[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 170 (Friday, November 21, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15326-S15335]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003--CONFERENCE REPORT

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

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

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there will now 
be 60 minutes equally divided between the chairman and ranking member 
of the Energy Committee, and the final 10 minutes will be divided with 
the first 5 minutes under the control of Senator Bingaman and the final 
5 minutes under the control of the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. 
Domenici.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we are in the final hour of debate on 
probably one of the most important policy issues to come before this 
Senate in a good number of years. The Senator from Nevada has talked 
about the quality of the debate and the detail of the debate. 
Certainly, that is true.
  I yield to the chairman of the committee, Senator Domenici.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Senator yield to the Senator from 
New Mexico?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield to the chairman of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to make sure that we understand 
the timing. I asked Senator Craig if he would come to the Senate floor 
so I could give him some time. I wonder if 5 minutes would be enough.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, what we are attempting to do for the 
American people is allow them, their country, and the energy sector of 
our economy to get back into the business of producing energy. We may 
well be faced with some of the highest natural gas prices that any 
consumer will have paid in the United States this winter. If we have a 
cold winter, it will be time for those who are paying exorbitant energy 
bills to ask a fundamental question: Why? Why is the public policy of 
this country driving up our energy bills? Why is not there a public 
policy that begins to put this country back into the business of 
producing energy?
  Our historic wealth, in large part, has been based on an abundance of 
high-quality, low-cost energy in all kinds of forms.
  The Energy Policy Act of 2003 continues that most important economic 
legacy for this country--to assure that we continue our traditional 
energy sources but with new technologies and cleaner approaches; that 
we invest money in new technologies so that the next generation of 
Americans can have the same abundance of energy that I have had and 
that my father had before me.
  It would be an absolute tragedy if in the fine ticking of all of the 
issues within this very large bill someone collectively decides to vote 
against it because, if they do, they ought to go home and try to 
explain why in February or March of this year their constituents are 
continuing to pay ever increasingly higher rates, or why there was a 
blackout in the Northeast this year, or why the brownouts in California 
a few years ago, and why gas prices at the pump are at an average 
historic high.
  There are sound answers to all of those questions. But, more 
importantly, the Energy Policy Act of 2003 begins to address resolution 
of those questions, bringing those prices down overall and creating a 
greater abundance.
  We have also stepped out in a variety of new areas, including new 
nuclear technologies, new fuels approaches, and new hydrogen technology 
which our President was very daring to talk about--a new surface 
transportation fuel future, hydrogen. We have set about the technology 
and the planning and the design for all of those types of new 
approaches.
  I say to the Senator from Alaska, his State is one of the largest 
energy producers of all of our States.
  This bill clearly gives companies the ability to come in and invest 
and bring literally trillions of cubic feet of gas to the lower 48 that 
will offer help in bringing down those high prices.
  We created the incentives. We have allowed them to invest in the 
marketplace and to get a good return on their investment.
  This is a truly comprehensive bill. There is no question that we have 
spent literally the last 5 years in attempting to design an Energy bill 
that will fill all of the needs of this country, and to restructure and 
refine the existing energy sector of our country especially in the 
electrical area.

  This has a new electrical title much different from the one before. 
Compromises were made. I stood in the Senate a year ago and offered an 
amendment to take the electrical title out because of its controversy 
and its impact on the Pacific Northwest. Today we have changed that. 
Today we have said all areas of the country can grow and develop and we 
will work to build an interconnectivity between those regions of the 
country that will, hopefully, disallow the kind of problems we had in 
the Northeast this summer and certainly begin to address the inability 
of California to produce its energy needs.
  All of those issues are bound up in this bill. Yet some of our 
colleagues have picked a very small piece of this bill, less than one-
half of 1 percent of the total impact of this bill, and have said that 
is the problem, that is the destructive character of the bill. That is 
why some Members oppose it.

[[Page S15327]]

