[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 169 (Thursday, November 20, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15212-S15217]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 6, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Conference report to accompany H.R. 6, an act to enhance 
     energy conservation and research and development, to provide 
     for security and diversity in the energy supply for the 
     American people, and for other purposes.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is in doubt. Under the previous 
order, the Senator from New Mexico was to be recognized first.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from California is now 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we received word Senator Domenici would not 
be here this morning. Of course, he is managing this bill. Whenever he 
comes, we will work him into the order.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair thanks the Senator from Nevada.
  (Mr. SMITH assumed the chair.)
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor as a 
Californian to say there is very little in this Energy bill for 
California. There is very little to prevent future blackouts. There is 
nothing to protect consumers from manipulation and gaming of the system 
that we experienced a few years ago.
  There is nothing to improve our Nation's energy security by 
increasing fuel economy standards. In short, from a California 
perspective, I see this bill as one giant giveaway to special 
interests, particularly the ethanol, the MTBE, the oil, the gas, and 
the nuclear power industries of this country.
  I had hoped that this Congress, and in particular the Energy 
Committee on which I serve, following the Western energy crisis and 
last summer's blackout in the Northeast, would pass a sensible bill 
that would improve our Nation's energy supply while protecting 
consumers, the environment, and the economy. But as I read this bill, 
that is not the case. This Energy bill was drafted behind closed doors, 
without any input from Democratic conferees or from those of us on my 
side of the aisle on the Energy Committee. Simply put, it is one of the 
worst pieces of legislation I have seen in my time in the Senate.
  It is interesting that today on every Member's desk is a summary of 
editorials. There are over 100 editorials from newspapers, large and 
small, all across this great country saying ``oppose this bill.'' In 
fact, 100 newspapers around the country have come out opposed to the 
bill and editorialized against it. I will quote from one of them. Let 
me begin with the newspaper whose editorial policy is generally very 
conservative, and that is the Wall Street Journal. Let me read what the 
Wall Street Journal says about this legislation:

       We realize that making legislation is never pretty, but 
     this exercise is uglier than most.

[[Page S15213]]

     The fact that it's being midwifed by Republicans, who claim 
     to be free marketers, arguably makes it worse. By claiming 
     credit for passing this comprehensive energy reform, 
     Republicans are now taking political ownership of whatever 
     blackouts and energy shortages ensue. Good luck.

  Now I will go to yesterday's Denver Post. The editorial is entitled 
``Energy Bill Full of Pork.''

       The bill does include funds for energy conservation, 
     including some incentives for ``green'' construction, but 
     some sound suspicious. Some $180 million will pay for a 
     development in Shreveport, LA. That project will use federal 
     tax money to subsidize the city's first-ever Hooters 
     restaurant. What a new Hooters has to do with America's 
     energy situation may be best known to U.S. Rep. Bill Tauzin, 
     a Louisiana Congressman and key player in the secret 
     conference committee talks.
       The bill provides no real vision, represents no real 
     improvement in policies and laws. It is vexing that Congress 
     did not seize an opportunity to improve the national energy 
     picture. Congress should start over next year.

  Let me now go to the Northeast, a large newspaper, the New York 
Times:

       The oil and gas companies were particularly well rewarded--
     hardly surprising in a bill that had its genesis partly in 
     Vice President Dick Cheney's secret task force. Though they 
     did not win permission to drill in the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge, they got a lot of other things, not only tax 
     breaks but also exemptions from the Clean Water Act, 
     protection against lawsuits for fouling underground water and 
     an accelerated process for leasing and drilling in sensitive 
     areas at the expense of environmental reviews and public 
     participation. Meanwhile, the bill imposes new reliability 
     standards on major electricity producers, but it is not clear 
     whether it would encourage new and badly needed investment in 
     the power grid.

  Now let me go to the Midwest to the Chicago area, the Chicago 
Tribune.

       Despite all the years of partisan haggling that preceded 
     it, the approximately 1,400-page energy bill that Republicans 
     unveiled over the weekend, and which Congress is expected to 
     vote on this week, is no masterpiece of compromise or even 
     effective legislation.
       It is more like a jigsaw puzzle with hundreds of unrelated 
     pieces crammed together. A few initiatives are worthwhile, 
     most look more like a laundry list of special-interest 
     subsidies. Together, they don't add up to a policy that will 
     promote energy self-sufficiency or stable prices.

