[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 169 (Thursday, November 20, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15255-S15272]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003--CONFERENCE REPORT--Continued
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise to add my voice to the very
spirited debate we have had about the Energy bill. A number of Members
have come to the floor to talk about specific provisions--the concern
for the liability waiver for MTBE, in particular.
I want to step back and talk about the bigger picture--about the
financial health of our country and the impact that this Energy bill,
given its enormous size, will have on the long-term health of our
budget, as well as our economy.
During the budget debates, we hear a great deal about fiscal
responsibility. People love to talk about fiscal responsibility in the
abstract. When you are looking out 10 years and are talking about
surpluses or deficits, or more broadly about revenues or spending, it
is all about fiscal responsibility. But they don't like to talk about
it as much when we have a specific piece of legislation on the Senate
floor, as we have now, that will draw from the Federal Treasury and
start spending that money in a way that I don't think is very well
thought out. I certainly don't think it will have a very positive
effect on our economy.
In particular, if we look at the Energy bill and its scope and size,
it not only breaks the budget that was agreed to just 6 months ago, it
not only violates the budget once or twice or three times, it is in
violation of the Budget Act in four different ways. In fact, in one
area in particular, on spending, it violates the Budget Act three
different times. A point of order, as has been indicated by the budget
chairman himself, lies against this bill. It violates the budget caps,
busts the budget by over $800 million next year alone, by more than
$3.4 billion over the next 5 years, and by $4.3 billion over a 10-year
period. It breaks the budget cap, breaks the budget agreement, and
violates the Budget Act. That is a lot of money--800 million dollars,
$3.4 billion, and $4.3 billion over the next 10 years.
I think at a certain point we have to draw the line. We have to say
energy is important to the country, markets are important to the
country, competitiveness is important to the country, but we can
achieve these things without violating the budget agreement that was
just put into place several months ago.
The bill includes new mandatory spending, which is effectively on
automatic pilot, where once the bill is signed into law, the spending
will take place automatically, without appropriations and without any
new legislation passed. So it is $3.7 billion in mandatory spending
over the next 5 years, $5.4 billion in new mandatory spending over the
next 10 years. In addition to that, we have all the authorized spending
in the bill--over $70 billion in spending is authorized over the next
10 years.
Looking at the authorization language, the different programs--dozens
and dozens of different programs--total over $70 billion. These
programs are effectively picking and choosing among different ideas and
innovations and areas of the energy industry, picking winners and
losers among the different competing forces. That is where we need to
be very careful about the impact a bill like this would have. Why
should any legislator, or bureaucrat, for that matter, be trying to
pick the winning or the losing energy technology or innovation 5 or 10
years out into the future? We are not experts in this area. We are not
scientists. We don't dedicate our lives to understanding the nuances of
new energy technology. We certainly should not be writing legislation
that picks those winners and losers in the marketplace.
If you read through--just to touch on a few to get a sense of what I
am talking about--$250 million is in the bill for photovoltaic energy
commercialization, the use of photovoltaic energy in public buildings.
Photovoltaics is an interesting technology, perhaps a promising one.
But to spend $250 million to try to commercialize this in public
buildings suggests that we know, as Senators, that this is the right
energy source to use in public buildings for the foreseeable future.
Why not let the market compete? Why not let investors step forward to
build or renovate or improve public buildings, to use energy more
efficiently in public buildings, pick the best contractor, the best
product, the product which delivers the best value for the public? Why
do we have to spend $250 million biasing the marketplace? There is $125
million for a coal technology loan. It turns out this particular one
will actually go to convert a clean coal technology plant into a
traditional coal-fired generation plant.
Elsewhere in the bill, we have a couple of billion dollars to
subsidize the clean coal technology industry. So this
[[Page S15256]]
is a case where maybe we are just not sure what the winner is going to
be, and we are trying to hedge our bets. There is nearly $100 million
in the bill for the reduction of enginizing heavy-duty vehicles; reduce
the amount of heavy duty vehicles' idle--I suppose in traffic, or
sitting at the truck stop, or wherever else it might be. Energy
efficiency in heavy-duty trucks is a great idea. Somebody tells me that
those who build, manufacture, and own and operate heavy-duty trucks
have a financial incentive not to waste the diesel fuel they use to
drive the trucks all over the country. I don't think they need a
subsidy of $100 million for us to do the job that they ought to be
doing to make themselves more competitive and ultimately earn more
money in the marketplace.
Engine testing program, $25 million. Why should we be subsidizing the
testing of commercial engines that companies or industries use to
operate and earn a good living, as they should?
Here is another very interesting one. The next generation of lighting
initiative; $250 million for the next generation of lighting. We have
next generation Internet. I am still not sure why we put a billion
dollars or $2 billion into that. The Internet is probably the one area
of our economy that has attracted more capital faster than any other
idea in our history. Why the Federal Government should be subsidizing
that, I don't know. Why we should be subsidizing new lighting
technologies, I certainly don't know. There are wonderful companies
that make great lighting products, such as halogen lights, neon lights.
I could name a few companies, but I am sure I will leave some out.
When we go to the Home Depot to buy lighting products or to the local
hardware store or COSTCO and buy lighting products, we know who the
competitors are. Why does the Federal Government need to spend $250
million to help develop better or newer lighting?
Somebody might say we are working on more efficient lighting. If you
build a better light bulb that is less expensive to use and/or less
expensive to sell, I bet customers will recognize that value. It is a
mature industry, a well-understood industry. You don't need a Ph.D. to
understand why you would use a light bulb, how you use one, how much it
costs, and what the value is. That is the classic example of an
industry that certainly doesn't need a taxpayer subsidy.
Let's recognize that all of this spending--$250 million for lighting,
$125 million for a coal loan, $2 billion for MTBE producers--is not
money just being printed out in a back room somewhere. These are
dollars that we are collecting from working families, men and women who
work very hard. We collect their Federal taxes and we have an
obligation to be fiscally responsible and to do a thoughtful job in the
way this money is spent in Washington.
We have new mandatory spending, we have authorized spending, and then
we get to the tax subsidies, some $25 billion. The President
recommended only $8 billion. The Senate recommended $18 billion. It
comes out of conference with the House and Senate at nearly $25 billion
in tax subsidies, loan guarantees for diesel fuel plants, loan
guarantees for three new coal plants. A loan guarantee to build any of
these new plants effectively puts the taxpayer on the hook for all, or
a very significant part, of that facility.
Again, I think the coal industry is a terrific industry, and also the
oil and gas industry, electricity generation, wind power, hydropower,
solar power. What we ought to be working toward, however, is a level
playing field where these competing ideas and competing technologies
can provide electricity, can provide power, can provide energy so
consumers and investors can make good decisions about where to put
their money and which one of these competing technologies to buy.
There are certainly some good provisions in this legislation. I think
the electricity title takes important steps. I support repeal of the
Public Utility Holding Company Act. We have better reliability
standards in this legislation for our electric grid. We have regulatory
reform which I think is important for building out the electric
infrastructure and avoiding future crises, shortages, or blackouts. But
we can do all of these things without busting the budget. We can do all
of these things without violating the Budget Act. We can do all of
these things without coming back with a bill that has three times the
tax subsidies the President proposed.
Like so many Energy bills I have seen in my short time working in
Congress, this bill is full of some very grandiose pipedreams. One of
my favorites is the hydrogen car--$2 billion for the hydrogen car. We
are just coming off a $2 billion bender known as the Partnership for
the Next Generation Vehicle. Mr. President, $2 billion of taxpayers'
money was spent to try to develop an electric car that was going to be
a hybrid electric car, a hybrid combustion engine and, at the end of
the day, it was a failure--$2 billion later. It had no material impact
on the delivery of more energy efficient vehicles into the marketplace.
Someone somewhere suddenly decided: It turns out the car of the
future is not an electric car, the car of the future is really a
hydrogen car. We must have gotten that whole electric car thing wrong.
Forget about that Partnership for the Next Generation Vehicle; it is
really the hydrogen car, and we only need $2 billion to do it.
I don't know if hydrogen is going to propel vehicles in the future.
It would be terrific if it did. I think the right way to get the answer
is to let the marketplace decide, to let competing technologies and
ideas in the marketplace decide; put those ideas out, attract capital,
attract investment, do the research and development, and, believe me,
if somebody develops a cost-competitive electric car, let alone a
hydrogen car, they are going to make a lot of money because there is a
demand for that in the marketplace.
People are willing to pay for a cheaper vehicle. People are willing
to support initiatives that not only fulfill the needs in their daily
lives traveling around but also help keep our environment a little
cleaner by reducing emissions.
We have coal gasification, at $1 billion or so--nearly $1 billion for
a coal gasification initiative. Twenty years ago, it was all about
synthetic oil. That was clearly going to be the energy of the future--
the fossil fuel energy at least. I guess we must have gotten that one
wrong because we spent $4 billion, $5 billion on that, and it turns out
it is really not cost competitive. So we are going to go with coal
gasification. Maybe that is what we meant to say or we learned a little
bit since then.
Now we can see the future much more clearly, and we are going to
start out with a little bit less than $1 billion, but you can be
assured that over time it is going to be a lot more than that.
These are pipedreams. These are important visions for scientists or
technologists to have, and we want them to put some funding or risk
some capital for these ideas. The question isn't whether they are
interesting ideas or whether they are even worthy of investment but
whether they are worthy of taking Federal money, taxpayer money, and
putting that money at risk in a marketplace that should be able to
stand on its own, compete on a level playing field, and continue to
deliver the innovation and technology of which I think most Americans
would and should be very proud.
We can do a lot better than this bill. We can do better than a bill
that busts the budget. We can do better than a bill that has a $25
billion grab bag of tax subsidies that distort the marketplace of ideas
and the marketplace of capital. We can do better in terms of
legislation that should be promoting a very competitive environment
and, therefore, a stronger, more robust economy, but instead, in
distorting the marketplace, I think we will do great damage to our
economy.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SUNUNU. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, we can do better than this legislation.
Frankly, we need to do better than this legislation because if we
don't, I am afraid if we adopt this conference report, this will become
the standard method of operation, the standard way we approach science,
technology, and energy: That
[[Page S15257]]
we get together in a room in a conference or in a committee, and we sit
down as Senators and we try to pick the winners and the losers; that we
distribute subsidies in the way of spending or we distribute--in some
ways this is even worse--subsidies in the way of added complexity to
the Tax Code. Instead of ending up with an economy that is robust, an
economy that is the envy of the world, an economy that encourages new
ideas and innovation, we end up with some sort of variant of what has
already been defeated in the Eastern European countries and in the
former Soviet Union--a manipulated government-subsidized enterprise or
government-run economy where bureaucrats or elected officials try to
pull the strings, but to no avail, degrading the economy, making it
less efficient, making it less robust, and not discovering those very
entrepreneurs we know are the heart and soul of the prosperity we
enjoy.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
the statement of Senator Kyl, Senator Graham of Florida be recognized
for 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to join many of my colleagues
in strongly opposing this Energy bill. The opposition is not reserved
to only Democrats; the opposition is for those people who think about
the implications of this bill and the serious concerns it raises.
For one thing, it is terribly lopsided. It is out of balance. It is
heavily weighted toward the industry because it was written by just a
few select individuals with almost no conference input by Democrats.
The bill is an embarrassing example of the public's worst fears about
Washington power politics, and those power sources are the oil and gas
lobbyists downtown. Though it is called the Energy Policy Act of 2003,
this bill promotes the outdated policies of a generation ago. It should
be called actually the Energy Policy Act of 1903. The policy here is
simple: Drill for oil, drill for natural gas, dig for coal.
While the country needs oil, natural gas, and coal, we also need
leaders with a vision to promote clean sources of energy that won't
harm the health of our children, our grandchildren, and future
generations. It is the 21st century, and we have the technology to do
better.
According to the Congressional Research Service, between 1948 and
1998 the Federal Government subsidized the energy industry by well over
$100 billion. Unfortunately, less than $1 in $10 was used to promote
renewable energy, that which you can find relatively easily and without
the pollution that our present energy sources convey to the public.
Now, in this single bill, we are being asked to spend another $50
billion to $100 billion on tax credits and loan guarantees to the oil,
gas, and nuclear industries. How will all of those taxpayer dollars be
spent? They will be spent on a long list of brazen giveaways to
polluting uranium companies, Archer Daniels Midland, to MTBE producers,
and for a smattering of goodies and pet projects.
Taking care of special interests has become a hallmark of this
Congress. Peter Jennings highlighted it in a perfect example on the
evening news the other night. He reported that taxpayers have so far
contributed $1.3 billion to subsidize wealthy individuals who buy the
biggest gas guzzlers sold in America. As he pointed out, one couple
received $17,000 in tax breaks on their new SUV and boast: ``We have
decided to take two extra vacations this year with the money we
saved.'' But for the energy they used, they pose a whole different kind
of issue.
Why is the answer around here always to hand over cash to rich people
and successful companies? Can we really justify turning over the hard-
earned tax dollars of Americans, who do not earn enough to benefit much
from the Bush tax cuts, to companies flush with cash?
Here is an issue that was announced August 1, 2003: ``Chevron
Quadruples Profits.'' It goes on to say:
Oil giant Chevron Texaco increased quarterly profits four
times to $1.6 billion.
Their revenues soared to $29 billion in the quarter. Do these
companies really sound as if they need Government subsidies to do their
job? Not to me.
