[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 169 (Thursday, November 20, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15311-S15316]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to discuss the legislation 
before the Senate, the Energy bill. In order to secure our country's 
economic and national security, we need to have a balanced energy plan 
that protects the environment, supports the needs of our growing 
economy, and reduces our dependence on foreign sources of energy.
  Balance has been my guiding light as I worked legislation through the 
Finance Committee, which I chair, for tax incentives for energy. I 
wanted to make sure we had a very balanced piece of legislation. By 
balanced, I mean balanced between fossil fuels, conservation, and 
renewable fuels.
  We do have in the finance provisions of this Energy bill very 
balanced provisions for fossil fuels, for near-term energy needs, but 
we also legislate for the future as we have emphasis upon renewable 
fuels, wind energy, biomass, biodiesel, ethanol, and things of that 
nature. We have tax incentives for that.
  Then we also have tax incentives for conservation. It is my belief 
that a well-balanced piece of energy legislation, with tax incentives 
for fossil fuels, for renewable fuels, and for conservation, is not 
only good for such policy, but I have come to the conclusion that is 
the sort of legislation we have to have to get the bipartisanship it 
takes to get a bill through the Senate.
  Now, the other body, in writing similar legislation out of their 
finance committee--over there it is called the Ways and Means 
Committee--it seemed to me it was very tilted toward fossil fuels. It 
was my job, representing the Senate, to make sure from the conference 
with the House of Representatives we came out with a balance. I think 
we did come out with that balance.
  I commend that balance to this body, to think about that as you vote 
on cloture tomorrow. Give us an opportunity to vote this bill up or 
down, and consider that my committee, in bringing this balance--for 
conservation, for renewable fuels, and for fossil fuels--tried to do 
what we could to get a majority vote in this body.
  Now, of course, we need a supermajority vote, and that supermajority 
vote is to stop a Democrat filibuster against this bill. In a time like 
this, when the energy needs of our country are so great, and we are in 
a crisis situation, we should not tolerate a filibuster against this 
bill.
  Every man, woman, and child in the United States is a stakeholder 
when it comes to developing a responsible, balanced, stable, and long-
term energy policy.
  The events of September 11 have made very clear to Americans how 
important it is to enhance our energy independence. We can no longer 
afford to allow our dangerous reliance on foreign sources of oil to 
continue.
  But somehow we can wait; and we do wait. We should not wait, but we 
seem to wait in a way that causes that wait to make ``too good of an 
impact.'' It has been over 10 years since we passed energy legislation 
in this body. But if we wait until we get that perfect piece of 
legislation, we may be waiting forever. And by waiting forever, we will 
suffer the consequences of less supply and higher prices.
  I do not know about folks in all parts of the country, but I know I 
was brought up in the State of Iowa just to have dependence upon our 
sources of energy. When you go to the gas pump, you put the hose in 
your car, you move the lever, you expect to get gasoline. When you flip 
the light switch, you expect the lights to come on.

  In order for that to happen, and for the price to be stable, just a 
small percentage at the margins of supply is necessary in order for us 
to have that stability and that certainty.
  Some people in this country believe that one way to change American 
lifestyle is to force down the supply of energy. I happen to believe 
that Americans ought to have a massive amount of choice; that we do not 
need a bunch of bureaucrats or interest groups in Washington dictating 
to us that somehow, through an energy policy, by cutting back on the 
amounts of energy, they are going to bring about their ``perfect'' 
society.
  This bill is obviously not perfect. And to those who complain about 
various provisions, I just remind them, if they drafted a ``perfect'' 
bill--and there probably would never be one--it would not pass the 
House or the Senate.
  Some say the process has not been perfect. But if the process had 
been perfect for some, it would not have been perfect in the view of 
others. And that is fairly common in any legislating process.
  While we are talking about process, I would like to clarify the role 
the Senate Finance Committee, which I chair, played in this bill. We 
have heard a lot about Republicans shutting Democrats out of the 
conference process. Well, that is not the way I operate as chairman. 
That is not the way my Democrat counterpart, Senator Baucus, operated 
when he was chairman of this committee when the Democrats were in the 
majority in the last Congress.
  With respect to the tax provisions of the bill, the process was open. 
Senator Baucus attended conference committee meetings. Finance 
Committee Democratic staff worked side by side with my Republican staff 
in the conference negotiations.
  I might add, they were a key asset for us in the protracted 
negotiations with the House Ways and Means Committee. Conferee staff on 
both sides of the aisle was informed as the process moved forward.
  If it is ``perfection'' you are insisting upon, then you are in the 
wrong business. Legislating is neither a perfect process nor does it 
produce perfect products.
  The Energy Security Act of 1992--the last one that Congress passed--
was not perfect. That quickly became clear.
  In 1995, after extensive interagency review and analysis, under 
provisions of section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the 
Clinton administration concluded that oil imports threatened our 
national security.
  Such a finding, under this law, gave him the authority to impose 
quotas and import fees on oil. But he chose to do nothing because he 
believed that import adjustments would be too harmful to the economy.
  Within 3 years of passing what was called an Energy Security Act, the 
fact is, our national security only worsened. When national security is 
not in good shape, it is probably because our economic security has 
worsened.
  So what do we do? Do we do nothing? Do we wait for a perfect piece of 
legislation? Do we wait for market forces to save us? We heard earlier 
today criticism of this Energy bill because it fails, in so many words, 
to allow the free market to work its magic. The bill is not perfect, it 
has been argued, because it favors one energy source over another. You 
can go on and on and on. I would like to talk about that favoritism, 
and I would like to talk about the marketplace.
  During the debate on the 1992 Energy Security Act, the chairman of 
the Energy Committee at that time, former Senator Bennett Johnston of 
Louisiana, stated that each barrel of imported oil was subsidized by 
the taxpayers to the tune of $200 per barrel. That is outrageous. 
Anybody listening to that says I had to misquote something.
  But again, let me explain from this leading Senate expert on energy, 
as Senator Johnston was, he is telling us that imported oil is 
subsidized $200 for each and every barrel. Is that favoritism, when we 
subsidize imported oil at $200 a barrel? Are we picking winners and 
losers? What does that tell us about the so-called free market system? 
How can our domestic energy producers compete with that? It makes a 
mockery of the argument that we must sit idly by and let the 
marketplace control our energy policy.
  How absurd can we be? On one hand, we subsidize imported oil, and we 
do that through the military expense it takes to protect the trail of 
oil from the Middle East to our shore or what we are doing in the 
Middle East now to preserve peace over there, cutting down on terrorism 
as part of that. But on the one hand we subsidize imported oil, and 
then we wonder why we become dangerously dependent upon that foreign 
oil. The Government, through a massive interagency review, declares 
that our national security is at risk because of imported oil but then 
declines