  Then let's go to one of the Chair's own newspapers, the Anchorage 
Daily News, which states:

       What's left is a grab bag of lesser measures and pet 
     projects patched together in hopes of gaining enough votes to 
     pass in the House and Senate. The result is an energy bill 
     that likely will pass--but not a coherent energy policy for a 
     nation critically dependent on imported energy supplies.

  Then let's go to the Houston Chronicle, and I will not read it all:

       The most pressing problem facing the Nation is its 
     increasing reliance on imported oil and gas. Yet the bill 
     ignores several obvious avenues for progress.
       The Republican draft of the bill set no standard for 
     renewable sources of power, such as solar and wind. The 
     latter will provide 2 percent of Texas' electricity supply 
     and one day could spell the difference between air 
     conditioning and brownout. There is no reason for Congress to 
     ignore these pollution-free, alternative energy sources, and 
     the conference committee should adopt a Senate amendment 
     requiring expanded production of renewable energy.

  Now, let me take a moment here to elaborate on this point. On Monday, 
during the Energy Conference, I was pleased an amendment requiring 
utilities to generate 10 percent of their energy from renewable sources 
was included in the bill. Unfortunately, this provision was stripped 
out of the conference report by the House just hours later. Although 
the bill does have requirements for renewable energy in government 
buildings, that is not enough. We need to encourage the use of this 
clean technology at a national level.
  Finally, I would like to move to the west coast, to the largest 
newspaper, the Los Angeles Times. Their editorial is entitled ``An 
Energy Throwback.'' They say:

       It's clear why Republican leaders in Congress kept their 
     national energy policy bill locked up in a conference 
     committee room for the last month, safe from review by the 
     public. Taxpayers, had they been given time to digest the 
     not-so-fine print in the pork-laden legislation, would have 
     revolted.

  Let me begin my impression of the bill with its costs. The editorials 
from around the country show that this bill increases energy production 
at the expense of both the taxpayers and the environment. A group 
called the Taxpayers for Common Sense has estimated that this bill will 
cost $72 billion in authorized spending, and $23 billion in tax 
giveaways. That is $95 billion in spending over the next 10 years.
  I ask unanimous consent to have that report printed in the Record 
following my remarks.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Taxpayers for Common Sense points out that there is 
nearly $13 billion for the oil and gas industry, $5.4 billion for coal, 
$1.4 billion for the nuclear power industry, $4.16 billion for ethanol, 
$4.9 billion in energy efficiency, $1.7 billion for auto efficiency and 
fuels--that includes ethanol--$11 billion for LIHEAP and 
weatherization, $21 billion for science research and development, $2.15 
billion for freedom car and hydrogen research, and $764 million for 
miscellaneous provisions.
  Now, I am in favor of some of these programs, but the cost of this is 
enormous. The Senate should think twice about these massive spending 
increases, especially given our rising Federal deficit. I do not want 
to leave my children and my grandchildren saddled with these debts.
  Let's also consider the fact that this bill does not deal with global 
warming, does not deal with fuel efficiency standards, does not deal 
with consumer protections, and does not deal with energy security.
  From a western perspective, and particularly a California 
perspective, we have to look at the western energy crisis and ask the 
question: Will this bill help in the future? My analysis of the bill 
leaves me with the conclusion that the answer is no.
  I have often pointed out in this Chamber that the cost of energy 
directly before the crisis was $7 billion. That was in 1999. It rose to 
$27 billion in 2000, and $26.7 billion in 2001. In 1 year, the cost 
went up 400 percent in California. There are Members of this body who 
said: Oh, California, it is your fault, you have a broken system, you 
don't have adequate supply to meet demand. A 400 percent increase is 
not the product of supply and demand, it is the product of gaming and 
manipulation.
  Now, 3 years later and after $45 billion in costs, we have learned 
how the energy markets were gamed and abused. In March of 2003, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued its final report on price 
manipulation in the western markets, and what did it find? It confirmed 
that there was widespread and pervasive fraud and manipulation during 
the western energy crisis.
  The abuse in our energy markets was in fact pervasive and unlawful. 
So you would think an Energy bill coming out a few years after this 
crisis would take a look and say we ought to prevent this from ever 
happening again, we ought to put policies and those procedures in this 
bill to prevent it, we ought to strengthen the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission's ability to produce just and reasonable rates 
and ensure that rates remain just and reasonable across this Nation. 
But this bill does not do this. Rather, this bill actually impedes the 
ability of Federal and State agencies to investigate and prosecute 
fraud and price manipulation in energy markets. These provisions would 
make it easier to manipulate energy markets, not harder to manipulate 
energy markets.
  This bill sends this country in the wrong direction. Rather than 
preventing Enron-type schemes, such as Fat Boy, Ricochet, Death Star, 
and Get Shorty, this bill weakens the oversight over energy markets. It 
guts the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's ability to enforce just 
and reasonable rates.
  Between now and 2007, the FERC will be in court, litigating the 
meaning of this electricity title rather than enforcing the State 
administration of just and reasonable rates to electricity customers. 
FERC will be powerless to respond to market crises like the one that 
occurred in the West between 2000 and 2001.
  I am also particularly concerned about the provision in the bill 
which directly affects the so-called sanctity of contract provision. 
California was overcharged by as much as $9 billion for the cost of 
energy as a result of long-term electricity contracts that were entered 
into under desperate circumstances at the height of a gamed

