renewable energy facility should be counted under this bill.
If an existing renewable energy facility were to increase its renewable
energy output by 50 percent, then under my amendment that facility
would receive credit for that 50-percent increase. Thus, I believe it
is consistent with the intent of Senator Bingaman's proposal in that it
gives credit to expand renewable energy production.
I ask for consideration of the amendment, and I thank both Senator
Bingaman and Senator Murkowski for their assistance in this matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment is acceptable on this
side.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is cleared on this side, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, the question is
on agreeing to amendment No. 3058. Without objection, the amendment is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3058) was agreed to.
Mr. BINGAMAN. 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.
Amendment No. 3016, As Amended
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I believe the next item under the
unanimous consent agreement is a vote on the Bingaman amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 3016, as amended. Without objection, the
amendment, as amended, is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3016), as amended, was agreed to.
Vitiation of Action--Amendment No. 2996
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, last week the Senate adopted an
amendment by Senators Murkowski and Daschle relating to rural and
remote community grants. There were a number of inadvertent errors in
the amendment as adopted. Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that the
adoption of amendment No. 2996 be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 3059 through 3069 En Bloc To Amendment No. 2917
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, you have at the desk 11 amendments. I
ask for their immediate consideration en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself and
Mr. Murkowski, proposes amendments en bloc numbered 3059
through 3069 to Amendment No. 2917.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 3059 through 3069) are as follows:
Amendment No. 3059
(Purpose: To authorize rural and remote community electrification
grants)
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text
of Amendments.'')
amendment no. 3060
(Purpose: To strike section 264)
On page 65, strike line 18 and all that follows through
page 67, line 4.
____
amendment no. 3061
(Purpose: To permit the Department of Energy to transfer uranium-
bearing materials to uranium mills for recycling)
On page 121, line 24, strike ``and'' and all that follows
through page 122, line 2 and insert:
``(5) to any person for national security purposes, as
determined by the Secretary; and
``(6) to a uranium mill licensed by the Commission for the
purpose of recycling uranium-bearing material.''.
____
amendment no. 3062
(Purpose: To define the term `traffic signal module')
On page 289, after line 4, insert the following:
``(41) The term `traffic signal module' means a standard 8-
inch (200mm) or 12-inch (300mm) traffic signal indication,
consisting of a light source, a lens, and all other parts
necessary for operation, that communicates movement messages
to drivers through red, amber, and green colors.''
amendment no. 3063
(Purpose: To provide test procedures for traffic lights)
On page 289, after line 21, insert the following:
``(11) Test procedures for traffic signal modules shall be
based on the test method used under the Energy Star program
of the Environmental Protection Agency for traffic signal
modules, as in effect on the date of enactment of this
paragraph.''
____
amendment no. 3064
(Purpose: To establish an efficiency standard for traffic lights)
On page 301, after line 5, insert the following:
``(z) Traffic Signal Modules.--Traffic signal modules
manufactured on or after January 1, 2006 shall meet the
performance requirements used under the Energy Star program
of the Environmental Protection Agency for traffic signals,
as in effect on the date of enactment of this paragraph, and
shall be installed with compatible, electrically-connected
signal control interface devices and conflict monitoring
systems.''
amendment no. 3065
(Purpose: To clarify those entities eligible to participate in the
Renewable Energy Production Incentive program)
On page 60, line 20-23, strike ``an electricity-generating
cooperative exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(12) or
section 1381(a)(2)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986''
and inserting ``a nonprofit electrical cooperative''.
amendment no. 3066
(Purpose: To insert provisions relating to electric energy)
On page 407, line 4, after ``including'', insert ``flexible
alternating current transmission systems,''.
amendment no. 3067
(Purpose: To include geothermal heat pump efficiency among the
technologies to be reviewed under section 1701 of the bill)
On page 568, line 20, insert ``geothermal heat pump
technology,'' before ``and energy recovery''.
amendment no. 3068
(Purpose: To provide for the updating of insular area renewable energy
and energy efficiency plans)
On page 574, following line 11, insert the following:
SEC. 1704. UPDATING OF INSULAR AREA RENEWABLE ENERGY AND
ENERGY EFFICIENCY PLANS.
