Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 38 (Wednesday, April 10, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 38 (Wednesday, April 10, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2425-S2443]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001

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

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

Pending:

Daschle/Bingaman further modified amendment No. 2917, in
the nature of a substitute.
Feinstein modified amendment No. 2989 (to amendment No.
2917), to provide regulatory oversight over energy trading
markets and metals trading markets.
Kerry/McCain amendment No. 2999 (to amendment No. 2917), to
provide for increased average fuel economy standards for
passenger automobiles and light trucks.
Dayton/Grassley amendment No. 3008 (to amendment No. 2917),
to require that Federal agencies use ethanol-blended gasoline
and biodiesel-blended diesel fuel in areas in which ethanol-
blended gasoline and biodiesel-blended diesel fuel are
available.
Lott amendment No. 3028 (to amendment No. 2917), to provide
for the fair treatment of Presidential judicial nominees.
Landrieu/Kyl amendment No. 3050 (to amendment No. 2917), to
increase the transfer capability of electric energy
transmission systems through participant-funded investment.
Graham amendment No. 3070 (to amendment No. 2917), to
clarify the provisions relating to the Renewable Portfolio
Standard.
Reid modified amendment No. 3081 (to amendment No. 2989),
in the nature of a substitute. (By 40 yeas to 59 nays (Vote
No. 60), Senate earlier failed to table the amendment.)

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the

[[Page S2426]]

time until 9:45 a.m. shall be equally divided and controlled in the
usual form.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes from the time on
this side.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the majority leader and the distinguished
majority whip have often mentioned the fact that we have not called up
the ANWR amendment yet. I am here to say we are almost ready to do
that. The reason we have not brought it forth so far, of course, is the
stated objective of Members of the other side of the aisle to
filibuster this amendment and to require us to have 60 votes in order
for its adoption. We will lay it down right now if the leadership will
agree we can have an up-or-down vote on the amendment.
This is not a normal procedure where the leader states categorically
that there is an intention of the majority to require 60 votes for an
amendment to pass.
I intend later today to distribute to every desk a copy of a letter
of July 3, 1980 that was signed by Senator Henry M. Jackson, chairman
of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, and Mark Hatfield,
ranking minority member, concerning the Alaska lands bill that was
before the Senate at that time.
These two Senators were leaders of the Senate on the Alaska lands
legislation and it is important for the Senate to read this letter. I
will read a portion of it at this time. The portion I will read
concerns the amendment which gives us the right to proceed with
development of the Arctic plain. They wrote:

While the bill is a gigantic environmental accomplishment,
it also is crucial to the nation's attempt to achieve energy
independence. One-third of our known petroleum reserves are
in Alaska, along with an even greater proportion of our
potential reserves. Actions such as preventing even the
exploration of Arctic Wildlife Range, a ban sought by one
amendment, is an ostrich-like approach that ill-serves our
nation in its time of energy crisis.
They went on to write:

Instability of certain nations abroad repeatedly emphasizes
our need for stronger domestic supply of strategic and
critical minerals. Each of the five proposed amendments would
either restrict mineral areas from development or block
access to those areas. Four of the seven world-class mineral
finds in Alaska would be effectively barred from development
by this amendments. That is simply too high a price for this
nation to pay.

Further from the letter:

We urge you to focus on the central fact that the Alaska
lands bill is not just an environmental issue. It is an
energy issue. It is a national defense issue. It is an
economic issue. It is not an easy vote for one constituency
that affects only a remote, far-away area. It is a compelling
national issue which demands the balanced solution crafted to
by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Seven years earlier my colleague, Senator Gravel, and I presented an
amendment to authorize the immediate construction of the Alaska
pipeline. That amendment first ended up in a vote of 49-48. We had won
that amendment. On a reconsideration, the vote was 49-49, and the then
Vice President cast a ``yea'' vote, and the amendment was finally
agreed to on the second vote.
I yield myself 2 more minutes.
My point in raising this before the Senate this morning is that on
the Alaska pipeline there was no threat of a filibuster. Despite the
fact that the then majority leader, Senator Mansfield, and the chairman
of the committee, Senator Jackson, opposed our amendment for the
immediate construction of the pipeline, there was no filibuster.
We should not have a filibuster on the amendment that is going to be
offered by my colleague Senator Murkowski and myself on this bill to
proceed now to the exploration and development of the 1.5 million acres
on the Arctic plain. It is still a national defense issue. I hope to
raise that again and again. In times of national security crisis, there
should not be a filibuster against a proposal to make available to this
Nation additional oil and gas resources.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter I cited of July 3, 1980 and
the Congressional Record showing the affairs of the Senate on July 17,
1973 on those two votes, 295 and 296, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,

Washington, DC, July 3, 1980.
Dear Colleague: In this year of sharply heightened national
concern over the economy, energy and national defense, the
Senate is about to consider Alaska lands legislation--an
issue which would have a profound effect on each of these
vital subjects.
We write to ask for your full support of the Alaska lands
bill approved by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
After extensive hearings, study and mark-up, the Committee
approved this bill by an overwhelming and bi-partisan vote of
17-1.
The Committee bill is a balanced, carefully crafted measure
which is both a landmark environmental achievement and a
means of protecting the national interest in the future
development of Alaska and its vital resources. The bill more
than doubles the land area designated by Congress as part of
the National Park and National Wildlife Refuge systems; it
triples the size of the National Wilderness Preservation
system. It protects the so-called Crown Jewels of Alaska. At
the same time, it preserves the capability of that mammoth
state to contribute far beyond its share to our national
energy and defense needs.
A series of five major amendments to the bill and an entire
substitute for it will be offered on the Senate floor. The
amendments in total would make the bill virtually an
equivalent of the measure approved last year by the House.
Each amendment in its own way would destroy the balance of
the bill.
While the bill is a gigantic environmental accomplishment,
it also is crucial to the nation's attempt to achieve energy
independence. One-third of our known petroleum reserves are
in Alaska, along with an even greater proportion of our
potential reserves. Actions such as preventing even the
exploration of the Arctic Wildlife Range, a ban sought by one
amendment, is an ostrich-like approach that ill-serves our
nation in this time of energy crisis.
Instability of certain nations abroad repeatedly emphasizes
our need for a stronger domestic supply of strategic and
critical minerals. Each of the five proposed amendments would
either restrict mineral areas from development or block
effective access to those areas. Four of the seven world-
class mineral finds in Alaska would be effectively barred
from development by the amendments. That simply is too high a
price for this nation to pay.
Present and potential employment both in Alaska and in the
other states would be significantly damaged if the committee
bill is amended. Cutting off development of the four mineral
finds discussed above would alone cost thousands of potential
jobs, many of them in the Lower 48 states. The amendment on
national forests would eliminate up to 2,000 jobs in the
southeast Alaska timber-related economy.
We urge you to focus on the central fact that the Alaska
lands bill is not just an environmental issue. It is an
energy issue. It is a national defense issue. It is an
economic issue. It is not an easy vote for one constituency
that affects only a remote, far-away area. It is a compelling
national issue which demands the balanced solution crafted by
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
We look forward to your support.
Cordially,
Mark O. Hatfield,
Ranking Minority Member.
Henry M. Jackson,
Chairman.
____

Excerpt From the Congressional Record of July 17, 1973

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Gravel) No. 226, as
modified. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce that the Senator from
California (Mr. Cranston) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator from Washington (Mr.
Magnuson) is absent on official business.
I also announce that the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
Stennis) is absent because of illness.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator
from Washington (Mr. Magnuson) would vote ``nay.''
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 48, as follows:

[No. 295 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Biden
Baker
Bartlett
Beall
Bellmon
Bennett
Bentsen
Bible
Brock
Brooke
Byrd, Harry F., Jr.
Byrd, Robert C.
Cannon
Cotton
Curtis
Domenici
Dominick
Eastland
Ervin
Fannin
Fong
Goldwater
Gravel
Griffin
Hansen
Hartke
Helms
Hollings
Hruska
Huddleston
Inouye
Johnston
Long
McClellan
McGee
Nunn
Randolph
Saxbe
Schweiker
Scott, Pa.
Scott, Va.

[[Page S2427]]

Sparkman
Stevens
Taft
Talmadge
Thurmond
Tower
Weicker
Young

NAYS--48

Abourezk
Aiken
Bayh
Biden
Buckley
Burdick
Case
Chiles
Church
Clark
Cook
Dole
Eagleton
Fulbright
Gurney
Hart
Haskell
Hatfield
Hathaway
Hughes
Humphrey
Jackson
Javits
Kennedy
Mansfield
Mathias
McClure
McGovern
McIntyre
Metcalf
Mondale
Montoya
Moss
Muskie
Nelson
Packwood
Pastore
Pearson
Pell
Percy
Proxmire
Ribicoff
Roth
Stafford
Stevenson
Symington
Tunney
Williams

NOT VOTING--3

Cranston
Magnuson
Stennis
The VICE PRESIDENT. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays
48. The amendment is agreed to.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by
which the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the
galleries.
Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the
table.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The galleries will be in order.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to reconsider
(putting the question). The noes appear to have it.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
motion.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, are we voting on a motion to
table or on the motion to reconsider?
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senate is voting on the motion to
reconsider.
Mr. HUMPHREY. On the rollcall vote?
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, are we voting on the motion to
reconsider or on the motion to lay on the table?
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senate is voting on the motion to
reconsider.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I move to table the motion to
reconsider.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the
motion to table the motion to reconsider.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the
motion to table the motion to reconsider. On this question
the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce that the Senator from
Washington (Mr. Magnuson) is absent on official business.
I also announce that the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
Stennis) is absent because of illness.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator
from Washington (Mr. Magnuson) would vote ``nay.''
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 49, as follows:

[No. 296 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Allen
Baker
Bartlett
Beall
Bellmon
Bennett
Bentsen
Bible
Brock
Brooke
Byrd, Harry F., Jr.
Byrd, Robert C.
Cannon
Cotton
Curtis
Domenici
Dominick
Eastland
Ervin
Fannin
Fong
Goldwater
Gravel
Griffin
Hansen
Hartke
Helms
Hollings
Hruska
Huddleston
Inouye
Johnston
Long
McClellan
McGee
Nunn
Randolph
Saxbe
Schweiker
Scott, Pa.
Scott, Va.
Sparkman
Stevens
Taft
Talmadge
Thurmond
Tower
Weicker
Young

NAYS--49

Abourezk
Aiken
Bayh
Biden
Buckley
Burdick
Case
Chiles
Church
Clark
Cook
Cranston
Dole
Eagleton
Fulbright
Gurney
Hart
Haskell
Hatfield
Hathaway
Hughes
Humphrey
Jackson
Javits
Kennedy
Mansfield
Mathias
McClure
McGovern
McIntyre
Metcalf
Mondale
Montoya
Moss
Muskie
Nelson
Packwood
Pastore
Pearson
Pell
Percy
Proxmire
Ribicoff
Roth
Stafford
Stevenson
Symington
Tunney
Williams

NOT VOTING--2

Magnuson
Stennis

The VICE PRESIDENT. On this question, the yeas are 49, and
the nays are 49. The Vice President votes ``Yea.'' The motion
to lay on the table is agreed to.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, there is not a Senator
in the Senate I have more respect for than the senior Senator from
Alaska. I consider him a friend and certainly always a worthy advocate.
On this issue relating to the energy bill now before the Senate,
however, to have my friend and his colleague, the junior Senator from
Alaska, say that they are interested in going forward, that they would
have had a vote on this immediately if, in fact, we didn't use the
rules of the Senate, of course, the rules of the Senate are what have
guided this institution for so many years. I really don't know how many
votes there are. Each side has around 50 votes. That is the way this
will turn out, if there is a vote on the ANWR issue.
Regarding his logic that there should be, in a time of national
crisis, nothing done to prevent the Congress from thwarting anything
that would bring us more oil, the way to do that would have been to
support the CAFE standards legislation we debated on this legislation.
That would have brought certainly millions of barrels of new supply to
this country by not having us use this oil.
As we have discussed many times, the United States cannot produce its
way out of the crisis we are in. We should do everything we can to
increase the natural gas and other drilling oil supplies. There is no
question about that. But there is a real debate taking place in this
country as to whether or not we should drill in the Alaskan wilderness.
Although I am from Nevada a State that is very sparsely populated, I
think the Senator from Alaska raised some interesting points about
certain promises that were made to the Senator from Alaska and the
Alaskan delegation many years ago. It is something we all need to take
a look at.

But we have a debate that has been ongoing for many years. This isn't
something that just came up during this bill. I look forward to the
debate on ANWR. I think there are people who honestly have not made up
their minds yet. It is a handful of people, but some have not made up
their minds yet. So I hope that the Alaskan delegation will offer this
amendment as quickly as possible. I think that is the main thing
holding up the final movement of this legislation.
I spoke to the junior Senator from Alaska yesterday, and I don't
think it would be appropriate for someone else to offer the ANWR
amendment--for example, a House version, or some other comparable
version. I think it should be done by the Senators from Alaska or
Senators with whom they want to join.
So I hope that in the next little bit--whether it is tonight or
tomorrow, but in the immediate future--this amendment will be offered.
Otherwise, it is my understanding that others who may not be advocates
for ANWR will offer it just to move the debate along.
Mr. President, it is my understanding that the vote will occur at
9:45. That will be on the Feinstein amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. I see the Senator from California is here.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is
recognized.