[[Page S15214]]

energy crisis. These contracts were not based on just and reasonable 
rates, they were based on rates that were inflated as a result of 
gaming and manipulation. California has filed at FERC for refunds.
  This sanctity of contract provision, however, would mean FERC would 
never provide any further refund in the California case. So it shuts 
out California from any further recourse. No one from California should 
vote for this Energy bill. The provision places the importance of the 
physical contract above the importance of enforcing just and reasonable 
rates. In other words, it says even if you signed a contract in a 
situation that has been gamed and manipulated by fraud, you are still 
bound to that fraud-inspired contract. That is what we are doing in 
this bill.
  In my view, this is simply absurd. We need to be strengthening FERC's 
ability to enforce just and reasonable rates, particularly in a 
deregulated market, not weakening it. And the irony is that FERC 
recently announced a settlement in which El Paso Corporation and its 
subsidiaries would pay $1.6 billion to resolve a complaint that the 
company withheld supplies of natural gas into California, driving up 
prices for gas and electricity during the State's energy crises in 2000 
and 2001.
  This was precisely the incident about which I tried to see the 
President--he wouldn't see me at that time--because we knew that the 
price from San Juan, NM, to southern California, which should have been 
$1 per dekatherm, was $60 per dekatherm, which was a manipulated price 
based on the withholding of space in the El Paso pipeline. We now know 
that that was correct because El Paso has paid $1.6 billion: Fact.

  This bill does nothing to prevent gaming and manipulation in the 
natural gas market. The bill does increase penalties for electricity 
gaming and fraud, but does nothing to increase the low penalties for 
manipulation of the natural gas market. It is estimated that El Paso's 
price manipulation cost consumers and businesses $3.7 billion, yet this 
bill fails to give the FERC the power it needs to ensure that this kind 
of price manipulation does not happen again.
  Now I would like to speak about what should be for the east coast and 
the west coast one of the most egregious provisions in the bill, and 
that is this ethanol mandate. This mandate is essentially a hidden gas 
tax. It will increase automobile emissions in the most polluted areas 
of the country and will not reduce our dependence on oil. Not only is 
this mandate unnecessary but it may have serious unintended 
environmental consequences because the environmental studies on ethanol 
have not been done. Yet this bill forces consumption of ethanol beyond 
that which is needed. So this bill is pushing an untested product that 
States such as mine don't need to meet clean air standards.
  There are several reasons I am adamantly opposed to mandating the 
increase in ethanol consumption from 3.1 billion gallons a year to 5 
billion gallons over the next 7 years. Not only do I believe the 
mandate is unnecessary but I am concerned about unintended 
environmental consequences. Let me tell you why. This is not just off 
the top of my head. This summer, for the first time, 70 percent of 
southern California's gasoline was blended with ethanol. Partially as a 
result, southern California endured its worst smog season since 1998. 
Why? Ethanol produces smog.
  For the first time in 5 years, southern California experienced a 
stage 1 smog alert. As of September, the greater Los Angeles 
metropolitan area had experienced 63 days of unhealthy air quality, 
when ozone levels exceeded Federal standards. That number far exceeds 
the 49 days of unhealthy air quality during 2002 and the 36 days in 
2001.
  That is with 70 percent of its gasoline blended with ethanol. So the 
air got worse; it didn't get better.
  The number of unhealthy days this year was almost more than twice 
that of two other of the smoggiest areas of the country, the San 
Joaquin Valley and Houston, TX, which exceeded the Federal health 
standards for 32 days and 25 days, respectively. What ethanol has done 
for southern California is make it more smoggy, not less smoggy. It is 
a culprit. It is worsening smog. I think we are mandating it in this 
bill willy-nilly because of greed.
  The Secretary of the California EPA concluded, and this is his direct 
quote:

       Our best estimate is that the increase in the use of 
     ethanol-blended gasoline has likely resulted in a 1-percent 
     increase in emissions of volatile organic gases in the South 
     Coast Air Quality Management District in the summer of 2003. 
     Given the very poor air quality in the region, and the great 
     difficulty of reaching the current Federal ozone standard by 
     the required attainment date of 2010, an increase of this 
     magnitude is of great concern. Clearly, these emission 
     increases have resulted in higher ozone levels this year than 
     what would have otherwise occurred and are responsible for at 
     least some of the rise of ozone levels that have been 
     observed.

  Not only does this bill do harm to California, it increases the use 
of ethanol-blended gasoline, and that will threaten my State's long-
term trend toward cleaner air. It will make it more difficult, and it 
may well make it impossible.
  Without major emission reduction in the next several years, air 
quality officials warn that the region may miss a 2010 clean air 
deadline to virtually eliminate smoggy days. If the deadline isn't met, 
the Los Angeles region could face Federal sanctions amounting to 
billions of dollars.
  That is why I oppose this ethanol mandate. That is why I say to those 
who are supporting it that you are doing us grievous injury.
  Furthermore, the bill as written threatens the highway trust fund, 
the funding stream that allows States to construct and maintain our 
roads.
  Let me tell you how. Gasoline taxes generate about $20 billion per 
year for the highway trust fund, and they comprise about 90 percent of 
the overall money for the fund. Because this bill subsidizes ethanol 
with transportation dollars, any increase in the use of ethanol will 
mean a decrease in the amount of money going into the highway trust 
fund. In fact, California will lose approximately $900 million over the 
next 7 years just because of this provision. The loss of highway funds 
for the entire country will amount to $10 billion over the next 7 years 
because of this ethanol mandate. It is egregious public policy.
  I am also concerned about the price impact this mandate will have on 
the cost of gasoline at the pump.
  Proponents of the ethanol mandate argue that gas price increases will 
be minimum, but the projections don't take into consideration the real 
world infrastructure constraints and concentration in the marketplace 
that can lead to high price hikes. We all know that when one entity 
controls most of the marketplace, that entity can move price as it sees 
fit. And that is the situation we have here.
  Everyone outside of the Midwest will have to grapple with how to 
bring ethanol to their States in amounts prescribed and mandated since 
the Midwest controls most of the ethanol production. California has 
done more analysis than any other State on what it will take to get 
ethanol to our State. The bottom line is that it can't happen without 
raising gas prices. Our analysis shows that we can't bring ethanol to 
our State without increasing gas prices.
  As I said, California has done more analysis on what it will take to 
bring the required amount of ethanol to our State than any other State, 
and has found that it will have cost consequences at the pump. 
Proponents of the ethanol mandate argue that gas price increases will 
be minimal. But the projections don't take into consideration the 
infrastructure and strength and the concentration in the marketplace 
that exists. Everyone outside of the Midwest will have to grapple with 
how to bring ethanol to their States since the Midwest controls most of 
the production.
  I am also concerned about the limited number of ethanol suppliers in 
the market today. This high market concentration will leave consumers 
vulnerable to price hikes as it did when electricity and natural gas 
prices soared in the West because of a few out-of-State generating 
firms dominating the market.
  As I have watched all of this, every time you have out-of-State 
companies dealing with an unregulated energy-related marketplace you 
have problems. I don't know why. But I suspect there really isn't the 
connection with the consumer. Many of the companies driving the energy 
crisis in California

