[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 44 (Thursday, April 18, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2871-S2906]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001

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

       A bill (S. 517) to authorize funding the Department of 
     Energy to enhance its mission

[[Page S2872]]

     areas through technology transfer and partnerships for fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2006, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Daschle/Bingaman further modified amendment No. 2917, in 
     the nature of a substitute.
       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.
       Schumer/Clinton amendment No. 3093 (to amendment No. 2917), 
     to prohibit oil and gas drilling activity in Finger Lakes 
     National Forest, New York.
       Dayton amendment No. 3097 (to amendment No. 2917), to 
     require additional findings for FERC approval of an electric 
     utility merger.
       Schumer amendment No. 3030 (to amendment No. 2917), to 
     strike the section establishing a renewable fuel content 
     requirement for motor vehicle fuel.
       Feinstein/Boxer amendment No. 3115 (to amendment No. 2917), 
     to modify the provision relating to the renewable content of 
     motor vehicle fuel to eliminate the required volume of 
     renewable fuel for calendar year 2004.
       Murkowski/Breaux/Stevens amendment No. 3132 (to amendment 
     No. 2917), to create jobs for Americans, to reduce dependence 
     on foreign sources of crude oil and energy, to strengthen the 
     economic self determination of the Inupiat Eskimos and to 
     promote national security.
       Stevens amendment No. 3133 (to amendment No. 3132), to 
     create jobs for Americans, to strengthen the United States 
     steel industry, to reduce dependence on foreign sources of 
     crude oil and energy, and to promote national security.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the full 2 
hours be given and the votes occur at 10 minutes to the hour rather 
than 15 minutes on the hour.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I understand I have up to 15 minutes 
to speak at this time, is that correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. No time was specifically allotted 
to any particular Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. I am supposed to proceed on our 
side. As the majority whip knows, I have a hearing beginning shortly. 
The Senator from Pennsylvania wanted to use 2 minutes of my time. Could 
we let him proceed for 2 minutes?
  Mr. REID. That would be fine if the three Republican Senators wish to 
speak.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania is 
recognized.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I want to speak for a couple of 
minutes on this amendment on steel. We had an opportunity to do 
something to profoundly help the steel industry this year. The 
President has done the right thing. He did something tremendously 
important to help steel jobs by creating the tariff decision a few 
weeks ago. But the second piece of this puzzle was to do something 
about the legacy cost, so the steel industry can consolidate and be 
much more efficient.
  We had an opportunity in this bill, because we had a pot of money, to 
be able to fund this program. I don't see any other pot of money out 
there that is substantial enough to meet the needs of people who are 
basically without health insurance now because of the failure of so 
many companies in the steel industry. We had the money. All we needed 
was the will. Fortunately, you had the steel companies saying let's do 
it and make this our chance because the money is here, the will is 
here. The steelworkers passed. Many people here who are advocates for 
steelworkers are taking a pass. The reason is because they cannot get a 
commitment from the President to sign this exact piece of legislation.
  I am going to vote for this legislation, but if that now is the 
standard, I am going to adopt that standard. I will not vote for 
another piece of steel legacy legislation on the floor of the Senate. I 
will not advocate for another piece of steel legacy legislation until 
we have a commitment from the President, before it leaves the Senate, 
that he will sign it. Since that is the commitment that was necessary 
here, that will now be the commitment to get my support and advocacy on 
this side of the aisle for any future steel legacy bailout. You have 
made your bed, and it is an uncomfortable one, and it is not going to 
be a satisfying one for the people who could today be realizing health 
care, could be realizing a restoration of the health care benefits that 
were promised them. But some people decided to take a political pass. 
Go ahead and take your political pass, but the impact on all of these 
workers is profound, and the impact on all of these retirees is 
profound. It is a very sad day for the steelworkers and the retirees as 
a result of the politics being played on this issue.
  I thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, this side has asked me to ask 
unanimous consent that the time consumed by the quorum call be equally 
divided on the unanimous consent the Senator from Nevada just 
requested.
  Mr. REID. I hope we don't have a quorum call.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That quorum time be equally divided. That is what we 
are trying to clear up.
  Mr. REID. I am sure it is OK. I'm not sure I understand.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, today we are debating an amendment 
that, simply put, has a profound impact on our future. This legislation 
is American jobs and national security. And I will say, what could be 
more compelling than these two very simple, but profound and obviously 
important considerations: American jobs and national security.
  Our Nation, whether we like it or not, whether we should have done 
something about it sooner or not, moves on oil. We can wish for a 
future in which there are other options, but it is not here now. 
Absolutely nothing changes the stark fact that now, and for the 
foreseeable future, we need expanded supplies of oil, and we are 
dangerously dependent on foreign sources.
  Our economy grinds to a halt without oil. Our tremendous military 
capabilities require oil. Today, for example, it takes 8 times more oil 
to meet the needs of each American soldier than during World War II.
  Senator after Senator has noted that we are now importing almost 60 
percent of our oil. We all know that the past crises occurred when we 
were half as much dependent. Those crises occurred when other nations 
followed their own best interests. That will always be the case. Our 
interests will not always drive the actions of our neighbors and 
countries that call themselves our friends.
  We know that oil is going to become an increasingly precious 
resource. Supplies are not infinite, but it is not a question of 
whether we have enough oil for the foreseeable future; but will America 
be able to be assured--or can we do things that will make us more 
assured that we will have what we need?
  We know that oil is getting to be a more precious 
resource. Obviously, we have become vulnerable to disruptions. That 
vulnerability has never been larger. But I submit that it will get 
larger in the future because we are not taking any action, in my 
opinion, that either short-term or long-term will change that 
situation.

  At this instant, we see tremendous instability in the Middle East. We 
have been getting at least 1 million barrels of oil per day from Iraq. 
And instability doesn't stop in the Middle East. Whatever it is that is 
causing instability in our world, has moved over into our hemisphere. 
Obviously, Venezuela is another very major supplier of the United 
States. It does not take a genius to look into the cloudiest of crystal 
balls and forecast that there are likely to be immense shortages of oil 
in the near future.
  Some argue that ANWR oil will not be ready for 10 years, while 
experts note that oil could be flowing in 1 to 2 years. Others will 
argue that even with the shorter time, ANWR cannot impact today's 
crisis sufficiently. Sure, it cannot, but it will be better and it will 
enable us to withstand the next crisis

[[Page S2873]]

much, much better. In fact, it might postpone one crisis or another 
crisis in the future. And there is no question that prices at the oil 
pump are now being impacted by this situation that I have just 
described with reference to our dependence on the Middle East and other 
world conditions. Whether you're shopping at the neighborhood gas pump 
or reading the papers, the signs are all around us, oil is approaching 
$26 a barrel versus $18 earlier this year.
  There are headlines such as ``Gas Prices Put Some Budgets Running on 
Empty,'' and ``The Oil Market is Running Scared.'' Those kinds of signs 
are plastered in newspapers and magazines. Right here in Washington, 
gas prices have climbed 20 percent in the past month. Besides giving us 
more control over our own gas prices, ANWR has other far-reaching 
impacts. After all, we are just coming out of recession.
  This is the time when good jobs are especially precious. ANWR oil, 
valued at $300 billion or more, means thousands upon thousands of jobs 
for Americans. It is estimated that the President's whole energy 
package delivers about 700,000 jobs for Americans. Many of those jobs 
are represented by some of our strongest unions, and we have seen a 
number of them support the passage of the ANWR legislation.
  It is obvious to me there will be many jobs in special areas of 
oilfield exploration, and extensive logistic support will be needed at 
every step of exploration and development.
  In one sense, this is a huge jobs opportunity for Americans. These 
are highly paid jobs. They will go elsewhere. They will not stay in 
this country. Salaries will be lost as we become more dependent, and 
without us having the advantage of the ANWR oil activities, the oil 
money will go elsewhere. We will pay more money to foreign countries 
rather than keep it for ourselves.
  We would rush to the floor to vote for any project or program that we 
could put into effect that would produce the kind of jobs that ANWR 
will bring. There is no question it is the biggest job-producing 
activity that anyone could plan during the next decade and perhaps 
thereafter.
  If we import more oil, we are encouraging more pumping from places in 
the world with less stringent environmental regulations. If we import 
more, what sense does it make to ban our exploration and drilling under 
rigid environmental mandates and tell the rest of the world to use 
whatever approaches they want, with whatever environmental damage, just 
to satisfy our needs and our thirst?
  We cannot, by defeating ANWR, mandate the environmental conditions 
that will exist across this world when the oil that would have been 
ANWR oil is produced by other countries in other places.
  ANWR critics need to remember that this amendment limits the total 
footprint of all operations to 2,000 acres, a tiny piece of a gigantic 
area encompassing more than 20 million acres. That means 99.99 percent 
of ANWR is untouched by this development. If the same fraction of New 
Mexico, my home State, was developed as is being proposed in ANWR, it 
would consume an area roughly the size of the Albuquerque Sunport and 
Kirkland Air Force Base.
  That piece of geography in the southwest in New Mexico--the Sunport 
in Albuquerque plus Kirkland Air Force Base--is the entirety of 
property that would be used. It would leave no destruction or damage or 
in any way harm the 2,000 acres. That can be done.
  For those who wonder whether we can drill that many wells and get 
that much oil from such a small piece of geography, that is what the 
law says; that is the only activity the President would be allowed to 
do if either of the pending amendments were to be adopted.
  If the same fraction of New Mexico were developed as is being 
proposed in the ANWR drilling, it would consume the area I have just 
described. There are some who do not believe that, but I repeat, we 
have become such technological experts in drilling for oil that, 
indeed, 2,000 acres will suffice because we no longer drill straight 
down, perpendicular. We drill horizontally so there will be many wells 
many distances from this 2,000 acres, but it will not be visible on the 
surface nor will it impact the surface.
  We have spent a lot of resources--a lot of businesses invested money 
and we invested money in the research to permit that, to get us to this 
point where we can stand in this Chamber and talk about horizontal 
drilling and about a footprint of 2,000 acres that could drain the 
entirety of ANWR, the entirety of the 1.5 million acres or at least 
sufficient quantities to make it worthwhile.

  If we import more, then we are only encouraging more pumping in 
places in the world with less stringent regulations, which I have just 
commented on. If we want to move environmental degradation elsewhere--
which will be minuscule in the United States, in Alaska, in ANWR--then 
shame on us and doubly shame on us if we, with the same set of events, 
deny an opportunity to produce it under stringent requirements as we 
have been referring to for ANWR.
  It is likely that the ANWR supply would replace about 30 years of oil 
imports from Saudi Arabia and about 50 years of oil imports from Iraq. 
Right now, we pay Saddam Hussein about $4.5 billion a year for oil. Do 
we really want to be dependent on this regime? Do we want it to grow 
rather than diminish? If we want his regime to grow, then reject the 
two pending amendments. If we want Saddam Hussein's influence to 
lessen, then we ought to vote in such a way as to permit American 
business, American working men and women to proceed to produce on our 
behalf.
  To me, this is a very easy issue. We should drill in the United 
States using our best environmentally friendly technology under our 
rigid environmental controls. We should drill where we can find our own 
oil to satisfy our national needs and, at the same time, we should work 
to develop new technologies that lessen our dependence on oil and 
petroleum-based fuels. There can be no doubt, ANWR will not solve our 
problem, but clearly it will help solve our problem, and with that, 
there are so many pluses in terms of where the wealth will go, where 
the money will be invested, which workers will get the jobs, which 
businesses will be part of the very complicated drilling techniques and 
apparatus that will be on American soil drilling for oil for Americans, 
instead of part of the international pool produced by some other 
country, the benefits of which are absolutely nil to the United States.
  It is an easy issue because this is an American issue and a jobs 
issue with very little downside. Actually, this should not be an 
environmental issue. This should not be an issue that oil companies 
favor. This should not be an issue that the labor unions favor. This is 
an American issue that we should have come to the floor shoulder to 
shoulder saying: Let's give it a try.
  I submit that just as happened in the Prudhoe Bay activity--after 
lengthy debates and passing by the narrowest of margins, with all that 
was going to happen environmentally in that area, from what I can tell 
and on what I have been briefed from people who live there, nothing of 
significant damage to the environment has occurred--I predict the very 
same thing will occur if we proceed to drill on the 2,000 acres set 
aside.
  I regret, if it turns out this cannot be passed, that the argument 
apparently will prevail that we should let the environment be degraded 
in other countries to produce commodities that we desperately need, but 
we should not produce this product on our own land under far more 
stringent environmental controls. To me it makes no sense as an 
environmental issue.
  To me, it is abandoning hundreds, and hundreds of thousands, of jobs 
and billions of dollars that are American. We are going to be sending 
those off to others saying: You enjoy them because, after all, America 
is so powerful, so strong, we do not need any.
  I believe this amounts to something very close to economic arrogance 
on the part of those who promote it. It is kind of like walking out and 
saying: America is so robust, we do not need to worry about hundreds of 
thousands of jobs and billions of dollars that could be ours instead of 
some other country in the world. It would seem to this Senator that it 
is a very clear issue. I, for one, am sorry we have taken so much time, 
and I do hope when we finish with this issue that we will proceed.
  I note my colleague from New Mexico has been in this Chamber for an 
inordinate amount of time trying to get this

[[Page S2874]]

bill done. I want to say to him, I am not one who wants further delay. 
When we get this finished, I am for getting on with it. I hope that 
happens in a few days rather than weeks. The issue has been joined. 
Both sides have had a good shot at it. Perhaps none of us have 
understood it correctly, but I think we have all tried.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senators on the Democratic side who have 
requested time will be given this amount of time: Senator Bingaman, 10 
minutes; Senator Boxer, 5 minutes; Senator Daschle, 10 minutes; Senator 
Kerry, 10 minutes; Senator Lieberman, 5 minutes; Senator Reid, 5 
minutes; Senator Rockefeller, 10 minutes.
  Mr. President, some of my colleagues have advocated opening the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drill for oil. Those who favor 
exploiting the Arctic Refuge for whatever oil might be there often 
suggest this Coastal Plain is desolate and unforgiving.
  The Arctic Refuge is a very different landscape than most of the 
wildlife refuges in the lower 48 States. This unique Coastal Plain is 
worthy of protection, and that is an understatement.
  I am from a place called Searchlight, NV, a small town in the heart 
of the Mojave Desert. The Mojave Desert is the driest and one of the 
most unforgiving regions in North America. It is also one of the most 
beautiful and awe-inspiring places on Earth. This desert, because of 
its extreme climate, is very slow to heal from impacts people make in 
it. The Mojave Desert is hot, it is dry, and it is fragile.
  The Arctic Refuge, though so different from the desert, is actually 
similar to the Mojave in that it is another of North America's most 
unforgiving landscapes.
  Like the Mojave Desert, the Arctic Refuge is a beautiful, 
irreplaceable and shared national treasure. The Arctic Refuge belongs 
to all Americans and all Americans should have a voice in determining 
its future. Those pushing to drill for oil in this American wilderness 
claim drilling would not have a harmful impact, but we know that due to 
extreme climate the Arctic would be slow to heal from the wounds caused 
by oil and gas exploration and development.

  The Arctic Refuge is cold, it is wet, it is fragile, and it is also 
unique and irreplaceable. The Arctic Refuge is not a wasteland. We must 
not allow it to become one. I am fortunate to be able to return home to 
the Mojave Desert and enjoy visits with my family. That is where my 
home is.
  Congress should guarantee, for the sake of our children and 
grandchildren, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge also remains 
pristine, unharmed and free from wasteful exploitation.
  Behind the misguided drive to drill in the Arctic Refuge is a 
fundamental issue on which we should all agree: America is too 
dependent on oil. We must be honest with the American people about this 
simple truth: America has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves; 90 
percent of the oil reserves are elsewhere, but we use 25 percent of the 
world's supply of oil. America will never again produce all of the oil 
it uses. As long as America depends on oil, we will have to depend on 
foreign oil. That is too bad. There is no question that reducing our 
use of foreign oil is a critical goal for our Nation.
  Improving fuel efficiency in cars would significantly reduce our 
debilitating dependence on foreign oil. If all cars, trucks and pickups 
had a corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE standard, at 27.5 miles 
per gallon, the country would save more oil in 3 years than could be 
recovered economically from the entire Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
ever.
  It is easier to save a barrel of oil than to produce one. Reducing 
our demand for oil means eliminating the inefficiencies that plague our 
Nation's energy use. Our energy policy must promote responsible 
production of oil and gas. This legislation will provide tax incentives 
to do just that, but that does not mean we should drill in the pristine 
Arctic wilderness. Although drilling in the Arctic refuge might seem 
like a solution to our energy challenges and could be profitable for 
oil companies, America cannot afford to cut corners at the expense of 
this refuge.
  The refuge can only supply 6 months' worth of oil to meet America's 
energy needs. This is not a solution. We must find a long-term solution 
because once the oil is extracted and used it is gone. We will soon 
find ourselves facing the same dilemma, only this refuge would be 
destroyed and/or damaged.
  There are solutions. Substituting alternative energies, solar, wind 
and, of course, geothermal, as well as biofuels for fossil fuels or 
using them as fuel additives can help offset some of our demand for 
petroleum and at the same time dramatically reduce pollution.
  As fantastic as it sounds, with the use of hydrogen fuel cells, as 
the Senator from Idaho spoke recently, oil will eventually be phased 
out as a primary transportation fuel. Yes, our Nation will some day 
abandon oil as its primary energy source in favor of natural gas and 
renewable energy. The day is coming. I hope it is a day when we can all 
look back and be proud that we made the right decision to protect the 
Arctic Refuge for centuries to come.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I welcome a chance to speak for a few 
additional minutes on this important issue. In my view, opening the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not good environmental policy for 
our country and also it distracts us from the effort we are making to 
craft a comprehensive energy policy the country can support and with 
which we can move ahead.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the cloture motions. I have 
several reasons for that. One point that needs to be made very clearly 
is one that I think has sort of not been said but has been part of the 
background discussion, and that is that nothing that is proposed with 
regard to drilling for oil in the wildlife refuge would in any way 
reduce the price of gas for Americans.
  The suggestion has been made, well, the price of gas is going up. 
Therefore, we have to rush out and drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. 
The truth is, there is nothing in these proposals that is going to 
affect the price of gas to the American consumer. I think everyone sort 
of concedes that point when asked the question, but I wanted to make it 
very explicit.
  Also, there is nothing in this proposal to help us with our short-
term needs. The Energy Information Agency says that even if we were to 
pass legislation this year to permit drilling in the Arctic Wildlife 
Refuge, there would be no production out of that area for at least 7 
years, perhaps for as long as 12 years.
  We had a hearing in the Energy Committee where the representative 
from ExxonMobil said it would be at least 8 years, and more 
realistically probably 10 years. So there is no solution to our short-
term needs in these proposals.
  I would also make the point, which we have tried to make in several 
ways, that there is really no solution to our long-term needs in this 
proposal to open the wildlife refuge either. I have a chart that we 
have shown before, but I think it is a very instructive chart. It is 
based on information from the Energy Information Agency, which is part 
of our Federal Government, part of the administration. We asked them 
first a pretty obvious question. We said, let us look long-term in the 
year 2020. How dependent will we be on foreign oil if we do not open 
ANWR to production?
  They said, we will be 62 percent dependent. The exact figures they 
gave us show we are about 55 percent dependent this year on foreign 
sources of oil. In 2020, we will be 62 percent dependent if we do not 
open ANWR.
  Everybody said, great. Let us think about opening ANWR then. We said, 
how dependent would we be if we did open ANWR to drilling? They said we 
would be 60 percent dependent. That is the issue. It is a 2-percent 
difference in the year 2020.

  Then we asked the next question: Longer term, what about 2030? How 
dependent will we be in 2030 if we don't open ANWR to drilling? The 
answer is, 75-percent dependent upon foreign sources of oil. This is 
assuming we don't change any of our other policies with regard to CAFE 
standards, with regard to use of hydrogen power for fuel cells or 
anything else. They said 75 percent; we said, if we do open ANWR to 
drilling, how dependent? And they

[[Page S2875]]

say 75 percent. The truth is, their projections indicate that whether 
ANWR is opened or is not opened for drilling and production, by the 
year 2030 it is all gone and we are at 75-percent dependence upon 
foreign sources of oil. So there is nothing in these proposed 
amendments we are going to be voting on that solves our long-term 
problems.
  The controversy, I do believe, has diverted our attention from other 
real opportunities to enhance our domestic energy production. Let me 
recount briefly what some of those are.
  Senators from Alaska made the point very strongly, and I agree with 
them, that a tremendous opportunity for our country as far as meeting 
our energy needs in the future is concerned is getting the gas that is 
produced in the Arctic down to the lower 48 so we can use it. We have 
32 million cubic feet of natural gas that is immediately available, 
substantially more natural gas that is expected to be available if 
there is a way to transport that--a pipeline--from the North Slope down 
to the lower 48. We have provisions in this bill that will facilitate 
the construction of that pipeline.
  We have worked with the Senators from Alaska to try to devise other 
provisions, incentives, ways to reduce the risk, the financial risk 
involved, so that pipeline can be constructed. It is very much in our 
national interest that be done. I very much hope as a result of the 
legislation, we are able to do this.
  Talking now again about oil rather than natural gas, there are 
substantial prospects for increased production of oil on the North 
Slope of Alaska in the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska. There are 23 
million acres of Federal land that have been set aside to secure our 
petroleum reserves. That is the orange area on this map. This is very 
promising. The previous administration leased a substantial area for 
drilling. Those leases were certainly sought by the industry. There is 
another lease sale being prepared for this June. There are additional 
lease sales planned in the future. They all have the very high interest 
of the oil and gas industry. I strongly support going ahead with that 
development. It is something we need to do to meet our needs. I hope we 
do.
  In addition, there is a substantial area of State and Native lands 
between the Arctic Refuge and the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska, 
between the green area, which is the wildlife refuge area, and the 
orange area, which is the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska area. That 
is State and Native land. There is an aggressive State leasing program 
going forward there. That benefits, of course, everyone and increases 
domestic production.
  Even when we get away from the North Slope of Alaska and look at the 
Gulf States, we have today 32 million acres offshore of Louisiana, 
Texas, and Mississippi, that have been leased for drilling and have not 
yet been drilled and developed. We need to figure out what we can do 
through policies and incentives to encourage the development of those 
resources. Clearly, there is a substantial benefit to our country 
there.

  The point I made repeatedly throughout the 5 or 6 weeks we have been 
on this bill--I am losing track at this point--the point I have made 
repeatedly is we need to begin looking to other sources of energy. We 
need to be looking at other ways to meet our energy needs: Better 
energy conservation, more attention to research and development, more 
attention to renewable energy sources. Clearly, that needs to be a 
major thrust of what we do.
  There are provisions in one of the amendments we will vote on related 
to the steelworkers and to the steel industry. The Senator from 
Pennsylvania was here a few minutes ago and spoke to that. Many Members 
in the Senate are sympathetic to the problems the steel industry has 
encountered, particularly the workers, the retirees from that industry, 
the legacy issue relating to the steel industry. I am persuaded this is 
not the right place to try to deal with that issue. We should not be 
trying to deal with that issue as an add-on to a proposal related to 
the opening of the Arctic Refuge.
  I also don't believe we should be trying to deal with any of our 
commitments or assistance to Israel as part of this effort to open the 
Arctic Refuge for drilling. Those are separate issues. There is strong 
support in the Senate for dealing with both of those issues, but it is 
not appropriate, in my view, to try to roll those into these 
amendments.
  This energy bill has got enough on it and enough issues to deal with 
without adding these provisions. Clearly, they complicate the issue 
substantially and do not hold out a real prospect for solving either of 
those problems.
  There is a lot of talk about jobs. I believe sincerely this energy 
bill overall, if we can pass it, if we can get it to the President for 
signature, will create substantial jobs in this country. We will do 
that in a variety of ways. We will create substantial jobs if we 
incentivize construction of the gas pipeline from the North Slope down 
to the lower 48. We will create substantial jobs if we are able to move 
ahead with more use of renewable energy throughout our country. That 
will create substantial jobs. There are all sorts of provisions in the 
bill that will create jobs. I believe it is far better in the job 
creation arena than the bill passed by the House of Representatives 
last summer.
  I conclude by saying I hope Senators will vote against cloture on 
these two amendments so we can move on to some other issues and 
conclude action on this very important energy bill.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. How much time remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty minutes remain to the Senator from 
Alaska.
  Mr. REID. And Senator Daschle's time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-three minutes.
  Mr. REID. I make a unanimous consent request. I suggested earlier 
what we would do in our time remaining: Senator Daschle, 10 minutes; 
Senator Rockefeller, 10 minutes; Senator Kerry, 10 minutes; Senator 
Lieberman, 5 minutes; and Senator Boxer, 5 minutes; and I ask that be 
in the form of a unanimous consent request for how the time is 
distributed on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my intention to try to follow a 
similar pattern on our side. I reserve 10 minutes at the end at my 
discretion as manager on this side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield to Senator Stevens such time as he needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am delighted the Senator from New 
Mexico has indicated his support for the Alaska natural gas pipeline. I 
hope we can proceed during this Congress to carry out that commitment.
  The gas we will transport is from State land, not Federal land. 
Obviously, we are going to have to have some changes in Federal law to 
permit the construction of the largest project in the history of man. 
It will take some incentives. I tried to provide some incentives to 
that through the second-degree amendment. That is obviously not going 
to be adopted by the Senate.
  I will speak for a moment about the defeatist attitude of the 
Democratic Party. The Senator from New Mexico has said we have 75-
percent dependence on foreign oil coming. Why? We closed all the coast 
lines in the United States to oil and gas exploration--except the gulf 
and a little bit in Alaska on State lands. Those are State lands where 
oil and gas drilling and production take place. The Federal lands, 
because of the demands of the Sierra Club and other radical 
environmental organizations, are closed to oil and gas leasing, almost. 
The administration is going to try to reopen some of them in the Rocky 
Mountain area. We will see how the Democratic Party reacts to that. But 
as a matter of fact, the Clinton administration closed NPRA. The 
Senator from New Mexico talks about opening it. It is closed. We tried 
to open it several times.