We have the perfect opportunity to guide the country toward clean,
renewable energy. Yet most of the bill's tax credits for efficiency and
renewables last only 2 or 3 years. Any business person knows this is
not a sufficient time period to encourage significant investments and
technology development.
We Americans have always set ourselves apart by our ingenuity and
creativity. Today, amid an avalanche of promising scientific
discoveries in the field of energy, the majority can see no further
than the lobbyists' interests which this bill follows to the letter.
Recently, I read that in Amsterdam, a major European chip
manufacturer has discovered a new way to produce solar cells that will
generate electricity 20 times cheaper than today's solar panels. ST-
Microelectronics, Europe's largest semiconductor maker, says that by
the end of next year it expects to have the first stable prototypes
ready. If a decade ago we had been serious about promoting renewable
energy, that discovery could have been made by an American company, but
such breakthroughs are unlikely with the minimal incentives offered in
this bill for development of better ways to be less dependent on the
energy sources we have now.
It is also disheartening that this bill grants exemption after
exemption to the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and other
protective laws. I do not really understand it. Is boosting the profits
of giant companies really more important to the bill's authors than the
health of the American people?
Let us talk about just one of the riders slipped in by House
Republicans without a vote from either the House or the Senate. This
was snuck in during conference. This rider amends the Clean Air Act,
gives cities an easy out if they find meeting the new ozone standard is
difficult due to transboundary pollution. It requires EPA to grant them
an automatic extension. It does not say for how long. It fails to
define the conditions that would precipitate such an extension.
The result of this rider, of delaying implementation of the ozone
standard for just 1 year, is severe. That rider is estimated to cause
390,000 more asthma attacks, 44,000 of those in my State, 5,000 more
hospitalizations, and 570,000 more missed schooldays. That is the
result of just one of the many exceptions carved out of our
environmental laws by this bill.
Among my nine grandchildren, I have two who are asthmatic. The rate
of asthma among juveniles is growing substantially. I lost my sister to
an asthma attack. It was obviously a devastating event in our family's
history. To those who see kids with asthma get fatigued after
participating in sports or otherwise, it is the kind of anguish that
drives parents to all kinds of anxieties.
The bill fails the American people on every level. It fails to boost
our energy security, it fails to safeguard electricity consumers, and
it fails to protect the environment.
It is astounding to look at what this bill does not do. While
automobiles account for a whopping 40 percent of our Nation's growing
oil addiction, the bill does not address fuel economy at all. The bill
comes at the very time when fuel efficiency has arguably never been
more important. America's fuel economy is at a 22-year low. Today, the
United States spends $200,000 every minute on foreign oil. But the
economic costs of weak fuel efficiency requirements go far beyond just
the cost of oil. If we include the major oil price shocks of the last
30 years and the resulting economic recessions, the cost goes up at
least $7 trillion.
Given these hard facts, one would naturally expect a national energy
policy to aggressively pursue decreases in oil. It does not. Just the
opposite. It generously promotes increases in oil use while tossing
what I would call petty cash toward energy conservation, energy
efficiency, and renewable energy.
We never hear a word--and this has happened in Democratic as well as
Republican administrations--about sacrifice, conserve, think about what
happens when more fuel is ground into toxic emissions. It is terrible
that we cannot understand there is a mission attached to saving oil and
gasoline use.
[[Page S15258]]
It is amazing what this bill fails to do on electric policy. This
bill contains only one of three provisions the country must enact to
prevent another massive blackout such as the Northeast experienced last
August. We are being asked to support a dirty Energy bill in order to
get one of the fundamental regulatory reforms to our electric grid
system. I say the bad outweighs the good, and I cannot support it.
Around here, it is often said that the perfect is the enemy of the
good, but I say the bad far outweighs the good as an alternative.
The administration's energy and environmental policies reflected in
this bill are so utterly transparent in their goal of more corporate
welfare that the consultant, Frank Luntz, warned the party:
Watch your language--
And here he is, the fat cat--
A caricature has taken hold in the public imagination:
Republicans seemingly in the pockets of corporate fat cats
who rub their hands together and chuckle maniacally as they
plot to pollute corporate America for fun and profit.
Unfortunately for many, that is no caricature. From where I am
standing, that picture is pretty accurate. If one wants proof, look at
this bill. It is filled with little but big breaks for those who need
them the least. Yet rather than change their policies, Luntz offers
them protecting language. He wrote a memo to Republicans instructing
them on how to use the language tested on focus groups to hide their
deplorable environmental record.
This Energy bill is a great disappointment. It might have been
acceptable at the beginning of the 20th century, but it is indefensible
at the beginning of the 21st century.
Mr. President, you know true patriotism is more than waving flags. It
means putting the interests of the American people before the powerful
special interests, the very thing this Energy bill fails to do. I urge
my colleagues to oppose this bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak also to the
Energy conference report. Unlike some of the previous speakers I
listened to in the past 2 hours that I have been in the Chamber, I
stand in support of the agreement that was reached in conference. It
has been pointed out that this is not a perfect bill. I would be the
first to chime in and say I agree with that. But in an effort to
achieve the perfect, I don't think we should overlook the good in the
conference report.
Because of the hard work of Chairman Domenici and his staff, working
with the others on the conference agreement, and spending many, many
hours to reach the consensus we have before us, I think we can truly
say this is a good bill and a bill that should be signed into law.
There has been a great deal of talk, not just during this legislative
session but in years previous: We need to have an energy policy for
this country. We need to have the framework for an energy policy.
It seems to me that so often what we do is react to situations,
whether it is the blackout we experienced in August, or when the price
of gasoline increases to a level where it gets our attention. We only
respond when there is something that gets our attention and focuses the
Nation on energy.
Quite honestly, most Americans don't pay attention to energy. They
don't pay attention to how they get their lights to turn on, or how we
keep the temperature cool or warm. I have said many times as I talk
about energy, most Americans ascribe to the immaculate conception
theory of energy: It just happens. We know that is not the case. It
doesn't just happen. It takes innovation. It takes incentives. It takes
capital. It takes the desire to do something.
But without the energy we have in this country, we would not have the
freedoms or the liberties we take for granted--the ability to do what
we want, to go where we want to go. We need to recognize that energy is
something that has built our country and made us strong. We need to
continue with that sound policy. I believe the conference report we
have in front of us is a good first step toward that sound policy.
As I say that in very general terms, I have to start off that this is
not my perfect bill. At the top of my list for an energy policy for
this country would be the opening of ANWR. We don't see that coming out
of the conference report. Congress had the opportunity to include
language that would have generated over 1 million jobs for American
workers by allowing for oil and gas exploration on just 2,000 acres of
Alaska's North Slope.
I know we tried to keep ANWR in the conference report. The chairman
was working hard. But we were threatened with that constant threat of a
filibuster. You can't put ANWR in the Energy bill or it will be
filibustered. It seems a little ironic to be standing here tonight.
ANWR is not in the Energy bill yet we are still slowed in the task of
getting to a vote on the Energy bill.
The House adopted ANWR and wanted it in the conference report but
there were continued objections, primarily from the environmental
groups, that have kept us and will keep us this year from moving
forward with jobs that truly could have been promised with the opening
of ANWR.
I have made the invitation to the Senators here on the floor and I
know my counterpart, Senator Stevens, has made the effort to invite all
Senators to visit ANWR and see what this dispute over opening the
Coastal Plain of ANWR to oil and gas exploration is all about. We want
you to see Prudhoe Bay. We want you to see the developments in Alpine
and the technology we have utilized to provide for the exploration and
development of oil up on the North Slope. We want you to see the
minimal impact to the environment, and how technology has helped us to
advance.
I get a few takers, primarily in the summertime. But I encourage you
to come up in the wintertime. This is when we do the production up
there. I know that is kind of a chilly invitation to some, but I think
it would help to understand what we are dealing with in Alaska, how
vast our spaces are, and just how small of an area the Coastal Plain of
ANWR, the 1002 area, really is, in comparison.
I agree with those of my colleagues who would argue we cannot drill
our way to independence from foreign oil. They are absolutely right. We
have to have the incentives for renewable energy sources. We have to
have greater technological efficiency. We have to decrease our energy
consumption. Those efforts need to be part of this comprehensive energy
package. But we must also have increased domestic production. I suggest
to you again, if you are going to argue that we need to have energy
security, if we want to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, the first
place we should be looking is ANWR.
But I am not going to go into any further discussion about ANWR at
this time. You have certainly heard the debate before. It will be an
issue that we will revisit. We will continue to push for opening ANWR.
I want to take one more second to remind folks that we had an
opportunity here for over one million jobs across the Nation, at a time
when millions are unemployed in our country. But some Members have
declined to accept that offer. Instead, we are talking about extending
unemployment benefits.
I suggest to you that the unemployed people in my State, if given a
choice, would certainly prefer to have a job than more unemployment
benefits.
But when we speak about jobs, I should not be talking exclusively in
the negative here because all is not lost. We have an incredible
opportunity in Alaska with our natural gas. Several very important
provisions are included in this bill that will promote the construction
of a natural gas pipeline to transport the vast quantities of natural
gas that we have up on our North Slope, to bring it to market in the
lower 48, be it down the Alaska Canadian Highway or through LNG tankers
to the west coast. We have 35 trillion cubic feet of gas up there now.
You have heard Members in the Chamber talking about the fact that
right now that gas is stranded up there. Right now that gas is being
reinjected instead of being shipped down here to the lower 48, where we
need it. We have provisions in the Energy bill to get that gas where it
is needed: We have guaranteed loans, expedited judicial and
environmental reviews, and a program to train pipeline workers--again,
[[Page S15259]]
talking about the jobs aspect. The pipeline, if constructed, could
provide over one million jobs, direct and indirect jobs, through the
construction of this pipeline alone.
But the key here is, if this pipeline is constructed, there are no
guarantees. We have done a great deal in this legislation to encourage
the construction of the line.
There is one provision that generated a great deal of attention and
focus but is not included. There would have been a production credit to
ensure the economic viability and provide a safety net in the event the
price of gas drops to very low levels. That is not included in the
legislation.
This is a huge project. People need to understand how huge. This is a
$20 billion project, 3,500 miles in length, 5 million tons of steel,
delivering billions of cubic feet of gas per day to a nation that is
starved right now for natural gas. And the situation is just getting
worse.
It would be the biggest construction project of its kind in the
country. It is something that we can only imagine. When we imagine huge
projects like this, every now and again they take a little bit of a
boost to get going. What we have done in the Energy bill is to provide
that boost, to provide the incentives to encourage the construction.
Again, what we are providing is grants to authorize training of the
crews and workers who will construct and operate the pipeline.
We limit the period of time to bring a claim, if a claim should
arrive, and we expedite the claim so the project doesn't get bogged
down in the courts.
We authorize the construction of the pipeline. We have loan
guarantees of up to 80 percent of the cost of the project. It would be
an $18 billion Federal loan guarantee--probably the largest loan
guarantee we have ever seen given to a project here in the United
States.
We have also included a 15-percent enhanced oil recovery credit for
the $2.6 billion gas handling plant that will be required on the North
Slope.
We have provided for accelerated depreciation on the project, again
helping to provide that incentive which we need to encourage
construction of this line.
This only happens, the jobs only come, if the construction happens,
if we can get moving with the line, if we convince the producers that
it is timely, it is necessary, and that the demand is there. I think we
have established that the demand is clearly there.
I am going to be working with the State of Alaska and the industry to
examine the options and to pursue those possibilities as we push this
project to completion. It is imperative that we in Congress, through
the passage of this bill, make our intent known that this is a priority
for the country. It is a priority for Alaska. But it must be a priority
for this Nation as well.
I have been talking about the Alaska component in the bill. We are
pleased with what I have spoken to so far. But we should be reminded
about the other good things in the Energy bill that apply throughout
the country.
Authorized annual funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program, LIHEAP, is increased from $2 billion to $3.4 billion.
There is $550 million in grants for biomass production, and it
provides money for communities under 50,000 in population to improve
the commercial value of their biomass.
A couple of weeks ago, I stood on the floor during the debate on the
Healthy Forests legislation and I showed a picture of Alaska Chugach
Forest on the Kenai Peninsula where as far as the eye can see the
standing trees are dead, killed by the spruce bark beetle. With the
help of grants that we are seeing in the Energy bill, those trees can
be converted into a biomass fuel providing a new source of energy for
low-income communities.
There is money for clean coal power energy for those projects that
demonstrate the advanced technology that achieves significant emission
reductions.
I need to point out that there has been discussion on this floor that
through the Energy bill perhaps we are not putting enough focus on
clean air, clean water, and concern for the environment. We need to
understand that our environment is only going to be helped. We are only
going to get cleaner air and cleaner water when we have the
advanced technology instead of the old stuff we had in the past. Those
technologies might take some upfront money.
I know there are programs that have already been spoken about--such
as the clean schoolbuses--$100 million to retrofit existing diesel
buses with new pollution control technology, $200 million in grants to
replace older schoolbuses with clean alternative fuels and ultra-low
sulfur fuel buses.
Also, as has been referenced, there is funding for hydropowered
automobiles that the President has made such a big push for.
I might remind the body, though, that in order for us to make headway
on this particular initiative, it will increase the demand for our
natural gas. Again, the imperative is to move forward with a natural
gas pipeline.
