[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3065-3073]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001--Continued

  Mr. REID. For the information of all Senators, Senator Daschle has 
indicated he would like a vote about 4:30 this afternoon. So everyone 
should arrange their schedules accordingly. This vote is on the 
Campbell amendment. Senator Campbell has asked for the yeas and nays. 
They have been ordered. Unless there is a change by the two managers of 
the bill, we will have that vote about 4:30 this afternoon. We will 
have announcements at a later time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. What is the pending business?


                           Amendment No. 3007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is No. 3007, offered by the 
Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I rise to speak in favor of the amendment of my 
colleague from Colorado.
  Is there a time agreement or allocations on the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is none.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I rise to speak in favor of the amendment put forward 
by my colleague from Colorado, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, on the 
vehicle scrap provision that is in the underlying energy bill.
  The Senator from Colorado has hit it right. This program is not a 
good idea. It is not a good idea to put forward Federal funds to 
purchase used cars as a way of trying to improve fuel efficiency. This 
is unproven, not wise, and expensive in the process. Plus, by the 
number of calls and letters we have been getting in my office, a lot of 
people do not think it is a very bright idea to go with this program. 
They do not see the benefits. A number of car enthusiasts think this is 
a program aimed at getting at them.
  This provision creates a federally funded program giving grants to 
States to establish scrappage programs for vehicles 15 years or older 
or pursue repairs to improve fuel economy. Owners who turn in such 
vehicles receive a minimum payment and future credit toward purchasing 
a new vehicle, meeting certain DOE guidelines.
  The stated intent is to retire fuel-inefficient vehicles, the first 
program of its kind. All prior State scrappage programs sought to 
address poor emissions. The provision requires a vehicle to be 
scrapped, not stripped for parts.
  To make a couple of points, this provision has no guaranteed 
environmental benefit. Vehicle scrapping requires States neither to 
determine the

[[Page 3066]]

fuel efficiency of vehicles being scrapped nor to certify that scrapped 
vehicles are replaced by more fuel-efficient vehicles. A carowner could 
scrap an older but more fuel-efficient compact car and replace it with 
a newer but less fuel-efficient vehicle. While revisions have been made 
to address this problem, the fundamental issue remains: There is no 
guarantee that the scrapped car is actually replaced by a more 
efficient one. That is point one.
  Under this provision, cars rarely or never driven, vehicles that have 
minimal or no impact on overall fuel economy, may be turned into scrap. 
DOE would be required to pay and give credit to carowners for these 
cars, although they are just sitting there.
  This provision could possibly hurt low- and fixed-income families and 
individuals. Even if, as proponents claim, section 822 did improve 
emissions somewhat, the program will definitely create a burden on the 
used car market and the low- to middle-income families who buy them.
  If the vehicles are scrapped, then their parts are destroyed. A 
reduced supply of older auto parts translates into an increased demand 
for these parts, raising the cost for anyone who desires to responsibly 
maintain his or her older vehicle. Low- and fixed-income car occupiers 
who cannot afford to purchase a new DOE-approved vehicle are affected. 
I don't think the authors of this provision desire that sort of 
feature. That is the likely impact.
  If the Department of Energy gets into a State grant program and buys 
up a bunch of older used cars, it will drive up the market price for 
the cars. That is not an impact we want on lower or moderate-income 
families, or families seeking to buy a first-time car for a younger 
member of the family. They should not be competing against the 
Government for that car, nor should they compete against the Government 
for replacement parts for that car because the older vehicles are being 
scrapped.
  Vehicle scrappage hurts small business by encouraging the destruction 
of older, and in some cases vintage, cars and the parts necessary for 
maintenance. This provision would have a detrimental effect on the 
automotive industry on aftersales. After the new car is sold, there is 
a huge industry that supports the auto industry in the automotive sales 
after the original sale; 98 percent of that business is comprised of 
small businesses.
  The potential cost of the program to taxpayers is unclear. Certainly 
the benefits are unclear, but the costs are unclear. This provision 
states neither how much DOE will pay for each scrapped vehicle nor the 
value of the credit toward a new vehicle purchase. The State programs 
do not offer a clear precedent. The State of California Bureau of 
Automotive Repair pays $1,000 for each donated car. However, this 
program addresses the State's poor air quality, not fuel efficiency. 
Moreover, no State provides interested car donators with credits toward 
the purchase of new cars. This vehicle scrap program does not meet its 
own intended goals. It hurts low- and middle-income families who are 
the predominant buyers of used cars or families buying for first-time 
car users.
  It is the wrong way to dedicate our Federal resources. We all want a 
better environment, but this is not the way to achieve it. I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of the Campbell amendment to take out this 
provision.
  This impacts a lot more people than what might appear on the surface. 
It has broad impact for the public. It is not being well-received by 
the public. We are getting a number of calls and letters in our office 
saying this is a bad idea for a program. It seems highly controversial 
and questionable in its ability to impact in a positive way fuel 
efficiency. With the lack of support from the public, this provision 
should be scrapped--not the vehicles.
  For that reason, I call on my colleagues to vote for the Campbell 
amendment.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken to the managers of this 
legislation and, as a result of that, I ask unanimous consent that at 
4:20 p.m. this afternoon there be 10 minutes of debate in relation to 
Campbell amendment No. 3007, equally divided between Senators Campbell 
and Bingaman prior to the 4:30 vote in relation to the amendment, with 
no second-degree amendments in order prior to that vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Campbell in 
opposing section 822 of S. 517, which is pending. I support the 
amendment by Senator Campbell to strike that. The section creates a 
federally funded program requiring States to establish scrappage 
programs for vehicles 15 years and older, or pays such car owners to 
improve the fuel economy. Owners who turn in such vehicles receive the 
minimum payment and a future credit towards purchasing a new vehicle 
that meets certain DOE guidelines.
  The section's stated intent is to retire inefficient vehicles. This 
is really the first of its kind. All prior State scrappage programs 
sought to address primarily poor emissions standards.
  Who is affected by this? Although section 822 is a voluntary program, 
everyone who opts in is penalized. A reduced supply of auto parts 
translates to increased costs to everyone who wants to responsibly 
maintain their older vehicles. Since section 822 disproportionately 
impacts or penalizes low-income and fixed-income vehicle owners, car 
owners who cannot afford to purchase a new Department-of-Energy-
approved vehicle are particularly affected by the increased costs of 
parts as they translate to increased maintenance as the car grows 
older.
  Section 822 would have a detrimental impact on small businesses. Mr. 
President, 98 percent of the aftermarket parts industry are really 
small businesses. Some people would refer to them as car yards, yards 
and so forth. But particularly for young people growing up and people 
on modest income, that is where they get their parts.
  Section 822 does not require States to determine the fuel efficiency 
of vehicles being scrapped, where scrapped vehicles are being replaced 
by more fuel-efficient vehicles. A car owner could scrap an older but 
more fuel-efficient compact car and replace it with a newer but less 
fuel-efficient vehicle.
  Section 822 would require the Department of Energy to give credit to 
car owners who turn in cars that are rarely or never driven--vehicles 
that have minimal or no impact on overall fuel economy.
  Further, this section requires the States to create a program that 
provides public notification of the intent to scrap and allow the 
salvage of ``valuable parts'' from the vehicle without providing for 
the costs or the regulation of this operation; determines the 
registration, operational status, and repair needs of vehicles as well 
as the dissemination of funds for these procedures; and provides 
reports on the program's fuel efficiency to the DOE.
  Since we have spent a good deal of time here on safety and costs, 
what about the cost? We don't know what the cost to the taxpayer will 
be.
  Section 822 requires all U.S. taxpayers to pay for some to purchase 
new cars. It does not state how much the DOE will pay for the vehicle 
or the value of the credit towards the purchase of the new vehicle.
  No State currently provides new car buyers with ``credits'' towards 
the purchase of new cars. Since there is no precedent concerning 
``credits'' and section 822 provides no guidance, no one knows the 
total cost to the U.S. taxpayers.
  Section 822 would establish the voluntary repair programs for 
vehicles without detailing guidelines or costs of those repairs.
  I am told there are over 38 million cars 15 years old or older on the 
roads right now. Current State programs currently pay $1,000 for each 
donated car.

