[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3409-3446]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001--Continued


                    Amendment No. 2989, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise again, as I did a week ago when we 
debated derivatives, in opposition to the derivatives amendment. It 
offers no solutions to problems that caused either

[[Page 3410]]

Enron or the California energy crisis. In fact, the amendment we have 
is a solution looking for a problem.
  I am glad we have had a little time to study the amendment further 
because we have asked a number of regulators what their position is 
regarding the additional regulation of this relatively new form of 
business. We have heard from two regulators who have jurisdiction over 
the trading markets. They both have come back with the same response: 
This is not needed at this time.
  CFTC Chairman Newsome has said:

       This amendment would rescind significant advances brought 
     about by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.

  In response to a letter I sent to the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Chairman Pitt responded:

       The Securities and Exchange Commission believes this 
     legislative change is premature at this time.

  This amendment will disrupt a market that is working efficiently and 
providing important tools for energy companies. For instance, this 
amendment would require new capital requirements on electronic trading 
exchanges, even if they simply match buyers and sellers. These 
exchanges bear no risk associated with trading but this legislation 
could provide additional new taxes.
  This amendment also provides new regulation on metals. I don't know 
of anyone who can point to how metals had anything to do with Enron or 
the California energy crisis. The regulatory model for metals has 
offered no problems. In fact, if you take a look at the derivatives 
market, there isn't a problem with any of the markets. I will speak 
about that in a moment.
  Yet the supporters of this amendment believe we should quickly enact 
some new form of regulation to oversee the metals market. Enron was not 
caused by the trading of energy derivatives. As I said last week, Enron 
was not an energy trading problem. Enron was not an accounting problem. 
Enron was a fraud problem.
  In fact, when the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, 
was asked at a Senate Banking Committee hearing whether a nexus existed 
between energy derivatives trading and the collapse of Enron, he 
responded that ``he hadn't seen anything'' that would indicate that.
  Why are we rushing to regulate an emerging business when the collapse 
of Enron was likely caused by potentially illegal acts by executives 
and, furthermore, that the collapse of Enron did not cause a blip on 
the scope of derivatives trading?
  I know this is something everybody uses on a daily basis. In the 
example I gave a week ago, I cited some examples of things that might 
help to understand derivatives trading. I will not go into that again. 
I am kidding about this being something that everybody works with on a 
daily basis. In fact, we have been taking some classes in my office on 
how to spell ``derivatives.'' It isn't a common, ordinary thing, but it 
is a new market that we have looked at extensively, held hearings on, 
and have done work on in the past through the regular channels. Again, 
there was not a blip in that system when Enron went down.
  We recently passed the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. Most of 
us in the Senate worked on this legislation extensively.
  This legislation examined the regulation of energy derivatives. This 
legislation was debated at public hearings. It was negotiated. It was 
drafted over a significant period of time with full participation and 
input from members of the Clinton administration and the committees of 
jurisdiction. What emerged was the proper amount of regulatory 
oversight for the trading of energy derivatives.
  I also wish to comment on a letter sent to Senator Lott by Secretary 
of the Treasury O'Neill and Chairman Greenspan. In it they write:

       We urge Congress to defer action on Senator Feinstein's 
     proposal until the appropriate committees of jurisdiction 
     have a chance to hold hearings on the amendment and carefully 
     vet the language through the normal committee processes.

  We know from history that hearings can make a difference on a bill, 
that working it through the committee process allows a lot more 
flexibility in actually working an issue and bringing it to light on 
the Senate floor, without some of the difficulties we have had on this 
particular amendment, which has been in the negotiation stage for about 
a week and a half. But the floor operation does not allow the kind of 
flexibility that could correct problems and lead to good legislation.
  Madam President, this is all we are asking. I haven't heard anyone 
say we should not examine the issue. However, we should address it 
through the normal legislative process so we could learn exactly the 
ramifications of the amendment. I don't believe anybody has come to the 
floor and given us a thorough accounting of what would happen to the 
energy trading markets, the swap markets, or the metal markets if this 
law were enacted tomorrow.
  We all want to solve the problems posed to us by Enron and the 
California energy crisis. But this amendment will not solve those 
problems. This amendment may add to those problems. Once again, I ask 
Members to oppose this 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, at approximately 3 o'clock today, Senator 
Kyl is going to come to offer his amendment dealing with renewables. I 
spoke with Senator Kyl. He says the debate on that should take some 
time. He did not say how much time. It may take a matter of hours. What 
we would do at that time is move off the Feinstein amendment. I have 
spoken with her.
  With respect to the matter relating to the second-degree amendment 
Senator Lott offered dealing with judges, there will be an arrangement 
made that we could vote on his amendment and perhaps side by side 
tomorrow.
  I hope anyone wishing to speak on derivatives will come and do that 
as soon as possible. I understand Senator Boxer wishes to do that at 
this time. We will get into what I think is a very important debate 
dealing with Senator Kyl's amendment on renewables at approximately 3 
o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Lott second-degree amendment to the 
Feinstein derivatives amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise to speak in behalf of the 
Feinstein derivatives amendment which I think is a very important 
amendment for us to adopt.
  Senator Feinstein's amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, narrows a 
gap in the oversight of the energy market. It is very simple. It would 
require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to regulate the energy 
derivatives market.
  We all know that derivatives are very complicated, and I know Senator 
Feinstein has spent a good deal of time educating the Senate on 
derivatives. The point is very clear. It used to be that the energy 
derivatives market was regulated by the CFTC. It is the way it used to 
be, and it is the way it should be.
  The CFTC should have the ability to obtain information critical to 
market oversight and to make market information public if the CFTC 
determines that it is, in fact, in the public interest to do so.
  Senator Feinstein has gained the support of the New York Mercantile 
Exchange and various consumer organizations. I have to say, as someone 
who has long fought for the rights of consumers, this amendment is 
crucial for consumers. We know in California what can happen when 
energy markets go secret and you do not know what is happening, except 
one day you wake up and find you cannot afford to heat or air-condition 
your house, and if you are a business, you can no longer afford to pay 
the energy bill.

[[Page 3411]]

  I have to say from my heart that if the Senate walks away from this 
amendment, then it is giving a message to the country that we do not 
care much about this whole Enron scandal. Enron worked very hard to 
change regulations and laws to remove all government oversight. In my 
home State, they actually were under no oversight at all. One of the 
places there was oversight was the derivatives market under the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and that was changed. Therefore, 
there was no oversight, and there was no way to ensure that the market 
was transparent--in other words, you could see the various transactions 
that led to the final energy bill--and it allowed, after they got out 
of the CFTC, for this online trading to go on in secret.
  Clearly, in my opinion, Enron manipulated the electricity market for 
one reason, and one can explain it in one word: secrecy. They operated 
in secrecy. There was only one agency to mind the store, the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission.
  This administration was wined and dined by Enron, and they did 
nothing to help California--zero, nothing--for almost a whole year. We 
saw the biggest transfer of wealth from ordinary working people to 
these energy companies. Enron had a methodical plan to free itself of 
any and all Government oversight so they could cooperate in secret and 
trade up the price of energy in secret through financial arrangements, 
including derivatives.
  Senator Feinstein has a very good amendment that will restore 
transparency to these sales. That is why I am very proud to support it, 
and that is why I say to you that it will be the first test vote on 
whether we learned anything from this Enron scandal, and more than 
that, are we willing to do something about the problems that led to the 
whole crisis in California.
  In 1992, Enron worked to remove energy derivative contracts from 
Government regulations. This resulted in Enron being able to hide 
information about individual trades from Government oversight. That is 
why Senator Feinstein has written this amendment. Let's go back, she 
says, to the days when there was oversight over these online trades.
  Once the contracts were outside Government oversight, Enron lobbied 
Congress to remove the trading itself from Government regulation, and 
in 2000, Enron was successful and was allowed to create an unregulated 
subsidiary that could buy and sell electricity, natural gas, and other 
energy commodities in huge volumes without any Government oversight.
  As I said, we know what happened. The prices soared in my home State. 
My State suffered a devastating economic crisis. I have a chart that 
shows the demand went up in that 1 year that Enron got out of any 
oversight 4 percent; energy prices in toto went up 266 percent.
  I will never forget meeting with Vice President Cheney after trying 
desperately to get a meeting with him--this goes for me, Senator 
Feinstein, and other Members of the California congressional 
delegation. Do you know what he said to us? We told him to look at the 
prices: How can we sustain this? All of California spent $7.4 billion 
on energy in 1999, and then in 2000 when Enron got out of oversight, it 
shot up to $27 billion? How can we sustain it? He looked at us and said 
with a straight face: You are using too much energy.
  I say again to the Vice President and anyone who happens to be 
watching, California on a per capita basis is the most energy efficient 
State in the Union. We use less energy than any other State.
  We are a model in that regard. We have 34 million people plus, but on 
an individual basis we use less.
  Our energy went up by only 4 percent and our prices went up by 266 
percent, and one of the reasons for this is Enron was allowed to trade 
online in secret. They sold the same energy over and over, sometimes, 
they say, as many as 14 and 15 times before it got to the consumer.
  No oversight. People can make the argument that deregulation 
everywhere is a wonderful thing, and I am willing to listen to it, but 
I have to say, when it comes to a commodity that people need to live, 
they need it to heat their homes; they need it in hospitals to make 
sure an operation will not be terminated in the middle of it because of 
the loss of energy.
  The Chair was talking about how many proud farmers are in her State. 
I say to the Chair, in my State I went to a meeting in the central 
valley--and the Chair has been there, I know--where they have all kinds 
of farming. One of the big industries is the poultry industry. They 
were so fearful that the refrigeration would go out and this poultry 
would spoil, some of it would make people sick, or they would have to 
throw it out.
  The bottom line is, energy is not a luxury, it is a requirement. So 
when we go ahead and take the whole energy area outside of any type of 
reasonable regulation, we are setting up a horror story for people. I 
can truly say, we went through that and I want to spare that from 
happening in the State of the Chair--the Senator from New York has 
already gone through enough trauma for any Senator--and I want to stop 
it from happening anywhere in this great country of ours. The first 
test case is the Feinstein amendment to restore some type of oversight 
to this online trading.
  There is a gentleman from San Marcos, CA, who wrote to President 
Bush. He sent me a copy. This was during the electricity crisis. He 
said:

       I am a father and a husband in a single income family. My 
     wife and I very carefully planned our family economics in 
     order to give our daughter the benefits of having a full-time 
     parent at home. We are currently spending money on 
     electricity bills that should be going into family 
     investments for college or retirement planning.

  This gentleman was so right. What happened was no regulation, the 
ability for Enron and others to completely manipulate the market. 
Senator Feinstein's amendment, which has been second-degreed by a whole 
different subject about judges--and I am all for voting on that, but it 
should not have been done to this. We need a clean vote on her 
amendment to restore some sense of transparency and honesty to the 
electricity business.
  This is another story I read about in the San Diego Union-Tribune 
when we were having our troubles. There is a pizza store called Big Top 
Pizza where the electricity bill went from $200 to $646--a 223-percent 
increase. It kind of mirrors what happened to my State. That happened 
in 1 month. Imagine as a business person seeing that kind of increase. 
I also read about a florist where their electricity bill went up 135 
percent.
  When we talk about these things, they may not sound as though they 
are so related to the amendment. The amendment talks about making sure 
we have an electricity business we can monitor to make sure it is fair 
and just and we do not have unjust and unreasonable prices. If we 
cannot see through this system--which is currently the case because no 
one is monitoring it--this is going to happen again. It is going to 
happen to other good people in other States.
  In closing, I cannot say enough about how much I thank Senator 
Feinstein for coming to the Senate with this amendment. What she is 
doing is looking at our experience in California and saying, how can we 
do something quite simple, which we always did before, which is to make 
sure we do not have people facing this type of escalation in costs, 
manipulation of prices, all done in secret, nobody looking over their 
shoulder, and who pays the price? The good American people and the good 
consumers of this country.
  I hope we will have an outstanding vote in favor of the Feinstein 
amendment, and I hope we can begin then to attack the basic causes of 
what happened in my State--an unregulated industry, out of control, 
insider trading going on by the people at the top without one care in 
the world for the shareholders, for the consumers, and for the people.
  Jeffrey Skilling, the CEO of Enron, made a ``joke'' about California 
which was: California and the Titanic are very much alike. The one 
difference is at least the Titanic went down with its

[[Page 3412]]

lights on. That was supposed to be a humorous joke.
  The bottom line is Enron turned out to be the Titanic, and if we do 
not learn lessons and if we do not move now to correct what happened, I 
do not know why we are here. That is how strongly I feel.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. 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.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, my understanding is we are awaiting 
midafternoon for an amendment that will be offered, we are told, by 
Senator Kyl. I should not speak for him, but I am told the amendment 
will strike the renewable portfolio standard in its entirety.
  What is the renewable portfolio standard? To some, when we talk about 
an energy policy, debate on that term sounds like a foreign language--a 
renewable portfolio standard. It means an attempt by this country to 
develop different approaches, using renewable, limitless supplies of 
energy to produce electricity in our country.
  There are some who despair this energy bill that is designed to try 
to take us into a new day and a new approach to energy policy, does not 
have the CAFE standard that was voted on last week. Some are concerned 
about that. Frankly, with or without the CAFE standard, this piece of 
legislation does include some significant areas of improvement in 
dealing with the efficiency of the transportation sector. It does, for 
example, provide very significant financial inducements for people to 
buy automobiles that have new sources of power: fuel cell automobiles, 
hybrid automobiles, and others. We recognize that if you are going to 
deal with this country's energy problem, you have to deal with 
efficiency of the energy used in transportation. That is true. I 
understand that. There are many ways to do that.
  Remaining in this bill are important provisions, including 
significant tax benefits to consumers with which they can purchase a 
car that meets certain specifications, or a vehicle that meets certain 
specifications with respect to gas mileage, the kind of power train it 
has, and other issues. So while some despair about the vote we had last 
week, let me say there remains in the bill significant areas of 
efficiency dealing with transportation.
  But that is not the issue now. The issue is a renewable portfolio 
standard with respect to the production of electricity. The question 
for all of us has always been, when we debate energy on the floor of 
the Senate, will we develop new policies? Will we really turn a corner 
or will we simply repeat the debate we had a quarter of a century ago 
and beef it up just a little bit so we can debate it again a quarter of 
a century from now?
  Will our policy simply be yesterday forever? Is that our policy? It 
is that just to dig and drill and dig and drill represents our policy 
for the next 25 years?
  Look, I support digging and drilling, provided it is done in an 
environmentally acceptable way. We must produce new energy. We must and 
will produce new oil and natural gas and use coal. We must do that 
because we cannot solve our energy problem without producing more, but 
we must do it also in a way that is environmentally acceptable.
  As we transition toward more production and more efficiency and more 
conservation, we also must, then, turn to this other issue of trying to 
find new sources of energy so we do not just rely on digging and 
drilling: new sources of energy such as wind energy, biomass, solar 
energy, geothermal, and more.
  When we produce electricity in this country, there are several ways 
for us to do it. We have in the past traditionally mined coal and used 
coal in power plants to produce electricity and move that electricity 
over a series of transmission wires to places in America where it is 
needed. Other plants use natural gas as the principal fuel. But there 
are other ways to produce electricity.
  We now have newer technology--wind turbines. Those wind turbines have 
the capability, with much more effectiveness, to take that energy from 
the air and, through those turbines, create electricity. That 
electricity can be moved around the country where it is needed.
  Likewise, with solar energy, geothermal energy, biomass--we also can 
produce electricity using renewable and limitless supplies of energy.
  We must, when this bill leaves the Senate, have a renewable portfolio 
standard that is reasonably aggressive, and one that is workable. The 
renewable portfolio standard of 10 percent is one that we agreed to, 
generally speaking, when we wrote the bill earlier. Some have talked 
about 20 percent, which others have said is too aggressive. There are 
still others in our Chamber who say there should be no renewable 
portfolio standard, there should be no standard by which we achieve 
more in limitless and renewable sources of energy for the production of 
electricity.
  I could not disagree more with that position. For us to write an 
energy bill in the Senate and say, let's just keep producing 
electricity the same old way, let's not really have any changes, let's 
not stretch ourselves, let's not turn the corner with respect to energy 
supply, I think is not a step forward at all. That is not new policy. 
That is, as I said, yesterday forever. We will not be here in most 
cases, 25 years from now, someone will have a new idea for a new energy 
policy. It will be digging more and drilling more.
  That is not new, and it does not resolve our issues in the long term 
that are so important for this country.
  September 11 described for all of us the fact that this is a pretty 
uncertain and dangerous world in some respects. We have talked a great 
deal since September 11 about national security. Madmen, sick, twisted, 
demented people who live in caves in Afghanistan, plot the murder of 
thousands of innocent Americans in America's cities. So we talk about 
national security and we prosecute a war against terrorism and we talk 
about homeland security and it is all very important. But there is 
another part of national security that is also very important. That is 
the security or the lack of it that comes with the need to get 57 
percent of our oil, our energy supplies of oil and natural gas from 
abroad--most of which come from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, in one of the 
most unsettled regions of the world.
  Connecting our country's need for oil to a supply from a region that 
is so unstable and so uncertain is not a smart policy for this country. 
We have ratcheted this up to almost 60 percent of our energy supply 
coming from abroad--most of it coming from a region that is a very 
unstable region. We need to begin stepping that back. One way to start 
doing that is by reaffirming this afternoon that we believe in a 
renewable portfolio standard; that is, we believe in a standard by 
which we want this country to aspire to a goal, an achievable goal and 
a real goal of having 10 percent of its electric energy produced by 
renewable and limitless sources of energy.
  I mentioned wind a moment ago. Wind energy is something that has, 
now, the capacity to produce a substantial amount of new energy for us. 
My home State of North Dakota is last in numbers of trees, as I have 
told my colleagues from time to time. We rank 50th in native 
forestlands, so we are dead last in numbers of trees. But according to 
the U.S. Department of Energy, we are No. 1 in wind. We are what they 
call the Saudi Arabia of wind energy. Putting up a turbine with the 
capability to take the energy from the wind and, through that turbine, 
turn it into electricity and move it across transmission lines makes 
good sense for this country. It is renewable; it is limitless; it is 
good for our environment; it just makes good sense.
  That is why just one step in this energy bill that would be helpful 
for this country--just one--is to reaffirm today

[[Page 3413]]

that we believe in this standard, in stretching our country to at least 
achieve the 10-percent level on alternative energy for the production 
of electricity. That is all we are talking about.
  In North Dakota, for example, we have some transmission issues we 
have to deal with in order to produce more wind energy. I hope we can 
move to produce more energy from wind, from biomass, from solar, but we 
also have to find ways to transmit it through transmission lines. We 
are talking now in this legislation that Senator Bingaman brought to 
the floor about new technologies for transmission lines. It is for a 
range of initiatives. I was helpful in working on some incentives to 
try to move us toward composite conductor technology, for example, 
which is one technology, to double or triple the efficiency of 
transmission lines. If you can triple the efficiency of transmission 
lines, you don't have to build new corridors. You can move 
substantially more electricity across the grid system in this country 
to where it is needed.
  The point is, we have a lot to do. This legislation does a lot. I 
believe this afternoon we will be confronted with an amendment that 
says, no, let's step back and not do quite as much. In the area of a 
renewable portfolio standard, it would be awful, in my judgment, for 
the Senate not to stand for and perhaps even improve that which is 
already in the bill. The 10-percent standard that is in the bill, with 
respect to some agreements, as I understand it, has been changed a bit. 
Perhaps we could even strengthen that. The point is, we ought not 
retract; we ought not step backwards on this issue.
  So when Senator Kyl offers his amendment, I hope we can have an 
aggressive debate today and have a vote in which this Senate, by a very 
strong majority, says: We insist on a renewable portfolio standard in 
this bill. It is the right way and the right step for this country, to 
make a break towards less dependence on foreign oil and more national 
security for this country, by having a renewable and limitless source 
of energy well into the future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Republican leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I asked questions this morning as to when we 
might be able to get an agreement on proceeding to the campaign finance 
reform issue. I know there have been a lot of efforts underway--Senator 
McConnell, Senator McCain, Senator Feinstein, and others. Of course, I 
know the House has a real interest in this.
  This morning I was beginning to feel that we were going to have to 
nudge it a little bit to get this worked out and get it agreed to so we 
could get a vote and move on to other issues without it interrupting 
them--the energy bill, for instance--even further.


