[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 45 (Monday, April 22, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3009-S3011]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 517, which the clerk will report by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 517) to authorize funding the Department of Energy to
enhance its mission areas through technology transfer and partnerships
for fiscal years 2002 through 2006, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Daschle/Bingaman further modified amendment No. 2917, in
the nature of a substitute.
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.
Landrieu/Kyl amendment No. 3050 (to amendment No. 2917), to
increase the transfer capability of electric energy
transmission systems through participant-funded investment.
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.
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.
Reid amendment No. 3145 (to amendment No. 3008), 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.
Amendment No. 3141
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, last week the Senate adopted an amendment
that deals with vehicle efficiency. It deals with the issue of fuel
cells. I want to describe the amendment, because I think it is a very
important amendment.
The amendment directs the Energy Department to develop a program that
would create measurable goals and timetables with the aim of putting
100,000 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the road by 2010, and 2.5
million by the year 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 the Department of Energy work with
the auto manufacturers to ensure these goals are met. With this
amendment, we are sending a strong signal that our goal is to
accelerate and enhance the development of fuel cell vehicles and fuel
cell technologies with concrete targets and timetables.
I have asked the question with respect to our energy policy,
especially with respect to our transportation sector, about whether our
policy is going to be ``yesterday forever.'' I have said on previous
occasions--and I will say it again--my first car was an antique 1924
Model T Ford that I bought for $25 as a young kid, and I restored it.
It took me a couple of years to restore that old Model T. But a 1924
Model T Ford is fueled exactly the same way as a current model Ford.
You drive up to the gas pump, stick a hose in the tank, and start
pumping. Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed in 78 years, and it
ought to change.
The issue of how we run our vehicles what kind of engines we use and
what kind of fuel we use--we ought to inspire these changes by
developing aspirations and national goals with respect to new
technologies. I drove a fuel cell car here on the Capitol grounds some
months ago. It has essentially a limitless battery that allows you to
run the vehicle using this fuel cell. The fuel cell combines hydrogen
and oxygen and the only byproduct is water vapor. Fuel cells have the
potential to dramatically improve the efficiency of automobiles and
dramatically reduce emissions, as opposed to the vehicles that we use
now, which have the internal combustion engine we have used for decade
after decade after decade.
We can decide that the debate will be a debate about our energy
supply, as it has always been. That has been the energy debate we have
had for a long while and will be again 25 and 50 years from now, unless
we decide to create national aspirations and goals for new
technologies.
I believe we ought to do that with respect to automobiles. Our
transportation sector consumes the largest amount of energy in our
society: about 40 percent of the oil products our Nation consumes each
year, or nearly 8 billion barrels of oil each day. In 2001, we imported
about 53 to 57 percent of our energy from abroad. That is expected to
increase, according to the Energy Information Administration.
So the question is, What do we do about that? Some say we should just
adopt CAFE standards. Others say let's develop new technologies. Others
say let's not do anything at all. Let's let the marketplace decide who
buys what, when, and why.
I think this country ought to encourage the development and the
capability to move to a new technology. The Ford Motor Company
representative stated that alternative fuel 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 substantial money at the pump.
Most major automakers are racing to produce prototype fuel cell
vehicles. DaimlerChrysler has been talking about this now for several
years. They plan to have a fuel cell car in production by the year
2004. California has a Clean Air Act requirement that will ensure that
many fuel cell vehicles are going to be on the road. 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. That means California could have nearly 40,000 or
50,000 fuel cell cars on the road by the next decade.
The amendment I offered is supported by the Alliance to Save Energy
[[Page S3010]]
and United Technologies. Senators Cantwell, Bayh, Reid of Nevada, Dodd,
Lieberman, and Harkin all cosponsored my amendment. The amendment was
adopted last week. I think most Members of the Senate want to move,
using new technology, to new opportunities and new goals for our
country's future.
Fuel cells are expected to achieve energy efficiencies of 40 to 45
percent, and possibly much higher. After a century of constant
improvements, the internal combustion engine converts, on average,
about 19 percent of the energy and gasoline to turn the wheels of an
automobile--19 percent. Fuel cells are expected to achieve efficiencies
double that: 40 to 45 percent at least.
I think that as we debate this energy bill there is much, perhaps,
that will persuade some that it is worthless. There is much in it that
will persuade others it has great merit. There are a fair number of
amendments that we have produced in the many weeks this bill has been
on the floor of the Senate--thanks to the patience of Senator Bingaman,
who I know wanted it completed much earlier--but there are many
amendments that have been added to a pretty sound piece of legislation,
in the first instance, that I think will commend this legislation to
the Congress as a whole and to the American people as moving toward a
solution.