The bill contains language to make permanent the United States'
commitment to the energy security of Israel ensuring, if Israel is
unable to independently secure its own supply of oil, that the United
States will procure the necessary oil to meet Israel's needs.
There is much in this Energy bill that provides the incentives and
the technology to move forward. We have language that will help in the
rural areas of the nation--certainly those in my State. Not only do we
not have affordable energy in parts of rural Alaska, we don't have any
energy to speak of. We have a long way to go, but it is only with the
assistance we are seeing through the Energy bill that we will get
there.
While I may suggest that Congress has missed an opportunity on
certain topics, such as ANWR, this bill does offer new programs to
improve our energy efficiency, increase the development and use of
renewable energy resources, and promote domestic production.
It doesn't go as far as it could in reducing America's dependence on
unstable foreign sources of oil, but it is the beginning of a
comprehensive energy policy for this country. It is a policy that has
been lacking for many, many years, and one that I feel is badly needed.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Domenici and
his counterpart in the House, Chairman Tauzin. I appreciate their hard
work and their leadership. Again, this is not a perfect bill, but it is
a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support its adoption so we can
move forward with a sound energy policy for the country.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Alaska for
bringing up an important issue of jobs in this bill, because clearly
one of the key components that we in the Northwest are interested in is
that this bill might move us forward on an energy policy that would
create jobs and diversify Northwest power.
When we ran into a drought in 2000 and ended up having to go out on
the spot market and buy electricity, we certainly were gouged by some
manipulated contracts. But one of the things that could provide us some
long-term relief in the near term from future droughts and overreliance
on the hydrosystem would be a natural gas pipeline from Alaska down to
the continental United States which would help us in diversifying and
protecting against such incidents in the future.
But let us be clear. This bill doesn't get the job done. The Alaska
pipeline that we have all talked about as it relates to natural gas
doesn't have the framework within this legislation to move forward.
I commend the Senator from Alaska for focusing on job issues. I agree
with her that an energy policy must accomplish two things. It must set
a policy for us to get off our dependence on foreign oil and again for
America to have an advantage in job creation as we move on a 21st
century energy policy. But this bill does nothing to help us diversify
in the short term on natural gas that is available to us in Canada and
Alaska. It does very little to help us in the future with the hydrogen
fuel economy which, it is estimated, could create 750,000 jobs over the
next 10 years. That is not just the kind of activity that would make us
a leader in the United States; it is the kind of activity that would
make us a global
[[Page S15260]]
leader in the energy system of the future.
I will take a few minutes to talk about where we are with the Energy
bill and where we have been because yesterday I spent quite a bit of
time talking about the overall aspects of the bill. Something of great
concern to me, being a member of the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, I wanted to make sure, given the fact this bill has been
drafted mostly in secret, starting with the Vice President's energy
task force. That left many Americans out of the process of
understanding what the administration's energy proposal would be, which
led to a conference report that was done in secret by the Republican
Party. Yesterday I needed to spend my time talking about the various
aspects of this bill in a comprehensive way that would give my
colleagues a perspective of someone from the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee who has dealt with some of the challenges and
problems.
Clearly, this 2003 Energy bill is becoming known as the bill about
Hooters, polluters, and about the looting of America that has happened,
particularly on the west coast, particularly in my State.
Americans are trying to understand this. I have had phone calls to my
office: I don't understand. I understand conservation, I understand
renewable energy, I understand incentivizing. What does Hooters have to
do with an energy policy?
In this legislation we have included green bond projects; that is, we
would help in the public financing of proposals to various developers
in Colorado, New York, Iowa, and Louisiana, with $2 billion in private
bonds to build energy-efficient developments. I am for energy
efficiency, but last I heard Hooters had its own airline, was doing
quite well and probably could borrow any money it needed to invest in
energy efficiency.
I have small businesses all over the State of Washington that got
smacked with the energy crisis. They had to conserve; they had to shut
down. Employees were coming up with all sorts of creativity: nobody got
to borrow money from the Federal Government that would allow them to
have a line item in a bill that said specifically, this project is for
you.
Broad tax credits for conservation programs in which all companies
can apply for some of the incentives to get America to conserve--
because conservation is a great program, particularly in times of less
supply--is a very good idea. But that is not what Hooters got. This
particular project, and the three others mentioned in this legislation,
specifically include a line item for particular projects. What
qualifies them? I find it very hard to explain to my constituents. I
know there is a daiquiri bar in and an energy efficient bowling alley
and a movie theater and everything else as part of this Hooters
restaurant development. But I don't understand why they should get some
sort of line item for bonds, for money that needs to be borrowed for
fuel efficiency when everyone else in the country has had to do their
own jobs, to turn out the lights and conserve. What is so special about
this particular restaurant?
As far as the polluters, obviously, my colleagues have done a great
job talking about the MTBE provision and the fact that people who have
been involved with that product are seeking relief from being liable
for cleanup. I have heard from elected officials all over the State of
Washington that they do not want to be the deep pocket. Cities have
asked: Why is it that you are going to let these particular polluters
in this bill off the hook and stick us with the cleanup cost of this
particular product? It is very unfair that that is the approach we
would take. My colleague, the Senator from Illinois, and everyone else
has been very articulate on that issue.
I am also amazed, as we look at the other aspects of the bill,
particularly relating to clean water and the Clean Water Act. Why would
my colleagues would want to say, under the Clean Water Act, this is
legislation that would somehow say to any coal-producing, oil, or gas
company producer in the future under this bill, the 2003 Energy bill,
that you do not have to comply with clean water runoff standards. Why
should they be exempt? I cannot understand that. You build a shopping
center. Guess what. You have to comply with runoff standards from the
Clean Water Act. If you build a hotel, you have to comply with getting
a runoff permit and saying how you are going to deal with runoff. Why?
Because there are two sources of pollution. We have the source point
pollution and then we have pollution that occurs from the runoff. We
want to control that.
We are demanding every other business in America has to get a permit
when they go through development to deal with runoff, to make sure we
have clean water. But somehow we are going to allow certain types of
industries in the Energy bill, particularly oil, gas, and coal, to be
exempt? What kind of policy is that?
The most famous person on this chart is Ken Lay. Why is he the most
famous person on this chart to people in Washington State? My
constituents want to know why, when they have been gouged with higher
energy prices, why this man is not in jail. I don't have a very good
answer.
This bill is about pollution. It is about special deals. It is about
allowing a part of our country to be looted, to allow special interests
to stick their hands in the pockets of ratepayers. That is what I will
focus on tonight. This bill takes a drastic step backward. While
complex to understand, it is critically important for my colleagues to
know they cannot take the drastic steps in this measure that will
overturn 70 years of case law, protecting consumers with just and
reasonable rates.
I talked a little bit about the Clean Water Act. I don't know that I
have to go over that again, but I ask my colleagues, why make every
other business in America comply with the Clean Water Act? There are
probably lots of other industries in the country; yet they have to
comply--if they want to develop--with runoff standards. Yet we will let
oil, gas, and coal companies off the hook. They do not have to get a
permit anymore.
What is the price gouging that has gone on in this legislation? It is
significant, and I will talk about that price gouging because it is
very important to understand.
I see my colleague from Florida, and I agreed to yield him some time.
Would the Senator like that time now?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. If the Senator from the State of Washington
would yield.
Ms. CANTWELL. How much time does the Senator from Florida need?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Five minutes.
Ms. CANTWELL. I yield, from my half hour, 5 minutes to the Senator
from Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I rise in the Senate to tell the Senate that I
have concluded after studying this matter considerably that I will vote
against this Energy bill, and I will vote against the motion for
cloture because I have concluded that it is clearly against the
interests of the State of Florida.
I am going to try to point out two particular areas of the bill that
violate what everyone should consider in supporting the interests of
the people of the State of Florida. This is a map of Florida with stars
on it in dark colors. Each one of the dark-colored stars represents a
hazardous material spill and an MTBE spill. There are 30,000 hazardous
material spills in our State. There are over 20,000 MTBE spills.
In the dark of night, in a conference committee that was closely
controlled, a provision was inserted in this conference report that has
come back to us for consideration, that all liability of the oil
companies would be removed forever on any of the contamination that
came as a result of those MTBE spills.
That simply is not right. It is not right to wipe out the ability of
18 counties and cities in Florida that are presently contemplating suit
to sue for those oil spills with MTBE, nor is it right that you would
wipe out Escambia County's present suit--Escambia County, up here on
the map, the cradle of naval aviation, Pensacola--that you would wipe
out their present suit against the oil companies because of the damage
that has been done to the water supply from the MTBE leeching.
[[Page S15261]]
There is a lot in this Energy bill that I would like to support.
There is a lot in this Energy bill that I have helped put in and that I
will continue to support, such as the incentives for wind energy. That
is certainly desirable. There is a major Florida investor-owned utility
that has wind energy in other parts of the country. I want to help
encourage that renewable source of energy.
But I cannot take the good parts of this bill and overlook the kinds
of things such as this: wiping out any liability of oil companies for
the harm they have caused to the environment.
Now, there is another major part I have considerable objection to,
and that is the coastal parts of this bill. Under section 321, the
Secretary of the Interior will be given broad new authority to grant
leases, easements, or rights-of-way on the Outer Continental Shelf in
areas where there is a moratorium against oil and gas exploration.
It is the ``Holy Grail'' of Florida that we do not want oil and gas
drilling off of our shores, not only for environmental reasons but for
an economic reason. We have a $50 billion a year tourism industry, a
lot of which depends on the pristine, sugary white beaches that we have
in Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator for 2
additional minutes just to complete my statement?
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I yield the Senator 2 additional
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 additional
minutes.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator from Washington.
Mr. President, I simply cannot support an Energy bill that suddenly
eases the process of permitting or weakens the Coastal Zone Management
Act, weakens the process of a State to object to the Federal Government
doing anything having to do with oil and gas leasing off of the coast
or with regard to the permitting process with regard to oil and gas
pipelines.
That is inimical to the interests of Florida and causes me to come
down on the side that even though there are lots of meritorious parts
of this bill, which I will continue to work for, at the bottom line,
this is clearly not in the interest of my constituency.
So I thank the Senator for yielding so that I could state my
position, after a very deliberate consideration of this complicated
legislation. That is the way I will vote when these issues are brought
up tomorrow.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida for his
solid statement about the challenges facing us in drafting an Energy
bill. The Outer Continental Shelf areas are somehow thrown up in the
open as to whether they are going to be part of the policy discussion,
whether States have rights, whether the development along those coastal
areas is going to go through the normal process or whether industry is
going to be able to just run roughshod over that.
So I appreciate the Senator's statement.
Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I will try to be brief to explain why I
have a major objection to this legislation as it relates to what we are
doing or failing, I should say, to do to protect consumers from the
Enron price gouging that has happened. I think it is an amazing story.
Some of my colleagues were on the Senate floor earlier today talking
about how part of the California crisis was that in California they did
not pass on the cost of electricity to the retail side and somehow
artificially suppressed demand. They asserted maybe that would have
worked everything out.
Well, let me tell you, in Washington State we paid the cost at the
retail level because we have a lot of public power in Washington State.
And we had a drought. It was the second worst drought in the history of
our State. It just so happened when that drought occurred it was the
same time that California had deregulated, and the spot market was
going crazy, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has
oversight of these issues, was failing to do anything about it.
But public power has a requirement that they have an obligation to
serve. So that obligation to serve meant they had to go find power
somewhere. Now, they had reserves. They had alternative plans. But they
went to the marketplace to buy power and found out the power was
selling at exorbitant rates because of the deregulation that happened
in California and the fact that the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission was failing to take action.
In fact, it got so bad in our State because of the high rates that we
had, in the county I live in, 14,000 people basically lost their
electricity that year. We had a 44-percent increase in the disconnect
rate in Snohomish County, my home county, that year because of the high
cost of energy. People could not pay their bills.
Now, I know some people think: Well, bad decisions were made by a
company, and that may not happen again, or somebody did not plan for
enough power in the future. But we all know now that Enron manipulated
these rates. They have admitted to manipulating the rates. The Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission has said they manipulated those rates. So
we all know what has gone on in those situations. But I don't think
America knows that people in my State are still paying on those
manipulated rates.
And my consumers are mad. They are furious. They are furious that
this Energy bill not only fails to recognize we need stricter
guidelines against market manipulation to prevent that from occurring
in the future, but somehow this bill actually goes further in condoning
those acts by saying it is going to try to preserve those Enron
contracts resulting from manipulation.
Let me give you an idea of what consumers have said to me.
One of my constituents writes:
We are writing to express our extreme concern regarding our
latest electricity bill. We have done everything in our power
to conserve, and that is reflected in our usage, which has
been down to a very minimal level. We have lived at this
address since 1979, and we cannot continue to live in
Snohomish County because the electricity bills are almost
greater than our mortgage payments. We are currently
considering moving.
Another constituent writes:
I just received my bill today. I tried to prepare myself
before opening the envelope, but, guess what, I didn't
prepare myself 6,000 times enough because my bill was $800.
That's absolutely crazy. We have lived at this address for 23
years, and we have tried our best at conserving. Where is it
going to end?
So my constituents--and I could read many more. I could tell you how
the Everett School District in Snohomish County ended up having a
million-dollar increase in their energy budget, how small businesses
have had huge increases in their energy budgets.