[[Page 3067]]

This translates into at least $38 billion in potential Department of 
Energy costs for scrappage payments alone and does not include repair 
or purchase incentive costs included in the provisions of this section.
  As Citizens Against Government Waste states:

       This provision has all the symptoms of developing into a 
     costly government program that can be handled far more 
     efficiently and inexpensively by the private sector.

  What we have here is an effort to take the older cars that are paid 
for off the road--not because of concern over emissions but rather a 
concern over taking away parts availability of these cars as a 
consequence of removing them from the highways.
  A lot of collectors and others who want to have good used cars 
clearly look upon this as an intrusion of the Federal Government into 
their own privacy which they treasure.
  I support the amendment by Senator Campbell, which is section 822 of 
the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think this energy bill is critically 
important. The whole question of how we consume and produce energy in 
relationship to the environment is critically important, especially in 
my State of Minnesota at the other end of the pipeline where we import 
our oil in barrels and natural gas, and we export our dollars.
  I will be in the Chamber talking about energy policy a lot, 
especially as we focus on renewables and clean fuel.
  I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Wellstone are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry: Mr. President, are we still on 
the bill and on an amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is on the energy bill and on 
amendment No. 3007 by Senator Campbell.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have no amendment to offer at this 
time, but I ask unanimous consent that I be given up to 7 minutes as in 
morning business for some comments on the economy, which is indirectly 
related to the energy bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair and thank the Senate.
  (The remarks of Mr. Domenici are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I was in the office when the 
electricity portion was discussed. First, I compliment the staffs who 
worked so hard to reach an accord, Senator Bingaman and his staff, our 
staff. The adoption of the bipartisan package of amendments was a good, 
encouraging start in this long process to resolve the electricity 
issue. I have long advocated moving forward to promote competition in 
the electric power industry. Competition certainly benefits consumers, 
increases supply, helps reduce the cost of power.
  I have long promoted the three guiding principles for good electric 
legislation: To deregulate where we can, streamline where we can, and 
not interfere with the States protecting retail customers.
  It would be appropriate to basically underline what we have been able 
to accomplish. I also thank a number of my colleagues. Senator Craig 
Thomas, particularly, had the initiative under the leadership's 
guidance to coordinate this for the minority. I want to take a few 
minutes to recognize what we were able to do from what the underlying 
bill addressed.
  Under section 202, mergers, there was a concern. The concern was that 
it would be a major expansion of FERC authority over traditional State 
matters with no time limit on FERC review and action. By this 
bipartisan effort, we were able to come up with a solution. The 
solution reduces the expansion of FERC authority, raises the threshold 
for FERC review of asset sales from $1 million to $10 million, excludes 
from FERC review acquisition of generation that is under State 
jurisdiction, and establishes procedures for expedited action on merger 
applications.
  Secondly, under section 203, the market-based rates, there was a 
concern that it gave FERC broad authority to take ``any action''--that 
startled a lot of people--any action to initiate unjust rates, 
including divestiture and mandatory RTO participation. It specified six 
specific factors FERC must use when granting/revoking market-based 
rates which possibly intrude on State ratemaking.
  Again, the question was the broad authority to take any action. What 
we did in the solution was FERC can only fix the rate itself, if found 
to be unjust. And the six specific criteria modified to be three 
general criteria that FERC can use if FERC considers them to be 
relevant. So we took the authority from any action and conditioned it. 
If they found it to be unjust, then they have the authority to fix it.
  The other one in section 204, refund effective date: The concern was 
the provision created an open-ended period for FERC to act to establish 
a ``refund effective date.'' Refunds, of course, might never go into 
effect. The solution was: Restore existing law which provides a 5-month 
window for FERC to establish the refund effective date.
  Section 205, transmission interconnections: The concern there was 
whether it gave FERC authority on its own motion to order construction 
of transmission and sale of electricity. It didn't have to be requested 
by a third party.
  Eliminated protections in existing law--Bonneville, for example--and 
their retail wheeling issue: A solution to that was to strike section 
205 entirely. We eliminated that concern.
  Section 209, access to transmission by intermittent generators: The 
concern there was: Gave transmission subsidies to ``intermittent'' 
generators; created a presumption that intermittent generators do not 
create any reliability problem; did not allow utilities to recover all 
costs of transmitting electricity for intermittent generators. The 
solution: Eliminate transmission subsidies; eliminate presumption on 
reliability; ensure that utilities recover all transmission costs.
  The next section was 241, real-time pricing: The concerns: Did not 
include time of use metering. The solution was: Add time of use 
metering.
  Section 245, net metering: The concern there was: Establishing a 
Federal net metering program that preempted 35 existing State net 
metering programs. The solution was: Convert PURPA section 111(d) 
requirement that State PUCs and nonregulated utilities consider the 
Federal standard.
  Section 256, State authority: The concerns there were: Preempted 
State consumer protection laws and regulations to the extent they are 
inconsistent with FTC regulations. The solution was: Eliminate 
preemption.
  Section 263: The concern is: Required the Federal Government to 
purchase renewable power--regardless of the cost. That was somewhat 
contentious. The DOD needs to spend money on the war--not renewables. 
The solution was: ``Best efforts'' only to purchase renewable power.
  So we went from a mandate requiring the Federal Government to 
purchase renewable power, regardless of the cost, to a solution that 
was to use the best efforts only to purchase renewable power.
  I thought that explanation was in order because there are a lot of 
terms and technology involved here. I think it is meaningful that we 
have a solution and we have a bipartisan agreement.
  I thank my colleague, the Senator from New Mexico, and others who 
were active in this, including the professional staff who worked so 
hard to achieve it.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 3068]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2995