Amendment No. 2989

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to
support the cloture motion on the amendment that is now pending. This
amendment essentially would close what I call the Enron loophole, which
allows certain areas of trading to go without any oversight or
regulation. The amendment has been out there for 5 weeks now.
Hopefully, that was more than enough time for Senators to give it due
consideration. There has been lobbying for the amendment on both sides.
This is what the amendment does. It essentially provides antifraud
and antimanipulation authority to the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission for all energy trades online, when there is no physical
delivery. The amendment subjects all energy platforms--trading
platforms--to the same levels of oversight they had before the 2000
Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which was changed at the final
hour by Enron to include an exemption for energy trading. This means
these trades exchanges would, once again, have to file with the CFTC.
They would have to provide price transparency, maintain capital
commensurate with risk, as decided by the CFTC. All the things that
Enron did online essentially provided this giant loophole.
Mr. President, if I trade natural gas to you and deliver it to you,
we are

[[Page S2428]]

covered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. But if I don't
deliver the gas to you but a number of trades take place in the
interim, none of these trades are covered by anybody. There is no
antifraud; there is no antimanipulation oversight; I don't have to keep
any record; there is no audit trail; and I don't have to have
sufficient capital based on the risk I am taking. All of these things
are covered by this amendment.
This amendment essentially closes a loophole, and that loophole is
that if you trade online, there is no oversight, or there is no
antifraud or antimanipulation authority. So it is my hope that the
Senate will provide cloture. It is my hope that we will be able to
close this loophole.
The amendment is supported by a number of groups. It is fair to say
there is intense lobbying on both sides. I view this amendment as being
on the side of the angels. It is very hard for me to understand why
because you trade derivatives on an electronic platform--meaning
online--that you are able to escape any form of oversight. I think this
kind of situation does not breed security in the marketplace, does not
give confidence to investors. So I hope there are 60 votes present for
this amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is
recognized.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I have limited time and I am not going to
get into a dispute about facts, or about what is and what isn't a
loophole, or whether these instruments have ever been regulated because
they have not. But the reason that debate should not be brought to an
end here is about as simple as any argument could be for continuing to
try to find a compromise. The entire financial sector of the American
economy--every bank, every securities company, every insurance company
in America--is opposed to this amendment. The Federal Reserve Board and
Chairman Alan Greenspan are opposed to this amendment; not to what the
Senator is trying to do, but to what the amendment does.
The Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman has spoken out
adamantly in opposition to this amendment. The Chairman of the
Commodities Futures Trading Commission--the very agency that would be
empowered with new authority under this amendment--has spoken out and
written letters and argued that these areas represent very complicated
financial transactions, and that we need to take a look at unintended
consequences.
What I hope will happen today is that we will deny cloture. There has
been no filibuster on this amendment. We have continued to process
other amendments. There have been two good-faith efforts to reach a
compromise. Alan Greenspan has sent a letter to every Member of the
Senate saying that he believes the ability to hedge risk through
derivatives has been a major factor in preventing our downturn from
becoming a recession. He said that this market is a major factor in the
underlying strength of the economy, and he believes it could be
jeopardized by this amendment.
So I believe we should sit down and try to work out an amendment that
Alan Greenspan believes is safe for the American economy. I don't know
who we are putting under the heading of angels, in the words of the
Senator from California, but when we are talking about jobs, growth,
opportunity and responsibility in America, if Alan Greenspan doesn't
fall under the heading of angel, I don't know who does. The point is,
this amendment needs more work.
Let me tell you what everybody involved in the debate agrees on:
Number one, they agree that the CFTC should have access to data, that
data should be maintained to allow the reconstruction of individual
transactions for up to five years. That is what is required under the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission jurisdiction under current law.
Everybody agrees that the Commission ought to be able to intervene if
there is evidence of fraud or price manipulation. Where the
disagreement and differences occur--and these three points represent 95
percent of the things that the proponents of this amendment say they
are for--are in other areas that are generally unintended. I understand
that this is a very complicated issue. There is one member of this
chamber who claims to know what a derivative is. I do not claim to know
what a derivative is. I have tried, as former chairman of the Banking
Committee, to understand these transactions. But when you have a $75
trillion market out there for very complicated financial instruments,
you don't want to tamper with it unless you know what you are doing.
You do not want unintended consequences when you are dealing with $75
trillion of economic underpinning that holds up the very structure of
the American economy. That is what this amendment is putting at risk.
I urge my colleagues to vote against forcing a vote on this amendment
and give us an opportunity to try to write something that Alan
Greenspan, the Chairman of the SEC, and the Chairman of the CFTC--the
people we have entrusted to make these decisions--are comfortable with
and can support.
I believe we can achieve 95 percent of the objectives of the Senator
from California without endangering the very financial underpinnings of
the American economy. But I believe they are endangered--as Alan
Greenspan says, as the Secretary of the Treasury says, as banks,
security companies and insurance companies across the land say--by the
amendment as it is now written.
I urge my colleagues to vote no. It would be my full intention if a
``no'' vote prevails to again sit down with the Senator from California
and work out a compromise that will solve her problem without creating
others.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to
the pending Feinstein amendment concerning modifications to the
Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.
The passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act only a year
and a half ago has provided legal certainties that I believe have
resulted in increased market participation, greater transparency and
heightened market liquidity.
I agree there are lessons we can learn from Enron's collapse,
particularly with respect to accountability issues. I share in my
colleagues' outrage over these events, and truly feel for the workers
and innocent investors who lost their jobs and life savings.
There are legislative actions that we in Congress can take to ensure
that similar corporate failures aren't allowed to fester elsewhere, In
fact, as the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, I've taken
steps to do something about a number of tax and pension related
problems that have been exposed by the Enron collapse.
However, as regulatory agencies continue to investigate Enron's over-
the-counter derivatives activities, Congress must exercise caution when
considering a legislative fix to a problem that has yet to be clearly
identified. Without the benefit of the results and recommendations of
these investigations, any legislative action will surely be premature.
The Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve,
the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the
Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission oppose adoption of
this amendment because of the lack of opportunity for a full review, as
well as the absence of any determination that energy derivatives played
a role in the collapse of Enron.
I also have concerns that this amendment has not been thoroughly and
thoughtfully reviewed by the appropriate committees of jurisdiction.
The Senate Agriculture Committee, which I served on when the Commodity
Futures Modernization Act was considered, addressed the issue of the
uncertainties with respect to over-the-counter derivatives. The lack of
hearings and analysis by the Senate Agriculture Committee prior to the
consideration of this amendment is unfortunate.
I therefore oppose this hastily drafted amendment, and will formally
request that the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee
thoroughly analyze, and if necessary, conduct hearings on the results
and recommendations of the numerous agency investigations concerning
the regulation of over-the-counter derivatives.

[[Page S2429]]

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired. Who
yields time?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Three minutes 50 seconds remain.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from
New Jersey.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is
recognized.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I will split the time with the Senator
from Illinois if that is OK with the Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Absolutely.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I wish to make a couple of simple points.
First, this amendment brings forward fairly simple, straightforward
oversight functions that are typical in every financial market in which
I have ever participated and in which I spent 30 years of my life
working, and that is antifraud, price manipulation and transparency
rules that are fundamental to making the depth and breadth of the
financial markets work. We have great financial markets in America.
This amendment accomplishes bringing that to bear in this energy
market.
In fact, since this amendment was originally offered, there has been
an enormous number of attempts to make sure it does not impact that $75
trillion market about which the Senator from Texas talked. It exempts
financial futures, equities, currencies, and debt instruments from any
of the legal constraints. I think it has been adjusted to address most
of the concerns I certainly have heard from my friends with whom I used
to work in the financial sector.
It is very clear in small, confined markets where there is not the
depth and breadth that price manipulation is a very real possibility.
As a matter of fact, it was cited in the 1999 President's Working Group
on Financial Instruments, including Alan Greenspan, that at that point
energy markets were narrow enough so as to cause problems. We ought to
move forward in response to the kinds of problems we have seen at
Enron. I hope Members will vote for cloture.

I thank the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has
expired. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. FITZGERALD. May I inquire how much time remains?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. One minute 20 seconds.
Mr. FITZGERALD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I think I can sum up in that short period of time. I
urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a very good
amendment, and most of the arguments I have heard about it on the other
side, in my judgment, are not true. The bill will have no chilling
effect on the financial derivatives market.
It does not apply to purely financial derivatives, and there is an
important public policy reason for this. We are trying to comport our
commodity futures laws in this country to comply with the principles
laid down by the President's working group in the last couple of years.
Somehow when we passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act last
year, at the end, a mysterious rifleshot exemption that applied to a
handful of commodity trading firms that trade online. It is not quite
clear where it came from, but it creates an uneven regulatory playing
field where certain firms have a narrow exemption, there is no
transparency in their markets, and they are not reporting volume or
open interest. In my judgment, it is important to consumers of these
online exchanges to have that information available to them.
It is possible that a client can be ripped off on an online exchange,
and the transparency created by this amendment will solve that problem.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has
expired.
Mr. FITZGERALD. I thank the Chair. I urge my colleagues to vote with
Senator Feinstein, Senator Corzine, and myself in favor of cloture.

Cloture Motion

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, pursuant to
rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion
which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Feinstein
amendment No. 2989 to the substitute amendment for Calendar
No. 65, S. 517, the energy bill.
Dianne Feinstein, Byron L. Dorgan, H.R. Clinton, Daniel
K. Akaka, Paul D. Wellstone, Edward M. Kennedy, Bob
Graham, Carl Levin, Bill Nelson, Debbie Stabenow, Maria
Cantwell, Harry Reid, Russell Feingold, Ron Wyden,
Richard Durbin, James M. Jeffords.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory
quorum call under the rule has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
Feinstein amendment No. 2989 to S. 517, the Energy Policy Act, shall be
brought to a close? The yeas and nays are required. The clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Specter) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 61 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCain
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--50

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--2

Baucus
Specter

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are
50. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding the Senator from Idaho is ready to
offer an amendment which we have talked about since yesterday--and that
is very appropriate. But I am wondering if we could have agreement--I
do not see him in the Chamber now--but with the Senator from Alaska,
who is working this bill with the Senator from New Mexico, to have a
time for filing amendments. I suggest sometime this afternoon or early
evening.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Please give the
Senator your attention. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. REID. I have spoken with Senator Bingaman. He agrees that would
be a good idea. I hope those on the other side also agree it is a good
idea. No one cares how many amendments at this stage, but we should
have a specific time for filing these amendments. We hope we can offer
a unanimous consent agreement in the near future to set that time.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S2430]]

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3047 and ask for
its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Will my friend withhold?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes.
Mr. REID. If the Senator will withhold just for a brief minute?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

Amendment No. 2989, Withdrawn

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to withdraw the amendment on
which we just voted, amendment No. 2989.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is No. 2989, as modified. The
Senator has that right.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
The Senator from Idaho.

Amendment No. 3047

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I called up the amendment No. 3047. I ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Idaho [Mr. CRAIG] proposes an amendment numbered
3047.
Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of March 21,
2002, under ``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise after a great deal of consideration
as to the amount of work that has been done on this energy bill by the
chairman of the full committee and by a good number of interests. My
colleague from Wyoming is on the floor. He spearheaded a group dealing
specifically with title II, the electricity title, of this very large
and important bill. He labored mightily over that. I was involved, and
my staff was involved, in some of those discussions.

But the reality became clear to me and others that the electrical
title of this bill is such a very complicated, extended title--
attempting to rework and amend years and years of law and public policy
that has built up, that has driven the capitalization of the largest
electricity industry in the world and, frankly, one of the best--that
without the kinds of detailed hearings that must come before a full
committee of energy, we could not effectively and responsibly write
this title in this Chamber.
I have opined on many occasions here that this bill did not get the
treatment of the committee, it did not get the treatment of the
subcommittees, it did not get the treatment of the professional staff
and all of those who are interested as stakeholders in dealing with
this very critical title.
As a result of that, after several weeks of consideration, I decided
it was appropriate that we have a vote on the reality that we cannot
get as far as we would want to get. So this amendment today strikes the
electricity title and replaces it with consumer protection that is
exactly the language currently in the bill, and the reliability
provisions of that bill that did have full committee treatment, that
has been voted on, on the floor of the Senate, and has been treated and
accepted by the Senate as should these kinds of issues.
A good many interest groups recognize the complexity of this problem.
The House tried to deal with an electric title and couldn't--after
months of consideration with the committee effort. It said: No, it is
too complicated and we ought to step back from it. So their energy
bill, passed in August, was silent on the issue of electricity.
Whether or not we speak to it going into conference, if this bill
ultimately gets to conference, there is a reality that we might not
deal with it then. And there are provisions within this title that I
strike to which many of us are strongly opposed.
The electric title does need the full attention of the experts--
a clear, precise explanation of what the jurisdictional committee
intends, and, my guess is, therefore could craft the appropriate
language. I think the Senate owes the electric utility industry and the
ratepayers nothing less than a full, open, and transparent process to
get us there.