[[Page S15215]]

weren't in California. I wonder if they would do the same thing to 
their State that they did to our State. I am not a fan of the way the 
marketplace is structured today. And into this lack of structure and 
lack of price responsibility, we bring a whole new component. That 
component is that one company is the dominant producer in the highly 
concentrated ethanol market.
  ADM today controls 46 percent of the ethanol market. That is only 
what is produced today. The company has an even greater control over 
how ethanol is distributed and marketed. ADM does not have a sterling 
record. It is an admitted price fixer and three of its executives have 
served prison time for colluding with competitors. I cannot look at ADM 
and say we have a pristine corporate citizen who controls this 
marketplace, its production, its distribution and will have any 
compassion for price responsibility. I do not believe giving firms such 
as this, this kind of control, is good public policy.

  One could ask, Do I have any more grievous complaints? The answer is 
yes. The list goes on and on.
  Let me take up MTBE. In this bill, there is a liability waiver so 
nobody can sue for the fact that MTBE has been found to be defective by 
a court of law. Not only that, it is a retroactive liability protection 
for MTBE producers. This provision offers them immunity from claims 
that the additive is defective in design or manufacture. It makes this 
liability protection retroactive to September 5 of this year thereby 
wiping out hundreds of lawsuits brought by local jurisdictions all 
across America. This retroactive immunity is a perverse incentive to 
those who pollute because it says to them, OK, you have done all of 
this damage; nonetheless, it does not really matter. You do not really 
have any liability. All these suits will be wiped out.
  This bill does not ban MTBE nationwide despite what has happened in 
huge numbers of States, including my own. It gives MTBE producers $2 
billion in what is called ``transition assistance'' to transition out 
of a product they are allowed to continue to produce and export. So 
they can accept $2 billion and continue to produce a flawed product 
that we know contaminates ground water, that we know leaches out of 
ground water wells, creates plumes of benzene, could possibly be 
carcinogenic, and pollutes drinking water so it is undrinkable and what 
do they get for doing this? $2 billion in this bill. Now I ask, is that 
good public policy? Remember, the courts have already found it to be a 
defective product. This is not me speaking; it is the courts.
  I first learned about MTBE when the mayor of Santa Monica came to see 
me and told me that one-half of their entire water supply was 
contaminated with MTBE and could not be used. As I delved into it and 
investigated the claims further, I came to learn there were at least 
10,000 sites contaminated in California. Since then, about a year ago, 
it is now 15,000 sites in California.
  California is not alone. Last year the EPA estimated there are 15,051 
sites in California. Nationally there are 153,000 contaminated ground 
water sites.
  The States with the most pollution include California and Florida. 
Florida has 20,273 contaminated ground water sites--more than 
California. Florida is heavily impacted with MTBE pollution. Illinois 
has 9,546 contaminated sites. Michigan has 9,087 sites. Texas has 5,678 
sites. Wisconsin has 5,567 sites. New York has 3,290 polluted sites. 
Pennsylvania has 4,723. It is State after State after State. They total 
153,000 polluted drinking water sites. This bill does not make MTBE 
illegal; this bill gives MTBE $2 billion, and they cut out the ability 
of local jurisdictions to sue to be able to clean up these sites with 
the money. If that is not perverse public policy, if that does not 
create an incentive to do bad things, I don't know what does.
  As I said, the courts ruled that MTBE is a defective product. 
Actually, this relates to a case in my State so I think it is relevant 
to mention this case. It is a case brought by the South Lake Tahoe 
Public Utility District. The court held Shell, Texaco, Tosco, Lyondell 
Chemical, which is ARCO Chemical, and Equilon Enterprises liable for 
selling a defective product, gasoline with MTBE, while failing to warn 
of its pollution hazard. The court forced these MTBE producers to pay 
the water district of South Lake Tahoe $60 million to clean up the 
mess.
  The industry, in fact, knew of the problems with MTBE yet decided to 
include it in gasoline. They deny all of this, but a court has found it 
to be the case. In fact, let me read a comment from Exxon employee 
Barbara Mickelson from 1984:

       Based on higher mobility and at the same time/odor 
     characteristics of MTBE, Exxon's experience with 
     contaminations in Maryland, and our knowledge of Shell's 
     experience with MTBE contamination incidents, the number of 
     well contamination incidents is estimated to increase three 
     times following the widespread introduction of MTBE into 
     Exxon gasoline.

  This is 1984. The company went ahead and included it in their 
gasoline. Now, no one can sue them for a defective product in this 
bill.
  Let me also give you an excerpt from a 1987 memorandum circulated 
within the Environmental Protection Agency:

       Concern about MTBE in drinking water surfaced after the 
     Interagency Testing Committee report was published. Known 
     cases of drinking water contamination have been reported in 4 
     states. These cases affect individual families as well as 
     towns of up to 20,000 people. It is possible that this 
     program could rapidly mushroom due to leaking underground 
     storage tanks at service stations. The tendency for MTBE to 
     separate from the gasoline mixture into ground water could 
     lead to widespread drinking water contamination.

  That is what indeed happened as illustrated by the fact that today we 
have 153,000 drinking water sites contaminated with MTBE across this 
Nation. This bill does not make its use illegal. It gives the companies 
$2 billion, and it prevents water districts from suing because the 
product was knowingly defective. There is no way you can look at a 
provision like this and not say this is a bad bill.

  What adds insult to injury is this bill says they can continue to 
produce MTBE and export it to other countries so the drinking water of 
other countries can be polluted. How perverse can public policy be?
  I am also disappointed that the conference report does nothing to 
increase fuel economy standards of our Nation's fleet of automobiles. 
We have an Energy bill. The largest contributor to global warming is 
carbon dioxide. The largest producer of carbon dioxide is the 
automobile. This bill does nothing to make automobiles more fuel 
efficient. What kind of an energy policy is that? In fact, the bill, 
again, perversely, makes it more difficult for the Department of 
Transportation to encourage fuel efficiency standards in the future by 
including a new list of criteria the Department must consider when 
revising standards.
  I believe increasing the fuel economy of SUVs and light trucks is the 
single easiest step the Nation can take to reduce the emission of 
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is the biggest single shot at 
reducing global warming. Yet we refuse to do it.
  Earlier this year, Senator Snowe and I introduced bipartisan 
legislation to close what is called the SUV loophole. We were unable to 
offer this legislation as an amendment to the Senate version of the 
Energy bill when it was on the floor.
  But our bill had been evaluated by the National Academy of Sciences, 
that has released a study on this issue, and said it was 
technologically feasible to do this, and that over the next 10 years it 
would save the United States a million barrels of oil a day and reduce 
our dependence on foreign oil by 10 percent. It said it would prevent 
240 million tons of carbon dioxide, the top greenhouse gas, as I have 
said, from entering the atmosphere each year, and it would save SUV and 
light-duty truck owners hundreds of dollars, ranging anywhere from $300 
a year to $600 a year at the pump in the cost of gasoline.
  CAFE standards were first established in 1975. They were fought by 
Detroit, just as seatbelts were fought by Detroit. At that time light 
trucks made up only a small percentage of the vehicles on the road. 
They were used mostly for agriculture and commerce. Today they are used 
mostly as passenger cars. Our roads look much different. SUVs and 
light-duty trucks comprise more than half of new car sales in the 
United States.
  As a result, the overall fuel economy of our Nation's fleet is the 
lowest it has been in two decades, largely because fuel economy 
standards for SUVs