Finally, when the Energy Department testified before our Energy
Committee, I asked the representatives of the U.S. Department of Energy
what goals they have for 25 and 50 years from now for our country's
energy supply and energy use. We talk a great deal about what is going
to happen 25 and 50 years from now with respect to Social Security and
Medicare. What about with respect to energy use and energy supply, do
we have goals there? The answer is, no, we do not. There are no such
goals.
We ought to develop those goals, in my judgment. That is the purpose
of this amendment dealing with new vehicle technology, and specifically
with fuel cells.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 3239
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senators Brownback and Corzine have offered
an amendment No. 3239 to the underlying bill which replaces the
mandatory greenhouse gas reporting requirement in the underlying bill
with a ``hard trigger.'' That means emissions reporting will continue
to be voluntary for at least the next 5 years, but if voluntary reports
don't add up to at least 60 percent of total emissions at the end of 5
years, then mandatory reporting will be triggered.
I think this is a sound approach. I applaud the Senators for working
together to come up with a reasonable compromise between voluntary and
mandatory.
This amendment is an important step forward in promoting the
development of emissions trading markets and market-based programs to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
I also note that it is my belief, if cloture is invoked on this
underlying bill, that this amendment will be in order.
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. GRAHAM. 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. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will ask to submit an amendment to the
pending business which is the energy bill.
As we have seen over the past several days as the Senate has
considered a variety of amendments to the energy bill, energy is not a
subject which can be taken up in isolation. It is such a pervasive fact
of our existence that it necessarily has significant impacts on other
important considerations. Two of those are our environment and other
aspects of our economy beyond energy itself.
The amendment I am offering today is intended to give to oil and gas
companies, which currently hold leases for development in the eastern
Gulf of Mexico planning area, an option. This would provide to these
companies a voluntary option to trade those existing leases for credits
of an equivalent value. These credits could be used toward royalty
payments and rental fees.
I have been working with mineral policy experts, representatives from
the oil industry, and concerned citizens over the past several months
to try to develop a process that is reasonable, flexible, and mutually
beneficial. I believe this amendment captures all of those qualities.
First, the amendment is reasonable because it gives to oil companies
the voluntary option as to whether they wish to continue to pursue the
development of the leases they have acquired--in many cases a
considerable period of time in the past--or whether they would like to
exchange those leases for credits which could be used to pay other
costs the oil companies owe the Federal Government in the form of
royalties or rentals. These credits take into account the amount the
oil and gas company paid for the original lease and expenditures for
exploration on those leases.
Second, the amendment is flexible. It would require the Secretary of
the Interior to offer this lease-for-credit program to all of the
companies that would be covered by the amendment, those that have
leases in the eastern planning area, except for those that are
currently in the process of application for a drilling permit, and the
companies that voluntarily choose to participate in this program would
receive credits which can be used effective in the year 2012. The value
of these credits would take into account inflation for the period
between the time the credits were issued and the time in which the
credits were submitted for redemption. There also is a provision for
added flexibility to give the companies the ability to initiate the
lease-for-credit process and not necessarily have to wait for the
Secretary of the Interior to do so.
Third, the amendment is beneficial because it provides a win-win-win
situation for the current leaseholders, for the environment and the
economy, and for the Nation as a whole.
It provides to the oil and gas companies an option that will give
them value for leases in which today they have substantial cost but in
many cases limited prospects of deriving a benefit.
It will be beneficial to the environment and the economy of the
eastern Gulf of Mexico planning area. This is an area which is
peculiarly dependent upon the quality of its water and the
attractiveness of its coastal areas for its economic well-being.
In my State of Florida, tourism is the leading business, and of all
the reasons that people come to our State, consistently our coastal
areas have been listed as the No. 1 attraction. They also are a part of
our fundamental culture. They are to our State and to other areas in
the eastern planning region what, for instance, the Platte River would
be in Nebraska or the Rocky Mountains in Colorado. They help define
what kind of place, what kind of people we are. They are a critical
part of our environment, as witness the fact that the Federal
Government, through the Coastal Zone Management Act, has made the
protection of our coastal zones a national priority.
The benefit to the Nation as a whole is seen by a precedent which has
already occurred. During the administration of the first President
Bush, there was concern about the potential adverse effects of a
similar set of leases which covered approximately 600 square miles in
the area south of the 26th latitude--the 26th latitude runs east and
west, more or less, at the line of Naples to Fort Lauderdale--and that
the development of those leases over that large 600-square-mile expanse
could represent a serious threat to places such as Everglades National
Park, the Dry Tortugas National Park, and the National Marine Sanctuary
that protects the coral reefs of the Florida Keys. Therefore, under the
leadership of the first President Bush, an effort was initiated to
reacquire those 600 square miles of leases.