Section 604 of Public Law 96-597 (48 U.S.C. 1492) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a) at the end of paragraph (4) by
striking ``resources'' and inserting ``resources'' and
``(5) the development of renewable energy and energy
efficiency technologies since publication of the 1982
Territorial Energy Assessment prepared under subsection (c)
reveals the need to reassess the state of energy production,
consumption, efficiency, infrastructure, reliance on imported
energy, and potential of the indigenous renewable energy
resources and energy efficiency in regard to the insular
areas.''; and
(2) by adding at the end of subsection (e) ``The Secretary
of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior
and the chief executive officer of each insular area,
[[Page S2235]]
shall update the plans required under subsection (c) and
draft long-term energy plans for each insular area that will
reduce, to the extent feasible, the reliance of the insular
area on energy imports by the year 2010, and maximize, to the
extent feasible, use of renewable energy resources and energy
efficiency opportunities. Not later than December 31, 2002,
the Secretary of Energy shall submit the updated plans to
Congress.''.
amendment no. 3069
(Purpose: To provide for access to the Alaska natural gas
transportation project and other purposes)
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text
of Amendments.'')
amendment no. 3069
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, amendment No. 3069 incorporates all of
the changes Senator Bingaman and I have worked out with the State of
Alaska, the Alaska Legislature, the pipeline companies, the North Slope
oil and gas producers, and northern Alaska petroleum explorers.
One might imagine with the diversity of interests represented by this
group of participants, there was not always unanimous agreement on each
point.
But at the end of the day, I believe what is contained in this
substitute amendment is a fair compromise between often divergent
points of view.
I want to thank Senator Bingaman and his staff for all of the hard
work they invested in working with me to craft this challenging
amendment.
Although Alaska North Slope gas has been available for over 30 years,
development and commercialization has not been possible due to lack of
local market and lack of transportation to commercial markets.
The cost and risk associated with building a project of the magnitude
we are speaking was just too daunting.
All of you are aware of last year's efforts on the part of Exxon/
Mobil, Phillips, and British Petroleum to evaluate the commercial
viability of transporting Alaska gas to markets in the lower 48.
At the completion of their economic evaluation they determined that
the project was ``not'' economically viable at this time.
This negative economic determination set the stage for Congress's
involvement in the Alaska gas debate.
A way needed to be found to reduce both the cost and the risk
associated with the construction of this $20 billion project.
As you may know Senator Daschle and Bingaman introduced their energy
bill last December--language was contained in that bill to assist in
constructing the Alaska Gas Transportation Project.
While that language was a good start, it did not address all of the
problems that needed to be resolved in order to achieve the goal of
cost and risk reduction.
It also failed to address issues of significant concern to the people
of Alaska.
For the past several months Senator Bingaman and I have been engaged
in discussions with all the interested parties in an attempt to come up
with language that would remove as many barriers as possible standing
in the way of constructing this project.
The amendment that Senator Bingaman and I are offering today
accomplishes this goal.
I believe both the interest of Alaska and the nation are well served
by the language we have crafted.
It protects Alaska's interests by: prohibiting the ``Over-the-Top''
route thus keeping construction and operational jobs in Alaska ``and''
along with providing Alaskans with the opportunity to heat their homes
and develop a gas based industry in our State; making it clear that
Alaskans have full regulatory authority over gas coming off the
mainline in our State; providing the opportunity for newly discovered
Alaska gas to find its way to markets in the south; making special
provisions for the transport of Alaska royalty gas to markets in
Alaska; and setting up a $20 million dollar program to train Alaskans
in the skills they will need to compete successfully for the high
paying jobs created by the construction and operation of the Alaska Gas
Transportation System.