[[Page S15312]]

to do anything about it because we might disrupt our domestic economy. 
So any way you look at it, we are in a box that we need not be in, if 
we can get this legislation passed.
  The marketplace won't save us because we stacked the deck in favor of 
foreign oil. Again, I ask: What do we do in response to this imperfect 
world in which we find ourselves? Pass a bill that picks winners and 
losers? The answer is a definite yes. The winners we pick in this bill 
are all Americans, all of whom have a stake in reducing our dependence 
upon foreign sources of oil. We do this by favoring domestic producers 
over foreign producers. That is true of oil and natural gas, but it is 
also true of our supply of renewable fuels.
  It is well past time that we get serious about implementing energy 
efficiency and conservation efforts, investing in alternative renewable 
fuels, and improving domestic production of traditional resources. I 
support a comprehensive energy policy consisting of conservation 
efforts on the one hand, the development of renewable and alternative 
energy sources on the other hand, and on the third hand, domestic 
production of traditional sources of energy.
  As my colleagues well know, I have long been a supporter of 
alternative and renewable sources of energy as a way of protecting our 
environment, increasing our energy independence. That started with my 
work with former Senator Robert Dole on legislation for tax incentives 
for ethanol. It was my own work in 1992, developing the wind energy 
tax credit, that has increased our production of electricity by wind. 
My State of Iowa, for instance, is third of the 50 States in the 
production of wind energy, as an example. So obviously, you know I 
strongly support the production of renewable domestic fuels. I 
particularly emphasize, in addition to ethanol, biodiesel made from 
soybeans. As domestic renewable sources of energy, ethanol and 
biodiesel can increase fuel supplies, reduce our dependence upon 
foreign oil, and increase our national economic security.

