[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.
____________________