The national interest is protected by significantly reducing the risk
associated with construction of a system that will provide the nation
with a secure, abundant, and domestically produced supply of gas that
will last well into the middle of the century.
The national interest is served by: providing gasline builders with
two separate and updated authorities to permit the project; providing
expedited judicial review of legal challenges that might otherwise slow
down the project; and creating a project coordinator to make sure that
the scores of State and Federal agencies permitting the project are
working together and not creating artificial bureaucratic barriers that
will slow or halt the construction process.
I firmly believe that the language contained in this amendment will
go a long way towards reducing both the cost and the risk associated
with the construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System.
A system that will serve the special interests of Alaska and the
Nation for decades to come.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, these 11 amendments have been cleared on
both sides. I urge their adoption en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 3059 through 3069), en bloc, were agreed to.
Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I also move to reconsider the vote on
the adoption of amendment No. 3016.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3023
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have two other amendments that are at
the desk at this moment. Amendment No. 3023, which is an amendment by
Senator Lincoln related to the biodiesel credit, is cleared, and I urge
that we go ahead and proceed with it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to amendment No. 3023.
The amendment (No. 3023) was agreed to.
Mr. BINGAMAN. 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.
Amendment No. 3041
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment
No. 3041 be voted on.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to amendment No. 3041.
The amendment (No. 3041) was agreed to.
Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, that completes the items we intended to
complete today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Florida for how
much time?
Mr. GRAHAM. Two minutes.
Mr. BYRD. For not to exceed 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Florida.
Amendment No. 3070 To Amendment No. 2917
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to offer an amendment and ask that
it be laid aside for consideration after we return.
This amendment will add to the list of items which are acceptable as
renewable energy municipal solid waste. When we return, I will make a
more extended statement. In a State such as mine, the options for
dealing with solid waste are essentially two: One is to bury it in a
landfill; two is to incinerate it. Of those two, clearly, the
incineration is a more benign impact on our environment. Given the high
water table we have, land disposal of the solid waste creates serious
issues of water quality. In my opinion, we should allow, as we have
allowed this afternoon through the amendment of Senator Craig, expanded
use of biomass, and now Senator Collins extended use of hydropower, we
should recognize the fact that both in terms of environment and energy,
allowing solid waste to energy to be one of the allowable renewable
energy sources is in the national interest.
[[Page S2236]]
I offer this amendment. I ask that it be set aside and look forward
to a fuller discussion when we return.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] proposes an amendment
numbered 3070.
Mr. GRAHAM. 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:
Amendment No. 3070
(Purpose: To clarify the provisions relating to the Renewable Portfolio
Standard)
Strike Sec. 606(l)(3) and replace with the following:
``(3) Eligible renewable energy resource.--The term
`renewable energy resource' means solar, wind, ocean, or
geothemal energy biomass, municipal solid waste, landfill
gas, a generation offset, or incremental hydropower.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, does the Senator from Alaska wish to be
yielded to?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me thank my good friend, the senior Senator from
West Virginia. I appreciate the opportunity to respond very briefly
with a statement.
Mr. BYRD. How much time?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. About 40 seconds.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator for
whatever time he may consume, up to 2 minutes, without losing my right
to the floor.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the President pro tempore for
his generosity.
Mr. President, I will file an amendment, but I shall not bring it up
at this time. This amendment would require the cessation of importing
oil from Iraq, which is currently at 1.2 million barrels a day, until
such time as the President certifies that Iraq, one, allows U.S.
inspectors access to suspected sites for the development of weapons of
mass destruction; and, two, ceases to cheat the U.N. oil program by
smuggling oil out through third countries.
It will be my intention to bring this amendment up upon our return
from the recess.
I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 3042
Mr. ROCKEFLLER. Mr. President, I am proud to submit today, along with
my colleague Senator Carnahan, amendment No. 3042 to provide tax
incentives to promote the use of a new type of energy-efficient
technology for beverage vending machines. The Natural Resources Defense
Council estimates that, when fully implemented, this new technology
could reduce national energy use by up to 6 billion kilowatt hours,
kWh, per year. This translates to an annual electricity savings of $600
million, by encouraging the sale of new energy-efficient vending
machines for bottled and canned beverages.