  For the first time we have a tax incentive in this legislation for 
production of virgin and recycled biodiesel. This is a new market for 
soybean farmers and yet another source of renewable energy. The 
renewable fuels standard, supported by a broad coalition, is good for 
America's farmers, obviously good for the environment, good for our 
consumers, good for creating jobs in our cities in the production of 
this fuel, and good for our national security, as we are less dependent 
upon foreign sources of oil.
  A key reform in this Senate bill deals with the treatment of ethanol-
blended fuels for highway trust fund purposes. Tax incentives for 
ethanol are unique in terms of their treatment in the Tax Code. Unlike 
incentives for other energy sources such as oil and gas, the revenue 
for ethanol incentives comes out of the highway trust fund because it 
simply is not paid into the trust fund in the first place. This bill 
makes it clear that those incentives will be treated like all other 
energy incentives: The revenue will be made up to the highway fund from 
the general fund.
  We didn't get all of the Senate reform in this conference agreement. 
A gesture to the House was that we would defer repealing the partial 
tax exemption these fuels get until the next highway bill, which is 
early next year. The same is true with respect to the transfer of the 
2.5 cents fuel tax that ethanol-blended fuels do pay. That highway bill 
will be before us early next year. The current highway trust fund 
spending authority runs out on February 29 next. So we have to get it 
passed early.
  My friend Senator Baucus has made this highway trust fund reform a 
priority of his. Together, he and I will ensure that the highway trust 
fund is made whole for the gap between now and February 29. I have the 
assurance of the leadership of both bodies that our deferral will not 
prejudice the highway community.
  As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I worked closely with 
ranking member Senator Baucus to develop a tax title that strikes a 
good balance between conventional energy sources, alternative and 
renewable energy, and conservation. Among other things, it includes 
provisions for the development of renewable sources of energy such as 
wind and biomass, incentives for energy-efficient appliances in homes, 
and incentives as well for the production of nonconventional sources of 
traditional oil and gas.
  This bill reflects the broad diversity of energy resources in the 
United States. There are new benefits for clean coal technology. Our 
colleagues from the Rocky Mountains and the Ohio Valley produce and use 
this abundant source for the generation of electricity.
  Burning coal for electricity can lead to environmental problems. This 
bill goes a long way toward remedying the pollution problems associated 
with coal use. In the heartland, agriculture is a key part of our 
economy. Agricultural activities result in food that our people in the 
cities eat. There is also waste that results from farming. New 
technology has given us a twofer in the farm community. I am talking 
about equipment and processes that convert animal waste to energy. This 
technology needs a bit of a lift to get off the ground, so we have tax 
benefits to get these new technologies started.
  Now we have heard some big city folks and big city papers ridicule 
some of the tax benefits for this new technology. I guess I would ask 
these folks from the big cities just a couple questions: Do you think 
it is wise to address these environmental problems? Do you think it is 
wise to ignore a new source of energy?
  I believe the Senate Finance Committee did a good job in addressing 
our Nation's energy security in a balanced and comprehensive way. I 
believe the Congress has finally gotten to the point of addressing an 
issue with such a direct impact on our national economic security. For 
the sake of our children and grandchildren, we must implement 
conservation efforts, invest in alternative and renewable energy, and 
improve the development and production of domestic oil and natural gas 
resources. We must do it now. That is what this legislation does.
  Before we get to an up-or-down vote on this legislation, we have to 
face the issue of a Democrat filibuster against this legislation, and 
that filibuster is going to keep us from voting, if we don't get 60 
votes tomorrow. We have to have those Senators of both parties that 
represent primarily the grain-growing regions of the country, from Ohio 
west to Nebraska, and from Arkansas north to the Canadian border, stick 
together tomorrow on what we call the cloture vote, to get 60 votes. We 
are going to lose six Republicans from the Northeast. We have to pick 
up about 15 Democrats to get this job done. I expect that we can, 
because most of the bulwark of support of the last 20 years for 
renewable fuels--meaning ethanol, biodiesel but also including wind 
energy, geothermal, things such as that--have come from people within 
the Democrat Party, but particularly from what I call the upper Midwest 
of the United States, the grain-producing regions of the country. If we 
all stick together, I think we can produce these votes.
  There is tremendous leadership from that part of the country. Senate 
Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, from South Dakota, has always been a 
leader in the production of renewable fuels, and particularly ethanol. 
He can claim a lot of credit for what we have done in that area over 
the past. I know he is not supporting cloture, but I also know, as 
Democrat leader, he has an opportunity to use a lot of muscle in his 
efforts as leader to produce the votes we need.
  We cannot afford to lose votes on this issue if we are going to get 
the job done. I think there are a lot of other people who ought to be 
concerned about it. Senators on the other side of the aisle are 
concerned about conservation of energy, and rightly so. I pointed out 
how I felt, that we need a balanced bill between fossil fuel, 
renewables, and conservation.
  There are a lot of conservation provisions in the tax provisions of 
my legislation that ought to get support from the other side. There has 
been some talk, particularly from the other side, that some people have 
tried to twist the arms of our colleagues to be against cloture, which 
means to keep the bill from coming to a final vote, arguing that we can 
refer this back to conference and get certain provisions taken out. 
That is not going to work

[[Page S15313]]

under the Senate rules. This cannot be referred back to conference. 
Once it passed the other body, conference doesn't exist.

