[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 168 (Wednesday, November 19, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15108-S15110]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, in thinking about my remarks today, I was
reflecting back upon the investments made during the Great Depression
in the Pacific Northwest by President Franklin Roosevelt, by his
congressional friends. They were at the time expensive, but they were
done at a time in America, particularly the Pacific Northwest, when
only 30 percent of the American people had electricity. One had to live
in the city to have electricity.
President Roosevelt went to Oregon and Washington and dedicated the
Bonneville Dam. At the time, in 1937, it was an enormous undertaking.
He was a visionary when he dedicated that dam. He foresaw the benefits
of universal electrification of our Nation from an economic and from an
environmental point of view.
There were those who expressed concern about the cost of this Energy
bill. In preparing for these remarks, I read the address of Franklin
Roosevelt those many years ago because it is applicable even today. He
ends his address with this adage, which is as true today as it was
then:
We in America are wiser in using our wealth on projects
like this which will give us more wealth, better living, and
greater happiness for our children.
It seems to me the difference between those for the bill and those
against it has to do with money and the picking of winners and losers
supposedly in this bill, and the difference of approach.
The American people want affordable energy. The American people want
a clean environment. It does seem to me there are those on the other
side who believe the best approach to get energy and to get more green
policies in place is through regulation. Indeed, I saw with some
interest an article in the Washington Post this morning in which the
probable Democratic nominee, Howard Dean, calls for: An age of
reregulation. There is the headline. He was apparently a born-again
reregulator. He wants to reregulate American industry, and specifically
energy.
It seems to me you can get different outcomes at the heavy hand, the
club, of government. But I think what this legislation does is try to
get to green results with affordable energy by incentivizing it with
carrots. So you really have a choice between carrots and clubs,
depending on which side you want to support in this debate and how you
vote.
But, Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the
conference report on H. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. All of the
conferees are to be congratulated for their tireless efforts to craft a
bill that provides for real progress in securing our Nation's energy
future. It is a positive step toward ensuring our farms, factories, and
homes have energy they need at affordable prices.
The bill provides significant incentives for diversification of our
energy sources and for investment in needed energy infrastructure.
I am pleased the bill authorizes $550 million in grants for biomass
programs, which will help Oregon's communities and small businesses
treat forested lands at high risk of catastrophic fires. This bill will
promote the generation of electricity with the wood and brush removed
from lands when lands are treated to reduce wildfire dangers.
The extension and expansion of tax credits for the generation of
electricity from renewable resources will also benefit Oregon, which
has been a leader in renewable energy production, particularly in wind
energy.
There are tremendous amounts of incentive here for windmills. In
fact, I heard Pete Domenici say: In 10 years, you are going to be tired
of seeing all the windmills that will be produced from this.
Now, the Federal Government can mandate it and impose it on
electrical utility companies, or it can incentivize it by helping these
renewable types of energy to be more affordable and more marketable in
the marketplace of today. Again, it is the carrot approach, not the
stick approach.
We will further improve the environment by establishing tax credits
for energy-efficient homes and appliances, and for energy efficiency
improvements to existing homes. Expansion of the Energy Star program
builds on the success of the collaborative effort between Government
and industry to inform consumers about energy-efficient appliances.
Mr. President, hydroelectric facilities in the Pacific Northwest
provide almost 60 percent of the region's electricity. That is why I am
so supportive of the provisions in this bill that authorize $100
million for increased hydropower production through increased
efficiency at existing dams. People worried about global warming ought
to be very interested in this provision because hydroelectric power
produces abundant electricity without global warming.
The bill also contains important reforms to hydroelectric relicensing
laws, allowing for increased production while maintaining existing
environmental safeguards.
Our Native-American tribes in Oregon will benefit economically from
provisions that promote the development of energy resources on tribal
lands and extend the accelerated depreciation benefit for energy-
related businesses on Indian reservations. I thank Senator Campbell for
his leadership on this important Indian energy title.
The bill also recognizes that not everyone is sharing in the Nation's
economic recovery. It is very important that we approve the
authorization in this bill of $3.4 billion a year from 2004 to 2006 for
the Low Income Housing Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP. It is an
important addition to this bill.