Our amendment provides a $75 tax credit for the purchase of each
qualifying energy-efficient vending machine. This incentive is
necessary because vending machines are purchased by bottlers and other
beverage machine operators and placed at third party locations to
benefit consumers, but the types of machines purchased are not decided
by the organization that pays the electricity bill. Unlike most
products, the benefit of a vending machine's reduced energy consumption
is captured by the third party location not by the machine's purchaser.
Therefore, there is currently no economic incentive for machine
operators to purchase energy efficient vending machines, many of which
have useful lives of ten to twenty years.
For instance, colleges all across the country have beverage vending
machines for the students to use. A soft drink bottler purchases these
machines from a manufacturer, and places them in student unions at
universities, such as Wheeling Jesuit in Wheeling, WV. Wheeling Jesuit
and other customers of the bottler have no control over what kind of
machines are purchased. Because Wheeling Jesuit, and not the vending
machine operator, pays the electric bill, the vending machine operator
has no incentive to save Wheeling Jesuit money with more energy-
efficient machines that would cut down on the college's electricity
bills. This amendment would change all of that, because the vending
machine operators would receive the tax credit for their purchases. The
new energy efficient machines will save the typical site owner $200 a
year and more than $2,000 over the life of the machine.
Technology is now available to reduce the energy consumption of
refrigerated bottled and canned vending machines by as much as 50
percent. One of the manufacturers using this technology to make energy-
efficient vending machines has operations in my home State of West
Virginia, in the small town of Kearneysville. This energy-saving
technology has been recognized by the Natural Resources Defense
Council, and will be recognized next week at the Environmental
Protection Agency's Energy Star Awards. This tax incentive will make it
easier for bottlers do to the right thing, environmentally, while
benefiting forward-looking manufacturers like the one producing these
energy-efficient machines in the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia.
Without this incentive, the likely result is that bottlers will take
advantage of this improved technology much more slowly, and energy will
continue to be needlessly wasted.
Each new energy-efficient machine would save more than 2,000 kWh per
year over its less-efficient predecessor. With approximately 225,000
new vending machines purchased every year the energy savings potential
is enormous. Once all machines are switched to the more energy
efficient models, our Nation can save six billion kWh per year. That is
enough energy to power approximately 600,000 U.S. households for an
entire year.
Another feature of this tax credit is that it will provide a
substantial energy savings to our nation without burdening the average
American. Citizens will not even know the vending machines are energy-
efficient. There will be no change to the temperature of the beverages
or the outward appearance of the machines. The tax incentive will tend
to keep the price of the beverage where it is today.
This amendment provides a boon to energy savings at little cost. This
amendment will provide an energy savings of approximately three to one
over the cost of the tax incentive. Not only does this amendment make
good sense for energy efficiency; it makes good economic sense, too.
Every small step we take toward reducing our nation's total energy
consumption contributes to a more prosperous economy and a brighter
future for ourselves and our children. I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.
Amendment No. 3043
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am committed to helping craft
national energy legislation that takes energy production and
conservation, balanced with environmental concerns and economic issues,
into consideration. Today, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senator
Allen, Senator Specter, and Senator Warner, in submitting amendment No.
3043 to the Senate energy bill to create an important tax incentive
that I believe will encourage the recycling of coal combustion waste
materials produced in the process of reducing sulfur emission in coal-
fired electric utility boilers.
Currently in the United States, many coal-fired power plants are
equipped with sulfur dioxide scrubbers, the purpose of which is to
significantly reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide released into the
air. In the process of cleaning the air, these scrubbers produce more
than 20 million tons of coal combustion waste or sludge per year.