  There has been some talk, when it comes to the important provisions I 
have talked about and have been a part of--I even complimented Senator 
Daschle for being a proponent of these for a long period of time--what 
we call the renewable portions of it, or this part of our legislation 
that makes up for the road fund. The money lost to the road fund can be 
made up from the general fund. That is all in this bill.
  We have tax incentives for ethanol until the year 2010. We have an 
ethanol-like tax incentive for biodiesel. We have the renewable fuels 
standard, which mandates 5 billion gallons of ethanol to be used every 
year, phased in over a few years. That is 20 percent of our corn crop. 
Just think how that will benefit agriculture, cut down on taxpayers' 
subsidies to farmers over the long haul, and clean up the environment 
at the same time.
  But all of these provisions are in this bill. It was not something 
that was easy for me to get through conference. If it had not been for 
the intervention of the Vice President in offering a compromise that 
the House of Representatives did not want to accept, we would not have 
such a perfect piece of legislation for renewable fuels in this bill.
  As I started to say, there has been talk on the other side that 
somehow we can get this all done in a conference on transportation next 
year when the highway bill comes up. Well, all you have to do is sit in 
conference with members of the Ways and Means Committee and find out 
how they love fossil fuels. God only made so much fossil fuel; it is a 
finite quantity. But on the other side of this Capitol Building, the 
idea is there is no end to it. You don't need to worry about renewable 
fuels.
  So they come to conference with heavy emphasis upon fossil fuels, not 
wanting to give tax credits to biodiesel, and to wind and ethanol, and 
they don't like the renewable fuels standard mandate of 5 billion 
gallons. Some people are being told it is just a simple process of 
getting this done next February, so you can vote against cloture and 
kill this bill.
  If you knew how hard it is to negotiate this, this is the last train 
to leave town. If you want good provisions for biodiesel, good 
provisions for ethanol, good tax incentives for conservation, that is 
the wave of the future for energy. But if this bill is filibustered to 
death, don't count on me bringing back ideal provisions on renewables. 
I cannot guarantee that. Nobody else can guarantee it. We don't know 
what next January and February is going to be like.
  When we have a bird in the hand, it is worth two in the bush. I hope 
my colleagues, particularly the Democrats who are filibustering this, 
and particularly anybody from the grain-producing parts of the United 
States, where they benefit from renewable fuels, will work hard to 
produce the votes and help us to get the 60 votes so we can pass this 
bill in an overwhelming way.
  Don't tell me you are for ethanol, don't tell me you are for 
biodiesel, don't tell me you are for putting general fund money into 
the road fund to make up for lost revenue from ethanol--and this bill 
does that.
  Don't tell me those things if you are not going to help us fight hard 
to get the 60 votes necessary to break the filibuster.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I know the hour is late, and I appreciate 
the indulgence of the staff on the floor of the Senate. It has been a 
long day for them in the Senate to listen to a lot of speeches 
predominantly about the Energy bill, although I gather there has been 
some discussion about the Medicare prescription drug bill as well. I 
apologize to those who have been around here a long time today to have 
to listen to yet one more Member of this institution express his views 
on the matter we will be voting on tomorrow morning at around 10:30 
a.m.--and that is the Energy bill.
  I listened with great interest to my good friend from Iowa, with whom 
I have served now in the institutions of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives for about 30 years. We have been through a lot of 
battles, both together and on opposite sides. I always find his remarks 
compelling, interesting, and admire him immensely. He has been a very 
effective Member of this body for a long time. I appreciate his work.
  He has been through a lot in the last couple of years. He is chairman 
of the Finance Committee, and he has an awful lot of matters with which 
to deal. I appreciate his service. I regret on the matter before us we 
have a different point of view on the Energy bill. I care deeply about 
the subject matter. I know my colleague from Iowa does. Certainly, he 
raises some very significant issues as they pertain to renewable energy 
resources. Were this a bill about just that question, he would have my 
unyielding support.
  Unfortunately, there is more to this bill--it is more than 1,100 
pages. My Governor--a Republican Governor--of the State of Connecticut 
and most of the membership of the State legislature have taken a 
different view because of the adverse impacts on my State, just as it 
has positive impacts on the State of Iowa and the grain-producing 
States. That is a major reason many of our colleagues, both Democrats 
and Republicans, are opposed to the bill.
  They must understand, for those of us who come from other parts of 
the country, we have to evaluate a bill such as this and take a look at 
what it does to our economy, our environment, our energy needs, as well 
as the health of our people. For those reasons, on a bipartisan basis 
in my State, there have been strong expressions of opposition to this 
bill. I wish to take a few minutes to outline those reasons.
  Tomorrow morning at 10:30 o'clock, there will be bipartisan 
opposition to invoking cloture. This is not a question where, on many 
issues, Democrats and Republicans line up very neatly on one side of 
the aisle or the other. There will be Democrats who will oppose 
cloture; there will be Democrats who will support cloture; there will 
be Republicans who oppose cloture; there will be Republicans who 
support cloture. This is a matter of people looking at legislation that 
evolved in the conference committee.
  My respect for the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Pete Domenici, as he 
knows, is tremendous. I have great regard for him. I admire his 
leadership in the Senate. I have enjoyed working with him on numerous 
occasions. He has been a very fine Senator for many years. I know he 
put a lot of work into this bill. If I were to vote on this measure 
exclusively on the basis of friendship, I would be a strong supporter 
of this bill because I happen to like Pete Domenici a great deal. But I 
cannot, in all good conscience, vote for something that does such 
damage to my State, to my region, to my country.
  This legislation would have been better crafted at the end of the 
19th century and the beginning of the 20th century than the beginning 
of the 21st century. This is a 20th century Energy bill, not a 21st 
century Energy bill. It is important, with the few hours remaining 
between tonight and tomorrow morning, to know what this bill may do to 
the country and the people of this country might express to their 
elected representatives their strong feelings about what is in this 
bill.
  Like any other legislation in my 24 years here, there are good pieces 
to this. I am not going to stand here and suggest everything in this 
bill is wrong. It is not. The Senator from Iowa has already mentioned 
the idea of using some of our natural resources to provide a renewable 
source of energy.
  As a Senator from Connecticut, I tried to be very sympathetic and 
supportive of those kinds of issues. If this bill were exclusively 
about that, I would not have any real difficulties with it. But no 
Member ought to vote for a bill such as this for the simple reason that 
one provision of this bill is good for their State. You must take into 
consideration all the damage that can be done to the very people of 
that State if we adopt the measures included in this bill.
  This is not, as I say, a 21st century energy policy. Let me quote the 
Orlando Sentinel of November 18. This is not a Connecticut newspaper, 
it is a Florida newspaper. Listen to what they say:

       Start Over: The Energy bill before Congress is worse than 
     what exists.

