[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 66 (Tuesday, May 6, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5764-S5765]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003--Continued

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Today the Senate continues a process that began almost 
2 years ago. At that time, the Senate Energy Committee held and 
completed the first of several planned mark-up dates with the goal of 
putting together a comprehensive energy bill. After a number of 
postponements due to circumstances beyond our control, we engaged in 2 
months of debate on the Senate floor last spring and produced a bill by 
a vote of 88 to 11.
  Unfortunately, the House and Senate were unable to resolve their 
differences in a conference so we find ourselves once again tasked with 
the formidable challenge of developing an energy policy for the Nation.
  I am pleased to report that after 2 weeks of mark-ups under the 
leadership of Chairman Domenici and the ranking member, Senator 
Bingaman, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has lived 
up to its duty by reporting a comprehensive energy bill to the Senate 
for consideration.
  So, the challenge of completing a comprehensive energy bill is once 
again before the Senate. There are likely to be additional obstacles 
before us along the way. The question is can we overcome them to 
complete our duty? It was Woodrow Wilson who once said:

       The only use of an obstacle is to be overcome. All that an 
     obstacle does with brave men is, not to frighten them, but to 
     challenge them.

  So the challenge is now before us.
  This legislation does an excellent job of utilizing the variety of 
energy options available to the country particularly from a production 
standpoint. It is up to the full Senate to balance this with some 
meaningful conservation measures.
  We had a number of hearings in the Energy Committee earlier this year 
to address the volatility we face in the price and supply of both oil 
and gas. Since we import 60 percent of the oil we consume, the price of 
oil is often at the mercy of world events such as the political turmoil 
in other countries--Venezuela and Nigeria--that we rely on for imports. 
We can and should produce more at home but must simply acknowledge that 
reducing the amount of oil we consume has to be part of the equation.

  On the other hand, the natural gas market is quite a different 
picture.
  Our country currently produces 84 percent of the natural gas we 
consume. However, there is a gap looming on the horizon. The energy 
information forecasts that the demand for natural gas will increase by 
30 percent in the United States over the next 15 years, with supplies 
available to meet 70 percent of this need.
  The facts are clear: our natural gas market is in a state of 
transition. Industries across the country that rely on natural gas as 
feedstock such as the chemical and fertilizer industries are confronted 
with high pries which is translating into the loss of jobs. We need to 
act now.
  Most of the natural gas supply sources that have been offered as 
solutions, such as the natural gas pipeline from Alaska, are medium to 
long term options. However, in the bill before us today there is a 
provision which is one of the few, if only, short term options, we 
really have to affect the market. This provision builds on a recent 
rule proposed by the department of Interior providing incentives for 
deep gas production from wells in shallow water areas that have already 
been leased. Given the projections for potential supply in these areas, 
the opportunity to deliver significant new natural gas production to 
the market in order to stabilize prices is simply too good an 
opportunity to pass up.
  Another significant program authorized in the oil and gas title of 
this bill would take the step of recognizing, for the first time, the 
impacts to oil-and gas-producing states such as Alaska, Texas, 
Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, from the development that takes 
place on the outer continental shelf off of their respective 
coastlines.
  With less and less areas available for production, and the deepwaters 
of the gulf of Mexico still a hotspot for the foreseeable future, it is 
time for Congress and the Federal Government to recognize the 
importance of the development that has been occurring and continues to 
take place off the shores of Louisiana and Texas and compensate those 
States for their role in providing the Nation's energy supply.

  If our policy in this country is going to continue to defer to a 
State's wishes

[[Page S5765]]

as to whether oil and gas development takes place off its coast, then 
the least we should do is compensate those few States--Alaska, Texas, 
Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama--for the duty they preform in 
supplying this Nation with a significant amount of the oil and gas it 
needs to function. After all, the OCS is now the largest producing area 
in the United States as more than 25 percent of both the Nation's oil 
and natural gas is expected to be produced from the OCS in 2003. In 
fact, the OCS is the largest single source of oil for the entire U.S., 
surpassing even Saudi Arabia.
  Nuclear energy now provides approximately one-fifth of all electric 
power used in this country, but does so without compromising our air 
quality. It is the largest clear air source of electricity in the 
Nation today, generating two-thirds of all emission-free electricity. 
Nuclear power is perhaps unique among our supply options, as there is a 
large potential for expansion in the relative near term with little 
downside in terms of environmental quality or increased reliance on 
foreign fuel sources.
  For future generations of Americans whose reliance on electricity 
will increase--and who rightfully want a cleaner environment--nuclear 
energy is an essential partner in our energy and environmental policy. 
The provisions contained in this title of the bill--renewal of Price-
Anderson, incentives for the construction of new base-load nuclear 
plants, and the emphasis on encouraging hydrogen co-generation from 
nuclear power--recognize that nuclear energy is a vital component of 
our energy portfolio.
  One of the most contentious debates we will engage in over the next 
several weeks involves the issue of electricity. We are confronting an 
industry that is facing difficult times from the dysfunction of 
California's market to a loss of market capitalization.