Stabilization of the sludge increases the waste materials to over 40
million tons per year, and this amount is expected to more than double
as the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 continue to phase in. At this
time, less than 20 percent of this waste material is recycled. In fact,
the balance of the sludge is disposed of in landfills at a cost to
electric utilities of as much as $40 per ton, depending upon the
locale. I am concerned that, as landfills become full, and new
landfills become more difficult to site, the costs to utilities, and
ultimately to electric consumers, will continue to escalate.
A tax credit is needed to encourage utilities that are controlling
their sulfur dioxide emissions to recycle the waste material their
scrubbers
[[Page S2237]]
produce. By helping to alleviate and perhaps eliminate the cost of
disposing of the waste products generated by using important emission
control systems, we can realize the multiple environmental benefits:
Cleaner air and less combustion waste being landfilled.
There are basically two types of scrubbing, or emission control
systems, currently in use. One produces a wet sludge and the other a
dry sludge. Wet sludge is more difficult and costly to treat.
Accordingly, the proposed credit is $6 for each ``wet ton'' and $4 for
each ``dry ton'' recycled by a third party. The credit will have a 10-
year limit and includes strict requirements to determine that the
sludge has actually been ``recycled'' and that a value-added product,
with genuine marketplace appeal, is created.
The tax credits will stimulate the development of new technologies to
recycle the sludge and encourage existing technologies to enhance their
recycling efforts. The 10-year life of this credit will provide
sufficient time to aid the start-up of new companies and technologies
and the further development of existing technologies; thereafter these
recycling efforts should be self-supporting. The cost of these credits
is less than $75 million over the next 10 years and could, in part, be
offset by taxes generated by new businesses as well as the savings to
the economy through reduced energy costs.
I remain committed to promoting the use of coal as a primary energy
source for this nation, and I wholeheartedly embrace tax incentives for
the installation of clean coal technologies. I believe this credit to
encourage combustion waste recycling efforts is an important addition
to our energy policy. It will support economic development and protect
the environment. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Amendment No. 3044
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues,
Senators Ben Nelson and Chuck Hagel, in submitting amendment No. 3044
addressing energy metering at consumers' homes and the availability of
reliable energy usage data for consumers to use in making energy
consumption decisions. The amendment we are submitting is very
straightforward, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Under the Energy Tax Incentives Act a tax credit and accelerated
depreciation is established for the benefit of electric and gas
suppliers that install energy meters that provide consumers with real-
time information about the amount of energy they are consuming and the
cost of that energy. This provision was passed by the Senate Finance
Committee, and will become a part of the bill now under consideration.
The intent of these provisions is to promote energy conservation by
allowing consumers to monitor, in real time, their energy use and its
cost. By providing consumers with access to current energy use and cost
information, consumers will be better able to change their usage
patterns, thereby conserving energy and saving money in the process.
The one problem my cosponsors and I see with this provision is that it
is limited to only one or two specific metering technologies, and I
strongly believe there are other very cost effective and beneficial
metering technologies, collectively referred to as ``time of use''
technology that would similarly allow consumers to better conserve
energy.
Our amendment would simply expand the availability of this tax
provision to include those suppliers who provide consumers with time of
use metering technology. One of these time of use technologies is
manufactured by a company doing business in Scott Depot, WV. I have not
brought this amendment to the floor of the United States Senate solely
because it may benefit a business in my home State. I have brought this
amendment to the floor because I believe it will enhance the
effectiveness of the underlying bill by giving consumers and their
utilities a number of options for conserving energy through the
auditing of their energy use.
By using time of use technology, consumers could easily and
conveniently determine how much energy they consumed during different
times of the day and the specific costs associated with their use
during each time period. Consumers would have access to time of use
information for pre-selected time segments of each day. Each selected
time period would have the exact price of the energy consumed.
For example, a consumer in New Manchester, WV, using this technology
could determine how much energy was used between 6-7 p.m. each night.