  This is a very good piece of work. It brings our country back into 
energy production. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and allow 
the Senate to move toward final passage for this critical piece of 
public policy.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Vermont.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont is recognized for 
4 minutes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, America needs an energy policy, but not 
this one. This bill fails to provide a realistic, sustainable energy 
plan for America's future. Observers have called this Energy bill 
``three parts corporate welfare and one part cynical politics.'' They 
call it a complete waste of energy and say it fails to address the fuel 
and power needs of the average American. They are absolutely right.
  The bill includes environmental rollbacks. It threatens public 
health. It weakens consumer protections against electricity market 
manipulation. It gives out billions of dollars in subsidies to fossil 
fuel and nuclear industries. The rollback of three of our most 
fundamental environmental laws--the Clean Air Act, the Drinking Water 
Act, and the Clean Water Act--is terrible environmental policy.
  This bill allows more smog pollution. This bill exempts all oil and 
gas construction activities from the Clean Water Act. The Senate's 
renewable portfolio standard requiring utilities to generate 10 percent 
of their power from renewable sources by 2020 was struck from the bill.
  What we needed was a bill to decrease our energy dependence on 
foreign oil, but this bill will not conserve a drop of oil. We need to 
protect our consumers, our public lands, and our public health. 
Instead, this bill weakens protections. We need to give a boost to the 
renewable energy sector, but instead the bill is a kickback to the 
fossil fuel industry.
  We now need to do the right thing and oppose cloture. We need to 
spend more time developing the right energy policy for America.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am excited about the opportunity we have 
today to finally, after a number of years, come forward with a broad, 
encompassing policy for energy.
  We ought to give a little thought to where we will be in the future 
as individuals, as families, think about the energy we use, the energy 
we need, where it will come from. Our demands go up, yet we do not 
really have a policy.
  Nothing is more important to the economy than having accessible 
energy and jobs. This bill creates a great number of jobs. It is a 
policy on conservation. It includes the types of equipment we use. It 
includes renewables, with a good many dollars spent for renewables. We 
talk of alternative fuels. We talk of hydrogen. We talk about domestic 
production.
  It does not roll back the economy despite what is being said on the 
floor. It does conserve. We have conservation methods included. What is 
most important in terms of the environment is a good deal of research 
for coal development so we can have energy from our largest fossil 
fuel, coal, and do it in a way that is clean for the air. We will hear 
that it amounts to politics regarding MTBE, which is a very small 
aspect of this.
  We need to have an energy policy for our country. We must have an 
energy policy. Now is our opportunity to have an energy policy. 
Certainly we ought to at least be able to vote to have an up-or-down 
vote on this issue.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
the time be charged equally.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, I would like to speak on 
the bill.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator withhold his suggestion 
of a quorum?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I withhold my request.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I will speak for the bill.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as a member of the energy committee who 
has worked very hard with both the distinguished Senators from New 
Mexico, Mr. Bingaman and Mr. Domenici, as well as the former chair from 
Alaska, Senator Murkowski, trying to fashion a bill that balances the 
great interests of every region of this country, I am proud to come to 
the Senate and urge my colleagues to vote for this Energy bill.
  There are provisions that should be in this bill that are not. There 
are many aspects of this bill that I would have written differently 
myself. However, the fact is, as any member on the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee can state, we have had hours and hours, maybe 
hundreds of hours, of hearings on how we create a more reliable 
electricity structure in this Nation, how we try to use our great 
natural resources in a better fashion to help create the energy this 
country needs to be more independent and more economically competitive.
  I come from the State of Louisiana, which is a net exporter of 
energy. We do a lot of energy production in Louisiana, not just in oil 
and gas but cogeneration. We have municipal as well as private 
companies, public companies, municipal generators of electricity. We 
drill for a lot of oil and gas. We are not a mining State in that 
sense, like the West, but we mine our resources and we do a much better 
job than we did 10 years ago and a heck of a lot better job than 20 or 
30 years ago. Why? Because the United States has some of the toughest, 
most stringent environmental laws in the world when we take our coal 
out of the ground or when we drill off our shore. The Shell Oil company 
told me last year if they put all the oil they spilled off the coast of 
Louisiana in a container, it would not fill up the bottom fourth of a 
barrel.
  There are people in the Senate who think we cannot mine our resources 
in a way that protects our environment. Do we have a perfect system? 
No. Is it one of the best in the world? Absolutely. So this Senator and 
this Democrat is for using our natural resources in a way that helps 
meet the energy demands of this Nation.
  This country consumes more energy per capita than any nation in the 
world. As far as I am concerned, we have an obligation to produce it. 
Some Members think we can consume, consume, consume and not produce 
anything. One of the most extraordinary aspects about this bill is 
streamlining of regulations, trying to untie people's lands so we can 
appropriately extract natural resources, clean our coal, have good 
technology off our shores, and use that money to invest in our 
environment.
  People say the Senator from Louisiana is on the floor because 
Louisiana gets money out of this bill. The State gets some help. We 
deserve some help because for 50 years we have sent over $140 billion 
of this Nation's treasury off the shores of Louisiana. That is not 
pocket change.
  We have saved the redwood forests, and we have funded the whole land 
and water conservation funding for the Nation. Now we have an 
opportunity to take a portion of that money and save the wetlands of 
America. It is not Louisiana's wetlands. This is the largest delta in 
the continental United States, and it is in crisis. It is washing away. 
The chairman from New Mexico came to see it. He does not need to read a 
book or anything about it; he has seen it.
  So, yes, we have some resources, a tiny percentage of the money that 
comes out of the great natural resources of the Gulf of Mexico, not to 
give this Senator any special project, because I sure do not have any 
special sweet deal. The deal I have cut for my State, which the Senator 
knows, is to save these wetlands, where migratory birds for the whole 
Nation go, and fisheries off the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, from the 
east coast to the west coast.
  So there are lots of good things in this bill. I know we have 
problems with MTBE. I know we have problems. I am

[[Page S15328]]

very disappointed in the hydrogen section that would have helped us 
move to hydrogen cars. I am very disappointed. The ranking member 
fought very hard for renewable portfolio standards, and I am 
disappointed that his language was stripped out.
  But I can tell you, the chairman from New Mexico has fought like a 
tiger to get a balanced bill. The fact is, we are not divided Democrat 
against Republican; we are divided regionally.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know people have come down here and 
complained about standard market design. I realize the Senators from 
the Northeast are concerned about the language that has been put in 
this bill. But I will tell you, the reason the language has been put in 
the bill like this is that there are Southerners who are generating a 
lot of electricity. Why? Because we are drilling, and we are producing, 
and we are building plants in the South. And I will be darned if our 
ratepayers have to pick up the tab to ship that electricity to the 
Northeast. They need to be doing a better job of building plants and 
laying down pipelines.
  I have more pipelines in Louisiana per capita than any State in the 
Union. If you took an x-ray of the country, you would be shocked. Like 
a little skeleton, you could see the pipelines under Louisiana. We 
cannot build any more. And do not believe we are taking the gas from 
those pipelines. We are sending it all over the country. We are happy 
to. But we cannot pay for all of it. We have to share the costs in an 
appropriate way.
  So I say to my Democratic colleagues, when they say there is nothing 
in the bill for Democrats, may I please remind them there is no 
drilling--30 more seconds--there is no drilling in this bill in ANWR.
  Mr. McCAIN. Regular order, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator yield 30 seconds?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. I say to the Senator, we are not using your time.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
  There is no drilling, in this bill, in ANWR, which I know the 
President fought very hard for and this Senator thought might be 
reasonable, but the majority wasn't there.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you. I urge Democrats and Republicans to support 
cloture on this bill.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from 
Louisiana, I am very pleased I got to know you in the past year and a 
half. I do not think we would have had a chance to meet each other but 
for the energy crisis. I visited your State. And everything you have 
said today, and on the floor time after time, about what is going to 
happen in your State because of what is happening to the water line is 
true. We can kill this bill and kill that. You know how long you have 
been waiting for it.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Fifty years.
  Mr. DOMENICI. And you are going to wait 60 more because there is 
nobody going to pass another bill like this with these kinds of things 
in it for a long time. Why do I know that? Because I have been through 
it. And every time we just about get there, somebody has some 
objection, and we have a big hole, it all falls in, and nothing gets 
done.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, thank you for your effort. I 
appreciate it.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Arizona 6 
minutes.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I had an opportunity earlier this week to 
speak about this bill, but I think so much is objectionable in this 
legislation that I am compelled to expend a little more energy on it.
  I have listened to my colleagues' statements, and I have yet to hear 
any plausible, substantiated argument in support of ethanol. Even my 
colleagues from corn-producing States who have indicated they support 
this bill have not been able to identify one benefit ethanol provides 
the American taxpayers, who pay dearly for it--including the taxpayers 
in those corn-producing States.
  Ethanol is a product that would not exist if Congress did not create 
an artificial market for it. No one would be willing to buy it. Yet 
thanks to agricultural subsidies and ethanol producer subsidies, it is 
now a very big business--tens of billions of dollars that have enriched 
a handful of corporate interests, primarily one big corporation, Archer 
Daniels Midland.
  Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase 
our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality. Let me repeat: 
Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase 
our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality.
  As far as reducing fuel consumption is concerned, it requires 70 
percent more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than it provides 
when combusted. There is actually a net energy loss from the use of 
ethanol. There is nothing about ethanol that will increase our energy 
independence. More energy is used in the production of ethanol, and it 
has reduced the amount of gasoline consumed in the United States by 1 
percent.
  Ethanol does not improve air quality. In fact, doubling the amount of 
ethanol, as required by this bill, will most certainly degrade air 
quality. A National Academy of Sciences report in 2000 found that 
oxygenates, meaning ethanol and MTBE, can lead to higher nitrous oxide 
emissions, which contribute to higher ozone levels in some areas.
  That means in large cities, such as Phoenix, AZ, air quality 
degradation could be increased under this legislation. The residents of 
my State already suffer due to the impact of a lingering brown cloud. I 
dread the effects of this bill--doubling our national use of ethanol--
on my town and communities across this Nation.
  The American public has to pay a lot of money not only in taxes but 
at the pump for all these negative impacts on the national economy, the 
country's energy supply, the environment, and public health. The total 
cost of ethanol to the consumer is about $3 per gallon, and the highway 
trust fund is deprived of over $1 billion per year to the ethanol 
producers.
  Plain and simple, the ethanol program is highway robbery perpetrated 
on the American public by Congress. I maintain you cannot claim to be a 
fiscal conservative and support the profligate spending and corporate 
welfare in this bill.
  Mr. President, I will talk just for a minute about another problem I 
had with this bill, the way it was developed. A secretive, exclusive 
process has led to a 1,200-page monstrosity that is chock full of 
special interest giveaways and exemptions from environmental and other 
laws that, frankly, cannot withstand the light of scrutiny.
  I mentioned one such provision earlier. It is a glaring example of 
corporate favors. Section 637 carves out a very special deal for a 
consortium of energy companies, predominantly foreign owned, called 
Louisiana Energy Services, which would allow it to construct a uranium 
enrichment plant in a small town in New Mexico at taxpayers' expense--
to the tune of $500 million to $1 billion. This is not your ordinary 
pork project; it is in a class almost by itself.
  Louisiana Energy Services has had some serious difficulties getting a 
license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and for good reason. 
One major British partner of this group was fired by the Department of 
Energy from a $7 billion cleanup contract due to safety and financial 
failures. Even more disturbing, the major French partner, Urenco, has 
been associated with leaks of uranium enrichment technology to Iran, 
Iraq, North Korea, and Pakistan. One high-level U.S. nuclear security 
administrator stated:


[[Page S15329]]


       [T]o have this company operate in the U.S. after it was the 
     source of sensitive technology reaching foreign powers does 
     raise serious concerns.

  There is significant reason to believe the NRC would not issue a 
license to this group of companies. And communities in other States did 
not want the LES facility in their backyard.
  This bill gives LES a helping hand in New Mexico. The criteria for 
NRC licensing and the time period for review have been modified to make 
it easier and quicker for LES to get a license. Opportunities for 
challenges on environmental or other grounds would be severely 
restricted. And if you are wondering how sweet it could possibly get 
for this company, the uranium waste from the plant would be 
reclassified as low-level radioactive waste and the cost of disposal 
would be borne by the Department of Energy--the taxpayers of America.
  Furthermore, there isn't any disposal method or site currently 
available. This provision, which was inserted in conference at the 
eleventh hour, is the epitome of corporate welfare. Allowing foreign 
companies with questionable reputations to circumvent longstanding 
environmental and nuclear regulations is simply wrong.
  Let me quote from a few of the many editorials opposing this bill. I 
have never seen anything quite like this level of agreement in 
newspapers representing all regions of the country. In fact, I have yet 
to see a single editorial in favor of this, although I am sure there is 
one.
  The Philadelphia Inquirer:

       . . . what most Americans were looking for was an energy 
     bill that protected their interests. . . . Instead they got 
     this unbalanced, shameful mess.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the Senator an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. McCAIN. From the Chicago Tribune:

       Neither the contents nor the process for cobbling it 
     together suggest this is the type of energy legislation this 
     country needs.

  The Denver Post:

       . . . the most pernicious pork got added in conference 
     committee. Congress should start over next year.

  Mr. President, let's put this up against the backdrop of a $500 
billion deficit we are facing this year, with 12 percent growth of the 
Government. Don't call yourself a fiscal conservative and vote for this 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Who yields time?
  Mr. CRAIG. How much time remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen minutes to the Senator from Idaho, 
and 20\1/2\ minutes for the junior Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. CRAIG. Do you want to go to another speaker?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Washington, Ms. 
Cantwell.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I know we have had a healthy debate on 
this issue and in a few minutes we will probably have one of the 
closest votes this body has seen in a while. But I want to make one 
point clear this morning. This vote is about whose side you are on: 
Whether you are on the side of ratepayers and consumers in making sure 
we have a national energy policy that works or whether you are going to 
give in to the special interests who are at this very moment trying to 
put last-minute deals on the table, ripening other bills with projects 
that will convince Members to switch over at the last minute instead of 
standing up for the public.
  When the Vice President started this effort, he said, ``We are going 
to have a national energy policy,'' quoting from his report that a lot 
of people took pride in, thinking that somehow this administration was 
going to play a leadership role in an energy policy for the 21st 
century.
  In that report, the Vice President said:

       It envisions a comprehensive long-term strategy that uses 
     leading edge technology to produce an integrated energy, 
     environmental, and economic policy to achieve a 21st century 
     quality of life, enhanced by renewable energy and a clean 
     environment. We must modernize conservation, modernize our 
     infrastructure, increase energy supply, including renewables, 
     accelerate the protection and improvement of our environment, 
     and increase greater energy security.

  That is what the Vice President's goal and objectives were. 
Unfortunately, this bill cannot defy gravity. It is so weighted down 
with special interest pork subsidies and things that Americans are 
going to be shocked to see that this bill needs to fail.
  We have all heard about the subsidies in the wrong place, $23 billion 
in incentives, mostly going to the fossil fuel industry. We have heard 
about the exemptions for Texas. Here it is that we are trying to come 
up with an electricity title that somehow makes everybody else more 
responsible and accountable with electricity, but we are going to 
exempt Texas.
  Also, the overturning of various environmental laws--why is it that 
every other business in America, whether a high-tech firm or a farmer, 
has to comply with environmental laws, but somehow we are going to let 
new construction of oil, gas, and coal out of the mandates of the Clean 
Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and some of 
our rules on public lands?
  As I said yesterday, one of the biggest tragedies of this bill is the 
missed opportunity for jobs. We could have gotten language in this bill 
that would have provided for a natural gas pipeline out of Alaska that 
would have benefited many in this country as far as job creation is 
concerned. It would have benefited many of us in the Northwest in 
getting off our overreliance on hydro energy.
  We missed an opportunity in planning for the hydrogen economy; 
750,000 jobs could have been created in the next 10 years by having a 
vision. Not just one line in a State of the Union speech about a 
hydrogen car, but instead a plan with specifics and incentives so the 
United States could be a world leader in the hydrogen fuel economy. 
That is not what is in this bill.
  I woke up this morning to read in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer 
online an article that was entitled ``The Energy Bill, It Would Be A 
Hoot, If It Wasn't So Sad.''
  In that article it says :

       Vice President Dick Cheney, whose secretive energy task 
     force crafted much of the energy bill in consultation with 
     industry executives, is coming to our Washington next month 
     for a GOP fundraiser.