Nationally, we have finally established mandatory reliability
standards for the electric transmission system, including enforcement
mechanisms. This is something the Senate has attempted to do for the
past three Congresses. These standards will help avoid future blackouts
like those that plunged the east coast into darkness last August 14 or
the August 1996 event which paralyzed the Western United States.
Finally, let me turn to the electricity title. This has been an issue
of particular importance to my constituents in Oregon and to the West
in general. In recent years, Oregon ratepayers have been harmed as a
result of market problems that spread from California throughout the
West. Most Oregonians have seen their electricity rates increase by
around 50 percent in the past 3 years.
FERC's proposal on standard market design, SMD, threatened to raise
Oregon's rates even further. As originally proposed, it simply would
not have worked in the Northwest, where hydroelectricity is the
dominant resource.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SMITH. Might I have another 2 minutes?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eighteen minutes 50 seconds.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield 1 more minute to the Senator from Oregon, and
then I will yield up to 8 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.
[[Page S15109]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. SMITH. In short, SMD was bad for the consumers of Oregon,
particularly those in rural areas.
Led by the Senate, this Congress has taken the extraordinary step in
this bill of blocking FERC from continuing with this rulemaking that
would have been so harmful to so many areas of the country.
Unfortunately, the SMD is only part of a FERC vision for
restructuring the wholesale electricity industry in a way that puts
consumers at risk. FERC appears bent on ``competition at all costs,''
regardless of the costs to consumers, and without justifying the need
for its draconian proposals.
We have stopped SMD in this legislation, but other proposals are out
there. Even now, utilities in the Northwest are concerned that they
will once again be harmed by California's efforts to get FERC approval
for new market structures under what is commonly known as MDO2.
We cannot continue to legislate against specific FERC proposals for
market design.
I do hope that FERC gets the message we are sending them, however.
The goal of Federal policy, which I believe is furthered by this
electricity title, is to promote universal access to electricity at
affordable prices.
Electricity is too fundamental to our lives, and to this Nation's
economic well-being to be subjected to radical experiments, such as the
one proposed by SMD.
In closing, Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Domenici and
Senator Grassley for their leadership in crafting this important
legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Mississippi is recognized for 8 minutes.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from
Oregon and his thoughtful comments about the electricity section. I do
think this legislation includes good language in that area that will be
fair to all sides of electricity production.
I do believe, as a result of this legislation, we are going to have a
better grid. There are incentives to expand the grid where it is
needed. In my part of the country, there have been significant
investments in the grid already. We have a surplus of power. We are
delighted to have more competition. We are delighted to work to have
interconnectibility.
But my concern had been that this language, this section, was not
written properly, that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would
have come up with a plan that would have forced ratepayers in my State
to pay for additional transmission lines which would not benefit them.
So it is a delicate balance.
It has been very hard to work through this with regional differences,
with Senators on both sides of the aisle coming at it from a different
viewpoint. But through the efforts of Senator Domenici and Senator
Craig Thomas, and the interest of Senators such as Gordon Smith and
Larry Craig, and the chairman in the House, Billy Tauzin, we came up
with a good package. I appreciate the efforts of all concerned.
We will hear from the chairman and ranking member about details of
this legislation. I am sure they will go into some of the specifics
about policy decisions that were made in the electricity section and
also give us detailed information about some of the tax policy, the tax
incentives that were included in this bill.
I guess there is some sticker shock when we learn that the tax
section would actually wind up being some $23.5 billion. But it is a
diverse package and one that I do believe will produce more energy in
this country.
It has a lot of incentives. Some of them will not produce that much,
and I acknowledge that. Some of it I would not have included. Probably
two-thirds of it I would not have included. But this is the art of
legislating.
So I want to speak to the broader perspective of what we are doing.
We have not passed major energy legislation in the Congress for 10
years. The truth is, we have done very little since 1979, when we were
dealing with lines at gas stations and unreliability of supply.
Frankly, it has not been getting better over the years. It is getting
worse. We are becoming more and more and more reliant on foreign oil
for our energy needs--now well over 50 percent, probably headed for 60
percent. This is dangerous. We are relying on Saudi Arabia, Iraq,
Venezuela, Nigeria, and other countries such as Canada and Mexico,
countries on which it makes me very nervous that we are dependent for
their oil to power this country.