We want to reform the electric industry. We need a national
interstate transmission system. All of those are realities.
We saw the problems in California when a State failed to deal with
restructuring or deregulation in an appropriate fashion and created the
disincentives that did not allow the investment in the marketplace.
If we were to create those kinds of disincentives to send a
multibillion-dollar industry scurrying trying to understand, but, most
importantly, allowing the recentralization of authority and a Federal
regulator, then my guess is we will have made a major mistake. I think
that question is clearly on the table.
Senator Murkowski, I, and others who work on that Energy Committee,
and the chairman who is here in the Chamber--in discussing energy and
electric restructuring over the last several years, and the phenomenal
amount of hearings that were held on it before any language was
attempted--laid down criteria we believed were important if we were
going to do no harm to the ratepayer and do no harm to the billions of
dollars of investments that are out there already in this industry.
Those standards work: Deregulate where possible, streamline when
deregulation is not possible, and respect the prerogatives of the
States. I have added in the last several weeks of debate a fourth, an
elementary principle: Know what we are doing when we legislate. And
when we grant new authority, or change our delegation of authority to a
regulatory agency, know the consequences.
It is my guess at this time that you could not effectively do a side-
by-side comparative of old law and new law in this title and begin to
understand what its impact would be on the utilities of Georgia and
their investments, their values, and their abilities to compete in a
regional or a national market.
That is what we ought to know. We know the importance of sustained,
high-quality, reliable power to industry, to the consumer, and to the
well-being of the economy of this country.
Last month, we received a landmark Supreme Court decision on the
authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to order
transmission restructuring which has significant implications on the
remainder of Federal-State responsibility and authority for regulation
of public utilities. The Supreme Court's opinion in New York v. FERC
demands our thoughtful attention.
What we have not done here, because we have not been allowed to do
it, is take this Court decision, lay it before the committee, bring the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to the Hill, and begin to engage
them in questions as to what they might be willing to do and what they
sense their new authority is under this Court decision. Was that the
intent of the public policy of our country, or do we allow the judicial
branch to legislate in a way that grants substantial new Federal
authority? It is not clear at this time.
I think it is very understandable to most of us who deal in this
phenomenally complicated area that we do not comprehend the reach of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as was and is now extended by
the Court's decision. How far can the Commission push its authority now
that the Court has said it has it? Those are the kinds of questions we
ought to ask of ourselves for our ratepayers and for the utility
commissions of our respective States and that which was once the
responsible authority that created reliability and the stability of the
industry historically.

There are several other important questions which have been gnawing
at me, and I think probably several of us, since the Court issued its
opinion.
For example, should the Senate now examine the need for legislation
to protect native load customers? There are many who say: Yes, we
should because we have a responsibility to the initial intent of the
law and what it has done for the strength of our States' systems. We
need to understand. Is FERC going to aggressively start restructuring
in

[[Page S2431]]

what appears to be a real, lively, unbridled authority granted by the
Court? We have not asked the question. FERC has not been before the
committee. The committee hasn't functioned. Of course, that decision
came just as we were engaging here on the floor, which I believe
dramatically shifts the pendulum and the equation as it relates to this
issue.
We all know that FERC has pursued an aggressive restructuring program
and to establish regional transmission authority--a vital, stand-alone
transmission business, as the Commission called it in 1999. Before we
enact new law, we need to act to take into account that reality.
How does FERC, through the Supreme Court decision, affect RTO, the
regional transmission authority? We have already heard their expression
pre-Court decision. Now we need to understand their intent post-Court
decision. Why would you, in an effort to restructure the electrical
industry of this country, shift all of the power that once rested in
many instances in the 50 States' commissions to a central Federal
authority with phenomenal power over the ability of an industry to
operate and to capitalize and, therefore, provide service to the
consuming public? Not one word in the energy bill addresses the issue
of the regional transmission organization. How can we enact an electric
title without taking RTOs into account? That authority appears at this
moment to be sweeping, and with substantial impact on the very title
that is currently by amendment and by process here on the floor in this
energy bill.
Even if we choose to remain silent on this issue, our choice should
be a conscious one clearly expressed and based on a complete record,
and at a minimum after hearings in the committee with full
jurisdiction. That is what we ought to be doing. That is what we are
not doing.
I say it is time we step back and stand down and pass the energy bill
absent this--there is a lot of good stuff in it, and I hope there is
more to come--and do as we ought to do before committee.
In my March 14 floor statement, I discussed why provisions covering
electricity mergers and market-based rates and a refund effective date
give me concern.
Are those important issues? You bet your life they are important.
I would like to now address briefly a couple of the provisions that
are also of great concern to me--the market transparency rule and civil
penalties.
Oh, my goodness, Larry. What are you talking about here? I am talking
about new authority, new power, and real questions being asked that I
believe this title moves. We ought to know about it.
Market transparency rules: I find the title of this section a great
misnomer. In a nutshell, I consider this section potentially
anticompetitive as any piece of legislation we could pass. Yet we are
talking about competitive markets. We may be creating a phenomenally
anticompetitive incentive within the legislation.
The provision says that as soon as practicable, competitors must
release information about price and quality or quantity of sales in
interstate commerce.
As far back as 1921, in the American Column and Lumber case, the
Supreme Court deemed their practice of contemporaneous release of
individual prices and sale volumes by competitors a violation of
antitrust law.
That is the law. That is the ruling. That is the understanding;
therefore, that is the practice. Have we changed it? It appears we
have. Is that anticompetitive? It darn well may be. We ought to know
it, and we ought to know how it impacts the capitalization of the
economic base of this industry.
Economists say this practice allows a cartel to enforce its rules.
Some of my colleagues cry market manipulation at the first sign of
price increases. Malefactors in the industry could not think up a
better scheme of market manipulation than this one, at least that is my
belief.
This section allows the Commission to exempt commercially sensitive
information. If we really mean that, we should ask the Commission to
repeal the requirements of contemporaneous individual price and volume
information. And if not, what do we mean by commercially sensitive? Are
we simply going to allow that to be interpreted by the FERC? Some of
their interpretations took them well beyond the law or the intent of
public policy over the last several years.
The Edwards Dam case: Never did we say in the law they had the right
to take down a dam, but they chose to do it--or to at least establish
the precedent to do so.
I only cite that as an example because it does show the extreme power
and authority of the FERC.
The civil penalties section gives the Commission authority to impose
penalties in electric cases beyond what it has now in hydro cases.
Unlike refunds, civil penalties have no necessary relationship to
economic damage. We need to rest assured that we give this kind of
authority to agencies that exercise good judgment. Here, I fear, we
have not.
I recall the Commission's use of its civil penalty authority in the
hydroelectric arena, and in particular a noteworthy case 10 years ago
known as the Wolverine hydro. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia told of a case in which the Commission extracted a
penalty of $2 million for a project that operated without a license for
a few days a year. I will say that again: a penalty of $2 million for
operating for a couple of days a year out of license.
Is that reasonable? Is that right? It does not sound right, but they
had that authority, and they did it. Worse, the DC Circuit never
reached the issue of whether the $2 million constituted an excessive
fine. The court held that the Commission overreached in the first
place, so the concept of operating excessively in the area of civil
penalties has never been judged. The law said that the Commission's
civil penalties authority extended to violators of existing license
conditions, not those operating without licenses.
We do not need heavyhanded enforcement in the electricity area lest
we scare off investment. Maybe the Commission has changed, but we need
to inquire of the Commission's intent and its desire to use this
provision in the law. The only way you get that done is for the
chairman of the committee to convene a hearing, bring the Commission,
and build the public record: What is your intent, Chairman of the FERC?
How do you plan to use this title? And what do you think your
parameters are in your authority? Is it sweeping? I would suggest that
it is. And I would suggest that if that authority is real, as I have
interpreted it, and as I think the courts have been silent to it, then
do you scare off investment? I think there is a strong possibility you
do. All these points collectively explain my grave reservations about
moving toward the electrical title.
The Senate's intent, usually expressed in jurisdictional committee
reports, is missing. We do not have the Senate's intent, unless you can
pick it up haphazardly and piece by piece through the Congressional
Record. It is missing. And I fear this omission can only be adverse to
many States, including my own, that will be affected by this very
complex piece of legislation.
FERC, most assuredly, interpreted these provisions in ways that would
expand its authority. Few bureaucracies ever attempt to limit their
authority. And FERC has shown very recently that it is loathe to limit
its authority.
My suggestion is, title II of this bill just hands to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission new authority, expanded authority. And
without our effective interpretation and/or committee reports, and the
expression of the intent of this Senate as it relates to the Supreme
Court decision, we have set them free, in many instances, to do as they
would judge is in the best interest.
I need only to reference, as I did earlier, the Edwards Dam case.
That is the one where we gave them no authority in the law to take down
a dam, but they did. For almost 80 years, the Commission never saw fit
to interpret part 1 of FPA as giving the authority to order a licensee
of a hydro project to take down a dam at the end of its original
license term, and for good reason.
As I have already stated, there is no authority in the statute for
the Commission to do that. Indeed, Congress addressed, in 1968, the
very issue of FERC, with attempting to address, in 1999, in the Edwards
case, what happens

[[Page S2432]]

to dams at the end of the original license term.
Congress amended part 1 of the Federal Power Act, added sections 14
and 15, to allow for the issuance of nonpower licenses in the event a
licensee was no longer able to continue operating a power project. In
addition, those sections required payment to the licensee for
surrendering its right to operate the project.
So it was a bit of a shock to me when the FERC ordered the main
licensee in the Edwards Dam proceeding to stop operating its project
and pay the huge cost associated with removing the dam. That is what
they did. FERC was even shrewd enough to procedurally block an appeal
to the Federal court.
So they worked their will outside the law. And here we are giving
them vast new authority, without defining, without prescribing, without
sideboards, in any way, in my opinion, limiting them, at least in the
backwash or the shadow of a court, saying: Regional transmission, FERC,
have at it.
How can we ignore these kinds of actions? We should not. And if we
are responsible in writing this kind of detailed bill, we will not. But
we have.
That is why I am here. That is why the amendment is before us to
strike these provisions and allow the chairman to convene the
committee, deal with this separately, and deal with it responsibly.
With that knowledge, how can Senators be comfortable with what is
available and what may become law in this pending legislation? Does
anyone here today seriously doubt that the recent Supreme Court ruling
in favor of FERC, in its quest to create a national grid, will not
result in serious disagreements between FERC's desire to control
restructuring of our electrical system and the individual desire of
States to protect the important ratepayer policies within their
borders?
This is a major concern of mine. I am not sanguine about all that we
have done and the way it has been drafted. That is why I believe that
clearly all of us deserve the option, deserve the choice, to make the
decision here with this amendment. Do you want it or do you believe
that some of what I have said is valid enough that we ought to ask the
authorizing committee, the committee of responsibility, and its
professional staffs, to openly engage the FERC, and all of those other
issues, to allow us to deal with this in an important way?

There are ample reasons for us to deal with other issues, but let me
give you a couple of those reasons. I have a list of the organizations
that, on examination of my amendment, and over frustration with this
title, have agreed that they believe it is important to support my
amendment to strike: the American Public Power Association, Consumer
Federation of America, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
the Electricity Consumers Resource Council, U.S. Conference of Mayors,
Consumers for Fair Competition, National Electrical Contractors
Association, Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association, Air
Conditioning Contractors of America, National Association of State
Utility Consumer Advocates, Transmission Access Policy Study Group,
AARP, Public Citizen, Consumers Union, Citizens for State Power,
Conservatives for Balanced Electricity Reform, Americans for Tax
Reform, and the Small Business Survival Committee.
Those are ones that have just come to us in the last few weeks, as
they had the opportunity to examine the title, what is in it, and the
amendment.
There is a good deal more to be said. I see colleagues in the Chamber
who are opposed to the amendment. Let me wrap this up with a concluding
statement.
My colleague from Wyoming and I are very committed to building an
energy policy that allows greater production. My colleague was asked if
he would help the administration facilitate trying to bring about an
electrical title on which we could agree. He has worked mightily to do
so. In some areas, he has succeeded. But in the areas I spoke to, I
believed these were areas that he could not go, nor could any of us,
because we simply don't know the impact.
It is important that we look at the big picture, as we are trying to
define all of the players within that big picture, enter the Supreme
Court, extending greater authority or at least clarifying to FERC what
FERC thought it already had. Is it not right, most importantly, is it
not responsible of us, as public policy crafters, to make sure that
which we craft works?
There are billions of dollars riding on this amendment and this bill
and this title. The reality that if we do it right, when every consumer
throws the light switch, the light will come on; when every consumer
touches the on button on their computer, the computer will come on;
that moms and dads working will know that their security systems are on
and that their children are safe.
The reason I mentioned those things was because when you do it wrong,
as they did it in California, all of those things become questioned.
When the lights go down or the lights go out, the economy of this
country shudders.
Let us not be so irresponsible as to craft a title without the
effective vetting of it, without the responsible hearings, knowing
where we are going, taking authority away from commissions at the State
level and resting it in a central all-powerful Federal agency without
clearly understanding its consequences.

What my amendment does is causes us all to take a deep breath, step
back, not rush to judgment, leave in the reliability, because we have
done that. We have vetted it. We have been heard on it. The committee
has operated. The Senate has passed it. Deal with the consumer
protection. But on all of this that is so very critical to the long-
term stability of the electrical industry and the electric system of
our country that we have all created phenomenal reliability on, let us
step back for a moment and take a look at what we are doing and make
sure we are doing it right. I fear we are not; I fear that we lay a
great deal of a very fine industry in jeopardy to central all-powerful
authority. Bad mistake, wrong choice.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak for a few minutes in
opposition to this amendment by the Senator from Idaho.
He stated at the beginning of his comments that there is a lot of
uncertainty, a lot of question as to how various markets will evolve. I
agree with that. There is uncertainty as we go forward. We are trying
to craft legislation that will allow for that uncertainty but will move
us in the direction we know we need to move.
Why is it important that we retain this section, this title in the
bill related to electricity? That is what the amendment offered by the
Senator from Idaho purports to do; it purports to strip out of the bill
the guts of that section, that title II of our energy bill. That would
be a profound mistake for the Senate to go along with. It would be a
profound mistake for the Congress. I hope very much his amendment will
be defeated.
Let me start by saying that the reason we believe--the reason I
strongly believe and I believe many of us believe--that electricity
needs to be addressed as part of a comprehensive energy bill is the
same reason that the President gave us, and the Vice President when the
Vice President issued the report, the energy plan for the country over
a year ago now. That is, that our future supply of energy, the
reliability of energy supplies in the future, the adequacy of energy
supplies in the future, electricity supplies, are legitimately in
question unless we do some things to change our basic laws in this
regard.
We need to recognize that this command and control approach to
electricity generation, which we have relied upon for a century or
more, is not going to meet our needs in the future. We need to
recognize that a market-based approach makes more sense. We are moving
in the direction of permitting that where appropriate.