[[Page S15216]]

and light trucks are so much lower than they are for other passenger 
vehicles. They are 22 miles per gallon. We could have them equal to 
sedans and have all the savings I have just cited.
  Additionally, what is interesting is that others are moving rapidly 
to retrofit automobiles with new fuel savings technology that is 
available today for use by car manufacturers. Toyota recently announced 
improvements in its hybrid vehicle, the Prius, making it more powerful 
and more fuel efficient. Toyota has announced a hybrid version of its 
Lexus RX 330 SUV, which is scheduled to be released in early next year.
  Meanwhile, instead of moving forward, some U.S. automakers are moving 
backward. I was very disappointed by the announcement made by the Ford 
Motor Company stating Ford would not be meeting its self-imposed goal 
of raising the fuel economy in its SUVs by 25 percent by 2005. 
Additionally, Ford announced it is delaying the sale of its hybrid SUV, 
the Escape, another year until 2004.
  Yet China has announced it is going to move quickly on imposing fuel 
efficiency standards on its automobiles. Of course, any American 
companies that produce for Chinese consumption will have to conform.
  I am so disappointed to see this Energy bill does not address global 
climate change. We are 5 percent of the world's population. We use 25 
percent of its energy. We produce the world's most greenhouse gas 
emissions. We are the most significant culprit driving global warming.
  Despite the fact that climate change threatens our environment and 
our economy, this bill does nothing to address it. I think that is a 
major mistake. Energy and climate are inextricably linked. A truly 
comprehensive energy policy cannot ignore that issue. As a nation, we 
ignore it at our peril.

  The scientific evidence of global warming is real. The problem is 
getting worse. People are seeing mosquitos in areas of the Arctic for 
the first time. Glaciers are melting around the world, from Glacier 
National Park to the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro. The largest ice shelf 
in the Arctic is disintegrating. This ice shelf covers 150 square 
miles. It is 100 feet thick.
  The hole in the ozone layer, which decreased in size last year, grew 
to its largest level earlier this year.
  Climate change is also affecting some of our most treasured places. 
Over a century ago, 150 magnificent glaciers could be seen on the high 
cliffs and jagged peaks of the surrounding mountains of Glacier 
National Park. Today, there are only 35. The 35 glaciers that remain 
today are disintegrating so quickly that scientists estimate the park 
will have no glaciers in 30 years.
  Glaciers in the Sierra Nevada, in my State, are disappearing. Many of 
these have been there for the last thousand years.
  We are seeing similar melting around the world, from Mount 
Kilimanjaro in Tanzania to the ice fields beneath Mount Everest in the 
Himalayas.
  Dwindling glaciers offer a clear and visible sign of climate change 
in America and the rest of the world. We are seeing these changes. 
Scientists tell us to expect more. Yet this bill is silent.
  We have reports from the National Academy of Sciences, the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  Let me quote the CBO report in May:

       Scientists generally agree that continued population growth 
     and economic development . . . will result in substantially 
     more greenhouse gas emissions and further warming unless 
     actions are taken to control those emissions.