                       Unanimous Consent Requests

  I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 
XXII, the Senate now proceed to the cloture vote with respect to H.R. 
2356, the campaign finance reform bill, with the mandatory quorum being 
waived. I further ask unanimous consent that following that vote, again 
notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to the consideration of a 
Senate resolution, the text of which is at the desk; further, the 
resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate then resume 
consideration of H.R. 2356 and the time until 6 tonight be equally 
divided between Senators McConnell and McCain.
  I further ask unanimous consent that no amendments be in order to the 
bill and, at 6 tonight, the bill be read the third time and the Senate 
then proceed to a vote on passage of the bill with no intervening 
action or debate.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives from 
the House a technical corrections bill regarding campaign finance 
reform or a concurrent resolution which corrects the enrollment of H.R. 
2356, and the text has been cleared by Senators McConnell and McCain, 
then the Senate immediately proceed to its consideration, the bill be 
read the third time and passed, or the resolution be agreed to, with 
the motion to reconsider laid upon the table and with no intervening 
action or debate.
  Here is my point and why I make this request. I believe it is ready. 
I think it is time we bring this to conclusion. I think we can get a 
vote on it at 6 o'clock tonight, and then we would be prepared to get 
back to energy or other issues that the Senate would desire.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield, Mr. President.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me concur with what the leader said. As a Senator 
who has fought for many years to defeat that bill, I believe it is 
clear that position is not going to prevail.
  We had good negotiations over a technicals correction to the bill. 
The consent request to which the Republican leader has asked that we 
agree gives Senator McCain and myself, who have been on opposite sides 
of this issue, a chance to review a subsequent technicals bill that 
passes the House. Either one of us would have the right to veto it. We 
are very close to an agreement.
  I agree with the Republican leader that there is certainly no 
necessity to have any all-night sessions or any of these other 
scenarios we hear have been suggested to the press, since the opponents 
of this bill are ready to move on with it. That is what this consent 
agreement makes clear.
  I commend the Republican leader for offering it.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The deputy majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I do congratulate the leader. It is really important we 
have gotten this far. We are very close. I say, however, Senator 
Feingold and others--but especially Senator Feingold--need to make sure 
the resolution referred to in this request is appropriate--and the 
correcting bill. I have no doubt they will be approved by Senator 
Feingold. To my knowledge, he has not yet signed off on these.
  I ask that the Republican leader and Senator McConnell recognize it 
is really important that we get this out of the way. No one wants to 
spend all night here. We have so many other important things to do. I 
think there is no reason we can't work something out in the next little 
bit. But I have to do, as I have indicated, what needs to be done. I 
will do that. As a result of that, I object at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Republican leader.
  Mr. LOTT. If I could inquire of Senator Reid, I understand he needs 
to confer with other Senators, and we would perhaps need to do that 
even more on our side.
  But let me clarify, this did not include the technicals correction; 
is that correct?
  Mr. McCONNELL. What it does is set up a procedure by which, even 
after the passage of Shays-Meehan, if the technical corrections on 
which we are working is agreed to and is passed by the House and comes 
over here, in order to make sure it is one on which we still agree, 
Senator McCain or I could veto it; otherwise, it could come up and be 
passed.
  The point I think the leader is making is that we are ready to move 
on. It is time to pass this bill. We understand debate is largely over 
and we would like to wrap it up.
  Mr. LOTT. I emphasize that point, Mr. President. When I was talking 
to Senator Reid this morning, there were still, I guess, negotiations--
or not even negotiations--the technical corrections were being reviewed 
by a number of people, including House people, and it seemed to be 
moving very slowly and seemed to be holding up the final disposition of 
this issue. And this looks to me as if that problem is taken care of by 
doing it this way.
  So I just would inquire of Senator Reid----
  Mr. REID. If the leader will yield.
  Mr. LOTT. Certainly.
  Mr. REID. The Republican leader is absolutely right. We did have a 
conversation today. We have heard a lot of

[[Page 3414]]

talk the last week or so that things have all been wrapped up. But we 
never really got to that point. I think we are almost there. This is a 
tremendous step forward from where we were this morning. I have no 
reason to doubt that we can be back here very shortly and enter into 
this agreement. We will make sure the Senator from----
  Mr. LOTT. You are indicating, then, you hope very shortly we could 
come back perhaps and propound--or perhaps you would want to propound 
something such as this?
  Mr. REID. I think we will be in a posture to do that very quickly.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank you.
  Mr. REID. I see both Republican leaders. Senator Kyl is in the 
Chamber. What we wanted to do is move to his amendment dealing with 
renewables to get that issue out of the way. And I see Senator Bond and 
Senator Lincoln in the Chamber. They have an amendment that may be 
agreed to.
  I ask my friend, Senator Nickles, are you going to speak on the 
derivatives issue?
  Mr. NICKLES. I am going to speak on the energy bill.
  Mr. REID. Yes. I am just wondering; Senator Kyl is back in the 
Chamber, and he has had so many dry runs.
  Mr. NICKLES. I will speak on the Kyl amendment as well.
  Mr. REID. If we get this campaign finance agreement, everyone will 
step aside, of course, and we will move to that. I indicated to the 
staff on the Republican side, we are going to work something out 
tomorrow so we can go to an amendment the Republican leader has pending 
on the Feinstein amendment.
  So what I would like--I am sorry to have been interrupted, but it was 
important I be.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume the Bingaman 
amendment No. 3016 and that Senator Kyl be recognized to offer a 
second-degree amendment to the Bingaman amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BOND. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from Arkansas 
has an amendment that I plan to cosponsor. I do not think it will be 
controversial. We do not have it fully cleared.
  I talked to the Senator from Arizona. He does not seem to have an 
objection. I ask if the Senator from Arkansas might be permitted to go.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, it is my understanding that the Senator 
from Arkansas and the Senator from Missouri wish to lay down an 
amendment, and with the hope that it will either be accepted or 
finished at some later time. But after your initial statements, we 
could go to Kyl. It should not take too long; is that correct?
  Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object--and I do so to save time--I 
know Senator Reid is trying to make use of time while he works out 
clearances. I would object right now to going to Kyl. In the meantime, 
we have Senator Nickles who would like to speak, and also Senators 
Lincoln and Bond, and then we can communicate and see if we can't get 
an agreement on the Kyl amendment after we get through this. But I 
object at this point.
  Mr. REID. The only thing I would ask: Senator Kyl has been over here 
like a yo-yo. I hope he will not go too far away, so maybe we can lay 
this down a little later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Lott second-degree amendment to the 
Feinstein first-degree amendment.


                Amendment No. 3023 To Amendment No. 2917

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3023.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln], for herself, Mr. 
     Bond, Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Carnahan, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Harkin, 
     Mr. Grassley, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Bayh, and Mr. Craig, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 3023 to amendment No. 2917.

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

(Purpose: To expand the eligibility to receive biodiesel credits and to 
   require the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study on alternative 
                 fueled vehicles and alternative fuels)

       On page 142, strike lines 8 through 11 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 817. TEMPORARY BIODIESEL CREDIT EXPANSION.

       (a) Biodiesel Credit Expansion.--Section 312(b) of the 
     Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13220(b)) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Use.--
       ``(A) In general.--A fleet or covered person--
       ``(i) may use credits allocated under subsection (a) to 
     satisfy more than 50 percent of the alternative fueled 
     vehicle requirements of a fleet or covered person under this 
     title, title IV, and title V; but
       ``(ii) may use credits allocated under subsection (a) to 
     satisfy 100 percent of the alternative fueled vehicle 
     requirements of a fleet or covered person under title V for 1 
     or more of model years 2002 through 2005.
       ``(B) Applicability.--Subparagraph (A) does not apply to a 
     fleet or covered person that is a biodiesel alternative fuel 
     provider described in section 501(a)(2)(A).''.
       (b) Treatment as Section 508 Credits.--Section 312(c) of 
     the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13220(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Credit not'' 
     and inserting ``Treatment as''; and
       (2) by striking ``shall not be considered'' and inserting 
     ``shall be treated as''.
       (c) Alternative Fueled Vehicle Study and Report.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) Alternative fuel.--The term ``alternative fuel'' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 301 of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13211).
       (B) Alternative fueled vehicle.--The term ``alternative 
     fueled vehicle'' has the meaning given the term in section 
     301 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13211).
       (C) Light duty motor vehicle.--The term ``light duty motor 
     vehicle'' has the meaning given the term in section 301 of 
     the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13211).
       (D) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.
       (2) Biodiesel credit extension study.--As soon as 
     practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall conduct a study--
       (A) to determine the availability and cost of light duty 
     motor vehicles that qualify as alternative fueled vehicles 
     under title V of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 
     13251 et seq.); and
       (B) to compare--
       (i) the availability and cost of biodiesel; with
       (ii) the availability and cost of fuels that qualify as 
     alternative fuels under title V of the Energy Policy Act of 
     1992 (42 U.S.C. 13251 et seq.).
       (3) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report that--
       (A) describes the results of the study conducted under 
     paragraph (2); and
       (B) includes any recommendations of the Secretary for 
     legislation to extend the temporary credit provided under 
     subsection (a) beyond model year 2005.

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be joined in 
offering this amendment with my good friend from my neighboring State 
of Missouri, Senator Bond. Senator Bond and I have worked together on 
numerous issues during our tenure in the Senate, and I am pleased to 
work with him again.
  I am also pleased to be joined by Senators Johnson, Craig, Carnahan, 
Hutchinson, Harkin, Grassley, Bunning, and Bayh as cosponsors of this 
amendment. I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Carper, Fitzgerald, 
Dayton, and Dorgan as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. The purpose of this amendment is to place biodiesel 
fuel on an equal footing with every other alternative motor fuel in 
this Nation.
  Biodiesel is a clean-burning alternative fuel that can be produced 
from domestic renewable sources, such as agricultural oils, animal 
fats, or even recycled cooking oils.
  It can be used in compression-ignition diesel engines with no major 
modifications. It contains no petroleum, but it can be blended with 
petroleum at any stage in the production and delivery process from the 
refinery to the gas

[[Page 3415]]

pump. Biodiesel is simple to use. It is biodegradable. It is nontoxic 
and essentially free of sulfur and aromatics. It is completely user 
friendly.
  Although new to our country, its use is well established in Europe 
with over 250 million gallons consumed annually. The Energy Policy Act 
of 1992 set a national objective to shift the focus of national energy 
demand away from imported oil toward renewable and domestically 
produced energy sources. When EPACT was passed in 1992, it recognized 
ethanol, natural gas, propane, electricity, and methanol as alternative 
fuels. The original list of alternative fuels did not include biodiesel 
because the technology had not been fully developed at that point.
  EPACT set a goal to replace 10 percent of petroleum-based fuels by 
the year 2000 and 30 percent by the year 2010. However, a GAO report 
issued in July of last year noted that ``limited progress had been made 
in increasing the numbers of alternative fuel vehicles in the national 
vehicle fleet and the use of alternative fuels'' as compared to the 
conventional vehicles and fuels.
  We have not met the original EPACT goals of replacing 10 percent of 
the petroleum-based fuels by the year 2000, and we are not on track to 
meet the goal of 30 percent by the year 2010. In fact, we have not even 
come close. That is partly a result of not allowing all alternative 
fuels to be used to meet that EPACT alternative fuel mandate.
  My amendment will significantly increase the use of alternative fuels 
by enacting a temporary program to allow covered fleets to meet up to 
100 percent of the EPACT purchase requirements through the use of 
biodiesel. Currently, covered fleets can meet up to 50 percent of 
purchase requirements with biodiesel.
  The amendment would also require the Secretary of Energy to conduct a 
study evaluating the availability and cost of alternative-fueled 
vehicles and alternative fuels.
  The provisions of this amendment would automatically sunset after 4 
years. At that time, covered fleets would again be able to satisfy only 
50 percent of purchase requirements with biodiesel. This temporary 
program, in conjunction with the Energy Department study, is necessary 
to determine if vehicle and fuel markets are significantly developed to 
support continuing the purchase mandates or if a further extension to 
the biodiesel credit program is warranted. We must allow all 
alternative fuels to count toward EPACT's alternative fuel 
requirements.
  Our amendment will allow us to make the most of existing 
opportunities. By offering an additional option for the use of 
alternative fuels, we will widen the possibilities for these fuels to 
be made more widely available. Fleets will continue to have the option 
to choose the complying vehicles and fuels that best meet their needs.
  This amendment is not expected to affect fleets that are currently 
using ethanol or natural gas. But this amendment does provide a further 
option for alternative-fueled vehicles. Furthermore, it does not 
directly displace natural gas or ethanol sales since biodiesel is used 
in medium and heavy-duty trucks rather than light-duty vehicles.
  It is in the best security interest of our Nation to reduce our 
reliance on foreign energy suppliers. We can no longer afford to be 
subject to the whims of the foreign cartels such as OPEC which 
successfully manipulate the price of oil.
  Added to these threats posed by OPEC and the instability of the 
Middle East are the even more threatening possibilities we face in 
other parts of world. Developments in many regions of the world where 
much of today's energy supplies are obtained--West Africa, the Caspian 
Sea, Indonesia, and on and on--clearly serve notice that our Nation 
cannot continue to depend on these areas for our future energy needs. 
These events make it even more pressing than ever that we proceed 
forward with developing our own domestic alternative energy resources.
  By allowing fleets to meet 100 percent of their AFV requirement by 
using biodiesel, we will take a positive step toward moving this 
country away from dependence on petroleum-based motor fuels and toward 
alternative motor fuels.
  The time to start investing in renewable energy sources is now. We 
have taken far too long to get to this point. There are many other 
nations way ahead of us in using these types of alternative fuels. I 
urge my colleagues to support our amendment to work hard on being able 
to present the realities of the fact that we are there. We have 
products now that we can be using. If we can provide the incentives and 
the abilities to make sure the marketplace can become ready for these 
alternative fuels, we are on the cusp of finding the solution.
  I appreciate the support of my colleague in working with me. I look 
forward to a very positive reception of our amendment with the 
wonderful cosponsors we have. I know the Senate will be ready to move 
forward on this one. I appreciate all the work Senators have put into 
this alternative fuels effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I particularly appreciate the great work of 
my colleague from Arkansas. There is a lot of rivalry across the 
border, but on this one, the Senators from Arkansas and Missouri and 
many other States are working together.
  I have just come from a very exciting session outside with the 
National Biodiesel Board Assistant Secretary, J. D. Penn; USDA; 
Congressman Hulshof; members of the Missouri Soybean Merchandising 
Council talking about the benefits that soy diesel can provide to our 
environment, to reducing our dependence on imported oil, and to 
strengthening our rural economy.
  They had a wonderful old soy diesel truck that the Missouri Soybean 
Council first brought here 10 years ago. That baby is still running, 
still smells sweet. You follow that diesel down the road, you don't get 
smoke coming out of it that smells like burning tires. Think of french 
fries. It is not only cleaning up the air, but it is using a renewable 
fuel. We have been talking about renewable fuels; they are doing it. 
They are doing it in my State and Arkansas and Illinois and Iowa and 
Delaware, I gather. It works.
  This is a fuel that doesn't require special kinds of newfangled 
engines. Right now the B-20 blend is being used in major bus fleets. 
The St. Louis Bi-State Transit Authority has agreed to use 1.2 million 
gallons of soy diesel in a B-20 blend. We are working with the Kansas 
City Area Transit Authority, which covers Kansas and Missouri, to use 
it. We have worked with Ft. Leonardwood in Missouri to train soldiers 
using soy diesel for battlefield smoke rather than petroleum diesel. 
Again, the real problem is that soldiers get hungry when they smell 
that soy diesel smoke.
  I think it is particularly useful because studies have shown there 
are dangers from using regular diesel in school buses, and soy diesel 
can significantly clean up the emissions from buses as well.
  What we are doing is very simple, as my good friend from Arkansas has 
already pointed out. We are just changing a qualification or limitation 
that was in the 1992 Energy Policy Act. We have not seen the progress 
we expected under that act, also known as EPACT, to displace 10 percent 
petroleum by 2000 and 30 percent by 2010.
  One of the problems is the limitations on the use of biodiesel or soy 
diesel because they don't require alternative-fueled vehicles. 
Incidentally, the CAFE amendment proposed last week by the Senator from 
Michigan and myself and adopted on the energy bill specifically 
mandated that the alternative-fueled vehicles that are mandated in the 
existing act actually use alternative fuels. And soy diesel is one way 
of getting there.
  What we believe is important under the Energy Policy Act is to allow 
100 percent of the usage of biodiesel to be applied toward the 
requirement.
  Now, the fleets that are using it include the Army, Air Force, 
Marines, NASA, Department of Agriculture, national parks, State 
departments of

[[Page 3416]]

transportation, in Missouri, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland, and 
others, and public utilities, such as Commonwealth Edison, Georgia 
Power, Kansas City Power and Light, and Duke Energy.
  These fleets have found the biodiesel fuel use option to give them 
more flexibility to comply with their requirements, while more directly 
addressing the original intent of EPACT--displacing foreign petroleum 
sources. These fleets, particularly public utility fleets, that are 
strapped for resources have urged Congress to lift the 50-percent 
limitation on biodiesel fuel use credits. In addition to more directly 
addressing the primary intent of EPACT, the biodiesel fuel use 
provision serves to address the secondary intent of EPACT, which is 
providing for cleaner air emissions.
  According to Government estimates, 90 percent of heavy-duty fleet 
emissions come from the oldest vehicles in the fleet. New vehicles that 
are being purchased are much cleaner. Biodiesel offers a solution to 
cleaning up the emissions of older vehicles.
  Lifting the 50-percent limitation on biodiesel--which does not exist 
for any other alternative fuel--will serve to enhance the effectiveness 
of the EPACT program. Biodiesel offers one of the best ways immediately 
to reduce our reliance on foreign petroleum through the use of our 
existing national infrastructure and current and future diesel 
technology.
  I would love to discuss the benefits of soy diesel at great length. 
If anybody has any questions, the Senator from Arkansas or I will be 
more than happy to discuss them. But given the fact that we do have 
many contentious provisions and amendments to discuss, we will limit 
our comments, unless somebody wants to get into a debate. We welcome 
the opportunity to provide more information on it.
  With that, I simply urge all of my colleagues to support this 
amendment. It has tremendous bipartisan support in the heartland. I 
think, as more people look at it, this should be overwhelmingly 
accepted. I urge colleagues to look at it and ask questions and support 
the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am going to make a few comments 
concerning the Senate and then the energy bill that is pending, and 
maybe a couple of amendments that are pending as well.
  I am very concerned, as an individual Senator who has been in the 
Senate for 22 years, about how the Senate is working--or, in some 
cases, not working. I am concerned about the pending bill and the fact 
that I have served on this committee for 22 years and I didn't have a 
chance to offer an amendment. I am also concerned about how the bill 
has grown. It started out at 400-some pages. The second bill, dated 
February 26, had 539 pages. The bill we have pending, dated March 5, 
has 590 pages.
  This bill never went through committee and didn't have a committee 
markup. I didn't have a chance to amend it, to read it, or to improve 
it. The full Senate failed to have this opportunity as well. Twenty 
members of the Energy Committee didn't have that chance, either. So we 
now face the situation where we are amending on the floor; we are 
significantly rewriting it on the floor. There were provisions that 
didn't belong in the bill in the Energy Committee on CAFE. That 
belonged in the Commerce Committee, but they didn't mark it up there, 
either. We had to amend that on the floor and fight that battle. Those 
provisions on CAFE standards would have impacted every automobile user, 
consumer, every person in the country. It would have made automobiles 
less safe, and it would have cost thousands of jobs and thousands of 
dollars per automobile. But we didn't have that debate in committee. We 
didn't have a committee report to say what the impact would be.
  We didn't have the committee report dealing with the energy bill, 
either. We didn't have minority views and majority views, which we 
usually do. Some people said it had been done before. It hasn't been 
done in the Energy Committee. I have been on the committee for 22 
years. Every major substantive piece of legislation in the Energy 
Committee has been bipartisan and has gone through the legislative 
process. Deregulation of natural gas comes to mind. That was a very 
complicated, comprehensive bill. We had both Democrat and Republican 
support.
  But we didn't take these steps this case. We find ourselves rewriting 
this, discussing it, and educating Members on the floor.
  I noticed that Senator Daschle, when he was referring to the 
Judiciary Committee, made this quote in a news conference on March 6. I 
have it behind me:

       If we respect the committee process at all, I think you 
     have to respect the decisions of every committee. I will 
     respect the wishes and the decisions made by that committee, 
     as I would any other committee.

  Then he said on March 14: Committees are there for a reason, and I 
think we have to respect the committee jurisdiction, responsibility, 
and leadership, and that is what I intend to do.
  That statement, I happen to agree with. It is just that we did not 
agree with it when it came to the energy bill. So we have been 
wrestling with this bill now for a couple of weeks. We may well spend 
another couple of weeks on it. It is because we didn't do it in the 
committee. And so for the majority leader to say he respects the 
process, we didn't respect the committee process when we dealt with the 
energy bill, unfortunately. We didn't respect it when we dealt with 
CAFE standards, which would have gone through the Commerce Committee. 
Now we are not respecting the committee process in dealing with the 
Feinstein amendment. That didn't go through the Banking Committee or 
the Agriculture Committee.
  I happened to listen to the debate by Senators Gramm, Enzi, and 
Feinstein. I concur that most Members don't know much about the issue. 
I put myself in that majority group of Members. When you start talking 
about derivatives and futures contracts, and so on, maybe your eyes 
glaze over and you say: Doesn't somebody else work on this issue? We 
are going to be deciding that on the floor of the Senate. We never had 
a committee hearing on Senator Feinstein's proposal. Senator Gramm says 
it has impacts of $75 trillion. That is a lot of money. That is a lot 
of contracts. That is a lot of issues.
  Should we not have committee hearings on that in the Agriculture 
Committee, in the Banking Committee, where they deal with that issue 
and where they have expertise? I would think so.
  We are going to be dealing with an issue of renewables. Senator Kyl 
has an amendment on renewables. We had an amendment last week that 
Senator Jeffords offered, 20-percent renewables. He ended up getting 
30-some votes. Did the renewable section pass out of committee? No. But 
we are going to pass a law that is going to mandate that every utility 
in the country has to come up with renewables of 10 or 20 percent? What 
is the impact of that? What does that mean to consumers on their 
utility bills? Is it even achievable?
  What do you mean by renewables? When we look at the underlying 
definition that is in the Daschle-Bingaman bill, renewables doesn't 
count hydro. Most of the definitions I have seen of renewables count 
hydro. According to this amendment, we are not going to count it as a 
renewable. We are going to count solar, wind, biomass, and a few other 
things; and if you add that together, that is about 1.5 percent of our 
electricity production. We are going to waive a law, or a bill and say, 
bingo, you have to be at 10 percent, or maybe 20? What does that mean? 
How much does that cost?
  Senator Kyl has an amendment saying, hey, let's tell the States, do 
consider renewables, give them flexibility on how to do it, and count 
hydro when you define renewables, as does everybody else in the world. 
Every State counts hydro as a renewable. But it is not in this bill. 
Wow. That little amendment, the 10-percent mandate for States to have 
renewables--I have been trying to figure out how much it

[[Page 3417]]

costs. I have checked with experts. I get one figure of $88 billion 
over 10 or 15 years. Other people are speculating since it simply 
depends on which renewable you are talking about. Is it hydro or wind? 
We subsidized some renewables--a lot.
  Wind energy right now has a tax credit. I think it is about 1.7 cents 
per kilowatt. That is the equivalent of 40-some percent of the 
wholesale cost of electricity. That is a pretty large subsidy.
  I guess wind energy could take up the balance. Can we take wind 
energy from .2 percent of energy production up to 10 percent? I do not 
know. We are going to have hundreds of square miles of windmills if we 
do. Is that the right thing for our country to do, and can we do it 
without massive subsidies--we being the taxpayers--paying a significant 
portion of the energy cost? I do not know, but we are getting ready to 
vote on an amendment in the next day or two that will mandate this 10 
percent. Is it going to be wind energy? Is it going to be solar? A lot 
of people are getting ready to vote and do not have a clue how much it 
will cost or if it is even achievable.
  I support Senator Kyl's amendment, and I hope my colleagues will as 
well.
  The Senate is not working and I am critical of the Energy Committee 
and I am offended because as a member of the Energy Committee, as 
someone who has invested a lot of time on that committee, for me not to 
have any input on the composition of this bill is offensive to the 
process.
  I read Senator Daschle's comments. He said: I will respect the wishes 
and the decisions made by that committee as I would with any other 
committee.
  The wishes of the committee were not respected when it came to the 
energy bill. We did not get that chance. We disenfranchised I know 
every Republican member on the committee.
  I have only been on the Energy Committee 22 years. Senator Murkowski 
has been on it 22 years. Senator Domenici has been on it 26 years, 
maybe longer, plus or minus. That is a lot of years not to have a 
chance to offer an amendment during a committee markup.
  When Senator Daschle said he was going to respect the wishes and 
decisions of the committee, he did not respect the wishes of the 
committee when it came to this major legislation, one of the most 
important pieces of legislation we will consider all year long. He did 
not respect the wishes of the Commerce Committee when it came to CAFE 
standards because they did not get to mark up the bill. They did not 
get to vote on it.
  And I look at some of the other committees. It came to the 
Agriculture Committee. The Agriculture Committee did report out a bill 
but, for the first time in my Senate career, it reported out a bill on 
an almost straight party vote. I think there was one member who crossed 
over. The committee came up with a very partisan agriculture bill for 
the first time.
  In addition, we had a partisan Finance Committee bill. We did not get 
the stimulus package through. The Senate is not working.
  The Judiciary Committee last week failed to approve the nomination--
or send to the floor--of Judge Pickering who is now a district court 
judge. It is the first time in 11 years that the Judiciary Committee 
defeated a nominee in committee, and 11 years ago is when the Democrats 
controlled the Senate.
  I know I heard my colleagues, the leaders on both sides, say: We want 
to treat all judicial nominees fairly and give them appropriate 
consideration. Circuit court nominees have not been treated fairly by 
the Democrats who are running the Judiciary Committee today. They have 
not been treated fairly.
  There are 29 people President Bush has nominated for circuit court 
nominees. They have been nominated to be on the circuit court--29. 
Seven have been confirmed; two or three of those were Democrats 
nominated by the previous administration supported by Democratic 
colleagues. We have done 7 out of 29. One was defeated. We have now had 
a hearing on two. There are 19 who have never had a hearing--19.
  There is a tradition in the Senate--maybe I should educate my 
colleagues--there is a tradition in the Senate that we give Presidents 
their nominations by and large. If there is a problem with the 
nomination, fine, let's hold it, discuss it and debate it, but, by and 
large, Presidents have the majority of their nominations through the 
Judiciary Committee and through the Senate in their first 2 or 3 years 
as President.
  I have a chart that shows President Reagan in his first 2 years got 
98 percent of his judges through, including 19 of 20 circuit court 
nominees. The first President Bush got 95 percent of his circuit court 
nominees, 22 out of 23. I might mention, that is when the Democrats 
controlled the Senate. Somebody said: No, Republicans controlled the 
Senate when Ronald Reagan was President. Yes, we did, but Democrats 
controlled the Senate when President Bush 41 was President, and he got 
93 percent of his judges in the first 2 years and 95 percent of the 
circuit court nominees.
  President Clinton in his first 2 years, with a Democratic Senate--got 
19 of 22 circuit court judges, 86 percent of circuit court judges, and 
by the end of his second year, he got 90 percent of all of his judges 
confirmed. He got 129 judges. He got 100 judges confirmed in his second 
year.
  Why all of a sudden now with President Bush we have only done 24 
percent? We have done 7 out of 29 circuit court nominees--7 out of 29. 
That is pathetic. President Bush nominated nine on May 8 of last year. 
Nine. We have disposed of one--that was Judge Pickering--and seven were 
confirmed out of that nine. Eight have not even had a hearing.
  Miguel Estrada, a Hispanic who immigrated to this country from 
Honduras when he was a young man--he immigrated, frankly, with nothing. 
He could not even speak English. He graduated with honors from Harvard. 
He has argued 16 cases before the Supreme Court, and he has not even 
had a hearing. John Roberts argued 36 cases before the Supreme Court. 
He was nominated in May of last year. He has not even had a hearing.
  We have only dealt with one-fourth of the circuit court nominees, 
while the three previous Presidents had 90-plus percent confirmed. 90-
plus percent circuit court nominees in the three previous 
administrations, Democrats and Republicans, were confirmed, and now we 
have only confirmed 7 out of 29--that's one out of four.
  That is not working. The Senate is not working. This institution I 
love is not working. The Energy Committee did not work. It did not mark 
up a bill. So now we have to rewrite the bill on the floor.
  The Commerce Committee did not work. The Agriculture Committee is 
becoming partisan. We have never had a partisan agriculture bill in 
decades. The Finance Committee could not even report out a stimulus 
package. Eventually, we took half a package from the House and adopted 
it when in the past the tradition of the Senate has always been, 
whether you are talking about Bob Dole, Bob Packwood, or Russell Long, 
we had bipartisan tax bills almost every time, and we could not get it 
done this year.
  Mr. President, I am critical of the process. I happen to love this 
institution. I want the Senate to work. I want Members to do what 
Senator Daschle said: Have the committee process work. It is not 
working, and it is not working in committee after committee.
  I urge my colleagues that we lower the partisan rhetoric and do our 
job in committees and respect Members. I will also make a comment on 
Judge Pickering. It is unconscionable to me to believe that this fine 
judge was defeated. It is unbelievable to me to think Members would not 
confirm a nominee who is a close friend of the Republican leader.
  I cannot imagine that we would do something like that to the 
Democratic leader. I cannot imagine that ever happening to Bob Dole. I 
cannot imagine it happening to George Mitchell. I cannot imagine it 
happening to Howard Baker.
  The Senate has really stooped, in my opinion, pretty low. Maybe in a 
way I