We did have the lights going out in California. That was over a year
ago now. Some people have forgotten about it. Of course, our economy
has been in a slow period. Folks are once again assuming we have plenty
of electricity and our electricity transmission system is adequate to
our needs, and there is no reason for us to be concerned with this
issue. It would be a profound mistake to reach that conclusion.
Nobody knows how hot it is going to get this summer. Nobody knows how

[[Page S2433]]

much of a demand there will be for electricity, for air-conditioners in
major cities. Nobody knows whether the transmission system we have
today is adequate to those needs.
What we are trying to do with this legislation is put in place some
safeguards so that the transmission system is adequate, so that the
additional generation of electricity that is going to be required for
this country's economy in the years ahead will be there.
One of the points the Senator from Idaho made is that we haven't had
enough hearings on this issue. Let me say, I have been on the Energy
Committee for some time, nearly 20 years. I can't think of anything on
which we have had more hearings. Let me recount for the Senate the
extent of the hearings we have had.
Beginning in 1997, we had a hearing, a subcommittee hearing on
competitive change in the electric power industry. That was on August
21, 1997.
In 1998, we had an oversight hearing on the recent Midwest
electricity price spikes. In 1999, we had a whole series of hearings,
full committee hearings. First, we had one on electricity competition
generally. Then we had hearings in June of 1999 on the Electric Utility
Restructuring Empowerment and Competitiveness Act of 1999, which was
legislation we had introduced at that point. We had hearings on the
Federal Power Act amendments of 1999. We had hearings on the
Comprehensive Electricity Competition Act of 1999. We had six full
committee hearings, according to the records I have, on that set of
issues in 1999.
In the year 2000, we had an enormous number of hearings. My
colleague, Senator Murkowski, was chairing those hearings. I attended
as many of them as I could, but quite frankly, there were more than any
Senator could plan to attend. We had hearings on all aspects of this
issue.
The Senator from Alaska referred to those as workshops so it wouldn't
look as though we were having that many hearings on one subject, but we
had well over 15 of these so-called workshops which took testimony,
which gave Senators a chance to ask questions.
In 2001, we had again a series of hearings, a great many hearings,
quite frankly, at the full committee on this set of issues. In 2002, we
have also had hearings related to the effect of Enron's collapse on
energy markets, electric infrastructure, and investment needs. That was
in August of 2001. We had a hearing, just as recently as February of
this year, on the amendments to the Public Utility Holding Company Act.

So we have had hearings. There is no lack of committee attention to
this set of issues. That doesn't mean the issues have gotten simple;
they have not. But I think we have a good framework here in this
legislation for moving the country in the right direction.
Let me just describe, generally, what the legislation now contains as
we have amended it on the Senate floor. I believe there are some pro-
consumer provisions in this legislation. I believe there are some pro-
environment provisions. I believe there are provisions in here that
will tend to ensure that we have a greater generation of electricity in
the future.
We have a renewable portfolio standard, which many of my colleagues
have not favored. But that is in the bill. We have had three or four
votes on that issue. The majority of the Senate clearly favors
retaining that.
We have strengthened Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority
for market-based rates, including a stronger requirement that FERC act
if rates are unjust or unreasonable.
We have strengthened Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority
to scrutinize mergers and acquisitions in the electric utility
industry, including expanding that authority to encompass electric
utility-gas utility mergers, mergers of holding companies that own
utilities, mergers of generation-only companies. FERC currently does
not have authority over any of these consolidations. We strengthen the
standards by which mergers must be approved to require that FERC
determine that mergers are consistent with the public interest, that
they do not adversely affect captive customers of utilities. That is a
very important provision. We are putting into law a requirement that
FERC make a finding that if a merger occurs, it will not adversely
affect a captive customer of a utility. We believe that is an important
new safeguard. We also require that FERC determine that the merger not
impair the ability of regulators to regulate and not lead to any cross-
subsidy between the utility and any other business.
The latter three conditions are goals of regulation under the Public
Utility Holding Company Act, which is current law. But here in this
legislation we give those authorities to FERC, which we believe has a
better track record, by far, of being a watchdog over the utility
industry. The Public Utility Holding Company Act, which is the current
law, is supposed to be administered by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, and they have taken the position for the last 20 years that
they did not want that authority, they did not believe they were the
proper agency to have that authority. So we are transferring,
essentially, that same responsibility over to FERC, and we are giving
FERC the additional power it needs to actually enforce the provisions
of that law--the pro-consumer provisions--to look out for ratepayers in
a way that they really never have been in a practical way under the
Public Utilities Holding Company Act.
In addition to the renewable portfolio standard, there are a number
of other provisions to give renewable energy a stronger role in the
market. There is a Federal purchase requirement for renewable
electricity, new standards for net metering and real-time pricing, and
access to transmission by renewable resources.

I believe very strongly that this bill moves in the right direction.
There are a lot of things that this bill is accused of doing--this
title to the energy bill--which in fact it does not do. It does not
provide any vast new authority to the Federal Government. It does shift
authority from the Securities and Exchange Commission to FERC, where we
believe it can be much more effectively enforced. The market-based rate
section doesn't grant new authority to FERC to order divestiture of
facilities. That is a charge that has been made.
On transmission, the provision makes sure that all transmitting
utilities are under the same rules. We believe there ought to be a
uniform set of rules for utilities that are transmitting energy from
one part of the country to the other. This is a national economy we are
in today, and we need a national transmission system if we are going to
prosper in this national economy.
The reliability section gives FERC some new authority. I am pleased
to see that my friend from Idaho does agree that that should be
included. The exact provisions of the reliability section--my friend
from Wyoming, Senator Thomas, and I disagreed on that earlier, and he
won that argument. The Senate agreed to his provisions relating to
reliability. That is in the bill. But it is very important that those
provisions stay in the bill and that we not strip out this section of
the bill.
I believe very strongly that Senator Craig's amendment would be a
very major blow to our energy legislation. This is an issue that has
been discussed, debated, and talked about at hearings in the Congress
for about three Congresses now--three separate 2-year Congresses. The
truth is that it is not an easy set of issues to get your arms around.
The Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas, and his staff, I, and my staff
have worked hard to come up with a set of provisions that we believe
does what should be done and moves the country in the right direction.
We had strong support and assistance from the administration.
Everybody likes to highlight the differences between Democrats and
Republicans on energy issues. There are some legitimate, valid, and
important differences on which we are going to have votes later this
week, but this is not one of them. This is an area where we have had a
very conscientious effort, on a bipartisan level, to work with the
administration to come up with what we thought was good policy. I
believe we have done that.
I compliment the Senator from Wyoming for his leadership in this
regard, in pulling together provisions that he could support and that
others could support. So I believe very strongly that those provisions
ought to remain in the bill. Senator Craig's amendment would delete
those provisions, so it is an amendment I strongly oppose.

[[Page S2434]]

I yield the floor, and I know my colleague from Wyoming is here to
speak on this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the chairman
of our committee. I rise also to talk about this part of our energy
bill, which I think is very important. In many ways, the energy portion
of it touches more people than any other part. Of course, everybody
relies on electricity. That is what we are talking about here.
I appreciate the comments of my friend from Idaho, who expressed his
concern. Many of the concerns he expressed, however, are the same
concerns we worked together to try to remedy, and indeed we have made
some changes that reflect the things about which the Senator from Idaho
talked. I agree that the process is not quite the way I would have had
it. I wish we would have had more time in committee. Nevertheless, we
took a bill, and I think we have made it better and we have had it on
the floor, and by no means is it perfect, nor does it complete all the
work that needs to be done in the electrical area. But there is no way
you are going to complete that now.
We need to get started and to be moving. Further improvements can be
made. I oppose the motion to strike, and even though the reliability--
which is important--would remain, I think it is very important that we
continue to move forward with making some changes in our electric
policy.
It seems to me some of the things that have been talked about here
are the very things we have sought to change. For example, in one of
the sections there was originally major expansion of FERC's authority
over State matters, no time limit on FERC review and action. In our
bill, in the solutions we made, we reduced the expansion of FERC
authority, raised the threshold of FERC authority from the review of
asset sales from $1 million to $10 million, and moved more of the
decisionmaking closer to the people.
As to market-based rates, the concern in the original bill is it gave
FERC broad authority to take any action to remedy ``unjust'' rates.
We changed that. We said FERC can only fix those rates if it is found
to be unjust, and there are six specific criteria and three general
criteria. Again, it puts a bridle on FERC.
There were many points the Senator from Idaho talked about that we
indeed have moved toward doing, and that is moving more power and
beginning to get ready for regional transmission organizations, RTOs,
beginning to make the initial move toward having the necessary
transmission.
One of the things that has happened, and there have been great
changes, is we basically deregulated generation. In the past, if a
utility served an area around western Virginia, for example, that
utility did the power generation and distribution. The State took care
of that. We have changed it so there are many market generators who do
not distribute but make it available to distributors, and it has helped
reduce the price to consumers. That is a different situation, and we
have to deal with it.
Since 1978, Congress has been pursuing Federal electric policies that
promote greater competition in wholesale power markets, provide open
access to transmission grids, and encourage development of independent
power producers that now build most of our powerplants.
These policies were developed in a bipartisan manner and embraced by
both Republican and Democratic Presidents. These policies have
benefited consumers. Wholesale power prices have fallen 25 percent over
the last 10 years. Nothing that happened over the past year changes
that. We had problems, of course. We have gotten by those problems.
Nothing has changed that.

The electric industry faces tremendous uncertainty. Investment in new
transmission is lagging, and powerplant cancellations in recent months
raise serious concerns about the adequacy of future electricity
supplies.
This uncertainty is due largely to a prolonged transition to
competitive electricity markets. This transition will not be complete
until the Congress modernizes electricity laws to reflect changes in
electricity markets since 1935. This is not a total remedy, of course,
but this is a movement toward doing what has to be done.
The time has come to modernize our electricity laws to recognize
change in the electricity markets, in much the same way Congress passed
legislation to modernize financial services 2 years ago. Congress has
been grappling with this legislation for 6 years. We have held more
than 100 hearings, as the Senator from New Mexico has pointed out. Six
years is long enough. It is time for the Congress to act.
The electricity provisions of S. 517 represent consensus. They are
the product of many hours of negotiations between Senators and
stakeholders. The Craig amendment would destroy this consensus and
delay congressional action on this electricity legislation for years.
It will take years to put it back together.
I suggest the Craig amendment is a step backwards. The amendment
eliminates consensus transmission open access provisions that represent
a bipartisan compromise that will prevent discrimination, promote
effective competition, protect small transmission owners such as
municipal utilities and cooperatives, and respect States rights.
The amendment preserves PUHCA, a law that is outdated and should be
repealed. Every President since 1984 has supported PUHCA repeal. PUHCA
repeal will provide FERC with ample authority to protect consumers
against inappropriate mergers. State laws would also protect consumers
of electricity.
The amendment preserves PURPA, a law that has imposed billions of
dollars of above-market costs to consumers. Repealing PURPA has been
the consensus for years. We must not continue to mandate that utilities
agree to high-cost power contracts. Keeping PURPA is contrary to
protecting the consumers.
The amendment limits FERC authority to review mergers.
The amendment will make it harder to increase electricity supply by
limiting authority to order interconnections.
The amendment eliminates reforms that will accelerate refunds to
consumers.
I think it is true the electricity industry is facing more regulatory
uncertainty now than ever before. Investment in new transmission is
almost nonexistent, and investment in new electric power supplies has
fallen sharply. For the first time last year, powerplant cancellations
outpaced new starts. No one wants to invest in new transmission of
powerplants until they know what the rules are going to be.
The electricity industry is at an important crossroads. A lot of
critical decisions must be made.
Some of these decisions can be made by FERC; many can only be made by
Congress.
If the Craig amendment is adopted and Congress does not act on the
electricity legislation, the transition to competitive markets will be
prolonged, investment in new transmission and electricity supplies will
fall sharply, electricity prices will be higher, and reliability will
be lower. The electricity crisis in California and the West will
probably recur.