  I welcome the attitude that we are going to open up the reserve set 
aside for Alaska in 1925 by President Coolidge to try to make up for 
the Teapot Dome scandal. It has been closed since that time. We had one 
well drilled during the war by the Navy. By the way, it was a pretty 
good well. It was very shallow, but it was good.
  The Sierra Club and all the radical organizations have brought about 
the

[[Page S2876]]

closure of offshore drilling, the closure of Federal lands drilling, 
the closure of Alaska lands now. What more do they want? If we follow 
this defeatist attitude that we are going to face 75-percent imports in 
the future as far as our oil energy is concerned, it is going to 
happen. It will not happen if we decide we are going to use our 
technology base to do what President Truman wanted to do, go offshore 
and research the seabed. Two-thirds of the world's surface is covered 
by water and there is very little production in that water around the 
United States. Half of the Continental Shelf--probably even more than 
that--off the United States is off our State. Not one well has been 
drilled out there. Why? The environmental organizations oppose it.
  We will have 75-percent dependence on foreign oil if the Democratic 
Party has its way. It is part of the platform of the Democratic Party 
to oppose drilling on these lands. So it is a political issue, and it 
is high time we faced up to it.
  We think we have a right to transport that gas. As a matter of fact, 
in the State of the Senator from New Mexico, the Indians in his State 
can drill on their lands. They are producing gas on their lands. They 
are producing oil on their lands. What happens in our State? They 
cannot drill on privately owned Native land, Eskimo land that is within 
the 1002 area in the Alaska Coastal Plain, the 1.5 million acres. There 
are 92,000 acres owned by those Eskimos, and they cannot drill. Why? 
Because the administration at the time they got the lands, the Clinton 
administration, demanded that they agree to a provision that they could 
not drill until we were able to drill within the 1002 area itself.
  Talk about discrimination. Not only is the State discriminated 
against but our Natives are discriminated against. We are going to have 
an amendment before we are through with this bill. That amendment will 
be to allow the Alaskan Eskimos to drill on their own land, to stop 
this discrimination against our people. It is bad enough to 
discriminate against the State, but to discriminate against Alaskan 
Eskimos who own that land is just atrocious as far as I am concerned.
  I welcome the support of the Senator from New Mexico, as I said, for 
the Alaska natural gas pipeline. It is going to take some incentives. 
If we want that gas down here--the equivalent, by the way, of a million 
barrels of oil a day--if we want that gas down here before 2030, 2050--
when they talk about the real demand for energy--if we want it, even 
then, we are going to have to start now. If we started right now to 
build the Alaska natural gas pipeline it would be finished in 2011; 9 
years minimum. That is nonsense.
  It is nonsense that we cannot drill on our lands. It is nonsense they 
will not keep the commitment that two famous Democratic Senators made.
  I have learned a lesson from this in the last 21 years and that is 
this, something that every Senator should know: Do not depend on future 
Congresses, particularly future Senators, to keep commitments that were 
made by a previous Congress and President. In 1980, the commitment was 
made that this area would be subject to drilling, if it did not--if the 
environmental impact showed there was not going to be permanent harm to 
the area as far as the fish and wildlife was concerned. We relied upon 
that commitment in December of 1980 to go ahead with this whole idea of 
withdrawing 104 million acres. We relied on a commitment made by an 
administration and Congress, in law, that we would be able to do that.
  In subsequent Congresses the House has carried it out, strangely 
enough. The Senate has not--except for twice when we sent it down to 
the President and President Clinton vetoed it.
  So if you want a continuum of what is causing the 75-percent 
dependence upon foreign oil that the majority says is inevitable, then 
follow the Democratic Party. Follow them to dependence upon foreign 
oil, the exporting of U.S. jobs, and the total dependence upon the 
philosophies of foreign nations in order to keep our Nation going.
  Just think of that. We are saying it is inevitable, in order to keep 
this country going--this country, the greatest economic engine the 
world has ever seen--we have to be totally dependent upon foreign oil; 
75 percent is total as far as I am concerned.
  The Senator from New Mexico says this will not affect the price of 
gas. How would you like to make a bet? Do you want to make a little 
bet? I bet before the end of the year, the price of gas is up again 25 
cents at least. As a matter of fact, as the trendline goes up on 
dependence on foreign oil, the price is going to go up. That happens 
every time we have seen that line go up in terms of dependence on 
foreign oil.
  If you do not believe that, go back and look at the price of gas 
before the embargo in the 1970s and then see that as that embargo was 
lifted, we increased our dependence on foreign oil. It was less than 35 
percent in 1973, and it is now 57 percent, they say. If it is going up 
to 75 percent, just follow the trendline of the price of gasoline.
  It may be so. As a matter of fact, it is so. If we pass our 
amendment, it would not change the price of gas now, but it will change 
the price of gas in 6 years. We will be more dependent upon foreign oil 
in 6 years if we do not open up the Arctic Plain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield to the Senator such time as he wishes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Alaska. I 
congratulate him. But I especially want to congratulate the junior 
Senator from Alaska for his leadership on this issue. I have been here 
a long time--some would say too long--but I have seen few people who 
have done a better job in trying to promote what I perceive to be the 
public interest than Senator Murkowski.
  Today, we are going to vote on cloture on ANWR. I think it is clear 
that we do not have the votes, and there are many reasons for that. But 
no one can fault the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski, because no one 
has done more to put together a coalition, which now involves labor 
unions, involves people who are concerned about Israel and the Middle 
East, and involves people who are concerned about the national security 
implications of not producing energy here at home to turn the wheels of 
industry and agriculture, energy that can be produced efficiently, and 
that can be produced in an environmentally sound way.
  Because we are not producing energy at home, we are becoming 
dependent on foreign oil, and the national defense and security 
implications and the foreign policy implications are overwhelming.
  I could understand opposition to opening up ANWR if a realistic case 
could be made that it will not produce this energy or create 750,000 
jobs in the process. By the way, that is why organized labor is for 
opening ANWR, in my opinion--that and their legitimate concerns as 
citizens about national security.
  If the price we had to pay to produce this energy was the rape and 
pillage of the land, and massive environmental destruction, and if we 
will create something that looked like Azerbaijan in the wake of the 
efforts of the Soviets to exploit oil and gas there, then I think we 
could have a legitimate debate on the floor of the Senate about this. 
Under those circumstances, I think the case we are trying to make here 
would be a lot harder. But the amazing thing is no one has proposed 
such a program. What is astounding to me is how extreme the 
environmental movement in America has gotten in relation to how modest 
the proposal that we are getting ready to defeat is.
  Let me remind people of these numbers.
  There are 319.7 million acres in Alaska. Some people claim it is the 
largest State in the Union. There could be a debate about that.
  When you look at the ANWR area where there is the potential for oil 
and gas production, there are 20 million acres of land in that area. 
That's just 20 million of 319.7 million.
  In 1980, Congress decided to reduce the area open for production from 
20 million to 1.5 million acres. But the proposal of Senator Murkowski 
is so modest that it says let us reduce that even further, down to only 
2,000 acres.
  So we have now come from 319.7 million acres to 20 million to 1.5 
million to the point where we are talking about a relatively tiny 
footprint for oil and gas exploration of 2,000 acres.
  Now, what kind of technology will be employed? Well, we are talking 
about

[[Page S2877]]

the most expensive technology on the planet being used to assure that 
even in the 2,000 acres, we have a very modest environmental impact.
  In addition to that, while we would allow the potential 
for production in 2,000 acres out of 319.7 million acres under the most 
restrictive covenant for oil and gas exploration in American history, 
still, under the Murkowski amendment as offered, you couldn't engage in 
exploration even on the 2,000 acres unless the President of the United 
States made a decision through a Presidential finding that the national 
security interests of the United States dictated that such action be 
taken.

  The provision before us bans export of the oil assuring that every 
bit of it will be used in the United States.
  It has other provisions related to Israel and its special 
circumstance in terms of oil needs.
  Finally, to compensate for 2,000 acres that will have minimal 
disruption if a national security waiver permits production to occur, 
the amendment before us reclassifies 1.5 million acres in Alaska as 
wilderness.
  I think if you really thought this was some kind of rational debate 
about the public interest, you would have to ask yourself: How in the 
world could anybody be opposed to this amendment? When you are talking 
about being responsible and moderate, how could you do more than this 
amendment does? Yet this innocuous proposal has attracted enormous 
opposition. The opposition basically boils down to the fact that we 
have gotten into a political situation where vested political interests 
are dictating the outcome of the debate. God bless them because some of 
them make up the interests of America, and they have every right to be 
extreme because that is what having rights is about. A news article 
from the New York Times which somebody read to me this morning reports 
that if we could stop global warming in exchange for drilling in ANWR, 
the environmental groups in this country would be against it. How can 
that be?
  It can be because this has become a debate about symbolism, not 
energy or the environment. This has become a debate about fundraising 
and the kind of extremism that creates political causes and that has 
political impact but that in no way reflects the public interest.
  How can it not be in the public interest to take 2,000 acres in a 
State that has 319.7 million acres, and on the most environmentally 
responsible basis, over the next 30 years, produce more oil than we are 
importing from Saudi Arabia?
  To offset any negative impact we might have on these 2,000 acres, we 
put 1.5 million additional acres into the wildlife refuge.
  How in the world can such a proposal be controversial? Why don't we 
have 100 votes in favor of it?
  Is no one awake to the fact that we have problems in the Middle East, 
that we have a growing dependence on oil, that there are profound 
national security implications of producing as much oil as we will 
import from Saudi Arabia in the next 30 years on 2,000 acres of land in 
a State with 317 million acres?
  I know I am not going to sway anyone's vote, but I want people to 
understand this has become a debate not about America's interest, but 
about political symbols.
  Opposition to this amendment cannot be supported on the basis of 
rationality. It cannot be based on any realistic weighing of the 
national interest. It can only be based on blind loyalty to symbolism.
  When you get into these extreme positions where you are putting 
political symbolism in front of America's interest, I don't think you 
are serving the public purpose.
  I remind my colleagues that when Greeks went to ask advice from the 
Oracle, they found this inscription above the gate at Delphi: 
``Moderation In All Things.''
  I believe this is an issue where we need to step back and ask 
ourselves: to whom do we owe allegiance? What are we trying to promote? 
Whose interest are we trying to advance?
  I think when one special interest group becomes so demanding as to 
jeopardize national security and the public interest to try to make a 
point for them, when symbolism becomes more important than the security 
of America, then something is badly wrong.
  I just wanted to make that point.
  I am going to vote with Senator Murkowski. I see that he has come 
back to the Chamber.
  I just want to say this: I have watched him debate. I have been 
involved in many of them. But I have not seen anybody do a better job 
than Senator Murkowski has done on this issue. I have never seen a 
better political base built for an issue.
  If we were having a rational debate in this body about a proposal 
with a broad spectrum of political support--which it has from labor 
unions, to people concerned about peace in the Middle East, to national 
security, to working people, and to people who want to be able to use 
their cars and trucks, and who want to turn the wheels of industry and 
agriculture with American-produced energy--this vote would be 100 to 
nothing. It is simply a measure of how extreme this issue has become 
that Senator Murkowski is not going to prevail on this issue.

  Finally, let me say we are going to have two votes to bring to an end 
debate on this issue. I am going to vote in favor of the ending debate 
on the Murkowski amendment. We deserve an up-or-down vote on this 
amendment. I do not know if it will be this year or next year or 
sometime in the future, but I am confident that the public interest 
will ultimately be served. Someday we will produce this energy. 
Someday, when we have felt pain from not acting rationally, that 
rationality and the public interest will override the wishes of extreme 
special interests. The sooner we can do it the better. We ought to do 
it now. Even if we started preparing today, it would take years to get 
the oil and gas in ANWR. I think is an indication that time is wasting, 
and that we need to get on with this.
  We will also have a cloture vote this morning on the so-called steel 
legacy issue. I intend to vote against cloture. I am adamantly opposed 
to that amendment. It is a bad idea whose time has not come. I would 
like to remind my colleagues that the majority of the members of the 
Steel Manufacturers Association oppose the amendment because it rewards 
inefficient producers and those who granted benefits they could not pay 
for at the expense of efficient producers.
  Secondly, I think it is important to note that some of these steel 
companies are still in business and have roughly 200,000 retirees. If 
we are going to come in and start paying benefits for operating 
companies that are irresponsible in promising benefits that they cannot 
afford, then we are going to encourage other companies act in a similar 
manner.
  I think it is very important we recognize that by doing this, we are 
adding to the problem in the steel industry by keeping excess capacity 
in business when everybody knows capacity should be reduced, not 
maintained. I think spending $7 billion to bail out these steel 
companies is a misuse of taxpayer money.
  Finally, all over the world today, socialist countries are trying to 
get out of the business of bailing out inefficient, feather-bedded 
companies. All over the world, in every socialist country on Earth, 
people are trying to undo this stuff. Yet, here we are, in the United 
States of America, trying to get into the business of subsidizing 
companies that overpromise and underdeliver.
  It is a very bad idea. It richly deserves to be killed, and I am 
hopeful it will be.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Who yields time?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the manager of this bill, Senator Bingaman, 
will use up to 3 minutes, if necessary, at this time. I yield that to 
him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in response to some of the comments that 
have been made, I want to make two points, very simply.
  First of all, the projections for the extent of our dependence on 
foreign oil in the future are not my projections. They are the 
projections of the current administration, the Bush administration, the 
Department of Energy, the Energy Information Agency within the 
Department of Energy. They have said if we do not change policies in 
some

[[Page S2878]]

other significant respects, we will be 75-percent dependent upon 
foreign sources of oil by the year 2030 if ANWR is opened, and we will 
be 75-percent dependent on foreign sources of oil if ANWR is not 
opened. So that is the point I was trying to make.
  The second issue I want to clarify--I believe Senator Stevens raised 
the question or disputed that the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska, 
had been opened for drilling. My information, which I believe is 
accurate, is that the Bureau of Land Management held a sale, an oil and 
gas lease sale in May of 1999, during the Clinton administration. It 
generated a high level of industry interest. There were 3.9 million 
acres that were offered for lease at that time. In fact, 132 leases 
were issued covering 867,000 acres. The bonus bids on that lease sale 
were $104.6 million.
  So there has been a significant lease sale in the National Petroleum 
Reserve, Alaska.
  I know there is another lease sale scheduled for June of this year, 
which I support, with which Secretary Norton is going forward. And I 
know there are plans being made for even a more substantial lease sale 
in the next few years. So there certainly is the opportunity for oil 
and gas development in those areas.
  I have a press release dated May of last year, 2001, saying Phillips 
Alaska, a wholly owned subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum, and Anadarko 
Petroleum have announced the first discoveries in the National 
Petroleum Reserve, Alaska, since the area was reopened for exploration 
in 1999. So there has been real success for developing oil and gas in 
that area.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time under 
my control be changed to allow Senator Boxer 7 minutes, Senator 
Rockefeller 9 minutes, and Senator Kerry 9 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen minutes 22 seconds.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senators Bingaman and Reid for 
their generosity in giving me this 7 minutes of time. I have been 
trying to get some time on this matter for quite a while.
  Mr. President, I am not going to get into a number of details today. 
What I really want to do is paint more of a broad-brush argument as to 
why it is so important to preserve this beautiful area.
  Some 2 years ago, I sent my eyes and ears, my top environmental 
adviser on the Arctic, Sara Barth, who is in the Chamber today, to the 
area in my stead. I think it is fair to say that she came back a 
changed person because of what she had seen because she really, truly 
was stunned by the beauty of this area.
  Many times in the debate, when people have been talking about this 
area, it has sounded as though this area is not really a beautiful 
area. So what I thought I would do today is put in the Record 
information that has been taken off the Web site of the Bush 
administration's Interior Department. This was given to me by Chairman 
Bingaman. I think it is a good way for me to lead off.
  It is not Barbara Boxer's words or the Sierra Club's words or the 
wildlife people's words. It is the Bush administration's words. If you 
go on their Web site, you get it. It says:

       The Unique Conservation Values of Arctic Refuge.
       The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the largest unit in 
     the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge is America's 
     finest example of an intact, naturally functioning community 
     of arctic/subarctic ecosystems. Such a broad spectrum of 
     diverse habitats occurring within a single protected unit is 
     unparalleled in North America, and perhaps in the entire 
     circumpolar north.
       When the Eisenhower Administration established the original 
     Arctic Range in 1960, Secretary of Interior Seaton described 
     it as--

  And this is a quote from Eisenhower's Secretary of Interior--

     one of the world's great wildlife areas. The great diversity 
     of vegetation and topography in this compact area, together 
     with its relatively undisturbed condition, led to its 
     selection as . . . one of our remaining wildlife and 
     wilderness frontiers.

  I think nothing says it better than the words of our own former 
Interior Secretary under President Eisenhower. And this is from the Web 
site of Interior Secretary Norton today.
  I want to show a few beautiful photographs. I know the Senators from 
Alaska live in a magnificent place. Some of these photos are just 
unbelievable.
  Here in this photo we see an area in the Coastal Plain, the 1002 area 
of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is a photograph by Pamela 
Miller. The incredible colors are stunning.
  We will go to the next photo because we have so little time and so 
many photos.
  This is a beautiful picture of a songbird that you can find in the 
refuge. It makes clear why these words are up on the Web site of our 
own Interior Department.
  This is a magnificent photograph as well.
  Here is a polar bear, which I know we have seen walking across a 
pipeline, but here it is walking in its natural surroundings--very 
beautiful. Here are the caribou. I think you have seen a lot of this 
before. Here are the musk oxen--quite beautiful.
  I have another beautiful landscape to show of another view of this 
magnificent area. We do have drilling in a national wildlife refuge 
there in Alaska. Everyone says there is no damage done. Remember the 
pictures I just showed. Now look at how it is all left with these 
floating barrels. It is a pretty devastated site.
  I think you need to come back to the question of what is a refuge. 
You could look it up in the dictionary: a place to find comfort and 
peace and tranquility. Therefore, it seems to me it doesn't make any 
sense to disturb a refuge. When you do this, if you go this way and 
drill there, we are going to disturb it.
  Someone sent me a cartoon. I think it was a constituent. It never ran 
in the newspaper, but it basically says: The George Bush Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge. It shows that cars are lapping up the oil on 
the plain. And it says:

       Where S.U.V.s are free to roam without fear of regulation.

  That is somebody's sense of humor about what we are going to do to 
the wildlife refuge. I hope we don't. I hope we hold the line.
  It is very fair for people who don't agree with me on this to ask: 
What is your solution? I really want to talk about that.
  We know when something isn't a solution. In my opinion, the amount of 
oil there, from everything we know, is hardly going to make a dent. 
Here is a chart that shows that. We have a chart that shows the 
projected consumption of U.S. citizens of oil. Right down here on this 
little black line is the amount of oil we will get, 3.2 billion barrels 
over 50 years.
  I have another chart that tells the tale. You save 2.38 billion 
barrels more oil from the Arctic if you have just better tires. With 
just better tires, you get more oil. And then if you close the SUV 
loophole, which is really not that hard to do--they are going to have 
hybrid SUVs coming up shortly--you save about 10 billion barrels. And 
if you just go up to 35 miles per gallon--Senator Kerry led us so well 
on that issue; I think we made a huge mistake--we save 18 billion 
barrels.
  So look at this. Out of all these options, you get more oil if you 
just use better tires. Some of the people who want to drill seem to 
oppose a lot of these other easy ways to govern.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). The time of the Senator from 
California has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would like to sum up in 1 more minute, if I might.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will go to the Los Angeles Times editorial which I 
thought was right on point. They say:

       Wilderness is or it is not. There is no mostly wilderness 
     with just a little bit of development.

  It continues: No matter what Dick Cheney says, U.S. energy security 
does not depend on drilling for fuel in the Arctic refuge. The Alaskan 
oil would not come on line for 10 years. It goes through that.
  It says: The fastest way to gain more energy security is to use less 
oil and

[[Page S2879]]

use it more efficiently. It shows that better tires alone will give you 
more oil than lies in the refuge.
  Then it ends up:

       The nation doesn't need a muscle-bound energy policy. It 
     needs a smart one--one that does not rely so heavily on 
     fossil fuels and fossil thinking.

  The choice is clear. I respect my friends from the other side on this 
debate, but I hope we will defeat the proposal to open the refuge.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who 
yields time?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself 9 minutes.
  Let me begin by paying respect to both Senators from Alaska. Though I 
disagree with them and they know that, they waged an effort that 
represents their principles, their views, their beliefs and, most 
especially, the beliefs of the people of Alaska, as they understand 
their responsibility.
  I emphasize as strongly as I can, none of us in the U.S. Senate are 
cavalier or dismissive of Alaska's interests. There are many ways to 
serve those interests. I certainly am one Senator who is prepared 
always to try to help with respect to economic development issues, 
other hardship issues that exist in a State that faces a different set 
of challenges from many of us in the Senate. I hope they understand 
that, that this is a difference based on an equally fervently held set 
of beliefs and a different interpretation of the facts.
  I think they are facts. There are some profound differences in that 
regard.
  With respect to the amendment on steel, I believe Congress must act 
to deal with the plight of steelworkers, retired steelworkers and their 
families. Steelworker retirees are being devastated by the loss of 
health care benefits. More than 125,000 steelworkers have lost those 
benefits due to the liquidation of 17 American steel companies, and 
another 500,000 steelworker retirees stand to lose their health care 
unless we act to protect them.
  I am glad that some of our Republican friends have discovered this 
issue. I regret that they want to trade their concern for steelworkers 
with the opening of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. It would be 
disappointing if down the road our Republican friends are only prepared 
to try to deal with steelworkers in the context of the Arctic wildlife 
refuge and not in the context of their personal human plight. We will 
have an opportunity in a short period of time to try to deal 
appropriately with the problem of steelworkers.
  Yesterday Senator Wellstone made a very powerful statement in the 
Senate Chamber. There is nobody in the Senate who has fought harder or 
will fight harder for steelworkers than Senator Wellstone, but he will 
work in a bipartisan way, as he is now, to help us deal with this issue 
at the appropriate time.
  One of the things with which I disagree with my colleagues, as they 
have presented this issue, is that there has been this moving target of 
rationale for why we should be asked to drill in the Arctic wildlife 
refuge. We have heard on the other hand that those of us who oppose it 
somehow oppose job creation or we are in favor of high gasoline prices 
or we oppose energy independence or we support electricity brownouts, 
blackouts, that we oppose Israel, that we support Saddam Hussein. There 
have been a series of insinuations in the course of this argument that 
really don't do proper service to the merits of the argument or to the 
good faith of most U.S. Senators.
  It is interesting also that this moving target of support for this 
issue has found different rationale at different points of time. When 
California faced an electricity crisis last year in January, we heard 
Senators come to the floor and suggest that ANWR would help solve that 
problem. We actually had those arguments made. But only 1 percent of 
all of the electricity of California comes from oil-based, oil-fired 
electricity.
  ANWR has nothing to do with it. The Middle East has nothing to do 
with California's brownout problems or electricity problems. Then we 
heard when heating oils spiked and gas prices spiked, of course: ANWR 
is the answer. But the Arctic Wildlife Refuge drilling will not come 
online for about 7 to 10 years. When it does come online, it doesn't 
produce a sufficient amount of oil under anybody's scenario to have an 
effect on the world price or world supply. So that argument simply 
doesn't stand scrutiny.
  The Arctic Wildlife Refuge, at its best offering, will not affect the 
price of oil globally, and it cannot affect America's supply. Then, 
when we were hit with a recession and layoffs, we were told: the Arctic 
Wildlife Refuge is the solution. It is going to produce 700,000 jobs. 
But now the very people who made that study and talked about those 
numbers of jobs have repudiated that number and have acknowledged that 
that number was based on a 12-year-old study that had oil at the price 
of $45 a barrel in the year 2000, and all of us know it has been at 
about $25 or less, and that provides a different economic reality.
  The truth is that one might be talking about somewhere in the 
vicinity of 50,000, 60,000, 100,000 jobs, which is the number of jobs 
produced in the American economy in a 3-week period and anytime we are 
doing what we were doing in the period of 1997 to the year 2000. So 
this is really not even a jobs program. In fact, the very people who 
produced the faulty study acknowledged that, until the year 2007, the 
Arctic Wildlife Refuge doesn't provide any jobs at all--zero. That is 
according to the American Petroleum Institute's funded study that is 
faulty--maybe it was faulty to the wrong side, but they suggested there 
would be zero jobs in that period of time. So it is certainly not an 
antidote to recession, to the current economic problems we face.
  Promise after promise after promise about what it will do has been 
punctured by the truth. Here is a truth with which our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle can never adequately deal. The truth is, 
even with the best, most optimistic prognosis of what you might get out 
of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge--even with that, and all of the other oil 
we possess in the United States of America, we have a problem: God only 
gave our country 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. The Middle 
East, Saudi Arabia, the gulf states, all of the countries from which we 
import, including Iran and Iraq, which have been the subject of much 
vilification, for good reason, have the largest share of the world's 
oil reserves. Saudi Arabia alone has 46 percent, compared to our 3 
percent.
  Here is the other truth they don't want to deal with: Every year, the 
United States of America uses 25 percent of the world's reserves. Of 
the available oil, 25 percent goes to America, even though we only have 
3 percent of the oil reserves. The simple equation, the truth that they 
don't want to deal with, is that the United States of America has an 
ultimate confrontation with its dependency on oil.
  Oil is a finite resource. One day, it is going to be used up. One 
day, we are going to have to move to a different form of transportation 
dependency. The question to be asked of Americans is: If we have to do 
it one day, and with all these ills that are associated with the 
dependency today, why don't we make the choice today to begin to define 
that dependency?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield myself 1 
additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on every category with respect to 
independence, this will not affect the independence of the United 
States. We have to invent the new technologies that provide the new 
fuels for America. This will not affect the price for America. This 
will not liberate us from our dependency in the Middle East. This will 
not bring home one of America's young men or women who are in harm's 
way as a consequence of opening the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. What it 
will do is destroy forever this precious resource, designated as a 
pristine wilderness, that can never be returned to that state, which 
has been cherished by Republican Presidents, Democratic Presidents, 
Republican administrations, Democratic administrations, and by all 
Americans for all of these years. Let's not vote today to give that up 
when there is a better set of choices for our country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

[[Page S2880]]

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 14 minutes 20 seconds.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield 4 minutes to my friend from Wyoming.
  I would like to put up a picture that shows a producing well from the 
Don Edwards Bay National Wildlife Refuge out of San Francisco, CA. It 
is a wildlife refuge, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alaska. I served 
with him on the Energy Committee for some time when he was chairman. I 
served closely with him in this idea of doing something to develop an 
energy policy in this country. I want to speak very briefly about our 
need for a balanced energy policy.
  Obviously, we are on ANWR here, of course, which is part of that 
total policy. That has been and should be the emphasis. It is only part 
of the policy, but a very important part of it. I am amazed at the 
opponents who talk about how we face these problems in the future, and 
we need to do something about it and refuse to move forward on one of 
the things we can most reasonably do.
  I come from a State where we have a good deal of production, where we 
have a great deal of public lands. I can tell you that multiple use of 
those lands is one of the things we really believe in and can do and 
have proven can be done.
  The lands I am talking about in Wyoming are really a little different 
from the ones in Alaska. I have visited there, and I can tell you that 
we can use those in multiple use. We can continue to have the uses that 
are there. We can use it for energy.
  It has been years since we have moved on an energy policy--years. It 
is time we do that, and it is time we do a balanced bill that has in it 
one of the things that are most clearly needed, and that is domestic 
production. I am amazed that particularly my friends from New England, 
who use most of the energy in this country and don't produce any, are 
very concerned about the fact that we are trying to use multiple use 
ideas in the rest of the country where we can help provide these kinds 
of resources. There is nothing more important. What is more important 
than our energy?

  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. THOMAS. No. I think the Senator from Massachusetts has had ample 
time to discuss this issue.
  One of the things we need to do is take a real look at this, of 
course. ANWR was set aside for future exploration, no question about 
that. ANWR, obviously, will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We 
are nearly 60-percent dependent on foreign oil in an unstable world 
such as we have now. ANWR is the largest onshore prospect for oil and 
gas. That is clear. It is clearly there. ANWR would require the 
toughest environmental standards ever imposed on energy production, and 
that goes back to this idea of having multiple use, to be able to do it 
with this 2,000-acre footprint and, at the same time, preserve that 
environment. We can do that. It creates jobs, of course, for the whole 
country and for Alaska, for the Native Americans who live there. It 
gives us a more affordable and reliable energy. That is the basis.
  Many of us have been working on energy for a very long time. We need 
to have that reliable source. We are going to look for new ways, and we 
will find new ways.
  I remember going to a meeting in Casper years ago, and someone, I 
think from Europe, said we would never run out of the fuel, and we 
will. We don't know. We need oil, and we need domestic oil.
  Mr. President, I am not going to take more time. We have had 
thousands of people come here--veterans, Jewish folks, labor unions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. THOMAS. They are very aware of what we need to do. I urge we do 
it, including drilling in ANWR.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I believe I have 5 minutes to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this debate about 
the proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic Refuge has been simmering 
for a long time, and it has finally been joined in this Chamber over 
the last 2 days.
  It has been a good, spirited debate. I have great respect for those 
who are proponents of drilling, particularly my two colleagues and 
friends from Alaska. I never question their sincerity. We have a good-
faith difference point of view.
  Let me try, if I can, for a few moments to summarize what I believe 
are our arguments against drilling and then talk about where I hope we 
go after we have voted on these cloture motions.
  First, we are talking about 5 percent of the North Slope in Alaska. 
Ninety-five percent is now open for oil exploration and development. A 
lot of it is happening now. A lot of it is planned. This 5 percent is 
the heart of a thriving, beautiful ecosystem described by someone as 
the American Serengeti.
  The question is, Do we want to disrupt it, develop on it, some would 
say destroy its natural state--I would say that--for the oil that we 
could get out of it? And would that development for oil affect the 
health of that beautiful part of Alaska?
  I contend and we have contended in this debate that the development 
of the refuge as proposed in the pending amendments would irreversibly 
damage this natural treasure. The U.S. Geological Survey recently 
produced a 78-page report encapsulating 12 years of research which, in 
my opinion, concludes that very fact of irreversible damage to this 
natural treasure.