  I would advise the Vice President not to come and talk about his 
energy policy in the Northwest.

       Curiously, the Senate yesterday debated the energy bill and 
     its subsidies in a virtual media blackout.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 4 minutes.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I ask for an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. We yield the Senator an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. CANTWELL. This bill hasn't gotten the attention it deserves. But 
one thing is clear: Members are going to be held accountable for whose 
side they are on. The energy policy of this administration has fleeced 
Northwest ratepayers from essential dollars and now this bill 
promulgates that policy further by giving in to special interests. This 
bill should fail.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time so as not to 
take away from the time allotted to those who still wish to speak.
  America needs a comprehensive national energy plan that increases our 
energy independence, that creates jobs, that lowers energy prices for 
consumers, and that is environmentally and fiscally responsible.
  We have been trying in the Senate for 3 years to pass such a plan.
  Regrettably, this is not that plan.
  This plan will move America forward in some ways. But it falls far 
short of a comprehensive approach to America's energy needs. In fact, 
it does not even attempt to address some of our most pressing problems. 
And it is extremely generous to a variety of special interests.
  I am greatly disappointed by the number of opportunities we are 
missing here.
  This bill fails to significantly reduce America's growing dependence 
on foreign oil.
  Today, our Nation imports 60 percent of our oil, much of it from some 
of the most volatile and dangerous areas on Earth. Over the next 10 
years, the United States is expected to consumer roughly 1.5 trillion 
gallons of gasoline.
  The Republicans in the House and Senate who wrote this conference 
report actually rejected measures that

[[Page S15330]]

would have reduced our dependence on foreign oil.
  They rejected efforts to mandate oil savings.
  The authors of this conference report also rejected a common-sense 
plan to address America's projected natural gas shortage.
  They killed tax incentives needed for construction of a pipeline to 
bring natural gas from Alaska to the lower 48 States.
  The provision, which was contained in the Senate passed bill, was 
dropped in conference. And, when Senator Bingaman offered a motion in 
conference to restore it--in the one meeting of Conferees to discuss 
substantive issues--that motion was defeated on a straight party line 
vote, with the seven Republican Senate conferees voting against it.
  The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline would have been the largest 
construction project ever in this country. It would have brought down 
35 trillion cubic feet of known natural gas reserves on the North Slope 
of Alaska. Right now, we are paying to pump that gas back into the 
ground because there is no way to get it to the American consumers who 
need it.
  The pipeline would also have created 400,000 good jobs and used an 
estimated 5 million tons of U.S. steel. It would have reduced our 
dependence on foreign oil by bringing Alaska gas directly to the 
Midwest.
  This conference report also fails to address the problems that led to 
the catastrophic energy crisis California experienced, and the blackout 
that left nearly one-third of the country without electricity this past 
summer.
  In addition, this bill actually repeals existing consumer 
protections--and does nothing to prevent a repeat of the Enron schemes 
that cost consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, this bill 
could make such schemes more likely by tying the hands of regulators.
  This bill fails to include a renewable portfolio standard that would 
diversify America's sources of electricity. The Senate-passed energy 
bill includes a requirement that 10 percent of America's electricity 
come from renewable sources, such as wind and solar. This would 
increase our energy security and create new jobs and opportunities in 
America's rural communities.
  The people who wrote this bill ignored 53 Senators who said this 
provision should be in the final bill.
  Last year, and again this year, the Senate passed energy bills that 
reflected the growing scientific and bipartisan consensus that the 
threat of global climate change is real and, unless we act, will have 
devastating consequences for our children and grandchildren.
  This bill simply ignores that fact.
  Many important provisions that the Senate passed with strong 
bipartisan support are nowhere to be found in this bill.
  But there are many provisions that are in this conference report that 
were not even debated in either the House or the Senate. They were 
simply added in a back room.
  One of the most egregious is the retroactive liability protections 
for MTBE manufacturers.
  Forty-three states have problems with contaminated groundwater as a 
result of MTBE.
  The National Conference of Mayors estimates clean-up costs at $29 
billion. This bill dumps those costs on local taxpayers, by granting 
immunity from liability to the polluters.
  In fact, this bill provides retroactive liability protection to MTBE 
producers dating back to September 5 of this year.
  It is no coincidence that this is one day before the State of New 
Hampshire filed its lawsuit against companies responsible for the 
contamination of groundwater by MTBE.
  The authors of this conference report know that provisions like this 
could not survive open debate. That is why they chose to write this 
bill in secret.
  This process began in secrecy--with Vice President Cheney's energy 
task force. And it ended in secrecy.
  Democrats in Congress were shut out. The American people were shut 
out. That is not the way to debate a matter that is so critical to our 
Nation's security.
  Even with these obstacles, we were able to make some important 
improvements over the bill we were originally given.
  Against great odds, we succeeded in protecting the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling.
  We increased efficiency standards for appliances and machinery, and 
increased investments in research and development of new energy-saving 
technologies.
  This bill also makes an historic commitment to expanding the use of 
renewable energy sources by nearly tripling the use of ethanol.
  This is important to the people of South Dakota and many other farm 
States. And it is important to our national energy security.
  A year and a half ago, President Bush came to South Dakota. We 
visited an ethanol plant in Wentworth. The President said: ``[ethanol 
is] important for the agricultural sector of our economy, it's an 
important part of making sure we become less reliant on foreign sources 
of energy.''
  I agree. I've been fighting for ethanol and other renewable fuels for 
over 20 years.
  Nearly tripling America's use of ethanol will create 214,000 new jobs 
and produce $5.3 billion in new investments in America.
  It will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And it will 
save $4 billion in imported oil each year.
  Ethanol comes from American farmers and producers, passes through 
American refiners, and fuels American energy needs. No soldier will 
have to fight overseas to protect them. And no international cartel can 
turn off the spigot on us.
  I understand and respect my colleagues who oppose this bill. There is 
much in this conference report that is objectionable.
  Despite secrecy, the partisanship and the shortcomings in this bill, 
I will vote to invoke cloture--reluctantly--because America needs to 
improve its energy situation, and I think this proposal takes a few 
small steps forward.
  However, the people who wrote this bill must understand that a vote 
for this bill is not a vote of support for their radical energy agenda 
that some of it includes.
  We can--indeed must--revisit the shortcomings in this bill. We must 
re-examine the MTBE liability waiver, the effects of this legislation 
on environmental laws and consumer protections.
  I intend to press these issues in the next session of this Congress 
and for as long as it takes to get it right.
  So I will vote for this bill. But I tell my colleagues--especially 
those who were involved in its drafting--that this bill could have been 
much better, and the American people deserve better from us in the 
future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I commend to my colleagues the 9th Report 
on Carcinogens 2000, as it relates to MTBE. This report is a product of 
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health 
Service, which says that it is not carcinogenic. It is a true ground 
water pollutant, but there is no indication of a carcinogenic effect.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 14 minutes for the Senator from New 
Mexico, and 15\1/2\ minutes for the other side.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
New York, Mr. Schumer.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this 
legislation, and I have fervent hopes that we will not invoke cloture.
  Mr. President, this bill is bad for what is in it and bad for what is 
not in it. I don't know which is worse. It is bad for what is in it 
because there are so many provisions that don't make much sense that 
are done to help one State or another but don't really add up to a 
national policy.
  It is particularly bad for what is in it because the MTBE provision 
is one of the worst provisions that has come down the legislative pike 
in decades. To tell homeowners who have lost their homes that they 
cannot take a shower, cannot drink the water and, through no fault of 
their own, they are out of luck, that their life savings which they 
invested in their little homes is gone--