It includes the grocery industry in the State of Washington--
everybody knows that grocery stores operate on slim margins and use a
lot of electricity. Do you know what they have said to me? ``We are not
going to build another grocery store in Snohomish County because your
rates are too high.''
And our rates are too high because we continue to have to pay on
Enron contracts that Enron admitted they manipulated. Why is it that we
have to continue to pay on these contracts?
You would think that at least at a minimum the Energy bill would take
a step forward and say: Let's prevent the kind of Enron manipulation
from happening again. But we are not doing that.
In this bill, originally Senator Domenici's proposal, roundtrip
trading is prohibited. But there are other things we proposed:
basically making sure people don't dodge price caps; making sure people
don't falsify demand schedules, like the load shifting that happened in
California; people who would go out of the region and then sell power
back into the region; obviously, under the scheme Fat Boy, people were
hiding some of the energy supply that they had--all those things are
still allowed under this Energy bill.
As much as my colleagues have tried to articulate this on the floor,
somehow the other side of the aisle wants to ignore the reality: This
bill is not dealing with the Enron manipulation schemes and blocking
them from happening again. I don't see, just on this
[[Page S15262]]
issue alone--if there was nothing else in the Energy bill--why people
would support this Energy bill because of this policy.
I ask my colleagues, I know it may not seem to you like an issue
because it didn't happen to your State, but find me a Member on the
other side of the aisle who would accept having a 50 percent rate
increase for their consumers, not just for 1 year but for the next 5
years because that is what we are paying. And we are paying on those
contracts to Enron. I have a letter from a woman. I will not go into
the details, but she basically ended up losing her job and having to
move to a different area because of this.
What is the real issue? These contracts have been manipulated. These
rate are the increases. These are the numbers from 2002, but as I said,
almost a 50 percent rate increase in Snohomish County where I live.
Seattle City Light had a 60 percent increase. So we are talking about
real dollars that my constituents are paying on these Enron contracts.
Enron admitted they manipulated contracts. They admitted that they
weren't just and reasonable rates and that they used all these schemes.
You would think my utilities could get out of those contracts. You
would think my utilities could reform those contracts. In fact, I am
amazed; the Department of Justice actually went after Enron and got
them to reform a contract as it related to a Federal entity, the
Bonneville Power Administration, because they had the power of the DOJ
behind them. But when my little utilities, which don't have the
Department of Justice working on their side, tried to go to court and
get those contracts reformed--no luck. They were sent to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, which got on a conference call with Wall
Street investors, told the Enron company and their interests, don't do
anything to negotiate and reform those contracts because basically we
are going to rule in your favor.
That is in a Wall Street Journal article. I ask unanimous consent to
have it printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 31, 2003]
Power Points: Second Thoughts on FERC's California D-Day
(By Mark Golden)
New York.--Even though the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's big day on California began Wednesday with a
400-page catalog of bad behavior by energy companies, the
second look by Wall Street was that things weren't so bad.
FERC staff reported to Congress that Reliant Resources
(RRI) was significantly responsible for the high prices for
natural gas in southern California in the winter of 2000-
2001, which may have cost consumers billions of dollars.
Reliant and BP PLC (BP) did sham electricity trades, the
staff alleged, and dozens of companies used trading
strategies like the infamous ``Get Shorty'' stuff that Enron
Corp. (ENRNQ) used in California's power market. That was
illegal, staff said, and all those companies should be forced
to cough up any related profits. Refunds due California for
overpriced crisis-era power sales could be increased.
But the ``D'' in what one Wall Street analyst has been
calling ``D-Day'' turned out to stand for ``dirt'': A lot of
ugly stuff that will make it hard for energy companies to
continue claiming as they have that there wasn't much funny
business during the crisis, but which isn't that horrible
from a financial or legal perspective for most of the
companies involved.
Reliant's ``churning'' of the gas market, for example,
wasn't illegal, FERC staff said, and the conclusion that the
practice caused prices to rise required a leap of faith. The
Reliant-BP trades may cause BP to wonder if its trader rigged
a higher bonus, but they had nothing to do with the soaring
prices that prevailed during the crisis.
FERC staff exonerated Williams Cos. (WMB) from claims it
manipulated the California gas market. And FERC commissioners
said they were going to take some time to decide whether
their staff was right about the Enron-like trades being
illegal.
During the public meeting, the stock prices of several
companies named in the investigation fell hard. Most
recovered Thursday and again Friday as the smoke cleared.
mixed messages
FERC's Donald Gelinas, who headed the investigation into
market manipulation for the past year, presented his findings
in the well-attended public meeting.
After the meeting and a press conference, FERC Chairman Pat
Wood and Commissioner Nora Mead Brownell, the commission's
two Republicans, held a password-protected conference call
with a select group of Wall Street analysts. According to
several of those present, the commissioners conveyed the
message that the staff findings weren't that bad.
According to one analyst on the call, the split approach
makes sense, FERC wants to present a public image as a tough
cop on the beat so that states and the U.S. Congress support
its push for advancing electricity deregulation. On the other
hand, FERC doesn't want to scare away more investment from
the decapitalized electricity sector, which is in desperate
need of new transmission lines and will need more power
plants soon in some regions of the country.
``It was the typical thing they've been doing--trying to
please Wall Street at the same time they are trying to please
California, and they end up not pleasing anybody,'' that
analyst said.
Brownell discussed the prospects for the commission's
decision--expected but postponed on Wednesday--on whether to
abrogate long-term power contracts signed during the crisis.
She said there are likely two votes against abrogation on the
three-member commission, and that the commission will
hopefully issue an order in the next couple of weeks,
according to one analyst on the call, who took notes.
Brownell's comments on the contracts were similar to what
was said in the public meeting, even if the latter tone was
more assuring to investors.
Schwab Capital Markets energy stock analyst Christine Tezak
didn't agree that the commission has presented different
messages to different audiences. Instead, their discussion
with the analysts reflected the audience's primarily
financial concerns.
``For Wall Street, the whole blame game thing isn't that
interesting to us,'' she said. ``We want to know what actions
they took and what it's going to cost and when.''
ferc approach defended
Observers shouldn't necessarily expect the messages of the
staff report and the commissioner's discussion with analysts
to be consistent, a FERC spokesman said.
``The intent was to get an independent fact-finding
analysis about whether Enron or any other company had the
ability to manipulate the markets for power and gas in the
western states in 2000 and 2001,'' spokesman Bryan Lee said.
Chairman Wood wouldn't try to influence the outcome of that
investigation, nor does the investigation reflect his opinion
on the matters, Lee said.
Still, a press release issued at the time of the report
promised ``tough action'' from commissioners based on the
report. Wood said that any doubts about FERC's role as
effective ``cop on the beat'' should be dispelled.
Ms. CANTWELL. Enron is actually suing consumers across America. They
are suing consumers in my State, in Washington, in Oregon, California,
Nevada, Idaho, in the Midwest, in the East. The States on this map,
those are States in which Enron is saying to utilities and to consumers
and ratepayers: I am taking you to court to make sure you continue to
pay on manipulated contracts because really you are going to be the
deep pocket for these energy prices.
It is just plain wrong. It is plain wrong that that is what America
is dealing with and that this particular bill does nothing about it.
Since the beginning of these contracts in my area, I have probably
paid $700 on my own energy bill--$700 more than I would have paid if we
would have had normal rates. Here is a check from me. It is not really
my bank. It obviously doesn't have my bank number on there. But that is
what I am going to next pay to Enron because of the fact that my
utility can't get out of those manipulated contracts. My utility can't
get out of those contracts. That is what everyone in Snohomish is going
to have to pay, $370 more, even though we have already paid $796 more
since the crisis began.
There is another example of a woman in Snohomish County, where I
live, who was trying to take care of her mother. Basically, she got
laid off from Boeing. She got a utility bill for $605, nearly double
the last bill she had. Her mother got a bill for $747. Her mother is on
a fixed income. She only has $1,500 a month from Social Security, and
she is supposed to pay 747 of those dollars out to Enron to foot the
bill for manipulated contracts. And this body can't do any better than
to condone those contracts and further protect them under this bill? It
is amazing. It is truly amazing.
So where are we on this problem and this issue? Just look at what
ratepayers in my region have had to pay since 2001. The total my
ratepayers have had to pay is $1.5 billion, over and above the amount
they otherwise would have had to pay in the Northwest, all because they
are stuck with long-term Enron contracts. It is unfair. It is unjust.
It certainly isn't reasonable.
[[Page S15263]]
What is the problem with this legislation in front of us? Again, you
would say: That is an issue of manipulated contracts. You ought to go
to court. You should figure out what the court has to say about those
contracts.
Actually, many of my constituents did go to court. Snohomish County
PUD went to court. Enron turned around and countersued. Basically, the
court said: You don't have standing here because this isn't a decision
before our courts. You have to go to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission. They are the people who oversee these issues.
So when they went to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, they
said: There is market manipulation, but we are not going to do anything
about it. And, frankly, it is a problem, but our report only is going
to demonstrate that there was manipulation and we are not going to do
anything.
So what we have had to do is really push on the fact that the Federal
Power Act says there should be just and reasonable rates.
This bill further amends the Power Act, and it basically says that
these contracts should stand. It basically gives the contracts
sanctity. It goes one step further than 70 years of case law and says:
Even though the Power Act requires just and reasonable rates, we are
going to guarantee these contracts. And FERC and the courts don't have
to reform them ever, unless somehow someone can prove that a failure to
do so is somehow contrary to the public interest.
We are setting a whole new legal standard in this bill. We are
failing to correct the Enron manipulations. We are failing to give
direction in a key area of consumer protection. Not only that, we are
changing 70 years of case law and saying it is OK to manipulate
contracts.
It is time to defeat this bill which supports Hooters, polluters, and
the Enron looters that are gouging American ratepayers.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I congratulate Chairman Pete Domenici and his
staff for bringing a comprehensive Energy bill to the Senate floor. It
has many positive features. Unfortunately, on balance, the provisions
he was not primarily responsible for, those that came out of the
Finance Committee, are far too heavily weighted towards subsidies and
mandates and require that I respectfully oppose the bill.
Let me first mention some of the good in the bill. This is the part
that came out of the Energy Committee. First, on the subject of
reliability, since the year 2000, Congress has attempted to pass
mandatory reliability standards. For some time it has been known that
the voluntary reliability standards that currently exist were not
adequate. This point was brought home in August with the blackout that
hit New England and the Midwest.
We know from the United States-Canada Power Outage System Task Force
interim report on the causes of the blackout that First Energy failed
to follow at least six voluntary reliability standards. The mandatory
reliability standards in this bill will ensure that utilities cannot
ignore the responsibility they each owe to maintaining the grid. It
will go a long way toward keeping the lights on for millions of
Americans.
SMD delay, standard market design, the Government knows best, a one-
size-fits-all prescription for Federal domination at the expense of
States and the market: This had to be stopped in its tracks before it
cost consumers billions of dollars.
The same bureaucrats who approved the plan that brought blackouts and
skyrocketing prices to California, obviously, didn't learn their
lesson.
So we included a strong SMD delay provision in the bill. The message
to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, is very plain: When
Congress says no, it means no; and it says no rule before 2007. By
that, we mean you cannot just slap another label on SMD, such as WMP,
or use a different legal basis, such as ``just and reasonable rates,''
rather than discrimination, and then send the same straitjacket kind of
a rule out the door. The same goes for standards of conduct rulemaking,
a supply margin assessment test, or some other Federal Government
regulatory scheme.
Native load: The current stormy debates over how wholesale
electricity should move and be traded in this country will mean nothing
if we cannot guarantee retail customers, the families and businesses
that pay their electricity bills every month, that when they flip the
switch the lights will go on. The native load provision that I worked
on with Senator Domenici guarantees Arizona's transmission lines will
first be used to serve Arizonans and not just sold to the highest
bidder. These are some of the good things in the bill. They are all in
the electric portion of the bill that Senator Domenici presented.
The bad comes from the Finance Committee on which I also sit,
primarily in the form of tax subsidies. The conference agreement
includes nearly $24 billion in tax incentives; most are tax credits. I
advise my colleagues that the negotiating compromise process here was a
curious one. The energy tax provisions in the Finance Committee this
year totaled $15 billion over 10 years. The House tax incentives total
$17 billion over 10 years.
Mr. President, you would think that, between $15 billion and $17
billion, there is a fairly obvious number there--$16 billion might have
been the compromise between the House and Senate. That is not the way
it works. The compromise between $15 billion and $17 billion was $24
billion. Guess who lost in the compromise? The American taxpayers. How
did you get to $24 billion? Well, obviously, there were a lot of votes
that needed to be gained and that is how we got to $24 billion.
Maybe there is another formula. The administration only asked for $8
billion in energy tax incentives. This is three times that amount.
Maybe that is the new formula for compromise in a conference committee.
So that is not an appropriate number. It is way out of bounds. It is
too much of a burden on American taxpayers for benefits that are
dubious at best.
Tax credits are not the most efficient way to set policy. They can be
inefficient and wasteful. We should use them very sparingly. Tax
credits distort the market and cause individuals or businesses to
undertake unproductive economic activity that they probably would not
do absent the inducement. They are, in effect, appropriations through
the Tax Code; they are a way to give Federal subsidies, disguised as
tax cuts, to favored constituencies.