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thought I would take a moment to speak 
about an amendment that has already been accepted. I was very proud to 
offer this amendment along with Senator Domenici and Senator Craig 
yesterday. I thank the chairman for his leadership in this effort. 
Because the time was short yesterday and we really did not get to 
present the amendment, I thought I would say a few words about it while 
we have time pending a vote.
  This amendment by Senator Domenici, Senator Craig, and myself says it 
will contribute to the strengthening of this bill.
  It says that as we develop our nuclear reactors in the future, they 
will be designed with new technologies that look very promising, not 
only to make our nuclear industry more powerful and more effective, but 
also to create the opportunity to produce hydrogen which can help us in 
meeting our energy needs.
  I will explain for the record why this is so important.
  As most Members know, nuclear energy now provides one-fifth of all 
the electric power used in this country. I do not think that is clear 
to everyone in the United States. Some people think we have shut our 
nuclear industry down or that we have shut our nuclear powerplants 
down. That is not true. The truth is, 20 percent of the power we use in 
this Nation is generated by nuclear energy.
  Nuclear power produces energy without compromising air quality and 
without dangerous reliance on fuel exports from politically unstable 
regions of the world.
  When we look a few years into the future, the projected demand for 
increased electric power is staggering. That is one of the reasons we 
are considering this legislation: because the demand for power and the 
demand for energy is far outpacing our ability to produce it. Because 
we have different views about production, we have conflicting views 
about conservation; that does not mean the demand, or the challenge, is 
going to go away.
  It means we have to work harder to find solutions, and this is one 
solution. According to the Energy Information Administration, by the 
year 2020 the U.S. will need, under current trends, 400,000 megawatts 
of additional electric power capacity. That is the equivalent of 400 
new coal plants or gas-fired plants to be built in this country before 
the year 2020.
  I am in no way opposed to burning coal. We are doing it in a much 
cleaner and better way for our environment. I am obviously not opposed 
to domestic natural gas production or imported natural gas. That also 
meets our new environmental standards. We have to meet some of this 
demand, but for environmental and energy security reasons we cannot 
completely rely on these sources.
  Just to maintain the existing proportion of nonemitting nuclear power 
in our energy mix, we will have to construct 50 nuclear plants. So we 
have to build more nuclear powerplants, and our amendment helps to 
build them in the right ways.
  It is clear to this Senator that the environmental and energy 
security benefits of nuclear power are so compelling that not only must 
we ensure the continued operation of our existing plants, but we must 
also encourage the construction of new plants in this country to help 
meet this extraordinary demand.
  Let me be very clear, when push comes to shove, we have a very short 
list of energy options for the foreseeable future: oil, natural gas, 
coal, nuclear, hydropower, conservation, and renewables such as solar 
and wind. All of these have substantial roles to play in our future 
energy mix, but none of these by themselves is enough to address the 
huge demand that is facing us.
  Again, that is one of the compelling reasons, if not the principal 
reason, that we are fighting to shape an energy bill that will meet 
this demand. Why? Because it is important our economy continue to grow 
so we can be not only the great military power we are, but the greatest 
economic power as well.
  Nuclear power is perhaps unique in this list in that there is a large 
potential for expansion in the relatively near term with little 
downside in terms of environmental damage or an increase in our 
reliance on foreign sources. Furthermore, as many Members are aware, 
there is an exciting next generation of nuclear reactors being 
developed which take a good product and make it even better.
  These reactors, which should be available by the end of this decade, 
are meltdown proof, substantially more efficient than the old 
generation, produce less high-level waste, and are more proliferation 
resistant than existing reactors. That, in this post-September 11 day 
and age, is a goal we need to be mindful of. We need to be mindful that 
this material in the wrong hands could cause a lot of trouble, a lot of 
destruction, and that is why this new design is exciting.
  Indeed, one of these designs, the gas turbine modular helium reactor, 
is even designed to be built underground and therefore better suited to 
the threats that now present themselves post-September 11.
  The Federal Government should work closely with the nuclear industry 
and with our utilities to see that these new reactors live up to the 
claims being made about them and that they are brought to market as 
soon as possible.
  Let me turn now to another aspect with which our amendment attempts 
to address. We have spent a great deal of time this morning speaking 
about the transportation sector, CAFE standards, and what we can do to 
make our transportation sector more efficient. All of those are very 
important issues. But one of the most interesting solutions that might 
be found as we develop a new generation of nuclear powerplants is the 
byproduct of these new plants--hydrogen.
  The administration recently announced some interesting facts 
regarding the development of a new generation of hydrogen-powered car. 
They call it the freedom car. But we should be mindful that we could 
call it the freedom truck, the freedom bus. This is not only about 
cars.
  Every Member probably realizes the importance of ultimately changing 
the coinage of the energy and transportation sector from oil to 
something else. Although we are an oil- and gas-producing State, and I 
am proud of the oil and gas that we produce, we know even in Louisiana 
that the future calls for a greater mix, and the new nuclear reactors 
could really be what we need in terms of freeing ourselves from 
imported oil.
  Our recent engagement in the Middle East and the festering 
instabilities there, make it very clear the sooner we wean ourselves 