[[Page S15331]]

even though the MTBE producers knew the stuff was bad and didn't inform 
anybody--is an outrage.
  Some say the Government authorized MTBE. Then let the Government help 
the homeowners if you don't want to have the oil companies, the MTBE 
producers, be sued. But don't leave tens of thousands today, and 
hundreds of thousands within a few years, of homeowners high and dry. I 
am not a big fan of lawsuits all the time, as my colleagues know. But 
if there were ever a case where lawsuits were justified, it is in this 
case. To cut them off, and to cut them off retroactively, is dastardly.
  In addition, there is no energy policy in this bill. We have had the 
triple storm: we have had 9/11; we have had Enron, we have had the 
blackout. And we do virtually nothing to deal with the aftermath of all 
three of those.
  There is no conservation in the bill. There is no real dealing with 
the Enron excesses. When it comes to the blackout, we take a baby step 
that utilities okayed but not what we have to do. Great nations have 
failed when faced with a crisis and they refused to grapple with it. 
That is what is happening here.
  This bill, whether it passes or fails, will be deeply regretted 5 
years from now for what it does and what it does not do.
  Mr. President, when pork is used to grease a policy along, well, that 
is not good. But when pork is used as a substitute for policy, that can 
be disastrous. I argue that in this case that is what has happened. I 
had wished that we had a real energy policy in this bill.
  My colleagues are all people of good faith. Both Senators from New 
Mexico, the Senator from Iowa, and the Senator from Montana have all 
tried their best. Unfortunately, at a time when America demands a 
thoughtful and far-reaching energy policy, this proposal, instead, 
delivers little bags of goodies to some individuals, not others, and 
says that is a substitute for policy.
  I hope the bill is defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes out of the time 
allotted to Senator Domenici.
  Unlike my colleague and supporter of ethanol, Senator Daschle--and he 
is a big supporter of ethanol--I am not reluctant to vote for cloture 
because if we don't get cloture on this bill, we will never have the 
opportunity to get renewable fuels and the environmental impact of 
those renewable fuels and what it does for American agriculture. This 
is the best thing for renewable fuels and ethanol that we have had 
before this Congress in 25 years.
  This is an opportunity for people to decide: Are they for the farmers 
or are they against the farmers? This bill, for the most part, is very 
good for the green growing regions of the Midwest. The choice is easy. 
This bill contains those production incentives for ethanol, biodiesel, 
and other renewable energy sources--the best ever for Senators from 
other energy-producing regions, such as the gulf States, the Southwest, 
the Rocky Mountains, and the Appalachians. The bill moves the ball 
forward for energy production.
  The Finance Committee has a history in the area of energy-related tax 
policy. Almost one decade ago, my committee put its imprint on a 
comprehensive energy-related tax policy. The bill the committee 
produced strikes a very good balance between conventional energy, 
alternative renewable energies, and conservation.
  I thank Senator Baucus for working with me and every member of this 
committee on its priorities. I also thank the Democratic staff for its 
hard work in helping us put together a bipartisan bill that may now be 
destroyed because of a Democratic filibuster.
  First and foremost, we have an expansion of production credit for 
wind energy. Back in 1992, I was the first to offer this proposal. Now 
we have an important expansion of this production credit to cover, in 
addition to wind, biomass, geothermal, and solar energy. As the 
President has wisely said, as a matter of national security, we need to 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That means all domestic energy 
sources--green or otherwise--are fair game.
  Along those lines, we have a new tax credit for biodiesel fuel that 
is included in this bill. The conference report contains several 
provisions that enhance tax incentives for ethanol production because 
it is a clean-burning fuel that will continue to be a key element in 
our transportation fuel needs.
  We also remove in this bill the prejudice against ethanol for highway 
trust fund purposes by providing a tax credit for ethanol production. 
When we complete our work on the highway bill next year, ethanol fuels 
will pay the full gas tax into the highway trust fund.
  This bill also provides an effective small producer tax credit.
  With this bill, ethanol will be treated as all other energy 
incentives. It will be derived from the general fund. Ultimately, all 
communities, rural and urban, will get more highway money if this bill 
passes. If you care about highway money for your local roads, you 
should vote for cloture.
  There are a number of other good provisions in this bill that benefit 
agriculture, clean coal, and new technologies for gas production. The 
bill, in other words, is balanced with new energy conservation 
measures, as well as alternative renewable fuels.
  We have an opportunity--almost the last opportunity--to do what it 
takes to get this bill passed. We are responding to national 
priorities. There is no going back to the House for another chance.
  I ask all Senators to think long and hard about what this vote today 
represents. This is an historical moment. It is as if we are on the 
last steps of a trail to the top of a big mountain that we have 
climbed. We can either take the next few steps and enjoy the view or we 
can jump off the side of the mountain. There is no going back down the 
trail.
  For Senators from my part of the world, the grain growing regions of 
the Midwest, the choice is easy. This bill contains production 
incentives for ethanol, biodiesel and other renewable energy sources. 
We are for farmers they are against farmers. For Senators from other 
energy-producing regions, like the Gulf States, the Southwest, the 
Rocky Mountains, and the Appalachians, this bill moves the ball forward 
on energy production.
  The Finance Committee has a distinct history in the area of energy-
related tax policy. Almost one decade ago, this committee put its 
imprint on comprehensive energy-related tax policy. Then, as now, the 
bill the committee produced strikes a balance between conventional 
energy sources, alternative energy, and conservation.
  I would like to thank Senator Baucus for working with me and every 
member of this committee on their priorities. I would also like to 
thank the Finance Committee Democratic staff for the hard work they 
have put in to get us here.
  First and foremost, we have an extension and expansion of the 
production credit for wind energy. Back in 1992, I was the first to 
offer this proposal to the Senate. Now, we have an important expansion 
of this production credit to cover biomass, geothermal wells and solar 
energy.
  As the President has wisely said, as a matter of national security, 
we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That means all 
domestic energy sources, green and otherwise, are fair game. Along 
those lines, we have a new tax credit for bio diesel fuels that will be 
included in this bill.
  The conference report contains several provisions that enhance the 
tax incentives for ethanol production. Ethanol is a clean burning fuel 
that will continue to be a key element in our transportation fuels 
policy.
  We remove the prejudice against ethanol for highway trust fund 
purposes by providing a tax credit for ethanol production. When we 
complete our work on the highway bill next year, ethanol fuels will pay 
the full gas tax into the highway trust fund. We are most of the way 
there. This bill also provides an effective small producer tax credit. 
With this bill, ethanol will be treated as all other energy incentives. 
It will be derived from the general fund.Ultimately, all communities, 
rural and urban, will get more highway money if this bill passes. If 
you care about highway money for your local roads, you should vote for 
cloture.
  There are a number of other very good proposals in the conference 
report. They benefit agriculture, clean