By knowing this information, this consumer would be able to change his
or her energy-use habits during specific time periods, or as an overall
policy. If helpful, consumers could also easily be provided with
historic time of use information so they could compare their current
use and costs with their past use to see the extent they have been
conserving energy and saving money. I believe this type of metering
technology would be particularly beneficial to many consumers in West
Virginia.
This is a good amendment, and I think that it improves the energy
efficiency provisions of the underlying bill, without favoring one
technology over another.
amendment no. 3045
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, amendment No. 3045 is very simple but
it could make a life or death difference to miners who work in one of
the most dangerous occupations in America.
This amendment would require the Secretary of Labor, in consultation
with the Secretary of Energy, to review current staffing levels of mine
inspectors, and considering current needs and expected retirements, to
hire and train as many new mine inspectors as are needed to maintain
proper safety in coal mines. The Secretary is to maintain the number of
mine inspectors at a level no lower than current levels. When filing
these positions, my amendment encourages the Secretary of Labor to give
consideration to experienced miners or mine engineers.
Coal miners are dying in alarming numbers in accidents that might be
prevented if more mine inspectors were on the job. Coal mine fatalities
increased in 2001 for the third year in a row. Forty-two miners died in
mine accidents in the United States. Forty-two miners lost their lives.
This is the most since 1995.
Already in 2002, eight miners have died in American coal mines.
Improved technology is increasing the productivity of our mines. We
should also be seeing improvements in mine safety, not a rising death
toll.
Two of the miners who have died this year were West Virginians. On
January 2nd, a 44-year-old miner with 23 years of experience was
fatally injured when unsupported roof rock measuring seven feet by five
feet fell on him in the Justice #1 mine in Boone County, WV.
Just over a month later, on February 20th a 53-year-old miner at the
Radar Run #2 mine in Greenbrier County was crushed by loose rock, some
as large as 30 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 10 feet thick.
These deaths are tragedies for the families and friends of the miners
who died. If these accidents could have been prevented, it is
unforgivable. Our industry and Federal mine safety system are supposed
to protect miners to the maximum extent possible. The sheer number of
mine deaths tells me that we are not doing enough to ensure miners'
safety.
I am proud that West Virginia produces much of the coal that powers
the national economy. Over 50 percent of our electricity comes from
coal. But in producing this fuel, year in and year out, too many West
Virginia miners become casualties.
Twelve of the 42 miners lost in coal mines in the United States last
year were West Virginians. Nine West Virginians, died in both 1999 and
2000. Since 1992, 114 of the 406 American miners who have died in mine
accidents have been West Virginians. This is unacceptable. We must do a
better job of preventing these accidents, with the goal of eliminating
them altogether.
West Virginia miners are not the only ones dying in coal mines. Last
September 23rd, two explosions in the Jim Walter #5 mine in Brookwood,
AL, took the lives of 13 coal miners, in the single largest coal mine
disaster in the United States since 1984. Twelve of these miners had
rushed into the mine to save trapped co-workers. That kind of heroism
is frequently found in the history of coal mining. We need to make it
less necessary.
Anyone who has gone down into a mine knows that accidents happen.
This amendment will cut down on preventable accidents.
[[Page S2238]]
Retirements will reduce the current number of mine inspectors by 25
percent in the next five years. Despite this trend, and the number of
mine fatalities, the President's fiscal year 2003 budget request cuts
the Mine Safety and Health Administration budget by $4 million.
The premise is not that more money will necessarily solve the
problem. The premise is this: The energy bill properly sees coal as a
vital part of the nation's energy mix. The amendment intends to make
sure that the hardworking men and women who bring that coal out of the
ground are not doing so at an unacceptable risk to their lives.
AMENDMENT NO. 3072
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, amendment No. 3072 to the energy bill to
establish a Consumer Energy Commission. This amendment is simple, yet
it has the potential to significantly benefit American families and
businesses. It should garner widespread support.
