[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.

                          ____________________