This became embroiled in litigation. It took almost 8 years to
resolve the matter. But in the final instance, in 1995, those 600
square miles of leases were terminated. A fair compensation was
arranged with the previous leaseholders, and the Nation benefited
because some of its most valuable treasures were no longer subject to
that vulnerability.
[[Page S3011]]
I believe the same win-win-win arrangement will be possible through
this approach. It would be very appropriate that the now second
President Bush, who as a candidate for President indicated his
sensitivity to the importance of the coast, the environment, and the
economic relationship of those in my State and in the eastern Gulf of
Mexico planning area and indicated that he would use his influence to
provide protection--there is no better form of protection that can be
provided than that which is sought by this amendment and that which was
achieved by his father's efforts in the area south of the 26th
latitude.
There have been some who have suggested that these are in some way
selfish moves and motivated by a desire for self-protection; that every
part of the country which is a user of energy, which means every part
of the country, should also be a supplier of energy; and that no part
of the country should be off limits to make that contribution.
That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the United States of
America is. The United States of America is a republic of 50 States
that have given to the central government certain powers to be
administered under the laws that we and our colleagues in the House of
Representatives pass.
The United States of America represents a common destiny, but each
State has different things to contribute to that common destiny. As an
example, our State provides over half the national supply of phosphate,
a critical mineral, particularly for agriculture and for industrial
activities. It is an activity which has been environmentally difficult
for our State. I think maybe we are doing a better job today than we
did in previous times. But we accept that as part of our contribution
to the Nation. Nature happened to put a lot of the world's phosphate in
what is now the State of Florida.
Near those phosphate mines is also grown over half the citrus that is
consumed in the United States. That is a product that has great
nutritional and health value. It requires a combination of climate and
soil type that is uniquely found in Florida; therefore, we produce a
lot of citrus.
We also, during the winter months, provide a substantial percentage
of all the fresh fruits and vegetables consumed in the eastern U.S. We
are a major fisheries State. We are the largest State for tourism, and
we have the highest percentage of Americans who move to retire to
someplace other than where they had lived. Florida receives more of
those retirees than any other State. So we make a substantial number of
contributions to America.
On the other side, we don't have much energy. Historically, we have
not been a site where a significant amount of oil, gas, coal, or other
major energy sources have been found. We even have difficulty with
things that people find. Surprisingly, we are not a particularly good
State for wind power because the winds are not reliable enough to
convert it into commercial applications.
We are also a State which has not benefited by the industrial
revolution, as most other States have. We were a State that did not
have the essential qualities that the industrial revolution required.
Energy access to certain raw materials, such as iron ore, cheap
transportation systems in proximity to markets--none of those were true
in Florida in the 19th century. Therefore, we largely were passed over
in the industrial revolution.
So every State has its own strengths, weaknesses, and contributions.
I believe one of the synergies which makes America a great place is
that we recognize that and, collectively, we have almost a bounty of
everything that humans would like to have. It just happens to be
distributed over a continental landmass of the United States of
America.
What Florida has particularly contributed, and what the eastern
planning area of the Gulf of Mexico includes, is beautiful waters,
pristine beaches, areas that contribute substantially to the economy,
while at the same time protecting the environment. The principal threat
to that environment today is the potential of developing inappropriate
oil and gas production, and that we might suffer some accident that
would result in damage to those critically important parts of our
State.
This amendment I am offering, I believe, stands the test of being
fair to all parties--fair to the oil and gas companies by giving them a
voluntary election, a means by which they can recapture past expenses
in the form of credits that they can use for required future expenses,
balanced insofar as protecting the economy and the environment of the
eastern Gulf of Mexico, and will meet the same kind of national
standards as the first President George Bush did when he led the way
to eliminate 600 square miles of oil and gas leases off the Florida
Keys and the southwest coast of my State.
This is an opportunity that I hope we will grasp as part of this
energy bill. I recognize there are, in a parliamentary sense, other
amendments that will be considered prior to this. We will be taking a
vote tomorrow on a cloture motion, which could further affect the
procedure for consideration of amendments. But I am committed that the
Congress will have an opportunity to consider this approach, which I
think brings such value and security to our Nation and to our future
environment and economy.
I appreciate this opportunity to outline this proposal. At the
appropriate time, I look forward to calling this amendment before the
Senate.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill S. 517.
____________________