  For what? As we have said over and over, maybe oil coming out of 
there in 10 years and how much, will it break our dependence on foreign 
oil? By the Energy Department's own estimate, in 2020, if we allow 
drilling for oil in the Arctic Refuge, our dependence on foreign oil 
would drop from 62 percent to 60 percent, still painfully dependent. 
The only way to break our dependence on foreign oil is to break our 
dependence on oil and develop new homegrown sources of energy and 
conserve.
  Second, what effect would the drilling have on prices? We are all 
worried about gas prices going up now. The development of the refuge 
for oil would do nothing to affect oil and gas prices. Drilling would 
have no impact, even under the inflated estimates for petroleum 
potential that are cited by the proponents of the amendment because the 
price of oil is determined on the world market no matter from where it 
comes.
  As we approach these votes, I am confident that the cloture motions 
will not succeed. I thank my colleagues for listening to the debate and 
moving in this direction which I think reflects the opinions of the 
American people. The question is, What do we do then? I hope we will 
set aside this divisive amendment and join around the underlying bill 
which does offer progress, a balanced energy plan for America, 
including some development within our American sovereignty, our land, 
but also has the kind of incentives we need for new technologies and 
conservation, which is the only way for this great Nation to remain 
great and not dependent on foreign sources of oil.
  I say to my colleague from Wyoming that we in New England actually 
believe we do contribute to the energy supply. My guess is about 50 
percent of the energy in the New England States comes from nuclear 
powerplants right in our region. I know in Connecticut, we have two 
plants functioning. Forty-five percent of our electricity comes from 
those plants. More hopefully, New England has become a center for 
technology development using the brilliance of American ingenuity and 
innovation and capitalism to create new sources of energy.
  One of our great companies, United Technologies, is investing 
hundreds of millions of dollars in fuel cell technology--clean, 
efficient, and ours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds more.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Nearly 100 years ago, President 
Teddy Roosevelt, a great American, great

[[Page S2881]]

conservationist, great Republican--this really is not a partisan 
issue--said that the conservation of our natural resources and their 
proper use constitute the fundamental problem which underlies almost 
every other problem of national life.
  It is a century later, but there is still a lot of wisdom in T.R.'s 
statement. I hope we will heed it, defeat these motions for cloture, 
and then move on to work together side by side for the kind of balanced 
progressive energy program that is in the underlying bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
 Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Murkowski amendment, which calls for oil drilling in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge. My opposition is based, primarily, on the 
critical importance of protecting this special part of the world. But 
my objection is also based on my view that this proposal represents a 
fundamental endorsement of a skewed and misguided energy policy.
  ANWR is a unique and pristine area. It is the only unbroken continuum 
of arctic and subarctic ecosystems on the planet. It is home to a wide 
variety of plants and animals, including 135 bird species. It is the 
central area for the huge Porcupine caribou herd. It is home to polar 
bears, wolves, grizzly bears, muskoxen, and wolverines.
  And there is no doubt that drilling there would despoil the area. It 
would risk and potentially harm wildlife. And it would destroy ANWR's 
unique character as wilderness, regardless of whether that is an 
applicable legal term or not.
  So there is a very serious downside to drilling.
  So what is the upside? Why are we even thinking about despoiling a 
place that so many Americans want us to protect? What's the risk-reward 
quotient?
  We have heard several arguments here on the Senate floor. But they 
just don't hold up. Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, ANWR oil 
won't create 735,000 jobs. It won't give an assurance of a reduction in 
the price of oil, certainly not anytime soon. And it surely won't make 
us energy independent, lowering our import needs only marginally.
  The fact is, there is just not all that much oil in ANWR. Based on 
estimates from the U.S. Geological Survey, it is likely to have little 
more than 6 months' worth of capacity relative to 1 year of U.S. 
demand. The oil wouldn't even begin to be available for at least 10 
years. And it wouldn't reach peak production for 20 years.
  According to a recent Department of Energy study, even at its peak, 
total oil production from ANWR would be 800,000 barrels a day. That is 
only about 0.7 percent of global production.
  Who are we kidding here? Is it really worth risking such a treasured 
space for the prospect of increasing global production by 0.7 percent 
in 20 years?
  I, for one, don't think so.
  Now, let me address the issue of jobs.
  Yesterday, drilling proponents claimed that drilling in ANWR could 
create 735,000 jobs. That's a significant number. But it just doesn't 
hold up. The estimate comes from a study conducted for the American 
Petroleum Institute more than 10 years ago. And it's fundamentally 
flawed.
  For example, the study assumed that peak ANWR production would be 3.5 
percent of world supply. Yet, as I have discussed, the real level, 
based on government estimates, is less than 1 percent.
  The study also badly overestimated the world price of oil. It 
forecasted that the world price of oil would be $46.86 per barrel by 
2015, and that price was a driver of the jobs estimate. But when the 
authors of the study issued a similar forecast recently, they forecast 
a price of $25.12, a huge difference.
  Because of these and other mistakes, the study relied on by ANWR 
proponents simply has no credibility. And nobody should be fooled by 
it.
  I would point out, that if we want to create jobs, there are much 
better ways to do that while promoting energy independence. For 
example, there is no reason why America can't lead in next-generation 
energy technologies the way we have in information technology and 
biotechnology. Renewables and fuel cells will be growth industries, and 
the United States ought to get out front and then export those 
technologies to the world. That, to me, sounds like a better job 
creation strategy then drilling in ANWR.
  Another argument made by drilling proponents is that drilling in ANWR 
would reduce the price of world oil. But the oil market is a global 
market. And it is dominated by players far larger than the United 
States. We have only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves.
  As I mentioned earlier, ANWR's peak production would amount to less 
than 1 percent of world production. And it's just not realistic to 
claim that this will have more than negligible impact on the world oil 
price.
  Why? Because it's a huge global market, one that currently has about 
7 million barrels a day of excess capacity in the system today.
  So a modest decrease in supply, such as the recent disruptions in 
Iraqi and Venezuelan supplies, can be made up by other producers.
  And this process can just as easily work in reverse. Any increase in 
world oil supply resulting from bringing ANWR on line could simply be 
offset by decreases in production elsewhere in the world.
  Aggregate supply and demand conditions in the global market will set 
the marginal price, and the prices will be determined by the cumulative 
decisions of individual producers. The United States simply cannot 
control the price of oil in the world market, because we don't control 
the aggregate supply. And drilling in ANWR is not going to change that.
  That leads me to the next topic I want to address, national security.
  We're now importing about 57 percent of the oil we consume. According 
to the Department of Energy, if we don't drill in ANWR, we'll be 
importing 62 percent of our oil by 2020.
  If we do drill in ANWR, the Department of Energy estimates that 
imports would be reduced to 60 percent of U.S. consumption in 2020. 
That's only a 2-percent decrease in import share resulting from peak 
ANWR production.
  How can anyone pretend that this will make a difference in our 
national security? It just won't. That 2-percent differential, when it 
finally comes, simply won't matter.
  As I said earlier, the oil market is a world market. No nation or 
company has a monopoly on supply. So the relatively small amount, in a 
global context, that ANWR could produce could easily be offset by 
decreased production elsewhere.
  So we are going to be just as vulnerable to price shocks in 2020 if 
we drill in ANWR as if we don't.
  Rather than pretending that ANWR is the answer to our energy security 
needs, we ought to take steps that can have a real impact. And the most 
effective step we can take is to reduce consumption. Unfortunately, we 
have already voted down a CAFE increase, and I think that was a big 
mistake. But if we are serious about reducing our dependence on foreign 
oil, we simply have to deal with demand.
  Another thing we should do is diversify our sources of oil. And to a 
large extent, we have already done that. Only 13 percent of the oil we 
consume comes from the Middle East. The rest is produced here, and in 
places like Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and Norway.
  These particular producers are our closest allies. Are we really 
supposed to believe that importing oil from these countries is a threat 
to our national security?
  Having said that, I recognize that the Middle East does contain the 
lion's share of the world's oil reserves. And political turmoil there 
has clear implications for the world oil market, as does instability in 
Latin America. But getting a relative trickle of oil from Alaska 10-20 
years from now won't make the problems in the Middle East magically 
disappear, or change the supply of oil enough to impact the price of 
oil. Instead, we need to engage now and work consistently to bring a 
lasting peace to the region. Until instability is eliminated, our 
national security will always be at risk from turmoil in the Middle 
East. That is an issue that is much larger than oil.

  Finally, I wanted to take a moment to briefly discuss energy policy 
more broadly. As many have said, we need an energy policy that is 
balanced. But that balance needs to be weighted toward the future, not 
the past.

[[Page S2882]]

  That means that our first priority should be to create incentives and 
standards that encourage the development of next-generation energy 
technologies. I am talking about technologies like wind, solar, and 
fuel cells.
  Second, we should set tougher energy efficiently standards for 
appliances, buildings, and vehicles so that we can grow our economy 
while we use less energy.
  And third, we should increase our domestic supplies of fossil fuels 
in an environmentally responsible way so we can continue to power our 
economy as we transition to new technologies and energy sources.
  In my view, ANWR doesn't fit anywhere in this framework, certainly 
not as the centerpiece. And it just doesn't make sense as a matter of 
macroenergy policy.
  I think the American people believe that we should leave ANWR alone. 
That is certainly the sentiment in New Jersey. I have received letters 
from more than 9,000 New Jerseyans urging me to oppose drilling in 
ANWR, that's more than I received on any other topic in my 16 months as 
a Senator.
  The people who wrote to me about ANWR aren't ``radical 
environmentalists,'' as some drilling proponents have suggested. 
They're ordinary Americans who believe that ANWR is one of those 
special places that should be preserved in its natural state. And they 
are convinced, like I am, that drilling might well cause unacceptable 
environmental damage.
  In conclusion, we know that drilling in ANWR will harm the Arctic 
wilderness. And the economic and national security benefits just aren't 
there. So I will vote against cloture, and I urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe that a comprehensive energy plan 
is absolutely critical security and economic well-being of this nation. 
A national energy policy needs to balance our growing demand for energy 
with conservation and supply. I believe that this balance should 
include the use of sustainable, renewable energy sources along with 
continued responsible development of traditional fuels including 
limited, environmentally-sensitive exploration in a small fraction of 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. Energy exploration in ANWR 
has become a very contentious and highly polarized issue. I would like 
to take this opportunity and talk frankly about energy exploration in 
this area and dispel some of the many myths associated with this issue.
  An overwhelming majority of the Arctic Refuge is protected from 
energy development. In fact, 92 percent of the refuge is not eligible 
for development at all. However, more than 20 years ago, Congress set 
aside 8 percent of ANWR--1.5 million acres of the Refuge--for possible 
energy exploration. In 1980, under the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act, Congress expanded ANWR to 19 million acres, and 
designated 8 million acres as wilderness area. Under this act, the 
designated wilderness area cannot be considered for development.
  However, the current debate regarding drilling in ANWR surrounds the 
1.5 million acres--outlined in Section 1002 of the act--that was set 
aside by Congress for further study into the development of mineral 
resources. Under Section 1002, Congress called upon the Department of 
Interior to conduct a study on the biological resources and oil and gas 
potential of the 1.5 million acre coastal plain. This study, commonly 
called the 1002 Report or the Final Legislative Environmental Impact 
Study, was released in 1987 and recommended full leasing of the coastal 
plain. The Section 1002 area has always been a potential site for 
mineral recovery, and is not, as has been expressed by some, part of a 
wilderness designation.
  It is true that Section 1002 makes up at most 8 percent of the total 
refuge or 1.5 million acres. However, this number is misleading. In 
reality, the entire 1.5 million acres would not be developed. Current 
estimates place the total acreage of development at far less than a 
million acres. In fact, HR. 4, the House-passed energy bill, and the 
current Senate amendment contain provisions to limit development to 
2,000 acres or 0.01 percent of the refuge. Our opponents say that the 
``2000 acres'' grossly underestimates the infrastructure required to 
support energy development, that it merely describes the exact imprint 
of the core facilities, and does not include the area encompassed by 
those facilities, nor any of the supporting infrastructure. However, 
the nature of the facilities covered by the House bill and the exact 
shape of the 2000 acres was not specified. I believe that the amendment 
offered by Senator Murkowski better clarifies the scope of development 
for these 2000 acres.
  The use of new technologies will further limit the foot print of 
development. Thanks to our nation's ingenuity and technological 
advances, the footprints of energy development infrastructure are 
drastically reduced. Production of oil is safer and cleaner than ever 
before. Smaller gravel pads, advances in horizontal drilling, the re-
injection of drilling wastes, and ice roads, all decrease the 
``footprint'' of development. Furthermore, several new technologies 
have increased the success rate of exploratory wells from about 10 
percent to as much as 50 percent. Such technologies include: 3-D 
seismic imaging, 4-D time lapse imaging, ground-penetrating radar, and 
enhanced computer processing. The greater percentage of successful 
wells, the fewer number of pads and the lower the exploration costs. 
Our experiences at Prudhoe Bay are testament to our technological 
successes. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would only be 
1,526 acres, 64 percent smaller than it is today.
  But no matter how minimal the intrusion, opponents argue that any 
development will permanently degrade the sense of pristine wilderness 
found in the refuge. While most of the refuge has little sign of human 
encroachment, the coastal plain is home to the Inupiat tribe and their 
village of Kaktovik. Additionally, the nearby Distant Early Warning 
line (DEWline) for missile detection, the remnants of former or 
uncompleted DEWline installations, a garbage dump, and a runway are 
scattered in or near the 1002 area.
  Typically, development of mineral resources is often extremely 
controversial in neighboring state and local communities. That is not 
true in this case. A majority of Alaskans, 75 percent, the entire 
Alaskan delegation, and the closest Native American tribe support 
energy development in ANWR. These constituencies all see ANWR as a tool 
for supporting a modern economy to meet such basic human needs as 
health care and education.
  More specifically, the Inupiat tribe supports development. This tribe 
lives on 92,000 acres of privately held land within ANWR, and inhabits 
the only village within the 1002 area. According to Tara Sweeney, an 
Inupiat, ``We believe that responsible development of this area is our 
fundamental human right to self-determination.'' She goes on to say, 
``When oil was discovered in our region in the late 1960s we were 
fearful of development. . . . Over thirty years later we have changed 
our opinion. Development has not adversely impacted our ancient 
traditions or our food supply. The caribou population . . . has 
thrived.''
  Opponents argue that the Gwich'in tribe is strongly opposed to 
drilling in ANWR. The Gwich'in Tribe depends upon the Porcupine Caribou 
for food and reveres its calving area and rituals. According to some, 
developing ANWR is effectively raping and pillaging the land of one of 
the last great traditional tribes. However, the often quoted Gwich'in 
Tribe in fact lives over 100 miles away, on the other side of the 
mountains. The Gwich'in are not and never have been--indigenous to the 
North Slope. On the other hand, the Inupiat, who live within the 1002 
area, support development and feel strongly that it will improve their 
way of life. It is my firm belief that the people of Alaska, the people 
who live closest to the refuge, should be allowed to determine their 
future and the future of ANWR. These people see that development of 
ANWR will lead to both a healthy economy and a healthy environment.

  Opponents also raise concern about animals, such as the polar bears 
and the Porcupine Caribou, which reside in and around the 1002 area. 
Some believe that drilling would endanger both populations. For polar 
bears, the concerns have focused on how modern winter technology will 
affect winter dens and if pregnant polar bears denning on the coastal 
plain would be affected. Despite these concerns, the record is clear. 
Over the past 20 years, the population

[[Page S2883]]

of polar bears has remained exceedingly healthy. In fact, over ninety 
percent of Alaska's 2,000 polar bears den in the offshore pack ice and 
would not be affected by onshore development along the Arctic coastal 
plain.
  Ill-founded concerns regarding the welfare of caribou have been 
raised during the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay. Yet, following the 
development of Prudhoe, the herd seemed to adapt, and even prosper. In 
1969, when oil was first discovered in the region, the Central Arctic 
caribou herd was estimated at 3,000 animals. Today, the same herd has 
grown to almost 20,000 animals. The herd is healthy and continues to 
calve and nurse their young alongside the oil field operations. 
Opponents suggest the following: that the Porcupine Caribou cannot be 
compared to the Central Arctic herd; that the narrower coastal plain 
off the 1002 area results in a smaller calving area than Prudhoe; that 
the pictures of caribou on drilling pads and near pipelines are 
misleading; that the encroachment of development facilities will force 
the animals into the more dangerous foothills; and furthermore, that 
Porcupine Caribou is sacred to the Gwich'in tribe.
  While a few of these concerns may be valid, empirical evidence 
suggests that the Porcupine Caribou population is robust, nearly 
130,000 stronger, compared to the present Central Arctic Herd, only 
20,000. Therefore, I am confident that development of a few thousand 
acres of the coastal plain will not harm the far stronger 130,000 
member Arctic Porcupine Caribou herd which inhabits the Arctic Refuge. 
This is not to say that impacts on animals--even in the slightest and 
most unexpected form--are not possible. Should such impacts become 
apparent, the federal government may establish special protections for 
impacted animals, such as wilderness designation, delayed exploration, 
or a special regulatory regime.
  On a larger scale, development of ANWR could reduce America's 
dependence on foreign oil. Currently, the United States imports 57 
percent of our oil supply. By 2020, experts project that this country 
could be importing up to 65 percent of our oil supply. This reliance on 
foreign oil jeopardizes our national security and makes our economy 
susceptible to the frequent and recurring crises that occur around the 
world. As we have experienced over the last few weeks, we can not 
afford to rely on rogue nations like Iraq for oil, a resource vital to 
the economy and security of our country. Dependence on foreign sources 
of oil holds Americans hostage, by exposing the United States to every 
crisis within every nation we depend on for oil. For instance, over the 
last few weeks, we have witnessed turmoil within Venezuela that 
resulted in reduction of Venezuelan oil being shipped to the United 
States. Prior to this crisis, Venezuela was the third largest supplier 
of oil to the U.S. If this crisis continues, Americans could suffer 
price increases at the gas pump, the grocery store, and in their 
heating bills this winter.
  However, if this country is allowed to move forward with development 
in the 1002 area, and we are again faced with oil embargoes, war, or 
further terrorist attacks, it will be possible to mitigate those 
hardships, by increasing our reliance on domestic production from 
Alaska's North Slope.
  The fields in ANWR are the best bet for significant oil finds in the 
United States. Assuming 9.4 billion barrels are economically 
recoverable at a world market price of $24 per barrel, development of 
ANWR's oil fields would be roughly 1.4 million barrels per day. By 
2015, projected U.S. oil imports will be 15.25 million barrels per day 
and petroleum use is estimated at 24.26 million barrels per day. This 
would mean that peak production in the 1002 area could reduce U.S. 
imports by a significant 9 percent by 2015.
  As our technologies advance, more and more of the oil present in the 
1002 area will become technically recoverable. Should the prices of oil 
significantly increase over time, more oil from ANWR will become 
economically recoverable. The amount of economically recoverable oil 
estimated in the 1002 area is comparable to the giant field at Prudhoe 
Bay, now estimated to have held 11-13 billion barrels.
  Opponents insist that drilling in ANWR will not alleviate our 
dependence on foreign oil. They assume that ANWR's oil will be sold to 
the highest bidder and therefore can just as easily be sold abroad as 
sold domestically. The amendment currently being debated in the Senate 
would limit the exportation of oil from ANWR to Israel alone. In 
addition, H.R. 4 contains a provision which prohibits the exportation 
of oil under a lease in the 1002 area, as a condition of the lease.
  Development of ANWR's resources could bring jobs to every state in 
the union. Further development of the North Slope is expected to create 
between 60,000 and 735,000 new jobs, depending on the amount of oil 
found, the price of oil, and the unemployment rate at the time of 
development. For this reason, the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters and several other labor unions have spoken out publicly in 
support of ANWR development. According to James P. Hoffa, Teamsters 
general president, ``Working families are about to be caught between a 
recession and a deepening energy crisis. By tapping into petroleum 
resources in Alaska, we can create jobs and stabilize our economy by 
lessening our dependence on foreign oil.''
  Revenues from any recovered resource will be split between the 
Federal Government and the State of Alaska. According to the Alaska 
Statehood Act and the Mineral Leasing Act, Alaska should be treated 
like any other State where revenues are split 90/10, in favor of the 
State. However, Congress could, as they have in HR. 4, establish a 
different arrangement, where the revenue sharing formula is 50/50. 
Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus 
bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates in 1995 on bonus 
bids alone were $2.6 billion. The Inupiat tribe sees development as a 
good move for their economy too, since they are only allowed to develop 
their subsurface mineral resources, if the Federal Government develops 
the 1002 area.
  Opponents argue that a six month supply of oil hardly seems worth 
destroying America's Serengeti. However, the ``6-month'' argument is 
misleading. This figure assumes that all U.S. consumption will be met 
by ANWR, that we will not produce any oil domestically, and that we 
will not import any oil whatsoever. This is actually an impossible 
scenario. All of the oil in the 1002 area can not be removed within a 
6-month time frame. Furthermore, it would be impossible to move that 
much oil via the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline during such a short time frame. 
A much more realistic scenario is to say that there is enough oil in 
the 1002 area to curtail all imports from Iraq over the lifetime of the 
1002 oilfields.
  Drilling in ANWR will not alleviate an immediate energy crisis or 
solve any of our immediate needs. Depending on the time it takes to 
navigate through the permitting process, full scale production in the 
1002 area is likely to take 7-12 years. However, development in the 
1002 area will help to mitigate future problems stemming from a 
reliance on foreign oil and a shortage of domestic energy sources.
  We need a comprehensive energy policy which, while developing 
conventional resources, also includes energy conservation and research 
into renewable power generation. There are many very promising 
renewable energy sources currently being researched and developed. 
However, it will likely take at least a decade to bring renewable 
technologies into the market place. I feel it is important that as we 
pursue new and innovative technologies, we continue to develop our 
conventional fuels to guarantee a vibrant economy, jobs, and our 
national security.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to 
amendment No. 3132 to the energy bill allowing for the opening of the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and development. My 
decision to oppose this amendment was not made lightly. It was made 
after much thought and deliberation and after carefully reviewing all 
of the information available.
  I think it is important to put today's debate in context with the 
1980 decision by Congress to set aside the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge. In 1980, just before the election of Ronald Reagan, this 
country was in the middle of economic disaster, the Carter ``malaise.'' 
Our Nation was just exiting a terrible energy crisis; we were suffering 
from stagflation; the Middle East was in crisis with Americans being 
held hostage

[[Page S2884]]

in Iran; and gas prices, adjusted for 2002 dollars, were well over $2 
per gallon. Yet it was in that atmosphere that the United States Senate 
established, by a 78-14 vote, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and 
prohibited drilling in the refuge. That strong bipartisan decision was 
supported by the overwhelming majority of both Republicans and 
Democrats, conservative and liberal, including many of both parties who 
are still in the Senate today. I believe that was the right decision 
then, and I believe the Senate should maintain its support for 
protecting this wildlife refuge.
  My support for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is nothing new. In 
fact, in 1990, I was a cosponsor of legislation in the House of 
Representatives to designate the wildlife refuge as wilderness in order 
to ensure protection from oil and gas exploration. I believed then, as 
I do now, this area represents one of our last complete and unspoiled 
arctic ecosystems in the world. It is a very special place deserving 
protection. While I have been a supporter for exploration of many areas 
of this country, in fact some areas that arctic drilling proponents 
have opposed, I believe it is a different case to drill and develop in 
a designated wildlife refuge that was set aside because of its 
wilderness qualities by Congress.
  I would like to quickly address the provisions in the amendment that 
limit the exploration and development infrastructure to 2,000 acres. I 
think that there are misconceptions about what these provisions 
actually do. This provision reads, ``the maximum amount of surface 
acreage covered by production and support facilities, including 
airstrips and any areas covered by gravel berms or piers for support of 
pipelines, does not exceed 2,000 acres on the Coastal Plain.'' 
Supporters of this amendment believe that this provision will limit 
production to just 2,000 acres of the coastal plain, an area about the 
size of a large airport.
  What needs to be kept in mind, is that the oil reserves in ANWR are 
not found in a concentrated area. They are spread out over the coastal 
plain in various pockets that differ in size. Production activities 
will not be limited to just one section of the coastal plain. Oil rigs, 
pipelines and other facilities will be spread throughout the area, 
resulting in a spider-web effect of infrastructure than could cover 
much of the coastal plain. This is especially true since pipelines are 
not included in the amendment, just the support beams. To put this all 
in perspective, the infrastructure associated with existing oil 
development on the North Slope has a ``footprint,'' as defined in this 
amendment, of 12,000-acres, but in reality covers an area of more than 
640,000 acres, or 1,000 square miles. It is safe to assume that in this 
amendment the so-called 2,000 acre limitation in ANWR would likely 
impact an area over 50 times that size.
  This Nation must have a comprehensive energy strategy that ensures a 
reliable, environmentally friendly, safe and economic supply of energy. 
I applaud President Bush for his commitment and I am proud to be a 
strong supporter of nearly all of his plan. I have been a long advocate 
of incentives for next generation vehicles and alternative fuels. These 
are vehicles that will not only provide clean transportation, but will 
dramatically reduce our oil dependency. I have also introduced 
legislation providing incentives for the construction of energy 
efficient buildings. However, I do not believe that allowing oil 
development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the right answer.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Arctic 
national Wildlife Refuge or ANWR. As my good friend and colleague from 
Alaska Senator Stevens has outlined, oil and gas exploration in ANWR is 
not a new issue. In fact, it is an issue that was contemplated when 
Congress expanded the boundaries of the Arctic national Wildlife Refuge 
in 1980, by requiring the Department of Interior to prepare a detailed 
study on the Coastal Plain area and recommend how it should be managed.
  The Department of Interior's study recommended that the entire area 
be made available for oil and gas leasing, describing it as ``the most 
outstanding petroleum exploration target in the onshore United 
States.'' Despite this recommendation, no action has been taken an ANWR 
the intervening years except for the 1996 Budget Reauthorization Act 
authorizing the opening of ANWR which was retold by President Clinton.
  I understand that there is a push and pull between those who believe 
we should strive to achieve energy independence by drilling in ANWR and 
those who feel that we should protect the environment and preserve 
ANWR. But, I believe that we can do both. We have come a long way since 
the very first oil fields were drilled. Today we have the ability, the 
technology and the know-how to drill in ANWR and protect and preserve 
the environment.
  What is more, we are not proposing to drill in the entire Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge as one might assume when they listen to our 
debate. In fact, this amendment will only allow for drilling on 2,000 
acres of the total 19 million acres that encompasses the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge.
  The events of September 11th have made it glaringly obvious that the 
time has come for the United States Congress to step up to the plate 
and take an active interest and an active role in securing our nation's 
energy future. We can no longer sit on the side lines and assume that 
wind energy, solar panels, and battery packs are going to advance our 
Nation's energy interest. No matter how many tax credits we force on 
alternative fuels or how much money we devote to research into these 
technologies, the fact remains that our country is increasingly 
dependent on foreign sources of oil.
  The reality of the situation is that our Nation is more reliant on 
foreign sources of oil today than it was during World War II. This 
despite CAFE standards and other investments in alternative fuel 
vehicles. The Energy Information Administration estimates that in the 
next 20 years America's demand for oil is projected to increase by 33 
percent. Yet as consumption increases, U.S. production continues to 
decrease. I think that is a frightening fact and I believe that we must 
address it by increasing domestic production. If this means that we 
need to drill in ANWR, then we must drill in ANWR.
  Today, foreign imports supply 60 percent of our Nation's consumption. 
This dependence makes us vulnerable. It is not in our national interest 
to continue to be beholden to volatile foreign countries for our energy 
needs.
  This country needs a rational energy policy. And we need a national 
energy policy that includes new sources of production so that we have 
access to our own energy supplies. Without our own energy supplies, 
this country will continue its increasing dependence on volatile 
foreign sources that could be terminated at any moment.
  We cannot continue to put more and more power in the hands of foreign 
suppliers, foreign countries. ANWR has the potential to produce over 
one million barrels of oil a day. One million barrels a day is enough 
to replace the volume that we currently import from Saudi Arabia or 
Iraq for more than 25 years.
  Energy independence should be our long-term goal. But reducing our 
reliance on foreign energy sources should be our short-term goal. This 
country needs a balanced national energy policy that encompasses these 
goals. We need an energy policy that protects the environment, 
increases the efficient and effective use of renewables, encourages 
diversification of generating capacity AND most importantly, increases 
our domestic production. ANWR presents the United States with enormous 
potential for increasing domestic production. I think that we would be 
fools to pass up such an important opportunity for our Nation.
  I encourage my colleagues to join with me in supporting this 
amendment to allow oil and gas exploration in ANWR.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in my 22 years in the Senate, there has 
not been a more heavily lobbied issue than ANWR and there has not been 
a tougher vote. It is especially difficult because of my commitment to 
protecting the environment for future generations, including my own 
grandchildren, as evidenced by my strong environmental voting record.
  After extensive deliberation, I have decided to vote for cloture, to 
cut off debate, for a composite of reasons: 1. The United States needs 
to become independent of OPEC oil; 2. this modified legislation greatly 
reduces the environmental impact; 3. Federal funds