  Amid this turmoil, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has 
proposed sweeping, untested changes to the business of providing basic 
and essential electric service to our constituents. Instead, we need to 
legislate with a caution not reflected by FERC's standard market 
design, SMD. While the bill before us took the important step of 
delaying any further action on SMD until January of 2005, there are a 
number of areas where I believe the electricity provisions before us 
come up short in addressing the shortcomings of SMD.
  First, the State-Federal jurisdictional divide, which has worked 
exceedingly well in Louisiana to provide low-cost and reliable electric 
service, is jeopardized by the SMD proposal.
  Second, I am concerned about the potential for increased rates for my 
retail customers as a result of the costs of accommodating the 
``merchant generation'' that, over the past several years, has been 
seeking to connect to the electric grid in the southeast. While it has 
added to the competition, it is also straining the grid, and under FERC 
policy may end up straining the pocketbooks of regular homeowners who 
would be forced to subsidize the interconnection and transmission 
costs.
  Lastly, I remain concerned that we need more investment in 
transmission facilities, but do not have sufficient policies to 
encourage it. Transmission is critical to sustaining wholesale markets. 
I had hoped that the electricity title of this bill would have been 
reported out of committee with much-needed participant funding language 
in order to significantly increase transmission investment.
  When we turn to electricity during this debate, I intend to offer 
several amendments to address these concerns.
  We now realize that perhaps the best alternative to oil and gas 
production in this country is conservation. As our economy continues to 
grow so does our demand for energy. While we have made some noteworthy 
strides on the conversation front there are miles to go. When we talk 
about our dependence on oil in this country we have to acknowledge that 
there is no alternative that matches oil for cheapness and convenience. 
While we should continue to produce oil in this country where we can 
that alone cannot be the answer. With over 60 percent of our daily oil 
consumption coming from the transportation sector, we have to start 
there. The challenge to this body is how to strike a sensible balance 
by establishing a reasonable increase in fuel economy standards that 
will not compromise vehicle safety, unduly increase cost and 
significantly limit consumer's choices.
  I think every member probably realizes the importance of ultimately 
changing the ``coinage'' of energy in the transportation sector from 
oil to something else.

  This bill addresses that something else by authorizing about $3.6 
billion for an increase in hydrogen fuel research and development, 
demonstration projects, federal purchase requirements, and specific 
goals to move hydrogen vehicles out of laboratories and onto the 
nation's roads. A hydrogen economy that lessens our dependence on 
foreign oil is within our grasp.
  During markup before the committee, I supported what amounts to a 
reasonable renewable portfolio standard. I continue to believe that it 
is a commonsense approach to ensure that renewable sources of energy--
wind and solar--be a part of our electricity supply. Renewable energy 
is homegrown and does not need to be bought from foreign markets. The 
advantages of our ability to domestically produce renewables are 
obvious: protection for consumers from the prospect of supply 
interruptions outside the region or country which we cannot control.
  It frustrates me to hear people talk about climate change as 
something that we can simply adapt to--no big deal. I can assure 
everyone here, changing climate is a big deal for Louisiana. My state 
continues to lose its coastline and critical wetlands every year. We 
already feel the human impact and economic loss from hurricanes every 
year. There are some that think these storms could get worse with 
global warming, although the scientific jury is still out. We owe it to 
our constituents and to our colleagues in the Senate to give our best 
efforts, in this bill, to come up with a commonsense and effective 
policies to deal with this threat.
  For conclusion, the challenge before us now is to acknowledge how 
much we depend on these traditional fossil fuels--our Nation still 
relies on oil and gas for 65 percent of the energy it consumes. That is 
not going to change overnight. At the same time, we must continue to 
make significant strides toward using the impressive diversity of 
energy sources we have at our disposal including nuclear and renewable 
energy. Also, if we continue to ignore the importance of conservation 
we do so at our own peril.
  With a little balance and common sense, we can make the diversity of 
supply available in this country go a long way. All of the supply 
options available to our country have a substantial role to play in our 
future energy mix. However, none by themselves is the answer.
  I yield back the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina). The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________