  They continue:


[[Page S15314]]


       Two-thirds of the tax breaks would go to the oil, natural-
     gas and coal industries, helping to perpetuate the country's 
     dependence on fossil fuels. Less than a quarter of the breaks 
     would promote the use and development of renewable energy 
     sources, and less than a tenth would reward energy efficiency 
     or conservation.

  Tonight there are literally thousands of young Americans who are 
stationed in a place called Iraq. I don't believe they are there 
exclusively, as some do, because of the oil issue, because of the 
dependency that this Nation and the Western alliance has on the Middle 
East for its energy supplies. I also don't think it is not a reason. It 
is certainly part of the reason. I know there are others who believe it 
is the whole reason. I don't subscribe to that. If I did, I would never 
have supported the authorization of use of force by the President to go 
into Iraq, for which I voted. I believe it is part of the reason. I 
believe we are over there trying to protect the economic and energy 
interests of the United States in part because of our dependency on 
that part of the world.
  Why at a moment such as this, when our country is at such risk, 
particularly over its future economic policy, would we pass an Energy 
bill such as this? Now more than ever, this bill ought to be doing 
everything in its power to support energy resources that are truly 
renewable, such as the Senator from Iowa suggested, balanced with other 
resources that have been supported by other Members of this Chamber. 
And it certainly should do more on conservation and efficiency.
  As the Orlando Sentinel pointed out, as I mentioned a moment ago, 
less than a tenth of this bill would reward energy efficiency or 
conservation--less than one-tenth of this bill. Here we are in 2003, 
with all of the problems we face in the Middle East and elsewhere, and 
one-tenth of this bill is dedicated to energy conservation and 
efficiencies, and only a quarter of the tax breaks would be to promote 
the use and development of renewable energy sources. On that basis 
alone, this bill ought to be reconsidered before we go forward.
  The Governor of my State, John Rowland, has served as the president 
of the Republican Governors Association during his tenure as Governor. 
John Rowland and I have significant differences on a lot of issues. But 
on this issue, he has written to all members of our delegation in 
response to what is in this bill. I want to read into the Record some 
of the comments of the Republican Governor of Connecticut, shared, I 
might add, by many Governors all across this country.
  This is a bipartisan notion of caution about what we are about to do. 
He mentions five or six reasons why this bill ought to be reconsidered. 
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             State of Connecticut,


                                           Executive Chambers,

                                  Hartford, CT, November 18, 2003.
     Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Gentlemen: Yesterday, the House and Senate energy conferees 
     approved of a multibillion dollar omnibus energy bill. The 
     energy bill passed the House just moments ago and, as such, 
     the Senate may hold a vote on the bill as early as tomorrow.
       While this office is presently engaged in reviewing the 
     finer details of this legislation, a couple of noteworthy 
     items have already come to light that are especially 
     disconcerting.
       First, this bill undermines the delicate balance of federal 
     and state rights. It gives unprecedented authority and 
     standards of review exclusively to the federal appeals court 
     in the District of Columbia to review actions required for 
     the construction of a natural gas pipeline. State 
     environmental and siting laws would essentially be reduced to 
     a process of rubber stamping Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission (``FERC'') certificates of public convenience and 
     necessity. In addition, any delay, however well founded it 
     may be, such as considering ways to protect the state's 
     natural resources, may be grounds for an appeal and federal 
     override of a state's ruling. State courts would be stripped 
     of jurisdiction over matters arising in the state that not 
     only affect the state, but also relate to the interpretation 
     of state statutes and regulations.
       Second, this proposed legislation would codify a Department 
     of Energy Order that resulted in the operation of the Cross 
     Sound Cable that runs from New Haven to Brookhaven. You may 
     recall that the Cross Sound Cable was not operational before 
     the August 14, 2003, blackout because the cable failed to 
     meet federal and state permitting requirements concerning its 
     depth. Section 1441 of the bill states that ``Department of 
     Energy Order No. 202-03-2, issued by the Secretary of Energy 
     on August 28, 2003, shall remain in effect unless rescinded 
     by Federal statute.'' This sets a bad precedent.
       Third, the bill generally limits the time frame for 
     development of Coastal Zone Management consistency appeal 
     records, constraining the states and the Secretary of 
     Commerce in making informed decisions. In the same vein, this 
     legislation limits the record on consistency appeals 
     addressing pipelines to the record developed by the FERC. 
     Historically, FERC's record has been inadequate to evaluate 
     and protect the state's natural resources. The legislation 
     deprives Connecticut and other coastal states of the tools 
     they need to manage their coastal resources.
       Fourth, this legislation authorizes the postponement of 
     ozone attainment standards across the country when the 
     problems are shown to have originated outside the state. This 
     not only hinders Connecticut's progress toward improving air 
     quality, but also likely has significant health ramifications 
     for Connecticut's residents. Contrary to general practice, 
     this language was added behind closed doors, without 
     meaningful opportunity for public debate.
       Fifth, the bill contains language that would preempt a 
     state's siting process in areas of interstate congestion, if 
     the FERC were to find that the state delayed or denied a 
     project. State siting authorities may very well be justified, 
     however, in delaying approval or imposing condition for 
     reasons such as public safety or environmental protection. It 
     may also be that the more complex the project, the more time 
     that may be needed to review its complexities. In addition, 
     the applicant may need an extension of time in which to 
     compile additional information for submittal to the siting 
     authority or to negotiate with adverse parties. The existing 
     language fails to take these reasons into account.
       Finally, the proposed legislation provides immunity, 
     retroactive to September 5, 2003, to MTBE producers from 
     defective product liability arising from groundwater 
     contamination by MTBE. It also provides $2 billion in 
     transition assistance to producers, in preparation for an 
     MTBE ban effective in 2014. It is precisely because of 
     groundwater contamination caused by MTBE that Connecticut has 
     banned its use as a gasoline additive effective January 1, 
     2004. MTBE has been proven to be especially harmful; we 
     likely do not yet know how much damage it has done and 
     perhaps will do. It may be premature at this time to provide 
     such immunity.
       While improvements are clearly needed to spur investment in 
     energy-related projects to enhance reliability in the power 
     grid, I would urge you to reject this proposed legislation 
     and return it to the House and Senate energy conferees for 
     further deliberation. I would be happy to assist Congress in 
     any way possible to further address these items of particular 
     concern. Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John G. Rowland,
                                                         Governor.