Here are some examples of tax subsidies in this agreement:
Section 45, renewable energy tax credit: Cost, $3 billion over 10
years. The conference agreement extends and expands the production tax
credit for energy from wind and closed-loop biomass. It also extends
credit to new forms of energy, such as solar, open-loop biomass,
geothermal, small irrigation, and municipal solid waste. This provision
includes energy produced from livestock waste and animal carcasses--so
save your Thanksgiving turkey.
Energy-efficient improvements to existing homes, $352 million, for 10
years.
Energy-efficient new homes, $409 million, for 10 years.
Credit for energy-efficient appliances, $255 million, for 10 years.
That is for washing machines, refrigerators, and the like.
Extend and modify the section 29 credit for producing fuel from
nonconventional energy sources, $3.1 billion, 10 years. Often,
companies that claim this credit are not even energy companies. There
is one I have familiarity with because Arizona tried something similar.
Alternative motor vehicles incentives: Cost, $2.5 billion, 10 years.
This agreement deletes a requirement that was in the Senate bill I
got in for a study. Why did I do that? We found that the Arizona
experience could have cost the State of Arizona hundreds of millions of
dollars. I wanted to prevent that from happening here. We had a
disastrous experience with alternative fuel vehicle incentives. This is
a quote from the Arizona Republic when the Arizona Legislature repealed
its alternative fuel program:
Lawmakers gutted the disastrous alternative fuel vehicle
program . . . in a volatile and dramatic House vote, ending a
debacle that outraged taxpayers, panicked buyers, and brought
down one of the State's most powerful politicians.
The repealed law, incidentally, paid for up to 50 percent of the cost
of a car
[[Page S15264]]
equipped to burn alternative fuels. The program could have cost Arizona
$\1/2\ billion if it hadn't been repealed--11 percent of the State's
budget. When proposed, the cost of the program was projected to be
between $3 million and $10 million--less than 10 percent of its true
cost. So the question I wanted to study was, are we confident about the
revenue estimates for our congressional provision?
I have talked a little about some of the good and a little about some
of the bad. Let me conclude by talking about the truly ugly.
Ethanol: The ethanol provisions of the conference report are truly
remarkable. They mandate that Americans use 5 billion gallons of
ethanol annually by the year 2012. We use 1.7 million gallons now. For
what purpose, I ask, does Congress so egregiously manipulate the
national market for vehicle fuel? No proof exists that the ethanol
mandate will make our air cleaner. In fact, in Arizona--and this is a
critical point--the State Department of Environmental Quality found
that more ethanol use will degrade air quality, which will probably
force areas in Arizona out of attainment under the Clean Air Act.
Arizonans will suffer as a result.
Furthermore, according to the Energy Information Administration, this
mandate, costing between $6.7 billion and $8 billion a year, will force
Americans to pay more for gasoline. Nor is an ethanol mandate needed to
keep the ethanol industry alive. That industry already receives a hefty
amount of the Federal largess. CRS estimates that the ethanol and corn
industries have gotten more than $29 billion in subsidies since 1996.
Yet this bill not only mandates that we more than double our ethanol
use, it provides even more subsidies for the industry--as much as $26
billion over the next 5 years.
Professor David Pimental, of the College of Agriculture and Life
Sciences at Cornell, has studied ethanol. He is a true expert on the
``corn-to-car'' fuel process. His verdict, in a recent study: ``Abusing
our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process
that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable,
subsidized food burning.'' It isn't efficient. The fuel is low-grade.
And what is more, Congress, by going in for ``unsustainable, subsidized
food burning,'' will impede the natural innovation in clean fuels that
would occur with a competitive market, free of the Government's
manipulation. These ethanol provisions, alone, dictate that I vote
against the bill.
So, Mr. President, in conclusion, while this bill includes several
meritorious provisions, especially those negotiated by Chairman
Domenici, I must vote against it because of the $24 billion in tax
subsidies and the bill's irresponsible manipulation of the energy
markets through the Tax Code and the ethanol mandate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are expecting
Senator Graham as part of an order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Graham has 20 minutes under that
agreement.
Mr. REID. I will speak for a few minutes until he comes.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
Mr. SCHUMER. May I be put in line after Senator Graham?
Mr. REID. Will the Chair announce the schedule before the Senate as
to what speakers will appear.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Graham is the last speaker under the
agreement, with 20 minutes.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that following Senator Graham, the
majority be recognized if they desire, and then following that, Senator
Schumer have an opportunity to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, as we look around the world today, we see
blackouts and we see wild price spikes in electricity markets. We see
turmoil in the Middle East. We see global warming caused by fossil fuel
emissions. We see air pollution that contributes to asthma attacks
among our smallest citizens--our children. We see our parks that are
smog-ridden. We see all these things, and we realize the United States
needs a national energy policy with a purpose and a vision.
We don't need more of the same old thing--more drilling, more
burning, more shortages, more blackouts, more price spikes, and ever
larger vehicles with inefficient engines. We need a national energy
strategy that will protect our environment, provide a reliable supply
of electricity for our consumers, and bolster our national security.
Instead, we get a $75 billion grab bag that I believe has serious
problems with the three P's--process, pork, and policy.
The process of this bill was fatally flawed. The genesis of the bill,
I believe, was hatched in secret almost 3 years ago by the Cheney task
force and completed in secret just a few days ago.
The usual policy--and we have tried to live up to that--is the Senate
does a bill, the House does a bill, and both parties--that is the
Senators from the Senate and Congressmen from the House, Democrats and
Republicans--sit down together to try to work out an arrangement. In
this instance, the ranking member of the committee, Senator Bingaman,
who was also the former chairman of the committee, was not consulted.
The first he saw the bill was when it was printed. The distinguished
Senator from Vermont, the ranking member and former chairman of the
Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Jeffords, was not
consulted, even though 100 titles of this legislation that is now
before the Senate were under the jurisdiction of the Environment and
Public Works Committee.
The pork was best summed up by Senator McCain's description of this
bill: Leave no lobbyist behind. It is shameful that two-thirds of the
tax incentives in this bill go to oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy.
This is an investment in the past, not an investment in the future.
This bill will lavish more than $55 billion of taxpayer money on some
of the wealthiest corporations in the world; namely, oil, gas, and coal
companies. It would be better if the companies were all U.S. companies,
but some of them are not even U.S. companies getting these benefits.
The most disappointing aspect about this bill is its failure to enact
a policy with vision. After pouring billions of dollars into oil and
natural gas, we need to invest in clean technology, in a clean energy
future. Sadly, this bill is more of the same old, same old. It
endangers the environment; it does nothing to help consumers; and it
will not break our dependence on foreign oil, a dependence that
jeopardizes our national security.
Let's start with the assaults on the environment that are included in
this bill.
There have been hours of speeches given in the last 2 days of how it
endangers our water supply by granting MTBE producers immunity from
claims that the additive is defective in design or manufacture and by
weakening the leaking underground storage tank regulations.
It allows large metropolitan areas to extend deadlines for ozone
nonattainment areas to comply with the Clean Air Act, and it relaxes
regulatory requirements for energy production on Indian reservations
and public lands.
It is beyond my ability to comprehend how anyone who is supportive of
tribal sovereignty, reservations, and economic development with our
Indian tribes could support this legislation.
This bill also falls short of the real steps needed to guide America
toward energy independence.
For example, it is a great disappointment to me that higher fuel
efficiency standards have not been included in this bill. If all cars,
trucks and sport utility vehicles had a CAFE standard of 27.5 miles per
gallon, the country would save more oil in 3 years than could be
recovered economically from the entire Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
A comprehensive energy strategy must include conservation, efficiency,
and expand generating capacity.
Certainly our Nation must promote the responsible production of oil
and gas, but that doesn't mean we should sacrifice the environmental
protections of our public lands.
We can't drill our way to energy independence. America only has 3
percent of the world's oil reserved, but we use 25 percent of the
world's supply.
This bill also fails to protect consumers.
[[Page S15265]]
In the past few years, people in my home State and other Western
States have experienced severe spikes in the price of electricity. The
policies of the past are not the answer. Like Dorothy in the Wizard of
Oz, the solution is literally right at our feet--under the ground, in
the wind around us, and emanating from the Sun. In Nevada and other
Western States, we have the potential to generate enormous amounts of
electricity with geothermal, wind, and solar power. That is why I am
disappointed this energy bill does not contain a renewable portfolio
standard requiring that a growing percentage of the Nation's power
supply come from renewable energy resources.
I am proud that my home State of Nevada has adopted one of the most
aggressive renewable portfolio standards of any State. It requires us
to produce 5 percent of our electricity with renewable sources, not
counting hydropower, by the end of this year. In 10 years, the goal
jumps to 15 percent. We already have developed 200 megawatts of
geothermal power, with a long-term potential of more than 2,500
megawatts.
Utilities in Nevada have also signed contracts to provide 205
megawatts of wind power in 2 years, and an additional 90 megawatts is
proposed. By some estimates, we could potentially produce more than
5,700 megawatts from wind power--meaning we could meet our entire
electricity needs with geothermal and wind. So I wish this bill
included a Renewable Portfolio Standard.
Thankfully, it does extend and expand the production tax credit on
renewable energy resources from wind and poultry waste to include
geothermal, solar, and open-loop biomass. I have spent years fighting
for this tax credit, because it will give businesses the certainty they
need to invest in geothermal and solar generating facilities. We know
the production tax credit will work because it already has. With the
benefit of the existing production tax credit, wind energy is the
fastest growing renewable energy source. In 1990, the cost of wind
energy was 22.5 cents per kilowatt hour. Today, with new technology and
the help of a modest production tax credit, wind is a competitive
energy source at 3 to 4 cents per kilowatt hour. I applaud the fact
that wind, geothermal, and solar energy will receive a production tax
credit of 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour.
I had hoped the bill would provide geothermal and solar energy the
same 10-year tax credit that wind energy enjoys, but a 5-year credit is
a good start. The facilities to develop these energy resources are very
capital intensive, and a 10-year tax incentive is needed to fully
realize our renewable energy potential.
Developing these renewable resources will not only help consumers, it
will create thousands of jobs. And many of these jobs will be in rural
areas that are desperate for economic growth. A report from the Tellus
Institute, ``Clean Energy: Jobs for America's Future,'' found that
investment in renewable energy could lead to a net annual employment
increase of more than 700,000 jobs in 2010, rising to approximately 1.3
billion by 2020, and that each State would experience a positive net
job impact. This is why we must be bold. We must not cling to the
fossil fuel technology of the past. We must explore and seize the
potential of the future.
I opened my remarks a few minutes ago by talking about all of the
problems we see if we look around the world today. But I also see much
that could be positive. I see renewable energy resources--the
brilliance of the sun, the power of the wind, the eternal heat within
the Earth. And I see the good old American ingenuity to unlock that
enormous potential.
With a little bit of incentive and investment, we can develop the
technologies to efficiently develop our renewable resources. And as
fantastic as it sounds, with the use of hydrogen fuel cells, oil will
eventually be phased out as the primary transportation fuel.
If we choose to invest in energy efficient and renewable
technologies, we will create thousands of new jobs, we will protect our
environment, we will provide consumers with reliable sources of energy,
and we will bolster our national security. That is the vision our
Nation needs. That is the leadership we must provide.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 20
minutes.
Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the Energy
bill before the Senate today is the newest chapter in the book that we
have been writing throughout this year. The title of that book is ``At
War With Our Children.'' This legislation would represent another
example of this generation taking the benefits of our profligate
behavior and then asking our children and grandchildren to pay the
cost.
This chapter begins with the addition of over $30 billion in
sanctioned appropriations and some $70 billion in authorized
appropriations. This will be added to an already gigantic deficit. If
it had been added to this year's deficit, it would have increased it by
approximately 7 to 8 percent. This cost will be paid by our children.
But this goes beyond just adding to the financial burdens of our
future. It adds to the vulnerability of our children and
grandchildren--a vulnerability that will be occasioned by the
fundamental philosophy of this legislation, which is to drain America
first.
There are some small vows to conservation and alternative sources of
energy, but the principle that lies behind this bill is to extract as
much of our national treasure as quickly as possible and to accelerate
the date when we will have depleted our domestic source of petroleum
and other critical natural resources.
Our generation gets whatever short-term benefits--physical
maintenance of low prices of gasoline, the benefits to the oil and gas
industry--that will come from this bill. But we again declare war on
our children because they will end up paying for it.
Let me suggest what I think should be some goals of a reasonable,
comprehensive energy policy. These would be illustrative of the kind of
long-term goals that should be but, regrettably, are not the focus of
this Energy bill. As an example, my goal No. 1 was that we must take a
long-term approach to energy policy, establishing goals to reach for
the next 50 years with milestones for each decade to guide our
progress. We cannot be the generation that sets our national energy
policy on a course which will inevitably result in totally depleting
our domestic energy reserves by the time our grandchildren are adults.
The United States is the model to the rest of the world. We should
lead by example, using energy conservation and efficiency measures. We
should husband our domestic reserves, particularly of petroleum, for
times of international turmoil.
Goal No. 2: We must wean ourselves from our unhealthy dependence on
petroleum, both foreign and domestic. Current estimates show that the
United States is consuming between 19 and 20 million barrels of oil
each day. From the mid-1970s into the 1980s, use of petroleum sharply
dropped in the United States. I propose we return to that path and aim
to decrease the use of petroleum by approximately 10 percent over the
next decade, with the ultimate goal of finding a cleaner and more
efficient way of operating automobiles and expanding our transportation
options such as high-speed rail.