The President has called for Senate passage of electricity
modernization to protect consumers and ensure reliability. The
President's plan to produce more reliable, affordable, and
environmentally clean energy is built on three core principles:
The plan is comprehensive and forward looking.
It utilizes 21st century technology to allow us to promote
conservation and diversify our energy supplies.
The plan will increase the quality of life of Americans by providing
reliable energy and protecting the environment.
We have before us an opportunity to start to move in that direction.
Is it the total effort? Of course not, we will have to continue to work
on it. We need to do that.
We have made some forward movements. Of course, one of the major
parts has been reliability. The other parts contribute a great deal to
making it possible and urging people to invest in the infrastructure
that has to be there, whether it be transmission or generation. I look
forward to a time when we have RTOs, regional transmission
organizations, that can come

[[Page S2435]]

off an interstate highway movement of generated electricity so that we
can indeed have a marketplace.
I suggest we move forward with the bill as it is and not accept the
Craig amendment. Now is not the time to retreat from the advances we
have made in serving the American people with electric energy.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The Senator from New
Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming for
his comments. Let me raise for the Senate's attention one other voice
that has spoken out strongly in behalf of what we are trying to do in
our electricity title to the bill and in opposition to the Craig
amendment. It is something I seldom quote because I seldom agree with
it, but this is the Wall Street Journal editorial page of March 7,
2002. It has an editorial entitled, ``Keep the Lights On.'' It starts
out by saying:

They go on to talk about how they believe FERC needs this authority
to do what it is trying to do. The Supreme Court has indicated they
believe they have that authority. Our legislation, as worked out
between myself and Senator Thomas, does incorporate those provisions.
The last paragraph of that editorial says:

The Bush Administration agrees with FERC, and now the
Supreme Court says the agency is acting legally. Congress
could also lend a hand here and, as part of its energy bill,
give FERC clear jurisdiction over the transmission grid. We
believe in federalism as much as anyone, but a national
economy needs a better national grid.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this editorial be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Keep the Lights On

It is a $225 billion industry, and it's a horrid mess. We
refer to the electric power industry, but the U.S. Supreme
Court just took a helpful step toward fixing the messiest
part of it--transmission--and keeping your lights on.
The High Court ruled unanimously this week that the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, aka FERC, has the power to
force investor-owned utilities to open up their power lines
to competitors. Now maybe FERC can go ahead with building a
more sensible national power grid.
The problem starts with a system of wires carrying juice
that is outdated, inadequate and under increasing stress. The
national delivery grid consists of three major systems--one
each in the East, the West and Texas (which is another story
entirely). But these grids aren't an integrated network. They
connect only through tie lines where power must be converted
from alternating current to direct current and back again.
Until recently the grid handled 20,000 transactions a year;
now it's more like 20,000 transfers in a single day during
peak periods.
The result is chronic hot spots of congestion that can
result in price spikes or even rolling blackouts. FERC
estimates the cost of these hot spots the past two summers at
$1 billion, and things will only get worse: Transmission use
this decade is expected to grow 20% to 25%, but new
capability will increase by only 4%.
Why not build more transmission lines? Well, people don't
want hideous lines running through their back yards, and the
50 states, which have jurisdiction over siting, aren't eager
to force lines on communities if the power those lines carry
is going elsewhere. Second, new lines are expensive and firms
don't want to make huge investments because of the political
uncertainty of electricity deregulation. Third, utilities say
the rate of return allowed on transmission lines is too low.
The current mess has also generated all sorts of anti-
competitive behavior. Since local utilities have control over
their transmission lines, they can favor their own generation
over cheaper power coming from the outside. Plus, the very
possibility of cheaper power makes it less likely that
utilities will build more lines if those newer lines can be
used by outsiders.
The good news is that FERC has proposed a sensible step
toward straightening out this bird's nest. FERC's idea is to
collect all this transmission into four big, regional areas--
in the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest and West--make these
regional grids independent of local utilities and give them
the authority to manage electricity flow across these larger
areas. Some conservatives are afraid this will result in a
fiendish ``federalization'' of transmission. Nonsense. FERC's
plan will make it possible to rationalize service and permit
greater competition.
The Bush Administration agrees with FERC, and now the
Supreme Court says the agency is acting legally. Congress
could also lend a hand here and, as part of its energy bill,
give FERC clear jurisdiction over the transmission grid. We
believe in federalism as much as anyone, but a national
economy needs a better national grid.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I will give my colleagues a little
history and background because I do not think there has been an awful
lot of identification as to the credit and penalty costs associated
with the renewable portfolio standard.
I commend the majority leader for his work, our staff, and the
Senator from Wyoming as well. What I think we have done is, first of
all, we have made some progress. We have debated an amendment that
would have mandated a 20 percent renewable. I believe that was by
Senator Jeffords. We have, I think, by amendment, strengthened the
energy bill, and I think it is time, in view of the amendment offered
by Senator Craig, to again highlight some of the specifics so each
Member's office and each Member understands the significance of what
this renewable portfolio means to them or their own individual
constituents.
Oftentimes we get enamored with the reality that the renewable is
free; it is a renewable. Therefore, it really does not cost us
anything, and as a consequence we ought to get aboard and support it.
Senator Craig's amendment proposes striking the electricity title of
the Daschle-Bingaman amendment, as modified by the bipartisan
amendment, and replacing it with the Senate-adopted reliability
provision and the consumer protections of the underlying Daschle
amendment. I think a couple of comments are in order relative to the
title that Senator Craig proposes to delete.
When the original Daschle amendment was introduced, I was concerned,
as I indicated, about its electricity provisions. They were seriously
flawed. We gave some examples of those concerns. As originally written,
the Daschle amendment would have empowered the Federal regulators to
micromanage the marketplace. I think most Members were fearful that was
not in the best order of the marketplace nor appropriate for the
Federal regulators to dwell in that area.
As originally written, the Daschle amendment would have allowed the
FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to order electric
utilities to divest assets. Further, as originally written, the Daschle
amendment would have preempted the States, giving FERC the authority to
regulate the many aspects of retail matters instead of State public
utility commissions. So again, it would have given FERC broad authority
on many aspects of retail matters, instead of the State public utility
commissions. For those of us who believe local control and regulation
is more responsive than one size fits all, that was troublesome.
Further, as originally written, the Daschle amendment did not
deregulate and allow the market to work. Instead, it had government
pick winners and government pick losers and decide what is in the
consumers' best interest.
In short, as originally written, the Daschle amendment was a return
to the old-fashioned Federal command and control of the market. But we
have come some way since the introduction of the Daschle amendment, and
what we have now is the reality that the Senate has agreed to a series
of amendments authored by my good friend Senator Thomas, most of which
was done by unanimous consent. I appreciate working with the majority
on that.
Senator Thomas's amendments address many of the key problems with the
Daschle bill, including reliability. So I think we have made progress.
Had those not been adopted, I very possibly would have found it
necessary to offer a motion to strike the electric title. With these
amendments, we now have a

[[Page S2436]]

bill which, No. 1, protects consumers; No. 2, it streamlines
regulation; and, No. 3, it enhances competition while preserving State
authority. It ensures reliability of the grid, allows regional
flexibility, and promotes renewable energy and other types of
generation.

One might ask, with the adoption of these amendments: Are the
electricity provisions perfect? Well, the answer is no. They are
better, but there is a lot of work that needs to be done. Where is it
going to be done? In conference or other places, or perhaps on the
Senate floor. I think that is one of the reasons we should take a look
at this matter one more time.
For example, the reliability still contains, in my opinion, an
unrealistic renewable portfolio mandate that is going to cost consumers
more than $12 billion per year and which undercuts the ability of
States to craft a renewable portfolio program that protects their
consumers and recognizes local needs and concerns.
With regard to the cost to consumers of the renewable portfolio
standard of 10 percent, if we take one area of the country, Connecticut
Light and Power, the customers of that particular utility are going to
have to pay another $9.5 million per year. That is going to be split
up.
Florida Power and Light, of interest to the present Presiding
Officer: That is going to cost the consumers of Florida $264 million
per year. That is going to be spread out.
To suggest this renewable mandate is free is not only misleading but
totally inaccurate.
Georgia Power: It is going to cost the consumers of that utility $223
million per year.
Out West, Hawaiian Power, far West: $22 million more a year.
Commonwealth Edison in Chicago: $232 million more a year.
Now, that is what the mandate covers. I could go on into each utility
and break it down because we have that information. So if we recognize,
as each Member and as each office should, the cost to the consumer and
the realism that the consumer is not going to be motivated to respond
to the Members until such time as they see it on their utility bill,
they are going to say: Hey, what happened? Is this a surcharge? What is
this? This is going to be the cost associated with the renewable
mandate.
Again, I think it undercuts the ability of the States to craft their
own renewable portfolio programs and protect their consumers and
recognize local needs and concerns, because this is a one-size-fits-
all.
I would have preferred to have seen the States have the ability to
address their responsibility on renewables, but the majority prevailed
and that amendment did not carry.
In addition, the electric title still does not address the need for
new electric generation and transmission. We saw the California
blackout situation. We saw the price spikes that occurred because there
was not enough power, not because there are not enough windmills in
California. So as it currently stands, the electric title is greatly
improved from where it started. However, it still needs considerable
work.
I have a chart behind me, and hopefully we have a pointer, but I want
to explain a little bit about this cost because I think it is paramount
to the discussion. What we have over a period of time from the year
2005 is the escalating costs per year of renewables. It basically runs,
starting in the year 2005, roughly $12 billion a year. So if we go from
2005 to 2017 or 2018, the overall cost accumulated over 13 years is
about $88 billion. That is what it will cost. It is $12 billion,
roughly, per year.

The red on the chart indicates the penalty payments which will cost
an additional $12 billion. So we are looking somewhere in the area of
roughly a $100 billion cost to the consumers as a consequence of the
mandate of a 10 percent renewable portfolio standard being dictated by
the Congress of the United States.
Maybe many Members believe it is worth that. I don't think we should
have mandated this from the standpoint of one size fits all. Many
States have addressed the renewable matter with their own proposals.
That would have been much better. However, this is what the consumer
faces.
Make no mistake, when the calls start coming in, each Member's office
had better be prepared for an explanation of why the rates are higher
to counter the presumption that somehow renewables are basically
available at no cost to the consumer.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, some remarks were made by the majority
leader last night that I think need to be countered. I will take a
moment to respond to some of the statements he made last evening.
Last night, some members of the majority accused the Republican side
of the aisle of attempting to filibuster the energy bill. Nothing could
be further from the truth. Since the debate on this issue began, we
have disposed of 49 amendments, 21 offered by Republicans and 27
offered by the Democratic side. Countless other amendments have been
worked out off the floor with the majority, and I compliment the
majority leader and the chairman, Senator Bingaman, as well as the
staffs who have been working on these amendments.
Prior to the recess, the cloakroom asked for a potential list of
amendments from each side of the aisle. There were fewer than 50
amendments on the Republican side and over double that amount on the
Democratic side. Republican amendments were all energy related;
Democratic amendments included Medicaid and voting rights.
Over the recess, this side of the aisle worked to pare down its list
of amendments and is reducing it dramatically to a realistic number of
only a handful which should require votes. As I understand, there are
nearly 85 to 95 amendments on the Democratic side of the aisle. The
only filibuster I know of is on the other side of the aisle, being
pledged by Senator Lieberman and Senator Kerry.
I want my colleagues to know, and the majority leader specifically,
that I am willing to enter into a time agreement with the majority
leader this morning or any other time, to secure an up-down vote on the
ANWR amendment which I intend to offer later this week. Again, so my
colleagues understand, I am willing to enter into a time agreement with
the majority this morning to secure an up-down vote on the ANWR
amendment which I intend to offer later this week. I am inclined,
unfortunately, to assume that the majority leader would not agree, but
I offer it anyway.
This legislation is certainly a priority from our side of the aisle.
It is a priority for the administration. I am willing to stay night and
day to get the bill done, get it to conference, and on to the President
as soon as possible. With the issues emanating from the Middle East,
clearly there is justification for moving as rapidly as possible. I
don't want anyone to be fooled by any musing that we are filibustering
this bill. The facts simply do not support this.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will propound a unanimous consent
request in a minute, but before I do, let me indicate I think this is
the 15th day we have been on this bill. Frankly, we are not able to
move to conclude debate on this bill because we have so many Senators
with amendments that they are not willing to bring to the Senate floor
to file as amendments and to call those amendments up and offer them.
We are not trying to keep anyone from offering an amendment, but we
clearly need to begin to narrow down the number of amendments that are
potentially going to be offered on this bill.
Let me make my unanimous consent request and see if we can get
agreement.
I ask unanimous consent the list that I will send to the desk be the
only first-degree amendments remaining in order

[[Page S2437]]

to S. 517, except for any first-degree amendments which have been
offered and laid aside; that these first-degree amendments be subject
to relevant second-degree amendments; that upon the disposition of all
amendments, the bill be read the third time and the Senate proceed to
the consideration of Calendar No. 145, H.R. 4, the House-passed energy
bill, and all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S.
517, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be advanced
to third reading and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill;
that upon passage, the Senate insist on its amendments, request a
conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses,
and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the
Senate; providing further that S. 517 be returned to the calendar, with
this action occurring with no further intervening action or debate.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, on behalf of the floor leader, I object at
this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I indicate for all Senators we will undoubtedly have to
renew this request later today or perhaps tomorrow.
We are fast approaching that point where the majority leader is going
to have to move to other legislation. We cannot devote the entire year
on the Senate floor to consideration of an energy bill where Senators
refuse to offer their amendments.
I do not accuse anyone of filibustering, but I certainly do believe
Senators have been slow to define precisely what they want to offer by
the way of amendments to bring them to the floor and to let us vote.
Senator Craig from Idaho has offered an amendment with which I
strongly disagree, with which my colleague from Wyoming strongly
disagrees. We are going to have a vote on that. I compliment the
Senator from Idaho for offering an amendment and letting the Senate
express its will on this important issue.
We will renew this unanimous consent request later today or tomorrow,
so we put all Senators on notice that we are anxious to see their
amendments and we are anxious to conclude work on this bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to say I agree with my friend. We
do need to move forward. We have someone currently who is in the
process. Hopefully, we can do it in a little later time.
I observe also there are a whole list of amendments on both sides.
This is not a partisan issue. We need to move forward.
Further, let me comment a little on the remarks of the Senator from
Alaska. I certainly agree with him. I am delighted he is in support of
maintaining this electricity title. He does mention he thinks there
needs to be some change in this renewable aspect which is in this
title. I do not argue with that, but I certainly do not think that
ought to keep us moving forward with our general approach in
electricity. If there were to be an amendment--there are amendments
filed that would deal with that specifically. We should do that. But
that ought not be the criterion for us eliminating the things that will
help us move forward with the electric title.
I have had occasion in past years to work quite closely on
electricity and energy. I am very anxious that we do move towards
modernizing the system. For example, we need to move towards more
transmission in a State such as Wyoming where we have the highest
production of coal of any State in the country. Coal is one of our best
sources, of course. However, if you have mine-mouth generation, which
is the most efficient, then you have to have a way to get it to market.
Clearly, there are things we need to do. But, clearly, we cannot
wait. We have to get going and move on and begin to really deal with an
issue that is difficult. I have been around here a while. I talked a
lot about electricity. I have been on the committee. Also, as I said, I
worked on this in the private sector. It is very complicated and for
everything you seek to do, there are different views, and I understand
that.