  Mr. DODD. I also ask unanimous consent that a letter from the 
attorney general of the State of Connecticut expressing other reasons 
to oppose this legislation also be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         State of Connecticut,

                                  Hartford, CT, November 18, 2003.
     Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
     U.S. Senator, Russell Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dodd: Yesterday I wrote to you about some 
     pressing concerns about outrageous provisions of the 
     Administration's Energy Bill, and urged you to filibuster it. 
     I write again today to inform you of another assault on well-
     accepted state powers to protect our citizens--a provision 
     buried in this Bill, discovered during my review.
       This provision, Subtitle D, new Section 1442, gives the 
     Federal Energy Regulatory Commission dictatorial power to 
     preempt and override all other federal agencies and all state 
     laws and officials in approving natural gas pipelines. It 
     would have the clear effect of forcing approval of 
     construction of the disastrous Islander East gas pipeline 
     project through the middle of the pristine Thimble Islands 
     area of Long Island Sound.
       The Islander East pipeline is, as I have said, the worst 
     case in the worst possible place--an absolute environmental 
     disaster. Every state and federal regulatory agency 
     responsible for reviewing this proposal--the Connecticut 
     Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the United 
     States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the 
     National Marine Fisheries Service--has found that this 
     project will cause pervasive, enduring harm to the marine 
     environment in this uniquely valuable part of the Sound. Even 
     the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) own staff 
     concluded that there was a clearly environmentally preferable 
     alternative route, if any pipeline should be built across the 
     Sound.

[[Page S15315]]

       While FERC ignored the facts and voted to approve the 
     proposal anyway, the facts arrayed against this proposal are 
     so compelling that we are strongly positioned to stop it in 
     court, because it is insupportable environmentally. Section 
     1442 is plainly intended to strangle our challenge to this 
     project in court, no doubt because we were likely to succeed. 
     Section 1442 drastically changes current law by providing 
     that the courts must accept FERC's determination, although 
     every other state and federal agency disapproves of the 
     project.
       The breathtaking sweep and far reaching ramifications of 
     Section 1442 would extend well beyond Connecticut. This 
     provision completely and permanently dismembers a carefully 
     crafted system of state and federal checks and balances for 
     all major gas pipeline projects. Under existing law, 
     pipelines require not only the approval of FERC, but state 
     approval for water quality issues, and for effects on the 
     coastal zone environment. State disapprovals on these 
     important environmental grounds are now generally sufficient 
     to bar the proposals. Under this amendment, FERC approval of 
     a project would effectively eliminate all state environmental 
     oversight. One of the other projects that will apparently be 
     rushed to final construction under this bill is the Millenium 
     Pipeline project in Westchester County, New York, which is 
     proposed to run through various minority neighborhoods and 
     under a section of the Hudson River. Senators Schumer and 
     Clinton, among many other New York state officials, have 
     expressed grave concerns about the millenium proposal.
       This Bill contains many inexcusable giveaways to the energy 
     industry. Even among those giveaways, this one is especially 
     abhorrent, since it grants one federal agency supreme 
     dictatorial power to preempt enforcement of environmental and 
     consumer protection by all other state and federal 
     authorities. It would cause wanton lasting destruction of 
     Long Island Sound. If this Bill is passed, our environment 
     will suffer severe permanent damage, which is absolutely and 
     indisputably unnecessary to any legitimate public interest. 
     Once again, I urge to take a stand against this injustice.
           Very truly yours,
                                               Richard Blumenthal.