Like many of my colleagues in the Senate, I am pleased that we have
turned to debate on an energy bill to address our nation's energy
challenges. This debate marks the first time Congress has
comprehensively considered energy policy since 1992. As we consider the
many facets of this important topic, we must remember what has happened
with energy in our country during the past decade.
One word you will often hear to describe energy during the past
decade, especially in the last few years, is ``crisis.'' The California
electricity experience has been cast in terms of a crisis, and many
have pointed to Enron as an indication of problems in our energy
policy. While we may disagree with the extent of the energy crisis, as
well as ways to address it, I think we can all agree that one energy
challenge our nation faces is consumer price spikes.
Let us take the example of gasoline. We all know that prices have
significantly fluctuated at the pump. The Administration's energy
policy indeed cites ``dramatic increases in gasoline prices'' as one of
the challenges we face. The Consumer Federation of America and Public
Citizen have also called attention to energy price spikes, explaining
that American consumers spent roughly $40 billion more on gasoline in
2000 than in 1999. In the spring of 2000, the cost of gasoline in
Chicago shot up to $2.13 per gallon, well-above the unusually high
national average of $1.67 per gallon at the time.
Yet gasoline is not the only energy product for which consumers have
had to pay dramatically fluctuating costs in recent years. Residential
heating oil, residential natural gas, commercial natural gas,
industrial natural gas, and motor gasoline, have all had fluctuating
prices over the past 15 years.
If we break down these numbers month-by-month, you can see incredible
price spikes. In just a matter of one month, the national average price
of gasoline jumped by 20 cents per gallon, residential heating oil rose
by 10 cents per gallon, and residential natural gas leapt by 50 cents
per thousand cubic feet.
In some areas of the country and sectors of the economy, price spikes
were greater and had drastic impacts. Home heating and cooling bills
crippled family budgets in the Midwest and Northeast. Farmers and
industries dependent on natural gas for the production of fertilizer
and other chemical products suffered economically.
To address the chronic national problem of significant energy price
fluctuations, I am offering an amendment to the energy bill that would
establish a Consumer Energy Commission. This 11-member Commission would
bring together bi-partisanly appointed representatives from consumer
groups, energy industries, and energy- and trade-related agencies, to
study the causes of energy price spikes and make recommendations on how
to avert them.
It is true that the Federal Trade Commission recently studied
gasoline price spikes in the Midwest. Indeed, several studies have
investigated potential abuses of market power in the energy industry.
Other studies have looked at the long-range supply and demand
projections for energy products. But previous studies have tended to
focus on a small set of issues, and on the perspective of industry or
government. I think the best approach is not to look at these issues
narrowly, but rather to consider the big picture. Most importantly, we
need to give consumers a voice.
When consumers go to pay their grocery bills, or their tuition bills,
or even their residential electricity bills in most states, and when
businesses go to pay for raw materials, prices are rather predictable.
But when they go to pay for their heating and cooling, natural gas, or
gasoline, families and businesses face the frustrating reality of wild
price swings. We need to bring consumers to the table with
representatives of the energy industry and government, in order to
study price spikes. We need these groups to work collectively, and to
consider a range of the possible causes of energy price spikes. We need
them to look at both the supply and demand sides, including such
potential causes as maintenance of inventory, delivery of supply,
consumption behaviors, implementation of efficiency technologies, and
export-import patterns.
After the Consumer Energy Commission has studied energy price spikes
comprehensively, its charge will be to develop options for how to avert
or mitigate price spikes. These recommendations can range from
legislative and administrative actions to voluntary industry and
consumer actions that can help protect consumers from the fluctuating
costs of energy products.
This Commission will be well-balanced, not only to reflect all groups
with a stake in energy price spikes, but also to reflect both political
parties. No commission has ever before brought together such a diverse
group to study such a complex problem in a holistic manner. No
commission has ever promised to see things from the perception of
consumers: families and businesses that routinely face energy price
spikes. The Consumer Energy Commission is long overdue, and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
AMENDMENT NO. 3074
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, amendment No. 3074 would establish a
Conserve by Bike Pilot Program in the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, as well as fund a research initiative on the potential
energy savings of replacing car trips with bike trips. This program
would fund 10 projects throughout the country, using education and
marketing to convert car trips to bike trips. The research would
document the energy conservation, air quality improvement, and public
health benefits caused by increased bike trips. The goal is to conserve
energy resources used in the transportation sector by turning some of
our gas guzzling miles into bike rides.