But as the President said and the administration said, it is time to
move forward and make some progress. There will be other ideas. There
will be other bills. There will be other hearings. There will be other
considerations. But we have the basis here for moving more of the
authority to the States. We have the basis here for making it less
complicated. We have the basis for moving forward toward making it a
more modern system. By trying to do away with that title, we remove the
progress we are making. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to speak on the amendment, but I
ask unanimous consent to first devote 5 minutes as 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.'')
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, Brian Baenig works for me. He does
great work for me. He is on the floor. I might not get a chance to
speak again. Brian is working up some great talking points for me. I
could be more specific. I apologize. I wish to spell out my position on
this amendment.
First of all, I said to the Senator from New Mexico before that I
would try not to get into too much of the sort of flowery oratory where
it seems as if it is insincere. I think he is probably one of the best
Members of the Senate and is very substantive. He rarely speaks without
a whole lot of knowledge. But I don't agree with him about an amendment
that was agreed to by a quick unanimous consent basically repealing
PUHCA. I think it was a big mistake. I would like to see at least FERC
beef it up so we make sure we have some protection against more
mergers, vis-a-vis more acquisitions, and more monopoly power. I don't
wish to see just a few companies dominating these markets. I think it
is very much to the detriment of ordinary citizens and consumers.
The problem with the Craig amendment is--and the reason I am not
going to support it, and I will come back with an amendment to try to
deal with where I think we still have some gap. I know that there are
some provisions in the bill that try to maintain the consumer
protection. But with the PUHCA repeal, I think we have some big gaps. I
would like to come back with an amendment to fill some of those.
But I can't support this amendment. This amendment basically repeals
the whole section of the bill. Albeit, I would rather have 20 percent,
but somewhere around 10 percent or 8.5 percent on a renewable portfolio
for electricity is really important. That is very important for my
State of Minnesota.
I was in East Grand Forks the other day. You should never do these
cafe visits--I am being facetious--because there is no control. People
show up. There might be television. You never know what people are
going to say to you. You might not like what they say. That is probably
why it is the best place to be. It is certainly not controllable.
This one farmer wanted to debate me about ANWR: We should be drilling
for oil. I said: We are in Minnesota. What are you talking about oil
for? We are not oil rich. We don't produce any oil. As a matter of
fact, we are a cold-weather State. When we import oil and natural gas,
we export our dollars. We export over $10 billion a year. But we are
rich in wind.
I was at Dan Jewels' Woodstock wind farm. It is incredible. There is
so much excitement in farm country and rural Minnesota about wind,
about biomass, about electricity, about renewable fuels, that portfolio
about saving energy, efficient energy use, clean technology, small
businesses, more jobs; keep capital in communities and be respectful of
the environment; don't keep barreling down the same old fossil fuel
path; we don't need more global warming.
I come from a State where we love the outdoors. We don't need more
warnings, if you are a woman expecting a child, about being very
careful when eating walleye--a great eating fish, by the way--from our
lakes; or, if you have small children, you should be careful. It is
outrageous--air toxins, mercury poisons, acid rain. We don't need more
of it.
There is a baby step in the bill. Senator Bingaman has done a
masterful

[[Page S2438]]

job of trying to deal with lots of different viewpoints and politics.
One person's solution is another person's horror. People just have
different views.
But for my part, I don't want to completely eliminate this renewable
portfolio for electricity. It is too important for my State.

I can't vote for this amendment. I think it would be a mistake. I
hope it will be defeated. I hope we can do something about figuring out
perhaps just some stronger consumer provision in relation to the PUHCA
repeal.
I will finish by saying we will come back to this. We will come back
to this again if there is an amendment out here for oil drilling in
ANWR. It will be the same issue. I don't even think the debate is
whether or not it is only 6 months of oil or whether or not it is not
recoverable for 10 years. I know all of those statistics. I think it is
simply a matter of another issue, which is, what path we want to go
down. I think we have a different path now before us, a different
future. Renewables is part of it. I don't want to repeal this whole
section because it is too darned important to my State of Minnesota. I
am not just being Mr. Politician. I also happen to think it is too
important for our country.
Every time somebody comes to the floor and says, my God, the Middle
East; now we should drill for oil in ANWR, or do this or that, it is as
if we have no other alternative. We have a lot of alternatives.
Probably about 80 percent of the people in the country agree. I think
the big problem is some of the oil producer interests still have lots
of power.
I do not think we should eliminate the whole section. I think the
Craig amendment is mistaken for that reason. I think my colleague from
Idaho is right to address the problems with PUHCA but wrong to also
eliminate some very good work, albeit a small start that Senator
Bingaman and others have done, and of which I am very proud.
There are two things which are important for me: Renewable portfolio
electricity, and also the renewable fuels part, which I think for all
of us is a win-win.
I will support the chairman of the Energy Committee in opposition to
this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, 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.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Craig
amendment No. 3047 be set aside, to recur at 1:45 p.m.; that the time
between 1:45 and 2 p.m. be for debate with respect to that amendment
prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, and that no second-degree
amendment be in order to the amendment prior to a vote in relation to
the amendment, with the time equally divided and controlled in the
usual form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Thomas are located in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. THOMAS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I call attention this afternoon to an
article that appeared in the New York Times. It is entitled ``The
Missing Energy Strategy.'' I want to quote it. The paper details what
they describe as: Washington's sorry failure to devise a balanced
strategy to reduce America's reliance on gulf imports and give itself
greater maneuvering room in the war on terrorism and other foreign
policy issues as well.
I think the paper is correct. We desperately need to reduce our
dependence on foreign oil and free ourselves from the dangerous
influence that leaders such as Saddam Hussein have over the future of
American families.
Let me refer to the New York Times specifically because they have a
mixed message on relief. They are criticizing Washington's sorry
failure to devise a balanced strategy to reduce America's reliance on
gulf imports.
This chart shows a chronology of the editorial position of the New
York Times over time. In 1987, they said:

Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge . . . the most
promising untapped source of oil in North America.

They further state:

A decade ago, precautions in the design and construction of
the 1,000-mile-long Alaska pipeline saved the land from
serious damage. They are quite specific. They say that
``precautions in the design saved the land from serious
damage.''

They further state:

If oil companies, government agencies and environmentalists
approach the development of the refuge with comparable care,
disaster should be avoidable.

They acknowledge, if you will, that we completed an 800-mile pipeline
from the Arctic Ocean to Valdez. They say 1,000 miles, but it is
obviously less than that. The significance of that is the
acknowledgment that it was done safely. It is now about 28 years old.
It continues to be one of the construction wonders of the world and
continues to supply this Nation with about 20 percent of the total
crude oil produced by the United States. The New York Times, obviously,
supported that.
Then in an editorial in June of 1988, they said:

. . . the potential is enormous and the environmental risks
are modest . . . the likely value of the oil far exceeds
plausible estimates of the environmental cost.
. . . the total acreage affected by development represents
only a fraction of 1 percent of the North Slope wilderness.

Then they further state:

. . . But it is hard to see why absolutely pristine
preservation of this remote wilderness should take precedence
over the nation's energy needs.
Let me repeat that. They say:

. . . But it is hard to see why absolutely pristine
preservation of this remote wilderness should take precedence
over the nation's energy needs.

Then March 30, 1989, they say:

. . . Alaskan oil is too valuable to leave in the ground
. . . The single most promising source of oil in America
lies on the north coast of Alaska, a few hundred miles east
of the big fields at Prudhoe Bay.

They are talking about ANWR:

. . . The single most promising source of oil in America
lies on the north coast of Alaska, a few hundred miles east
of the big fields at Prudhoe Bay.
Furthermore:

. . . Washington can't afford to treat the [Exxon Valdez]
accident as a reason for fencing off what may be the last
great oilfield in the nation.

Here they are in 1987, in 1988, and again in 1989. One would assume
the New York Times would be consistent. As I indicated in their
editorial of yesterday, they said:

Washington's sorry failure to devise a balanced strategy to
reduce America's reliance on Gulf imports and give itself
greater maneuvering room in the war on terrorism and other
foreign policy issues as well.
Madam President, as we look at where we are today and recognize the
tremendous vulnerability this Nation has undertaken as a consequence of
increasing our dependence on imported oil, and we realize that within
the last few days with the announcement by Saddam Hussein that he will
terminate for 30 days oil production from Iraq and then with the
followup activity in Venezuela by PDVSA, which is a government-owned
oil company, that has gone on strike, this Nation is now devoid of 30
percent of its total oil imports.

[[Page S2439]]

If we add up what we get from Saddam Hussein, Iraq, nearly 1 million
barrels a day, plus the production from Venezuela, that constitutes 30
percent--Madam President, 30 percent--of this country's imported oil.
Where are we going to pick up the difference? It is interesting
because the Saudis have indicated they have unused capacity. So the
Saudis are preparing, at least we understand, to make up the
difference. I wonder how that is going to set with the Arab world. I
wonder how that is going to set with Iran, Libya, and clearly Saddam
Hussein.
Furthermore, isn't it rather ironic that on the one hand we find
ourselves dealing with a nation such as Iraq, a nation where we have
been, for all practical purposes, in a standoff enforcing a no-fly zone
since 1992. We have maintained almost what would be compared to an
aerial blockade. We have put the lives of our men and women at risk
since 1992. We have bombed Iraq three times already this year. He has
attempted to take our aircraft down. We have put the lives of our men
and women at risk.
The quid pro quo for that is an inconsistency in foreign policy. On
the one hand, we import his oil, we put it in our planes and bomb him,
and he takes our money and keeps his Republican Guard alive and
develops weapons of mass destruction and aims them at our ally Israel.
He may have biological weapons. He clearly has a delivery system.
Then where are we with our relationship with the United Nations? We
had an understanding in the U.N. Oil for Food Program that we would
have inspectors in Iraq and we would be able to observe just what
Saddam Hussein was up to. We have not had any inspectors there for over
2 \1/2\ years. As a consequence, we are left with the reality that we
really do not know what he has.
Let's take this chronology a little further. We had reason to believe
that terrorism was a threat to the United States. We had some reason to
believe that al-Qaida, Afghanistan, and bin Laden were potential
threats to our Nation, but we do not have any solid evidence that they
were about to undertake those events on September 11, events which
utilized for the first time an aircraft as a weapon.
We see this pattern unfolding where clearly had we had the
intelligence, we might have been able to intervene in preventing that
disaster that changed America.
Do we have the same exposure, the same potential with Saddam Hussein?
If he is developing weapons of mass destruction, as we have every
reason to believe he is, the question is, When is he going to use them
and who is he going to use them on?
Let's take this a little further as we advance the realities of just
what Saddam Hussein is up to. He has announced he is going to increase
from $10,000 to $25,000 the payment to survivors of anyone who, as a
target of terrorism, gives up their lives to take out other lives
associated with the activities in Israel. He will pay that family
$25,000.
That is certainly an incentive for those willing to give up their
lives and make a sacrifice in their religious belief associated with
consideration or payment for taking the lives of other individuals.
What is funding that? Where does Saddam Hussein get the money to pay
survivors of those who initiate an action taking their own lives and
taking the lives of many others? It is obvious. It comes from oil. That
is the cashflow that Saddam Hussein has, and every time we go to the
pump, we are adding to Saddam Hussein's cashflow indirectly because
while Saddam Hussein is initiating the export from Iraq of about 1.1
million barrels a day, it is the fastest growing source of United
States oil imports. So American families are counting on Saddam Hussein
for energy, and in so counting on Saddam Hussein, we are basically
furthering the incentive for those who want to sacrifice their lives to
initiate a terrorist attack such as using themselves as a human bomb.
Maybe I am missing something, but I do not know what it is, and
nobody has pointed it out to me specifically.
Going back to the New York Times, there was a recommendation back in
1987, 1988, and 1989, and today we have a criticism from the New York
Times that Washington is a sorry failure because we have not devised a
balanced strategy.
The current position of the New York Times is contrary to that as
expressed in editorials of March of 2001 and January of 2001, and it is
rather ironic. I will share the current position as late as March of
last year and in January of last year. I quote from the January 1 New
York Times: The country needs a rational energy strategy but the first
step in that strategy should not be to start punching holes in the
Arctic Refuge.
Finally, as this page has noted many times before, the relative
trivial amounts of recoverable oil in the refuge cannot possibly
justify the potential corruption of a unique and irreplaceable natural
area.
They say the ``relative trivial amounts.'' What are we talking about?
Does anybody know how much oil is in ANWR? If we look at this large
chart, we can get somewhat of a picture and get an understanding
because over in the black there is this 800-mile pipeline. That
infrastructure is already in place. It was built in the 1970s. That
particular pipeline, when Prudhoe Bay was operating at full capacity,
was about 2 million barrels a day. Today it is a little over a million
barrels a day. So the capacity for increased oil development is clearly
there.
This is the ANWR area. It is 19 million acres. It is the size of the
State of South Carolina. It is a very large piece of real estate. This
is the area that is in question because out of this 19 million acres,
this is the only area that Congress has the authority to open because
the rest of the area is in two classes. One is a wilderness and the
other is a wildlife refuge. There is 8.5 million acres in a wilderness
set aside in perpetuity, and that is this light color. The darker buff
color is a refuge, and that is about 9 million acres. This 1.5 million
acres is what is at risk, and the New York Times now says the
``relative trivial amounts of recoverable oil.''
We may have some indication of what amount of oil there might be, but
it is a guess because the geologists have never been allowed into this
area and they have never been able to determine through the 3D seismic
what this area might contain. They have estimates based upon 2D
geological advanced efforts prior to 1980, but we do know we have a new
technology that makes the footprint smaller. I might add, this came out
of the New York Times. This is their science. This gives an idea of the
new technology. When one used to drill, they drilled straight down and
either hit or did not hit. With 3D seismic and directional drilling,
the footprint from one well can be many derivatives. One could poke out
here through directional drilling, down here, or down here, pick up all
of these other areas, which makes the latest drilling technology
applicable to reduce environmental damage.