  Mr. DODD. I will not get into the introduction of the letter and so 
forth, but I will quote from the Governor of a New England State. 
First, the Governor says the bill undermines the delicate balance of 
Federal and States rights. Under this legislation, this bill gives 
unprecedented authority and standards of review exclusively to the 
Federal appeals court in the District of Columbia to review actions 
required for the construction of a natural gas pipeline. State 
environmental and siting laws would essentially be reduced to a process 
of rubberstamping the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission certificates 
of public convenience and necessity.
  The letter goes on:

       In addition, any delay, however well founded it may be, 
     such as considering ways to protect the State's natural 
     resources, may be grounds for an appeal and Federal override 
     of a State's ruling. State courts would be stripped of 
     jurisdiction over matters arising in the State that not only 
     affect the State, but also relate to the interpretation of 
     State statutes and regulations.

  Now, I have historically opposed a State's right to veto important 
national efforts, and I include energy as one of them. So I know there 
have been efforts in the past to say States ought to be able to veto 
matters that come before them affecting energy policy, but as strongly 
as I have felt that States ought not to have exclusive veto power, I do 
not think the Federal Government ought to also have veto power when it 
comes to States needs and necessities.
  I do not care where one lives in America, but they should pay 
attention to this provision. This is an incredible overreaching by the 
Federal Government. To come in and strip a State's ability to protect 
its own citizens when it comes to natural resources and the energy 
needs they may have, or a variety of other issues, and to shove those 
matters up to an appeals court in the District of Columbia, whether one 
is from Georgia, Connecticut, or anywhere else, I think would be highly 
offensive to most people in this country.
  That is not to say we have it all right. We do not. Lord knows our 
States can make very parochial decisions, particularly when it comes to 
energy policy, but the idea that the Federal Government could go into 
any State in this country, regardless of our needs, our concerns, our 
well-being, and say, I am sorry, you lose, you have no rights at all in 
these matters. My Governor is right on that issue alone. This bill 
ought to be sent back to the conference.
  We are about to adopt something that overreaches beyond what I think 
most of my colleagues would support in any other area of law, and yet 
they are going to do it here. If a precedent is set here, it will 
happen in other areas as well?
  My Governor goes on to explain that there are other reasons:

       The bill generally limits the time frame for development of 
     Coastal Zone Management consistency appeal records, 
     constraining the States and the Secretary of Commerce in 
     making informed decisions. In the same vein, this legislation 
     limits the record on consistency appeals addressing pipelines 
     to the record developed by the FERC. Historically, FERC's 
     record has been inadequate to evaluate and protect the 
     State's natural resources. The legislation deprives 
     Connecticut and other coastal States of the tools they need 
     to manage their coastal resources.

  I mention this because the Presiding Officer--we share a lot of 
things in common, not the least of which we share is having an Atlantic 
coastline. All of the States on the eastern seaboard, the gulf, the 
west coast, if they care about coastal zone management--and I know how 
important that is all along the Atlantic coast--and wanting a say in 
determining how those very delicate and fragile resources will be 
managed, this bill makes it more difficult for our States to continue 
in that vein.
  Reading from the letter:

       The legislation authorizes the postponement of ozone 
     attainment standards across the country when the problems are 
     shown to have originated outside of the State. This not only 
     hinders Connecticut's progress towards improving our air 
     quality, but also likely has significant health 
     ramifications for Connecticut's residents. Contrary to 
     general practice, this language was added behind closed 
     doors, without meaningful opportunity for public debate.

  It would be one thing if this bill were just about energy policy. To 
be able to now postpone the ozone attainment requirements written in 
law, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people in this 
country who suffer from significant ailments affecting their 
respiratory functions. I know of what I speak. I have family members 
who suffer from asthma. To roll back the provisions of the ozone 
attainment standards in States such as mine and elsewhere is a major 
health setback for people.
  I suspect that various health organizations around the country will 
have strong feelings about this. If no other provision to this bill 
moves one to reconsider whether or not we ought to be moving forward, 
the idea that we could do such great damage to the health of American 
citizens is enough. We know what causes these problems--and in my State 
of Connecticut we suffer because of the prevailing southwesterly winds 
for most of the year. So we get a lot of the poor air quality coming 
out of other States. So we have to live with the pollution that exists 
elsewhere. We are trying to stop that on a national level. This 
legislation will make it very difficult for that to happen in the 
future.
  My Governor goes on and says:

       The bill contains language that would permit a State's 
     siting process in areas of interstate congestion, if the FERC 
     were to find that the State delayed or denied a project. 
     State siting authorities may very well be justified, however, 
     in delaying approval or imposing condition for reasons such 
     as public safety or environmental protection. It may also be 
     that the more complex the project, the more time that may be 
     needed to review its complexities. In addition, the applicant 
     may need an extension of time in which to compile additional 
     information for submittal to the siting authority or to 
     negotiate with adverse parties. The existing language [in 
     this bill] fails to take those reasons into account.