[[Page 3418]]

am afraid we are trespassing where we should not go. It is very 
important that we step back and we figure out what is the right way to 
legislate, what is the right way to consider nominees. If people are 
nominated to be a district court judge or a circuit court judge, they 
are entitled to a hearing, they are entitled to a vote whether 
Democrats are in charge of the Senate or Republicans are in charge of 
the Senate.
  I am not saying we did it perfect either when the Republicans were in 
charge. I do think, by and large, we ought to let people have a vote 
certainly the first 2 and 3 years of a President's term. Maybe in the 
last year of their term it is understood they do not get a lot of 
judges: Let's wait and see how the election goes. Particularly if the 
judges are nominated in the last few months of a Presidential term, 
there are legitimate reasons to wait until after the election.
  Let us come up with a little better understanding. We should not hold 
people in limbo and maybe hold careers in jeopardy or on hold when we 
have outstanding people who are willing to serve, and in many cases at 
a great financial sacrifice. The President has nominated good people 
and they cannot even get a hearing? Something is wrong. Something is 
wrong on the Sixth Circuit Court when they only have 8 out of 16 
positions filled. In other words, they have half that circuit court 
vacant. Something is wrong. The Senate is not working.
  President Bush has nominated several outstanding nominees to the 
Sixth Circuit and they should have a chance to have a hearing and to be 
voted on. I am confident that the overwhelming majority would be 
confirmed.
  I saw Senator Daschle's comments when he said we ought to follow the 
Senate committee process. I agree with that. It is unfortunate we have 
not been doing it. What happened last week in the Judiciary Committee, 
where Judge Pickering was defeated, I hope people do not go down that 
road. Right now the Democrats are in control, but barely. My guess is 
Republicans--I have been in the Senate where the leadership has 
changed. I think this is the fourth time, and I am sure I am going to 
be in the Senate where it is going to change again, and maybe again and 
again. Who knows?
  So people should recognize they can be in the majority, they can be 
in the minority. So to treat nominees the way they are being treated 
now, because they happen to be a circuit court nominee, is not right. I 
will also tell my colleagues on the Democrat side I will make the same 
statement when Republicans are in control. I do not think we should 
hold people indefinitely and not give them hearings. I do not think we 
should confirm 24 percent of the circuit court nominees. I think that 
is pathetic, and we need to do better. We need to do much better, and I 
hope and expect that the Senate will.
  I ask unanimous consent that short biographies of the eight nominees 
who were nominated on May 9 for the circuit court of appeals be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            May 9th Nominees


 john g. roberts, nominee to the court of appeals for the district of 
                                columbia

       Mr. Roberts is the head of Hogan & Hartson's Appellate 
     Practice Group in Washington, D.C. He graduated from Harvard 
     College, summa cum laude, in 1979, from the Harvard Law 
     School, where he was managing editor of the Harvard Law 
     Review. Following graduation he clerked for Judge Henry J. 
     Friendly of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 
     Circuit, and the following year for then-Associate Justice 
     William H. Rehnquist. Following his clerkship, Mr. Roberts 
     served as Special Assistant to United States Attorney General 
     William French Smith. In 1982 President Reagan appointed Mr. 
     Roberts to the White House Staff as Associate Counsel, a 
     position in which he served until joining Hogan & Hartson in 
     1986.
       Mr. Roberts left Hogan & Hartson in 1989 to accept 
     appointment as Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the 
     United States, a position in which he served until returning 
     to the firm in 1993. Mr. Roberts has presented oral arguments 
     before the Supreme Court in more than thirty cases.


  miguel estrada, nominee to the court of appeals for the district of 
                                columbia

       Miguel A. Estrada is currently a partner in the Washington, 
     D.C. office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, where he is 
     member of the firm's Appellate and Constitutional Law 
     Practice Group and the Business Crimes and Investigations 
     Practice Group. Mr. Estrada has argued 15 cases before the 
     U.S. Supreme Court. From 1992 until 1997, he served as 
     Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States. He 
     previously served as Assistant U.S. Attorney and Deputy Chief 
     of the Appellate Section, U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern 
     District of New York.
       Mr. Estrada served as a law clerk to the Honorable Anthony 
     M. Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1988-1989, and to 
     the Honorable Amalya L. Kearse of the U.S. Court of Appeals 
     for the Second Circuit from 1986-1987. He received a J.D. 
     degree magna cum laude in 1986 from Harvard Law School, where 
     he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. Mr. Estrada 
     graduated with a bachelor's degree magna cum laude and Phi 
     Beta Kappa in 1983 from Columbia College, New York. He is 
     fluent in Spanish.


 terrence boyle, nominee to the united states court of appeals for the 
                         4th circuit biography

       Terrence Boyle is the Chief Judge of the United States 
     District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. He 
     was appointed to the bench in 1984 and was unanimously 
     confirmed by the Senate. Chief Judge Boyle began his career 
     working in Congress, where he was Minority Counsel for the 
     House Subcommittee on Housing, Banking & Currency from 1970 
     through 1973. He later served as the Legislative Assistant 
     for Senator Jesse Helms before going into private practice in 
     1974 in the North Carolina firm of LeRoy, Wells, Shaw, 
     Hornthal & Riley.
       Since joining the federal bench Chief Judge Boyle has been 
     appointed twice by Chief Justice Rehnquist to serve on 
     Judicial Conference committees. From 1987 to 1992 he served 
     on the Judicial Resources Committee, and from 1999 to the 
     present he has served as a member of the Judicial Branch 
     Committee. Chief Judge Boyle has sat by designation on the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 
     numerous times, and has issues over 20 opinions for that 
     court.


 michael mcconnell, nominee to the united states court of appeals for 
                       the 10th circuit biography

       He is currently the Presidential Professor at the 
     University of Utah College of Law. McConnell received a B.A. 
     from Michigan State University (1976) and a J.D. from the 
     University of Chicago (1979), where he was Order of the Coif 
     and Comment Editor of the University of Chicago Law Review. 
     Upon graduation, he served as law clerk to Chief Judge J. 
     Skelly Wright on the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     District of Columbia Circuit, and then for Associate Justice 
     William J. Brennan, Jr., on the United States Supreme Court.
       Professor McConnell was Assistant General Counsel of the 
     Office of Management and Budget (1981-83), and Assistant to 
     the Solicitor General (1983--85), after which he joined the 
     faculty of the University of Chicago Law School in 1985. He 
     has published widely in constitutional law and constitutional 
     theory, with a speciality in the Religion Clauses of the 
     First Amendment. He has argued eleven cases in the United 
     States Supreme Court. He has served as Chair of the 
     Constitutional Law Section of the Association of American Law 
     Schools, Co-Chair of the Emergency Committee to Defend the 
     First Amendment, and member of the President's Intelligence 
     Oversight Board.


 Priscilla Owen, Nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
                              5th Circuit

       Priscilla Owen is currently a Justice on the Supreme Court 
     of Texas. Prior to her election to that court in 1994, she 
     was a partner in the Houston office of Andrews & Kurth, 
     L.L.P. where she practiced commercial litigation for 17 
     years. She earned a B.A. cum laude from Baylor University and 
     graduated cum laude from Baylor Law School in 1977. She was a 
     member of the Baylor Law Review. Thereafter, she earned the 
     highest score in the state on the Texas Bar Exam.
       Justice Owen has served as the liaison to the Supreme Court 
     of Texas' Court-Annexed Mediation Task Force and to statewide 
     committees regarding legal services to the poor and pro bono 
     legal services. She was part of a committee that successfully 
     encouraged the Texas Legislature to enact legislation that 
     has resulted in millions of dollars per year in additional 
     funds for providers of legal services to the poor.


 Jeffrey Sutton, Nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
                              10th Circuit

       Mr. Sutton is currently a Partner in the firm of Jones, 
     Day, Reavis & Pogue of Columbus, Ohio. After graduating first 
     in his class from the Ohio State University College of Law, 
     Mr. Sutton served as a clerk to the Honorable Thomas Meskill, 
     United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. The next year 
     he clerked for United States Supreme Court Justices Lewis F. 
     Powell, Jr., and Antonin Scalia. Mr. Sutton has argued nine 
     cases and filed over fifty merits and amicus curiae briefs 
     before the United States Supreme Court, both as a private 
     attorney and

[[Page 3419]]

     as Solicitor for the State of Ohio. In his role as Solicitor 
     between 1995 and 1998, Mr. Sutton oversaw all appellate 
     litigation on behalf of the Ohio Attorney General, as well as 
     state litigation at the trial level.
       For the past eight years Mr. Sutton has held the post of 
     adjunct professor of law at Ohio State University College of 
     Law, teaching seminars on the constitutional law. In 
     addition, Mr. Sutton teaches continuing legal education 
     seminars on the United States and Ohio Supreme Courts to Ohio 
     state court judges and develops curriculum for appellate 
     judges on behalf of the Ohio State Judicial College. Mr. 
     Sutton is a member of the Board of Directors of The Equal 
     Justice Foundation and of the National Council of the College 
     of Law, and is a four-time recipient of the Best Briefs award 
     by the National Association of Attorneys General.


DEBORAH COOK, NOMINEE TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 6TH 
                                CIRCUIT

       Justice Deborah Cook was elected to the Ohio Supreme Court 
     in 1994 for a six-year term. She was reelected in November 
     2000. She served as a Judge of the Ninth District Court of 
     Appeals in Ohio for four years prior to taking the Supreme 
     Court bench. Following graduation from Law School until her 
     election to the Court of Appeals, Justice Cook was a member 
     of Akron's oldest law firm, Roderick Linton, and the firm's 
     first female partner. Justice Cook received her Bachelor of 
     Arts and her Juris Doctor degrees from the University of 
     Akron. In 1996 the University of Akron presented her with an 
     Honorary Doctor of Laws Degree. Justice Cook was president of 
     Delta Gamma and president of her senior class at the 
     University of Akron.
       Justice Cook is a recipient of the Delta Gamma National 
     Shield Award for Leadership and Volunteerism and the Akron 
     Women's Network 1991 Woman of the Year. In 1997 she received 
     the University of Akron Alumni Award. She and her husband 
     founded a college scholarship program benefitting 23 
     underprivileged children from the 4th grade through 
     graduation, with the guarantee of four years' college 
     tuition. She has been called by the Cincinnati Post a 
     ``clear-headed, intellectually rigorous jurist with a good 
     grasp of the big picture . . . She has served with 
     distinction.'' (October 8, 2000).


  DENNIS SHEDD, NOMINEE TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 
                             FOURTH CIRCUIT

       Dennis Shedd has been a judge for the United States 
     District Court for South Carolina since 1990. Judge Shedd 
     graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Wofford College in 1975, 
     received a juris doctor from the University of South Carolina 
     in 1978, and received a Masters of Laws from Georgetown 
     University in 1980. From 1978 through 1988, Judge Shedd 
     served in a number of different capacities in the United 
     States Senate including Counsel to the President Pro Tempore 
     and Chief Counsel and Staff Director for the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee. Upon leaving the Senate staff in 1988, Judge Shedd 
     became of counsel in the firm of Bethea, Jordan & Griffin 
     while simultaneously maintaining his own Law Offices of 
     Dennis W. Shedd.
       From 1989 to 1992, Judge Shedd was an adjunct professor of 
     law at the University of South Carolina. While serving in his 
     current capacity as a United States District Court Judge for 
     the District of South Carolina, Judge Shedd has been a member 
     of the Judicial Conference Committee on the Judicial Branch 
     and its subcommittee on Judicial Independence. Judge Shedd is 
     actively involved in community activities in his home of 
     Columbia, South Carolina including his participation helping 
     to organize and promote drug education programs in the local 
     public schools.

  Mr. NICKLES. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending business for the purpose of sending an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3038 to Amendment No. 3016

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for himself, Mr. 
     Miller, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Murkowski, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3038 to amendment No. 3016.

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:
       (a) Requirement.--Section 111(d) of the Public Utility 
     Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2621(d)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(14) Green energy.--
       ``(a) Each electric utility shall offer to retail consumers 
     electricity produced from renewable sources, to the extent it 
     is available.
       ``(b) Renewable sources of electricity include solar, wind, 
     geothermal, landfill gas, biomass, hydroelectric and other 
     renewable energy sources, as may be determined by the 
     appropriate state regulatory authority.''.
       (b) Preservation of State Authority.--Nothing in this Act 
     affects the authority of a State to establish a program 
     requiring that a portion of the electric energy sold by a 
     retail electric supplier to electric consumers in that State 
     be generated by energy from any particular type of energy.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have laid down an amendment to the 
underlying Bingaman amendment, which I think sets up a classic choice 
for our colleagues. We have been selling this energy bill and 
especially the electricity section of it as promoting competition, the 
market economy, and deregulation.
  The underlying Bingaman bill is exactly the opposite of deregulation. 
It is reregulation by the U.S. Government in a new and extraordinary 
way. The amendment I have laid down is an attempt to move forward with 
deregulation, keeping the Federal Government out of the business of 
telling Americans what they have to do.
  The Bingaman amendment reminds me of the old Soviet-style command 
economy, where the Soviet government told the people of Russia what it 
was going to have produced and they had to buy it. It did not allow 
choice of production or consumption. The United States understands that 
is a road to ruin, but the Bingaman amendment says the U.S. Government 
is going to mandate, to require, to compel that 10 percent of the 
electricity sold at retail in this country be produced with certain 
fuels, certain politically correct fuels.
  They have been described as renewables, but not all renewables count 
because some renewables are more equal than others, to borrow the 
phrase from the animal farm. No, only those politically correct 
renewables will count toward the requirement that 10 percent of the 
electricity the people of this country buy in the future be from this 
particular energy source.
  It does not matter how much it costs. It does not matter what good it 
does. It does not matter how hard it is to do. It does not matter how 
discriminatory it is among different people within the country. None of 
that matters. What matters is that people in Washington know best, and 
so the U.S. Government is going to tell people how much electricity 
they have to buy from these unique sources of fuel: Biomass, wind, 
solar, and geothermal. Other renewables such as hydropower, for 
example, do not count. There is something wrong with hydropower. That 
is the underlying Bingaman amendment.
  The Kyl amendment says let us leave it up to the States. Fourteen 
States already require some percentage production of electricity with 
renewables, as defined by the States. They are moving toward the 
production of power through this so-called green energy, and that is 
fine. My own State has a requirement that 2 percent of the energy sold 
at retail be produced in this fashion, all the way up to the State of 
Maine requirement that 30 percent be produced through this kind of 
renewable fuel, and that is fine.
  What the Kyl amendment says is each electric utility shall offer to 
retail consumers electricity produced from renewable sources, to the 
extent it is available. Then it defines renewable sources to include 
solar, wind, geothermal, landfill gas, biomass, hydroelectric, and any 
others as the State may determine are appropriate. Then it says that 
nothing in the act affects the authority of the State to establish a 
program requiring that a portion of the energy source come from 
renewables. So we require the States to take a look at it, but we do 
not tell them what they have to do because I do not think we know best.
  I know the conditions in the State of Arizona are a lot different 
from the conditions in New York, for example. I do not think that New 
Yorkers would be able to produce much solar electrical power, but we 
can sure do that out in Arizona.
  I heard my colleague from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, say his State of 
North Dakota had been defined as the Saudi Arabia of wind. I say 
wonderful. Then let them produce electricity through wind power. I am 
not stopping them. Senator Bingaman is not stopping them from doing 
that. The State of North Dakota can produce 100 percent of its power 
from wind generation if it wants.

[[Page 3420]]

  It is interesting to me that North Dakota is not in that list of 
States that requires any production of retail electricity from 
renewable fuels--Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, 
Texas, Wisconsin. Where is the Saudi Arabia of wind? It is not here.
  The people of North Dakota who have all of this resource must have 
some reason why they are not taking advantage of it. And since we are 
providing a tax credit of a billion dollars a year to those who produce 
electricity through these renewables, one would think that would be a 
big incentive. As a matter of fact, that is how we are getting the 
renewable produced energy in the country today. We provide a carrot, a 
big tax credit. We just extended it for 2 more years in this bill at a 
cost of $2 billion. So there is a big incentive to produce electricity 
with taxpayer subsidy.
  As I recall, the subsidy is something like 1.7 cents per kilowatt 
hour for wind generation, which is about 40 percent or so of the cost 
of producing the power. That is a pretty generous subsidy. So if a 
State such as North Dakota has that much capacity to produce it, then 
why does it not produce it? Why does the Senator from that State say, 
look, we have decided, or we have not decided, to require this in our 
own State, but we are going to require it for everybody else and then 
maybe it will work for us.
  Maybe what they are saying is we can have a lot of production in our 
State if everybody else has to buy it from us. Maybe that is it.
  As a matter of fact, it transpires that there are a couple of 
utilities that apparently have access to a lot of wind generation, and 
they are lobbying pretty hard to get this bill passed. The reason? They 
are going to get the U.S. Government to tell everybody else they have 
to buy power from these particular producers.
  We have always been against oligarchy, monopolies, in this country. 
Why would the U.S. Government force people to buy a particular kind of 
energy knowing it is only produced by a very few sets of utilities 
today? Talk about a windfall. I suggest the Energy Committee ought to 
look at this very carefully, take a little inventory of who is 
producing this and who is not. My guess is there are a very few, very 
special people who are going to benefit from this big time. I would 
like to know who they are. I would like to know to whom they have 
contributed in their campaigns. I would like to know whom they have 
lobbied.
  There has been criticism of energy people talking to Vice President 
Cheney before he came up with the administration's energy plan. I would 
like to know who, on behalf of these particular utilities, has talked 
to whom and what kind of support there is to enrich this small group of 
utilities that would take advantage of this particular amendment. I 
would like to know that.
  However, we did not have any markup in the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee. That was taken away from the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee on which I sit. We had no opportunity to get into 
that. We are going to be asking some of those questions. We never had a 
cost-benefit analysis. We have no idea whether this is going to do any 
good and, if so, how much good, and how you can quantify it, but we do 
know how much it will cost. On the order of $88 billion, for starters. 
That is only until the year 2020. After that, it is $12 billion a year. 
Who pays? The electric customers. Is it equal for all of the electric 
customers in the country? No, it turns out it is not. If you are 
fortunate enough to be a State that can produce this renewable energy 
electricity, it will not cost. You get to sell credits to the States 
that do not produce it. They have to buy the credits. What do they get 
for that? Nothing. They do not get any electricity. What they get is a 
pass from the Federal Government from having to build those renewable 
energy sources themselves.
  What we are doing is creating a big new market in electric credits. 
This is a la Enron--not producing anything but creating credits. As a 
matter of fact, as I read the Bingaman amendment, it is not restricted 
to production in the United States. In fact, I believe it is 
contemplated British Columbia electrical production could be imported 
into the United States for the credits it would be provided. As a 
matter of fact, I don't understand why other countries would not get 
into this, too. The Three Gorges Dam in China might well qualify. Since 
the generators have not been put in the Three Gorges Dam, that would be 
incremental additional electrical production by hydro--the only way you 
can count hydro.
  Since it is not limited by the current language, as I read the 
amendment, what we are doing is creating a trading market in electrical 
renewable energy credits which might well enrich not just a few special 
companies in the United States but some foreign countries as well. Who 
pays the tab? The electrical retail consumer.
  I have this challenge for my friends who think it is a wonderful 
idea: How will they feel when somebody runs an ad against them in their 
next campaign that says: Are you sick and tired of high electric energy 
rates? You have Senator So-and-So to thank for that because he got a 
bill passed that required, by the authority of the U.S. Government, 
your electrical retail seller to buy 10 percent of the energy from 
these costly renewables or, if you do not buy that, to buy the credits. 
The credits, of course, will cost a lot of money. As a matter of fact, 
these credits probably will become a very valuable commodity.
  The way the Bingaman amendment works, as I understand it, the 
generator does not get the credits. If I have an electrical generating 
facility in Arizona and I decide to create a lot of solar-powered 
generation and I know there is a big market for electricity in 
California, I sell a lot of this power to California so the folks in 
Los Angeles can air-condition their homes or for whatever they need the 
power. I don't get the credit for that. The retailer in Los Angeles is 
the one that gets the credit for whatever renewable fuel is used in the 
production of that electricity.
  What does that mean? First of all, if I have any retail customers 
myself, I will try to keep that power. Although electricity is 
fungible, I will somehow try to allocate it to my retail customers. But 
if I have extra power, what I might do is, instead of applying it to my 
requirement, I might simply say I have this much on the market, and I 
will withhold it from the market, and I will see how much it would 
bring on the market.
  Of course, our friends from California complained about the fact that 
Enron and others withheld energy from the market, thus driving the cost 
up.
  A retail seller in Los Angeles is going to need a lot of renewable 
power in order to meet this mandate. Where is that company going to get 
the renewable power? It will have to buy it from somebody. If that 
electricity or those credits are withheld from the market long enough, 
the cost of the credits will escalate substantially. There is nothing 
in the bill that prevents that.
  There is no regulatory regime, although I am sure once we get going, 
there will be a very big regulatory regime. It is fraught with 
potential for fraud and abuse. Once we see all of that happening, we 
will have to have a director of this and that, with a big bureaucracy 
and a lot of law enforcement and penalties in order to enforce the law 
so it will not be abused. We will have the Enron situations, and there 
will be a big hue and cry, and we will all want to prevent that, so we 
will establish more bureaucracy. The Soviet survival command economy 
will march on as we have to enforce the policy we dictate.
  What are we going to do? Are we going to force people to sell the 
credits they have accumulated? Are we going to say they can only sell 
them for a certain amount of money? As I read the Bingaman amendment, 
there is one other place you can buy the credits. You can buy them from 
someone who has already produced the power or, I gather, if it is not 
available, you can buy it from the Department of Energy. The Department 
of Energy, even