Goal No. 3: We must reduce our importation of foreign oil, which
currently accounts for about 65 percent of the oil we consume. We must
conserve our current use of domestic oil and gas in order to stretch
their availability as far as possible.
Under current levels of extraction and projected levels of use, in
approximately 50 to 75 years, about the time our grandchildren will be
our age, we will have exhausted our domestic petroleum reserves at
current economic and technological levels of extraction.
This is not a new problem, it is one that has been pointed out to us
for more than half a century. In 1946, James Forrestal, then-Secretary
of the Navy, said this:
If we ever go into another world war, it is quite possible
that we would not have access to reserves held in the Middle
East. But in the meantime, the use of those reserves would
prevent depletion of our own, a depletion which may be
serious within the next 15 years.
Secretary Forrestal's statement is remarkable for a couple of
reasons. First, he was looking far over the horizon, beyond the short
term, and trying to see what would be happening over the next 50 years.
Second, he did not succumb to the mantra of independence from foreign
oil through draining
[[Page S15266]]
America first. Rather, he viewed use of foreign oil as a method of
husbanding our domestic reserves.
This Energy bill, with its drain-America-first policy, is a step
backward from Forrestal's policy. It will assure that we deplete our
own resources in the near future. Forrestal sets the examples of the
kind of policy we should be making in this energy Bill today.
Goal No. 4: We must increase the amount of renewable and alternative
energy we use. This would include wind, solar, hydro, geothermal power,
and municipal solid waste. It should also include clean coal and
nuclear as alternatives to current fossil fuel use.
Goal No. 5: We must eliminate our overreliance on a single source of
power for electric energy generation. I am becoming increasingly
concerned about our tendency to turn to natural gas to solve all of our
energy woes. Clearly, natural gas has some significant advantages in
terms of emission reduction, but we as a nation, in my judgment, would
be foolish to have only a single or even a single dominant source of
fuels for our electric supply.
The National Association of State Energy Officials estimates that
natural gas used for electricity generation will increase by 54 percent
between 2000 and 2015 as new powerplants are built and older plants are
converted to natural gas.
In contrast, our friends in Europe are making great strides in
expanding their energy portfolios to include renewables. Denmark, for
example, has a plan to eventually generate about 20 percent of its
energy needs from wind power. The United States should take serious
steps to include all available energy sources. One way to accomplish
this would be to establish a national renewable portfolio standard.
This simple measure would go a long way in putting us on the path to a
sustainable energy future, by encouraging innovation in renewable
energy technologies and by increasing the demand which would have the
result of more efficient production. It would create jobs in America
for Americans.
Unfortunately, the Energy bill we are considering today ignores the
renewable portfolio outright, even though Senator Bingaman's amendment
to this effect was accepted by a strong bipartisan vote by the Senate
conferees.
Goal No. 6: We must provide Americans with a reliable electricity
system. We all know that millions of people were affected by the
blackouts of this past summer. What we do not know is how to prevent it
from happening again. I am pleased that this bill begins the process,
although distressed that this bill does not go as far as the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission has recommended to give us greater
reassurance about the avoidance of August 14 calamities in the future.
But there is even a more basic step we should be taking, and that is
to accomplish the goal of a reliable electric grid, we must gather data
about the current state of reliability.
It is shocking to realize there is presently no national reporting of
outages, which makes it difficult to determine the scope of the problem
and the range of solutions. Electricity customers have the means to
find information about the price of their electricity should we have
such national data. They do not have such an opportunity today.
I propose that consumers should also have the means to judge the
reliability of the system that provides them their electricity.
Goal No. 7: We should reduce the impacts of the use of energy on our
environment. In the 1990s we proved that the American economy could
grow while making meaningful progress to improve our environment. This
means we should not drill America first without considering real
conservation and real efficiency standards, as well as the effects of
such drilling on the depletion of our domestic energy reserves. It also
means striving to reduce carbon emissions.
This bill does neither. It focuses, with laser-like precision, at
giving big oil every item on its wish list while running roughshod over
the rights of the States that depend on, for instance, healthy coasts
for their economic security. Section 325 weakens the consistency
guidelines of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Currently, States have the right to review proposed offshore projects
and object if they find that these projects are inconsistent with the
State's plans or policy. This Energy bill would impose severely
restrictive guidelines and deadlines for decisions appealing States'
consistency determinations. The practical effect of this would be to
limit opportunities for States to comment and provide important
information on issues which directly affect their coastal zones.
Coastal States deserve to have a say in the fates of their shores.
This is the basis upon which the Coastal Zone Management Act became
law. This Energy bill includes provisions to get every drop of oil out
of domestic reserves while refusing to improve CAFE standards for SUVs.
With advances in technology, it is not difficult to improve the
efficiency of vehicles while providing the other features that drivers
want. Yet this bill creates the likelihood that fuel efficiency
standards will continue to lag. We should resolve to move to at least
the 35 miles per gallon level for new cars within this decade.
The National Academy of Sciences says this is a reasonable goal. If
we pursued this goal, we would lessen the impact of any oil
interruption, we would sharply reduce the amount of money going to
areas of the world where the cash might support undesirable activity,
and, in addition, we would also make a significant dent in reducing
greenhouse gases, an issue which is also ignored by this Energy bill.
Any comprehensive Energy bill that doesn't commit to at least some
reductions in the emission of greenhouse gases is not worthy of
passage.
Furthermore, this Energy bill goes one step further and actually
rolls back important environmental standards. One example of this is
the exemption of the hydraulic fracturing process from the Safe
Drinking Water Act protection for drinking water sources. I have grave
concerns about this action from public health, environmental, and legal
perspectives.
Hydraulic fracturing is a means by which certain energy sources are
retrieved through the use of a heavy hydraulic process. The consequence
of this is that after the useful materials have been recovered, there
is a significant amount of water laden with materials which contain
potentially serious carcinogenic and toxic substances. There are
potential serious consequences for drinking water quality in areas
where this hydraulic fracturing occurs. In many cases, the fracturing
fluids being pumped from ground water contain toxins and carcinogenic
chemicals. Diesel fuel is a common component of fractured fluids.
The Energy bill before this conference permanently exempts the oil
and gas industry from storm water pollution activities at construction
sites. Since 1990, large construction sites have been required to
control storm water runoff in order to prevent pollution from entering
adjacent waterways, harming wildlife and impairing water quality.
The irony of this is that the Senate will soon consider the
transportation bill, the Surface Transportation Act. This act was
amended in the Environment and Public Works Committee to mandate that
States earmark at least 2 percent of their highway funds to deal with
storm water runoff. While we are doing this to our public agencies,
requiring them to devote substantial funds and attention to storm water
runoff, we are permanently exempting the oil and gas industry at its
construction sites from doing so.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes to
complete my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, in the year 2003--this year--
smaller sites were to have been required to adopt the same pollution
controls which, since 1990, have applied to large projects. Under
industry pressure, the EPA issued a 2-year extension for the oil and
gas industry. All other sectors, including small municipalities, still
have to comply. This section of the Energy bill adopts a permanent
exemption for all construction at oil and gas sites, including those
sites that held permits for over 10 years.
These are only some of the examples of environmental rollbacks in
this Energy bill related to clean water, clean
[[Page S15267]]
air, the National Environmental Protection Act, and other important
enactments designed to protect the environment and the public health.
The Energy bill we have before us today cannot guarantee Americans
that their energy future is secure. Returning to the illuminating
remark of Yogi Berra, if we look at this legislation, we begin to get
some sense of where we are headed.
With this Energy bill, we have written the next chapter in the book
``War On Our Children,'' and it describes the next battle: Drain
America First, overlook conservation measures, ignore strategies to
reduce depletion of domestic reserves.
The residue of these outdated ideas will undoubtedly stain the
future. Our children and grandchildren will live in an America where
water is more contaminated, where air is further clogged with
pollution, where access to clean rivers and streams for drinking,
swimming, and fishing will be diminished.
The cost of this destruction is not only economic or environmental,
it is societal. Future generations will be forced to fix our mistakes
instead of focusing on a better tomorrow for their children and
grandchildren.
For these reasons, I strongly oppose this legislation and will vote
no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
conference report accompanying the Energy bill. As I have often stated,
we sorely need to develop a long overdue comprehensive energy policy
for our Nation. The United States has a responsibility to develop a
policy that harmonizes the needs of our economy and our environment.
These are not competing needs. A sustainable environment is critical
to a strong economy and a sustainable economy is critical to providing
the funding necessary to improve our environment. We need to enact a
policy that broadens our base of energy resources to create stability,
guarantee reasonable prices, and protect America's security. It has to
be a policy that will keep energy affordable. Finally, it has to be a
policy that will not cripple the engines of commerce that fund the
research that will yield environmental protection technologies for the
future.
The legislation we are discussing today is the key element in our
effort to construct a viable energy policy. It will provide a
tremendous boost to our economy, protect our environment, and create
hundreds of thousands of jobs. Let me say this again. Passage of this
bill will provide a tremendous boost to our economy, protect our
environment, and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
There are four huge reasons that my constituents in Ohio need this
bill: Ethanol, natural gas, electricity and jobs.
The fuel title in this bill will triple the use of renewable fuels
over the next decade, up to 5 billion gallons by 2012. It will also
reduce our national trade deficit by more than $34 billion, increase
the U.S. gross domestic product by $156 billion by 2012, create more
than 214,000 new jobs, expand household incomes by an additional $51.7
billion, and save taxpayers $2 billion annually in reduced Government
subsidies due to the creation of new markets for corn. In other words,
we will not have to use the subsidies to farms to the tune of $2
billion with this 5 billion gallons of ethanol.
The benefits to the farm economy are even more pronounced. Ohio is
sixth in the Nation in terms of corn production and is among the
highest in the Nation in putting ethanol into gas tanks. Over 40
percent of all gasoline sold in Ohio contains ethanol.
An increase in the use of ethanol across the Nation means an economic
boost to thousands of farm families across my State.
Currently, ethanol production provides 192,000 jobs and $4.5 billion
to net farm income nationwide. Passage of this bill will increase net
farm income by nearly $6 billion. Passage of this bill will create $5.3
billion of new private sector investment in renewable fuel production
capacity, and expanding the use of ethanol will also protect our
environment by reducing auto emissions which will mean cleaner air and
improved public health.
The use of ethanol reduces emissions of carbon monoxide and
hydrocarbons by 20 percent. The use of ethanol also reduces emissions
of particulates by 40 percent. The use of ethanol helped move Chicago
into attainment of their Federal ozone standard, the only RFG area to
see such an improvement.
In 2002, ethanol use in the United States reduced greenhouse gas
emissions by 4.3 million tons. That is the equivalent of removing more
than 630,000 vehicles from the roads.
Simply stated, this legislation is critical to our farm economy,
especially in agricultural States such as Ohio. We need to get this
bill finished.
We are in the midst of a natural gas crisis in the United States.
Over the last decade, use of natural gas in electricity generation has
risen significantly while domestic supplies of natural gas have fallen.
The result is predictable: tightening supplies of natural gas, higher
natural gas prices, and higher electricity prices.
Home heating prices are up dramatically, forcing folks on low incomes
to choose between heating their homes and paying for other necessities
such as food or medicine.
Donald Mason, a commissioner of the Ohio Public Utilities Commission,
testified earlier here in Congress:
In real terms, the home heating cost this winter will
increase by at least $220 per household. That might sound not
significant, but during the winter season of 2002 to 2001,
one gas company in Ohio saw residential nonpayments jump from
$10 million a year to $26 million a year.
As a result of these heating cost increases, 50 percent more
residential customers were disconnected from gas service last year than
in 2001.
I have personally seen my own natural gas costs go from $4 an mcf to
over $8 an mcf. Projections indicate that this winter could be
devastating on the elderly and low-income families who are already
struggling to survive.
At a hearing last year, Thomas Mullen of Catholic Charities and
Health and Human Services of Cleveland, OH, described the impact of
significant increases of energy prices on those who are less fortunate.
He said:
In Cleveland, over one-fourth of all children live in
poverty and are in a family of a single female head of
household. These children suffer further loss of basic needs
as their moms are forced to make a choice of whether to pay
the rent, or live in a shelter; pay the heating bill, or see
their child freeze; buy food, or risk the availability of a
hunger center. These are not choices that any senior citizen,
child, or for that matter, person in America should make.
Manufacturers that use natural gas as a feedstock are getting
hammered due to the doubling and even tripling of their natural gas
costs and are either leaving the country or closing their doors.
Lubrizol, a chemical company located in Wickliffe, OH, which was at a
manufacturers' listening session that I conducted a couple of weeks
ago, is moving part of its workforce to France due to the tripling of
natural gas prices in Ohio.
The president of Zaclon, Inc., a chemical manufacturer based in
Cleveland, testified earlier this year that increased natural gas costs
have resulted in loss of sales revenues and increased total energy
costs.
The president of one major international pharmaceutical company
stopped by my office--a company that has 22,000 employees in the U.S.--
and basically said: Unless you do something about natural gas prices,
we are moving most of these jobs to Europe.