The technology that is used is very different. We use ice drills, and
I will show a picture of that in a minute, but before I do, I want to
take this chart down because I want to reflect a little bit on the
issue of trivial amounts. All we know is that the estimate of reserves
is between 3.5 and 16 billion barrels. That is what the USGS has
indicated, somewhere in between. How do we relate to that? The only way
we can relate to it is in comparison to what we have produced in
Prudhoe Bay.
Prudhoe Bay has been online 27 years. Its production was estimated to
be 10 billion barrels. That was all. Today it is producing its 13
billionth barrel. It is still producing a million barrels a day. It is
still the largest producing field in the United States.
So if we say Prudhoe Bay was supposed to be 10 billion and it is now
13 billion, the reason it is still producing at a high rate is the new
technology that did not exist 27 years ago for oil recovery. So they
are getting greater utilization out of the field.
Back to what this trivial amount might be, 3.5 to 16 billion. If it
is in the middle, it is as big as Prudhoe Bay. That would be 10 billion
barrels. How big was Prudhoe Bay? Twenty-five percent of our total
crude oil production for the last 27 years.
So I did a little press report today on the so-called reserves. One
of my friends from the State of Oregon indicated it was only a 6-month
supply. I

[[Page S2440]]

had thought we had put that argument to rest. A 6-month supply is what
some of those on the other side have indicated is what this reserve is.
Well, okay, let us look at it. If this reserve is somewhere between 3.5
and 16 billion barrels, and let us say it is 10, and they say it is a
6-month supply, then what is Prudhoe Bay? It was supposed to be 10. Now
it is 13. Was it a 6-month supply? No. It has been producing for 27
years, producing 25 percent of the total crude oil produced in the
United States.
This 6-month supply is only valid--and I wish my colleagues on the
other side who want to debate this issue would debate it from a factual
and not a misleading point of view that is promulgated by America's
extreme environmental lobby. If there were no oil produced in the
United States and no oil imported, why, then, it might be a 6-month
supply, but that is not a feasible or conceivable argument.
We have a response to the New York Times that it is a trivial amount,
compared to their former statement that ``it is the most promising
untapped source of oil.'' That was April 1987; 1988, ``the potential is
enormous''; March 30, 1989, ``Alaskan oil is too valuable to leave in
the ground.''
What the editorial board of the New York Times does obviously is
their business. I talked with them about it. It was a rather
interesting conversation, as a matter of fact. They said they have a
new editorial editor and the former one went to California. I suppose
that is a reasonable explanation.
My colleagues should know what they said in March of 2000:

Mr. Murkowski's stated purpose is to reduce the Nation's
use of foreign oil from 56 to 50 percent partly through tax
breaks.

Obviously, they think tax breaks is a motivation. They further say:

But mainly by opening up more tracts of land for
exploration, the centerpiece of that strategy in turn is to
open up the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife for
exploration. This page has addressed the folly of trespassing
on a wildlife preserve for what by official estimates is
likely to be a modest amount of recoverable oil.

Boy, isn't that the way things go. One minute they are with you and
the next minute they are against you.
What were they thinking in 1987 when they said it was a promising
source of untapped source of oil? Or where were they when they said
potential is enormous or risks are modest? Or where were they when they
said Alaskan oil is too valuable to leave in the ground?
Today, they say:

. . . Washington's sorry failure to devise a balanced
strategy to reduce America's reliance on gulf imports and
give itself greater maneuvering room in the war on terrorism
and other foreign policy issues as well.

I ask unanimous consent the editorials of April 23, 1987, June 2,
1988, and March 30, 1989, when they supported it, as well as today's
newspaper saying we are a sorry failure because we have not devised a
strategy to reduce our dependence, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, Apr. 10, 2002]

The Missing Energy Strategy

The events of the past year--prominently, a power crisis in
California and the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11--gave the
nation many reasons to re-examine its energy strategy. Now
comes another: Saddam Hussein's decision to halt oil imports
to the United States, at least temporarily, in retaliation
for Washington's support of Israel.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal earlier this
week, President Bush warned that the recent 20 percent jump
in oil prices could threaten economic recovery. While Iraq
accounts for about 8 percent of America's imports, according
to Washington's estimates, there is spare oil capacity in the
system, and thus there should be no petroleum shortage if
other Middle Eastern producers refuse to follow Baghdad. Even
so, Mr. Hussein's action draws attention once again to
America's dependence on imported oil, including oil supplied
by the troubled countries of the Persian Gulf. It also points
to Washington's sorry failure to devise a balanced strategy
to reduce America's reliance on gulf imports and give itself
greater maneuvering room in the war on terrorism and other
foreign policy issues as well. The Senate, which has resumed
debate on the energy bill, is the last hope for such a
strategy. Admittedly, the prospects are dimmer than they were
a month ago, when the Senate took up an imperfect but
honorable measure cobbled together by Jeff Bingaman of New
Mexico and Tom Daschle, the majority leader. The bill
included a mix of incentives for new production of fossil
fuels, largely natural gas, along with provisions aimed at
increasing energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy
sources. As such it stood in stark contrast to a grievously
one-sided House bill that provided $27 billion in incentives
for the oil, gas and coal industries and less than one-
quarter that amount for efficiency. The House bill also
authorized the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
to oil exploration and drilling.
On its first big test, however, the Senate collapsed under
industry and union pressure and rejected a provision
requiring the first increase in fuel economy standards since
1985. To Mr. Daschle's dismay, Democrats deserted the cause
of fuel conservation in droves; New York's senators, Charles
Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, were among the honorable
exceptions. The only bright moment in a dismal two weeks of
debate and defeat was the approval of a ``renewable portfolio
standard'' that would require utilities to generate between 5
and 10 percent of their power from wind, solar and other
forms of renewable energy.
There are several things the Democrats and their moderate
Republican allies can do to produce a respectable bill.
First, they must defeat any amendment aimed at opening the
Arctic refuge to drilling. Such an amendment is almost
certain to be offered by Frank Murkowski of Alaska, but the
facts are not on his side. Every available calculation--
including those that accept Mr. Murkowski's inflated
estimates of the amount of oil underneath the refuge--show
that much more oil can be saved by fuel efficiency than by
drilling.
Next, they must resist efforts to weaken the renewable
energy provision, while defending energy efficiency measures
that have yet to be voted on--chiefly a provision that would
increase efficiency standards for air-conditioners by 30
percent. The Senate should also preserve a useful provision
that would require companies to give a public accounting of
their production of carbon dioxide and other so-called
greenhouse gases. On the supply side, it can take steps to
improve the reliability of the nationwide electricity grid,
while increasing incentives for smaller and potentially more
efficient producers of power.
These are modest measures, less ambitious than the Senate's
original agenda. But at least they point in the right
direction, toward a strategy that includes conservation as
well as production.
____

[From the New York Times, Apr. 23, 1987]

In Alaska: Drill, But With Care

Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an untouched
and fragile place that supports rare mammals and myriad
species of birds. It is also the most promising untapped
source of oil in North America. Should America drill for it?
What Congress decided, in 1980, was not to decide. It
ordered a long study. The assessment is now in, and for
Interior Secretary Hodel the decision isn't even close:
leasing drilling rights to oil companies is ``vital to our
national security'' because it ``would reduce America's
dependence on unstable sources of foreign oil.''
Mr. Hodel is guilt of oversell. A single discovery can't
save us from increasing dependence on Persian Gulf oil. But
the potential economic benefit of development--perhaps tens
of billions of dollars of oil--outweighs the risks. The
unanswered question is whether environmentalists and
developers can cooperate to minimize damage to the refuge.
The Interior Department estimates that between 600 million
and 9.2 billion barrels of oil are recoverable from a 20-by-
100-mile strip along the Arctic coast. But no matter how
carefully done, development of the coastal strip would
displace animals and scar land permanently. Tracks of
vehicles that crossed the tundra decades ago are still
visible. No one knows whether the caribou herd that bears its
young near the coast would stop reproducing or simply move
elsewhere.
Adversaries in this battle view development as ecological
catastrophe or energy salvation. Outsiders can wonder why
such apocalyptic fuss. An unusual environment would surely be
damaged, but the amount of land involved is modest and the
animals at risk are not endangered species. A lot of oil
might be pumped, but probably not enough to keep America's
motors running for an entire year. Ultimately, policy makers
must weigh the dollar value of the oil against the intangible
value of an unspoiled refuge.
The most likely net value of the oil, after accounting for
costs and assuming a future world price of $33 a barrel, is
about $15 billion.
How much an untouched refuge is worth is anyone's guess--
but it's hard to see how it could realistically be judged
worth such an enormous sum. If America had an extra $15
billion to spend on wilderness protection, it wouldn't be
spent on this one sliver of land.
That doesn't mean, however, that developers should be
permitted to treat the refuge as another Bayonne. Elaborate,
necessarily expensive precautions are needed to contain the
disruption. Human and machine presence can and should be kept
to a bare minimum until test wells are completed. Dense
caribou calving grounds should be left alone until the
animals' response to change is gauged.
A decade ago, precautions in the design and construction of
the 1,000-mile-long Alaska pipeline saved the land from
serious damage. If oil companies, government agencies

[[Page S2441]]

and environmentalists approach the development of the refuge
with comparable care, disaster should be avoidable.
____

[From the New York Times, June 2, 1988]

Risks Worth Taking for Oil

Can Big Oil and its Government regulators be trusted with
the fragile environment of Alaska's Arctic Wildlife Refuge?
Congress, pressed by the Reagan Administration to allow
exploratory drilling in what maybe North America's last great
oil reserve, has been wrestling with the question for years.
Then, last month, opponents' skepticism was heightened by a
leaked report from the Fish and Wildlife Service saying that
environmental disruption in the nearby North Slope oil fields
is far worse than originally believed.
The North Slope development has been America's biggest test
by far of the proposition that it is possible to balance
energy needs with sensitivity for the environment. The public
therefore deserves an independent assessment of the
ecological risks and an honest assessment of the energy
rewards.
No one wants to ruin a wilderness for small gain. But in
this case, the potential is enormous and the environmental
risks are modest. Even if the report's findings are
confirmed, the likely value of the oil far exceeds plausible
estimates of the environmental cost.
The amount of oil that could be recovered from the Wildlife
Refuge is not known. But it seems likely that the coastal
plain, representing a small part of the acreage in the
refuge, contains several billion barrels, worth tens of
billions of dollars. But drilling is certain to disrupt the
delicate ecology of the Arctic tundra.
Some members of Congress believe that no damage at all is
acceptable. But most are ready to accept a little
environmental degradation in return for a lot of oil. Hence
the relevance of the experience at Prudhoe Bay, which now
yields 20 percent of total U.S. oil production. Last year,
Representative George Miller, a California Democrat and
opponent of drilling within the refuge, asked the Fish and
Wildlife Service to compare the environmental impact
predicted in 1972 for Prudhoe Bay with the actual impact. The
report from the local field office, never released by the
Administration, offers a long list of effects, ranging from
birds displaced to tons of nitrous oxide released into the
air.
According to the authors, development used more land,
damaged more habitat acreage and generated more effluent than
originally predicted. The authors also argue that Government
monitoring efforts and assessment of long-term effects have
been inadequate.
It's important to find out whether these interpretations
are sensible and how environmental oversight could be
improved. The General Accounting Office, a creature of
Congress, is probably the most credible agency to do the job.
But even taken at face value, the report's findings hardly
justify putting oil exploration on hold.
No species is reported to be endangered. No dramatic
permanent changes in ecology are forecast. Much of the
unpredicted damage has arisen because more oil has been
produced than originally predicted. Even so, the total
acreage affected by development represents only a fraction of
1 percent of the North Slope wilderness.
The trade-off between energy and ecology seems unchanged.
If another oil field on the scale of Prudhoe Bay is
discovered, developing it will damage the environment. That
damage is worth minimizing. But it is hard to see why
absolutely pristine preservation of this remote wilderness
should take precedence over the nation's energy needs.
____

[From the New York Times, Mar. 30, 1989]