This issue is about the future of America. Are we going to continue
to be dependent on this foreign oil and, if we are, what will that mean
for our economy if they decide to jack up the prices or cut off the
supply, or if there is a change of government that produces uncertainty
as we have seen to a degree in Venezuela, not to mention Iraq, of
course.
That leads to the national security aspects. If we don't have a
reliable energy supply, it will affect our ability to power our ships,
our planes. I thought it was so ironic last year that we were involved
in a direct conflict with Iraq and yet we were winding up relying on
Iraqi oil which we brought to the United States, refined, and put in
airplanes to bomb Baghdad. This is a dangerous situation.
What is the solution? Produce more energy supply of our own. The
whole package, not just oil but, yes, oil. We have a lot of oil in
America that is captured in these stripper wells, these small wells. We
have natural gas that we could produce more of. What we have done in
America is there is no incentive to produce it, and by the way, we have
locked up lots of it. You can't drill in most of the Gulf of Mexico,
not on the Atlantic or Pacific coasts, not in certain areas in the
west. So slowly but surely we have stopped production in America.
This bill will produce some more oil and natural gas. We will be able
to have greater use of coal because we are going to put an investment
in clean coal technology. We are going to have more hydropower and,
yes, more nuclear power. The cleanest power producers are natural gas
and nuclear power. Why don't we encourage more of that?
And we have lots of incentives in here for alternative fuels:
ethanol, biodiesel, whatever that is. We are going to use biomass, and
some of that will be done in my State. I don't think it is going to
produce a whole lot. I think it is going to eat up a lot of money. But
we will look for alternative fuels, and that is good. So that is part
1: more production.
Some people say we don't need more production; we can conserve
ourselves into an energy policy. How ridiculous can you get. What are
we going to do, go back to just burning coal in the fireplaces? I used
to have to bring in a scuttle of coal every morning before I went to
school, and I didn't like it. It was cold to bring in the coal, and it
was dirty burning. I never liked it. Well, what are we going to do?
Just produce more blankets. They would probably be sent to us from
China.
Let's get real. In conservation, yes, give incentives to people to
better insulate their homes and to maybe buy more fuel-efficient and
better appliances that don't create pollution. Let's include that. More
production: let's go after alternative fuels. Let's have conservation.
Let's have the whole package.
What will be the result? America will be more secure. Our economy
will be stronger because this bill will produce jobs. You may say,
well, they are not real jobs or maybe they are temporary jobs. A job is
a job where I come from. Where I come from, if you want to eat and live
and do well, you have to find a job. You take what you can get. This
will produce over 800,000 jobs. This is a jobs bill.
It is about the future reliability of our economy, about the future
of our national security, and it is about jobs, which will help our
economy.
It is also about ensuring clean, affordable, and reliable energy--the
whole package. I think we have good legislation here. We do have
incentives in it for ventures such as geothermal energy. That will
bring a renewable energy online, could create a few hundred jobs. We
also are going to put a real emphasis on clean coal technology. We have
an abundant supply of coal, and we are developing the technology to be
able to use it, burn it, and in a clean way.
[[Page S15110]]
I commend my colleagues for producing this bill. It is like every
legislative piece. It has a few warts on it. If you are expecting the
perfect, this is not it. But we need to do this. We have been arguing
about it for 3 or 4 years. The things that held us back in the past we
did set aside. Now we are going to be able to get this legislation.
When you look back on this year, there is going to be a lot the
Senate can take credit for having made a difference in the country--the
tax bill, the partial-birth abortion legislation, energy legislation,
and transportation bills.
I am glad we have this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support
it. It will make a difference for the future.
I thank Senator Hutchison of Texas for putting together this
opportunity for us to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the
Senator from Mississippi. He was on the conference committee. He worked
hard, knows how hard the compromises were. I appreciate his leadership
because we can't depend on foreign countries for 60 percent of our
energy needs and have a stable economy and keep the jobs we have and
create more jobs for our recovery. I thank the Senator from Mississippi
and the Senator from Oregon. The Senator from Oregon also has been a
leader in this field. I appreciate so much his remarks and his
leadership in this area.
I ask how much time remains in morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes ten seconds.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum.
____________________