[[Page S2885]]

from ANWR would cover legacy retiree health costs for steel workers to 
allow for re-structuring to save the American steel industry and tens 
of thousands of jobs, including thousands for Pennsylvanians.
  Many steps must be taken to free the U.S. from dependence on OPEC 
oil. To rely on the Saudis, let alone Iraq and Iran, is to court 
disaster. Our reliance on Arab oil has broad-ranging implications on 
our policy in the Mid-East including our support for Israel.
  In this bill, I have voted for a significant increase in renewables 
to generate more energy from wind, the sun, biomass, hydropower and 
geothermal sources. I have supported expanded tax credits for clean 
coal and conservation measures including increasing mileage 
requirements for motor vehicles.
  While I would prefer not to open ANWR to drilling if we could become 
independent of OPEC oil without it, I have visited ANWR and believe 
that significant steps have been taken to reduce the incursion, such as 
a reduced footprint through multi-directional drilling, ice roads and 
winter season drilling.
  This legislation also allows for the use of funds from ANWR to cover 
so-called legacy costs for retired steel workers which would enable re-
structuring of the domestic industry which is vital for national 
security. More than thirty steel companies have filed for bankruptcy in 
the past few years and tens of thousands of steel workers have lost 
their jobs. The recently imposed tariffs on imported steel gives the 
industry a three-year period for re-structuring with consolidation of 
many potentially failing companies into a company which could compete 
with foreign steel producers. That consolidation could not take place 
if the acquiring company has to assume the legacy costs. Federal funds 
derived from ANWR would be used to cover such legacy costs and permit 
consolidation.
  Another consideration in my vote to invoke cloture is my view that 
the Senate should not require 60 votes for passage, a super majority, 
unless there is a great principle at issue, such as civil rights or 
civil liberties. Regrettably, a practice has evolved in the Senate to 
require cloture or 60 votes to pass legislation which is contrary to 
the fundamental principle, that in a democracy, decisions should be 
made by a majority.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I express my opposition to drilling 
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I oppose drilling in the Arctic 
Refuge because it is both poor energy policy and poor environmental 
policy.
  A sound energy policy is critical to our Nation's security. The 
United States is currently 56 percent dependent on foreign oil. By 
2020, this number could rise to 70 percent. At that time, over 64 
percent of the world's oil exports will come from Persian Gulf nations, 
a prospect that causes me great concern.
  In light of our increasing dependence on a profoundly undependable 
source of oil, we must ask ourselves what course do we now chart for 
our Nation's energy policy? Should we rush to deplete our last major 
reserve of oil, or should we increase conservation and develop 
alternative technologies that will allow our children to enjoy a better 
quality of life?
  President Teddy Roosevelt once said: ``I recognize the right and duty 
of this generation to develop and use our natural resources, but I do 
not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob by wasteful use, the 
generations that come after us.''
  Americans have a right to develop our energy resources, but not to 
waste them. We could do far more to reduce our reliance on foreign oil 
by increasing the efficiency of our automobiles than by drilling in the 
Arctic. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge today would be 
akin to wasting resources that should rightfully be there for future 
generations. We must embrace an ethic of stewardship of our most 
treasured national resources.
  Instead of rushing to deplete what is likely the last major oil 
reserve in the United States, we should instead promote energy 
efficiency and develop alternative technologies. Doing so will not only 
make more of an immediate difference than drilling in the Arctic, but 
it will also ensure that we leave our children with ample energy 
supplies and a broader array of energy options.
  We can achieve greater and more immediate energy security by 
increasing our energy efficiency. According to testimony heard before 
the Senate Government Affairs Committee, the United States could cut 
our dangerous reliance on foreign oil by more than 50 percent by 
increasing energy efficiency by 2.2 percent per year. This would do far 
more to reduce our reliance on foreign oil than would drilling in ANWR, 
and the benefits could start almost immediately, not in 10 years. I 
note that the United States has a tremendous record of increasing 
energy efficiency when we put our minds to it: following the 1979 OPEC 
energy shock, the United States increased its energy efficiency by 3.2 
percent per year for several years. With today's improvements in 
technology, 2.2 percent is attainable.
  I am disappointed that the Senate last month failed to adopt higher 
automobile fuel economy standards. The Senate had the chance to save 
more than twice as much oil as is in the Arctic Refuge by simply 
increasing fuel economy standards. That proposal, which I cosponsored, 
would have saved consumers billions of dollars in annual gasoline bills 
while doing more to reduce our reliance on foreign oil than any other 
single measure.
  It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who first set aside the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In his parting words from the Oval 
Office, President Eisenhower told the Nation: ``As we peer into 
society's future, . . . [we] must avoid the impulse to live only for 
today, plundering for our own ease and convenience, the precious 
resources of tomorrow.'' Although the Arctic Refuge may seem to some to 
be the easiest and most convenient source of oil available, drilling in 
the Arctic Refuge will not solve our energy problems. I urge my 
colleagues to increase our energy efficiency, develop alternative 
energy sources, and preserve our precious Arctic resources so that our 
children will have the freedom to make their own choice concerning this 
vast wilderness reserve.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to speak about today's vote 
to end debate on the two pending amendments to authorize oil and gas 
development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  In past years, I have voted in support of exploring development 
options in ANWR as part of budget reconciliation measures. I believed 
that was the right vote. I was not an expert on the issue and I 
believed that further deliberation was warranted.
  Unfortunately, the information presented to us consistently reveals 
widely varying predictions of actual oil potential and economic 
benefits, as well as various scenarios of possible impacts on wildlife 
and the environment. Even government studies are not conclusive and 
raise more questions than they answer. The various interpretations have 
already been debated by each side, and I need not rehash them now.
  However, several factors are clear to me.
  Oil and gas could be recovered from ANWR many years from now, but not 
without considerable costs to taxpayers.
  Most scientific analyses conclude that both the land and wildlife 
would adversely be impacted by development.
  The two Alaska Native communities most impacted by this debate are 
split in their positions on this issue.
  Even if ANWR were authorized for development, we would still rely on 
imported oil supplies and require other sources of energy development 
and generation.
  I, too, am concerned about our Nation's dependence on foreign oil 
supplies. Unless we act in some comprehensive manner on several fronts, 
including conservation measures and greater use of nuclear and other 
forms of alternative energy generation, our current dependence on 
foreign oil could increase from 56 percent to 70 percent in less than 
20 years.
  With respect to taking truly effective action to reduce our oil 
dependence, regrettably the Senate rejected a more effective measure to 
modestly increase fuel efficiency standards, a proposal that would 
substantially decrease our Nation's dependence on foreign oil and also 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Had we adopted an increase of fuel 
efficiency standards to 36 mpg average by 2013, we could have 
potentially saved 2.5 million barrels of oil per day by 2020

[[Page S2886]]

which is about equal to present imports from the Persian Gulf. This 
prudent conservation measure would also save twice as much, if not 
more, oil than what is in ANWR.
  Opening the refuge could only meet about 2 to 5 percent of the 
Nation's oil needs, at best. Even some oil company executives have 
expressed doubts about drilling in ANWR, as stated by one: ``Big oil 
companies go where there are substantial fields and where they can 
produce oil economically . . . does ANWR have that? Who knows?''
  Let me also say that the answer to threats posed by the regime of 
Saddam Hussein is not to drill in ANWR but to end his regime sooner 
rather than later. Drilling in ANWR will not remove the clear and 
present danger posed by Hussein and will not stop in any way whatsoever 
his weapons of mass destruction program or for that matter his 
``inspiring and financing a culture of political murder and suicide 
bombing,'' as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld so aptly described his lawless 
and murderous behavior.
  I also wish to comment briefly about the second-degree amendment 
offered to the underlying ANWR amendment to divert a majority of 
revenues derived from oil and gas development to retirement and other 
benefits for the steel industry.
  I am not against our steel workers. They helped build our Nation and 
are among the hardest working people in America. But to underwrite 
their retirement in a transparent effort to attract more votes is very 
bad policy. What do we say to all the other workers who are also 
suffering during economic hard times? Are we going to say, ``sorry, but 
giving royalties to folks in your industry won't get us the votes we 
need to pass our bill''?
  Miners, teachers, construction laborers, and many other hard-working 
Americans have seen their jobs, benefits, and pensions endangered by 
the recent hard economic times. Yet, they would not benefit from this 
proposal. Nor would our veterans, who undoubtably could use more help 
paying for their medical bills. These last-minute tactics are not a 
credit to this deliberative body and only serve to increase the 
public's skepticism of government.
  America will need oil for the foreseeable future. What gives this 
generation the right to deplete this vital resource when we have the 
opportunity to preserve it for the benefit of future generations? At 
the end of our day, we still have prudent alternatives to ANWR to meet 
our energy demands and we should aggressively pursue them. A more acute 
energy need than our own in the future may require development, where 
assurances of improved technology may better protect the environment. 
With other viable energy options available to us today, to approve ANWR 
drilling would be a dereliction of our duty to posterity.
  Teddy Roosevelt, the champion of conservation, once said: 
``Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I 
recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the 
natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to 
waste them, or rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after 
us.''
  I have thought long and hard about this debate and the vote that I 
will cast. I still hope we can achieve a more balanced national energy 
strategy, but I am not convinced that a key component of that policy 
should be to drill in ANWR. I will vote against the motions to invoke 
cloture on these amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska controls 10 minutes. 
The Senator from New Mexico has 14\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am informed Senator Daschle wishes to 
speak and is going to be coming to the floor in a few minutes to do 
that. 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. 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, is time running off the side of the 
majority at this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is running off the time of the majority.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. We are playing games here, Mr. President, so 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, I will take a few minutes at this time, 
and I would appreciate the Chair reminding me when half my time is up. 
My understanding is that is in 5 minutes.
  I want to show a chart. We had the Senator from California talk a 
little bit about refuges. This happens to be a producing well in a 
refuge in California. It is near San Francisco. The point is, there are 
refuges in many States, as additional charts will show.
  Be that as it may, I am not going to belabor that point because there 
are a few other issues on which we need to reflect.
  Today we are seeing headlines: ``Summer Gasoline Prices Again Headed 
Higher.''
  We also see information coming at us from the Mideast relative to the 
crisis, and Saddam Hussein advises that oil is going to be used as a 
weapon.
  Oil as a weapon. We remember the last time we saw a weapon in this 
country, it was an aircraft being used as a weapon--two aircraft, three 
aircraft. There was the Pentagon, there was the New York Twin Towers, 
and there was the terrible crash in Pennsylvania.
  This is as a consequence, to some degree, of our continued reliance 
on imported oil. We have heard a lot on the other side relative to ANWR 
and what it would contribute. Let me identify for the record--and this 
is from the Energy Institute--crude oil imports relative to the annual 
report for the year 2002. Opening ANWR would reduce oil dependence from 
66 percent in 2020 to 62 percent by 2024; 58 percent by 2020 in a high 
case. So we have a low case, a mean, and a high.
  The significance is what it does relative to domestic production. 
Assuming the USGS mean case for oil in ANWR, there would be an increase 
of domestic production by 13.9 percent; assuming a higher case for 
oil--and this is USGS figures--25 percent of total domestic production, 
an increase--well, the increase is clearly substantial.
  I think what a lot of people have forgotten in this debate is what we 
are debating. This second degree amendment, of course, provides funding 
for the rejuvenation of the American steel industry, with the proceeds 
from ANWR. But for a moment, let us reflect on the fact that passing 
the underlying amendment does not automatically open ANWR. In this 
amendment, we have given the President the authority to open ANWR. The 
President has to certify to Congress that the exploration, development, 
and production of the oil and gas resources in the ANWR Coastal Plain 
are in the U.S. national, economic, and security interests. I think we 
should trust our President to make that decision. Clearly, at a time 
when the Mideast is in an inferno and we are 58 percent dependent, we 
should trust our President to make this decision.
  Further, there is a 2,000-acre limitation on surface disturbance. 
That is in the House bill. There is an export ban, with the exception 
of exports to Israel. Under the Israeli oil supply agreement, we are 
extending it through the year 2014. There are 1.5 million acres of 
wilderness in ANWR, in exchange for opening approximately the 1.5 
million acres of the Coastal Plain. We believe that is a responsible 
exchange.
  We talk about a process. This is what I find totally unacceptable. 
One might say we were defeated before we even started on this project. 
Why? Well, because the majority leader basically pulled away from the 
committee of jurisdiction the process of developing out of that 
committee an orderly transition and development of a bill that could be 
brought to the floor and voted on by 50 votes.
  We had 50 votes. We were victorious, and the Democratic leader knew 
it, but

[[Page S2887]]

he pulled the bill from the Energy Committee and put us in a position 
of having to come up with 60 votes, and that is where we are today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I guess one could say when we had control of the 
Senate the last time, 55 to 45 in 1995, we passed ANWR. President 
Clinton vetoed it. Now it is a different story in the Senate. We have 
50/49/1. That is the reality associated with this issue.
  The final point I want to make relative to the majority leader and 
his handling of this bill is one that I think bears consideration by 
all Members of this body. He said, even if we get 60 votes, we are not 
going to get ANWR because he will pull the energy bill.

  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Rockefeller was scheduled to speak. 
Of his time, which is 10 minutes, we yield 3 minutes to the manager of 
the bill, Senator Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will summarize some points we have 
made several times before. I think this debate has been useful in that 
all the arguments have been heard extensively. I do think it is an 
important issue.
  I commend the Senators from Alaska for their efforts to move ahead. I 
do not favor going ahead with opening ANWR to drilling, and I think 
this is a debate which has continued, frankly, for decades in this 
Senate and in this country.
  My own view is the long-term energy needs of our country can be best 
met with a balanced, comprehensive bill, which we are trying hard to 
enact and perfect in the Senate, that encourages domestic production in 
ways that are not environmentally objectionable to a substantial 
portion of our population. I mentioned those.
  There are substantial opportunities for us to increase production on 
the North Slope of Alaska. There are substantial opportunities for us 
to increase production in the Rocky Mountain region, and I know that is 
going to be objectionable to some people, but we have a lot of 
production in my State. I think there are opportunities for additional 
production. There is a lot of opportunity for increased production in 
the gulf that we can benefit from substantially.
  In addition to that domestic production, though, we need to have a 
heavy emphasis on increased efficiency. There is no reason we cannot 
use the new technology that has been developed to reduce dependence on 
foreign sources of oil. I regret some of the earlier votes we have had 
on this bill in that regard. I will not revisit that right now, but I 
will say there are opportunities for us to pursue an enlightened policy 
that positions us better in the future with regard to our energy needs. 
Meeting those needs and opening ANWR to drilling is not a necessary 
part of that.

  I do not support it as an environmental policy, and I do not support 
it as part of this energy bill. We will have a good opportunity to 
express views on that in these upcoming two votes, and Members know 
exactly what the issues are. There is no mystery about that.
  With regard to the first of the votes we are going to cast, it is 
complicated by the fact that we have had loaded in there provisions 
relating to the steel industry and the legacy issues related to the 
steel industry. I have said before, and I reiterate, this is not the 
right place to deal with those issues. I support trying to find a 
solution to those problems, but this is not the right place to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. How much time is remaining now on the majority side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes is available to the Senator from 
New Mexico.
  Mr. REID. That time is yielded to the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. 
Rockefeller.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I want to read one paragraph of a 
letter from the United Steelworkers of America which was given to me 
last night. It says:

       The United Steelworkers of America support you--

  That happens to be me----

     now and will continue to support you as you go forward to 
     explore every avenue for the passage of this vital 
     legislation [the legacy costs for health care].
       In the last 2 weeks, despite every effort, the White House 
     and the Republican leadership in the House and Senate refused 
     to grant the ironclad assurances necessary to go forward with 
     legacy costs legislation as part of the energy bill. In fact, 
     the inaction of the White House and the Republican leadership 
     shows a total lack of concern for the 600,000 steelworkers 
     who have or are about to lose their retiree health care.

  I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of this letter be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                               United Steelworkers of America,

                                   Pittsburgh, PA, April 17, 2002.
     Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Rockefeller: I want to thank you for your 
     continuing efforts to obtain a retiree health care program 
     that will address the needs of hundreds of thousands of 
     Steelworker retirees. The United Steelworkers of America 
     support you now and will continue to support you as you go 
     forward to explore every avenue for the passage of this vital 
     legislation.
       In the last two weeks, despite every effort, the White 
     House and the Republican leadership in the House and Senate 
     refused to grant the ironclad assurances necessary to go 
     forward with legacy costs legislation as part of the Energy 
     bill. In fact, the inaction of the White House and the 
     Republican leadership shows a total lack of concern for the 
     600,000 steelworkers who have, or are about to lose, their 
     retiree health care.
       Without your consent or the support of the United 
     Steelworkers of America, the Republican leadership has 
     attached the legacy costs legislation to an amendment that 
     would open Alaska to new oil exploration and production. The 
     United Steelworkers of America oppose this action. The issue 
     of ANWR stands alone. This is not the way to obtain legacy 
     costs relief.
       What the Steelworkers do support is the legacy costs 
     legislation that you will introduce today, co-sponsored by 
     Senator Specter of Pennsylvania.
       In the coming weeks, we will work with you and other 
     Senators on both sides of the aisle in order to build a 
     broad-based grassroots campaign to ensure the speedy 
     enactment of legacy costs relief. We urge the Republican 
     leadership not to call for a vote on the Stevens' Amendment. 
     Our members, and in particular our 600,000 retirees, their 
     dependents and surviving spouses, deserve serious 
     consideration of this problem, not political exploitation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Leo W. Gerard,
                                          International President.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I have consistently, over the years, 
voted against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge area. I 
will oppose both the Murkowski and the Stevens amendments. As a refuge, 
ANWR is protected land, intended to ensure the national diversity of 
wildlife, to ensure quality in water and conservation, and to provide 
subsistence living for Native Americans who have lived in that region 
for many generations.
  The Coastal Plain within the refuge is targeted by some, as we well 
know, for oil exploration while only 8 percent of this refuge, the 
plain, is home to a wide variety of wildlife, including polar bears, 
caribou, and 100 species of birds.
  ANWR is likely to produce, at best, 2 percent of America's oil demand 
in a given year if the oil, in fact, is there. Extracting it, if it is 
there, will be extremely costly. According to the Congressional 
Research Service, ANWR would not under any circumstances start 
producing oil for at least 7 years, or perhaps as many as 12 years.
  The limited amount of oil and the problems extracting it make it 
clear we should not risk opening the refuge, which is the last 5 
percent of Alaska's vast North Slope that remains protected. There are 
other, better ways to promote domestic oil production and other more 
effective ways to deal with our country's energy needs.
  In addition to opening ANWR to oil exploration, Senator Stevens--who 
in my work with him acted in total honor and integrity, which is part 
and parcel of his nature--adds a provision that appears to provide 
health care benefits to retired steelworkers and also coal miners. They 
relate to ANWR. He links the two. If that were a real possibility, it 
would be very hard to resist for somebody like me, who has been 
fighting for

[[Page S2888]]

steelworkers who have been going downhill.
  However, no matter how genuine the Senator from Alaska is--and he 
is--he has been unable to secure any kind of support for either 
himself, myself, or anybody else from the White House that it would 
support it through the conference committee. Remember, the House has 
passed this bill. ANWR is in it; there is no steel. Therefore, no 
matter what we do, it has to go to conference. The whole problem is 
they would then drop legacy costs for steel and coal miners and keep 
ANWR, and that would be easy, unless, of course, the White House 
committed and the House committed not to do so. Senator Stevens asked 
for that kind of commitment and was given no such commitment 
whatsoever. That leaves an empty promise.
  It basically says: Vote for me on what I want and when your turn 
comes, I will consider what you want. In addition, the White House said 
they would not even consider sending a letter of any sort until they 
had 60 votes on ANWR. That is the same thing as saying: Give us 60 
votes; we will write you some kind of a letter, and steel will get 
dropped in conference.
  No. No. I represent West Virginia, as well as the United States of 
America and steelworkers and other people everywhere. I am not a part 
of anything of that sort. I will not and cannot support the effort of 
the Senator from Alaska to add steel retiree legacy costs to the ANWR 
amendment, although I am very sympathetic with what his predicament is. 
It is the same predicament I face. I have great respect for the 
Senator. His amendment offers nothing to steelworkers across this 
Nation, through no fault of his own.
  The American steel industry and retired steelworkers were struggling 
in the face of an unprecedented steel crisis. They deserve help from 
their Government and need help. The steel industry is not a casual 
industry. It is no less strong in its meaning to America than the oil 
industry, but nobody seems to care about the steel industry. Not that 
many States produce steel, and half the Senators from those States do 
not care. It is a discouraging situation.
  The steelworkers deserve straight talk about what the administration 
is prepared to do to help them, not political gain. There are nearly 
100,000 steelworkers without health care benefits today. Most are 
former LTV workers who lost their benefits less than 8 months ago. Some 
are workers of American steel companies that went bankrupt waiting for 
the President to act on section 201, which was the matter of tariffs 
for unfair trade practices. There are hundreds of thousands of 
steelworkers whose health benefits are in imminent jeopardy without 
some help. There is an urgent need for legislation to restore the 
health benefits and to protect the steelworker health benefits that are 
at risk.

  I want my colleagues to know for months and months I have tried in 
every way I possibly could to try to get the White House to have some 
sense of empathy for this situation. They did the tariffs. All that did 
was buy time. It did nothing for the steel industry. You have to have 
legacy followed by consolidation. Without consolidation, there is no 
steel industry. Without legacy there is no consolidation. It has to be 
tariffs, legacy, consolidation. They said no to legacy.
  Don Evans, Secretary of Commerce, was on one of the Sunday shows. He 
said: That is up to the Congress to pass.
  Well, there is a Republican House, a one-vote organizing majority in 
the Senate, and a Republican White House. What do you think that says? 
We are not interested.
  It is, unfortunately, the steel industry that is not a priority for 
this administration. I am disappointed but not surprised. I am 
disappointed. I am bitter about it. I will be back about it. I will be 
back on this because I represent steelworkers.
  There has never been a single solitary indication that this 
administration would support the concept of legacy relief. The 
President's refusal to make a commitment to retired steelworkers at 
this point sends a very chilling message to every steelworker, every 
steel company in the United States of America that this White House 
simply does not care about the long-term well-being of the steel 
industry. I don't know how I can reach any other conclusion. I tried to 
work with them, but there could be no other conclusion.
  For our own industrial manufacturing base, of which steelworkers are 
14 percent in West Virginia, for our national security interests, we 
all have a vested interest in doing something about steel. I conclude 
by saying, again, please do not be fooled by the linking of drilling 
and legacy costs. This amendment is misleading. There will be 
legislation introduced in this body that will represent a meaningful 
way to protect steel retiree benefits, but this is not the vehicle. 
Drilling in and of itself is wrong.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against both the Stevens amendment and 
the Murkowski amendment.
  I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask how much time remains on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska controls 4 minutes and 
the other side controls 8 seconds.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time remains on the side of 
the majority?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has no time remaining.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, obviously, I have the availability of 
leader time, but in the interest of moving these votes along, it is 
important we try to stay as close to schedule as we can.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have now been debating how best to 
reshape our Nation's energy policy for 24 days.
  Time and again, we have heard our Republican colleagues say that 
opening Alaska's arctic wilderness is the cornerstone of their energy 
policy.
  Time and again, we have said, if that is the case, then offer an 
amendment to that effect.
  Time and again, they declined.
  I am mystified as to why it has taken us so long to get to this 
point, but now that we are here, I want to talk about the substance of 
this amendment, because I support policies that will encourage domestic 
production of oil and gas.
  I also believe that we need a comprehensive and balanced energy 
policy that will help to meet our Nation's critical energy needs.
  But, given the fact that drilling in the Arctic Refuge won't increase 
our energy independence, but will have an adverse impact on the 
wildlife refuge--I believe that it does not belong as part of our 
Nation's energy policy.
  America's appetite for energy continues to grow each year. Over the 
next 10 years, the United States is expected to consume roughly 1.5 
trillion gallons of gasoline. At the same time, the United States holds 
only 3 percent of the known world oil reserves.
  Even if we drilled in everybody's back yard, we could never meet our 
own demand with our own supply.
  That is not to say that we shouldn't drill for oil and gas in the 
United States--to the contrary, we can and we should.
  But we cannot simply drill our way out of this problem, and we should 
not be drilling in environmentally sensitive areas.
  Supporters of drilling in the Arctic Refuge have used every possible 
opportunity to justify their position.
  When we were experiencing rising oil prices, supporters said it would 
make oil available quickly and drive prices down in the process.
  But even if Congress were to authorize drilling in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge today, we would not see significant quantities 
of oil produced from the refuge for 8 years at the earliest.
  When our economy began to slow, supporters began billing it as an 
economic stimulus measure, saying it will create 750,000 jobs.
  Yet that number comes from an outdated and biased study commissioned 
by the American Petroleum Institute. Recent, more credible estimates by 
the Congressional Research Service, the Joint Economic Committee and 
others suggest that less than one-tenth that number would actually be 
created.
  And now, as we see volatility in a number of oil-producing nations, 
those same supporters are saying that drilling in ANWR is vital to 
increasing our energy independence.
  But estimates of the amount of oil that might potentially be 
available if

[[Page S2889]]

we drilled in the Arctic Refuge average around 3.2 billion barrels.
  Let me give you an important point of comparison: if we all put 
replacement tires on our cars that were as good as the ones that came 
with the cars when they were new, the resulting increase in efficiency 
would save 5.4 billion gallons of oil--70 percent more than the total 
amount of oil in the Arctic Refuge.
  Perhaps the most cynical attempt to justify drilling in the arctic 
refuge was the most recent. It was an attempt to link drilling in ANWR 
to an issue that many of my colleagues care about--the issue of health 
and retirement benefits for laid-off steelworkers.
  All I can say is that I hope those who proposed this addition to the 
ANWR amendment remember their newfound commitment to steelworkers when 
it comes time for us to debate trade adjustment assistance.
  The bottom line is this: anytime you see a policy so desperately in 
search of a justification, you can count on one of two things--either 
it's not that good a policy, or it doesn't have much support.
  Drilling in ANWR falls into both categories.
  And here's why: right now, more than 95 percent of the Alaskan North 
Slope is already open to oil and gas drilling.
  I find it ironic that by focusing this debate on ANWR, we are missing 
the other opportunities to produce oil and gas in Alaska that we should 
be encouraging.
  The first amendment that we passed to this bill authorizes the 
construction of a pipeline to bring natural gas from Alaska to the 
lower 48 States.
  There are 35 trillion cubic feet of known natural gas reserves on the 
North Slope of Alaska.
  There is more we can do to encourage sensible production. We should 
explore ways to pump the heavy crude oil that remains in the ground in 
northern Alaska.
  And we should explore for oil and gas in the National Petroleum 
Reserve in Alaska--the area where the 3 largest onshore oil reserves in 
the last 10 years were found.
  Faced with so little evidence that drilling in the Arctic Refuge 
would do anything significant to help our economic situation or 
increase our energy independence, some are now arguing that at the very 
least it can be done without harming the environment, or without 
exploiting too much land.
  But those arguments are flawed as well.
  For 12 years--over the course of a Democratic and a Republican 
administration--the U.S. Geological Survey studied the impact that 
drilling in the Arctic Refuge would have on the local wildlife.
  In March they came out with their final report--and it couldn't have 
been more straightforward: the wildlife in the region will be seriously 
hurt by oil development.
  Now, some Republicans are saying that they will limit the operation 
to a 2,000 acre ``footprint,'' and the environmental damage will be 
minimal.
  Well, ``footprint'' is a misleading term.
  In reality, oil production on the coastal plain area would require 
central production facilities, drilling pads, roads, airstrips, 
pipelines, water and gravel sources, base camps, construction camps, 
storage pads, powerlines, powerplants, and possibly a coastal marine 
facility.
  When you add those logistical necessities to the fact that those 
2,000 acres doesn't include an additional 93,000 acres of Native 
American land--you begin to see how that 2,000 acre footprint could 
easily trample a substantial amount of the coastal plain.
  Finally, we need to recognize that this debate is about more than 
just drilling in the Arctic Refuge.
  It is about whether we are willing to recognize that decreasing our 
dependence on foreign oil means decreasing our dependence on oil, 
period.
  It is about whether we choose to pursue an energy future based upon 
the old philosophy of dig, drill, and burn--or whether we embrace 
innovative approaches to our energy future.
  We need to expand production of renewable fuels, such as ethanol and 
biodiesel, develop cars and trucks that do not run on gasoline, but on 
fuel cells or other energy technologies that we can produce here in the 
United States, and, in the meantime, build more innovative and 
efficient automobiles.
  Let me give you just one example of what the innovative new approach 
could achieve:
  If we had fully implemented the vehicle fuel-efficiency provisions 
that were originally in this bill--something that could have been done 
without affecting safety or performance--we would have saved American 
drivers billions of dollars--and saved our Nation the same amount of 
oil we are currently importing from the Persian Gulf.
  Bold steps like that are the path to energy independence--not 
backward steps like this.
  Most Americans will never have the opportunity to visit the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge and see the beauty and wonder of land that has 
been largely untouched by humans since the dawn of time.
  It is a tribute to the best of America that Americans still want to 
protect that ecologically rich expanse.
  It is a tribute to the best of America that so many people today want 
to give future generations the opportunity to see that land as it once 
was, and always should be.
  So I urge my colleagues to use these votes to show that we have the 
creativity to meet our energy needs, and the character to resist 
violating the few natural sanctuaries that we have set aside to protect 
in the process.
  Let's defeat these amendments. I urge all my colleagues to vote 
against cloture.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield myself the remaining time.
  I want my colleagues to note there is not one single thing in here 
that increases domestic oil production in this energy bill. I find that 
unconscionable at a time when energy prices are increasing. We face 
continued crisis in the Middle East, and the intention of Saddam 
Hussein is, in his words, ``use oil as a weapon.'' We have seen that.
  I am very pleased to stand with Senator Stevens and recognize the 
support on this issue, from seafarers, teamsters, ironworkers, 
laborers, operating engineers, plumbers, pipefitters and many other 
unions in America that recognize this legislation as good for the 
American worker. A vote on the second degree which Senator Rockefeller 
just talked about is a vote for America's steel industry.
  He didn't talk about rejuvenating the industry. This is money that 
could come from opening ANWR, some $12 billion. It is unconscionable 
that they are not giving serious consideration to this because we are 
talking about passing a law; the conference is something else. Finally, 
a vote for this amendment is a vote for the Native people of my State 
of Alaska. They were promised they would have access to their lands. 
The underlying amendment would give them that.