from imported oil the better. Hydrogen, either through direct 
combustion or through fuel cells, seems to have all the hallmarks of an 
ideal, non-polluting fuel for transportation that might ultimately 
supplant imported oil. However, the President's announcement and much 
of the subsequent excitement seems to miss one very important question: 
Where are we going to get the hydrogen in the quantities necessary to 
fuel the cars or trucks or buses on our Nation's highways in the 
future?
  Please remember that hydrogen is not an energy source. Hydrogen is an 
energy carrier. It must be produced by either splitting water or 
reforming fossil fuels. Right now, industrial scale quantities of 
hydrogen are produced from natural gas or other fossil fuels, but it 
does not make sense from an environmental or energy security point of 
view to produce hydrogen from fossil fuels. What progress would we be 
making if we go down that road?
  So what is the alternative? Fortunately, nuclear power is offering to 
us an alternative, a very promising way to produce large amounts of 
hydrogen required to move towards a hydrogen economy in the relatively 
near term.
  The more promising way to produce hydrogen is to utilize the next 
generation of nuclear reactors that operate at much higher 
temperatures. The higher

[[Page 3069]]

temperatures of these reactors make possible a process called 
thermochemical water splitting. The process has received only minor 
research dollars in this country but has received substantial research 
dollars in funding from other parts of the world, including Japan.
  Thermochemical water splitting is very promising as it is 
environmentally benign and has a very high rate of efficiency. Indeed, 
it is up to 50 percent more efficient in converting the heat of a 
reactor into hydrogen energy.
  The amendment we have offered and that has been accepted recognizes 
the importance of developing a next generation of reactors that is 
safer, more economical, more proliferation resistant, and creates less 
waste. It also recognizes the importance of developing hydrogen 
production capabilities with the next generation of nuclear reactors.
  The promise of a hydrogen-based transportation sector is indeed very 
exciting. As the chairman has pointed out on numerous occasions, it is 
the transportation sector demand that is driving our dangerous and 
unwise, in my opinion, reliance on foreign oil imports. We must begin 
to free ourselves from that relationship, and this amendment, with the 
underlying technology, gives us a real opportunity, not in 50 years, 
not in 20 years, but within the next few years, in this decade, to 
begin exploring new technologies that keep our environment clean, that 
give us the freedom we deserve and we expect, and also is well within 
our economic means of achieving.
  It is very exciting, but unless we plant the seeds of a realistic 
means of producing the large scale amounts of hydrogen required, this 
dream will never be realized. Based on the acceptance of this 
amendment, I think the Senate has decided that the next generation of 
nuclear powerplants we are going to have to build in this Nation anyway 
could provide that answer.
  It has been a great pleasure working on this amendment with my 
colleagues and being part of this energy debate.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me congratulate my colleague, the 
junior Senator from Louisiana, on her amendment. I think the 
realization of what the advanced technology would mean, particularly on 
high-level nuclear waste in recovery of hydrogen for a number of 
purposes, including fuel cells and others, is something that would tend 
to focus in on high-level waste, and would have a potential value there 
that may lead us to recognize it is not sufficient to just concentrate 
on burying this waste.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 10 minutes 
of debate on the amendment of the Senator from Colorado. Who yields 
time?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may have 1 minute to compliment the Senator from 
Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will take it off of our time.
  I commend the Senator for her recognition of the value of high-level 
nuclear waste and the utilization of it.
  I also commend the Senator from Louisiana on her bioenergy amendment, 
which we have accepted. This amendment expands the authorization for 
bioenergy research to include biochemical processes that can create 
certain replacements. There is promising research in these areas. It is 
wise to continue to work on this. We support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from 
Louisiana for these two amendments. I am a cosponsor of both. On a 
bigger scale than that, we are both from oil and gas States. Yet the 
Senator has taken a position that it is not just oil and gas that make 
up the future for the United States. We have to look at a variety of 
alternatives.
  The Senator has done a superb job working on nuclear issues. The two 
proposed amendments on nuclear issues are clearly relevant. We are 
moving ahead in those areas in the appropriations process. The Senator 
will have the assurance that both are covered by appropriations if, 
indeed, Senator Bingaman and the others bring it back from conference 
with the amendments.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I appreciate those remarks. The Senator from New Mexico 
has been an extraordinary leader in this field of nuclear energy.
  I compliment the industry. The Senator from New Mexico understands 
that the oil and gas industry has been, in the last couple of years, 
broadening its horizons and outlook in welcoming these new sources of 
energy. They are turning themselves from oil companies to energy 
companies, from gas companies to energy companies, opening up 
possibilities for new sources of energy.
  I commend the industry and hope this bill that Senator Domenici has 
worked on so hard will compliment the work in the private sector to 
help this country get to the freedom we need from imported sources so 
we can set our own destiny.
  I am proud to be a sponsor of this amendment and others like it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I compliment the Senator from Louisiana also for her 
amendment earlier agreed to. We worked hard with her and her staff to 
be sure this amendment could be included in the bill. I am glad it is 
in the bill.
  What is the regular order?