  Again, this goes right back to the first point I made earlier, where 
one can come in and basically shove these matters up to the Federal 
appeals court in Washington. Again, I am not suggesting that States 
ought to have outright veto power. But the idea that this legislation 
would say, as categorically as it does, that the FERC could come in if 
they find that a State denied a project or delayed a project to gather 
more information, and just roll right over you.
  Listen to this. The Governor goes on to say:

       The proposed legislation provides immunity, retroactive to 
     September 5, 2003, to the MTBE producers from defective 
     product liability arising from groundwater contamination of 
     MTBE. It also provides $2 billion in transition assistance to 
     producers, in preparation for an MTBE ban effective in 2014. 
     It

[[Page S15316]]

     is precisely because of groundwater contamination caused by 
     MTBE that Connecticut has banned its use as a gasoline 
     additive effective January 1, 2004. MTBE has been proven to 
     be especially harmful; we likely do not yet know how much 
     damage it has done or perhaps will do [to people]. It may be 
     premature at this time to provide such immunity.

  There is a growing body of evidence that this gasoline additive could 
have caused great damage to people and now we are going to reach back 
to September 5 of this year and provide immunity to the producers of 
this product to the great detriment of maybe millions of people in this 
country. What is that doing in this bill? We talk about tort reform, 
and here we are providing immunity.

  The idea in this bill that we would provide immunity from recovery 
for people who get sick and suffer as a result of being exposed to 
MTBE, I think is outrageous.
  I am confident my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, has 
spoken eloquently on this subject matter. I heard him address the 
matter the other day in a closed meeting of Senators, and I was moved 
by the evidence that he provided to us. I am confident he has or will 
lay it out again here. So I will not dwell on it.
  It's bad enough we provide immunity, but now we are going to provide 
MTBE producers with $2 billion in assistance, in preparation for a ban 
effective 11 years from now.
  Lastly, I mention a rather parochial matter and I don't want to make 
my opposition to this bill based on parochial issues. But my 
constituents are very concerned about a provision in this bill that was 
written into the bill in conference--never in the House bill, never in 
the Senate bill--and really tramples all over States rights. It would 
codify a Department of Energy order that resulted in the operation of 
the Cross Long Island Sound Cable that runs from New Haven, CT to 
Brookhaven.
  This Cross Sound Cable was not operational before the August 14 
blackout because the cable failed to meet the Federal and State 
permitting requirements concerning its depth. Section 1441 of the bill 
states:

       The Department of Energy order No. 202-03-2, issued by the 
     Secretary of Energy on August 28, shall remain in effect 
     unless rescinded by Federal statute.

  You may say, ``I am sorry that has happened to your State, Senator,'' 
but it could be yours next.
  We didn't argue during the blackout about allowing that cable to be 
used, but its continued operation violates state and federal permitting 
requirements. But that emergency is over. Yet, written into statutory 
law, now it says, whether we like it or not, this temporary order is 
now permanent and it will require a Federal statute to overturn it. Not 
even FERC can overturn it. I have to pass a bill in the Senate to 
overturn it.
  I grant you it is a local issue, but you ought to be worried about 
it. That is what happens around here: The precedent gets set.
  These are several of the reasons why I believe this bill deserves to 
be sent back.
  It is November. We have another session of Congress coming up. Why 
can't we go back and do some work on this? I have to believe that most 
Members think that this bill is just too tilted in one direction. It is 
not in the best interest of our country to be adopting this type of 
energy policy.
  As I mentioned earlier, knowing how important it is for our economy, 
for our energy self-sufficiency, for our environment, and for health 
reasons, this legislation deserves reconsideration. It is not balanced.
  So I hope when the hour arrives tomorrow morning, our colleagues 
respond. This is the kind of bill we will spend a good part of the next 
decade undoing. When people discover what is really in this bill, they 
will want to make changes. I think a wiser course of action would be to 
go back and correct the legislation now and have a bill that would 
enjoy broad bipartisan support. Instead, there will be broad bipartisan 
opposition to invoking cloture tomorrow.
  These new provisions giving extraordinary power to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission are really stunning in their scope and breadth. I 
am rather amazed that there has not been more outspoken opposition to 
this, in more predictable quarters, when States rights are involved.
  I mentioned earlier the issue of health. I pointed out that dirty air 
from outside our State impacts our air quality. It is a major cause of 
asthma and may play a role in the development of that disease.
  An estimated 86,000 of Connecticut children have asthma that's 10.4 
percent of the children in my state. And 7.3 percent of the adult 
population, approximately 180,000, have it as well. I represent a small 
State, about 3.5 million people. These are significant numbers.
  The fact that this bill rolls back the provisions on air quality is 
going to mean that people in Connecticut are going to suffer. If for no 
other reason, this bill ought to be sent back.
  We are going to debate Medicare in a few days and talk about how to 
keep down costs. Asthma doesn't go away. In fact, there is nothing 
worse than an adult onset of asthma. I know because my wife has it and 
she didn't have it as a kid. It is crippling. Anybody who has it or has 
a family member with it knows what I am talking about.
  There is time left to do this bill right. I hope this institution 
would take a moment to do so.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________