[[Page 3421]]

though it does not produce anything, would be able to sell these 
credits at something like 200 percent their value or 3 cents a kilowatt 
hour. Actually, the Federal Government might make some money on this.
  Who pays the tab? The retail electric customers. Is that what this is 
all about: Another way to tax the American people? It kind of sounds 
like it to me. As a matter of fact, there are two new taxes in this 
legislation. One is the tax of which I just spoke, and the other is a 
Btu tax by any other name. Remember when we defeated the Btu tax? It 
was a tax on coal-fired, oil-fired, gas-fired, and nuclear production 
of electricity. We said: That is not fair. That is what is embodied in 
the Bingaman amendment and the underlying bill. We are favoring some 
energy sources over others.
  What are the ones in disfavor, out of favor? Nuclear, coal, hydro, 
oil, and gas. That is how we produce about 98 percent of the power in 
the country today. Those are out of favor. The people who get their 
electricity from those sources will pay a tax to those who are willing 
to pay for and generate the power through the renewable fuels or who 
buy the credits. There will be a tremendous transfer of wealth in this 
country. If you live in the State of New York and New York has a hard 
time producing wind power or solar-powered generation, then the retail 
seller in New York will have to somehow acquire credits to offset the 
fact that you cannot generate that kind of power in New York. Who is 
going to pay the cost of those credits? The retail customers of the New 
York utilities. And to whom are they going to be paying them? They are 
going to be paying them to the favored States, those that actually 
could produce this renewable fuel energy. This is the equivalent of a 
Btu tax. If you are going to get your power from coal or nuclear, for 
example, you are going to pay a big premium. Your customers are going 
to have to pay because you are not producing electricity with the 
favored fuels.
  That is wrong. This legislation is costly, it is discriminatory, it 
walks away from deregulation, and imposes a massive new regulation of 
what we can buy in this country, it is anti-American, and it also will 
favor the few to the cost of the many. We don't even know who those few 
are. They know who they are. They are lobbying for this legislation. 
But I suggest we better know who they are before we vote on it or this 
is going to come around and bite folks.
  I know some of my colleagues say, Oh, I need a green vote. I need to 
impress my environmentalists.
  I have two responses to that. Vote your conscience. Do whatever you 
want to do. But if you are just trying to do this to impress some 
environmental constituents, think about all the rest of the 
constituents, the ones who have to buy electricity. Do they count? They 
are the ones who are going to have to pay the bill. I hope they 
remember at election time that they are just as important as this 
environmental community that wants a green vote out of some of my 
colleagues.
  Why are you willing to impose a requirement on others that they buy a 
particular product that one of your friends has to sell? To me that is 
very unfair.
  This is one more thing that makes this unfair. There was a point of 
order that lay against part of this amendment as it pertained to a 
mandate on the municipalities and State-owned and co-ops and others 
that are the political subdivisions that generate and sell power. 
Because it would have required a significant expense for them, it was 
an unfunded mandate and would have been subject to a point of order. So 
Senator Bingaman has wisely agreed to take the mandate out as it 
relates to those particular sellers of power and generators of power. I 
think that is a good thing.
  The problem is, it creates a great disparity and distinction between 
those generators on the one hand and the investor-owned generators and 
sellers on the other hand. Now we have a massive discrimination. The 
municipals do not have to comply but the investor-owned utilities do 
have to comply. To their credit, the power association for the 
municipals, and many of the individual municipals and political 
subdivisions that are currently exempted, have taken the position that 
the underlying Bingaman bill is still a bad proposition. It is bad on 
principle, regardless of the fact they do not have to comply with it 
now. But they are also concerned that in the end they will have to 
comply, that they were only removed from its provisions because a point 
of order lay, and that there would be an attempt later to include them 
in it--among other things, because it is unfair for one group of 
utilities to be treated one way and another group to be treated another 
way.
  I appreciate that they have not backed off their opposition to the 
bill notwithstanding the fact that temporarily they are not subject to 
its provisions.
  I note the cosponsor of my amendment to leave this to the States, the 
Senator from Georgia, is present. For the purpose of allowing him to 
comment on this for a moment, I would like to yield to him and then, 
when he has completed all he wants to say, regain the time so I can 
make some more comments. I would like to yield to my colleague from 
Georgia, Senator Miller.
  Mr. MILLER. I thank the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will not object to this procedure, 
although it is a little unusual. I would like a chance to respond to 
the Senator from Arizona at some point here. So I do not want him 
yielding time to various people around the floor for the whole 
afternoon. I am glad to have the cosponsor, Senator Miller, go ahead 
and speak and then, when the Senator from Arizona concludes, I will 
expect to speak at that point.
  Mr. KYL. That is certainly acceptable to me, and I appreciate the 
sentiment of the Senator from New Mexico. I simply saw my colleague 
from Georgia and wanted him to have an opportunity to interrupt my 
presentation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Georgia seeking 
recognition in his own right?
  Mr. MILLER. I ask to be recognized for up to 5 minutes to speak on 
the legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MILLER. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I will be very 
brief.
  I rise in support of the Kyl/Miller amendment on the renewable 
portfolio standard. As a Governor and now a Senator, I have always been 
sensitive to the real-world effects of policy. I want to tell you about 
some of the real-world effects of the issue before us today, the issue 
of renewable fuels.
  I commend the majority leader and the Senator from New Mexico for 
including the subject of renewable fuels in the debate on the 
comprehensive energy bill. I think it is very important for us to be 
able to enjoy the comfortable life we all expect and still leave a 
clean planet to our children and our grandchildren. Using renewable 
fuels helps our society to fulfill these goals.
  But when I read the original provisions on renewable fuels in S. 517, 
they give me pause. I understand Senator Bingaman's intent in putting a 
renewable standard in this bill. I think that is good. With all due 
respect, however, I believe he is going about it in the wrong way.
  Perhaps it is because of my previous life, but I trust State 
governments. I trust the people who run them, and I think we need to 
trust the States to create a renewable standard that meets both their 
needs and their capabilities. We do not need to hand them an expensive 
Federal standard that they will not be able to meet.
  Fourteen States already have renewable programs in place, and this 
amendment would preempt them. It would be saying to them: We are 
smarter. We know better.
  States would be forced to pass renewable legislation to meet 
conditions mandated by the Federal Government. I don't think that is 
how it should work.
  These blanket conditions do not take into account the needs and 
requirements of each individual State, and

[[Page 3422]]

they are different. What works in Georgia might not work in New Mexico, 
and vice versa.
  My State of Georgia, I am proud to say, has been a leader in the 
production of reliable low-cost energy. If the underlying amendment is 
enacted, consumers in Georgia could end up paying for credits to 
subsidize renewables in other parts of the country. Georgia would be 
forced to pay for a benefit that it will never receive, and I do not 
think that is right.
  In my State of Georgia, the Governor has commissioned an energy task 
force to examine current and future needs for energy generation in the 
State. This will include a formal study and recommendations for how to 
use renewable fuel sources, and how to best take advantage of Georgia's 
available natural resources.
  The task force will also assess the demand for renewable energy to 
determine if the cost and benefit will be supported by electricity 
users in the State. These are the people who know and understand 
Georgia's energy needs and capabilities. These are the people who 
should be in charge of regulating Georgia's renewables. That is why 
Senator Kyl and I have introduced this amendment. That is why I urge my 
fellow Senators to support it. Our amendment encourages the use of 
renewable fuels, but it lets the States decide how to do this.
  This Nation can attain the goal of cleaner energy, but we must do it 
in the right way. We must let the States decide for themselves the 
level of renewable fuel that works best for each of them.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. KYL. I would like to say to the Senator from Alaska, I have a 
couple more points I want to make before I conclude as does, I know, 
Senator Bingaman.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record numerous 
letters in support of the Kyl amendment.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             American Public Power


                                                  Association,

                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 2002.
     Hon. Jon Kyl,
     Senate Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kyl: On behalf of the American Public Power 
     Association (APPA), an association representing the interests 
     of more than 2,000 publicly owned electric utility systems 
     across the country, I would like to express support for your 
     amendment regarding renewable portfolio standards (RPS) which 
     is expected to be offered during consideration of S. 517, the 
     Energy Policy Act of 2002.
       While APPA has consistently supported efforts to expand the 
     use of renewable energy, we nevertheless oppose the use of 
     federal mandates as a mechanism to achieve that goal. APPA 
     has always maintained that decisions of this type are best 
     made at the local level.
       Your amendment would shift the RPS program to Section 
     111(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. 
     This would, in effect, remove the federal mandate and leave 
     decisions related to a RPS to the discretion of State and 
     local regulatory bodies. Further, your amendment preserves 
     the ability of States and local governing bodies to create 
     and implement their own renewable energy programs. This will 
     enable a balanced approach, which takes into account the 
     unique and diverse characteristics of regions and customer 
     bases, to promoting renewable energy sources. For these 
     reasons APPA supports your amendment.
       While APPA continues to have major concerns with the 
     current language in Title II--Electricity of the bill, I 
     commend you for taking a leadership role on this critical 
     issue.
           Sincerely,
                                               Alan H. Richardson,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____

                                              National Association


                                             of Manufacturers,

                                   Washington, DC, March 14, 2002.
     Hon. Jon Kyl,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kyl: On behalf of the National Association of 
     Manufacturers and the 18 million people who make things in 
     America, I urge you to oppose federal mandated renewable 
     portfolio standards, and support the amendment to be offered 
     by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) to the Energy Policy Act of 2002 
     (S. 517). The NAM represents 14,000 members (including 10,000 
     small and mid-sized companies) and 350 associations serving 
     manufacturers and employees in every industrial sector and 
     all 50 states.
       The NAM will consider any votes that may occur on the 
     renewable portfolio standards as possible Key Manufacturing 
     Votes in the NAM Voting Record for the 107th Congress. The 
     NAM strongly urges you to support the renewable portfolio 
     amendment that will be offered by Senator Kyl, and oppose the 
     amendments to continue the federal mandates (using different 
     levels) that will be offered by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) 
     and Senator James Jeffords (I-VT).
       Now is not the time to raise electricity rates by mandating 
     construction of renewable (mostly wind) technologies to 
     generate electricity--mandates that may not be achievable and 
     may threaten electricity reliability.
       A one-size-fits-all national standard is not in the best 
     interests of the economy and energy security. States that do 
     not have adequate wind resources, or have already invested 
     heavily in renewable energy that will not be counted toward 
     meeting the mandates, will suffer disproportionately under 
     the Jeffords and Bingaman amendments.
       Senator Kyl's amendment will encourage the various states 
     to tailor renewable portfolios to meet the needs and wishes 
     of their citizens, instead of having the federal government 
     dictate which energy sources each state must use to generate 
     electricity.
       Congressionally mandated renewable portfolio increases will 
     have negative consequences for manufacturers and consumers, 
     while doing little to address our nation's energy security 
     goals. As the manufacturing sector struggles out of its 18-
     month recession, it is vital that the Senate help--not hurt--
     America's economy.
       The nation needs a balanced energy policy that will serve 
     as the foundation for economic growth. Please support Senator 
     Kyl's amendment to eliminate the federal renewable mandate, 
     which will dramatically improve S. 517 and help to further 
     that goal.
           Sincerely,
                                               Michael E. Baroody,
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____

                                                    March 5, 2002.
     Hon. Jon Kyl,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kyl: We are writing to express our deep 
     concern over the economic impact of the renewable electricity 
     portfolio mandates contained in the Substitute Amendment (the 
     Energy Policy Act of 2002) to S. 517. This renewable 
     portfolio standard would require that 10 percent of all 
     electricity generated in 2020 must be generated by renewable 
     facilities built after 2001. The renewable portfolio standard 
     would become effective next year, and the amount of renewable 
     generation required would increase every year between 2005 
     and 2020. While we believe that renewable sources of 
     generation should have an important, and growing, role in 
     supplying our electricity needs, the provisions contained in 
     the Substitute Amendment are not reasonable and cannot be 
     achieved without causing dramatic electricity price 
     increases. This in turn would have the unintended consequence 
     of reducing the competitiveness of American businesses in the 
     global economy and, thereby, reducing economic growth and 
     employment.
       Today, according to the Energy Information Administration, 
     non-hydro renewables placed in service over past decades make 
     up only about 2.16 percent of the total amount of electricity 
     generated in the United States. However, even this modest 
     existing renewable capacity will not count under the 
     Substitute Amendment toward satisfying the renewable 
     portfolio requirement. Generally, under that Amendment, 
     renewable facilities that can be used to meet the 10 percent 
     minimum must be placed in service in 2002 or thereafter. 
     Therefore, compliance with the Substitute Amendment's 2.5 
     percent renewable mandate for 2005 would require doubling the 
     amount of non-hydro renewables that we now have in just three 
     years--even though it took us more than 20 years to get to 
     where we are today.
       In addition, because the Substitute Amendment requires that 
     10 percent of all electricity generation, not capacity, must 
     come from renewables, vast numbers of renewable electricity-
     generating facilities will have to be built. Wind energy, 
     perhaps the most promising non-hydro renewable technology, 
     operates effectively only between 20 percent to 40 percent of 
     the time. Solar is also intermittent. Therefore, the actual 
     amount of newly installed capacity needed to generate enough 
     electricity to meet the Daschle Amendment's requirements 
     could well exceed 20,000 megawatts by 2005. To put this into 
     context, according to the American Wind energy Association, 
     we currently have less than 5,000 megawatts of installed wind 
     capacity in the United States.
       Simply imposing an unreasonably large, federally mandated 
     requirement to generate electricity from renewables will not 
     guarantee that enough windmills and other renewable 
     facilities can be built on schedule; that the wind (or sun or 
     rain) will cooperate; or that the generating costs will be as 
     low as would be the case from a more diverse, market-dictated 
     portfolio of conventional, as

[[Page 3423]]

     well as renewable and alternative fuels. If retail supplies 
     do not comply with the mandate, they would face a 3 cent per 
     kilowatt hour civil penalty. Some may suggest that this 
     penalty would operate as a ``cap'' on the inevitable run up 
     of electricty costs under the Amendment. Even if this penalty 
     were effective at limiting skyrocketing electricity costs--
     and experience with similar ``penalties'' indicates that it 
     will not--the penalty still would constitute an almost 
     doubling of current wholesale electricity prices for 
     renewable power. Clearly, electricity rates will 
     substantially increase if the Substitute Amendment becomes 
     law.
       The federal government's past record in choosing fuel 
     ``winners and losers'' is dismal. The Powerplant and 
     Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, which prohibited the use of 
     natural gas in electric powerplants and discouraged its use 
     in many industrial facilities, was essentially repealed less 
     than a decade later when its underlying premises were 
     conceded to be wrong. While holding back the use of natural 
     gas, the federal government spent billions of dollars 
     attempting to commercialize ``synthetic fuels,'' including 
     oil shale and tar sands, with little to show for its efforts.
       While we believe that the federal government has an 
     important role to play in encouraging the development of 
     renewable and other energy technologies, we are troubled when 
     that role turns to mandates and market set-asides for one 
     particular fuel or technology. Mandates and set-asides 
     usually don't work, and create unintended consequences far 
     more severe than the underlying problem being addressed.
       For these reasons, we respectfully request that you support 
     efforts to modify the language in section 265 of the 
     Substitute Amendment to S. 517, in order to eliminate or 
     mitigate the harmful economic consequences of the renewable 
     fuels portfolio mandate.
           Sincerely,
       Adhesive and Sealant Council, Inc.
       Alliance for Competitive Electricity.
       American Chemistry Council.
       American Iron and Steel Institute.
       American Lighting Association.
       American Paper Machinery Association.
       American Portland Cement Alliance.
       American Textile Manufacturers Institute.
       Association of American Railroads.
       Carpet and Rug Institute.
       Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy.
       Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry.
       Edison Electric Institute.
       Electricity Consumers Resource Council.
       Independent Petroleum Association of America.
       Industrial Energy Consumers of America.
       International Association of Drilling Contractors.
       Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.
       National Association of Manufacturers.
       National Lime Association.
       National Mining Association.
       National Ocean Industries Association.
       North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers.
       Nuclear Energy Institute.
       Ohio Manufacturers' Association.
       Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce & Industry.
       Pennsylvania Foundry Association.
       Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association.
       Texas Association of Business and Chambers of Commerce.
       U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
       Utah Manufacturers Association.
       Westbranch Manufacturers Association.
                                  ____

                                                   March 19, 2002.
     Hon. Jon Kyl,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kyl: The undersigned associations urge you to 
     support the ``renewable portfolio standards'' (RPS) amendment 
     expected to be offered today by Senator Kyl and Senator 
     Miller to S. 517, the Energy Policy Act of 2002.
       The Kyl/Miller RPS amendment will preserve the ability of 
     each State to decide for itself and its own citizens which 
     appropriate mix of renewable and alternative energy sources 
     is optimal for their own preferences and needs. In addition, 
     the amendment will ensure that businesses and homeowners 
     alike will have more affordable and reliable electricity 
     supplies in the future, with renewable energies being an 
     important and appropriate part of the energy mix.
       The Senate should not adopt a one-size-fits-all national 
     mandate for an arbitrary quota for renewable energy use in 
     producing electricity, such as is currently in section 265 of 
     S. 517. Sen. Bingaman's amendment attempts to make the 
     mandates in S. 517 more technically feasible, but his 
     amendment still mandates an aggressive, nationwide renewable 
     portfolio standard that will raise costs, threaten 
     electricity reliability and create inequities among not only 
     energy sources, but also among States and electricity 
     generators.
       Many States do not have access to optimal wind energy 
     locations or large volumes of inexpensive biomass. Under Sen. 
     Bingaman's amendment, consumers in these States would have to 
     pay for electricity generated in other States that have more 
     access to renewable energy. In addition, the Bingaman 
     amendment treats electricity generators differently--large 
     private utilities are covered, but, inexplicably, public 
     electricity generation is exempt, at least for the present.
       Finally, adopting a mandated federal renewable quota will 
     establish a framework for additional market interference in 
     the future, such as by raising the percentage of the 
     portfolio or extending the mandate to other electricity 
     generators or other energy users. Such portfolio mandates fly 
     in the face of the goals of reasonable electricity policy--to 
     increase competition and efficiency in the electricity market 
     and to lower consumer costs.
       We urge you to vote for the Kyl/Miller amendment to 
     eliminate mandated federal renewable portfolio standards and 
     replace them with a provision that encourages the States and 
     their citizens to determine their own goals for renewable 
     energy sources. Please support the Kyl/Miller amendment to 
     forge a sound energy policy that will promote economic growth 
     and prosperity for all Americans.
           Sincerely,
       The Adhesive and Sealant Council, Inc.
       American Chemistry Council.
       American Iron and Steel Institute.
       American Paper Machinery Association.
       American Petroleum Institute.
       American Portland Cement Alliance.
       American Textile Manufacturers Institute.
       Association of American Railroads.
       Edison Electric Institute.
       Electricity Consumers Resource Council.
       National Association of Manufacturers.
       National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
       National Lime Association.
       National Mining Association.
       Natural Gas Supply Association.
       U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
       National Restaurant Association.
       US Oil & Gas Association.

  Mr. KYL. Second, if I could, I would like to make a couple of points 
in conclusion and then respond to any questions or comments that 
Senator Bingaman would like to make, and I also want to hear what our 
ranking member, Senator Murkowski, wants to say because I know he and I 
were both looking forward to having an opportunity to work on this 
issue in the Energy Committee. As I noted, we didn't have that 
opportunity.
  I appreciate what the Senator from Georgia just said. As a former 
Governor of the State, he appreciates, probably more than most of us, 
the responsibilities of the publicly elected officials and the need to 
know what works and what does not work in any given State and what is 
fair for the people within their State. That is really the basis for 
the Kyl-Miller amendment: to allow the States to determine what is in 
their best interest.
  I note that in more than 90 utilities across the country there is 
already a green pricing policy, what they call green pricing, which 
allows consumers to request and pay for the cost of this green power. 
In other words, they can say, I want 50 percent of my power to come 
from renewable sources, or whatever it is, and whatever the cost of 
that is, the utility is required to provide that power to them and 
charge that cost to them. That is a customer's option.
  That is one of the specific provisions in the Kyl-Miller amendment. 
Obviously, this would be preempted, as with the other State programs, 
with the underlying Bingaman amendment.
  I also make the point that I did not make earlier, which is that the 
administration, Secretary Spencer Abraham specifically, has told me he 
is supportive of the Kyl amendment and not supportive of the Bingaman 
proposal.
  Another thing I want to do is make the point that section 263 of the 
bill allows the Federal Government to purchase a percentage of its 
electricity from renewable sources--I am quoting now--``but only to the 
extent economically feasible and technically practicable,'' and the 
minimum required purchase is 7.5 percent, while section 265 imposes a 
10-percent mandate on private utilities, and it does not include the 
``economically feasible and technologically practicable'' waiver. So 
again, there is another double standard here. The Federal Government is 
not required to do as much as the private utilities are required to do 
and has a special waiver that it can exercise. If this is such a great 
idea, why wouldn't we apply it to the Federal Government just as much 
as we would to the private sector? I do not really have an answer to 
that.