                           Amendment No. 3007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a vote at 4:30 with respect to the 
Campbell amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes thirty seconds on the Senator's 
time and 2 minutes for the Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have Senator 
Smith of New Hampshire added as a cosponsor of this amendment, and I 
yield myself the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Colleagues, section 822 is a bad idea. Under section 
822, we are going to allow the DOE to give grants to take 15-year-old, 
and possibly more, fuel-efficient cars, which would rarely be driven, 
off the highways and then turn around and offer another grant of 
taxpayer-funded money to people who want to purchase a new car which 
may be less fuel efficient than the ones to be taken off the highway 
and will probably be driven more because they are newer.
  How do we sell that under the guise of fuel efficiency? States have 
the ability to have scrappage programs--many do. Some offer between 
$1,000 and $2,000 per car to be scrapped. In the suggested grant to 
take older cars out of circulation, if one-fourth of the 38 million 
cars 15 years or older were funded, it would cost taxpayers $19 
billion. Maybe I am missing something, but I did hear we have lost our 
huge surplus of last year and may, in fact, be in deficit this year. It 
seems to me we have a better place to use our money. This is not the 
time to spend $19 billion.
  The authors of the section 822 say it is voluntary, but who will turn 
down a potential $1,000 to turn in an old car and another $1,000 of 
taxpayer money to buy a new one when someone else is paying?
  I ask my colleagues to vote down section 822 at 4:30.
  As Senators, we have an obligation to make decisions based on 
information. Here, the authors of section 822 are asking you to make a 
decision based on no information because no studies or hearings were 
ever held that would legitimize the Federal subsidization of car 
scrappage programs.
  Again, the authors of 822 argue that compelling states to establish 
scrappage and repair programs to get older cars off the road is a 
voluntary program. Further, they argue that some states already have 
scrappage programs.

[[Page 3070]]

  Well, if States want scrappage programs then they should be able to 
establish their own--why should the Federal Government have any role in 
that which States can do already do?
  Furthermore, the authors of section 822's reliance on some states 
choosing to establish scrappage program is misleading. Current state 
programs seek to address poor emissions quality, a serious health 
concern.
  Section 822 assumes that older cars have poor fuel efficiency and 
creates an expensive carrot and stick approach to compel states and 
individuals to participate in a completely new and untested program.
  In any event section 822 does not provide any means testing ensuring 
that only fuel inefficient vehicles are scrapped. Therefore, a 1986 
Ford Escort getting 41 city miles per gallon would be treated the same 
as a Cadillac Seville of the same year that gets a mere 17 miles per 
gallon. The only qualifying criteria would be that they are both 1986 
automobiles.
  The authors of section 822 state that no one is penalized, that only 
individuals choosing to participate would be affected. Yet, the truth 
is that everyone is captured by this program.
  The reduced supply of car parts translates to increased costs for low 
and fixed income people who cannot afford to buy a federal government 
subsidized, DOE approved vehicle.
  Further, there are 38 million cars that could be affected. If just 
one quarter of those owners chose to get $1,000 for scrapping their 
car, and then another tax payer subsidized $1,000 credit to buy a new 
DOE approved vehicle, the total cost to all U.S. taxpayers, whether 
they ``volunteer'' to participate or not, would be $19 billion.
  Well, that seems to be a lot of money--that's because it is. I would 
have my friends note that at no time did the authors of section 822 
state that this provision would not be terribly expensive. They didn't 
defend their measure as fiscally responsible because they don't know if 
it is or not.
  The authors argue that they ``fixed'' their provision by requiring 
the states to hold a public notification of the intent to scrap 
vehicles and then provide for parts salvage. How will a state possibly 
manage that, and what will it cost the federal government? Again, we 
don't know.
  A few short hours ago, my friend Senator Bingaman stated, ``I don't 
see why it is in the public interest to strike a provision that enables 
the Secretary of Transportation to pursue this to the extent that the 
Appropriations Committee puts funds in to support the program.'' 
Normally, we know how much money something costs before we buy it.
  I ask you not to buy this ill conceived Federal subsidization 
scrappage program of old cars and welfare for the wealthy. Section 822 
will hurt the most vulnerable of our citizens, hurt small businesses, 
and hurt U.S. taxpayers.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, as I indicated, I am disappointed 
the Senator from Colorado felt obligated to offer this amendment. 
Having heard his concerns and the concerns of others, I urge all 
Senators to support his amendment. My view is this is not an amendment 
that justifies having a vote on the Senate floor, but he is insisting 
on one, so evidently we will go through it and have a rollcall vote and 
bring all Senators to the floor to vote for the amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. If our colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not 
need a recorded vote, we do not, either. If he is willing to accept 
this amendment, I am sure the minority would, too, and I ask unanimous 
consent to vitiate the recorded vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, before we do the voice vote, which I 
gather is what the Senator from Colorado would like on his amendment, 
let me read some provisions or sections of a letter we received from 
the Automotive Service Association.
  This is a letter to Senator Daschle, dated February 25, an 
organization with 15,000 members nationwide. It has 300 members in 
Colorado, my colleague's home State. It says:

       Dear Senator Daschle: I want to thank you for your efforts 
     on behalf of the automotive aftermarket in the development of 
     Senate Bill 517, the energy policies act of 2002.
       The Automotive Service Association is the largest and the 
     oldest trade association representing independent automotive 
     repair facilities in the United States. . . .
       Your revised Section 832, Assistance for State Programs to 
     Retire Fuel-Inefficient Motor Vehicles, includes both a 
     repair and recycling facilities. This assists mechanical and 
     coalition repair facilities. Quite frankly, many of these 
     older vehicles would not receive fuel-efficiency related 
     repairs without some incentive. This legislation will provide 
     the opportunity for these vehicles to receive the necessary 
     maintenance.
       Allowing the salvage of valuable parts enhances competition 
     in the parts marketplaces as well as makes sense for the 
     environment.
       We appreciate the efforts that you and Chairman Jeff 
     Bingaman have made to alleviate many of the concerns our 
     industry has had with this legislation. We support the bill 
     and look forward to a continued working relationship with you 
     and your staff.
       ASA is contacting automotive repairers in South Dakota and 
     New Mexico to inform them of your efforts.

  Signed by Robert Redding, Jr., on behalf of the Automotive Service 
Association.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this entire letter be printed 
in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I believe this is good public policy to 
enact, along the lines we have talked about here. But since my 
colleague and others have indicated concern about including it in the 
energy bill, I have no problem with it being deleted.
  I urge all Senators to support the amendment of the Senator from 
Colorado.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                               Automotive Service Association,

                                   Bedford, TX, February 25, 2002.
     Hon. Tom Daschle,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: I want to thank you for your efforts 
     on behalf of the automotive aftermarket in the development of 
     Senate Bill 517, the Energy Policy Act of 2002.
       The Automotive Service Association is the largest and 
     oldest trade association representing independent automotive 
     repair facilities in the United States. These collision, 
     mechanical and transmission small business members are 
     located in all fifty states and several foreign countries.
       Your revised Section 832, Assistance for State Programs to 
     Retire Fuel-Inefficient Motor Vehicles, includes both a 
     repair and recycling option. This assists mechanical and 
     collision repair facilities. Quite frankly, many of these 
     older vehicles would not receive fuel-efficiency related 
     repairs without some incentive. This legislation will provide 
     the opportunity for these vehicles to receive the necessary 
     maintenance.
       Allowing the salvage of valuable parts enhances competition 
     in the parts marketplace as well as makes sense for the 
     environment.
       We appreciate the efforts you and Chairman Jeff Bingaman 
     have made to alleviate many of the concerns our industry has 
     had with this legislation. We support the bill and look 
     forward to a continued working relationship with you and your 
     staff.
       ASA is contacting automotive repairers in South Dakota and 
     New Mexico to inform them of your efforts.
           Sincerely,
                                            Robert L. Redding, Jr.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time and 
urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Mexico yield back 
his time?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3007) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page 3071]]




                           Amendment No. 3009

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have an amendment with reference to an 
Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research. I send it to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3009.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To establish an Office within the Department of Energy to 
   explore alternative management strategies for spent nuclear fuel)

       On page 123, after line 17, insert the following:

     SEC. 514. OFFICE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL RESEARCH.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) before the Federal Government takes any irreversible 
     action relating to the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, 
     Congress must determine whether the spent fuel in the 
     repository should be treated as waste subject to permanent 
     burial or should be considered an energy resource that is 
     needed to meet future energy requirements; and
       (2) national policy on spent nuclear fuel may evolve with 
     time as improved technologies for spent fuel are developed or 
     as national energy needs evolve.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Associate director.--The term ``Associate Director'' 
     means the Associate Director of the Office.
       (2) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the Office of Spent 
     Nuclear Fuel Research within the Office of Nuclear Energy 
     Science and Technology of the Department of Energy.
       (c) Establishment.--There is established an Office of Spent 
     Nuclear Fuel Research within the Office of Nuclear Energy 
     Science and Technology of the Department of Energy.
       (d) Head of Office.--The Office shall be headed by the 
     Associate Director, who shall be a member of the Senior 
     Executive Service appointed by the Director of the Office of 
     Nuclear Energy Science and Technology, and compensated at a 
     rate determined by applicable law.
       (e) Duties of the Associate Director.--
       (1) In general.--The Associate Director shall be 
     responsible for carrying out an integrated research, 
     development, and demonstration program on technologies for 
     treatment, recycling, and disposal of high-level nuclear 
     radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, subject to the 
     general supervision of the Secretary.
       (2) Participation.--The Associate Director shall coordinate 
     the participation of national laboratories, universities, the 
     commercial nuclear industry, and other organizations in the 
     investigation of technologies for the treatment, recycling, 
     and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 
     waste.
       (3) Activities.--The Associate Director shall--
       (A) develop a research plan to provide recommendations by 
     2015;
       (B) identify promising technologies for the treatment, 
     recycling, and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
     radioactive waste;
       (C) conduct research and development activities for 
     promising technologies;
       (D) ensure that all activities include as key objectives 
     minimization of proliferation concerns and risk to the health 
     of the general public or site workers, as well as development 
     of cost-effective technologies;
       (E) require research on both reactor- and accelerator-based 
     transmutation systems;
       (F) require research on advanced processing and 
     separations;
       (G) include participation of international collaborators in 
     research efforts, and provide funding to a collaborator that 
     brings unique capabilities not available in the United States 
     if the country in which the collaborator is located is unable 
     to provide for their support; and
       (H) ensure that research efforts are coordinated with 
     research on advanced fuel cycles and reactors conducted by 
     the Office of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology.
       (f) Grant and Contract Authority.--The Secretary may make 
     grants, or enter into contracts, for the purposes of the 
     research projects and activities described in this section.
       (g) Report.--The Associate Director shall annually submit 
     to Congress a report on the activities and expenditures of 
     the Office that describes the progress being made in 
     achieving the objectives of this section.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I introduce an amendment creating a new 
DOE Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research. This new Office would 
organize a research program to explore new, improved national 
strategies for spent nuclear fuel.
  Spent fuel has immense energy potential--that we are simply tossing 
away with our focus only on a permanent repository. We could be 
recycling that spent fuel back into civilian fuel and extracting 
additional energy. We could follow the examples of France, the U.K., 
and Japan in reprocessing the fuel to not only extract more energy, but 
also to reduce the volume and toxicity of the final waste forms.
  It is too bad we did not start with this emphasis and organization 
within the last 15 or 20 years. But we were on a path that said under 
no conditions would we do this. We thought it would add to the 
nonproliferation potential. We thought we would set an example and 
nobody would do it, so we would not produce any additional plutonium.
  What happened is we stayed in our rut, thinking it was going to be 
worldwide, while other countries decided ours was a rather imprudent 
policy and they have proceeded. I just enumerated the countries that 
have done that.
  I support continued progress at Yucca Mountain and appreciate the 
President's decision to move ahead toward licensing of it as our 
Nation's first permanent repository for high level waste. But, I have 
frequently suggested that our single-minded focus on this ``solution'' 
for spent fuel does not serve our Nation well. It is simply not obvious 
that permanent disposal of spent fuel is in the best interests of all 
our citizens. It's even less obvious to me that we should equate the 
terms ``spent fuel'' and ``waste.''
  Since Yucca Mountain can't accommodate all the spent fuel from our 
current generation of nuclear plants, we clearly either need a better 
solution or more repositories. Given the level of local public support 
enjoyed by Yucca Mountain, I don't think any of us should relish the 
prospect of creating more Yucca Mountains.
  Depending on our future demands and options for electricity, we may 
need to recover the tremendous energy that remains in spent fuel. And 
strong public opposition to disposal of spent fuel, with its long-term 
radio toxicity, may preclude use of repositories that simply accept and 
permanently store spent fuel.
  If the research program led by this new office is successful, we can 
recover the residual energy in spent fuel. And we could produce a final 
waste form that is no more toxic, after a few hundred years, than the 
original uranium ore. I was very pleased that the President 
specifically endorsed these studies of reprocessing and transmutation 
in the national energy policy.
  I am well aware that reprocessing is not viewed as economically 
practical now, because of today's very low uranium prices. Furthermore, 
I fully recognize that it must only be done with careful attention to 
proliferation issues. But I submit that the U.S. should be prepared for 
a future evaluation that may determine that we are too hasty today to 
treat spent fuel as waste, and that instead we should have been viewing 
it as an energy resource for future generations.
  We do not have the knowledge today to make this decision. This 
amendment establishes a research program to evaluate options to provide 
real data for such a future decision.
  This research program would have other benefits. We may want to 
reduce the toxicity of materials in any repository to address public 
concerns. Or we may find we need another repository in the future, and 
want to incorporate advanced technologies into the final waste products 
at that time. We could, for example, decide that we want to maximize 
the storage potential of a future repository, and that would require 
some treatment of the spent fuel before final disposition.
  This amendment requires that a range of advanced approaches for spent 
fuel be studied with the new Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research. It 
encourages the Department to seek international cooperation. I know, 
based on personal contacts, that France, Russia, and Japan are eager to 
join with us in an international study of spent fuel options.
  It requires that we focus on research programs that minimize 
proliferation and health risks from the spent fuel. And it requires 
that we study the economic implications of each technology.