[[Page S15332]]

coal, and new technologies for gas production. The bill is balanced 
with new energy conservation measures as well.
  So, to sum up, we have an opportunity to do what we should do. We are 
responding to a national priority, energy security, in a balanced and 
comprehensive way. Let there be no mistake about it, Mr. President. A 
vote against cloture is a vote to stop this bill. There is no going 
back to the House for another chance. There is no going back to 
conference with the House with the leverage the energy-producing States 
had on this bill. As the lead negotiator on the Senate side for the tax 
provisions, let me tell you it was not easy. The Ways and Means 
Committee likes oil--they don't like clean-burning ethanol. It was a 
difficult conference. We will not get this chance again.
  So, for my friends on both sides of the aisle, especially those from 
the Midwest, this is the time to show your cards. You can show whether 
you are with farmers or with other interests.
  As I said, at the start, we are on the last steps of the trail to the 
mountain top. There is no looking back now. A vote for cloture 
completes the journey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. We either pass this bill or the good provisions in it 
for ethanol are lost forever.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Illinois, Mr. Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the ranking member for yielding. I spoke on 2 
successive days on this bill, and I feel strongly about it. I spent 20 
years in Congress supporting ethanol and I believe in it. I think it is 
important to help our farm economy, reduce pollution, and reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil. There is no doubt this bill would greatly 
expand ethanol across America. That is a good thing. It is something I 
support.
  I cannot support this bill. I cannot support this bill because, 
frankly, it is fundamentally unfair and unjust and it is unbecoming of 
the Senate to offer this to America as an energy policy.
  When it comes to energy, this bill is a full-scale retreat. This bill 
fails to include any provisions whatsoever to deal with fuel efficiency 
and fuel economy of the cars and trucks we drive. How can we in good 
conscience stand before the American people and say this is an Energy 
bill for our future and not address the No. 1 consumption of energy, 
oil imported from overseas--the cars and trucks that we drive? Why? 
Because the special interest groups that oppose fuel efficiency and 
fuel economy won the battle. They won the argument. The American people 
were the losers.
  There is another aspect to this bill which troubles me. This bill is 
a full-scale retreat when it comes to environmental protection for 
America. Think about this for a moment. Every major environmental group 
in America opposes this Energy bill. What has brought them all 
together? The fact that in the course of negotiating this bill, those 
few people sat in that secret room, gave away the Clean Air Act, the 
Clean Water Act, access to America's public lands, and the natural 
heritage which we helped to leave to our children. That is what is at 
stake. To walk away from basic environmental protection in the name of 
promoting energy is a bad deal for America's future.
  To think for a moment that we have reached a point in time where 
China--this new developing Nation, China--has more and better fuel 
efficiency standards than the United States of America should be a 
supreme embarrassment to everyone in this Chamber.
  This bill is a gusher of giveaways. We are going to build a nuclear 
reactor. We are going to start building coal mines in some States. We 
are going to build all sorts of shopping centers. It goes on and on. I 
am no babe in the woods. I have served in Congress and on the 
Appropriations Committee long enough to tell you I have an appetite for 
pork like every Member of the Senate and the House, but I have to agree 
with the Senator from New York. If giveaways turn out to be a 
substitute for energy policy, then we have defrauded the American 
public. We need to have leadership on this issue, and we do not.
  The single worst part of this bill, as far as I am concerned, the 
most shameless aspect of this bill is found in section 1502. It is the 
most egregious giveaway I have ever seen in my time on Capitol Hill 
because in a dark room, the people who wrote this conference report 
said to the major oil companies and some major chemical companies that 
they would protect them from liability for the very product which they 
sold, which has contaminated water supplies across America.
  Think about that for a moment. They have said that for families and 
individuals whose health and homes have been damaged by MTBE as a 
contaminant, they are going to close the courthouse doors. They are 
going to lock the doors and say to those families: You are going to 
have to bear these losses and these medical bills on your own. That is 
shameless. To think it is included in here should be enough for every 
Senator to vote against this bill.
  To add insult to this injury, there is a $2 billion Federal subsidy 
for the MTBE producers and industry, not just protecting them in court 
for their wrongdoing but giving them a lavish Federal subsidy.
  What does it come down to? Who are the big winners in this bill? It 
is obvious: Big oil companies, big energy companies, high rollers on K 
Street, and the muscle men on Capitol Hill.
  Who are the big losers in this bill? Families with kids who have 
asthma, who will find more air pollution, which will mean that their 
kids have to stay home from school; families with water supplies 
contaminated by MTBE, which make their homes uninhabitable and they 
have no recourse to go to court to hold these oil companies 
accountable.
  Basically, the biggest loser in this bill is Americans who expected 
more from this Congress, who expected leadership and vision and instead 
have a very sorry work product which should be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields 
time?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on the two sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from New Mexico has 6\1/2\ 
minutes. The senior Senator from New Mexico has 9 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time 
be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we have come to the point of deciding 
whether to vote to send this bill to the President for his signature or 
to effectively set this conference report aside, regroup, and pursue 
another strategy.
  Those of us who are about to vote against cloture do so not because 
we are against having an Energy bill but because we are against having 
this Energy bill. A view has been stated over the last few days that 
this particular conference report, even with its problematic provisions 
and its excess spending, is the only option available if we wish to 
deal with energy problems in this Congress.
  It is argued that if we do not pass this bill today, then energy is 
dead as an issue for this Congress. In my view, that is not a logical 
conclusion to reach. We are not at the end of this Congress. We are 
reaching the midpoint in this Congress. There is nothing magical about 
having to pass energy legislation in odd-numbered years.
  The Energy Policy Act of 1992, which was the last fairly 
comprehensive bill passed through this Congress, was put to final 
passage a few weeks before the Presidential election in that year.
  There is a broad consensus in the Senate for enacting forward-looking 
energy legislation. We know this is true. Three and a half months ago, 
we passed an Energy bill by a margin of 84 to 14. That bill would have 
made 35 trillion cubic feet of Alaskan natural gas available to the 
country, which this conference report would not. That bill would have 
saved twice as much energy as this conference report is projected to 
save. That bill gave a real