  We talk about truth today. I am going to close with one reference 
from the New York Times.

       A Democrat from the northeast who considers himself a 
     strong environmentalist also said he once tried quietly to 
     see if he could broker a deal in which Democrats would back 
     limited exploration in the wildlife reserve and Republicans 
     would support much tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars 
     and trucks.
       The Democrat said he quickly gave up when it became 
     apparent that the environmental organizations would not budge 
     in their opposition to new drilling.
       ``If you told the environmentalists we would end global 
     warming once and for all in return for ANWR,'' he said, 
     ``they'd still say no.''

  The truth is, what is going on here is simply the word ``greed.'' The 
so-called environmentalists are not interested in science; they are not 
interested in the health of this planet; they are not interested in the 
welfare of the people of my State; they are interested in only one 
thing--fundraising and keeping their high-paid jobs.
  They know that we can explore Alaska safely; and that the wildlife 
will not be hurt. But they know that if we win ANWR, and we will, their 
chief fundraising tool goes away. That's what this entire debate is 
about--it is about raising money and keeping jobs for people who call 
themselves environmentalists.
  That is the bottom line. We could pull this bill but the people of 
Alaska are entitled to a vote and Members are entitled to stand and be 
heard. They are going to be held accountable, and that is the way it 
should be.
  I urge my colleagues to do what is right, what is right for America, 
not

[[Page S2890]]

what is right for America's environmental community that has lobbied 
this issue hell-bent for election.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. Under the previous 
order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The 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 debate on the Stevens 
     amendment No. 3133, regarding drilling in ANWR:
         Tom Daschle, Kent Conrad, Harry Reid, Ben Nelson, Barbara 
           Mikulski, Patty Murray, Dianne Feinstein, Tim Johnson, 
           Tom Carper, Jeff Bingaman, Byron Dorgan, Richard 
           Durbin, Mark Dayton, Jay Rockefeller, Patrick Leahy, 
           Jack Reed.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the Stevens amendment, No. 3133, to amendment No. 3132 
to S. 517, a bill to authorize funding for the Department of Energy to 
enhance its mission areas through technology transfer and partnership 
for fiscal years 2002 through 2006 and for other purposes shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 36, nays 64, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 70 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Bond
     Breaux
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Frist
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--64

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Thomas
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). On this vote, the yeas are 36, 
the nays are 64. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.


                     Amendment No. 3133, Withdrawn

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I withdraw amendment No. 3133.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is 
withdrawn.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will state.
  The legislative 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 Murkowski 
     ANWR amendment No. 3132 to S. 517, the Energy Bill:
         Tim Johnson, Tom Carper, John Kerry, Jeff Bingaman, 
           Patrick Leahy, Tom Harkin, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, 
           Hillary Rodham Clinton, Max Cleland, Maria Cantwell, 
           Jack Reed, Ron Wyden, Carl Levin, Patty Murray, Max 
           Baucus.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the Murkowski ANWR amendment No. 3132 to S. 517, a bill 
to authorize funding the Department of Energy to enhance its mission 
areas through technology transfer and partnerships for fiscal years 
2002 through 2006, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 71 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--54

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 
54. Three-fifths of the Senate duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAMM. 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. GRAMM. Madam President, I call for regular order.


                Amendment No. 3144 to Amendment No. 2999

  Mr. GRAMM. I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator specify the amendment.
  Mr. GRAMM. The Kerry-McCain amendment is the pending business, as I 
understand the regular order. I think we have about 10 amendments that 
are in the stack of regular order, but I think it is at the top.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GRAMM. I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], for himself and Mr. 
     Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 3144 to amendment No. 
     2999.

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

        (Purpose: To make permanent the repeal of the death tax)

       Strike all beginning on page 2, line 1, and insert the 
     following:

     SEC.   . PERMANENT REPEAL OF DEATH TAXES.

       Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``this Act'' and all that follows through 
     ``2010.'' in subsection (a) and inserting ``this Act (other 
     than Title V) shall not apply to taxable, plan, or limitation 
     years beginning after December 31, 2010.'', and
       (2) by striking ``, estates, gifts, and transfers'' in 
     subsection (b).

  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I called for the regular order, which 
brought up the Kerry-McCain amendment as the pending business. I have 
sent a second-degree amendment to the desk sponsored by myself and the 
Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl. It is an amendment that makes the repeal 
of the death tax permanent.
  I say to my colleagues this is a revenue bill. This may very well be 
the only revenue bill we have for the remainder of this Congress. 
Perhaps there may be others, but as of today there is no guarantee that 
there will be.

[[Page S2891]]

  The House is voting today to make the tax cut permanent. Senator Kyl 
and I thought the Senate should have an opportunity to have a vote on 
that issue, and we decided if we were going to try to focus on one part 
of the tax cut, this would be the relevant part to focus on. We now 
have a revenue measure before us, and therefore we believe this is an 
opportunity for us to fix something that is very broken.
  I will not belabor the point because our colleagues are very familiar 
with it, but basically because of a quirk in the Budget Act, we made 
the tax cut temporary, and it expires in 10 years. We could have made 
it permanent had we had 60 votes, but we only had 58 votes. So we had 
to use a procedure called reconciliation.
  Under that procedure, the tax cut expires when the reconciliation 
expires, which is in 10 years. This produces the extraordinary anomaly 
that every year for the next 10 years, the death tax--that is the tax 
that is imposed on small businesses, family farms, and the wealth that 
people build up over their lifetime by working, sacrificing, and 
saving--will be reduced. Before we passed the tax cut, when these 
people died, their children often have to sell the business or the 
family farm to give the Government up to 55 cents out of every dollar 
they have accumulated in their lifetime.
  We decided to repeal the death tax in our tax cut, and we decided to 
phase it out over a 10-year period. Yet because of this anomaly in the 
budget law, if you die 9 years from now, your family does not have to 
sell your farm or business, and your children get to keep every penny 
of wealth you have accumulated on which you paid taxes once before. It 
will belong to them. But if you die in the 10th year after the passage 
of the tax cut, the death tax returns, and they will have to sell the 
business, sell the farm, or sell your assets, and give the Government 
up to 55 cents out of every dollar you have earned in your lifetime.
  Senator Kyl and I believe that is outrageous tax policy. We think it 
is very unfair, and this is a tax measure that is in the Senate on the 
very day the House is moving to rectify this problem by making the tax 
cut permanent.
  Therefore, I have sent this amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Kyl and myself. I hope my colleagues will look very closely at 
it. I cannot imagine we would want to let stand a provision of law 
whereby we repeal the death tax with great fanfare, we trumpet the fact 
that we had done away with this evil and unfair tax, and yet 10 years 
from now it all comes back in its full force, its full vengeance, and 
its full negative impact on every business and every farm in America. 
The amendment which is now pending is Senator Kyl's amendment, which I 
have cosponsored, and I ask others who want to cosponsor it to do so. 
The amendment would make the repeal of the death tax permanent. I thank 
my colleagues for their indulgence. I ask them to look at this 
amendment.
  I think someone could always say, this is an energy bill. Well, this 
bill is many different things. It has literally hundreds of different 
provisions that are more or less related--and many are less related--to 
energy. I do not know anything that has more to do with energy than 
giving people an incentive to work and save, with the knowledge that 
when they build up a farm or a business the Government is not going to 
take it away from their children. That unleashes the most powerful 
energy source in the universe, and that is the energy that is in the 
soul of men and women who want to better themselves and their family.

  In my mind, this is the clearest energy provision in this bill if we 
adopt it, and I commend it to my colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from 
Texas and would reiterate that this is really a propitious time for us 
to deal with this issue, for the following reasons: The House of 
Representatives, as we speak, is taking action to pass a bill that 
would make permanent all of the tax reform we enacted less than a year 
ago. That includes the death tax repeal.
  Second, we all recall what we did 4 days ago, on April 15, and I know 
at that time there were a lot of calls by friends on both sides of the 
aisle in both bodies talking about how the tax burden was too great for 
most Americans and we wished we could do something about it. We now 
have an opportunity to do something about it, as Senator Gramm said.
  Third, in his Saturday radio message--and I know there are still a 
lot of Americans who listen to the President's radio message on 
Saturday morning; I know I do--he explicitly called for us to do what 
Senator Gramm and I are suggesting.
  I read briefly from the remarks of President Bush in his radio 
address on Saturday morning:

       One thing that is pretty interesting to note is that some 
     of these tax reforms are going to expire at the end of ten 
     years, or in 2011. It is a quirk in the law. I think that 
     doesn't make much sense. It is going to be hard to plan your 
     future. If you think all of a sudden these things get kicked 
     in full time and then go away, they need to make these tax 
     cuts permanent. For the good of the working people of 
     America, for the good of families, for the good of small 
     businesses, for the good of farmers and ranchers, we need to 
     make the tax relief plan permanent in the Tax Code.

  President Bush was saying the reform the Congress passed, and he 
signed about 10 months ago, is going to expire now in 9 years, and if 
we really meant it when we passed those reforms, we should make those 
reforms permanent, especially the death tax. The reason I say 
``especially the death tax'' is because people have to plan to deal 
with the death tax. They have to think ahead. If they don't know what 
the Tax Code is going to be when, say, the head of the household dies, 
they don't know what to do to plan for it.
  The tax relief we voted on gradually reduces the death tax burden 
until the 10th year when it goes away altogether. When the sunset 
expires, the entire Tax Code, the way it was before, comes back into 
play, and people are then paying the death tax at a rate of up to 55 
percent, with an exemption of only $675,000.
  How do they plan? Are they going to die in the year 2009, 2010, or 
2011? It makes a big difference in which year they die. The irony is 
that one of the major reasons for eliminating the death tax was that 
they wouldn't have to spend the enormous amounts of money they spend 
each year--to plan, to buy the insurance, do the estate planning, and 
all that goes with planning--to preserve as much of their estate as 
possible.
  We have found, and I have quoted the statistics in the past, 
Americans spend about the same amount of money each year on lawyers and 
insurance companies planning their estates as other Americans do in 
actually paying the estate tax, just about the same amount of money. It 
turns out to be a double tax, except each year, every single year, 
Americans spend $20 to $30 billion on estate planning.
  The President is saying: Since you can't plan because you don't know 
what the law is going to be, we have to figure out what that is, and 
make it permanent so that everybody knows what the rules are and what 
they need to plan against.
  Obviously, we believe what the rules should be is what the Congress 
decides and what the President signed into law, which is that the death 
tax should be repealed, as it is in the year 2010. That is what 
everybody was gearing toward. That was the whole idea, get to final 
repeal. That is what we voted for. We want to give our colleagues the 
opportunity to make that repeal permanent so people can plan for the 
future, so they will know what the rules of the road and the Tax Code 
are at the time of death.
  We could probably have picked some other way to bring this to our 
colleagues, but the distinguished Presiding Officer will recall the 
only way we have had an opportunity so far to bring this question 
before our colleagues is through a sense of the Senate. The 
distinguished Presiding Officer and many others were supportive of that 
sense of the Senate, saying we need to get on about the business of 
doing this. We all agreed--not all, but most Members agreed--with that. 
There are very limited opportunities to do that in the Senate. We have 
to have a bill that has revenue factors involved. This bill before the 
Senate now has a feature from the Finance Committee that deals with 
revenue and therefore it is one of the few opportunities--maybe the 
only opportunity,

[[Page S2892]]

quite possibly the only opportunity--we will have all year long to 
bring this issue to the floor when it is germane to the legislation 
pending.

  There is some talk that on down the road we may or may not have a 
pension bill. If we did, and it got to the floor, the issue would be 
germane to that, as well, but that is very uncertain. Therefore, 
Senator Gramm and I believed the best way to bring this issue before 
the body in a way we could express ourselves on this once and for all 
was through the only vehicle that existed, which is the vehicle of the 
Finance Committee work on the energy bill. That is why we do it at this 
time.
  As I said before, there is a secondary reason, and that is because 
most Americans are focused this week on having paid their taxes, and at 
least for those who are listening to what the President had to say, we 
are well aware of the fact that the President wants to make the tax 
cuts permanent. He especially mentioned the death tax.
  Now, it is one thing to do this because the House of Representatives 
is doing it this week and the President has called for it, the other 
reason to do it obviously is it is the right thing to do. I will spend 
a few minutes talking about that.
  We knew when we debated a few weeks ago, when we had the sense of the 
Senate before the Senate, which was, of course, adopted, that one of 
the things on people's minds at that time was stimulating the economy, 
getting the economy going, and making sure the economic growth we were 
beginning to see signs of--it is almost like the flowers of spring 
coming up out of the soil; we can see economic recovery coming. But 
there is a question whether we can sustain that with oil prices that 
are now probably going to increase substantially. That could knock out 
the economic recovery.
  For our families back home thinking about what they can afford this 
year and whether it will be a good year economically and whether they 
will save their job, we need to do everything we can to let them know 
we will work as hard as we can to make sure the economic recovery is 
sustained, they keep their job, we keep oil prices as low as possible, 
and all the rest.
  We found during the previous debate that pumping money back into the 
economy, which occurs as a result of the capital formation from repeal 
of the death tax, is one of the surest ways of creating jobs and 
maintaining this economic expansion. There were several experts who 
made that point in one way or another. There are studies that make the 
point.
  One study talked about a $40 billion stimulus to the economy from the 
repeal of the death tax. Let me refer to some of these in order.
  What Alan Greenspan said on this issue is instructive. He was asked a 
question during a hearing at the House of Representatives: What's your 
thought on what we ought to be doing here with regard to permanency--
meaning making the tax cuts permanent? Chairman Greenspan's reply 
stresses the need for certainty in the Tax Code, which is what I was 
talking about. It is the key.
  He said:

       Whatever you do, Congresswoman, I think it has to be clear 
     where the longer term tax structure in this area is. You 
     cannot do estate planning, as you point out, unless you have 
     a judgment as to what these numbers are. And wherever the 
     Congress comes out, I think it is far more important that it 
     come out clearly and unequivocally and not have an issue 
     pending as to an issue which would create a degree of 
     uncertainty which could make estate planning very difficult 
     to implement.

  Those are almost the exact words I used before. I had forgotten 
Chairman Greenspan expressed it in exactly this way. However, that is 
the point. When there is certainty, people know how to plan, they know 
how to invest. As a result, the capital formation that our economic 
recovery requires is available for investment.
  What Mr. Greenspan is saying is, this is an area where this is most 
important, where planning is most critical, the area of the estate tax. 
We have to have clarity. We have to have, as Mr. Greenspan said, the 
code ``come out clearly and unequivocally,'' with a degree of certainty 
so that estate planning is not difficult to implement.
  Mr. Greenspan testified in another forum in response to a question 
from one of our colleagues in the Senate. He very clearly rejected the 
notion that making the tax cut permanent would complicate efforts to 
meet the Federal Government's long-term financial obligations to Social 
Security and Medicare.
  I read:

       I don't know of any economist who does long-term 
     forecasting and presumes that the tax cuts will fall off a 
     cliff at the end of the period in which they are statutorily 
     in place. I don't think it is an economic issue because I 
     don't know anyone who seriously believes the world works 
     the way legislation stipulates.

  That is the end of the quote by Chairman Greenspan.
  He is absolutely right. Nobody would imagine that at the end of 10 
years all the work toward eliminating the estate tax simply disappears 
and we go back to the way it was in the year 2000. Who would think 
that? My friends back home, with whom I talked, to whom I kind of came 
home and bragged about repealing the estate tax, were very surprised 
when I said: You understand when I said repeal it, what it meant was it 
was phased down to the 10th year and then on the 11th year it comes 
back again. They said: How could it be?
  I had to explain to them the arcane--I should not say arcane--the 
rule under which the Senate operated to get this adopted was the 
reconciliation procedure. That has a 10-year limit to it. That means 
whatever you do can only have an effect of 10 years. That means if you 
reform taxes and repeal a section, at the end of 10 years, the 11th 
year it goes right back the way it was before.
  That is not the way we should have to do it. Unfortunately, it was 
the only way to get the matter before the Senate at the time it was 
brought forward, and it was the only way to get the number of votes 
necessary to effect all the reforms we wanted to adopt. So there we are 
with a procedure that Alan Greenspan says nobody would understand--but 
it is the reality, so at the end of 10 years we are faced with this 
absurd situation that the repeal that we effected disappears and we are 
right back where we started.
  Mr. Greenspan is saying that is unacceptable. We are saying that is 
unacceptable. The President is saying it is unacceptable. The House of 
Representatives today is going to invoke saying it is unacceptable. We 
have now an opportunity in this body to make sure that unacceptable 
result does not continue, that we have an opportunity to finally, once 
and for all, repeal the death tax so people can get about their 
planning, get about their business, and we do not have this immoral tax 
hanging around our heads.
  Both the President and I have spoken about this, and the Senator from 
Texas has made the point as well, that not only is this a bad tax in 
terms of what it does to capital formation and economics, but it is an 
unfair tax. I know some of my colleagues on the other side have made 
the point that we have to find a way that rich people can pay a tax on 
the unrealized gain. In other words, if an asset is purchased, there 
are a lot of folks who want to make sure a tax is paid when that asset 
is finally disposed.
  In the real world we call it a capital gains tax. We say when you buy 
something, buy it at $100 and sell it at $500 and you do not do any 
improving on it, then you have a gain of $400 and the capital gains tax 
rate is going to apply against that $400 gain when you decide to sell 
the asset.
  So you stop and think, I have this piece of property that is worth 
$500. I know if I sell it I am going to have to pay a capital gains tax 
because I did not pay that much for it at the beginning; it has really 
appreciated in value. Do I want to do that? And you make a judgment in 
your mind to either sell it or not sell it. You know what the tax 
liability will be. You make an economic decision.
  With the death tax, it is totally different. There are two or three 
other examples in our Tax Code. You didn't decide to die or you didn't 
decide for your father to die. It happens. It is an unfortunate 
circumstance, but it is not or should not be a taxable circumstance. 
The Tax Code should tax behavior. It should tax action. It should tax 
decision.

  In other words, when Americans decide to do a certain thing that we 
have said is taxable, we do it knowing what the tax consequences are. 
The Tax Code should not penalize you for dying.

[[Page S2893]]

It should not tax you for the act of having died or, to be more 
precise, it should not tax your heirs because you died. You didn't 
intend it; they didn't intend it. But people say you should still pay a 
tax or your heirs should pay a tax on the unrealized gain from the 
assets.
  So what we did in constructing this estate tax repeal was to say: You 
are right. That unrealized gain will be taxed. To be fair, we are not 
going to let anybody off the hook. No asset is going to be untaxed--
even though, by the way, in most cases this is the second tax. The 
first tax was the income tax that was paid and then this will be the 
second tax on the investment income, in effect. But in any event, in 
order to make sure nobody would go untaxed with the unrealized gains, 
in effect we have not just repealed the estate tax, we have substituted 
for the estate tax a capital gains tax on those assets, saying that if 
and when the heirs ever decide to sell that property, then and only 
then will they pay the tax. It will not be the estate tax of 55 
percent; it will be a capital gains tax on the gains at the appropriate 
capital gains rate, whatever that applicable rate may be at that time.
  We did one other thing. Today under the Tax Code the minute you die 
your property has a new value attributed to it. It is not the value at 
the time you purchased it but the value now at the time you die, so the 
value is much higher. If you were to sell that--let me use an example. 
Let's say a billionaire in our country today dies and his widow 
inherits all the assets. The very next day that widow decides to sell 
those assets. How much capital gains tax does the widow pay? The answer 
is none. The reason is that the value of the estate is now the value at 
the day of death. Technically, if she sold it immediately it would be 
none. There might be a little appreciation of a few hours. But the 
point is, if she sold it the next day there would be no capital gains 
tax due because the value would be increased to the value at the time 
of the death rather than at the time acquired.
  What we say is it is going to be a capital gains tax based on the 
appreciation of the original value of the property. If it had been 
acquired 10 years earlier and had a value of $100 and the value at the 
time of death is $500, A, when the property is sold, it is sold by the 
lawyers, it is going to have a gain of $400, but again the tax rate is 
the estate tax rate, which is in some cases less than half of the 
estate tax rate and, B, the tax is only due if the heirs make an 
affirmative decision to sell the property knowing what the tax 
consequences will be.
  That is fair. I certainly do not attribute this to any of my 
colleagues, but there are those on the outside who like to demagog this 
issue. They like to say this is just a rich man's tax and we are going 
to let all the rich people in the world off because we are going to 
repeal the tax that applies to them. They are not telling you the 
truth. The truth is, a tax will be due on those estates, but it will be 
a tax due at the time the assets are sold.
  It is the same rule in the Tax Code that applies to other situations 
in which, by fate, in effect, something happened to you and then you 
got income as a result and you should not have to pay income tax on 
that immediately. It is the same thing that applies when something is 
stolen from you and you are recompensed for the theft. It is the same 
thing that applies when you have property condemned and the State pays 
you money.
  It wasn't your choice to have the property condemned so you should 
not have to pay tax on the money at that time.
  As a result, there are few provisions of the Tax Code that recognize, 
where there is involuntary behavior that resulted in gain, or income, 
that people ought to have the ability to defer the tax on that until 
they want to sell the asset and at that point in time the capital gains 
tax is the appropriate tax.
  I hope my colleagues appreciate when we talk about the repeal of the 
death tax here, what we voted for and what was signed into law is not a 
provision that says those assets are never taxed. It is a provision 
that says they are taxed when the assets are sold by the heirs at the 
capital gains tax rate.
  I want my colleagues to understand this because I think when we 
explain to our constituents back home how we voted on this, whether we 
voted to make this tax cut permanent or not, we also need to appreciate 
that we can demonstrate what we have done is eminently fair; that 
people shouldn't have to pay a tax at the involuntary time of death. 
That is a most unfair thing to do at the worst time in a family's life, 
that they should have to pay a tax on the unrealized gains. But they 
should do that as we do in the other parts of the Tax Code when an 
economic decision is made based upon, among other things, the tax 
consequences that pertain.

  When we have an opportunity to vote on this amendment, I hope my 
colleagues will consider the economic improvement that would result; 
the fact that we will be following what the President and House of 
Representatives have in effect asked the Senate to do; that we will be 
keeping faith with our constituents whom we told we repealed the tax 
and who now would want to know that we did in fact do it permanently; 
and that it wasn't just a charade for a 1-year period of time in the 
year 2001 and then go back to the way it was before.
  If my colleagues can appreciate those points, I hope they will join 
us when we have an opportunity to make this permanent, and join Senator 
Gramm and me in accomplishing that result.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, Members on this side of the aisle have 
concerns about the structure of the estate tax. In fact, we voted to 
change it significantly. I think the estate size threshold could be 
even higher. We don't want small businesses to be hurt by people who, 
upon death, have to lose a family business or lose jobs in communities.
  There is a lot we need to talk about. But I think this is not the 
moment given what we are discussing. It is perhaps better that we save 
it for a different point in time.
  My amendment, No. 2999, is the pending business. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2999 is the pending question.


                     Amendment No. 2999, Withdrawn

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I withdraw that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is 
withdrawn.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken to the Senator from Texas. He 
has indicated that during the course of the debate on this matter he is 
going to offer his amendment at a subsequent time. I certainly 
appreciate that.
  It is my understanding that the pending business is amendment No. 
3008. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the regular order.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I call for the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.


                Amendment No. 3145 to Amendment No. 3008

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

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3145 to amendment No. 3008.

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

(Purpose: To 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)

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be added, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 8____. FEDERAL AGENCY ETHANOL-BLENDED GASOLINE AND 
                   BIODIESEL PURCHASING REQUIREMENT.

       Title III of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 is amended by 
     striking section 306 (42 U.S.C. 13215) and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 306. FEDERAL AGENCY ETHANOL-BLENDED GASOLINE AND 
                   BIODIESEL PURCHASING REQUIREMENT.

       ``(a) Ethanol-Blended Gasoline.--The head of each Federal 
     agency shall ensure that, in areas in which ethanol-blended 
     gasoline is available at a competitive price, the Federal 
     agency purchases ethanol-blended gasoline containing at least 
     10 percent ethanol (or the highest available percentage of 
     ethanol), rather than nonethanol-blended gasoline, for use in 
     vehicles used by the agency.
       ``(b) Biodiesel.--

[[Page S2894]]

       ``(1) Definition of biodiesel.--In this subsection, the 
     term `biodiesel' has the meaning given the term in section 
     312(f).
       ``(2) Requirement.--The head of each Federal agency shall 
     ensure that the Federal agency purchases, for use in fueling 
     fleet vehicles used by the Federal agency at the location at 
     which fleet vehicles of the Federal agency are centrally 
     fueled, in areas in which biodiesel-blended diesel fuel is 
     available at a competitive price--
       ``(A) as of the date that is 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, biodiesel-blended diesel fuel 
     that contains at least 2 percent biodiesel, rather than 
     nonbiodiesel-blended diesel fuel; and
       ``(B) as of the date that is 10 years after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, biodiesel-blended diesel fuel 
     that contains at least 20 percent biodiesel, rather than 
     nonbiodiesel-blended diesel fuel.
       ``(c) Exemption for Military Vehicles.--This section does 
     not apply to fuel used in vehicles used for military purposes 
     that the Secretary of Defense certifies to the Secretary must 
     be exempt for national security reasons.''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for edification of the Senators, what the 
two leaders have suggested we do is early this afternoon move to border 
security. There is a unanimous consent that has been prepared. It is 
being circulated now. We should be able to enter into that agreement 
hopefully very soon.
  In the meantime, I think the Senate would be well advised to continue 
working on the bill that is now before us--the energy bill. There are a 
number of amendments that have been cleared.
  In a moment, the Senator from New York will be here to speak on 
ethanol. There are a number of amendments dealing with that subject in 
this legislation. Until the Senator from New York returns, 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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order and call up 
amendment No. 3030.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will allow me to make a suggestion?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Please.
  Mr. REID. The Senator should call up his amendment, that it be the 
pending business.