[[Page 3424]]

  I make a point, too, that with respect to the cost-benefit analysis, 
one of the concerns I have had is that the ability of States to provide 
power through renewables is not without tradeoff. I will show you a 
couple charts that illustrate this point.
  In the case of the Southwest, where we have a lot of sunshine, maybe 
this is the ``Saudi Arabia for solar power,'' but it is at significant 
cost. This chart illustrates the fact that you are going to have to 
have an enormous quantity of desert covered with these reflective 
mirrors, about 2,000 acres of solar panels, it is estimated, to produce 
the energy equivalent to 4,464 barrels of oil per day. Two thousand 
acres of ANWR would produce a million barrels of oil a day. So for the 
equivalent 2,000 acres: In one case, you get a million barrels of oil, 
and in the other case you get the equivalent of 4,400 barrels of oil.
  It would take 448,000 acres, or two-thirds of the entire State of 
Rhode Island, of solar panels to produce as much energy as the 2,000 
acres of ANWR that are available for energy production here.
  I do not know exactly how many square miles, but one of the 
assessments was it would take 2,000 square miles to produce the same 
amount of energy that would be produced by a nuclear generating 
facility. If that is true, you would have a corridor 5 or 10 miles wide 
on either side of the highway all the way from Tucson to Phoenix with 
these reflective mirrors. I have not done the environmental analysis of 
that. I know it would not be very attractive. I do not know what the 
other costs to the environment would be. But that is the problem. We 
have had no environmental analysis.
  The same problem exists with respect to wind generation. Wind 
generation, we understand, has certain environmental consequences. It 
is not very friendly to birds, although with more and more of the 
Federal subsidy, they have been working on ways to design the 
propellers so they turn more slowly and therefore give the birds a 
little bit better chance.
  But 2,000 acres of wind generators produce the energy equivalent to 
only 1,815 barrels of oil each day; again, compared to a million 
barrels of oil that would be produced out of the same number of acres 
in ANWR. It would take 3.7 million acres of wind generators, or all of 
the States of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined, to produce as much 
energy as just 2,000 acres of ANWR.
  Now the 2,000 acres, we have said before, is roughly the equivalent 
of Dulles International Airport. So you can get an idea, if you take 
Dulles Airport on the one hand and the States of Connecticut and Rhode 
Island on the other hand, you get a little bit of an idea of some of 
the tradeoffs involved. I do think there has been adequate 
consideration of the kind of tradeoffs that would be required to 
produce the massive amounts of energy that are called for under this 
legislation as a substitute for other ways of producing power.
  As I understand it, the way the Bingaman amendment works is that each 
public power, or, that is to say, investor-owned utility supplier, 
would be annually required to report to the Secretary of Energy several 
facts: One, how much their electric retail load is; what percentage of 
that was produced by renewable fuels; how they acquired that renewable 
fuel--was it by production purchased through a wholesaler or renewable 
credit, or in whatever form it was--and then there would be an audit 
done. In the first year, it would be 1 percent required, the year 2005; 
and it would escalate to 10 percent by the year 2019.
  You would exclude the eligible renewables, municipal waste, and hydro 
from that, and the credits would have to be from sources other than 
existing hydro. The only way you could get additional hydro, or any 
hydro credit, would be if you did something such as rewinding the 
generators or, in some other way, added to the efficiency of a 
particular unit.
  As I said earlier, you could acquire, at a 200-percent market cost, a 
credit from the Department of Energy as well, even though energy would 
not be producing any new power. What would the cost of this be?
  According to the Energy Information Administration of the Department 
of Energy, you are looking at a cost, starting in the year 2005, of 
about $2 billion, escalating, by the year 2020, to a cost of about just 
a little bit under $12 billion per year. And most of that would be from 
production. There would be a small amount through penalty payments 
because of the assumption not a whole 100 percent of the production 
could actually be achieved at that point. Every year thereafter, for 
the next 10 years, you would be paying $12 billion a year. So you are 
talking about $88 billion of gross cost, in addition to $12 billion 
each year thereafter until the year 2030. That is a lot of money that 
would have to be paid by the retail customers of the utilities.
  Just a couple questions, and then I will give Senator Bingaman a 
chance to respond and perhaps answer some of these questions.
  I made the point before that it does not appear to me the generation 
of the renewables is required to be within the State in which the 
electricity is sold. So, presumably, you would have a credit trading 
system throughout the United States. And I do not even see a limitation 
to power produced in the United States. As a matter of fact, as I 
understand it, as drafted, incremental hydro from B.C. Hydro would 
count, and then a retail supplier from the United States could use that 
as a required percentage to be achieved under the legislation.
  One of the concerns--I guess another question I would have--is 
whether there is actually a reverse incentive not to produce power with 
renewables. I know that is the intention of the sponsors of the 
amendment. But I think it could quite work in exactly the opposite 
direction. Because of the tradeable credits that are being created 
under this legislation, you would actually have an interest in 
withholding those credits from the market and even preventing the 
siting of any new generation.
  Here is the concern I have for those of us who are in the West where 
there is some potential for some new generation. In my State of 
Arizona, in the State of Nevada, in the State of New Mexico, and 
others, a very large percentage of the land is owned by the U.S. 
Government. In the State of Arizona, only 12 percent or 13 percent of 
the land is privately owned. Another 12 or 13 percent is owned by the 
State. The rest is held in trust by the U.S. Government. In Nevada, it 
is approximately 90 percent.
  You would have to have a lot of permits to cross Nevada Federal lands 
for either the generation or the transmission. Every action is a 
Federal action. They have to have an environmental impact statement. 
And the opportunities to prevent the establishment of energy generation 
and transmission throughout the Western United States are substantial.
  I suspect there would be an incentive on the part of those who have a 
monopoly on the generation of this power right now to maintain that 
monopoly by finding ways to throw roadblocks in the way of the 
production of this power, especially those States, as I said, where 
there is substantial Federal land-ownership such as my State of 
Arizona. Both because there would be an incentive to withhold the 
credits from the market in order to enhance their value and because 
there would be the natural tendency to use the Government yet again to 
advance economic purposes by withholding approval of competitive 
generation, I suspect there could be actually a diminution in renewable 
generated power than an enhancement of that power.
  I am especially sensitive to the concerns of those from California 
who charge that there was a deliberate attempt to withhold energy from 
the California market which jacked up the prices there. And we all know 
that California consumers suffered as a result of much higher prices 
just 1 year ago.
  These are some of the concerns and questions I have. I am anxious to 
understand how the amendment is intended to work and how it could be 
made to work in such a way that it

[[Page 3425]]

would not be as costly as I indicated; how it would not be 
discriminatory; how it would not preempt the States that already have 
programs such as this, that I indicated; how it wouldn't impact the 
environment in a negative way; how it would not result in the trading 
of credits to the detriment of the retail purchasers in States that 
would have to buy those credits; and, in fact, how it would work in 
States such as Maine where you already have a very high percentage of 
renewable energy required, 30 times the amount that is required in my 
own State of Arizona. Yet there would not be any credit for the sale of 
that to other States, notwithstanding their high production from 
renewable energy.
  To cite an analogy, one of my staff members said he didn't quite 
understand why this was such a great idea. I tried to explain it to 
him. He said: I still don't understand. Grapefruit is really good for 
you, but I don't quite understand. Should the Federal Government then 
pass a law that mandates 10 percent of all the fruit sold in the 
country be grapefruit?
  He said: That might help my State of Arizona because we grow a lot of 
grapefruit. I guess we could set up a trading deal where people in New 
York would have to buy a credit since they couldn't actually produce 
grapefruit. Since it is so good for you, if I am in a preferred 
position politically, I might have the clout to pass a law that says 
that 10 percent of the fruit has to be grapefruit. That might be a good 
idea.
  I really don't think that it is any business of the Federal 
Government to impose that on the American people. Let the free market 
work. Let's get back to deregulation. That is what this whole electric 
section of the energy bill was supposed to be about in the first 
instance: To deregulate, to reduce cost; not to reregulate and increase 
costs; to provide more local control of the situation, not more Federal 
control.
  This underlying Bingaman amendment goes exactly in the wrong 
direction, which is why Senator Miller and I have proposed an amendment 
to require the States to look at this but not require them to impose 
any particular percentage mandate. Let's let each State decide what is 
best for their local retail electrical customers. If after a period of 
years that we carry these significant tax credits, where we are 
promoting renewables, we still haven't gotten to the point where people 
think we need to be, we can take another look at this.
  My guess is we are going to continue to march on to produce as much 
of this energy as we can in an economic and feasible way, and the 
percentage is going to increase over time. And we can at that time 
determine whether we want to replace some of the existing generation 
with this kind of new generation.
  Now is not the time to be imposing this kind of requirement on the 
country with its additional costs, with its discrimination, and with so 
many questions that could have been answered, had we done this in 
committee, that obviously have not been answered.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Kyl amendment. Let's lay this 
Bingaman amendment aside, see how things work for a while before we try 
to regulate the market with a brandnew, very costly and discriminatory 
Federal mandate.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield for 
a question.
  Mr. KYL. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I didn't hear all the debate. Do I understand that 
there is nothing in the Bingaman-Daschle bill that would prohibit a 
scenario that would suggest that maybe the Three Gorges dam, which is 
in the process of being completed and would classify perhaps as an 
incremental renewable, could theoretically sell credits to U.S. firms 
that would need credit in order to comply with a 10-percent mandate by 
the year 2020; so this is not limited to just encouraging U.S. 
construction and development of new renewables that would give them 
credit?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I asked the question of the staff people, who 
have read and reread and reread the underlying bill and the Bingaman 
amendment, if there was any limitation on from where the credits came. 
And they told me they could find none. There is no State limitation, no 
border between the United States and Canada, or other border, so that 
indeed you could end up with a worldwide credit system, not just one as 
among the different States of the United States.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. And a follow-up to that: As an example, I have been 
over to the Yangtze River. I have seen the construction of the Three 
Gorges dam. It is truly one of the largest construction projects in the 
history of the world, much like the projects that occurred on the 
Columbia River in the 1930s where we attempted to reduce flooding and 
combat the tremendous source of energy.
  But my question is, With the potential credits available to them 
because of the size of that project, wouldn't it be attractive to 
acquire these credits at a relatively inexpensive price rather than 
putting in renewables that would be mandated by the amendment?
  Mr. KYL. I say to the Senator, I think he is on to something here. 
That is really a third reason why there would be a disincentive to 
produce new renewables here in the United States. The Senator is quite 
right. There would be an incentive to acquire those credits from abroad 
because you could undoubtedly do it much cheaper because there would be 
so much hydroenergy produced out of this dam.
  Of course, Senator Bingaman can answer this question, but under his 
amendment, if we were--obviously, we will not be able to do this--able 
to build a dam here in the United States, you would not be able to get 
any renewable credit from that. The only way you get any credit from 
hydro would be if you went back in and made the generator more 
efficient. Then all you would get is that incremental improvement in 
output in terms of renewable credit.
  As I understand it, the Three Gorges dam is essentially constructed, 
but the generation equipment has not yet been embedded in it. 
Therefore, if that is the situation when the bill becomes effective, 
that would qualify as incremental electrical generation above and 
beyond what the dam produced on the effective date of the act.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is something I think we should bring out in the 
debate, and perhaps we can get enlightenment. Clearly, I am sure that 
is not what it was designed to do. The obvious objective was to try to 
encourage renewables being built and not to acquire credits that might 
be relatively inexpensive.
  I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I rise to make a 
couple of comments in response to the presentation by the Senator from 
Arizona. He has clearly thought through this and done a fair amount of 
homework. He brought some charts with him and gave some examples of why 
he thinks this is bad legislation.
  I think he makes a terrible mistake by suggesting that this is not 
national in scope. The implication of the proposal by the Senator from 
Arizona is to say: If it is to be done, let's let the States do it. 
This is not something that ought to be a matter of national policy.
  Let me make a couple of comments about that. We would have had the 
same kind of discussion over 20 years ago when we first discussed the 
Clean Air Act in Congress. People said: Let's leave it to the States. 
This isn't something we ought to do nationally. This is not a national 
responsibility or a national goal. Let the States do it.
  We didn't do that. We said: As a matter of national purpose, this 
country deserves clean air. We passed clean air standards. Why? Because 
the Congress demanded it and said: This is a matter of national purpose 
and a matter of developing national standards, and national aspirations 
for our country.
  On the issue of energy, the question is: Are we going to write a 
national energy bill and have an energy policy that turns the corner 
and moves us in a different direction in certain areas--Yes or no? It 
is not a question of can

[[Page 3426]]

we do it. We can. The question proposed by the Senator from Arizona is, 
Should we do it? He says no.
  Now, can we do it? Let me show you this chart. This is from the U.S. 
Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory. This chart 
shows the biomass resources in this country. The dark shades of green 
represent the potential kilowatts per county in America. Solar, 
geothermal, and wind resources: all of these represent real potential 
to extend America's energy supply with renewable energy.
  Now, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to say, I don't think we 
ought to do it. I don't think it is a matter of national policy. It is 
a perfectly reasonable position--wrong, but reasonable.
  If we are going to address energy policy in the Senate, then we have 
to begin describing a new policy, and we have to begin describing it as 
a sense of national purpose.
  I recall a story about Mark Twain being asked to debate. He said he 
would be happy to debate as long as he could be on the negative side. 
They said: You don't even know the subject yet. He said: The negative 
side requires no preparation.
  The affirmative proposal that is offered by Senator Bingaman is to 
develop a renewable portfolio standard. That is an affirmative 
proposal. Why? Because it will advance the interests of this country, 
extend America's energy supply, reduce our reliance on foreign energy, 
and improve America's security.
  What are the consequences of doing nothing? My colleague mentions the 
free market. The free market has allowed us to import 57 percent of our 
oil supply from overseas, largely from Saudi Arabia. Is that the free 
market that helps this country? I don't think so. I think it makes our 
country and our economy more dependent on an oil supply that comes from 
one of the most unsettled areas in the world.
  What if, God forbid, tomorrow morning a terrorist should shut off 
that supply of oil from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to the United States? 
Our economy would be flat on its back. If we wake up tomorrow morning 
at 6:30 and turn on the morning news and discover that, God forbid, 
somebody has interrupted this flow of energy from the Middle East, our 
country's economy is going to be flat on its back. We all know that 
this puts America's economy in jeopardy. That is why, as we develop a 
new energy policy, it is incumbent upon us to look at these new 
approaches.
  The renewable portfolio standard can be controversial, yes, I 
understand that. Every new idea is controversial. But it is essential 
to pull this new policy along and to say that it is good for our 
country, good for our economy, and good for American security. That is 
our requirement in the Senate.
  Now, my colleague from Arizona said that the State of North Dakota 
doesn't have a renewable portfolio standard. That is true. It should. I 
am not in the State legislature. If I were, I would propose it. But 
North Dakota doesn't have an RPS. That is precisely why we need a 
national policy. Some might have an RPS at the State level; some states 
might not. Some might care about it; some might not. Some might think 
it would be fine to go from a 57- to a 70-percent reliance on foreign 
oil. Some might think that is fine because the cheapest oil in the 
world comes from the Persian Gulf. But it is not fine. We all 
understand that. It puts our economy in jeopardy. It imposes on our 
national security in a very significant way.
  So the question is not, Do we understand these things? The question 
is, Are we as a Congress going to do something about it? Are we really 
going to decide there are certain national energy goals and aspirations 
that we have as a country?
  Let me end as I began. We have had this debate before. We had this 
debate on clean air and clean water standards over two decades ago. We 
had people who didn't want those standards. ``Don't you dare impose 
these burdens on State and local governments,'' they said. Good for 
those policymakers. Good for them for having the courage to say, let's 
do this as a country, let's make progress in addressing this national 
issue.
  That is exactly what the Bingaman renewable portfolio proposal in 
this energy bill is designed to accomplish. It says, let's address this 
issue, let's aspire to higher goals, let's understand that energy comes 
not just in a pipe or by digging it out of the ground. It comes from 
the sun, wind, biomass, and geothermal resources. There isn't any 
reason that this country ought not aspire to do more in these areas. 
That is what this standard is about.
  As I said, it is easy to take the opposing side. It is more difficult 
to assume the responsibility to be on the affirmative side. But the 
affirmative side here is saying, let's do this as a country. That is 
the right side.
  I hope when the Senate finishes this debate, it will say, yes, this 
is the right thing to do--not State by State, but as a nation. This is 
what we aspire to do as a nation, to extend our energy supply, to make 
us less dependent upon Middle East oil, and to use limitless and 
renewable sources of energy to help strengthen our country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if my good friend will yield for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I appreciate that. We have had a long relationship on 
energy matters. I look with interest at the chart the Senator has 
displayed. The one thing that strikes me is the areas. Obviously, the 
areas that can generate solar relatively efficiently is the South and 
Southwest, as indicated by my colleague, with the red concentrated 
area, including Arizona and New Mexico. To some extent, that leaves the 
rest of the country without the same potential advantage.
  I find it rather curious, in looking across from the solar down to 
geothermal, most of that is on the west coast, in California. There is 
not much on the east coast. The wind, on the far right of the chart, 
suggests that the northern areas along the Canadian border, and other 
areas, have a predominance of wind. Of course, the green is the 
biomass.
  If we address the combination of circumstances on how we resolve our 
energy crisis and address renewables, there seems to be a tradeoff, 
because I am sure the Senator from North Dakota would agree that the 
biomass concepts suggest burning carbon, and we can address that 
through technology. Nuclear, of course, would not show any significant 
emissions.
  The problem I have is that portions of this bill do not really get us 
there from here. For example, in this bill, we are prohibited from 
using any timber products from public land sales, with the exception of 
preconditioned thinning. So I can refer to the language specifically. 
It says:
       With respect to material removed from national forest 
     systems land, the term biomass means fuel and biomass 
     accumulated from preconditioned, thinning slash and brush.

  So I take that to mean there would be a very narrow use of any of the 
products from public lands. In my State, we are all public lands, so we 
could not develop biomass because we can't use the slash, the bark, any 
of the remains for biomass. I think that is an effort in this 
legislation. I ask if my colleague agrees with me or not, where clearly 
we have an oversight, because that doesn't allow some States that 
really have no private or State timber to utilize the waste for biomass 
production. Is that not kind of an inconsistency?
  Mr. DORGAN. My colleague from New Mexico will speak next and will 
describe some of the policies with respect to public lands.
  I say this to the Senator from Alaska. If you take a look at this 
chart--the import of this chart--it shows a fairly balanced 
representation across the country, to be able to achieve limitless, 
renewable sources of energy that we don't really aspire to harness 
these days. We are trying to see if we can pull the country along with 
a national standard to actually harness energy from these renewable 
resources.
  I understand there are some concerns about certain areas of the 
portfolio

[[Page 3427]]

standard, and we can have some discussion about those concerns. But I 
do believe that the principle here to aspire to have the country using 
more renewable energy.
  The Senator from Arizona, I think, toward the end of his 
presentation, described his real objection. It is not with some 
problems over resources on public lands.
  His problem is he believes that we ought not to mandate anything and 
that the free market ought to help increase our use of renewables. That 
is the underlying objection.
  I do not know whether the import of the question of the Senator from 
Alaska is----
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. In my State of Alaska, for example, I am precluded by 
this language, and I am going to have to go out----
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me finish my thought. I have the floor, Mr. 
President.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am going to have to go out and buy credits which is 
not----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. My point was this: If the Senator from Alaska is saying 
he has some concerns about timber, but he believes there ought to be a 
renewable portfolio standard, that is one thing. My point is the author 
at the end of his presentation said: I do not think we ought to impose 
a mandate on the States. This should be left to the States, No. 1, so 
it is not a national policy to embrace. Second, let's let the free 
market handle this.
  My response to that is, the free market has gotten us to the point 
where over 50 percent of our oil is imported, mostly from Saudi Arabia. 
If you think it strengthens national security, good for you. I am not 
saying you believe that. No one believes we are in the position of 
increasing our national security by increasing the amount of oil that 
comes from the most unstable part of the world.
  That is the point and the reason we need a renewable portfolio 
standard.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I assume the Senator from North Dakota is aware that 
some of the predominant wind areas are in my State of Alaska in the 
high Arctic. I suggest there is little enthusiasm for putting up 
windmills associated with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge where 
there is lots of wind. We have inconsistencies in this. We expended $7 
billion in renewables, and now we are talking about a mandate that is 
going to cost the consumers of this country a considerable amount of 
money. The problem I have with the bill is we have not had this kind of 
conversation, as the Senator knows, in the committee process. We are 
doing this on the floor, and that is difficult.
  The problem I have with this particular application of the chart is 
the inequity associated with what is good for the Southwest does not 
necessarily address what is good for the east coast or the South.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators are advised that the Senator from 
North Dakota has the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me make a final point that I think is 
important. The mandate here is going to strengthen this country's 
national security and energy security. We can decide to do nothing. We 
can decide, as my colleague from Arizona has, that we ought to 
essentially ignore this and let State-by-State judgments be made. We 
can decide that whatever the free market determines is our future. But 
that, in my judgment, does not resolve the need for a national energy 
policy that stretches this country and moves it in a different 
direction--one that I believe will strengthen national security by 
reducing our reliance on foreign oil.
  Does anybody in the Senate want to stand at their desk in the Senate 
and say: We really think it is good for the country, we really believe 
it strengthens America's national security to have 57 percent of our 
oil coming from the Middle East or from foreign sources? Is anyone 
missing what is happening in the Middle East these days? Does anybody 
believe it does not injure our national security to be so dependent on 
that source of oil?
  If you believe--and I think almost everyone in this Chamber does 
believe--it actually hurts our national security to be that dependent, 
then we ought to strive as a nation to find ways to change that. I am 
not talking about Arizona, Alaska, North Dakota, or New Jersey by 
themselves. The Nation ought to strive to back away from that 
dependency.
  If my colleagues believe that, the question is, What is the menu of 
changes that allows us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?
  One answer is the Bingaman proposal in the energy bill that aspires 
to have a renewable portfolio standard of 10 percent; 10 percent coming 
from renewable, limitless sources of energy.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. The Senator is aware, I am sure, that out of all the 
petroleum reserves in the world, the United States has 3 percent, and 
the rest of the world has 97 percent. Is the Senator aware of that?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Is it pretty fair to state it is very difficult for us to 
produce our way out of the problem we have with petroleum products?
  Mr. DORGAN. I say to my colleague from Nevada, that is the case. We 
cannot produce our way out of this problem. We certainly can produce. 
We had a vote in the Senate about production in the Gulf of Mexico. I 
supported that. I also support incentives to increase production of oil 
and natural gas.
  Yes, I do think we have to increase production and do it in an 
environmentally sensitive way. We have to do a lot of other things and 
do them well as a matter of national policy. That is the point of 
having an energy policy debate on the floor of the Senate.
  If, in fact, the result of an energy policy debate is to say let the 
States do whatever they want to do, that is a kind of yesterday-forever 
strategy. Members of the Senate will, 25 years from now, be having the 
same debate. The suits will have changed, the names will have changed, 
and the people occupying the desks in the Senate will have changed, but 
nothing else will have changed.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the Senator can explain to me how any of 
the examples he has given on that chart will significantly reduce our 
imports of oil from foreign nations? He is talking about the generation 
of electricity from these sources, but we do not move out of 
Washington, DC, on hot air. It takes oil. There is no oil associated 
with those particular examples.
  We have to be careful in our definition of energy. There are many 
kinds of energy. The Senator is absolutely right, those are important 
alternatives. But to suggest somehow this is directly related to 
reducing our dependence on imported oil, I think the Senator would 
agree with me there is very little coalition there because we are 
talking about two different things.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me say, I do not agree with him, but I will be happy 
to yield for a question.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Will the Senator from North Dakota acknowledge one 
reason why we are interchanging these various issues of wind power, 
solar power, and oil is because the Senator from Alaska has been using 
charts for the last 2 weeks that try to equate the two and try to make 
the point that we have to keep drilling more and more of Alaska in 
order to avoid using wind power?
  Mr. DORGAN. Not just the Senator from Alaska, but the Senator from 
Arizona, in the points he made toward the end of his presentation, 
specifically talked about the size of the devices to gather solar 
energy that would be required to offset X amount of oil. I believe it 
was 2,000 acres, something the size of Dulles Airport.
  He said: Here is the amount of wind energy; here are the number of 
wind turbines it would take to offset a certain amount of oil.