[[Page S15333]]

boost to renewable energy in the production of electricity. It took a 
modest first step toward dealing with the reality of global warming. It 
did not undercut the National Environmental Policy Act. It did not roll 
back the Clean Air Act. It did not exempt anyone from the Clean Water 
Act. It was $10 billion lighter on the tax side than this legislation 
before us. It was another $3 billion lighter on the direct spending 
portion of the bill. It did not unfairly shift all of the costs of 
building new electric transmission to consumers who do not get the full 
benefit of that transmission. It did not contain embarrassing tax 
giveaways such as a proposal to build a mall for a Hooters restaurant. 
It was a reasonably good bill.
  I have served on the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for 19 
years. That is longer than any Member of my party in the Senate. I did 
not get on that committee to filibuster Energy bills. I went on the 
committee to pass good energy legislation.
  The reason so many of us believe we should not proceed to pass this 
Energy bill is that many of the provisions that caused the earlier bill 
I referred to to pass with 84 votes 3\1/2\ months ago have been deleted 
in conference and an array of irrelevant and objectionable provisions 
have been added. It is almost as if a calculation had been made that as 
long as we stuck ethanol provisions into the bill and kept provisions 
out that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, 
then there would be 60 votes for passage of the bill and no one would 
look too much at the other details and no one would be concerned about 
the other effects of the legislation.
  Well, we are about to test that proposition. I hope it turns out to 
be wrong. If it turns out to be a miscalculation and cloture cannot be 
invoked on this bill this morning, then our job on energy will not be 
done in this Congress. In fact, this may be an opportunity to get 
things back on a better and a more bipartisan track.
  Both sides have made their share of mistakes in assembling massive 
Energy bills in this Congress and in the last Congress. Yesterday, 
Senator Nickles criticized the process Democrats used in the last 
Congress to move an Energy bill directly to the floor, and many of 
those criticisms were valid. Throughout this Congress and at each 
stage, we Democrats have tried to make a constructive contribution to 
the bill, even in spite of the flawed process that has seemed 
excessively partisan and closed to us and to the public, but now we are 
faced with a choice of voting for or against the bill in its totality. 
Those who oppose cloture, both Democrats and Republicans, choose to do 
so because in its totality the conference report will not lead us to an 
energy future that is secure, clean, affordable, and fiscally 
responsible.
  If this conference report is rejected, I for one will continue to 
push for the enactment of a good, comprehensive energy policy. It may 
be that having tried twice to do so with thousand-page bills and 
failed, Congress should look at smaller legislation.
  I hope this conference report is rejected and, once the dust settles, 
we can find a way to move forward with forward-looking legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 1 minute to Senator Burns.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from New Mexico for 
yielding.
  I want to say one thing, and that is that the general premise of this 
bill is in the right direction. The emphasis is on renewables and 
things we can do that are good for the environment and still produce 
energy. All this other chaff and dust that has been kicked up around it 
that gives opponents such a move in the right direction can be dealt 
with later, but the general premise of the bill is good because a 
balance is there in the areas in which most of us really believe.
  Let us not take our eye off the ball. Let us move it on down the 
field under a premise of developing a policy and a way to not only deal 
with the environment but also produce energy.
  I tell my colleagues, we can deal with those things that are 
objectionable at a later time, but we must move in this kind of a 
direction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Has Senator Burn's minute expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first of all, there are a lot of people 
to thank for getting us where we are. We are a long way from where we 
started. I want to thank them. In particular, on the Democratic side I 
thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana--from the very 
beginning; thank you very much for all your help and all the others who 
put a lot of work into this.
  I regret very much the statements that this bill was done in privacy 
and secrecy, in some way different in terms of a conference than most 
conferences around here. But I would like to tell the Senate, energy is 
a big hole in the Congress. Energy policy is a big hole, and we keep 
dropping problems in it but we never solve them.
  Everyone talks about conservation and renewables, but we happen to be 
talking about those and production. As soon as you start talking about 
production, somebody produces and they are certainly not nonprofit 
corporations. So as soon as you say ``produce and we'll give you an 
incentive,'' you are ``giving money to big companies.'' You are giving 
it to companies who will do the job and wouldn't otherwise do it.
  I want to repeat, for everybody, the history. Last year we could not 
write a bill in committee. Think of that. My good friend, Senator 
Bingaman, talks about how poorly we conducted ourselves. They couldn't 
write a bill in committee. So we wrote it on the Senate floor. Do you 
all remember that? We were down here, humiliated that we had to write 
an Energy bill on the Senate floor because we couldn't write it in 
committee.
  Then what happened? We went to conference with the House. And, boy, 
if it was ever a storybook conference, it was wide open. And it took 
month after month, and guess what happened, Senator Burns--zero. 
Nothing was done. So there is another one, the big hole sucked it up. 
But we did it right. We had a conference. We had it open.
  This Senator decided that to do it that way would yield nothing. For 
the first time I decided that we should write the bill differently and 
we should circulate it differently. Most of this bill was put on the 
Internet. In fact, that is the first time in history that a conference 
report was on the Internet. Anybody who wanted to read this bill had 
weeks and weeks to read all but the last 15 percent. It was on the 
Internet. It was delivered to every single office. If you didn't read 
it, that is not my fault. Then for the last part we gave the opposition 
48 hours' notice on the Internet to everybody.
  Do you know, this bill was more discussed by the press, piece by 
piece, than any conference report in the history of America? You will 
never find a conference report that is reported piecemeal in the media 
of America.
  So where was the clandestine bill? Everybody knew about it. The 
problem is, just as before, the Democrats didn't like it. Yet they 
offered amendments. For not knowing anything about it, the 
distinguished Democrat leader offered 21 amendments, or at least he had 
them ready. We discussed them. The fact they didn't win them, does that 
mean the bill is no good? What would you expect when you go to 
conference? I heard somebody say we should have passed the 15 or 20 
percent mandates for renewables. Yes, we should have. We did in our 
committee. But what do you know about it, the House said no. Not only 
``no,'' but ``absolutely no.'' So what do we do, throw the bill out? Of 
course not.
  We have the most powerful renewable provisions in history.
  I want to tell everybody the true facts. We have worked harder for 
the farmers of America than anybody in history. The farmers who are 
looking to see who is for the farmers, once and for all, you can look 
to the Republicans, not the Democrats; for the Democrats are leading a 
parade to kill the most important provision ever thought up for the 
farmers. The Republicans are here, trying to get it done.