                     Amendment No. 3030, Withdrawn

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3030.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I withdraw this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I plan, along with several of my colleagues, to 
discuss this amendment. We are going to offer it again for a vote at a 
time that is agreeable to everybody. The only reason I withdrew it is I 
didn't want there to be a motion to table it where we wouldn't have a 
full debate on this very important amendment.
  This is, of course, the amendment that would remove the ethanol 
mandate from the energy bill, not removing either of the other parts. 
It keeps the clean air standards, and it keeps the ban on the MTBE, but 
it does not require that ethanol be used as an oxygenate. It does not 
even require an oxygenate as long as the MTBE standard is met.

  Before I begin, I want to say how much I respect and admire our 
majority leader, Tom Daschle. He is just a leader par excellence. He is 
a principled, compassionate, and extraordinary public servant, and a 
true friend to the people of my State. I consider it a privilege to 
serve under him and to be his friend.
  For that reason, believe me, I do not enjoy opposing a provision in a 
bill about which I know Senator Daschle cares very deeply. I thought 
long and hard about whether to oppose the amendment and came to the 
conclusion that I had no choice, that I was compelled to do so because 
I sincerely believe this provision will hurt consumers dramatically in 
my State of New York and throughout the country.
  So I do rise to my feet in this Chamber to speak on amendment No. 
3030, reluctantly, with some sadness, but nonetheless, bolstered in the 
belief that it is the right thing to do and that I would be derelict in 
my responsibilities as a Senator to the people of my State and to our 
country if I did not offer my amendment. I had hoped that someone else 
would have, but they did not, so here I am.
  I have been in Congress for 22 years. Every so often there is an 
amendment that people vote for that becomes part of the law that isn't 
paid too much attention to, and then, a year or two later, it turns out 
to be a big disaster. Our constituents turn to us and ask: How, the 
heck did you do that? How could you have done this? How could you have 
created something that has caused so much hardship without even 
thinking about it, without debating it, without opposing it?
  I remember the catastrophic illness amendment 10, 12 years ago. I 
know some of my colleagues disagree about the analogy, but I think it 
is an apt one. We passed that amendment in the House, when I was in 
that body, with, I believe, minimal debate. I may be mistaken, but I 
think it was even on a two-thirds vote on the consent calendar. 
Everyone thought they were doing a good thing.
  When the bill bit--when people realized how much they had to pay for 
a service that they would have liked to have had, but it was not 
essential to them, when people realized they all paid for it, even 
though many of them did not need it because they had other coverage--
there was a public outcry, and there was almost a rush to the floor by 
House Members to get up and say why they really did not vote for what 
had happened, why they did not mean to do what had been done.
  That happens every so often around here. It does not happen often. We 
are generally pretty careful, and the slowness of the legislative 
process stops it.
  I say to my colleagues: Beware. If there were ever an amendment 
quietly put in a bill that should have a ``tread cautiously'' label on 
it, that should have perhaps a skull and crossbones on it, this is it. 
This is not an innocuous amendment. This is not an amendment that 
simply helps some farmers and does no harm to the rest of us. It is a 
deep and profound change in terms of how we use our motor fuel. It will 
require dramatic changes in investments throughout the land. It will 
create consequences that none of us are sure of because we are jumping 
into this pool of ethanol, if you will, without having put our toe in 
first. I fear the consequences.
  So today I rise with my fellow Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, 
our colleagues from California, and now a small but growing band of 
Members throughout the Senate, to oppose the unprecedented new ethanol 
gas tax which was quietly inserted into the Senate energy bill a few 
weeks ago without any debate.
  My amendment may be adopted, but I do not fool myself. It may not. 
There is a huge group--some of whom I have often allied with, some of 
whom I usually oppose--arrayed against it. But I am convinced we will 
be the better for this debate, whatever our view is, because of the 
breathtaking change that the ethanol mandate imposes throughout the 
land.
  The antioxygenate provisions in the bill accomplish two goals that 
are not disputed by my amendment. One is banning the use of MTBE. We 
have found that MTBE has resulted in ground water pollution all over 
the country. In my home State, on Long Island, where drinking water 
comes from one big single aquifer, MTBE that is spilled on the ground 
is slowly seeping into the soil, and it actually permanently pollutes 
that precious aquifer which close to 3 million people depend upon for 
their drinking and bathing and their washing.
  My State, along with many others, has banned MTBE and many more 
States are planning to do it. This bill does that. We are not changing 
that.
  The second is the scrapping of the oxygenate mandate that led so many 
States to make such heavy use of MTBE in the first place. The proposal 
in the bill provides an antibacksliding provision that says if you 
don't use MTBE, you can't backslide on clean air. Some believe those 
provisions could be stronger, but we are not opposing either of those 
two parts: the ban on MTBE or the antibacksliding

[[Page S2895]]

provisions, the provisions that require the air to stay as clean as we 
require it now. It is not those provisions we are opposing.
  Beyond those two provisions, this new provision added to the energy 
bill--again, without any debate--adds an astonishing new anticonsumer, 
antifree market requirement that every refiner in the country, 
regardless of where they are located, regardless of whether their State 
mandates it or not, regardless of whether the State chooses a different 
path to get to clean air, regardless of whether the refiners in that 
State say that ethanol doesn't work or works very expensively, it 
requires them to use an ever-increasing volume of ethanol.
  Here is the kicker--there are a lot of kickers in this provision, the 
ethanol provision that was quietly added to the bill. If your State or 
your region does not want to use ethanol, you still have to pay for 
ethanol. You have to buy what is called ethanol credits. It costs you 
the same as if you bought the ethanol yourself. When have we done that 
before? When have we said, even if you choose not to use a product, an 
expensive product, a product that affects just about everyone, anyone 
who owns a car, any company that drives trucks, when have we ever said 
in such a dramatic way that you are forced to use something? It is 
astounding. It would be similar to saying to people who needed heating 
in their homes, you have to use oil rather than gas, and if you choose 
to use gas for whatever reason, you still have to pay for the oil.
  That is what we are doing here, no less, except we are doing it with 
gasoline, and it sounds sort of complicated, ethanol sounds chemical, 
and all that. The effect is very simple.
  This is a gas tax. In 1993, many of us debated whether there ought to 
be a gas tax. Some say the whole Congress changed on the basis of that 
debate; that in 1994, the House and Senate switched parties in part 
because of that debate. This is, for most States, a larger gas tax than 
the one that was proposed. And, to boot, it doesn't even go to a useful 
purpose. The gas tax at least built new highways to help the driver, 
and there was a theory about it. This makes you buy ethanol--hardly a 
return to motorists the way the gas tax was to be.
  It will affect every employee driving to work. It will affect every 
mom driving the kids to school. It will affect every Teamster driving a 
truck. It will affect every company that uses automobiles and cars and 
trucks. I don't think there are many that don't. Every gasoline user in 
this country will pay.
  The mandate is so steep that sure as we are sitting here, it is not 
just the added cost of the ethanol--which will be great enough; I will 
talk about that in a minute--but it is going to cause price spikes. 
Currently, refiners across the Nation use 1.7 billion gallons of 
ethanol. That is the total amount. Starting in 2004, 2 years away, they 
would be required to use 2.3 billion gallons of ethanol. Almost 
immediately, we are requiring a large amount of ethanol. You know what 
happens when you place a huge demand on a product and you don't have 
the supply? Simple economics: The price goes through the roof.

  I am opposed to this substantively. But I say to my colleagues who 
are running in 2004: Beware. Let's say the proponents of the bill are 
wrong. Let's say I am right and all of a sudden next summer, the summer 
of 2004, gasoline goes up 30, 40, 50 cents a gallon, which is very 
possible. What are you going to say?
  I want to help the corn farmers, too. I vote for everything that 
comes up to help the middle western and southern farmers. But this is 
not the way to do it. We can do it a lot more efficiently and with a 
lot less harm to the driver.
  You don't need a degree in economics to know that if ethanol 
producers can't meet the demand, there are going to be price spikes, 
big price spikes. That is just the beginning. It is going to get worse. 
We ratchet up the number from 2.3 billion in 2004, up to 5 billion 
gallons of ethanol in 2012. Then we increase it by a percentage 
equivalent to the proportion of ethanol in the entire U.S. gas supply 
after 2012 in perpetuity. We are locking people into one method of 
cleaning the gasoline and the air forever. That means from 2012 on, the 
Nation's ethanol producers will have a guaranteed annual market of over 
5 billion gallons, which every consumer in this country will pay for at 
the pump.
  Here is how much you are all going to pay. This is a conservative 
estimate. They use Department of Energy numbers, but it is called Hart/
IRI Fuels Information Services. They are a well-established group. They 
are not part of the petroleum industry or anybody else. The estimates 
are conservative because that is without price spikes and that is 
assuming the best of circumstances, that everything works smoothly.
  Here is how much each of your States will pay. The minimum is 4 
cents, 4 cents a gallon every time you go to the pump. But I am going 
to read all the States where it is greater than 4 cents a gallon, how 
much you would pay.
  In Arizona, you would pay 7.6 cents a gallon; in California, you 
would pay an extra 9.6 cents a gallon; in Connecticut--I see my 
colleague from Connecticut here in the Chamber--it is estimated you 
would pay an extra 9.7 cents a gallon; District of Columbia, 9.7 cents 
a gallon; Illinois, 7.3 cents a gallon; Indiana, 4.9 cents a gallon; 
Kentucky, 5.4 cents a gallon; Louisiana, 4.2 cents a gallon; Maryland, 
9.1 cents a gallon--that is a lot of money--Massachusetts even more, 
9.7 cents a gallon; Missouri, 5.6 cents a gallon; New Hampshire, 8.4 
cents a gallon; New Jersey, 9.1 cents a gallon; New York, 7.1 cents a 
gallon; Pennsylvania, 5.5 cents a gallon; Rhode Island, 9.7 cents a 
gallon; Texas 5.7 cents a gallon; Virginia, 7.2 cents a gallon; 
Wisconsin--I see my friend from Wisconsin here; we have worked on 
agricultural issues together--5.5 cents a gallon.
  Every one of those States pays more than the 4 cents.
  If you hear the name of your State now, your drivers will pay, under 
the best of circumstances by these estimates, an extra 4 cents a 
gallon: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, 
Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, 
Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, 
Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, 
Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
  The annual aggregate impact is $8.3 billion. That is a lot of money. 
Even in the Middle West, where there is a lot of ethanol production, 
where it would be less onerous than in other places, the cost of 
gasoline goes up 4 or 5 cents a gallon. That is a lot of money.
  I know there are some supporters here. We have had many good 
arguments privately and on the floor and some are going to say these 
numbers are inaccurate. They include the cost of banning MTBE. The cost 
of forcing the entire country to use 5 billion gallons of ethanol will 
be a mere pittance.
  Remember this, my friends: Ethanol is very hard to transport. It 
cannot be carried through our existing pipeline infrastructure because 
it is so volatile. It has to be put on a truck, a barge, and sent down 
the Mississippi to New Orleans, usually, and then sent by boat around 
the country, and then loaded back onto a truck and taken to a local 
refinery and put into the gasoline. You can see why it is so expensive.
  Then some people say they will build ethanol plants closer to the big 
users, particularly on the coast and in the South, where this has the 
greatest effect. There is not enough corn and ethanol production down 
there. Who is going to pay for the cost of all those new ethanol 
plants? It will be the drivers of all of our States. Because of its 
volatility, because you cannot create a pipeline and pipe it through to 
the refinery and add it in, because you have to transport it in this 
particular way, you can see that ethanol is not the cheapest way to do 
what we want to do in terms of cleaning our air.
  With all due respect, I think the cost estimates I am citing are 
based on more realistic assumptions than those that went into my 
opponents' number. We tried to be as careful and conservative as we 
could. To forecast how much a 10-year, 5-billion-gallon ethanol mandate 
is going to cost consumers across the country, you have to look at 
interplay of a host of complex factors: growth in auto travel, gasoline 
prices, corn prices, ethanol price, and how many new ethanol plants are 
expected to come online. That is all inextricably linked to how high 
the price of ethanol is going to go. If the price is

[[Page S2896]]

high and manufacturing ethanol becomes profitable, yes, the private 
sector will build the plants. If it is not, they will not. Yet in the 
numbers I have seen circulated by the proponents of this issue, they 
use contradictory figures. They say ethanol prices will be unusually 
low for the next 10 years. At the same time, the private sector is 
going to build plants all over the country.
  You cannot have it both ways. If the price is low, you are not going 
to build new plants. If the price is high, then you will. I am willing 
to concede that modeling this unprecedented, inefficient, untested, 
jerry-built contraption, a nationwide mandate on every refiner in the 
United States to pay for billions and billions of gallons of ethanol 
whether they use it or not is difficult.
  I know my staff has been working with Senator Daschle's staff and a 
number of technical experts to see if we can reach agreement on the 
numbers. If we can do so, that would be great.
  In truth, whether it costs a penny a gallon or a dollar a gallon--my 
guess is, from the estimates I read, the State-by-State numbers I read 
are low, because those are under the best of market conditions--why are 
we mandating it? There is no public policy reason for the use of 
ethanol other than the political might of the ethanol lobby.
  I say to colleagues from the farm States, the fact that we are 
getting rid of MTBE and keeping the air standards high is going to 
increase demand for ethanol. I think you are going to do better than 
you have ever done before. Without casting aspersions on colleagues and 
individuals, the proposal is kind of greedy. Yes, ethanol is going to 
be needed more. But a mandate to the ethanol world? You are going to do 
well under this. Once MTBE is gone, your main competitor is gone.

  For States such as mine, where the refiners believe they can find a 
better method that is cheaper, why would you require us to use ethanol? 
That is the fundamental weakness.
  I was having a good discussion with my friend from Iowa, who does a 
great job defending farmers and farm States. He has even tried to help 
us in an unprecedented way in the Northeast. He says: What will replace 
ethanol if you don't mandate?
  The first and best argument is to let the market come up with 
something. If you mandate it, there is going to be no alternative; you 
are stuck with it. If it is the best in the market, it will prevail in 
the marketplace.
  There are alternatives. Refiners have told me--those away from the 
Middle West--that they will use a combination of aromatics and 
alkaloids. Alkaloids are about as clean as ethanol. Aromatics are kind 
of dirty. Aromatics break down so you cannot use all of them. But a 
form called Alkaloids are clean. Alkaloids could be used, plain and 
simple. I don't know if they work better than ethanol or not. But I 
will tell you, the people in my State say they will. Why mandate that?
  So the bottom line is, there is no sound public policy reason for 
mandating the use of ethanol. We live in a free market economy. We 
hardly mandate anything, especially when there is a choice.
  Well, the new ethanol gas tax will contribute to market volatility 
and price spikes, especially since the industry is concentrated in the 
Midwest. It is going to increase costs in general. That is the second 
issue. But you are going to create price spikes all over the place. 
When you increase the amount that is needed, you know when there is one 
big boy, one producer, they are going to go to town.
  Archer Daniels Midland, alone, controls 41 percent of the market--a 
monopoly. Certainly, somebody is asserting huge market control. When 
they have to build more refineries, who is going to have the best 
access to capital and technology? They are. My guess is their market 
share will actually increase. Who knows, 41 percent is a lot.
  Well, let me tell you, the mandates frighten people even in the 
Middle West. I want to make a point. Two States in the heartland of 
America--two of the biggest corn-producing States in the country 
considered mandating ethanol--Iowa and Nebraska. Both of them rejected 
it. If the people of Iowa, through their legislature, and the people of 
Nebraska withdrew the legislation--it was not a referendum--and 
rejected this, why now are we in the Senate imposing it on Iowa, 
Nebraska, and everybody else who is in a far worse position?
  Let me read what some of the newspapers in those areas said:

       An ethanol mandate would deny Iowans a choice of fuels and 
     short circuit the process of ethanol establishing its own 
     worth in the marketplace. . . . The justification is to 
     marginally boost the price of corn. Cleaner air is offered as 
     a reason, too, but that's an afterthought. If that were the 
     goal, other measures would be far more effective. . . .
  That is the Des Moines Sunday Register, 9-19-1999, headlined ``Let 
Ethanol Prove Itself.''
  The Quad City Times from Davenport, IA, in an editorial entitled 
``Ethanol Only Proposal Doesn't Help Consumers'':

       With research and continued refinements, it might someday 
     become an economically viable alternative to gasoline--but 
     until that day, it is ludicrous to argue that Iowa's gas 
     stations be required to sell only ethanol. . . . Ethanol 
     might be worth some level of support, but it will never be so 
     valuable as to justify scrapping our free enterprise system.

  That is not the New York Times. That is not the Los Angeles Times in 
California. That is the Quad City Times at the border of Iowa and 
Illinois.
  Nebraska, as I mentioned, considered an ethanol mandate and rejected 
it. Here is what the Grand Island Independent said about a year ago in 
an editorial:
       ``Ethanol Use Shouldn't Be a Forced Buy.'' Americans don't 
     like to be forced to do anything and Nebraskans are no 
     different. Yet the Legislature is considering forcing all gas 
     stations throughout the state--

  This was a State mandate--

     to start selling ethanol blends. . . .That just doesn't seem 
     fair. Our country and our business system is based on supply 
     and demand. Consumers determine the products they want and 
     businesses meeting those needs succeed. While many in 
     Nebraska may want ethanol-based fuels, many Americans 
     traveling our highways don't.

  Finally, the Omaha World Herald, in the year 2000, editorialized:

       Now the Nebraska Legislature is considering eliminating the 
     competition altogether. Support is building for a proposed 
     state law to require most general purpose automotive fuel 
     sold in the state to contain ethanol. . . .As a general 
     principle, government should not take sides in such matters 
     unless a strong case can be made that intervention serves a 
     major public purpose. In this instance, the arguments for 
     eliminating competition haven't been persuasive.

  Even editorials, as well as voters, in the heartland of America, 
where there is much more corn and ethanol is far more likely to 
succeed, argue against a mandate, which is what we are about to impose.
  My opponents also argue that this ethanol gas tax is needed to help 
family farms, and I take those arguments very seriously. I know that 
many of my colleagues from the Middle West want to help their family 
farmers who are struggling. I want to help those farmers, too, and I 
have stood by my Senate colleagues from Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, the 
Dakotas, Montana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and I have voted for billions 
and billions of dollars in agricultural subsidies to help the farmers 
in the West and South. That is a decision I think I can make in good 
conscience. Commodity subsidies, by the way, do very little for New 
York.
  Since I have been in the Senate, I have supported the Midwestern 
farmers. I know how important they are to the economy of those States. 
I know how important they are as a breeding ground for American values. 
I say to my colleagues, I think a majority in this Senate Chamber--a 
big majority--are willing to help some more. But find a way that works. 
Do not do it by imposing a gas tax on all of our drivers.
  I speak for my State of New York. Our economy is hurting after 9-11. 
We do not need this which particularly affects the east and west coasts 
worse than other places.
  Guess what. In addition, what pains me is this has not trickled down. 
Do you think corn growers of the Middle West are going to make most of 
the money? I have heard our farm State folks complain over and over 
that it is the middleman who gets most of the farm dollar. It is the 
people in the middle who make the money and a few bits trickle down to 
the family farmer. Yet that is just what we are doing here.

[[Page S2897]]

  We are giving Archer Daniels Midland, Williams Energy Company, 
Minnesota corn processors, and giant corporations the real control in 
the market. They are the ones who will make most of the money. When the 
price spikes the way electricity spiked in California, do you think 
that money will trickle down to your farmers? Forget it. Maybe if they 
own stock in Archer Daniels Midland they will do well, but they will 
get very little bang for the buck. If the past is any indication, for 
every nickel that our drivers pay throughout the country, the farmer 
will receive certainly less than a penny.

  This policy does not even do its best to help the farmers. Take this 
$5 billion mandate and put it into some kind of direct subsidy that 
goes to small family farmers, main-line it directly to them, and you 
will get my support. That will not make the drivers in my State pay.
  I say to my colleagues from the Middle West, figure out better ways 
we can help our farmers and I will support you, but not this one.
  Let me read to you from the CRS report on ethanol. It is on energy 
security. They say:

       Another frequent argument for the use of ethanol as a motor 
     fuel is that it reduces U.S. reliance on oil imports, making 
     the U.S. less vulnerable to a fuel embargo of the sort that 
     occurred in the 1970s, which was the event that initially 
     stimulated development of the ethanol industry. According to 
     the Argonne National Laboratory, with current technology, the 
     use of E-10 leads to a 3-percent reduction in fossil fuel 
     energy per vehicle mile, while use of E-95 could lead to a 
     44-percent reduction in fossil energy use. However, our 
     studies contradict the Argonne studies suggesting the amount 
     of money needed to produce energy is roughly equal to the 
     amount of energy obtained from its combustion--

  So you have to create as much energy to use it as you would save in 
using it.
  Continuing the quote:

     which could lead to little or no reductions in fossil energy 
     use. Thus, if the energy used in ethanol production is 
     petroleum-based--

  Which it is likely to be--

     ethanol would do nothing to contribute to energy security.

  That is CRS, not somebody with an ax to grind.
  Remember, in terms of conserving energy, ethanol is basically a wash.
  The final argument my opponents will make, I believe--I think this is 
somewhat cynical, but it will be made, I guess; that has never been a 
bar to any of us on the floor of the Senate--is that if New York and 
California and other States want to clean up their water by banning 
MTBE and maintain clean air, they should have to pay the price of an 
ethanol gas tax, and that it is political naivete to think otherwise.
  My State has already banned the use of MTBE, and so have 12 other 
States, including: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, 
Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South 
Dakota, and Washington.
  A number of other States are also in the process of taking action, as 
well, because MTBE pollutes the groundwater. But everyone in those 
States who banned MTBE is going to be in an impossible dilemma. Their 
citizens are demanding they ban MTBE, but with the oxygenate 
requirement in place, they cannot successfully do so.
  Last year, President Bush's administration denied California's 
petition to waive the oxygenate requirement, despite the State's 
ability to comply with air quality standards without it. They deny the 
waivers, even though you can get there a better way. This denial forced 
the State to defer its critical ban on MTBE and suffer groundwater 
contamination.
  New York State is considering requesting a waiver. Although I call on 
President Bush and Administrator Whitman to look favorably on New 
York's waiver request, my guess is if and when New York applies, we 
will be met with the same denial as that of the Governor of the State 
of California. States such as New York, California, States on the 
coasts, many States in the South, even States that are large urban 
States in the Middle West, such as Illinois, are between a rock and a 
hard place.
  Our citizens' health and the environment are being held hostage to 
the desire of the ethanol lobby to make ever larger profits.
  Let us meet the same clean air standards we now have in the way we 
think is best. Let us use reformulated gasoline. Let us use these 
outlets which are as clean as ethanol and cheaper if one is not near 
corn. If ethanol is better, the marketplace will prevail.
  What makes me doubt all the virtues of ethanol, when my colleagues 
propose it, is that they mandate. If it is going to be so cheap and so 
clean and so good, let the market prevail. As I said before, the 
ethanol producers and corn growers are going to be in a better 
position, even with my amendment, than otherwise because MTBEs are 
banned. The clean air standard stays, and in many cases ethanol will be 
the best way to go.
  It is an outrage that Congress is telling Americans across the 
country that we refuse to clean up their air and water unless they pay 
off ADM. That is unconscionable. There is no public policy reason on 
Earth not to allow States to ban MTBEs and remove the oxygenate 
requirement and keep clean air standards in place without requiring 
them to buy ethanol.
  Ironically, the ethanol mandate, because ethanol is exempt, reduces 
the highway trust fund in State after State. It is going to reduce it 
in California by $900 million, in New York by $493 million, in 
Pennsylvania by $446 million, in Massachusetts by $183 million. It can 
be looked up to see how much less highway money each Senator's State 
will get as a result of this mandate. In New York, we need that money. 
We have a great need for transportation dollars, especially with the 
damage done to our subway system on 9-11.
  Other States such as Virginia that suffered an attack and had to 
struggle to accommodate transportation needs of its fast growing 
suburbs need it as well.
  So for consumers throughout the country, this is a one-two punch. 
First, one pays more at the pump to meet arbitrary goals that boost the 
sales of ethanol but are not necessary to achieve clean air. Second--
and this is another zinger in this bill; it is loaded with boobytraps 
consumers will face restrictions from suing manufacturers, and oil 
companies will have less incentive to ensure that the additives they 
manufacture and use are safe.
  There is a provision that says not only can States such as 
California, New York, and so many others--not only do they have to use 
ethanol, but we are banning MTBEs and we are prohibiting anyone from 
suing companies that may have polluted their water. My goodness, how 
much can they pile on us?
  This is no longer an academic discussion. Three oil companies have 
been found liable in California--I am sure my colleague from 
California, the senior Senator, knows about this--of knowingly 
polluting the ground water around Lake Tahoe with MTBEs. My colleague 
from California, our junior Senator, Mrs. Boxer, will have a lot more 
to say about that case and what these provisions that exempt the 
refineries and oil companies from being sued mean. But the case 
demonstrates something truly disturbing.
  The petroleum industry opposed ethanol mandates for years, but now, 
facing a raft of MTBE lawsuits, including the first defeat in 
California, they have signed off on this deal in return for a really 
disgraceful liability provision.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would be happy to yield to my friend from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I understand the context of the Senator's 
argument, what he is saying is that New York does not need an oxygen 
requirement, that New York can use reformulated gasoline and can meet 
the clean air standards by this reformulated gasoline, and California 
as well does not need an oxygen requirement; we can meet clean air 
standards without an oxygenate requirement and, where we do not meet 
clean air standards--summer months in Southern California--can use 
ethanol and we do not need an around-the-year requirement.
  So if I understand the Senator correctly, his position then is exempt 
New York, exempt California, from the strictures of this bill, and 
exempt us from an oxygenate requirement. Is that the position of the 
Senator?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Well, my position is we should not have this mandate 
anywhere, but obviously if we were offered

[[Page S2898]]

an exemption for New York, and for California, the vehemence against 
this opposition would disappear. We are defending the vital interests 
of our States. I would simply argue with my friend from California, 
this is not just a New York and California problem; this is a problem 
in many States.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I realize that. I find myself in agreement with the 
Senator. What I have wanted all along is for California--because we do 
not have an infrastructure in place in the state and we know there is 
going to be a price spike--to have the EPA sign off on a waiver.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Right. I apologize.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. So I want to identify myself with where the Senator 
is going. If these two States were to receive a waiver from the 
oxygenate requirement, we would certainly be satisfied.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I misinterpreted what my friend from California was 
saying, for which I apologize. California applied for a waiver from the 
oxygenate standard and was rejected by the current administration. No 
good reason was given. I think, again, this was a sop to the ethanol 
lobby.
  New York would like to apply. If we knew these waivers would be 
granted, if we knew that consideration would be made on the merits, we 
would not be debating today. But if someone tells us, well, you can get 
the standard waived, forget it; they are not waiving it. The 
administration is not waiving it. If we were to get a letter from 
President Bush saying he will waive States that can find a better way, 
we are in; but we are not. As I had mentioned earlier, we are between a 
rock and a hard place.
  In conclusion, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment sponsored 
by myself and the senior Senator from California, the Senator from New 
York, Mrs. Clinton, the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, and some 
others, to strike the ethanol mandate. If we believe Congress has an 
obligation to protect the health of our citizens and environment, if we 
believe that maintaining clean air standards is important but also 
believe there are different ways to get there, do not support forcing 
American consumers to pay for ethanol.
  If my colleagues believe Congress has the obligation to protect 
consumers and keep our market economy running as efficiently as 
possible, then I would ask them not to mandate ethanol and impose a gas 
tax.
  I say to my colleagues who support this amendment, the heart of which 
is in the Middle West, find us a better way. We do not want to hurt 
their farmers. In fact, we want to help them, as our record has shown, 
but not at undoing the entire fuel economy of much of the country.
  I say to my colleagues that as they listen to this debate, I think it 
is very hard not to be persuaded that we have a good argument. I urge 
them to listen to the debate. I urge them to look at the substance. I 
urge them to look at the politics. I urge them to defeat the ethanol 
gas tax, the mandated ethanol gas tax, by supporting our amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Wisconsin yield for a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. KOHL. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. So Senators understand what we are trying to do this 
afternoon, we are going to ask unanimous consent the Senator from 
Wisconsin proceed for up to 5 minutes as if in morning business. 
Following that, the Senator from New Mexico, the manager of this bill, 
has a significant number of amendments that have been cleared, almost 
20 amendments that have been cleared. He will have cleared those.
  Senator Murkowski has been called away for a funeral this afternoon. 
He will be back in about an hour.
  Senator Dayton wishes to speak on the ethanol provision, following 
the statement of the Senator from Wisconsin and the work done by the 
manager of the bill.
  Then Senator Feinstein and Senator McConnell have some business they 
want to do. That will also be in morning business, as I understand it.
  As I say, when Senator Murkowski returns, the two leaders, Senator 
Daschle and Senator Lott, agree it would be appropriate for him to 
offer an amendment dealing with Iraqi sanctions. We hope after he gets 
back to complete the debate on that within a relatively short period of 
time, perhaps an hour or less. Then we would go this evening to border 
security. Senator Kennedy and others have been working on that matter, 
and we would be in a position in the near future to offer a unanimous 
consent request. That should take us into the evening time with several 
votes during the next several hours.
  I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Wisconsin be recognized for 
up to 5 minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Reserving the right to object, so that I can advise 
Senator McConnell, my understanding of the unanimous consent agreement 
is Senator Kohl, Senator Dayton, and then Senator McConnell and I will 
have a chance to introduce legislation in morning business.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from California, the only unanimous 
consent request I requested was Senator Kohl. I was relaying what I 
hope will happen. As soon as Senator Bingaman finishes his business, 
Senator Dayton will speak for 15 or 20 minutes, at the most, and then 
there will be time for you and Senator McConnell to take up your matter 
for up to a half hour.
  That is not in the form of a unanimous consent agreement, but I think 
everyone should recognize that is the courteous thing to do, to allow 
people to proceed in that manner.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to allowing the 
Senator from Wisconsin to speak?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kohl are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.