[[Page 3428]]

  The point is, when we talk about a renewable source of energy, we are 
talking about electricity. That is the case. How do you generate 
electricity? You generate it through electric generating plants. We can 
put coal in them, use natural gas--there are a number of ways to 
generate electricity.
  Our colleague, for example, from Utah, now drives this hybrid car I 
saw parked in front of the Capitol yesterday. His car uses less 
petroleum, because it runs, in part, on battery-powered electricity.
  Renewable and limitless sources of energy will help us reduce our 
supply of imported oil. I am not suggesting, and I would not suggest, 
that doing all we can on renewables takes us far down the road in 
relieving us from the substantial amount of oil we now receive from 
abroad. I am not suggesting that at all.
  I do believe, especially in the area of production of electricity, we 
have opportunities to do things in a different way. The question in the 
Senate is, Do you want to do that or don't you? Some say, no. The same 
attitude prevailed, as I mentioned, on the clean air and clean water 
debates about 20 years ago with respect to this energy debate.
  My hope is that at the end of the day on the Kyl amendment we will 
vote no and say we really do want to be involved in a different way 
with respect to production of electricity.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Just a few miles out of Las Vegas--I explained this to the 
Senator, and I want to see if he remembers this--we are going to build 
a wind site at the Nevada Test Site. We have permission from DOE to do 
that. Within 2\1/2\ years, that will be producing 260 megawatts of 
electricity, enough to satisfy the needs of 260,000 people in Las 
Vegas.
  Will the Senator agree that is a pretty good step in the direction 
for wind energy?
  Mr. DORGAN. A leading question, but of course I agree. Take a quarter 
of an acre of land, put on it a 1-megawatt, new, very efficient wind 
turbine, and produce electricity that is used to power 1,000 homes. 
Pretty good deal? I think so. With 160 acres of land, especially with 
the new turbines, you can produce electricity for nearly 160,000 homes 
in this country.
  My point is, this is the right thing to do. Let's do it as a matter 
of national policy. Let's establish a national renewable portfolio 
standard.
  Let me finally say, as I conclude, I understand it is controversial. 
I understand why some people do not want to do it. In fact, there are 
some people who have never wanted to do anything for the first time. I 
understand that, too. But if we are talking about national energy 
policy, and we end the day in the Senate having done nothing that is 
new, then we have only postponed for another 25 years a debate that is 
identical to the one we are having today, and we will find ourselves in 
exactly the same situation. Let's hope between now and then we do not 
encounter some dramatic circumstance that really shuts off the supply 
of energy that is critical to our country.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for one last question?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes.
  Mr. REID. The Senator's predecessor, Quentin Burdick, I remember once 
when he came back from North Dakota in February. I read in the papers 
and saw on the news there was a terrible storm in North Dakota. I said 
to him: That must have been a bad weekend, Senator Burdick.
  He said: Bad weekend? It was a good weekend. I love that weather. The 
wind blows there all the time, and we like the wind.
  I say that to remind the Senator from North Dakota, as he said 
earlier today, the Saudi Arabia of wind is North Dakota. I can see that 
from the map. I never realized, even though Senator Burdick told me the 
wind blew there all the time, he was really right.
  I have said in this Chamber, if one looks at geothermal resources, 
the Saudi Arabia of geothermal is Nevada. So I would hope Nevada--we 
have a lot of wind. We do not nearly match what happens in North 
Dakota, but it is not bad. I hope when we complete this legislation 
there are some goals set whereby the potential of Nevada with 
geothermal and the potential of North Dakota with wind can be realized.
  Is that what the Senator is saying, simply that we should set some 
marks and guidelines and try to reach them?
  Mr. DORGAN. That is exactly the case. We have the potential to do 
things in a different way, and we ought to use that potential. Now we 
can decide to ignore it, as my colleague from Arizona would have us do, 
or we can decide to embrace it, believing it will strengthen this 
country and move us toward greater energy security.
  I believe it makes sense to take the natural, renewable resources 
that exist and produce energy from them. I do not want the Senator from 
Nevada to leave this Chamber somehow describing to others that North 
Dakota has bad weather. That certainly should not be a conclusion that 
is left. North Dakota is a wonderful State. It has perhaps more 
sunshine than the State of Nevada. We have a little bit of a breeze, 
and it is fairly constant. That is why it ranks well in wind energy. It 
is a great State, with a great temperature, and a great climate, and 
the Senator from Nevada should visit it more often.
  The point is, we also have the opportunity to, from that general 
breeze I have described, capture the energy and use it to extend 
America's energy supply, just as is done with geothermal in the 
Southwest, biomass in the East, and solar resources in much of the 
country, especially the Southwest.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I think the expectation was I would 
speak at this point in response. I know Senator Jeffords from Vermont 
has been waiting to speak, and I will allow him to go ahead at this 
point. Then Senator Voinovich will follow Senator Jeffords, and then I 
will respond after Senator Voinovich.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I listen to this debate and at times it 
gets discouraging because I was around 27 years ago when the cars were 
lined up trying to get gasoline and the people of this country were 
absolutely ballistic about the fact that we were hostage to the oil 
suppliers in the Middle East.
  We did some authorization in the hopes we would build an energy 
supply and this Nation would make it so that those kinds of situations 
would never occur again. Here we are, with the recognition of the 
volatility in the Middle East, again ignoring the possibility of moving 
forward to ensure we do not become subject to that kind of control by 
the Middle East.
  So I oppose very strongly the practical effect of Senator Kyl's 
amendment. The practical effect will be to remove all renewable energy 
production from this bill. It would strike the modest 10 percent 
provision in the underlying Daschle bill and leave us with effectively 
nothing. It would strike the 10 percent renewable energy standard, even 
though most recent studies by the Department of Energy estimate that a 
10 percent national renewable energy standard would cause consumer 
energy prices to decline by almost $3 billion by the year 2020. It is 
hard to understand why we would not want to encourage clean energy, 
energy which causes our consumer costs to go down.
  The amendment before us, however, says no to clean energy, no to 
reducing carbon dioxide, no to reducing smog and acid rain, and no to 
assisting our American companies to expand domestically and to compete 
in the thriving international market.
  I cannot support this amendment. It simply is not an option for me to 
go home to my State of Vermont and tell them I have done nothing to try 
to slow the flow of emissions from fossil fuel powerplants into 
Vermont's air and water. Remember, this is an air pollution problem as 
well.
  As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, it is not 
an option for me to ignore the fact that electricity production is the 
leading source of carbon dioxide emissions in

[[Page 3429]]

this country, accounting for over 40 percent of that total. I cannot be 
blind to the fact that the powerplants contribute significantly to 
emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury. These 
pollutants greatly increase asthma, lung cancer, and other health 
risks, and contaminate our air and our water. We must enhance 
production of clean, domestically produced, renewable energy in this 
country, and we can.
  The amendment offered by my colleague from Arizona would reject all 
Federal renewable energy standards and instead require utilities to 
offer consumers energy from renewable resources. It would also allow 
States to continue to establish State standards for renewable energy.
  States already are establishing State renewable energy standards, and 
utilities are already offering consumers green energy. Federal 
legislation along that line is already happening. It is not necessary. 
Even if such legislation were needed, it would not be enough. We would 
still have a national renewable energy shortage. We would have no 
standard.
  A nationwide standard would address the reality that electricity is 
generated on a regional basis. Many State standards require that 
renewable energy credits come from energy generated from within State 
boundaries. A national renewable standard would enable utilities to 
meet requirements by purchasing and selling renewable energy outside of 
the State boundaries. A national renewable standard would therefore 
guarantee broad, long-term, and cross-regional renewable power 
generation.
  To date, only 12 States have established State renewable energy 
mandates, although others are actively considering them. A national 
standard would increase renewable energy production, thereby expanding 
environmental and health benefits and facilitating greater market entry 
of renewables into the energy sector.
  As is indicated by this chart, public opinion polls constantly show 
that an overwhelming majority of voters nationwide favor requiring 
power companies to generate electricity from alternative energy 
sources. A 2002 survey conducted by the Mellman Group found that 70 
percent of those surveyed favor requiring power companies to generate 
20 percent--that was my amendment awhile back, which received a pretty 
good vote--from renewable sources, even if it would raise their monthly 
electricity bills by $2 or more.
  Polls conducted by Texas utilities show consumers are willing to pay 
as much as $5 per month to receive energy from renewable sources. This 
is almost five times as much as the Department of Energy has found that 
the national renewable energy standard of 20 percent would cost 
consumers.
  Without a strong provision to expand the use of renewable fuels, I 
have to question why we are here at all. If all we are doing is 
continuing business as usual, we might as well finish up and go home. 
We do not need massive new legislation simply to preserve the status 
quo. Before we do that, however, I think we need to remember that 
renewables will not only help clean our environment and provide 
countless new high-tech jobs, they will also diversify our energy use. 
In our current security conscious environment, that is worth doing.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed a letter 
written to myself and other Members by several former national security 
experts regarding a contribution of renewable portfolio standards to 
our national energy security.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                               September 19, 2001.
     Senators Thomas A. Daschle, Tom Harkin, Robert C. Byrd, Carl 
       Levin, Jeff Bingaman, James M. Jeffords, Max Baucus, Joseph 
       R. Biden, Jr., Trent Lott, Richard Lugar, Ted Stevens, John 
       W. Warner, Frank H. Murkowski, Robert C. Smith, Charles E. 
       Grassley, Jesse Helms.
       Dear Senators: Americans are aware of the enormous and 
     complicated tasks ahead in dealing with the consequences of 
     the unprecedented September 11th attack against our Nation.
       There are many corrective actions that require lead-times 
     that could be months or even years. But, there are actions 
     that can and must be taken now. One of those critical actions 
     is to advance America's energy security. The Congress will 
     soon act on that issue.
       It is not enough just to ensureunin-
     terruptible supplies of transportation fuels and electricity. 
     We must also act to advance the security of those supplies, 
     and the nation's ability to meet its needs in all corners of 
     the country at all times. Our refineries, pipelines and 
     electrical grid are highly vulnerable to conventional 
     military, nuclear and terrorist attacks.
       Disbursed, renewable and domestic supplies of fuels and 
     electricity, such as energy produced naturally from wind, 
     solar, geothermal, incremental hydro, and agricultural 
     biomass, address those challenges. Fortunately, technologies 
     to deliver these supplies have been advancing steadily since 
     the Middle East fired its first warning shot over our bow in 
     1973. They are now ready to be bought, full force, into 
     service.
       But, while the U.S. Government has committed intellectual 
     and monetary resources to developing these technologies, the 
     status quo marketplace is unwilling to accommodate these new 
     supplies of disbursed and renewable fuels and electricity. 
     Speedy action by the Administration and the Congress is 
     critical to establish the regulatory and tax conditions for 
     these renewable resources to rapidly reach their potential.
       Fortunately, such actions are under consideration by the 
     Energy, Environment, and Finance Committees. We urge the 
     Energy Committee to immediately adopt the Renewable Portfolio 
     Standard (for electricity) as well as provisions to ensure 
     ready interconnection access to the electric grid, and cost-
     shared funds to the state public benefit funds to continue 
     essential support for emerging technologies and the provision 
     of electricity to the truly needy. We urge the Environment 
     Committee to immediately adopt the Renewable Fuels Standards 
     in conjunction with measures to deal with environmental 
     issues. Finally, we urge the Finance Committee to immediately 
     adopt residential solar credits and renewable energy 
     production tax credits, including a provision for fuels 
     (liquid, gaseous and solid fuels), or their Btu equivalent, 
     similar to the fuel provision tax credit made available in 
     Section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code.
       These actions will also develop new industries and jobs, 
     strengthen communities, enhance the environment, and assist 
     in the stabilization of greenhouse gases. On the 
     transportation fuels issue, ethanol, biodiesel and other 
     biofuels will slow the flow of dollars to the Middle East, 
     where too many of those dollars have been used to buy weapons 
     and fund terrorist activities.
       Consequently, we also recommend a major and concerted 
     effort to assemble the talent and resources needed to launch 
     a ``Liberty Ship'' type program to convert agricultural 
     wastes and cellulosic biomass into biofuels, biochemicals and 
     bioelectricity. The technology to do so is in place; all that 
     is lacking is the political will to deploy it.
           Sincerely yours,
     R. James Woolsey,
       Former Director, Central Intelligence.
     Robert C. McFarlane,
       Former National Security Advisor to President Reagan.
     Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, USN (Ret),
       Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. On September 19, shortly after the attacks on the World 
Trade Center and the Pentagon, James Woolsey, former Director of the 
CIA, ADM Thomas H. Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, and Robert C. McFarlane, former National Security Adviser to 
President Reagan, sent a letter urging in the strongest possible terms 
that we must take immediate action to address our energy security.
  One portion of the letter reads:

       Americans are aware of the enormous and complicated task 
     ahead in dealing with the consequences of the unprecedented 
     September 11 attack against our nation. . . . There are 
     actions that can and must be taken now. One of these critical 
     issues is to advance America's energy security. . . . We urge 
     the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to immediately 
     adopt the renewable portfolio standard.

  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join with me in heeding this 
advice from the great leaders of our Nation who know best why we should 
do this. I strongly disagree with the amendment offered by Senator Kyl.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my 
colleague, Senator Kyl. I ask unanimous consent I be made a cosponsor 
of this amendment.

[[Page 3430]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I applaud the efforts of my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle to encourage the use of renewable 
electricity generation. I agree that renewable energy is an important 
part of the future and should be developed. I also strongly believe 
renewable energy sources are vital as this country seeks to diversify 
energy supplies and decrease our dependence on foreign sources to meet 
our energy needs.
  However, I cannot support the renewable portfolio standard included 
in the underlying amendment because it mandates unrealistic levels of 
renewable usage in a short period of time at the virtual expense of all 
other sources of electricity generation. Instead, I believe the 
amendment of the Senator from Arizona is a reasonable approach to 
making renewable energy a greater piece of our overall energy mix. One 
point that seems to get lost in the debate over the use of renewables 
is America relies very little on renewable sources of energy right now 
and will for the foreseeable future.
  This chart shows a breakdown of how our electricity is generated 
today. Coal contributes 52 percent; nuclear energy is 20 percent; 
natural gas is 16 percent. For all electricity generation by renewables 
nationwide, and that includes geothermal, hydro, biomass, as well as 
wind and solar, the total generation is only 9 percent. When that is 
broken down, hydro is 7.3 percent of the renewables; biomass, wood, 
waste, and others is 1.1 percent; geothermal is .4 percent; and wind 
and solar is .2 percent.
  This last number is important, since a number of my colleagues have 
put quite a bit of faith in solar and wind power. However, the American 
consumer does not appear to share that enthusiasm which is evidenced by 
the fact that wind and solar combined make up only .2 percent of our 
current electricity generation. Another startling but little known fact 
is, if you do not include existing hydropower as renewable, which the 
underlying amendment does not, again, renewables are only 1.7 percent 
of our electricity generation.
  Although the amendment includes incremental hydropower prospectively, 
it still will make up a very small portion of the electricity 
generation in our country.
  Now, when you factor what the Department of Energy believes our 
electricity usage will be over the next 20 years, you see that the use 
of coal will continue to rise, natural gas will rise dramatically, 
nuclear fuel remains fairly level and hydropower remains steady. At the 
bottom is petroleum, and just above that, non-hydro renewables increase 
slightly. These projections show, renewables will make up a very small 
portion of the production of energy in this country for the next 15 to 
20 years.
  However, the underlying amendment says, regardless of market forces, 
America is going to dramatically increase its use of renewables. In 
fact, the underlying amendment stipulates we must develop a mandatory 
minimum standard for renewable energy of 10 percent for our electricity 
generation by the year 2020. The only way I can see that we can 
accomplish this mandate, if it is implemented, is for energy-producing 
companies to take a dramatic turn toward using renewables. That means 
they have to cut back on clean coal technology, put the brakes on 
natural gas, which is the current energy source of choice in America, 
and restrict the further development and use of nuclear power. This 
will have a particularly dramatic impact on energy producers in regions 
of our country that do not currently rely on a tremendous amount of 
renewable resources.
  For example, in my home State of Ohio, our use of renewable energy is 
much lower than the national average. Renewables, including hydropower, 
generate 1 percent. Remove hydro from this number and the State of Ohio 
generates less than .4 percent of its electricity from renewable 
sources. This is predominantly biomass power which comes mostly from 
wood-burning boilers in woodworking and paper manufacturing industries.
  However, there are many other States which rely on renewable sources 
for electricity generation. According to 1998 data from the Energy 
Information Administration, at least 10 percent of the electricity 
generated in 16 States comes from renewable power sources. Of these 16 
States, 5 States receive more than 50 percent of their electricity from 
renewable sources, and the primary source is hydroelectric power. Four 
of the five States--Idaho, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington--rely on 
hydroelectric power for more than 60 percent of their electricity.
  Maine is the only State east of the Mississippi to rely on more than 
50 percent of electricity generation from renewables, 30 percent coming 
from hydro and 30 percent coming from other renewable fuels. Regions, 
and even individual States, that currently have a high percentage of 
renewable energy sources would be less impacted by the requirements of 
the underlying provisions. However, forcing a mandatory minimum will 
unduly burden States such as Ohio.
  I don't want my colleagues to misunderstand me. I do believe we need 
to continue to invest in renewable forms of energy. They are 
environmentally friendly and contribute to meeting the requirement of 
national energy self-reliance, and as the technology gets better, have 
the potential to become inexpensive.
  Right now, electricity from renewable energy sources is very 
expensive. However, we need to realize that the current research and 
development costs make a practical national application of a mandatory 
minimum renewable standard very difficult. Renewables simply do not 
have the capacity to meet our needs in the timeframe established in the 
underlying amendment. Their growth will come, however, and we should 
support research funding that will get us to the point where renewables 
are a viable energy option.
  In fact, over the past 5 years, Congress has provided more than $7 
billion in tax incentives and other programs to assist renewables. 
Recently, we extended a renewable energy tax credit for $1 billion, and 
the Finance Committee has reported legislation that provides an 
additional $3 billion.
  However, I believe it is not prudent for the Senate to mandate a 
renewable standard. The amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, 
on the other hand, lets the free market decide.
  If the demand for energy derived from renewable sources exists, then 
I have no doubt that energy suppliers will respond to their customers 
and satisfy the demand, just as they are doing in Cleveland, OH.
  Last year, the Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council made an agreement 
with Green Mountain Energy Company in Texas to supply customers in 
eight northeast Ohio counties with electricity. Green Mountain Energy 
Company uses a blend of sources including wind, water, and solar 
energy. Customers in these counties were able to make the decision 
themselves if they wanted to purchase the power instead of being 
mandated to purchase green power.
  Having spent 10 years as Mayor of Cleveland, and as mayor I ran a 
municipally-owned utility, and 8 years as Governor, I have developed 
some very strong beliefs regarding federalism and the role of our 
various levels of government.
  The Kyl amendment lets the States decide whether a mandatory 
renewables program is something they would want to implement for their 
residents. Right now, 14 States have already implemented mandatory RPS 
programs. This is consistent with the policy of the National Governors' 
Association, which states that any Federal legislation should:

       . . . allow a State to decide what mix of renewable 
     technologies should be included in any renewable portfolio 
     package implemented in a State.

  The amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico does eliminate 
the original language which would require that larger municipally owned 
utilities meet the RPS standard, but it still does not address the fact 
that this mandate will ultimately be paid for by

[[Page 3431]]

ratepayers. In Cleveland, and in many of our cities and communities 
nationwide, a lot of these ratepayers are poor and a lot of them are 
elderly and it would be hard for them to afford the cost of this 
standard.
  If you look at this chart, the people who seem to be left out are the 
ratepayers. They seem to be left out so often from debates we have here 
on the floor of the Senate. These are the least of our brethren, the 
ones who were the most affected a year ago when the demand for natural 
gas in this country went way up and their utility bills skyrocketed.
  If you look at people with annual income under $10,000, you see that 
almost 30 percent of their income goes for energy costs. If you are in 
an income bracket between $10,000 and $24,000, you spend 13 percent on 
energy costs; and of course if you make over $50,000, only 4 percent of 
your income is spent on energy. There are a lot of people in this 
country who can afford that. But I have to tell you, there are a lot of 
people in this country who cannot afford it.
  Last winter, in the midst of the heating cost increase, I held a 
meeting in Cleveland with Catholic Charities, Lutheran Housing and the 
Salvation Army and heard first-hand the effects of the high energy 
costs were having on the people who could least afford it. Many of them 
were just hanging on trying to stay in their own homes.
  I am concerned about them and I think that the Senate should be 
concerned about them as well.
  I honestly believe if the decision to implement a Renewable Portfolio 
Standard is left to the discretion of the Governors in the States, many 
of them will go forward with it. Some states will not go as fast as 
other ones, but overall we will probably achieve the goal of the 
sponsors of the Bingaman amendment, but do it without mandating it 
throughout the country in each and every State.
  Renewables and conservation need to be a bigger part of our energy 
policy-- I agree with that. But we have to be realistic about our 
challenge. These two strategies do not have the capacity to meet our 
growing energy needs in the timeframe mandated in the underlying 
amendment.
  I have to say, anyone who says renewables are going to take care of 
the energy needs of this country by the year 2020 just is not being 
intellectually honest in terms of what renewables can do.
  We are going to need more coal, we are going to need more nuclear 
power, we are going to need more natural gas, we are going to need more 
hydropower and other renewables, we are going to need more 
conservation. We are going to need it all.
  I think the Senator from Arizona is on the right track with his 
amendment and I urge my colleagues to support his amendment. It 
encourages the use of renewable power without mandating it and meets 
our energy, environmental and economic needs in a responsible way.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
follow Senator Cantwell, since we are both in the Chamber.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have heard the discussion by the two 
sponsors of the amendment, Senator Kyl and Senator Miller, and, of 
course, now Senator Voinovich and my colleague, Senator Murkowski, who 
is the ranking member of the Energy Committee. I want to try to respond 
to some of the points that were made and put this issue in some kind of 
perspective as I see it.
  First of all, why are we even proposing this amendment? Why does my 
underlying amendment that Senator Kyl would propose to eliminate--why 
does my underlying amendment try to move us in the direction, as a 
country, of using more renewable energy to produce electricity? Why is 
that a priority for the country?
  I have essentially the same chart as that to which my good friend 
from Ohio referred. and it has the same basic information on it.
  This chart points out that when you look ahead--we do now depend 
primarily on coal. We do now depend heavily on nuclear. We do now 
depend heavily on natural gas. And renewables are not a major part of 
our energy mix, particularly the nonhydro renewables are not a major 
part of our energy mix.
  One of the purposes we have in this energy legislation--and in this 
particular renewable portfolio standard provision--is to diversify the 
sources from which we generate power, so when we get to 2020 the chart 
I show you in this Chamber does not look exactly like it looks now as I 
am pointing to it here.
  Today, in 2002, about 69 percent of the electricity we generate in 
this country is produced from coal and natural gas. If we do not adopt 
something such as this renewable portfolio standard, the expectation is 
that by 2020 it will be 80 percent produced by those two fuels. That is 
too much concentration. That is not smart.
  The Presiding Officer is familiar with investment strategies. One of 
the simplest, most basic investment strategies is to diversify so you 
are not too dependent on what happens to one particular thing. We are 
too dependent today on what happens to the price of natural gas.
  My colleague from Ohio was citing the terrible plight which many 
people in this country faced when natural gas prices went up 100 
percent, 200 percent 18 months ago. I certainly saw that in my State. 
Many of the people I represent were very adversely affected. That is 
what we are trying to get away from with this renewable portfolio 
standard.
  We are trying to say some of this electricity that is produced in the 
country--some modest amount of it--I would be the first to admit that 
this amendment to require up to 10 percent by the year 2020 is a modest 
amendment. I think it is very doable. It is a movement in the right 
direction, but it is a modest requirement. We are saying, let's at 
least do that. Let's at least require utilities to do the best they 
can, wherever they are located, to generate some of the electricity 
they sell from renewable sources. So that is what we are about here.
  This chart I have shown before on the Senate floor. It tries to make 
the point that as compared to other countries, particularly in Europe--
that is what is reflected on the chart--the United States has done much 
less in the way of trying to generate energy from renewable sources. It 
shows on the chart that Spain has had a 300-percent increase from the 
years 1990 to 1995; Germany, over 150 percent; Denmark, nearly 150 
percent; the Netherlands, over 50 percent; France, a substantial 
amount. The United States is the one shown on the chart with the yellow 
circle around it. We have been moving ahead at a very, almost 
imperceptible, rate.
  So what we are trying to do with this legislation is incentivize and 
require that some action be taken to move toward more production of 
energy from renewable sources.
  My friend from Arizona, in his zeal, referred to this as ``Soviet 
style command and control.'' This proposal, which we brought to the 
Senate floor, is essentially the same as President George W. Bush 
signed into law in Texas. We all know how sympathetic he is to Soviet 
style command and control. It has worked tremendously in Texas. In 
fact, there are all sorts of articles being written about how 
successful that State has been in increasing the use of renewables, and 
increasing the generation of power from renewables, and how the rest of 
the country ought to learn something from Texas. What we are trying to 
do here is learn something from Texas.
  I see the majority leader in the Chamber. If he has comments or a 
statement to make, I would be glad to yield to him at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the distinguished Senator from New Mexico for 
his kindness.