[[Page 3072]]

  With this new Office and its research program, the United States will 
be prepared, some years in the future, to make the most intelligent 
decision regarding the future of nuclear energy as one of our major 
power sources. Maybe at that time, we'll have other better energy 
alternatives and decide that we can move away from nuclear power. Or we 
may find that we need nuclear energy to continue and even expand its 
current contribution to our nation's power grid. In any case, this 
research will provide the framework to guide Congress in these future 
decisions.
  Mr. President, while I have the floor, I also want to speak briefly 
to three other amendments on nuclear energy issues, presented by my 
colleagues, Ms. Landrieu and Mr. Craig. I greatly appreciate their 
interest in this important technology. I strongly support these 
additional amendments and am a cosponsor of each one.
  Ms. Landrieu has two amendments. One notes the important role that 
hydrogen may play in future transportation strategies for the nation, 
either directly as a fuel or in fuel cells. Either of these approaches 
could lead to a transportation sector that is virtually emission free. 
This is a great vision, but it depends on, among several challenges, 
identification of a cheap reliable supply of hydrogen.
  Hydrogen can either be made from water using electricity, or from 
several chemical processes involving heat. Senator Landrieu's amendment 
asks that the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative specifically explore 
the use of nuclear reactors for hydrogen production.
  Reactors are well suited to such a challenge. They could supply 
electricity in off-peak hours. Or, some types of advanced reactors 
would provide an ample heat resource. In fact, in Japan, their research 
on one form of advanced reactor is focused on hydrogen production.
  Her second amendment encourages the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 
explore licensing issues, which may arise with advanced reactor 
designs. Her legislation would allow the NRC to pursue this research 
without tapping income collected from licensees, through use of 
appropriated funds. This is a good idea, and one that is already 
encouraged in the appropriations process.
  Mr. Craig's nuclear energy amendment authorizes the Nuclear Power 
2010 program, as proposed by the Administration to begin in fiscal year 
2003. This builds on and expands the work pursued in the Nuclear Energy 
Technology Program that has been funded for the last two years.
  Under this new program the DOE would seek industrial proposals for 
joint venture teams to participate, including development of business 
arrangements for building and operating new plants in the United 
States. I appreciate that it would pursue development of the two most 
promising classes of advanced reactors, either water- or gas-cooled 
systems.
  Mr. Craig's inclusion of international collaboration is also 
critical, just as I want to encourage such participation in development 
of improved strategies for spent fuel. Many countries have strong 
nuclear energy programs, we can achieve mutual goals faster and cheaper 
if we work together, just as is now happening with the ten-nation 
effort toward the Generation IV reactor.
  I share the vision of Mr. Craig that the Nuclear Power 2010 program 
will result in a new reactor in this country in the next decade. That 
will be an important step in demonstrating to our citizens and to the 
world that the United States is not going to be left by the wayside 
while other countries pursue this vital energy source.
  Tomorrow or next week, whichever is most accommodating, I will take 
the floor and tell the American people what is in this bill regarding 
the future for nuclear energy. Many things have already been adopted 
and put in the bill by the sponsors, but we now have, with this 
amendment before the Senate or put in the bill, all of the amendments 
that Senators who have been following and working in this area thought 
were important to its future. They will now be encapsulated in this 
with the adoption of this, which is our last one.


                             nuclear waste

  Mr. REID. I want to confirm that acceptance of this amendment does 
not create any opportunity to discuss nuclear waste issues in 
conference.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with the Senator's view. I will be a conferee 
on this bill. I assure the Senator that I will resist any attempt to 
open the conference to discussion of waste issues. I would also like to 
note that, as stated in the amendment, the national laboratories will 
play strong roles in this work. In fact, from our positions on the 
Energy and Water Development Subcommittee on Appropriations, let's work 
together to ensure their participation.
  I thank Senator Bingaman in advance of agreeing to this for his help 
on it, for what he has done in the bill with reference to not only the 
Price-Anderson, which he took the lead on even though it was not his 
amendment, but all the other provisions he has put in that will create 
a level playing field and modernize Americans' ability to utilize 
nuclear power if they choose, since it will not pollute the environment 
and can be part of a national program to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me say with the colloquy my 
colleague from New Mexico has entered into the Record between himself 
and Senator Reid, I think all concerns that have been raised on our 
side are resolved. There is no objection to the adoption of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3009) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment by 
the senior Senator from New Mexico. I appreciate the junior Senator's 
acceptance of it.
  The amendment, as noted, establishes an Office of Spent Fuel within 
the Department of Energy. It is important that Congress address the 
range of alternatives to deal with spent fuel from nuclear reactors. 
This amendment goes a long way to accomplish that.
  I have served here 21 years with Senator Domenici. He has been a 
tireless advocate of pursuing the advancement of nuclear energy. Last 
year he introduced S. 472, which is a comprehensive energy bill and 
nuclear bill, and the committee held several hearings. He understands 
we must have a diverse and responsible energy mix if we ever hope to 
reduce our dependence significantly on Saddam Hussein and his oil.
  Currently, nuclear energy provides 20 percent of the electricity in 
this country. It is taken for granted by many. It is a clean, 
nonemitting generation and produces no greenhouse gases, no 
SOx, no NOx. There are 103 operating reactors in 
31 States.
  Senator Domenici's Office of Spent Fuel is an important part of the 
future of nuclear energy in this country, and we must deal with the 
issue of spent fuel. This will require research on all fronts.
  The language of the amendment was part of S. 1287, the Nuclear Waste 
Act amendments that passed the Senate in the last Congress. The office 
would examine the treatment, recycling, and disposal of high-level 
reactive wastes and spent fuel, and consequently I strongly urge its 
support. I thank the Members for the adoption of this amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 3073]]



                          ____________________