Oil on the Water, Oil in the Ground

Does the Exxon tanker spill show that Arctic oil shipping
is being mismanaged? Should the industry have been better
prepared to cope with the accident? Should the spill deflect
President Bush from his plan to open more of Alaska to oil
exploration?
Six days after the Exxon Valdez dumped 240,000 barrels of
crude into the frigid waters of Prince William Sound,
questions come more easily than answers. But it is not too
early to distinguish between the issue of regulation and the
broader question of exploiting energy resources in the
Arctic. The accident shouldn't change one truth: Alaskan oil
is too valuable to leave in the ground.
Exxon has much to explain. The tanker captain has a history
of alcohol abuse. The officer in charge of the vessel at the
time of the spill was not certified to navigate in the sound.
THe company's cleanup efforts have been woefully ineffective.
Local industries, notably fishing, face potentially
disastrous consequences, and the Government needs to hold the
company to its promise to pay. More important, Washington has
an obligation to impose and enforce rules strict enough to
reduce the risks of another spill.
That said, it's worth putting the event in perspective.
Before last Friday, tens of thousands of tanker runs from
Valdez has been completed without a serious mishap. Alaska
now pumps two million barrels through the pipeline each day.
And it would be almost unthinkable to restrict access to one-
fourth of the nation's total oil production.
The far tougher question is whether the accident is
sufficient reason to slow exploration for additional oil in
the Arctic. The single most promising source of oil in
America lies on the north coast of Alaska, a few hundred
miles east of the big fields at Prudhoe Bay. But this remote
tundra is part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and
since 1980 Congress has been trying to decide whether to
allow exploratory drilling.
Environmental organizations have long opposed such
exploration, arguing that the ecology of the refuge is both
unusual and fragile. This week they used the occasion of the
tanker spill to call for further delays while the damage from
the Exxon Valdez spill is assessed.
More information is always better than less. But long delay
would have a cost, too: Prudhoe Bay production will begin to
tail off in the mid-1990's. If exploration is permitted in
the refuge and little oil is found, development will never
take place and damage to the environment will be
insignificant. If development does prove worthwhile, the
process will undoubtedly degrade the environment. But the
compensation will be a lot of badly needed fuel.
Environmentalists counter that, at most, the refuge will
add one year's supply to America's reserves. They are right,
but one year of oil is a lot of oil. The 3.2 billion barrels,
if found, would be worth about $60 billion at today's prices,
enough to generate at least $10 billion in royalties for
Alaska and the Federal Government. By denying access to it,
Congress would be saying implicitly that the absolute purity
of the refuge was worth at least as much as the forgone $10
billion.
Put it another way. Suppose the royalties were dedicated to
buying and maintaining parkland in the rest of the nation--a
not unthinkable legislative option. Would Americans really
want to pass by, say, $10 billion worth of land in order to
prevent oil companies from covering a few thousand acres of
the Arctic with roads, drilling pads and pipelines?
Washington can't afford to assume that the Exxon Valdez
accident was a freak that will never happen again. But
neither can it afford to treat the accident as a reason for
fencing off what may be the last great oilfield in the
nation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like to have an explanation from the New York
Times, as a consequence of where they were in 1987 and 1998 and 1999
and in 2001 being against it and now they are critical when we are
trying to do something about it. Yet they don't accept the
responsibility of proposing a way to reduce that dependence.
I believe we need to reduce our dependence, free ourselves from the
Saddam Husseins.
We have talked about CAFE standards. Do you know what the debate on
CAFE standards was all about? It was about safety. We could have
increased mileage, but we were concerned about the safety of our
automobiles in relationship to families moving our children. We were
ready to trade off. And we did, by majority vote, increase CAFE
standards with the belief that we would be stripped of some of the
safety features. The indication was we would lose hundreds, perhaps
thousands of lives.
As we address where we are today, we ought to look at some of the
facts. We saw an article that appeared in the USGS about 10 days ago
indicating if we opened up this area, somehow we would risk the
Porcupine caribou. Another chart shows caribou relative to the
renewability of what amounts to a natural resource. This is the caribou
frolicking in Prudhoe Bay. The reason they are frolicking is nobody
shoots them. They become very accustomed to a modest amount of activity
as long as they are not threatened. If they hear the snow machines,
they bolt like cattle on a rampage.
This is the western herd. It is the herd that frequents the oilfields
of Prudhoe Bay. The important thing to recognize with this herd is they
have grown dramatically from 3,000 animals to 26,000 animals. There are
few predators and very few wolves. As a consequence, the herd has grown
dramatically.
The Porcupine herd is in a different part of the State. I will show
the migration pattern of this herd. It bears some semblance to reality.
My critics who say USGS indicated in its report that the caribou might
be affected by oil activity did not reflect on a knowledge of certain
migratory movements of this particular Porcupine herd.
This chart shows the boundary between the United States and Canada.
We can see the northwest territories. This happens to be a Canadian
highway called the Dempster Highway. This is the general path of the
migration of the Porcupine caribou herd in purple. It goes into the
1002 area. The point is there is no fence between Canada and Alaska.
In their migratory path they cross the highway. The highest incidence
of

[[Page S2442]]

the mortality of this particular herd is crossing the Dempster Highway,
not getting hit by trucks and cars. That is where the people hunt. That
is where they take them. They are very easy to get through. Drive the
highway.
This is the Arctic Highway. It is pretty rugged, but it is
accessible. If you are concerned about the effect on the caribou,
consider the number of caribou taken for subsistence and other reasons
in that area. They come in the summertime and calf. The question is, Do
they calf in the 1002 area, the area where we have at risk, the
potential of caribou that might be lost as a result of calving?
We have a chart that shows, over a period from 1983 to 2000, the
general calving area. Green is the calving area. This chart was put
together by the Department of Interior. This is the 1002 area. This is
what is at risk. In 1999, there was some calving in the area; some
calving in the area in other years. The good news is there will not be
any activity there during that time.
Let me show you what the area looks like for about 10\1/2\ months of
the year. It is a harsh environment of ice and snow with virtually no
wildlife activity in this severe time. This is generally a fair picture
of the Arctic Coastal Plain in the 1002 area in the wintertime. This
happens to be a clear day in the wintertime. To see what it looks like
most of the time in the winter with what is called whiteouts, where you
have absolutely no relationship between the snow and the clouds, it
looks just white. Pilots fly into it only on instruments because you
cannot see the ground.
If you turn the picture back you can see what it looks like on a
clear day, which is not most of the time. On a clear day, there is a
difference between the ground and the sky. When it is a whiteout
condition, cloudy and snowy, it is all white. There are a lot of flying
accidents when people lose their horizon and are not proficient on
instruments.
As we consider the debate and recognize we have specialized
technology now--development occurs only in the wintertime--we can put
aside some of the USGS estimate that somehow we are going to have a
significant impact. This activity is only going to occur in the
wintertime. When the short summer comes up--and it looks somewhat like
this photo. This is the tundra. This is a well that was drilled. As you
can see, there are no roads because we use ice roads. There will be no
activity during the time that the caribou calve in this area.

Then, of course, we have the continued debate as to the validity of
one report vis-a-vis another report. The USGS confirmed this week that
the caribou would not be affected by exploration because the House
bill, which is what is before the Senate, only allows 2,000 acres out
of 19 million acres to be developed.
As we debate this issue on the energy bill, even though we have not
offered the amendment, I did want to reflect a little bit on the New
York Times' inconsistency. On the one hand, they supported it in 1978
and 1979, and then rejected it in 2001, and now are criticizing the
Congress for not coming up with some methodology to reduce our
dependence on imports.
If you are going to reduce it, you might as well go where you are
most likely to find a substantial reserve of oil and that happens to be
this area of Alaska. For those who say this is some kind of a pristine
area, where there has been no development of any kind, let me remind
you there is a village there. It is the village of Kaktovik. Real
people live there. There are kids there. This is a little community
hall. There are about 300 kids there. There are people who live there.
They are on the snow machine there. We have some other pictures of the
village itself.
This will give you some idea. This is in the 1002. This is Kaktovik.
There are people who live there. There is an airstrip there, a radar
station, a school. Here are some kids going to school in the morning.
Nobody shovels their snow. These are happy kids, looking forward to a
future.
What is that future? Does anybody around here know what a honey
bucket is? A honey bucket is what you have when you don't have indoor
plumbing and you need indoor plumbing because outdoor plumbing doesn't
work in the wintertime. You and I and everybody else, we are used to
water, sewer, the conveniences. These people have the same dreams and
aspirations. How do they achieve those dreams and aspirations? By a
better lifestyle, by a tax base, by jobs, by opportunities. Do these
people support opening this area? I think we all know the answer to
that. The answer is a very affirmative yes.
Are they entitled to have development on their own land, over which
they have some control, the State of Alaska, or the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency?
This may be a little stark. I am not commenting on the reality. But
this is what a honey bucket looks like. That is what they cost, about
$20. You empty it yourself. It is not what we are used to. But when you
do not have sewer and water, that is what you get. I don't know how
long that has to stay up to make the impression, but that is real. If
you have not tried one, it is not the most gratifying experience. But
if there is no other alternative, that is what you have.
I bring this to relate to those who are somewhat above that, a higher
echelon, who somehow do not consider how real people out there live.
They assume we all live kind of alike and the dreams and aspirations of
an aboriginal people should not be considered in this debate.
Why shouldn't they? They have rights. They have representation. They
elected me to the Senate and I am representing their interests. They
want a better life and I think they are entitled to it. They should
enjoy, at least to a degree of attainability, some of the things we
take for granted.

We will be having an extended debate on this ANWR issue. For the
people of my State, let's once and for all try to keep the arguments
accurate. Let's not mislead people by saying it is a 6-month supply.
That is absolutely ludicrous, and I assume most of my colleagues have
the intelligence and fairness to recognize that argument doesn't hold
oil. Not only are we not talking about a 6-month supply, some say it
will take 10 years.
This is the other chart that shows the infrastructure that is already
in suggests we can expedite permitting if the oil is, indeed, there, in
the volume it would have to be.
I might add, this little red thing is the footprint of what 2,000
acres would be out of this 1.5 million acres in green. This is the
footprint authorizing the 2,000 acres, and this whole area is 19
million acres.
Make no mistake about it, it is a very small footprint in an area
that already has the development of Kaktovik and the Eskimo people who
support it.
As we look at the issue of a 6-month supply--we have countered that.
Can it be open in a reasonable period of time? What we have here--it
doesn't show on this particular chart--we have a discovery here called
Badame. It is a British Petroleum discovery. It has not proven out. But
there is a pipeline from the existing 800-mile pipeline over to Badame
so we would only need about 45 miles of pipeline to get to ANWR. Once
the discoveries were made, and the discoveries would have to be
substantive or we would never be able to afford the development, a
pipeline could be run over there in a very expeditious manner in my
opinion--one winter construction season--and we could have ANWR online
in 2.5 to 3 years.
Let's remember, in 1995 we passed ANWR. It was vetoed by our
President in the omnibus package. So we would today at least have oil
flowing. To suggest we cannot do it safely, to suggest it is going to
take 10 years is totally unrealistic. To suggest with the new
technology it would have a detrimental effect on the wildlife is,
again, without any scientific foundation.
We have some other characters here. We call them bears. We have polar
bears and we have brown bears. The significance of the polar bear--
these are not polar bears; these happen to be brown bears. Grizzles is
their common denomination. These guys are walking the pipeline because
it is easier than walking in the snow. You and I would do the same
thing if we were out for a walk. The point is, these are not disturbing
because there is no threat.
People say: What about the polar bears? We do not have many polar
bears in this area, but we have a few. This is from the Washington
Post. It is kind of an interesting, I guess, comparison, because this
was a new field found over at Alpine. It came in initially about 100,00
barrels a day. That

[[Page S2443]]

is a lot of oil for one little field. The footprint is just that much,
probably 20 acres.
This particular picture down here shows some polar bears, but they do
not indicate where that picture was taken. This picture was not taken
in ANWR. It was taken way over on the Arctic area known as Barrow,
probably 600 or 700 miles west. But the point I want to make with
regard to the polar bear--and it is legitimate--is the greatest
contribution we made to the polar bear is the Marine Animal Act because
you can't take polar bear as a trophy. You can't hunt them. You can
in Russia or Canada, but you cannot do it in the United States; so they
are protected. To suggest somehow that a mild amount of activity
associated with development of ANWR is going to jeopardize the polar
bear--the greatest jeopardy to the polar bear is somebody going out and
shooting them. I hate to be so crass, but that is the factual reality.

What we have here, again, is America's extreme environmental
community using this, lobbying it very heavily. At a time when clearly
we have a lot of unrest in the Middle East, the New York Times is
proposing Congress hasn't done anything to relieve our dependence, and
there is the recognition that now we are starting a debate, very soon,
on the issue of opening ANWR.
I encourage Members to try to sort out fact from fiction, as this
debate goes on; recognizing that America stands to gain an awful lot
from opening this area up.
There would be significant job creation. It is in the interest of our
economy. It is estimated that somewhere in the area of 250,000 jobs
would be created. America's unions are virtually 100 percent behind
opening up this area because they know it can be done safely. They know
it is a jobs issue. Not only are they convinced it is in the interest
of our economy, but America's veterans are virtually unanimous in
support of opening it. The reason the veterans support it is quite
obvious to all. It would forestall the possibility that American troops
would have to go overseas and fight a war over oil in a foreign land.
In conclusion, I hope Members really relate to doing what is right
for America, what is right for jobs, and what is right for the
veterans. I might add that the Israeli lobbying group is virtually 100
percent supportive of developing the Coastal Plain and relieving our
dependence on Mideast oil.
When you start looking down the list of supporters on the other side,
it is the environmental groups. There is no sound science to support
their contention because we can do it safely. It is an extraordinary
resource available for this country. It can be developed in a
relatively short period of time. It can be done without jeopardizing
animal life. For those who claim to be experts, I suggest they go up
there, talk to the people, take a look at it, and recognize the
significance of the dreams and aspirations of those people who have to
depend on this kind of living when there are alternatives that you and
I take for granted. This is the hard reality of the lifestyle of some
of my people who want a better lifestyle, and they expect that the
Senate will protect their interests.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Feingold are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________