[[Page 3432]]

  Mr. President, I make an announcement that there will be no more 
rollcall votes tonight. We will pick up, hopefully, on the Kyl 
amendment tomorrow and have a vote on it at some point shortly after we 
reconvene.


                   Technical Amendments Negotiations

  Mr. President, I also announce that it appears it is unlikely we are 
going to reach an agreement with regard to the so-called technical 
amendments that have been the subject of a good deal of discussion and 
negotiation over the last several days. I appreciate the effort made by 
many of our colleagues. That will, as we have all understood, 
necessitate the cloture vote tomorrow.
  My expectation is that we will come in late morning and then have the 
cloture vote and begin the debate on the campaign finance reform bill. 
Perhaps we still may reach some agreement with regard to the technical 
amendments, but at least as of this hour no agreement has been reached.
  Senator McCain has indicated to me he is not in a position to agree 
to the amendments that have been discussed. As a result, while I 
encourage further discussion, I do want people to know that it is very 
likely, I would say, we could have that cloture vote as early as late 
tomorrow morning. So I want to inform my colleagues of that.
  I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If the leader will yield, I must say that I am 
somewhat frustrated. The leader may or may not know that Senator McCain 
and I have had three meetings on this subject. My staff and his staff, 
and others on the other side of that issue, worked for 3 weeks to 
resolve six very small items. There were 10 meetings between the staffs 
of Senators McCain and Feingold and mine, several phone conversations 
daily when staff was permitted to speak to each other, phone 
conversations late at night and over the weekend. Late last night, 
Senators McCain and Feingold provided a draft incorporating two 
technical changes of their own, to which we immediately agreed. In 
fact, we agreed to all of Senators McCain's and Feingold's provisions 
and their changes. And I have been representing to my colleagues for 
over a week now we were almost there.
  I was hoping we would be able to end this debate with everybody 
feeling good about the situation, but I must say I am not sure I have 
been dealt with in good faith, having worked on this now for 3 weeks, 
and every time I am told we are almost there, we are never there.
  So I think the majority leader is correct. That is where we seem to 
be. But I am going to say, I am astounded. This is my 18th year in the 
Senate. I have been involved in a lot of negotiations--never one so 
painful over so little: six rather small items.
  So I do think we are going to wrap this bill up tomorrow. It is too 
bad we will not, apparently, be able to pass a technical package that 
would benefit both sides because of our inability to bring this to 
conclusion.
  But I say to the leader, as I have said repeatedly over the last 
week, we are anxious on this side, those of us who oppose this bill, to 
complete it. And, hopefully, we can wrap it up tomorrow, not only the 
cloture vote but final passage, and the resolution that I believe we 
have agreed upon, which is separate from the technical amendments. It 
is really regretful that we negotiate for 3 weeks over relatively small 
items and cannot seem to get there.
  So let me say to the leader, we look forward to wrapping this bill up 
tomorrow--we know it is essentially over--and hope we can do it in a 
minimal amount of time.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I appreciate all of 
his efforts. I said a moment ago, I still hold out the possibility that 
some agreement can be reached. And, of course, the cloture vote does 
not preclude that. So we will keep talking.
  I think Senators should be on notice that the cloture vote will take 
place, and, hopefully, we can then reach some kind of unanimous consent 
agreement with regard to the time required for further debate on the 
bill prior to the time we have a final passage vote.
  I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 3038

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just speak for a few more minutes 
and conclude my comments. I know there are others waiting to speak on 
this Kyl amendment.
  One of the issues that was raised by the Senator from Georgia was a 
concern about whether or not this preempted States from doing what they 
wanted to do about renewable energy generation. It does not do that. 
There is no way that we in any way preempt a State from taking action.
  There are many States that have taken action which far exceeds the 
standards to which we would be holding them. So this is not in any way 
an effort to preempt States. It is an effort to move them along this 
road, and some of them are already a great deal of distance down this 
road.
  Let me also discuss the idea of wealth transfer. My colleague from 
Arizona has said repeatedly that this is a terrible thing because some 
States are at such a terrible disadvantage. The truth is--and the 
various maps that my friend from North Dakota showed earlier make the 
point very clearly--we do not specify in this legislation which type of 
renewable resource be used. Instead, we allow each State to use 
whatever is available to them. There are a great many different 
resources available.
  Finally, let me talk about cost. There has been a real concern that 
the cost of this provision would be substantial for ratepayers, for 
various individuals.
  I have the Energy Daily, which is a well-known publication in town 
and around the country. This is dated March 12. There is an article 
entitled ``EIA Sees RPS Having Little Impact On Prices.''
  What that means is that the Energy Information Administration was 
asked by my colleague, Senator Murkowski, to do a study on what would 
be the impact of this provision on prices?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am pleased to yield.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. You have just stated that many States have already 
implemented greater RPS standards than required in your amendment. In 
my statement, I said 14 already have RPS standards. But this bill does 
mandate a 10-percent renewable requirement on all the States. In a 
State like Ohio, we are currently generating less than four-tenths of 1 
percent of our electricity with non-hydro renewable power sources. We 
are also facing some dramatic increases in electric generation costs to 
reduce the pollution from coal-fired plants by using clean coal 
technology. About 85 percent of our plants use coal today.
  I can't believe an RPS in Ohio will reach 10 percent because in all 
probability, the utilities that serve my State, if this goes in as a 
mandate, will buy credits and then the cost of those credits will be 
passed on to Ohio ratepayers.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me respond: There clearly are some challenges for 
some States in this legislation, but I am persuaded that there are ways 
for them to meet those challenges through coal-fired generation, using 
biomass. That is one way to do it. We are glad to work with the Senator 
to be sure that the legislation has the flexibility in it so that this 
is a goal that can be achieved in his State by utilities operating in 
his State. I think it can be.
  If I could just conclude the description of this study, this is the 
study by the Energy Information Administration, it concludes:

       . . . that the retail price impacts of a requirement that 
     electricity generators provide at least 10 percent of their 
     output from renewable sources by 2020 ``are projected to be 
     small because the price impact of [the program] is projected 
     to be relatively small when compared with the total 
     electricity costs and to be mostly offset by lower gas 
     prices.''

  Then they go on to say:

       The study, which was requested by Sen. Frank Murkowski of 
     Alaska . . . concludes that increased electricity generation 
     from renewables would have the biggest impact on natural gas-
     fired prices, which EIA said would drop as a result of 
     competitive pressure from renewables.


[[Page 3433]]


  So the chart my friend from Ohio put up showing gas prices going 
through the ceiling, as they did 18 months ago, that would be less 
likely if there were other sources from which energy was being 
generated.
  Mr. President, I have other points I can make. I know there are 
several Senators who have been waiting quite a while to speak. I may 
have an opportunity later on before the vote to conclude my comments.
  Mr. President, I have a series of letters in support of the 
underlying Bingaman amendment that Senator Kyl would wipe out with his 
amendment. I ask unanimous consent those letters be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              National Hydropower Association,

                                Washington, DC, February 20, 2002.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: The National Hydropower Association 
     (NHA) writes to ask you to support Majority Leader Tom 
     Daschle and Energy & Natural Resources Committee Chairman 
     Jeff Bingaman for their inclusion of ``incremental 
     hydropower'' in the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) 
     contained in S. 517, the ``Energy Policy Act of 2002.'' 
     Additionally, we ask that you oppose any efforts to modify or 
     remove incremental hydropower from the RPS when the bill is 
     considered on the Senate floor and to support S. 517's RPS in 
     the event of an ``up-or-down'' vote.
       Both Democrats and Republicans have recognized the 
     importance of hydropower--our nation's leading renewable 
     technology--in meeting future energy demands. What's more 93 
     percent of registered voters overwhelmingly support an 
     important role for hydropower in the future, and 74 percent 
     favor incentives for increased hydropower production at 
     existing facilities.
       With the inclusion of incremental hydropower in the RPS, 
     approximately 4,000 Megawatts (MWs) of new hydro generation 
     could be developed meeting today's environmental standards at 
     existing hydropower facilities--none of which would require 
     the construction of a new dam or impoundment. This is enough 
     power for four million homes--clearly a significant 
     contribution to our nation's energy supply.
       The most commonly used definition of incremental 
     hydropower, including that of S. 517, allows new hydro 
     generation to be achieved from increased efficiency or 
     additions of new capacity at an existing hydroelectric dam. 
     This concept is based on extensive discussions and a general 
     agreement between the hydropower industry, a segment of the 
     environmental community and other members of the renewable 
     energy community.
       NHA strongly supports Senators Daschle and Bingaman for 
     their inclusion of incremental hydropower in S. 517 and hope 
     you will do the same. What's more, we hope you'll support the 
     RPS when it is debated on the Senate floor as it will allow 
     America to rely more on clean, renewable energy.
       If you have any questions, please contact Mark R. Stover, 
     NHA's Director of Government Affairs, at 202-682-1700 x-104, 
     or at [email protected].
           Sincerely,
                                              Linda Church Ciocci,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                Florida Power & Light Company,

                                   Washington, DC, March 14, 2002.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bingaman: Please consider this letter an 
     endorsement of the compromise Renewable Portfolio Standard 
     (RPS) contained within S. 517, the Energy Security Policy 
     Bill.
       As you may know, FPL Group, comprised of its two major 
     subsidiaries, Florida Power & Light (FPL) and FPL Energy 
     (FPLE), is one of America's cleanest, most progressive energy 
     companies. Our commitment to the environment is manifested by 
     FPL's diverse generation mix and by FPLE's largely renewable 
     energy portfolio. FPLE operates the two largest solar 
     projects in the world, over 1,000 megawatts of hydroelectric 
     power, a number of geothermal projects, and a number of 
     biomass plants. And, significantly, with over 1,400 megawatts 
     of net ownership in wind energy, FPLE is the nation's largest 
     generator of wind power.
       FPLE plans on adding up to 2,000 megawatts of new wind 
     generation over the next two years. Due to the wind energy 
     production tax credit (IRC Sec. 45(c)(3)) and the industry's 
     success in reducing production costs, wind energy has become 
     economically feasible. A long-term extension of the credit 
     combined with your RPS will allow wind generation--and, 
     hopefully, other renewable sources--to contribute to 
     America's energy independence and security. Ultimately, such 
     an aim should be the keystone of any American energy policy.
       We appreciate your leadership on this important issue, and 
     we strongly support your efforts to enact a fair and balanced 
     RPS. Please do not hestitate to call on me should you require 
     any assistance in your endeavor.
           Sincerely,
                                                Michael M. Wilson,
     Vice President.
                                  ____



                                                Calpine Corp.,

                                   Washington, DC, March 14, 2002.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: On behalf of Calpine Corporation, I 
     am writing to convey our support for the Renewable Portfolio 
     Standards (RPS) amendment that I understand you plan to 
     offer.
       We support a reasonable RPS that will provide a market-
     based incentive for increasing the amount of energy that is 
     produced by renewables. Your amendment is a significant 
     improvement over both the existing Senate energy bill 
     language and the Jeffords amendment to be offered on this 
     subject. We particularly support the fact that your amendment 
     treats all types of renewable energy the same.
       We also believe that an RPS is only workable when it is 
     coupled with tax incentives for the production of renewable 
     energy and we strongly support the production tax credit for 
     basic renewables that is contained in the underlying energy 
     bill.
       As the world's largest producer of geothermal energy, we 
     are concerned, however, that only new renewable capacity will 
     be eligible to receive tradable credits under the RPS. While 
     I understand your desire it to encourage new capacity rather 
     than reward past behavior, it seems that there should be some 
     recognition for early action. Perhaps when this issue comes 
     to conference, you might consider a system whereby existing 
     renewable capacity is eligible for credits that phase out 
     over time. We would certainly be willing to work with you on 
     such a proposal.
       Finally, I want to thank you for your leadership in guiding 
     this energy legislation through the Senate. The bill contains 
     some important features that will help to promote more 
     competitive markets and we appreciate everything you have 
     done to maintain these features and oppose amendments that 
     would turn away from open access and competition.
           Sincerely,
     Jeanne Connelly.
                                  ____

                                                       MidAmerican


                                      Energy Holdings Company,

                                        Omaha, NE, March 14, 2002.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bingaman: I am pleased to write in support of 
     your efforts to include provisions to promote the development 
     of renewable energy resources for electric generation in the 
     Senate's comprehensive energy bill. MidAmerican Energy 
     Holdings Company is one of the world's largest developers of 
     renewable energy, including geothermal, wind, biomass and 
     solar.
       MidAmerican has been a long-time proponent of both a 
     production tax credit for electricity generated by renewables 
     and a federal government purchase standard for renewable 
     electricity. We strongly support these provisions in the 
     comprehensive energy bill before the Senate, as well as 
     recent modifications to the bill's renewable portfolio 
     standard (RPS) section that will ensure that implementation 
     of the RPS is achievable and affordable.
       Renewable electricity can play a critical role in 
     diversifying the nation's fuel mix and providing emissions-
     free electricity for American consumers. By including both 
     supply and demand side components in the comprehensive energy 
     package, your legislation will benefit the environment and 
     American energy security.
       Thank you again for your leadership in promoting renewable 
     energy.
           Sincerely,

                                               David L. Sokol,

                                                      Chairman and
     Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____



                             American Wind Energy Association,

                                   Washington, DC, March 13, 2002.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bingaman: I write on behalf of the Board of 
     Directors and member companies of the American Wind Energy 
     Association (AWEA) in support of the Renewables Portfolio 
     Standard (RPS) contained in the proposed substitute to S. 
     517, the Energy Policy Act of 2002.
       While we believe that all of America's renewable energy 
     technologies--wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and 
     hydropower--are capable of contributing higher levels of 
     electricity generation than would be required by the proposed 
     RPS, the provision is a significant step forward in meeting 
     America's growing energy needs.
       In 2001 alone the wind energy industry installed close to 
     1,700 megawatts of new generating capacity, enough to meet 
     the needs

[[Page 3434]]

     of about 475,000 households. More than half of this new wind 
     power development (915 megawatts) was produced in Texas--a 
     state with the most effective renewable energy requirement 
     law in the nation. In addition to producing electricity 
     without emitting any pollutants, each megawatt of wind power 
     creates at least $1 million in economic activity.
       The wind industry is proud to support the RPS contained in 
     S. 517, aimed at diversifying America's energy production 
     while also enhancing our effort to secure cleaner air and a 
     more sustainable energy future. Thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Randall Swisher,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                Geothermal Energy Association,

                                   Washington, DC, March 14, 2002.
       Dear Senator: This afternoon, Senator Bingaman plans to 
     offer a substitute for the RPS provisions in S. 517 that the 
     geothermal industry urges you to support.
       While we believe that significantly more renewable energy 
     could be brought on-line over the next twenty years, the 
     Bingaman amendment would establish an important national 
     minimum requirement for new renewable development. This will 
     help ensure the continued growth and health of renewable 
     industries and will have positive economic and environmental 
     benefits for our Nation.
       Moreover, the Bingaman proposal would preserve the 
     essential market-based approach that is at the heart of a 
     renewable portfolio standard. This proposal--together with 
     the provisions proposed by the Senate Finance Committee that 
     would equalize renewable tax treatment by expanding the 
     production tax credit to include geothermal energy--will 
     stimulate market forces to develop reliable and cost-
     effective renewable technologies to help meet our country's 
     energy needs.
       On behalf of the geothermal industry, I strongly encourage 
     you to support the Bingaman amendment and the renewable 
     energy tax provisions reported by the Senate Finance 
     Committee.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Karl Gawell,
                                               Executive Director.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota is recognized, followed by the Senator from Washington.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. What I can do is--I would be pleased to speak for 
myself; I know Senator McCain wants to speak--if I could get 10 minutes 
before the vote tomorrow to speak, I would be pleased to relinquish the 
floor last.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am not in a position to commit to that 
without the assistant majority leader, floor leader, to talk about 
that. I don't know what the procedure is. Since we are jumping from the 
energy bill to the campaign finance reform bill and back every few 
minutes, it is very difficult for me to commit to that.
  Mr. McCAIN. May I just ask my friends from Minnesota and from New 
Mexico--three of us are on the floor. We would take about 2 minutes to 
kind of clear up a problem that has arisen. If I could ask unanimous 
consent that we could take a maximum of 3 minutes, 1 minute each.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that would be fine. I ask unanimous 
consent that I just immediately follow them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. And then I would be followed by Senator Cantwell as in 
the original agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.


                   TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS NEGOTIATIONS

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will take less than 1 minute. We have 
been working with the Senator from Kentucky, the Senator from Wisconsin 
and I have, and our staffs. We have come up with a package of technical 
amendments with which we are in agreement. We are ready to move that 
package. There seems to be a problem with another Member, a very senior 
Member. I hope we can get that worked out.
  I do have it worked out. I think we should be ready to move forward 
tomorrow. I think we have had good-faith negotiations.
  I yield to either one of my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I said before the Senator from Arizona had arrived 
that I was totally frustrated. I recounted all the meetings he and I 
and our staffs had had, and I was exasperated that we seemed to have 
gotten so close and not been able to complete it. I confirm what the 
Senator from Arizona said, that we have reached an agreement among the 
three of us on this technical package. We would like to be able to move 
it, and we would plead with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to give us a chance. I don't think there are three Members of the 
Senate who know any more about the subject than we do. Our positions 
are pretty well established. We have actually reached agreement, and we 
would hope that the Senate would let us act on it in some kind of 
consent arrangement sometime tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, there have been good-faith negotiations. 
I agree with the Senators from Arizona and Kentucky that we have 
finally reached agreement on the technical amendments package. There is 
a different Member of the Senate who has a concern about it. Because we 
are operating on the basis of a unanimous consent, we have to deal with 
that. But we have finally reached the point where the actual provisions 
are something we can agree on, and we are hoping we can work this out.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I assume we will have time to talk 
about campaign finance reform.


                           Amendment No. 3038

  As a matter of fact, I think I can do it in just a couple of minutes. 
Last week when we had the debate on the Jeffords amendment, to increase 
the renewable portfolio to 20-percent electricity, I spoke at some 
length. I just want to pick up on a couple of points that Senator 
Bingaman made, and probably my colleague from Washington can speak 
about this with more eloquence. Nobody, to respond to the Senator from 
Ohio, is making the argument that, by 2020, we will be totally 
independent from fossil fuels. No one is making that argument. It's 
really a ``straw man'' argument.
  I think the question is whether or not we will, no pun intended, 
continue to barrel down the fossil fuel energy path. Will we continue 
to rely primarily on oil, coal, or on other fossil fuel? Or do we want 
to take a new direction. I, frankly, think this is going to be a test 
vote for a new direction in energy policy. I think the Senator from New 
Mexico agrees that this is going to be a test vote on this bill. This 
10-percent renewable energy portfolio, which is from my point of view 
too little, makes this legislation a reform bill--it makes this an 
energy bill that is sensitive to how we produce energy in connection 
with the environment. It takes us down a different energy path.
  The different path is significant for many States. For example, in 
Minnesota, we produce enough wind to produce all of our electricity 
through wind, when the technology is there. In fact, Minnesota, South 
Dakota, and North Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas could produce enough 
energy through wind generation to produce electricity for the whole 
country.
  So there is enormous potential here. In addition to wind, we have 
biomass to electricity, solar, and geothermal. When my colleague from 
Ohio was giving some projections, I think he missed the point about the 
potential of efficient energy use and where that figures in. Again, one 
more time, it is a marriage ready to be made between being much more 
respectful of the environment, clean technology, many more small 
business opportunities, keeping dollars and capital in our States and 
our communities, national security, and less dependent on Middle 
Eastern oil.
  Look at what happened last year with natural gas prices. We would be 
much less dependent on a few giant energy conglomerates for energy.
  This is pro-environment, pro-consumer, pro-small business, pro-clean 
technology, and is going to be a huge growth industry in our country. 
Frankly, the only folks who are really opposed to this renewable 
portfolio standard are some Senators are opposed because they think it 
is a mistake to have a mandate or a subsidy. Although I have to tell 
you, the oil and gas industry have gotten huge subsidies over