    Amendments Nos. 3015, As Modified; 3024, As Modified; 3078, As 
                      Modified; and 3141, En Bloc

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now 
proceed to the consideration en bloc of the following amendments: 
Amendment No. 3015, relating to a National Academy of Sciences study on 
certain spent nuclear fuel shipments; amendment No. 3024, relating to 
nuclear powerplant licensing and regulation; amendment No. 3078, 
relating to a review of Federal procurement initiatives, and that those 
amendments be modified with changes at the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendments will be so modified.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I further ask unanimous consent that it be in order to 
also consider amendment No. 3141, relating to fuel cell vehicles, and 
that all four amendments I have referred to be agreed to en bloc.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 3015, 3024, 3078, and 3041) were agreed to en 
bloc, as follows:


                     AMENDMENT NO. 3015 AS MODIFIED

(Purpose: To require a National Academy of Sciences study of procedures 
for the selection and assessment of certain routes for the shipment of 
           spent nuclear fuel from research nuclear reactors)

       At the end of title XVII, add the following:

     SEC. 1704. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES STUDY OF PROCEDURES 
                   FOR SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT OF CERTAIN ROUTES 
                   FOR SHIPMENT OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL FROM 
                   RESEARCH NUCLEAR REACTORS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences 
     under which agreement the National Academy of Sciences shall 
     conduct a study of the procedures by which the Department of 
     Energy, together with the Department of Transportation and 
     the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, selects routes for the 
     shipment of spent nuclear fuel from research nuclear reactors 
     between or among existing Department of Energy facilities 
     currently licensed to accept such spent nuclear fuel.
       (b) Elements of Study.--In conducting the study under 
     subsection (a), the National Academy of Sciences shall 
     analyze the manner in which the Department of Energy--
       (1) selects potential routes for the shipment of spent 
     nuclear fuel from research nuclear reactors between or among 
     existing Department facilities currently licensed to accept 
     such spent nuclear fuel;
       (2) selects such a route for a specific shipment of such 
     spent nuclear fuel; and
       (3) conducts assessments of the risks associated with 
     shipments of such spent nuclear fuel along such a route.

[[Page S2899]]

       (c) Considerations Regarding Route Selection.--The analysis 
     under subsection (b) shall include a consideration whether, 
     and to what extent, the procedures analyzed for purposes of 
     that subsection take into account the following:
       (1) The proximity of the routes under consideration to 
     major population centers and the risks associated with 
     shipments of spent nuclear fuel from research nuclear 
     reactors through densely populated areas.
       (2) Current traffic and accident data with respect to the 
     routes under consideration.
       (3) The quality of the roads comprising the routes under 
     consideration.
       (4) Emergency response capabilities along the routes under 
     consideration.
       (5) The proximity of the routes under consideration to 
     places or venues (including sports stadiums, convention 
     centers, concert halls and theaters, and other venues) where 
     large numbers of people gather.
       (d) Recommendations.--In conducting the study under 
     subsection (a), the National Academy of Sciences shall also 
     make such recommendations regarding the matters studied as 
     the National Academy of Sciences considers appropriate.
       (e) Deadline for Dispersal of Funds for Study.--The 
     Secretary shall disperse to the National Academy of Sciences 
     the funds for the cost of the study required by subsection 
     (a) not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (f) Report on Results of Study.--Not later than six months 
     after the date of the dispersal of funds under subsection 
     (e), the National Academy of Sciences shall submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a report on the study 
     conducted under subsection (a), including the recommendations 
     required by subsection (d).
       (g) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committees on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation, Energy and Natural Resources, and Environment 
     and Public Works of the Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives.
                                  ____



                     AMENDMENT NO. 3024 AS MODIFIED

  (Purpose: To promote the safe and efficient supply of energy while 
             maintaining strong environmental protections)

       On page 123, aftger line 17, insert the following:

                  Subtitle C--Growth of Nuclear Energy

     SEC. 521. COMBINED LICENSE PERIODS.

       Section 103c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2133(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``c. Each such'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``c. License Period.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each such''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Combined licenses.--In the case of a combined 
     construction and operating license issued under section 
     185(b), the duration of the operating phase of the license 
     period shall not be less than the duration of the operating 
     license if application had been made for separate 
     construction and operating licenses.''.

                   Subtitle D--NRC Regulatory Reform

     SEC. 531. ANTITRUST REVIEW.

       (a) In General.--Section 105 of the Atomic Energy Act of 
     1954 (42 U.S.C. 2135) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``d. Antitrust Laws.--
       ``(1) Notification.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), 
     when the Commission proposes to issue a license under section 
     103 or 104b., the Commission shall notify the Attorney 
     General of the proposed license and the proposed terms and 
     conditions of the license.
       ``(2) Action by the attorney general.--Within a reasonable 
     time (but not more than 90 days) after receiving notification 
     under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall submit to the 
     Commission and publish in the Federal Register a 
     determination whether, insofar as the Attorney General is 
     able to determine, the proposed license would tend to create 
     or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
       ``(3) Information.--On the request of the Attorney General, 
     the Commission shall furnish or cause to be furnished such 
     information as the Attorney General determines to be 
     appropriate or necessary to enable the Attorney General to 
     make the determination under paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Applicability.--This subsection shall not apply to 
     such classes or type of licenses as the Commission, with the 
     approval of the Attorney General, determines would not 
     significantly affect the activities of a licensee under the 
     antitrust laws.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 105c. of the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2135(c)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(9) Applicability.--This subsection does not apply to an 
     application for a license to construct or operate a 
     utilization facility under section 103 or 104b. that is filed 
     on or after the date of enactment of subsection d.''.

     SEC. 532. DECOMMISSIONING.

       (a) Authority Over Former Licensees for Decommissioning 
     Funding.--Section 161i. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 
     U.S.C. 2201(i)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and (3)'' and inserting ``(3)''; and
       (2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``, and (4) to ensure that sufficient funds will 
     be available for the decommissioning of any production or 
     utilization facility licensed under section 103 or 104b., 
     including standards and restrictions governing the control, 
     maintenance, use, and disbursement by any former licensee 
     under this Act that has control over any fund for the 
     decommissioning of the facility''.
       (b) Treatment of Nuclear Reactor Financial Obligations.--
     Section 523 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Treatment of Nuclear Reactor Financial Obligations.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this title--
       ``(1) any funds or other assets held by a licensee or 
     former licensee of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or by 
     any other person, to satisfy the responsibility of the 
     licensee, former licensee, or any other person to comply with 
     a regulation or order of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
     governing the decontamination and decommissioning of a 
     nuclear power reactor licensed under section 103 or 104b. of 
     the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134(b)) shall 
     not be used to satisfy the claim of any creditor in any 
     proceeding under this title, other than a claim resulting 
     from an activity undertaken to satisfy that responsibility, 
     until the decontamination and decommissioning of the nuclear 
     power reactor is completed to the satisfaction of the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission;
       ``(2) obligations of licensees, former licensees, or any 
     other person to use funds or other assets to satisfy a 
     responsibility described in paragraph (1) may not be 
     rejected, avoided, or discharged in any proceeding under this 
     title or in any liquidation, reorganization, receivership, or 
     other insolvency proceeding under Federal or State law; and
       ``(3) private insurance premiums and standard deferred 
     premiums held and maintained in accordance with section 170b. 
     of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(b)) shall 
     not be used to satisfy the claim of any creditor in any 
     proceeding under this title, until the indemnification 
     agreement executed in accordance with section 170c. of that 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 2210(c)) is terminated.''.

                    Subtitle E--NRC Personnel Crisis

     SEC. 541. ELIMINATION OF PENSION OFFSET.

       Section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2201) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``y. exempt from the application of sections 8344 and 8468 
     of title 5, United States Code, an annuitant who was formerly 
     an employee of the Commission who is hired by the Commission 
     as a consultant, if the Commission finds that the annuitant 
     has a skill that is critical to the performance of the duties 
     of the Commission.''.

     SEC. 542. NRC TRAINING PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--In order to maintain the human resource 
     investment and infrastructure of the United States in the 
     nuclear sciences, health physics, and engineering fields, in 
     accordance with the statutory authorities of the Commission 
     relating to the civilian nuclear energy program, the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission shall carry out a training and 
     fellowship program to address shortages of individuals with 
     critical safety skills.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2003 through 2006.
       (2) Availability.--Funds made available under paragraph (1) 
     shall remain available until expended.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 3078, as modified

 (Purpose: To require the General Services Administration to conduct a 
            study regarding Government procurement policies)

       On page 244, after line 23, add the following:

     SEC. 840. REVIEW OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT INITIATIVES RELATING 
                   TO USE OF RECYCLED PRODUCTS AND FLEET AND 
                   TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator of General Services shall submit to 
     Congress a report that details efforts by each Federal agency 
     to implement the procurement policies specified in Executive 
     order No. 13101 (63 Fed. Reg. 49643; relating to governmental 
     use of recycled products) and Executive order No. 13149 (65 
     Fed. Reg. 24607; relating to Federal fleet and transportation 
     efficiency).
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3141

   (Purpose: To promote a plan that would enhance and accelerate the 
development of fuel cell technology to result in the deployment of 2.5 
          million hydrogen-fueled fuel cell vehicles by 2020)

       On page 213, after line 10, insert:

     ``SEC. 824. FUEL CELL VEHICLE PROGRAM:

       Not later than one year from date of enactment of this 
     section, the Secretary shall develop a program with 
     timetables for developing technologies to enable at least 
     100,000 hydrogen-fueled fuel cell vehicles to be available 
     for sale in the United States by 2010 and at least 2.5 
     million of such vehicles to be available by 2020 and annually 
     thereafter. The program shall also include timetables for 
     development of technologies to provide 50 million gasoline 
     equivalent gallons of hydrogen for sale in fueling stations 
     in the United States by 2010 and at least 2.5 billion 
     gasoline equivalent gallons by 2020 and annually thereafter. 
     The Secretary shall annually include a review of the progress 
     toward meeting the vehicle sales of Energy budget.''


[[Page S2900]]


  Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3141

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I believe it is in our national interest 
to improve the efficiency of our vehicles, for example, through new 
vehicles and vehicle fuel technologies, so that we can reduce our oil 
dependence and better protect the environment.
  Several months ago, I test drove a fuel cell vehicle. A fuel cell 
vehicle produces electricity from the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen. 
The only by-product is water. Fuel-cell vehicles are similar to 
battery-powered electric cars in that the fuel cell produces 
electricity that powers motors at the wheels.
  But while a battery must be recharged after all of the fuel inside it 
has reacted, a fuel cell is a ``refillable battery,'' in the sense that 
recharging the vehicle only requires refilling the fuel tank. The 
hydrogen fuel required to power it can be stored directly on the 
vehicle in tanks or extracted from a secondary fuel, like methanol or 
ethanol, that carries oxygen. So, a fuel cell car can get double or 
triple the mileage of cars on the road today.
  This new technology would decrease emissions, help reduce global 
climate change, and protect our national security by reducing the 
amount of oil we would need to import from unstable regions.
  All we need to do is look at the political conditions in Venezuela 
and the situation in the Middle East, coupled with Saddam Hussein's 
sanctions against exporting oil to the United States, to realize the 
precariousness of our dependence on these imports. At this point, we 
still have other countries that can meet the global oil market 
requirements and we are not in a crisis, but this could change at any 
moment.
  Our transportation sector consumes the largest amount of energy in 
our society. Passenger vehicles account for 40 percent of the oil 
products the Nation consumes each year, or nearly 8 million barrels of 
oil each day. And, in 2001, the United States imported 53 percent of 
the Nation's oil and this is expected to increase to 60 percent or more 
by 2020, according to the Energy Information Administration. So we can 
and must change our oil consumption habits. We can do this by 
implementing new technologies that will increase fuel efficiency and 
help create jobs.
  A Ford Motor Company representative has stated ``the technology . . . 
has the potential to significantly improve the fuel economy of 
[vehicles], which could reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil, reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions and save consumers money at the pump.''
  That is why I am introducing an amendment directing the Energy 
Department to develop a program that would create measurable goals and 
timetables with the aim of putting 100,000 hydrogen-fueled fuel cell 
vehicles on the road by 2010 and 2.5 million by 2020, along with the 
needed hydrogen infrastructure. DOE would have to report annually on 
its progress toward achieving these goals.
  The amendment is designed to have DOE work with the auto 
manufacturers to ensure that these goals are met. With this amendment, 
we are sending a strong message that our goal is to accelerate and 
enhance the development of fuel cell vehicle technologies with concrete 
targets and timetables.
  Most major automakers are racing to produce prototype fuel cell 
vehicles. DaimlerChrysler has plans to have fuel-cell cars in 
production by 2004.
  California's clean air act requirements also will ensure that many 
fuel cell vehicles are on the road in the near future. Specifically, by 
next year, 2003, 2 percent of California's vehicles have to be zero-
emission vehicles and around 10 percent of its vehicles must be zero-
emission vehicles by 2018. This means that California could have nearly 
40,000 or 50,000 fuel cell cars on the road by the end of the next 
decade. Federal fleet purchase requirements also would help realize the 
targets established in my amendment.
  I am pleased that my amendment is supported by United Technologies, 
the Alliance to Save Energy, and Senators Cantwell, Bayh, and Reid.
  I know there are a number of other Members that also share my 
enthusiasm for hydrogen-fueled fuel cell vehicles, and I look forward 
to working with my colleagues to move this important and promising 
technology off the shelves and onto our streets.


                           amendment no. 3024

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today to propose an amendment 
to the energy bill that will promote the safe and efficient supply of 
nuclear energy while maintaining strong environmental protections. My 
amendment, the Nuclear Safety and Promotion Act, supports the growth of 
nuclear energy, provides regulatory reform to the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, and addresses the personnel crisis at the NRC.
  According to the Department of Energy, we are going to have to 
increase the amount of energy we produce by 30 percent by 2015 in order 
to meet our demand. Nuclear power must be a significant part of meeting 
this demand.
  My amendment addresses an unintended consequence of the Energy Policy 
Act of 1992 that will help nuclear energy grow in our country. This act 
created a combined construction and operating license of 40 years. 
However, it inadvertently caused the clock on the 40-year period to 
begin ticking when the license is issued, not when the facility 
actually begins operating. Since this could result in a difference of 
several years, this amendment fixes the quirk in the law by making the 
clock on a license start when a facility begins operating.
  In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 1954 requires the NRC to 
perform antitrust reviews when considering initial licensing. However, 
these reviews are currently also performed by the Department of Justice 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. This duplication is 
unnecessary and inefficient. My amendment establishes antitrust review 
authority firmly in the hands of the Justice Department, who has the 
experience and background to best perform these reviews.
  Under this new provision, the NRC would have no authority to either 
review the application or impose conditions regarding antitrust matters 
on any new or renewed license for commercial reactors. The NRC simply 
would be required to notify the Attorney General when the NRC proposes 
to issue a license for a reactor, and if the Attorney General requests, 
the NRC would provide general information about the facility and the 
applicants. Thus, the Attorney General would make a determination as to 
whether the proposed license for the reactor would create or maintain a 
situation inconsistent with antitrust laws.
  The licensing process and the antitrust review are two different 
matters and should be treated as such. The NRC would continue with its 
licensing action while the Justice Department makes its determination. 
In fact, this determination would not affect the NRC's licensing action 
in any way. If it is determined that the license would create or 
maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws, then the 
Attorney General could take action, but these actions would and should 
be independent of NRC's licensing process.
  While removing this inefficient duplicative burden on the NRC, my 
amendment also ensures that NRC maintains authority of a facility 
regardless of its status. In most cases, where a nuclear power reactor 
licensee sells ownership of a reactor to a new licensee, the 
responsibility for funding decommissioning is the new owner's, and 
decommissioning funds that have been set aside in a trust fund are 
transferred to the new licensee as part of the transfer.
  However, in license transfers involving the Indian Point 3 and 
Fitzpatrick reactors, the former licensee has retained the trust funds. 
Although the NRC, in approving the transfer of the reactors, imposed 
conditions aimed at ensuring that the former licensee may only use the 
decomissioning funds for that purpose, I, as well as the NRC, am 
concerned about this situation not being clearly provided for in law. 
My amendment would provide the explicit statutory authority to ensure 
that decomissioning funds are used for that purpose and that 
decomissioning is done in accordance with NRC regulatory requirements. 
Furthermore, the NRC would be able to retain a decomissioning fund over 
sellers of nuclear facilities even though the seller may no longer be a 
NRC licensee.

[[Page S2901]]

  Additionally, a provision of this amendment would prevent any funds 
or other assets held by a licensee or former licensee of the NRC to be 
used to satisfy the claim of any creditor until the decontamination and 
decomissioning of the nuclear power reactor is completed. Both of these 
provisions ensure that decomissioning funds are used for 
decomissioning.
  One of the biggest problems in our country and government is the 
human capital crisis, and the NRC is no different. The NRC currently 
has six times as many employees older than 60 as it does under age 30, 
meaning that a potential wave of retirements could leave the agency 
without the expertise it needs. Adding to this problem is the fact that 
former employees cannot consult for the NRC without jeopardizing their 
pensions. These are people with critical skills that cannot provide 
their expertise without being penalized.
  Fortunately, the Office of Personnel Management has provided the NRC 
with a limited-scope, temporary pension offset waiver to rehire former 
employees. My amendment would eliminate this pension offset to help 
preserve the knowledge base by allowing individuals with critical 
skills to be hired as consultants in future years. Under this 
amendment, individuals like the former Deputy Director of the Office of 
Nuclear Regulatory Research, who has 44 years of experience in the 
nuclear industry and is currently consulting with the NRC due to the 
temporary waiver, would be paid for their consulting services to the 
NRC while still receiving their federal pensions.
  The NRC is also facing extreme shortages of individuals with critical 
safety skills. The numbers of education and training programs in the 
two basic disciplines, nuclear engineering and health physics, are 
declining. From 1996 to 2001, university programs in nuclear 
engineering have declined 26 percent, from 50 to 37, and healthy 
physics programs have declined 12 percent, from 49 to 43. Within the 
general disciplines, the NRC is experiencing shortages of people with a 
variety of critical skills, including: nuclear process engineering, 
thermal hydraulics, geology, structural engineering, and 
transportation. The shortages in these fields are a result of NRC's 
aging workforce and nuclear industry requirements. Over the next 
decade, the demand for nuclear engineers is projected to be twice the 
supply, and for health physicists, one and one half times the supply.
  To help train and recruit the next generation of nuclear regulatory 
specialists, this amendment authorizes the NRC to fund academic 
fellowships to address shortages of individuals with critical safety 
skills. Instead of the funding coming from user fees, $1 million would 
be authorized per year for 2002-2005. The ability to fund training 
programs in specialized areas at universities would enable the NRC to 
implement more timely and effective strategies to close future skill 
gaps identified through the agency's planning processes.
  Our Nation needs to be responsible to future generations. We must 
allow nuclear energy to grow today to meet future needs. We also must 
realize that our resources are scarce and we should not waste them on 
duplicative and costly regulatory burdens that place us into further 
debt. We also must plan for the future by ensuring that nuclear plants 
are cared for properly when they are closed, that we fully utilize the 
people who have spent years in this industry, and that have future 
generations with the necessary critical skills.


               Amendments Nos. 3148 Through 3156, En Bloc

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask that the Senate now proceed to 
the following amendments that are at the desk. There are nine.
  First is an amendment for Senator Cantwell relating to the high-power 
density industry program; the second is an amendment for Senator Reid 
relating to precious metal catalysis research; the third is an 
amendment for myself relating to energy savings associated with water 
use; the fourth is an amendment for Senator Schumer relating to 
appliance rebates; the fifth is an amendment for Senator Landrieu 
relating to small businesses; the sixth is an amendment for Senator 
Corzine relating to public housing; the seventh is an amendment for 
Senator Kennedy relating to schoolbuses; the eighth is an amendment for 
Senator Lincoln relating to a decommissioning pilot program; and the 
ninth is an amendment for Senator Murkowski relating to a clean coal 
technology loan.
  I ask for the immediate consideration of these amendments, en bloc.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendments, en bloc.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes 
     amendments No. 3148 through 3156, en bloc.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendments be 
dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 3148

  (Purpose: To improve energy efficiency in industries that use high 
                       power density facilities)

       On page 403, after line 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 1215. HIGH POWER DENSITY INDUSTRY PROGRAM.

       The Secretary shall establish a comprehensive research, 
     development, demonstration and deployment program to improve 
     energy efficiency of high power density facilities, including 
     data centers, server farms, and telecommunications 
     facilities. Such program shall consider technologies that 
     provide significant improvement in thermal controls, 
     metering, load management, peak load reduction, or the 
     efficient cooling of electronics.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3149

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Energy to carry out research in 
 the use of precious metals in catalysis for the purpose of developing 
                     improved catalytic converters)

       On page 403, after line 12, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 1215. RESEARCH REGARDING PRECIOUS METAL CATALYSIS.

       ``The Secretary of Energy may, for the purpose of 
     developing improved industrial and automotive catalysts, 
     carry out research in the use of precious metals (excluding 
     platinum, palladium, and rhodium) in catalysis directly, 
     through national laboratories, or through grants to or 
     cooperative agreements or contracts with public or nonprofit 
     entities. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry 
     out this section such sums as are necessary for fiscal years 
     2003 through 2006.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3150

   (Purpose: To provide for a report on energy savings and water use)

       At the end of title XVII, add the following:

     SEC. 17  . REPORT ON ENERGY SAVINGS AND WATER USE.

       (a) Report.--The Secretary of Energy Shall conduct a study 
     of opportunities to reduce energy use by cost-effective 
     improvements in the efficiency of municipal water and waste 
     water treatment and use, including water pumps, motors, and 
     delivery systems; purification, conveyance and distribution; 
     upgrading of aging water infrastructure, and improved methods 
     for leakage monitoring, measuring and reporting; and public 
     education.
       (b) Submission of Report.--The Secretary of Energy shall 
     submit a report on the results of the study, including any 
     recommendations for implementation of measures and estimates 
     of costs and resource savings, no later than two years from 
     the date of enactment of this section..
       (c) Authorization.--There is hereby authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the 
     purposes of this section.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3151

(Purpose: To provide funds to States to establish and carry out energy 
                  efficient appliance rebate programs)

       At the end of subtitle A of title IX add the following:

     SEC. 9  . ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCE REBATE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:.
       (1) Eligible State.--The term ``eligible state'' means a 
     State that meets the requirements of subsection (b).
       (2) Energy Star Program.--The term ``Energy Star program'' 
     means the program established by section 324A of the Energy 
     Policy and Conservation Act.
       (3) Residential Energy Star Product.--The term 
     ``residential Energy Star product'' means a product for a 
     residence that is rated for energy efficiency under the 
     Energy Star program.
       (4) State Energy Office.--The term ``State energy office'' 
     means the State agency responsible for developing State 
     energy conservation plans under section 362 of the Energy 
     Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6322).
       (5) State program.--The term ``State program'' means a 
     State energy efficient applicants rebate program described in 
     subsection (b)(1).
       (b) Eligible States.--A State shall be eligible to receive 
     an allocation under subsection (c) if the State--
       (1) establishes (or has established) a State energy 
     efficient appliance rebate program to

[[Page S2902]]

     provide rebates to residential consumers for the purchase of 
     residential Energy Star products to replace used appliances 
     of the same type.
       (2) submits an application for the allocation at such time, 
     in such form, and containing such information as the 
     Secretary may require; and
       (3) provides assurances satifactory to the Secretary that 
     the State will use the allocation to supplement, but not 
     supplant, funds made available to carry out the State 
     program.
       (c) Amount of Allocations.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), for each fiscal 
     year, the Secretary shall allocate to the State energy office 
     of each eligible State to carry out subsection (d) an amount 
     equal to the product obtained by multiplying the amount made 
     available under subsection (e) for the fiscal year by the 
     ratio that the population of the State in the most recent 
     calendar year for which data are available bears to the total 
     population of all eligible States in that calendar year.
       (2) Minimum allocations.--For each fiscal year, the amounts 
     allocated under this subsection shall be adjusted 
     proportionately so that no eligible State is allocated a sum 
     that is less than an amount determined by the Secretary.
       (d) Use of Allocated Funds.--The allocation to a State 
     energy office under subsection (c) may be used to pay up to 
     50 percent of the cost of establishing and carrying out a 
     State program.
       (e) Issuance of Rebates.--Rebates may be provided to 
     residential consumers that meet the requirements of the State 
     program. The amount of a rebate shall be determined by the 
     State energy office, taking into consideration--
       (1) the amount of the allocation to the State energy office 
     under subsection (c);
       (2) the amount of any Federal or State tax incentive 
     available for the purchase of the residential Energy Star 
     product; and
       (3) the difference between the cost of the residential 
     Energy Star product and the cost of an appliance that is not 
     a residential Energy Star product, but is of the same type 
     as, and is the nearest capacity, performance, and other 
     relevant characteristics (as determined by the State energy 
     office) to the residential Energy Star product.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as are 
     necessary for fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2012.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3152

 (Purpose: To assist small businesses to become more energy efficient)

       On page 301, line 22, strike ``organizations.'.'' and 
     insert the following: ``organizations.
       ``(d) Small Business Education and Assistance.--The 
     Administrator of the Small Business Administration, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall 
     develop and coordinate a government-wide program, building on 
     the existing Energy Star for Small Business Program, to 
     assist small business to become more energy efficient, 
     understand the cost savings obtainable through efficiencies, 
     and identify financing options for energy efficiency 
     upgrades. The Secretary and the Administrator shall make the 
     program information available directly to small businesses 
     and through other federal agencies, including the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency, and the Department of 
     Agriculture.'.''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3153

(Purpose: To establish energy efficiency provisions for public housing 
                   agencies, and for other purposes)

       At the end of subtitle D of title IX, add the following:

     SEC. 937. CAPITAL FUND.