There is no single solution for our Nation's energy challenges. Every
possible approach must be considered in order to solve our energy
problems. Something as simple as traveling by bike instead of car can
play an important role in reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
Energy conservation does not have to be difficult: it can be as
economical, healthy, and environmentally friendly as a bike ride.
It would be unrealistic to expect Americans to make a substantial
increase in the number of trips they make by bicycle. But even a tiny
percentage of bike trips replacing our shorter cars trips could make a
significant difference in oil and gas consumption.
Right now, less than one trip in one hundred, .88 percent, is by
bicycle. If we can raise our level of cycling just a tiny bit: to one
and a half trips per hundred, which is less than a bike trip every 2
weeks for the average person, we would save over 462 million gallons of
gasoline in a year, worth over $721 million. That's one day a year we
won't need to import any foreign oil.
In addition to conserving our energy, an increased number of bike
trips can improve our air quality. Significant declines in vehicle
emissions would follow from increased bike trips. A study in New York
City showed that bicycling spares the city almost 6,000 tons of carbon
monoxide each year. A reduced number of trips made by cars would
increase this number and help to clean our nation's air.
The Federal Highway Administration estimates that 60 percent of all
automobile trips are under five miles in length. And these short trips
typically emit more pollutants because cars during these trips run on
cold engines. Engines running cold produce five times
[[Page S2239]]
the carbon monoxide and twice the hydrocarbon emissions per mile as
engines running hot. These cold engine trips could most easily be
replaced by bike rides.
Americans would experience additional advantages from increased bike
usage. The decreased number of cars on our nation's highways would help
reduce traffic and parking congestion. Congestion costs have reached as
high as $100 billion annually according to the Federal Highway
Administration. A reduction in cars on the roads will decrease the high
costs associated with congestion.
The ``Conserve by Bike'' amendment will also improve public health.
The exercise from more frequent bike trips would help improve our
physical well-being. Biking has proven to be effective in the
prevention of heart disease, our nation's number one killer. And,
biking has also shown to help individuals in the correction of health-
impairing behaviors like smoking and alcohol abuse.
The ``Conserve by Bike'' amendment will help America take a simple
but meaningful step in energy conservation. It will help fund 10 pilot
projects that will use education and marketing to facilitate the
conversion of car trips to bike trips, and document the energy savings
from these trips. These projects will facilitate partnerships among
those in the transportation, energy, environment, public health,
education, and law enforcement sectors. There is a requirement for a
local match in funding, so that these projects can continue after the
federal resources are exhausted.
In addition, this amendment will fund a research initiative with the
National Academy of Sciences. The study will examine such factors as
weather, land use and traffic patterns, bicycle facility
infrastructure, to identify what trips Americans could reasonably take
by bike. It will also illustrate the benefits of converting bike trips
to car trips, and explore ways that we can encourage Americans to pedal
rather than gas guzzle.
It is imperative that Americans are fully informed of the entire
range of benefits from biking in terms of energy conservation, air
quality, and public health. We also need to provide the best resources
in bike safety and convenience.
We have been spending a modest amount of federal, state and local
funds on bicycle facilities since 1991. This amendment will leverage
those investments and help people take advantage of the energy
conservation choices they have in getting around their communities. I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Iowa in
the Chamber. Does he wish to have the floor?
Mr. GRASSLEY. For about 6 minutes. Would that be possible?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my patience is becoming greatly strained,
but I will yield to the Senator.
I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the Senator from Iowa for
not to exceed 10 minutes, without my losing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia
for his gracious attitude.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
____________________