  The place to take those actions is in an Energy bill, and yet this 
conference report is silent.
  Let me tell you what the actual effect is in my State.
  Sea level has risen 6 inches in San Francisco since 1850, with the 
greatest change happening since 1925. As sea level rises, the salt 
water permeates into the delta, contaminating drinking water and ground 
water further upstream.
  Even without climate change, it would be a struggle to supply enough 
water for all of the people that live in California. But report, after 
report, after report indicates that climate change will further 
threaten a water supply that is already tight.
  Models from NASA, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, and 
the Union of Concerned Scientists all indicate that climate change is 
likely to increase winter rain and decrease snowfall in my State.
  More winter rain means winter flooding. Less snow means less water 
for the rest of the year. California's water supply depends on gradual 
snow runoff. We have spent billions of dollars on water infrastructure 
that depends on this runoff, and yet we still have to struggle to 
provide enough water for our farms, our cities, our fish, and our 
wildlife. This bill does nothing to help California's situation.
  In 1910, half of the Sacramento River's annual runoff took place 
between April and July. Today that number is 35 percent, and it is 
continuing to decline. We can't count on this runoff. It is clearly in 
our best interest to address climate change. Our environment is clearly 
at risk. Our relations with our allies are at risk because of our 
reluctance to address it.
  The Foreign Relations Committee has recognized the need for the 
United States to act. We should do so in this bill. Yet we do not. How 
can I, representing the largest State in the Union, support a bill that 
does nothing for my State--nothing?
  Let me now deal with the sensitive issue of coastal protection. On 
the positive side, the bill no longer includes another inventory of oil 
and gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf. However, this 
conference report takes away the States' input into an important set of 
energy development projects, including liquefied natural gas facilities 
and other oil- and gas-related projects. These States need input into 
these decisions. For coastal States, this is a significant weakness in 
this bill, particularly States such as Florida and California and for 
your own State of Oregon, Mr. President. Time after time, we have said 
we do not want offshore energy development. This bill opens that door, 
and it reduces the States' input into decisions which directly affect 
our coastal zone waters.
  The Energy bill also fails to include the renewable portfolio 
provision which was included in the Senate-passed bill. I heartened 
when the ranking member, the Senator from New Mexico, announced earlier 
this week that it was in. Apparently, it is now out. Solar, wind, 
geothermal, and biomass are generating electricity for homes and 
businesses nationwide. It is working in California. We need an energy 
policy that not only provides tax incentives for their continued 
development but also requires their use. I believe it is in the public 
interest for our Nation to require a greater development of renewable 
resources.
  The tax provision of this bill implies that nuclear power is a form 
of renewable power, and it places this form of power on an equal 
footing in the Tax Code with traditional renewables. This production 
tax credit for nuclear power is the largest energy tax credit in the 
bill and would be the largest one in the code, equaling $6 billion. As 
a nation, we still can't properly dispose of nuclear waste. This waste 
has a half-life of an eternity, yet we are going to produce more of it. 
I strongly believe this is a mistake.
  This bill also weakens the Clean Air Act. Upon reviewing the bill, I 
was most disappointed to learn that the legislation that has really 
cleaned up our air, the Clean Air Act, is weakened. The 1990 amendments 
to the Clean Air Act, signed by the first President Bush, implemented 
timelines for cities to clean their air. This bill undermines the 
intent of those amendments by no longer requiring communities to clean 
up their air if they can claim that part of its pollution is a result 
of transported air pollution.
  Most of California--all the inland areas--is a product of 
transported, to some degree, air pollution. Seventy percent of our 
State does not meet national air quality standards. So California is 
probably more adversely impacted by this than any other State because 
of strong prevailing westerly winds which drive the pollution from the 
big coastal areas into the valley areas. This will result in a major 
weakening of the Clean Air Act. Huge areas of the State, such as the 
Central Valley and the Inland Empire, will have reduced cleanup 
requirements.
  Our Nation needs an energy policy that will protect consumers, reduce 
our dependence on foreign oil, and produce

[[Page S15217]]

new energy development while protecting our environment. This bill does 
not do that. This bill deserves to be defeated. This bill is a bad 
bill.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this poorly crafted 
legislation.

                               Exhibit 1

                       TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON $ENSE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Type or industry                   Authorized spending
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil and Gas (including MTBE/LUST)........  $12.971 billion (includes
                                            $414 million scoring of
                                            royalty provisions).
Coal.....................................  $5.434 billion.
Nuclear..................................  $5.735 billion.
Utilities................................  $1.355 billion.
Renewables (including R&D)...............  $4.164 billion.
Energy Efficiency (including R&D)........  $4.931 billion.
Auto Efficiency and fuels (including       $1.698 billion.
 Ethanol).
LIHEAP and Weatherization Assistance.....  $11.425 billion.
Science Research and Development.........  $21.850 billion.
Freedom CAR and Hydrogen Research........  $2.149 billion.
Miscellaneous............................  $764 million.
    Total Authorization..................  $72.476 billion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Breakdown of Cost Estimates

     Oil and Gas
       Title III--$949 million (direct and royalty exemptions).
       Title IX Research and Development--Fossil Fuel $1.997 
     billion.
       Title XIV Miscellaneous, Subtitle B Coastal Programs-- $5 
     billion.
       Title XV Ethanol--MTBE and other provisions--$5.025 
     billion.

     =$12.971 billion.
     Coal
       Title IV Coal--$3.925 billion.
       Title IX Research and Development--Fossil fuels $1.509 
     billion (specifically allocated to coal).

     =$5.434 billion.
     Nuclear
       Title VI Nuclear Matters--$1.186 billion.

                          ____________________