Due to the natural gas crisis, the Dow Chemical Company, which is
headquartered in Michigan, will be forced to shut down several plants,
and they are going to eliminate 3,000 to 4,000 jobs.
The American Iron Steel Institute reported that an integrated steel
mill could pay as much as $73 million for natural gas this year, up
from $37 million last year.
An east Texas poultry producer reported that his poultry house
heating bill jumped from $3,900 to $12,000 in 1 month, forcing him to
decide between paying the bank or the gas company.
High natural gas prices have resulted in the permanent closure of
almost 20 percent of the U.S. nitrogen fertilizer production capacity
and the idling of an additional 25 percent.
The Potash Corporation, one of the world's largest fertilizer
producers, has announced layoffs at its Louisiana and Tennessee plants
due to high natural gas prices.
The company spends $2 million per day on natural gas.
[[Page S15268]]
I could go on and on and on about the natural gas prices. This bill
is going to provide more opportunity to increase the supply of natural
gas and help limit the exacerbating needs for natural gas in this
country because of the fuel switching that is going on. The end result
is a drag on our economy.
Don't take my word for it. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan
has testified before the Senate Energy Committee, the House Energy
Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the Congressional Joint Economic
Committee on the supply and price of natural gas. He did it this year.
He stated:
I am quite surprised at how little attention the natural
gas problem has been getting because it is a very serious
problem.
This Energy bill includes several provisions to increase domestic
production of natural gas and to ensure that we have a healthy, vital
fuel mix for electric generation.
It is vitally important for us to finish this debate and pass this
bill in order to relieve the pressure on our natural gas supply.
This bill helps provide money for clean coal technology and use a
250-year supply of coal. There are some people in this country who want
to shut down coal and force our utilities to use more natural gas. This
bill will increase the use of coal using clean coal technology and take
the pressure off of energy companies fuel switching to natural gas.
Electricity is another issue for the people of Ohio. There has been a
lot of conversation here on the floor over the last couple of days
about the electricity title of the bill. Several of my colleagues have
talked about the need to prevent blackouts such as the one we
experienced in August. Let me say that as a Senator from Ohio where the
blackout was triggered, I know about the need to prevent more
blackouts. In fact, I held a hearing on this exact topic this morning
in the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee. The electricity
title in this bill explicitly provides the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission with the authority to establish and enforce with penalties
new national reliability standards that will be critical in helping to
prevent future blackouts.
For my colleagues who are having a problem with this bill, I remind
them that this title is so needed if we are going to prevent future
blackouts.
It also provides the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with new
authority to site transmission lines, encourages utilities to invest in
increased transmission capacity, and encourages utilities to invest in
new clean coal technologies that will allow more electricity to be put
into the grid without increasing the pollution put into the air.
At the oversight hearing that I held this morning, I asked the panel
of electricity experts from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
the Department of Energy, and the North American Electric Reliability
Council what we need in order to prevent future blackouts. Their
response was overwhelming: Enact the provisions in the Energy bill,
especially the reliability standards.
Finally, I want to talk about jobs created by this legislation. The
Energy bill saves jobs. It will create nearly 1 million new jobs. The
Energy bill will prevent the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs,
like the jobs lost in the manufacturing sector in the past 3 years, in
part due to high energy costs, which I have discussed, and the
devastating impact it has in my State, particularly manufacturing jobs,
but jobs in all sectors, including manufacturing, construction, and
technology.
Where are these other jobs going to come from? Natural gas and coal,
more than 400,000 direct and indirect new jobs will be created through
the construction of the Alaska national gas pipeline, while at the same
time bringing an affordable energy supply to the lower 48 States.
America's substantial investment in clean coal technology creates
62,000 jobs and ensures Americans new electricity that is abundant,
reliable, affordable, and cleaner than ever before; 40,000 new
construction jobs created by the construction of approximately 27 large
clean coal plants; 12,000 full time permit jobs related to plant
operation; 10,000 research jobs in the fields of math, engineering,
physics, and science, with an estimated annual salary of $125,000. A
lot of the research jobs will be created right in my State of Ohio.
The renewable fuel standard in the bill will create more than 214,000
new jobs and expand household income by an additional $51.7 billion
over the next decade.
Building a first of its kind nuclear reactor to cogenerate hydrogen
will create 3,000 construction jobs and 500 long-term high-paying,
high-tech jobs.
A nuclear production tax credit will spur the construction of
approximately four light-water nuclear reactors for a total of 6,000
megawatts of clean and affordable energy. This construction will create
between 8,000 and 12,000 jobs. Running the plants will create 6,000
high-paying, high-tech jobs. The Price-Anderson renewal in this bill
will protect 61,800 jobs and 103 plants nationwide.
Again, renewables, incentives for geothermal energy will bring
between 300 and 500 megawatts of clean and renewable geothermal energy
on line over the next 3 years that will create between 750 and 1,000
direct jobs and between 7,500 and 10,000 indirect jobs.
The fact is, this is a jobs bill. It will also do something else: It
will prevent the loss of jobs. Mississippi Chemical and Yazoo City, MS,
filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in May due to financial
losses attributed to the combination of depression in the agricultural
sector and extreme volatility in the domestic natural gas area. In
other words, plants are shutting down because of the high cost of
natural gas. This will produce more natural gas in this country and
take the heat off the rising cost of electricity in our country.
I have heard a number of my colleagues during the debate savage this
bill, claiming it will devastate the environment, that it gives oil
companies a free pass for MTBE contamination, and that it contains
porkbarrel funding for energy companies. Unfortunately, this rhetoric
is just another example of the old adage, you cannot let the facts get
in the way of good judgment or a good argument. I will address a few of
those most outrageous claims we have heard.
The first complaint raised by many of my friends is that the bill is
bad for the environment. What are the facts? Here are the environmental
benefits to this bill. By promoting greater efficiency and cleaner
energy technology, the Energy bill will improve air quality, reduce
greenhouse gasses, protect our natural resources, and provide a
cleaner, healthier environment for the American people. The Energy bill
will reduce environmental impacts by improving energy efficiency,
conserving energy, and improving air quality to renew energy efficiency
standards for energy-efficient products such as consumer electronics
and commercial appliances.
It will provide tax incentives for energy-efficient appliances,
hybrid and fuel cell vehicles, and combine heat and power products. It
will authorize $1.2 billion over the next 3 years for weatherization
assistance programs to help low-income families to make their homes
more energy efficient and permanently reduce their energy bills. And it
will increase dramatically the LIHEAP money that we will need during
the next couple of years for the poor and the elderly so that they are
not literally out in the cold.
It expands the use of renewable energy, requiring the Federal
Government to purchase up to 5 percent of its electricity from
renewable sources and encouraging the installation of solar panels on
public buildings. It increases production of renewable energy
resources, such as geothermal on Federal and tribal lands. It provides
tax incentives for production of electricity from renewable energy such
as wind, solar, biomass, and landfill.
Under this bill, the tax credits include $5.6 billion of tax
incentives for thermal and for solar energy. We are going to see, as
many of my colleagues have asked for the last couple of years, a lot
more windmills and a lot more solar panels built as a result of this
legislation.
It reduces the use of oil for transportation. It authorizes over $2.1
billion for the President's Freedom Car and hydrogen fuel initiatives
to help reduce the use of oil for transportation needs. This is a big
issue in this piece of legislation. I have heard some of my colleagues
say it will not do anything to
[[Page S15269]]
reduce their reliance on oil. I have already talked about the
contribution of reducing reliance on oil in terms of renewable fuels
such as ethanol, but what it also does is invests substantial money in
fuel cells that need to be moved along in this country.
As a Senator and as cochairman of the auto caucus, I have been in
automobiles powered by hydrogen and that use fuel cells. This bill will
start us on the way to a situation where my children, and for sure my
grandchildren, will not be using oil to power their motor vehicles. We
have to get on with it and get serious.
It creates new markets for renewable fuels for transportation such as
ethanol and biodiesel to reduce the dependence on foreign oil.
Expanding use of cleaner energy technologies is another issue in this
bill, and modernizing our electricity grid with policies that promote
the use of efficient distribution generation combined with heat and
power and renewable energy technology. It authorizes a 10-year clean
coal power initiative to enable the use of plentiful domestic coal
resources with fewer environmental impacts.
It also improves the hydroelectric relicensing process to help
maintain this nonemitting source of energy while preserving
environmental goals.
The second complaint we have heard about is it contains provisions
that give MTBE a free pass from any liability. Now, what are the facts?
First of all, Congress has considered liability protections in a
variety of settings, including medical care and educational
institutions. This provision recognizes that when Congress mandates the
use of fuel components and when those components have been studied and
approved by the EPA, it is reasonable to disallow a case where the mere
presence of a removable system fuel makes it a defective product. The
safe harbor provision is intended to offer some protection to refiners
that have been required to use oxygenated fuels under the Clean Air
Act. They are being required to do it. We told them to do it. The safe
harbor provision will not affect cleanup costs; it will not affect
claims based on the wrongful release of renewable fuel into the
environment such as a spill.
The suggestion is with the spills that are going on, we will not be
able to sue those people responsible. Anyone harmed by a wrongful
release would retain all rights under current law and would be able to
recover cleanup costs just as they do now. Those responsible for
releasing oxygenated fuels will be responsible for cleaning them up.
Federal and State environmental statutes such as underground storage
tank laws will still apply if gasoline is released and gets into a well
or contaminates a drinking water supply.
Critics have charged that this bill will throw all MTBE lawsuits out
of court. They could not be more wrong. The safe harbor only applies to
product liability claims and does not affect any claims that have been
filed prior to September 5, 2003. In fact, at a hearing that I chaired
on this topic in March of this year, we spent a significant amount of
time discussing current litigation going on in Santa Monica, CA. The
facts in this case are pretty clear. MTBE has contaminated the city's
water, and the city has had to undergo costly remediation to clean up
the contamination.
In that litigation it is worth noting that the oil companies have
paid millions and millions of dollars for the cost of remediation and
to bring in uncontaminated water to that community. I understand Santa
Monica litigation is moving forward. Most importantly, this legislation
will not change any aspect of that case. It will not cause any claims
to be kicked out and will most certainly not cause the case to be
dismissed.
Let me state this again: The safe harbor does not apply in cases such
as this. It does not let the oil companies off the hook. It does not
throw any litigation out of court. And it does not give anyone a free
pass.
Now, a number of my colleagues have come to the floor during this
debate and announced they will vote no on this bill because this safe
harbor provision is contained in the fuels title. These Members are
announcing they oppose the ethanol package purely for this reason.
Cynically, I would like to say that, in my opinion, such an
announcement is a statement that some of these Members have picked
trial lawyers over farmers.
The third complaint that critics of this bill have lodged against it
is that it contains unreasonable handouts for big energy and oil
companies. What were the facts?
The authorizations and tax incentives contained in the bill are
geared to promote the kinds of energy that our friends across the aisle
and on this side of the aisle are calling for.
The bill includes incentives for renewable energy--$5.6 billion
worth--such as wind energy, solar energy, and the use of biomass. As I
mentioned, over 26 percent of all the tax incentives in this bill go to
renewable energy.
The bill includes incentives for clean-burning natural gas
production.
The bill includes incentives for clean coal technologies. These are
the technologies that will allow utilities to continue to use coal
without continuing to emit pollution into the air.
The bill includes incentives for increased energy efficiency and
conservation.
I would like to read a letter that was sent to Senator Domenici. It
is from the American Wind Energy Association, the Geothermal Energy
Association, the National Hydropower Association, and the Solar
Industries Association:
Dear Senator, on behalf of the leading renewable energy
trade associations, we are writing to urge your support for
passage of H.R. 6. H.R. 6 contains several important
provisions vital to the future of our industries. Its passage
will help expand renewable energy production and spur job
growth in the United States in the immediate future. We ask
that you support the bill and vote in favor of any cloture
motion filed on the conference report.
What is the downside of promoting clean-burning and renewable energy?
Aren't these the same things that many have been attacking us for not
including in the bill? This criticism is one more example of overheated
rhetoric that, frankly, does not stand up to scrutiny.
If we do not pass this legislation, we will continue to see the
hemorrhaging of jobs in America, especially in States such as mine, and
we will lose all of the potential jobs that I have just outlined.
This is the largest jobs bill we have seen on the Senate floor in
decades. It is my hope and expectation that the Senate will pass it.
These issues have been in front of us for far too long--far too long.
Last year, when this was brought up, I spent 6 weeks on the floor of
the Senate debating the Energy bill. We finally passed it in the
Senate, and it died.
This year, we started out for 2 or 3 weeks and finally were able to
enter into a compromise with the other side of the aisle and pass the
bill that we passed last year so it could go into conference.
We have worked very hard on this piece of legislation. It is not
perfect. There are people who have problems with it. But, overall, it
is a very good piece of legislation. The result of not passing it--God
only knows what would happen.
For example, this morning, when I had the hearing with the folks who
are trying to do something about the blackout problem in this country,
they indicated the only salvation for them is this Energy bill. They
said: Please pass it, we need it now.
If we do not pass it now, then when are we going to get to mandatory
renewable standards, with penalties, and get on with making sure we do
not have more blackouts in the United States of America?