[[Page S15334]]

Senator Grassley stood in a corner with his arms out, put on the armor 
and said, ``It will be this way or we don't have a bill.'' We got it. 
And guess what. We are just about to throw it away.
  If I were the farmers of America, I would ask: Who threw it away? And 
they are going to all know, the people who killed this bill threw it 
away. And guess what. Over the last 3 or 4 days, an array of people who 
build wind energy and solar energy in America walked up to our office. 
Incidentally, Senator Grassley, before they opened their mouth about 
the bill, they thanked you because they said all significant wind 
energy will stop if this bill is not adopted. They didn't say ``tone 
down; we will come down at half mast.'' They say it stops, because wind 
energy is predicated upon the credits in this bill, the most 
significant credits in history; solar energy, the most significant 
credits in history. Renewables will go faster and farther with this 
bill than they ever have.
  But I don't believe you can leave here today having voted, especially 
if you vote to kill this bill, and walk out and tell people: Oh, don't 
worry, we will take care of the farmers next week. Next week is not 
going to come because I am aware of what it is. You will not get this 
ethanol bill through the House again. So it is gone and there are some 
people walking around liking that. Some people have a smile on their 
face. But I tell you there is no way to get this ethanol bill through 
the House. I can't imagine another format where Senator Grassley can do 
what he did and we get this issue out of conference and here.

  Then we have all the other things in this bill that we thought were 
interesting and good for America. They are all falling by the wayside 
because, for the first time, people have brought an issue called MTBE 
to the floor and talked about it. The United States House said we ought 
to hold harmless the product called MTBE--just the product, not people 
who spill it, not people who cheat with it, not people who, instead of 
putting it in cars pour it on somebody's lawn--we didn't protect those. 
We just said the product is OKed by the Environmental Protection 
Agency, approved by the U.S. Government, and whether I liked it or not, 
the House said let's hold them harmless for the product itself.
  Frankly, I am just beginning to read some stories about the lawsuits 
on MTBE. In fact, if we had another day at it, I would give you some 
that would shock you as to what is going on in the United States with 
these MTBE lawsuits. I can tell you there is one in one State--we got a 
message on it. Somebody is walking around trying to drum up the 
lawsuits. It happens to be the chairperson of the bar association of 
the State. She went to one city that wrote us a letter and said: We 
told her we are not interested. As far as we know there is no problem 
in our city with MTBE. Go someplace else and look for your lawsuits. 
Precisely what I said yesterday--precisely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. In addition, if you like blackouts, then you vote to 
kill this bill because this bill provides a clear, absolute remedy for 
blackouts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. I think the majority leader is here. 
I yield at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. Leader, on leader time I just have very brief closing 
comments.
  I thank the chairman and the ranking member. They have done a superb 
job.
  Several issues have come up. I want to make it clear that this vote 
is the vote on the Energy bill and on the energy provisions. People 
have envisioned that there will be other votes, other opportunities; 
that if this bill has not passed, we can address some of these issues 
later in some other form.
  First, some have made a procedural argument that if cloture is not 
invoked this morning, we can simply recommit the bill to conference and 
strip out a provision or two provisions and then bring it back to the 
Senate.
  Everybody needs to understand that is not an option. The other body, 
the House, has already approved the conference report and therefore the 
conference committee has been dissolved. It has been dissolved. There 
is no motion to recommit available. So this is the vote. If you are for 
a comprehensive Energy bill, you need to vote for cloture. This is the 
vote.
  Second, there has been some speculation, people have mentioned on the 
floor, if we do not pass this conference report we will pull out this 
provision or that provision and enact them separately. I wanted to 
dispel that idea as well. We are not going to pull apart pieces of this 
conference report and pass them separately. We are not going to do it. 
We are either going to pass this Energy bill now or the individual 
provisions that many Senators favor are not going to become law. It is 
as simple as that. I just use the example of ethanol because, as 
everybody knows, I joined the Democratic leader in offering the ethanol 
amendment on the Senate floor earlier this summer.
  I have to say it very clearly that this Energy conference report is 
the vehicle for ethanol. We are not going to enact that as a stand-
alone. We are not going to attach ethanol to another vehicle. To the 
Senators who favor this strong ethanol provision that we have in this 
conference report--this is the vote. You vote for cloture if you want 
to see it actually enacted into law. It is important for people to 
understand.

  In closing, this is a good bill. It is a balanced bill. It will make 
America more secure. It will make America more energy independent, and, 
as we all have talked about, it will create jobs. We should pass it 
now. We should send it to the President. The first step right now with 
this vote is to invoke cloture.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, pursuant to rule XXII, 
the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate to the conference 
     report H.R. 6, the energy policy bill to enhance energy 
     conservation and research and development, to provide for 
     security and diversity in the energy supply for the American 
     people, and for other purposes.
         Bill Frist, Pete Domenici, John Cornyn, Mike Crapo, Larry 
           Craig, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Michael B. Enzi, Mike 
           DeWine, Christopher Bond, Robert F. Bennett, Trent 
           Lott, Pat Roberts, Jim Bunning, Mitch McConnell, 
           Richard G. Lugar, Norm Coleman, Conrad Burns.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the quorum call is 
waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 6 shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), and the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 456 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--40

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Corzine
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham (FL)

[[Page S15335]]


     Gregg
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Edwards
     Hollings
     Kerry
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). On this vote, the yeas are 57, the 
nays are 40. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which cloture was not invoked.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the vote, prior to switching my vote for 
procedural reasons, was 58 to 39; thus, two votes short for invoking 
cloture. As I said just prior to the vote, America needs a 
comprehensive national energy policy, and we need it now. Congress has 
been debating this energy issue for a long time, for nearly 3 years. It 
is now time for us to stop talking and to deliver to the American 
people.
  I truly believe the bill before us, that the chairman and the other 
members on the Energy Committee have worked so hard to produce, is a 
fair bill. It is a balanced bill. It addresses everything from future 
blackouts to the whole discussion on development of a wide range of 
reliable energy resources. Now is the time for us to act.
  I am very disappointed that we are, at this point, two votes short; 
that we are facing another filibuster on a very important policy for 
the American people. I do want to let colleagues know that this will 
not be the last vote that we have on this bill. We are going to keep 
voting until we pass it so we get it to the President's desk. We will 
have at least one more vote before we leave the early part of next week 
on stopping this filibuster. I don't know when that vote will be, but 
we will have at least one more vote. I hope we will respond at that 
time by giving the American people the energy security, the economic 
security, and the job security that they deserve.

                          ____________________