       Section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437(g), as amended by section 934, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)(I)--
       (A) in subparagraph (L), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and'';
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (L) as subparagraph (K); 
     and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(L) integrated utility management and capital planning to 
     maximize energy conservation and efficiency measures.''; and
       (2) in subsection (e)(2)(C)--
       (A) by striking ``The'' and inserting the following:
       ``(i) In general.--The''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) Third party contracts.--Contracts described in 
     clause (i) may include contracts for equipment conversions to 
     less costly utility sources, projects with resident paid 
     utilities, adjustments to frozen base year consumption, 
     including systems repaired to meet applicable building and 
     safety codes and adjustments for occupancy rates increased by 
     rehabilitation.
       ``(iii) Term of contract.--The total term of a contract 
     described in clause (i) shall be for not more than 20 years 
     to allow longer payback periods for retrofits, including but 
     not limited to windows, heating system replacements, wall 
     insulation, site-based generations, and advanced energy 
     savings technologies, including renewable energy 
     generation.''.

     SEC. 938. ENERGY-EFFICIENT APPLIANCES.

       A public housing agency shall purchase energy-efficient 
     appliances that are Energy Star products as defined in 
     section 552 of the National Energy Policy and Conservation 
     Act (as amended by this Act) when the purchase of energy-
     efficient appliances is cost-effective to the public housing 
     agency.

     SEC. 939. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS.

       Section 109 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12709) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``the date of the enactment of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 1992'' and inserting ``September 30, 2002'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the 
     end and inserting a semi-colon; and
       (iv) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) rehabilitation and new construction of public and 
     assisted housing funded by HOPE VI revitalization grants, 
     established under section 24 of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437v), where such standards are 
     determined to be cost effective by the Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development; and
       (B) in paragraph (2) by striking ``Council of American'' 
     and all that follows through ``life-cycle cost basis'' and 
     inserting ``2000 International Energy Conservation Code'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``the date of the enactment of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 1992'' and inserting ``September 30, 2002''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``CABO'' and all that follows through 
     ``1989'' and inserting ``the 2000 International Energy 
     Conservation Code''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``MODEL ENERGY CODE'' and 
     inserting ``THE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE''; and
       (B) by striking ``CABO'' and all that follows through 
     ``1989'' and inserting ``the 2000 International Energy 
     Conservation Code''.

     SEC. 940. ENERGY STRATEGY FOR HUD.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall develop and implement an integrated 
     strategy to reduce utility expenses through cost-effective 
     energy conservation and efficiency measures, design and 
     construction in public and assisted housing.
       (b) Energy Management Office.--The Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development shall create an office at the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development for utility management, energy 
     efficiency, and conservation, with responsibility for 
     implementing the strategy developed under this section, 
     including development of a centralized database that monitors 
     public housing energy usage, and development of energy 
     reduction goals and incentives for public housing agencies. 
     The Secretary shall submit an annual report to Congress on 
     the strategy.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3154

             (Purpose: To provide for cleaner school buses)

       On page 183, line 15, strike ``and'' and all that follows 
     through line 19, and insert the following:
       (2) the term ``idling'' means not turning off an engine 
     while remaining stationary for more than approximately 3 
     minutes; and
       (3) the term ``ultra-low sulfur diesel school bus'' means a 
     school bus powered by diesel fuel which contains sulfur at 
     not more than 15 parts per million.
       (k) Reduction of School Bus Idling.--Each local educational 
     agency (as defined in section 9101 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801)) that 
     receives Federal funds under the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) is encouraged 
     to develop a policy to reduce the incidence of school buses 
     idling at schools when picking up and unloading students.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3155

      (Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a 
  decommissioning pilot program to decommission and decontaminate the 
 sodium-cooled fast breeder experimental test-site reactor located in 
                          northwest Arkansas)

       On page 123, after line 17, insert the following:

     SEC. 514. DECOMMISSIONING PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) Pilot Program.--The Secretary of Energy shall establish 
     a decommissioning pilot program to decommission and 
     decontaminate the sodium-cooled fast breeder experimental 
     test-site reactor located in northwest Arkansas in accordance 
     with the decommissioning activities contained in the August 
     31, 1998 Department of Energy report on the reactor.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $16,000,000.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3156

          (Purpose: To provide for certain clean coal funding)

       On page 443, after line 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 1237. CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY LOAN.

       There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed 
     $125,000,000 to the Secretary of Energy to provide a loan to 
     the owner of the experimental plant constructed under United

[[Page S2903]]

     States Department of Energy cooperative agreement number DE-
     FC22-91PC99544 on such terms and conditions as the Secretary 
     determines, including interest rates and upfront payments.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendments en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 3140 through 3156) were agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3152

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, last week I joined with Senator Kerry in 
offering an amendment dealing with small business energy efficiency. 
That particular amendment dealt with the Energy Star Program, which is 
an important program in helping small businesses become more energy 
efficient. The amendment I offer today, which was developed with the 
help of Senators Kerry, Ensign, Cantwell, Lieberman, and Carnahan, 
complements that language.
  First I would like to take a moment to thank Senators Bingaman and 
Murkowski and their staffs for helping us to address this issue given 
relatively short notice. Despite the fact that they have been very busy 
with many other aspects of this bill, they took the time to help us 
work out some language that everyone could accept. I would also like to 
echo Senator Kerry's remarks last week thanking Byron Kennard at the 
Center for Small Business and the Environment and Carol Werner at the 
Environmental and Energy Study Institute for their role in bringing 
this important issue to the forefront.
  Simply put, this amendment addresses the need for Federal agencies to 
help small businesses become more energy efficient. I just want to take 
a minute to explain why I believe this language is necessary. Small 
businesses are often the hardest hit by energy unreliability and big 
price hikes. Many operate on slim profit margins, so the threat of big 
increases in electric bills can force small businesses to lay off 
workers or even to close their doors.
  Restaurants, for example, are highly energy intensive and they tend 
to use energy inefficiently. As my colleagues know, restaurants were 
some of the hardest-hit businesses following the slump in tourism after 
the September 11 attacks. Restaurants are also unique because they also 
operate on narrow margins of profit, so money saved on energy bills can 
easily equal a big boost in revenue. According to EPA, saving 20 
percent on energy operating costs--something that's easily achievable--
can increase a restaurant's profit as much as one-third.
  Small firms, however, often lack access to capital and the know-how 
to purchase and install new energy efficient products, and to fund the 
research and development stage of such innovations. As Senator Kerry 
expressed in his remarks yesterday, Federal agencies, the Small 
Business Administration in particular, have the resources, contacts and 
personnel necessary to give a real helping hand to small businesses in 
these situations.
  The SBA, for instance, deals with thousands of small businesses 
across the country on a regular basis, serving as a clearinghouse for 
information, a counselor, and a guarantor of loans for these 
businesses. It would be quite simple for the SBA to expand its role to 
provide assistance in the area of energy efficiency. The Environmental 
Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, and the Department of Agriculture also have roles to 
play in these efforts.
  Let me share a success story from a small business in my own State of 
Louisiana. There is a law firm in Baton Rouge, Jerry F. Pepper, APLC. 
The firm recently remodeled its offices to make them more energy 
efficient. Thermostats, air filters, and lights were all replaced with 
newer, more efficient models.
  The firm believes that, in addition to a savings of $6,100 annually--
let me repeat that amount, $6,100 per year--the upgrades will improve 
employee morale and productivity, reduce indoor pollution, and improve 
safety. Additionally, the upgrade for this firm--for one law firm in 
Baton Rouge--is estimated to reduce over 100,000 pounds of carbon 
dioxide annually.
  I want my colleagues to imagine for a moment that every small 
business in America upgraded its energy efficiency with similar 
results. The savings in energy, pollution, and money would be 
incredible. But these businesses cannot do it on their own. Their 
profit margins are too tight; their resources are too limited. But 
Federal agencies like the SBA have the resources and know-how to assist 
these businesses in these efforts.
  That is why I am proud to join other members of the Small Business 
Committee to offer this important language to help our Nation's small 
businesses become more energy efficient.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship, I am pleased to join my colleague, 
Senator Landrieu, in introducing an amendment regarding the need to 
assist more small businesses become energy efficient.
  This legislation reinforces a small business amendment that Senator 
Landrieu and I put forth last week regarding the Energy Star Program. 
It was successfully adopted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2002, 
and I thank Senators Bingaman and Murkowski for that.
  There is an obvious missing player in our efforts to increase the 
number of small businesses that are using or developing products and 
processes that save energy, and it is the Small Business 
Administration. This amendment directs the Administration to develop 
and coordinate a government-wide program that educates small firms 
about the cost-benefits and business advantages of energy efficiency.
  I was astounded to learn last year, during a hearing I held on the 
business of environmental technologies, that SBA is not actively 
working with DoE and the EPA to advertise their joint program for 
promoting energy efficiency of small business. This is particularly 
hard to understand given that there is so much work to be done. There 
are an estimated 25 million small businesses in this country, and they 
account for more than half of all the commercial energy used in North 
America. However, according to Paul Stolpman, who testified on behalf 
of the EPA, only 3,000 small businesses have partnered with EPA in 
committing to improve their energy performance.
  I am not criticizing the EPA or the Department of Energy; they have a 
good initiative, and I support their efforts. I am simply pointing out 
that there are millions of small businesses left to reach, millions of 
opportunities to reduce energy consumption in this country. It is basic 
common sense that SBA could help significantly in that effort. After 
all the financial hardships small businesses suffered over the last 
couple of years because of price spikes and unreliability, energy isn't 
even a prominent issue on SBA's website.
  To illustrate the power of education and the need to coordinate 
outreach efforts through the SBA, I would like to share a story about 
one of the small businesses in my home State of Massachusetts that 
benefitted greatly from making energy modifications. Carl Faulkner is 
the owner of the Williams Inn in Williamstown. Years ago, he was 
approached by his energy company to receive a free energy audit and 
rebates to off-set the cost of upgrading his lighting systems. It 
seemed like a good idea, so he went ahead and took them up on their 
offer. After all was said and done, between the rebates and his new 
energy savings, he recovered his expenses in just 1 month. But that is 
not the end of the story. The results of those simple changes were so 
positive that he was inspired to learn even more about energy savings 
and to investigate where else his business was losing money on 
unnecessary energy usage. Since then he has put on special roofing, 
replaced air conditioner units, put insulation around pipes, and 
installed meters to determine when and where his business uses the most 
energy. With this information, Mr. Faulkner can bring down usage, 
saving even more energy and money.
  These simple changes have yielded vast results. In January and 
February, he saved more than $10,000. Mr. Faulkner now considers energy 
efficiency a never-ending process. He says if it weren't for outreach, 
he never would have made these important changes to

[[Page S2904]]

his business. He changed his business from one that was consuming 
energy at an unmonitored level to one that has an energy management 
system that allows him to identify other savings.
  In addition to increasing energy efficiency of small businesses in 
order to reduce consumption, to reduce pollution, and to reduce 
reliance on foreign oil, there is a need for Federal agencies to 
increase their work with small business to research and develop new 
technologies and processes that are more energy efficient. In 1999, the 
SBA investigated the role of small business in technological innovation 
and found that when a market demands progress, change, and evolution, 
small firms play a key role. Just looking back to 1997, there were more 
than 33,000 small firms operating in the environmental industry, with 
combined revenues of $52 billion. That is billion. In Massachusetts 
alone, environmental technology businesses employ more than 30,000. No 
matter how you cut it, revenues, jobs, pollution reduction, energy 
supply, national security, there is a very good reason to encourage the 
innovation of efficient technology. And the Federal Government needs to 
make a serious effort to use small businesses to do that research and 
development as much as possible. At the very least, I would like to see 
a focus on these topics through the small business research and 
development projects through the Small Business Innovation Research and 
Small Business Technology Transfer initiatives. We have got the finest 
research universities in the world and certainly the most dynamic small 
business sector. I want a coordinated and heightened effort to use 
these resources for national energy policy.
  As I said yesterday when we were debating the proposal to drill in 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we cannot drill our way out of our 
energy problem. We must innovate our way out of our energy problem. Not 
just innovation in more fuel efficient cars, but also appliances. If 
the Bush administration would fully implement efficiency standards for 
appliances that were issued in 1997 and last year, the Department of 
Energy estimates the total savings to business and consumers to be $27 
billion by 2030. Why? Simply because of less energy use and generally 
less demand when using more efficient appliances. We can go further 
with more innovation. And we need to use Federal agencies to increase 
the interplay between small businesses, innovation, and the Nation's 
environmental and energy goals.
  I thank Senator Landrieu for offering this amendment. And again I 
thank Senators Bingaman and Murkowski, and their staffs, for their help 
in passing this small business amendment.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3153

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues 
Senators Bingaman and Murkowski for their support of and efforts to 
pass my amendment to improve energy efficiency in public housing, which 
cleared the Senate Floor earlier today. I would also like to thank my 
colleagues on the Banking Committee, Chairman Sarbanes and Ranking 
Member Gramm for their assistance in passing this amendment.
  My amendment will help reduce our Nation's energy consumption and 
reduce long-term energy costs in public housing. The amendment 
accomplishes this by giving the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, HUD, and the public housing authorities, PHAs, it oversees 
the tools they need to increase energy efficiency in public housing 
developments.
  HUD and public housing authorities oversee approximately 1.3 million 
units of residential low-income public housing across the country. The 
Federal Government spends approximately $1.4 billion each year just to 
cool, heat, light, and supply water to these units. Utility costs make 
up anywhere from 25 to 40 percent of a typical housing authority's 
operating budget.
  Despite the large amount of Federal dollars spent on energy usage in 
public housing, there are virtually no resources to help public housing 
authorities manage their utility expenditures. Furthermore, there are 
few incentives for them to utilize energy efficient technologies.
  My amendment addresses these issues, first, by establishing an Office 
of Energy Management at HUD. This office will coordinate energy 
management activities throughout the public housing system so that 
energy management is less fragmented and technical expertise is made 
available to all public housing authorities.
  The amendment will also improve financial incentives available to 
public housing authorities to implement energy saving strategies, such 
as window replacements, heating system retrofits, and other efficiency 
and renewable measures. The amendment also encourages public housing 
authorities to purchase Energy Star appliances and equipment when 
replacing outdated building systems and equipment.
  Finally, my amendment requires that all new public housing 
construction meet current energy codes where cost effective. Most 
States have not adopted the most recent codes and, in some cases, do 
not require adherence to any code. Meeting these updated codes will 
save public housing authorities as much as 15 percent in annual energy 
costs.
  The bottom line is that this legislation would expand the resources 
available to provide low-income housing without increasing Federal 
spending. HUD has conservatively estimated that improved energy 
management processes throughout all of its public housing programs 
could save about $200 million annually. These savings could be used to 
build more affordable housing and improve the quality of life of public 
housing residents. Improving energy efficiency in public housing units 
will also decrease utility costs for low-income residents, who often 
pay a portion of their utility expenses.
  At a time of skyrocketing utility costs and decreased public housing 
funds, my amendment offers commonsense solutions that will reduce 
public housing's reliance on fossil fuels and free up resources to 
improve housing for low-income families.


                Amendments Nos. 3028 And 3070, Withdrawn

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Finally, I ask unanimous consent amendment No. 3028 and 
amendment No. 3070 be withdrawn.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, like most of my colleagues, I have lived 
through a number of the energy crises which have afflicted our country. 
I was living and working on the East Coast during the first oil crisis 
in 1973 and 1974. People lined up at gas stations, starting at 3 or 4 
in the morning to purchase a few gallons before the day's scarce 
supplies ran out.
  In January 1977, during one of the coldest winters ever recorded in 
Minnesota, I serve as the Energy Policy Adviser to our State's 
Governor, when he declared Minnesota's first official energy emergency.
  From 1983 to 1987, I served as commissioner of the Minnesota 
Department of Energy and Economic Development, where I was constantly 
monitoring the State's energy supplies. I will never forget one 
Christmas Eve, which I spent trying to locate a refinery that would 
reopen and provide desperately needed home heating oil to people in 
northern Minnesota who had run out of their own supplies.
  From these experiences, I have become a hard-headed realist and a 
pragmatist about energy policy. I am well aware of the fragility of our 
country's energy supplies, pipelines, transmission lines, and 
refineries, where even a small disruption can trigger major 
dislocations which quickly create a crisis. In a cold-weather State 
like Minnesota, the consequences of a disruption in energy supplies can 
be very serious and even fatal.
  I have viewed ``renewable'' or ``alternative'' forms of energy with 
hope but also reservations. While sometimes viable on a small scale, 
most of them are not capable of supplying the large-scale energy needs 
of our vast and complex society and our economy. That is why the 
percentage of U.S. energy consumption from renewable sources has 
remained essentially the same for the last 40 years. In 1960, renewable 
provided 6.6 percent; and in the year 2000, renewable energy provided 
6.9 percent of our country's total energy consumption. Why, despite 
their promise, despite the encouragement and the financial assistance 
they have received, has the usage of renewable energy sources

[[Page S2905]]

in this country not increased in 40 years?
  It is because none of them can compete in price, supply, or public 
acceptance with the traditional energy sources of oil, natural gas, 
coal, and nuclear energy. As long as sufficient supplies of these fuels 
remain reliably available at current, stable prices, they will be 
preferred over the alternatives. They cost less per BTU; they can be 
supplied in the quantities necessary for our large and diverse economy; 
and their production, transportation, and distribution systems are all 
well established.
  Thus, our Nation's de facto energy policy has been for many years and 
continues to be to maintain the status quo. Despite all the warnings 
and dire predictions, despite the occasional, but so far short-lived 
crises, the status quo has been the right short-term policy during the 
last 30 years. However, the question before us now is: Will these 
primary fuels continue to be as less expensive, as available, and as 
reliable during the next 10 years, 20 years, or 30 years? If there is 
sufficient doubt, are we willing to design and implement a transition 
willing to design and implement a transition over the next 10 or 20 
years to include a viable alternative? That is what a national energy 
policy should do.

  From my personal and professional experience, I know that the so-
called ``bio-fuels'' or ``renewable fuels,'' such as ethanol, soy-
diesel, and other fuels derived from agricultural commodities could be 
used in this country today to replace 10 percent, 20 percent, or soon 
50 percent or more of the gasoline used on our Nation's roads and 
highways.
  Presently, the United States consumers 25 percent of the world's 
entire oil production. About 44 percent of it is produced domestically, 
and 56 percent is imported from other countries.
  Although the United States is currently the second largest producer 
of oil, our domestic production, either with or without ANWR, will not 
be able to supply even half the amount we consume. Since most of our 
remaining oil supplies are more costly to extract, it will be less 
expensive for us to buy more of our oil from other countries. That 
equation means we will continue to become more dependent upon imported 
oil. The only way to reduce significantly the amount of foreign oil we 
need is to reduce the amount of oil we consume.
  Seventy percent of the oil we produce or import is used in our 
transportation and most of that goes into our cars, SUVs, trucks, and 
other motor vehicles. In fact, about 1 of every 7 barrels of oil 
produced in the entire world goes into an American gas tank. So, if we 
are ever going to reduce the amount of oil we consume, motor fuel 
consumption is the place to start.
  Unfortunately, as I said earlier, we are going in the other 
direction. As a Nation, we are using more gasoline, not less. More 
people are driving more vehicles greater distances than even before. 
And more of their vehicles are less fuel efficient. In fact, last year 
the total fleet fuel efficiency in this country dropped below that in 
1980.
  What are we doing about it? Nothing. Government-mandated fuel 
efficiency standards have not changed since 1985, and an amendment to 
increase them in this bill was defeated by a two-thirds majority. Then 
light trucks were removed entirely from future mileage standards 
review. Light trucks and SUVs, are the fastest growing segments of the 
U.S. market, and they are among the least fuel efficient vehicles.
  Some people advocate a significant increase in Federal or State 
gasoline taxes, to reduce fuel consumption to encourage the purchase of 
more fuel-efficient vehicles, and to increase the amount of money going 
into the Highway Trust Fund. How many Members of Congress who voted for 
a 10 cent per gallon, of 20 or 30 cent per gallon tax increase, would 
survive their next election?
  So, barring a severe jolt to the world market, barring a large and 
lasting jump in gasoline prices, everything points toward increased 
gasoline consumption, which means increased oil consumption above the 
25 percent of all the world's oil supply production that we now 
consume.

  Everything points in that direction except for ethanol and other 
biofuels. Ethanol is now made mostly from corn, although other 
commodities such as sugar beets, sugar cane, wheat, and even wood chips 
have been converted into ethanol. Ethanol has been around for many 
years. Many Minnesota farmers have distilled some of their grains, 
drank the best of it, and refined the rest into ethanol, which they put 
in their trucks, tractors, and even cars. With a few adjustments to the 
carburetors, they worked just fine. Until recently, however, ethanol 
could not be used in most conventional American engines, because it 
burned too cleanly and acted as a solvent which dislodged the grime 
attached to the walls of engines.
  Finally, the combustion process in modern engines improved so that 
ethanol could be blended with gasoline. That is how it has been used, 
and that is how it is viewed in the debates this week and last week--as 
an additive to gasoline.
  In fact, ethanol's potential goes far beyond that. It is not just an 
additive to gasoline; it is an alternative to gasoline. An alternative 
which today could be substituted for 20 percent of all the gasoline 
consumed in the United States, and with the near-term potential to 
substitute for over 50 percent of the oil-based gasoline used in this 
country. Imagine reducing the motor consumption of gasoline in this 
country by more than half, with no change in the types of cars, SUV's, 
and light trucks on the road. It would require only slight engine 
modifications which have been made to 2 million vehicles already sold 
in the United States.
  How do I know this? I know it because 5 years ago, the Minnesota 
Legislature passed a law which mandated that every gallon of gasoline 
sold in our state be comprised of at least 10 percent ethanol. It was 
very controversial then, and opponents used the same scare tactics we 
have witnessed in this debate: Prices would increase; supplies would be 
inadequate and unreliable; engines would be damaged; lives would be 
disrupted. Today, in Minnesota, it is a total non-issue. Most people 
have forgotten it is even in every gallon of gas they buy. Last week, 
the price of a gallon of regular, unleaded gasoline in Minnesota was 20 
cents less than in California, a penny more than in New York, two cents 
less than in Wisconsin, and almost a nickel less than in Illinois.
  We have heard of a study, referred to here, which is misunderstood 
and has been presented as predicting that this legislation would cause 
a 4-cent to 9-cent increase in the cost of a gallon of gasoline. That 
study by the Energy Information Administration, isolating the effect of 
ethanol, the ethanol mandate in the legislation, actually found the 
price of a gallon of gasoline would go up by less than 1 cent.
  But let us set aside the study and conflicting opinions about what 
that study says because that is projecting into the future. I am 
talking about current reality. What I am talking about is the price of 
10 percent blended ethanol in today's gasoline in Minnesota compared to 
other parts of the country. Again, that is just 10 percent ethanol 
blended with 90 percent gasoline.
  I lease a Chrysler Town & Country, which has the ``flexible fuel'' 
modification to the regular engine, and it travels throughout most of 
Minnesota on E85 fuel. E85 is a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 
percent gasoline. It has now been driven over 20,000 miles, in all 
kinds of weather, through all four seasons, and we have had no trouble 
with it whatsoever.
  The price of a gallon of E85 in Minnesota last week was $1.24, 21 
cents less than a gallon of regular unleaded in Minnesota--forty-two 
cents less than a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in California; 20 
cents less than in New York; and 26 cents less than in Illinois.
  That price differential is not as good as it seems. First, a gallon 
of ethanol contains fewer BTUs than a gallon of gasoline. Second, 
ethanol benefits from a federal subsidy. As I said earlier, no 
alternative fuel is less expensive per equivalent BTU as our 
traditional energy supplies. But ethanol is already close. And at 
higher levels of production, the price will go down. As car and truck 
manufacturers better adapt their engine to ethanol, fuel efficiency 
will improve. And, trust me, we have plenty of corn, beets, and sugar 
cane, and other agricultural commodities suitable for ethanol 
conversion all across this country.
  However, for ethanol production and consumption to increase enough to

[[Page S2906]]

cause a significant reduction in the amount of gasoline consumed in 
this country, it needs what Minnesota provided--a mandate; a mandate 
such as this bill contains; a gradual, graduated, achievable increase 
over a decade. With that mandate, ethanol providers and would-be 
providers will know there is a reliable and growing market nationwide 
for ethanol.
  Opponents have made much of the fact that one company--Archer Daniels 
Midland--produces 41 percent of this country's ethanol. What they don't 
tell you is that 25 years ago ADM produced almost 100 percent of this 
country's ethanol. ADM's market share has gone down every year for the 
last 25 years, and it will continue to go down as more companies, and 
farm Coops, make it possible and profitable to produce ethanol. For 
unlike gasoline, ethanol's raw products are available all over this 
country. They can be grown in most parts of this country. Where there 
are large markets, like California or New York, refineries will locate 
there. Just as California, as it population grew, declined to depend on 
milk and cheese from Minnesota and Wisconsin, and developed its own 
instate industry which supplies, actually oversupplies, its State's 
entire need.

  If ethanol must be transported by truck, or tanker, or rail from one 
part of this country to another, it is far shorter and thus less 
expensive than importing oil, gasoline, and MTBE from all over the 
world. Seventy-five percent of California MTBE currently arrives by 
barge, the majority of it from Saudi Arabia. That is why the price per 
gallon increases which have been used on this floor defy common sense. 
And they are wrong.
  The alternative to doing nothing with ethanol is doing nothing at 
all--nothing except increasing our national consumption of gasoline and 
oil. If world prices remain the same as today, and if world and 
domestic supplies can reliably satisfy our nation's ever-growing 
demand, then that ``continue the status quo'' strategy will continue to 
be less expensive than a transition to 10 percent or 20 percent or 50 
percent ethanol.
  But those who live by the sword, die by the sword. Those who want to 
bet this Nation's entire transportation sector on the status quo 
continuing indefinitely are taking a big gamble. Anyone who believes 
the United States can continue to get 25 percent of the world's entire 
oil production at today's prices are making a hugely optimistic 
assumption.
  Yes. There will likely be an incremental cost to a transition to 
ethanol nationwide. There is always a short-term cost to 
diversification. A business that has one produce line incurs a cost to 
developing a second or a third product. As long as the first product 
continues to sell, overall profits will be slightly down. But when that 
product falters, and the others come on line, the company will prosper 
and grow, rather than decline.
  Someone who owns only one stock incurs a short-term cost 
diversification. But someone who is betting their entire future on that 
one stock is a foolish person to do so. For the United States to bet 
our country's entire energy future on uninterrupted consumption of our 
ever more traditional energy sources is to make a very unwise bet.
  We can afford the small incremental costs of transition if they lead 
to really substantial alternatives. That is what ethanol and biodiesel 
would do--replace 20 percent of today's diesel fuel over this entire 
country.
  I am a Senator from a corn- and soybean-producing State. Is ethanol 
production an economic boon to many Minnesota farmers? Yes; it is. I 
hope it will continue to raise market prices for these agricultural 
commodities, which will reduce the need for and the amount of taxpayer 
subsidies. However, I would not stand on the floor of the Senate today 
and advocate ethanol as an alternative fuel for the entire country if I 
did not believe--if I were not certain--that it would be good for the 
entire country.
  It will take the decade which this bill uses to increase ethanol 
production to an amount where it can be used as a consistent 10 percent 
blend nationwide. That is what Minnesota uses today. That would be 10 
percent less oil-based gasoline. And that is twice as much oil 
alternative as ANWR would produce at that point in time.
  It will take another decade to increase ethanol production to replace 
up to 50 percent of our current gasoline consumption. We should hope we 
have that long as a nation before a significant increase in the price 
of gasoline or a lack of supply causes a serious disruption in our 
economy and in our lives. If, however, at that point in time we are 
using 50 percent less gasoline, we will have a real alternative fuel at 
a lower cost and a more reliable supply based right here in the United 
States.
  If we don't undertake this transition, then we will have nothing--
nothing that we can do. That is what the amendment that strips this 
bill of any fuel alternative will leave this country in the future--
nothing, no alternative. That is a very bleak future.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  (The remarks of Mr. McConnell and Mrs. Feinstein pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 2194 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bingaman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, may I be recognized as in 
morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Florida.

                          ____________________