As I said, these issues have been in front of us for too long. Now
that we are so close to the finish line, I ask my colleagues to vote
for cloture on this bill, prevent a filibuster that will hurt our
economy, cost us jobs, and hurt our environment. Most importantly--most
importantly--we have never had an energy policy in this country. It is
long overdue. It is long overdue. We need to move on with this for the
future of our economy, for our environment, and for our national
security.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I appreciate that this debate is now coming to a
close, and we
[[Page S15270]]
will, evidently, vote on cloture tomorrow morning at about 10:30. It
has been a long debate. It has been a good debate. I think it has been
an elucidating debate. I think the longer we debate this bill, the more
unfavorably it is looked upon by the American people.
I would like to make one general comment about the process before
getting into the substance of the bill. I have tremendous respect for
my friend from New Mexico, Senator Domenici. He is a fine man. We have
worked together on legislation. I think he works hard. I think he is
dedicated.
I have a very fond relationship with my former colleague from the
House of Representatives, Congressman Tauzin, head of the House Energy
Committee. We came into the Congress together in 1980.
But no matter who it is, you cannot negotiate a bill with only two
people in the room. Our ranking member from New Mexico, Senator
Bingaman, was excluded. The Democratic side in the House was excluded.
But it was not just the Democrats who were excluded; too, too many of
the Members were excluded.
Why is it that those of us in the Northeast, Democrats and
Republicans, think this bill is so bad for our region and our
communities? Well, maybe it is because when you have a Senator from New
Mexico and a Congressman from Louisiana negotiating the whole bill,
there is not enough input from other parts of the country.
The beauty of the system that the Founding Fathers created--and that
we have carried forward in our own fashion 215 years later--is that it
understood those things, and it understood that we should not have a
major bill negotiated by two people behind closed doors.
The fact that this bill is teetering on the edge of survival right
now, I think, in part, is because of the process by which it was
constructed. I hope we will not do it again.
If we should win our vote tomorrow, those of us who are arguing
against cloture, I hope that the lesson will be learned. I hope we will
have real debate and real conference committees.
I also hope that, even here, we do not make the same mistake of
passing last year's bill and then just saying, ``Let it go to
conference,'' which was a mistake, I think, made on our side as well.
The process works. It is long and slow and laborious, but it works.
Again, a bill that has so many goodies for so many people--that such
a bill should be teetering on the edge of extinction, I think shows we
ought to go back to the process, the open process, the process that has
Members of various parts of the country represented, the process of
debate and refinement, because that ends up making better legislation.
Now, I have a whole lot to say about this bill, but the hour is late.
So I will just put my comments into two categories: one, what the bill
contains; and, two, what the bill does not contain--neither of which
makes me happy.
What the bill contains: There are some good provisions in this bill.
I am not going to get up here and do a diatribe against these little
narrow things that are there for everybody. There are a few in there
for my State, too. I think those sometimes are the grease that makes
good legislation move forward, but alone they are not enough to carry a
bill, alone they are not enough to justify a bill.
Some of the bad things contained in this bill, as well as some of the
things that are so missing from this bill, make a complete case against
the bill.
To me, the two things that are in the bill that should not be, more
than anything else, are the ethanol provisions and the MTBE provisions.
On the ethanol provisions, I would say this to my colleagues: We do
have to find a substitute for MTBE. We do have to keep our air clean.
And ethanol is a good way to do it. I am not against ethanol per se.
What I am against is mandating ethanol for every region in the country
whether it fits or not. Ethanol would be a good standard to meet the
oxygenate requirements in areas where there is abundant corn and
abundant ethanol manufacturing facilities. But in many regions of the
country, particularly on the coasts, there is not. And there are better
ways to meet the clean air standards.
Refiners in my area say that by changing the blend and changing the
method of refining, they can do just that without ethanol. And they
will do that to meet the oxygenate clean air standards. But this bill
has the nerve--that is the only way you can put it--to require them to
buy ethanol anyway or at least buy ethanol credits. I have never quite
seen anything like it.
Ethanol is a very subsidized product with many different types of
advantages. Corn growers get all sorts of subsidies. I am not against
those subsidies. I think we need to have a farming community. And just
as we need dairy farmers in New York, we need corn growers in the
Midwest and other places. But I wouldn't dare require people in the
Midwest to buy some kind of dairy product made in New York for some
other purpose. I might subsidize the product and say: Go out in the
free market and make it work. But I wouldn't force them to do it. This
goes a step beyond anything we have ever done in this Chamber.
If we wanted to help the corn growers and we are not helping them
enough through the Agriculture bill, then let the Government do it. But
the ethanol bill says to the traveling salesmen in upstate New York:
You are going to do it. It will raise the price of gasoline 4 to 10
cents a gallon in my area.
How can anyone in this Chamber ask those of us from the Northeast and
the West to impose that kind of gas tax on our constituents? It is just
unfair. It is just wrong. I, for one, resent it. Again, if you want to
subsidize the corn growers, do it. But not in this inefficient, unfair,
regionally slanted way. Therefore, I very much oppose the ethanol
provision.
My folks can't afford another 4 to 10 cents a gallon, likely to be 7
or 8 cents a gallon. Gasoline is high enough. We should be doing things
to lower the price of gasoline. In that one fell swoop, all the good in
terms of trying to produce alternative fuels will be undone.
Probably even worse in terms of its egregiousness, in terms of its
arrogance, in terms of its nerve, its gall, is the MTBE provision.
Parenthetically, I say to my friend from Ohio who said it doesn't stop
lawsuits, it certainly does. It doesn't stop lawsuits if the little gas
station on the corner was negligent. But if you have lost your home to
MTBEs, you are not going to get anything out of that little gas
station.
We know the only way that homeowners are going to get recompense
here. It is through the oil companies, the producers of MTBEs. And
those suits are prohibited.
So it is small comfort to the thousands of citizens in Fort
Montgomery or in Hyde Park or in Plainview, NY, different communities
in different parts of our State who have lost use of water in their
home.
This is not just some environmental fetish. I have visited these
homes. I feel for these people. Every time your child wants a bath or
shower, you have to get in the car and drive a mile. You must use
bottled water. For most of the people I know--these are middle class
people, not rich people--the value of their home has been it. All they
have been able to do is save for their home, and it is gone.
Now you say: Well, we are just going after the oil companies because
they have deep pockets. Bunk. The bottom line is, the oil companies
knew, the producers knew this was harmful. And here is the rub: They
didn't tell a soul. It is not simply that they didn't produce it, but
they didn't tell a soul. When they sold the gasoline with MTBE to the
gas station down the street, they didn't say: Be careful. They didn't
say: If you sit on top of an aquifer or a well, maybe you shouldn't use
it. They didn't say: Make sure your tanks don't have leaks because this
is dangerous stuff if it leaks into the water. They didn't say any of
that.
Had the oil companies, the MTBE producers, come clean and let people
know that this might be harmful and that they ought to take remediation
the minute there is a spill and deal with prevention so there wouldn't
be spills, we would not be asking that they be sued.
The analogy is to the cigarette industry in the sense not that the
product was harmful, not even that people might have known it was
harmful--that is probably true in each case--but, rather, that it was
kept secret. It was
[[Page S15271]]
concealed. People didn't have the ability, the choice, to prevent the
harm from occurring.
The suits have been successful. My friend from Ohio just mentioned
the suit in Santa Monica. Hundreds and hundreds of suits like that will
be stopped if we pass this legislation.
I wish every one of my colleagues had come with me to Fort
Montgomery, a little community in the hills overlooking the Hudson, a
few miles south of West Point. The people there are mostly retired
soldiers, not generals, rather, they are captains and majors and
sergeants. It is a modest community. They worked hard for their country
and they served their country. All they have is these little homes. And
look at their faces. They all gathered one fall afternoon on someone's
front lawn and talked to me. They are lovely people. They said: We
don't want any money; we are not suing for money.
This isn't one of these lawsuits where they say, ``Give us millions
of dollars,'' and claim some alleged damage. I don't like those
lawsuits. In fact, right now we are trying to put together a class
action bill that would make the lawsuits fairer. But the lawsuits were
their recourse. The oil companies were beginning to negotiate with
them, either to put filters on their water or to help build a new
system.
If this bill passes, these people will have two terrible choices:
Sell their home at maybe the half the value it was a few years back
before MTBE leached into their water supply, or spend thousands and
thousands and thousands of dollars each year, each taxpayer, to build a
whole water system.
Who is more to blame? The company that produced the MTBE and didn't
tell people it was harmful, although they knew it, or these majors and
sergeants and captains who served their country for years and have lost
just about everything they have had?
That story can be repeated in many parts of New York and many parts
of California and many parts of New Hampshire and many parts of Iowa
and many parts of America. We should not allow it to happen.
As I said, I am not the leading advocate on our side of the aisle of
lawsuits as a solution to everything. I would much rather see
government regulation than lawsuits. But if there was ever a situation
where lawsuits are justified, it is here.
What is infuriating is we are giving the MTBE industry $2 billion for
closing. My friend talked about the money for LIHEAP. It is good that
it is in the bill, but it is an authorization. Every time we do the
appropriations bill, we don't come close to the authorization level.
That is not real money. Put that $2 billion into LIHEAP, real money.
But here we are, instead, giving it to the MTBE producers for closing
down.
Do we give money to the little drycleaner shop that has to close down
even though the blood and sweat and tears of the person who ran it are
real? Do we give money to other businesses that have closed down, the
thousands in my State, because maybe our country has not done enough to
defend them from unfair trade practices? No. But not only do we give
this industry $2 billion as recompense for closing down, but then we
protect them from liability. This bill chooses those companies over
tens of thousands of innocent homeowners. It is an egregious decision,
and it shall not pass--if we have anything to do with it.
Those two provisions are at the top of my list as the most egregious
in the bill. I will tell you what bothers me just about as much. It is
not just what is in the bill, it is what is not in the bill. As
everybody who has come to the floor to speak has said, we need an
energy policy in America. This bill is a hodgepodge of little things,
without much of an energy policy. It is a stitching together of a
coalition of individual ideas. I like the tax deductions for the
renewables. The reliability provisions don't go far enough, as far as I
am concerned, but at least there is a step forward there. But there is
no real energy policy.
Mr. President, 9/11 showed us many things, and one thing it showed us
is that we have to be independent of Middle Eastern oil. The best and
quickest way to do that is by some measure of conservation, and it is
MIA in this bill. When China can pass CAFE standards more significant,
more stringent than our own, this country is headed for a fall. If we
cannot tighten our belts now, before there is a crisis, then something
is wrong with the way our country is governing itself. Yet there is
virtually nothing in terms of oil independence and conservation. Even
the rather modest provisions that the Senator from Louisiana put in the
Senate bill are gone. Again, on issue after issue, that occurred--issue
after issue after issue.
There is no real conservation measures, at a time when we cry out. If
you ask experts what is most needed in terms of our energy policy, it
is conservation. We can increase production, and we can try to do
experiments with coal or nuclear or hydrogen or whatever you want, but
those are 10, 15 years down the road. We can talk about the timetables.
I disagree with my friend from Ohio on that. The quickest way to do it
is by conservation. We are not doing it.
Then we have the blackout in the Northeast. It cried out for a
national grid to make our electricity system like our highway system,
where the Government has direct and fairly strict oversight of the
means of transportation--in one case of cars, and in another of
electricity. And we do the most modest of steps--after we got a huge
warning.
The report yesterday showed how little oversight there is, how little
coordination there is. One energy company in Ohio and one voluntary
organization in part of Ohio dropped the ball. My view is simple. This
ought to all be done not by the electricity companies, which have a
dramatic interest against spending the money to make the transmission
wires work because that is not where they want to make money. It is not
a cost that brings them a big rate of return. We should turn that over
to FERC and let them set the standards and require the companies to
meet it.
This bill doesn't come close to that. Once again, a shot across the
bow, so close to us, and we do virtually nothing. The special
interests--the Southeast doesn't want to be part of a national grid.
Fine. They don't want to give up any rights or be governed by rules
that might be good for the common good. Fine. The grid provisions here,
better than much of the bill, leave so much to be desired and are
emblematic of this bill. The special interests say jump and the bill
says, How high? No energy policy. And the same with the problems we
have had with deregulation and the sale of electricity out in
California and in the West. I am not an expert on that, but my
colleagues from California and Washington State have talked about that.
We are MIA.
So instead of a coherent energy policy, which the times cry out for,
we have a mishmash of goodies, of nods in the direction of the best
parts of the bill, and away from some very bad things that hurt many
parts of our country.
It is no wonder, Mr. President, that editorial pages across the
country have condemned this bill in a way we have not seen in a long
time. There is virtually no division. Frankly, I have not seen one
article, one editorial--I have probably missed it--that defends this
bill. The New York Times--probably the leading liberal editorial page--
and the Wall Street Journal--the leading conservative editorial page--I
think on the same day said, ``Don't vote for this bill.'' And they are
joined by about everybody in between. That is not just the media
ranting and raving and not understanding the realities, or being too
much in their ivory tower, or on their high horse, which I will be the
first to admit happens all the time. That is because there is something
wrong with this bill.
So it is my view that we are better off going back to the drawing
board, open up the process, include the ranking member from New Mexico
of the committee, and include the members of the committee, debate the
bill even if it takes a few weeks. I guarantee you that we will get a
much better bill.
This bill is an overall negative for what it contains and for what it
doesn't. We can and must do a lot better. If we defeat cloture
tomorrow, we will.
I yield the floor and 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.
[[Page S15272]]
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________