[[Page 3435]]

the years. Last year the House passed a bill with over $30 billion in 
tax breaks, most of them going to oil, coal, and the nuclear industry. 
Now that is a government subsidy. If I were to look back over the last 
50 years of energy policy, it would be a massive amount of money we 
have given to the fossil fuel energy industry. We don't want to stack 
the deck against renewables. We want to nurture and promote energy 
policy for all of the good reasons I have tried to outline.
  Frankly, if we can't hold on to this 10 percent renewable energy 
portfolio, then I don't think we have much of a form bill here at all.
  This is a key vote. That is why I wanted to speak briefly about it. I 
hope we will get a strong vote against the Kyl amendment, and I think 
we will. I think it should be defeated.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the Kyl 
amendment. We are debating this energy bill against the backdrop of one 
of the country's most severe energy crises, which has definitely 
impacted ratepayers in my State and in many parts of the West.
  After September 11, the war against terrorism even more underscores 
the need for us to develop a national energy policy that helps create 
more independence. It is clear that the time has come for us to enact a 
21st century energy policy. But we will fail if this bill is simply 
about the extent to which we should increase oil production or 
determine the best route for pipelines. We will fail if we do not learn 
from the lessons of the past and recognize that we are on the cusp of a 
revolution of energy technology that could be as significant as the 
revolution in computing technology.
  We are faced with a clear choice: We can go down the path of debating 
false choices of conservation versus production, regulation versus 
deregulation, nuclear versus fossil. But I think it is time that we 
recognize what is at the core of the debate is this 21st century energy 
policy; about developing a new policy that will lead us to a system of 
cleaner, more efficient, distributed power, located closer to the homes 
and businesses that it is built to serve.
  Mr. President, the renewable portfolio standard we are debating today 
is the centerpiece of our effort of a 21st century energy policy marked 
by environmentally responsible sources of energy. An aggressive 
renewables portfolio standard will help this Nation diversify its 
energy, level the playing field for renewable resources, and encourage 
investment in clean energy technology. A transition to clean, renewable 
sources of energy will help stabilize increasing and volatile fossil 
fuel prices, ease energy supply shortages and disruptions, clean up 
dangerous air pollution, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
  Again, arguments in favor of a strong Federal renewables portfolio 
standard are straightforward. An RPS will spur more environmentally 
responsible generation, diversify electricity sources, and that is 
enhancing and helping to protect our economy from price spikes; and, 
three, create a national market for renewables and clean energy 
technology, spurring innovation and reducing their cost--potentially 
for international export.
  Today, less than 2 percent of the Nation's electricity is generated 
by nontraditional sources of power such as wind, solar, and geothermal 
energy. This has to change. By putting a renewables portfolio standard 
in place, we will set the Nation down a path toward a more independent, 
sustainable, and stable power supply.
  I want to emphasize just how important it is to diversify our 
generating resources. As many of my colleagues are aware, last year the 
Pacific Northwest suffered the second worst drought in the history of 
our State. In Washington State, about 80 percent of our generation 
comes from hydroelectric sources. So because of this drought, consumers 
in my State were exposed far more directly to the pervasive market 
dysfunction activity that happened in the West. As a result, many of 
our utilities have had to raise their retail rates by as much as 50 
percent.
  So I believe we must diversify our resource portfolio, but to 
accomplish this goal, many of our utilities are making a tremendous 
investment in new generation. Much of it is from ample renewable 
resources. We realize the investment in renewables is affordable and a 
perfect complement to our hydroelectric base. For example, I visited, 
in our State, the Stateline Wind Project last August, which is located 
in Walla Walla, WA. The wind farm, which went into operation December 
13, consists of 399 turbines and has a capacity to produce 263 
megawatts of electricity. That is enough energy to serve almost 70,000 
homes. So this is working.
  The Bonneville Power Administration, which supplies about 70 percent 
of the power consumed in Washington State, has set a goal of obtaining 
a total of a thousand megawatts of energy.
  Many of our small and rural utilities are banding together to invest 
in wind projects, and the Yakima Tribe is also exploring similar 
options.
  As we consider the renewables portfolio standards provisions of this 
bill, I think it is important to recognize the tremendous untapped 
potential that these renewables represent. Washington State and the 
Pacific Northwest have begun to make this investment. With the 
construction now underway, our regional renewable resources, excluding 
most hydropower, will soon approach 4 percent--far surpassing the 
national average. But I believe we can still do better.
  A strong renewables portfolio standard will create the market 
certainty that companies and utilities need to continue down the path 
toward resource diversification and technological innovation. 
Specifically, increasing our supply of renewable resources makes not 
just environmental sense but also economic sense. A study released last 
November, sponsored by a group of Northwest utilities and interest 
groups, estimated that the international market for clean energy 
technologies will grow to $180 billion a year over the next 20 years--
that's right, $180 billion a year over the next 20 years.
  It is in our national economic interest to set policy that will 
ensure the United States captures a major part of this market.
  Already the Northwest has a $1.4 billion clean energy industry that 
is on track to grow to $2.5 billion over the next several years, 
creating 12,000 new jobs in our region. That is right, 12,000 new jobs 
in our region.
  With the right public policies in place, we can attain 3.5 percent of 
the worldwide market for clean energy technologies, including not just 
generation but smart-grid transmission technologies needed to bring 
power to market more efficiently and create as many as 35,000 new jobs 
in the Northwest.
  Developing the clean energy technology industry on a national level 
means job creation. We need a Federal renewable portfolio standard both 
to break our century-old reliance on traditional fossil fuels and to 
create predictable markets for renewable technologies and lay the 
groundwork for even greater innovations.
  Last week, the Senate was unable to make meaningful progress on the 
important issue of corporate average fuel economy standards for our 
Nation's vehicles. We had an opportunity before us to alleviate threats 
to our national energy and economic security posed by our dependence on 
imported oil. Nonetheless, it is important that we make progress today 
in this particular area and make sure that we make a renewable standard 
an important part of this legislation.
  The renewable portfolio standard is one of the thresholds that will 
determine whether the Senate really does create an energy policy that 
sets itself apart from the 19th century focus of digging, burning, and 
drilling and focuses more importantly on these 21st century 
technologies.
  Now is the time to enact an energy policy that will help us meet 
these goals. A strong renewable portfolio standard will encourage use 
of renewable sources and reduce harmful air

[[Page 3436]]

and water pollution from coal and fossil fuels. It will help ensure a 
sustainable, secure energy supply and protect our environment for 
future generations. It will create the investment, income, and jobs in 
our communities, especially our rural areas.
  These are the characteristics that I think should be part of our 21st 
century energy policy. I ask my colleagues to support a strong 
renewable portfolio standard and, most importantly, oppose any efforts 
to strip from this bill or in any way undermine this measure which I 
believe is critical. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Kyl 
amendment and to vote instead for a strong renewable portfolio 
standard.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to respond to some of the comments 
made relative to my amendment by various Senators who have spoken since 
I laid that amendment down earlier this afternoon.
  First, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record two letters 
from the Public Service Commission of the State of Florida, both dated 
March 18, 2002, one to the Honorable Bill Nelson and the other to the 
Honorable Bob Graham, the two Senators from the State of Florida.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 State of Florida,


                                    Public Service Commission,

                                  Tallahassee, FL, March 18, 2002.
     Re: Energy Legislation (Substitute Amendment 2917 to S. 517).

     Hon. Bill Nelson,
     U.S. Senator, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The purpose of this letter is to let you know 
     that the Florida Public Service Commission has major concerns 
     with the 400-page Substitute Amendment currently being 
     addressed by the Senate. It is extremely preemptive of State 
     Commission authority. If legislation moves forward, we ask 
     that it provide a continuing role for States in ensuring 
     reliability of all aspects of electrical service-including 
     generation, transmission, and power delivery services and 
     should not authorize the FERC to preempt State authority to 
     ensure safe and reliable service to retail customers. Also, 
     we support the Kyl amendment on the renewable portfolio 
     standard.
       In particular, our concerns are:
       (1) Electric Reliability Standards.
       The substitute amendment would limit the States' authority 
     and discretion to set more rigorous reliability standards 
     than the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) over 
     transmission and distribution. In fact, the Substitute 
     Amendment appears to provide no role for States at all on 
     transmission reliability. Yet, the Florida Legislature has 
     carefully set cut statutory authority for the PPSC over 
     transmission.
       If legislation moves forward, Congress should expressly 
     include in the bill a provision to protect the existing State 
     authority to ensure reliability transmission service. We note 
     that the Thomas amendment passed. The amendment appears to 
     strengthen state authority. In that regard, the amendment is 
     better than the overall bill under consideration. Our 
     interpretation is that the amendment will not restrict state 
     commission authority to adopt more stringent standards, if 
     necessary.
       (2) Market Transparency Rules.
       The section is silent on State authority to protect against 
     market abuses, although it does require FERC to issue rules 
     to provide information to the States. State regulators must 
     be able to review the data necessary to ensure that abuses 
     are not occurring in the market.
       (3) Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA).
       The FPSC supports lifting PURPA's mandatory purchase 
     requirement, but States should be allowed to determine 
     appropriate measures to protect the public interest by 
     addressing mitigation and cost recovery issues. Thus, we do 
     not support preempting State jurisdiction by granting FERC 
     authority to order the recovery of costs in retail rates or 
     to otherwise limit State authority to require mitigation of 
     PURPA contract costs. States that have already approved these 
     contracts are better able to address this matter than the 
     FERC.
       (4) Federal Renewable Portfolio Standards.
       This requires that beginning with 2003, each retail 
     electric supplier shall submit to the Secretary of Energy 
     renewable energy credits in an amount equal to the required 
     annual percentage to be determined by the Secretary. For the 
     year 2005, it will be less than 2.5 percent of the total 
     electric energy sold by the retail electric supplier to the 
     electric consumer in the calendar year. For each calendar 
     year from 2006 through 2020, it shall increase by 
     approximately .5 percent.
       The Secretary will also determine the type of renewable 
     energy resource used to produce the electricity. A credit 
     trading system will be established. While a provision is 
     established to allow states to adopt additional renewable 
     programs, we continue to have concerns. Thus, we strongly 
     support the Kyl amendment which provides some flexibility to 
     the States.
       The FPSC believes that States are in the best position to 
     determine the amount, the time lines, and the types of 
     renewable energy that would most benefit their retail 
     ratepayers. This is particularly true in the case of States 
     without cost-effective renewable resources. A one-size-fits-
     all standard will likely raise rates for most consumers.
       (5) Consumer Protection.
       The FPSC is concerned with language in Section 256 that 
     requires that State actions not be inconsistent with the 
     provisions found in the bill. While the FPSC favors strong 
     consumer protection measures, preempting States by Federally 
     legislating retail consumer protections is not necessary. 
     States are better positioned to combat retail abuses. States 
     are partners with federal agencies in these efforts to ensure 
     consumer protection.
       The critical role of State Commissions in the analogous 
     area of implementing the Federal Telecommunications Act 
     provision against slamming (the unauthorized switch of a 
     customer's primary telecommunications carrier) serves as a 
     good example. The Federal Communications Commission saw the 
     benefit of having State Commissions carry out the anti-
     slamming program. State Commissions are simply better 
     situated and have a more in-depth understanding of the abuses 
     in the consumer protection arena. As a result, Florida's 
     slamming rules are actually more strict and provide better 
     remedies to the consumers than the FCC rules. We would like 
     to retain the ability to take similar steps in the energy 
     area if warranted.
       It is our understanding that there are now 100-200 
     amendments. We are in the process of reviewing all of them. 
     In the meantime, please call us with questions on them. We 
     appreciate that your staff has been in frequent contact with 
     FPSC staff.
       In conclusion, we request that you take these points into 
     consideration as energy legislation progresses. Please do not 
     hesitate to call if we may be of further assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Lila A. Jaber,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                                 State of Florida,


                                    Public Service Commission,

                                   Tallahassee, FL, March 18, 2002
     Re Energy Legislation (Substitute Amendment 2917 to S. 517).

     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senator, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Graham: The purpose of this letter is to let 
     you know that the Florida Public Service Commission has major 
     concerns with the 400-page Substitute Amendment currently 
     being addressed by the Senate. It is extremely preemptive of 
     State Commission authority. If legislation moves forward, we 
     ask that it provide a continuing role for States in ensuring 
     reliability of all aspects of electrical service--including 
     generation, transmission, and power delivery services and 
     should not authorize the FERC to preempt States authority to 
     ensure safe and reliable service to retail customers. Also, 
     we support the Kyl amendment on the renewal portfolio 
     standard.
       In particular, our concerns are:
       (1) Electric Reliability Standards.
       The substitute amendment would limit the States' authority 
     and discretion to set more rigorous reliability standards 
     than the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) over 
     transmission and distribution. In fact, the Substitute 
     Amendment appears to provide no role for States at all on 
     transmission reliability. Yet, the Florida Legislature has 
     carefully set out statutory authority for the FPSC over 
     transmission.
       If legislation moves forward, Congress should expressly 
     include in the bill a provision to protect the existing State 
     authority to ensure reliable transmission service. We note 
     that the Thomas amendment passed. The amendment appears to 
     strengthen state authority. In that regard, the amendment is 
     better than the overall bill under consideration. Our 
     interpretation is that the amendment will not restrict state 
     commission authority to adopt more stringent standards if 
     necessary.
       (2) Market Transparency Rules.
       This section is silent on State authority to protect 
     against market abuses, although it does require FERC to issue 
     rules to provide information to the States. State regulators 
     must be able to review the data necessary to ensure that 
     abuses are not occurring in the market.
       (3) Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA).
       The FPSC supports lifting PURPA's mandatory purchase 
     requirement, but States should be allowed to determine 
     appropriate measures to protect the public interest by 
     addressing mitigation and cost recovery issues. Thus, we do 
     not support preempting State jurisdiction by granting FERC 
     authority to order the recovery of costs in retail

[[Page 3437]]

     rates or to otherwise limit State authority to require 
     mitigation of PURPA contract costs. States that have already 
     approved these contracts are better able to address this 
     matter than the FERC.
       (4) Federal Renewable Portfolio Standards.
       This requires that beginning with 2003, each retail 
     electric supplier shall submit to the Secretary of Energy 
     renewable energy credits in an amount equal to the required 
     annual percentage to be determined by the Secretary. For the 
     year 2005, it will be less than 2.5 percent of the total 
     electric energy sold by the retail electric supplier to the 
     electric consumer in the calendar year. For each calendar 
     year from 2006 through 2020, it shall increase by 
     approximately .5 percent.
       The Secretary will also determine the type of renewable 
     energy resource used to produce the electricity. A credit 
     trading system will be established. While a provision is 
     established to allow states to adopt additional renewable 
     programs, we continue to have concerns. Thus, we strongly 
     support the Kyl amendment which provides some flexibility to 
     the States.
       The FPSC believes that States are in the best position to 
     determine the amount, the time lines, and the types of 
     renewable energy that would most benefit their retail 
     ratepayers. This is particularly true in the case of States 
     without cost-effective renewable resources. A one-size-fits-
     all standard will likely raise rates for most consumers.
       (5) Consumer Protection.
       The FPSC is concerned with language in Section 256 that 
     requires that State actions not be inconsistent with the 
     provisions found in the bill. While the FPSC favors strong 
     consumer protection measures, preempting States by Federally 
     legislating retail consumer protections is not necessary. 
     States are better positioned to combat retail abuses. States 
     are partners with federal agencies in these efforts to ensure 
     consumer protection.
       The critical role of State Commissions in the analogous 
     area of implementing the Federal Telecommunications Act 
     provision against slamming (the unauthorized switch of a 
     customer's primary telecommunications carrier) serves as a 
     good example. The Federal Communications Commission saw the 
     benefit of having State Commissions carry out the anti-
     slamming program. State Commissions are simply better 
     situated and have a more in-depth understanding of the abuses 
     in the consumer protection arena. As a result, Florida's 
     slamming rules are actually more strict and provide better 
     remedies to the consumers than the FCC rules. We would like 
     to retain the ability to take similar steps in the energy 
     area if warranted.
       It is our understanding that there are now 100-200 
     amendments. We are in the process of reviewing all of them. 
     In the meantime, please call us with questions on them. We 
     appreciate that your staff has been in frequent contract with 
     FPSC staff.
       In conclusion, we request that you take these points into 
     consideration as energy legislation progresses. Please do not 
     hesitate to call if we may be of further assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Lila A. Jaber,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, what those two letters say is that the Kyl 
amendment should be adopted and the Bingaman amendment should lose. 
They are echoing the sentiments of a lot of other groups both in the 
private and public sectors. I have put in the Record some other letters 
from the public sector and associations that strongly support the Kyl 
amendment.
  I wish to respond to some of the comments from colleagues that have 
been made in response to my presentation. My colleague from North 
Dakota made the point that we should have a national energy policy just 
like the Clean Air Act and that is why we need a national energy bill.
  There is a difference between a national policy and a Federal policy. 
We do have national problems, but not all national problems are best 
solved by a Federal solution.
  In this case, we have a combination because we have clearly decided 
that the Federal Government does need to be directly involved in the 
national energy policy debate, but we do not say --none of us says--the 
Federal Government should take it all over; it is a Federal problem; 
therefore, we have a Federal solution.
  Most of what we do as a nation we do as private sector operatives, as 
State and local governments, and then, of course, the U.S. Government 
does a fair amount of directing and financing of programs, but clearly 
we cannot run everything from Washington, DC.
  The Bingaman amendment does deviate from this otherwise pretty 
commonsense approach to American life by saying: This is not just a 
national problem; we do not need just a national solution, we need a 
Federal solution to the point that we are going to mandate, compel, 
require, under penalty of law, that you will produce 10 percent of your 
power through renewable sources or else.
  I actually misstated that a little bit. It is not produce, it is 
sell. We are requiring that the retailer account for 100 percent of the 
power sold so that you can prove to the Department of Energy that 10 
percent of that power sold came from renewable sources. You do not have 
to produce it yourself. You either have to buy it from somebody who 
produced it or you have to buy credits from somebody who produced it or 
you have to buy credits from the Department of Energy that does not 
produce anything. But if you are willing to assess your retail 
customers for that, then you can get away without producing it 
yourself.
  Either way, the energy is going to cost you something; it is going to 
cost them something. In one case, you actually have to buy it from 
somebody, and, in the other case, you have to buy it from somebody or 
the Department of Energy. There is a big difference between having a 
national policy and having a Federal mandate.
  There are a lot of items in this bill that are OK, and they have 
national scope to them. There are a lot of items in the President's 
plan that are national in their scope, but they do not all provide for 
Federal mandates, and that is a distinction we need to make.
  As a matter of fact, the Senator from Washington just talked about 
the need for Federal encouragement. In fact, her exact statement was: 
We need a policy to encourage the use of renewable energy as part of a 
21st century national plan. I agree we need to encourage, but there is 
a big difference between encourage and require.
  The encourage part we already have in the law. As a matter of fact, 
under this bill we are actually extending and expanding the tax credit 
that we currently provide for renewable energy sources to encourage 
greater production of that renewable energy. In fact, it would not make 
any economic sense to produce this without the Federal Government 
subsidy of 1.7 cents per kilowatt hour, for example, for wind 
generation. One could not compete in wind generation without this 
Federal tax credit which provides roughly 40 percent of the cost of the 
production of the power.
  We do encourage, in a big way. We are already doing the encouraging 
part. The question is whether we should have both a carrot and a stick. 
I am all for the carrot approach, but I do not think the Federal 
Government should be taking a stick to people who buy electricity and 
say you have to buy 10 percent renewable power or we are going to make 
you pay for it. That is exactly what the Bingaman amendment does.
  What the Kyl-Miller amendment says is, let the States decide. If we 
are going to have a national policy for this national problem, then 
let's let all the States within the country decide what is best for 
them.
  I am intrigued by the chart that is on the easel behind the 
distinguished chairman of the Energy Committee. The Senator from North 
Dakota used that chart to illustrate that we have potential renewable 
resources throughout the country.
  He demonstrated that by pointing to four different kinds of renewable 
energy power source. Biomass and solar, I guess that is the one that is 
very bright red down in my part of the country. Then geothermal in the 
lower left, and wind power in the lower right, and certainly in the 
State of North Dakota there is a bright red color, the Saudi Arabia of 
wind power in North Dakota, and in South Dakota, it seems.
  What one can see from those four charts is the renewable 
opportunities are very divergent around the country. They are 
distributed not fairly in one sense but in a very disparate way.
  The distinguished Presiding Officer does not have much of a shot, it 
seems, for wind power or geothermal power or solar power, but there 
might be some good biomass opportunities. I certainly hope so, because 
it is going to have to be produced or credits are going to have to be 
bought from somebody else who can produce it.

[[Page 3438]]

  The real story behind these four charts is not the disparity and the 
fact there are winners and losers and there will have to be trading 
among the States, but according to the EIA report dated February 2002--
that is the Energy Information Agency of the Department of Energy--on 
page 16, and I am quoting, only wind capacity is projected to make 
significant change between the renewable portfolio standard and the 
baseline, or the status quo.
  In other words, of all of these renewables--solar, geothermal, 
biomass, and wind--that have been examined by the Department of Energy, 
the only one projected to make a significant change is wind power. 
There are a couple of reasons for that. The amount of the subsidy that 
has been used to develop the wind power industry and the general 
efficiencies with respect to wind power make it the only one 
economically viable, even close to being economically viable, as a 
producer of mass amounts of energy of the four basic renewables.
  As much as we would like to produce it from solar power in the 
Southwest, the economics are not there, even with the substantial 
Federal subsidies. The same is true with respect to geothermal and 
biomass. I would like to burn more biomass in the State of Arizona. It 
is not an efficient way to produce power. The Btu content is not there.
  So of these four basic energy sources, only wind power, the 
Department of Energy says, can really make a significant difference. 
That is a fact.
  What is the importance of that fact? Well, first of all, the Senator 
from South Dakota and the Senator from North Dakota are sitting pretty 
good when it comes to production of electricity from wind power, it 
would seem, and maybe a couple of other States which I cannot quite see 
on that chart. Maybe northern Idaho, it looks like, and it looks like a 
little piece of Oklahoma. I hear the wind blows pretty well there, and 
I think there is a red dot where Oklahoma is, but that is about it. The 
rest of us do not appear to have a great deal of capacity to generate 
by wind power.
  What does that mean? That means a transfer of wealth from all of the 
other parts of the country into those regions.
  I am not suggesting the proponents of the legislation all are from 
those particular States. That is not true. But it is true that those 
who would utilize that resource in those areas would stand to gain the 
most. That is why I ask my colleagues to consider the discrimination 
that exists in this legislation. If we left it to the States to decide 
what percentage to set and how to define the renewable so as to take 
advantage of what is available in their locales, and how to set the 
timeframe so they could achieve some reasonable level, that would be 
one thing. That is what we have done. Fourteen of the States, including 
my State of Arizona, do have a renewable requirement. If we mandate at 
the Federal level, we are saying in Washington we know best for the 
entire country and this is a one-size-fits-all proposition now, we are 
going to define what counts as renewable and, by the way, hydropower 
does not. That is the first big difference.
  We know full well going into this that only one of these sources, 
wind power, has a chance to really make a significant difference 
anytime in the foreseeable future. So the reality is we are not talking 
about renewables, we are talking about wind.
  As I said before, I would kind of like to know who the winners and 
losers are if we are going to pass this bill. I do not want to buy a 
pig in a poke.
  There was a lot of talk about Enron investing in certain kinds of 
energy and then trying to get the Federal Government to make everybody 
else trade in that particular energy or to make it easier to trade in 
that energy, and there were a lot of us in the Senate and elsewhere who 
criticized a Federal policy that would have favored a particular entity 
or group of entities within our economy. That should not be what the 
use of Federal power is all about.
  If we are going to talk about deregulation as the goal in this 
legislation, why would we be imposing a brandnew kind of regulation 
over the market that mandates that fully 10 percent of the energy has 
to come from a particular source--in this case, the reality, wind? That 
is what the Department of Energy says is the only renewable that can 
make a significant difference as part of a renewable portfolio. It only 
exists in a few parts of the country in abundance, apparently. So who 
are the winners and losers? What are the people in other parts of the 
country going to have to pay to the producers in this limited area of 
the United States for the privilege of continuing to generate power 
from oil or gas or coal or nuclear or hydro?
  What are we going to have to pay to those areas that have the benefit 
of a lot of wind in their State? Nobody knows for sure. The Department 
of Energy calculates the gross cost at about $88 billion for the first 
15 years; $12 billion each year thereafter. Of what is that cost 
comprised? It is the equivalent of credits or penalties. In other 
words, one is either going to have to produce it or they are going to 
have to buy a credit--and they estimate what that credit will cost--or 
they will pay a penalty because they did not do one of those two 
things. They calculate the cost of that at $88 billion, plus $12 
billion a year thereafter after the first 15 years, after the year 
2020. That is a huge cost passed on to the retail consumer.
  There is also some evidence that if that much of the market replaces 
other energy sources, and there is a big footnote here, the question 
is: Will it replace or will it be providing additional energy because 
the energy needs of the country will grow over time? Let us assume we 
remain static, stagnant, and therefore the universe is exactly what we 
can envision today; we actually replace some natural gas or coal. The 
idea is the cost of that fuel will then go down because there is not as 
much demand for it, and so the people who get generation from those 
sources will be paying less because there will be lower fuel. As a 
theoretical proposition, that cannot be argued.
  I suggest we have done no cost-benefit analysis. The committee has 
not looked at this. We really do not know what might happen 25 years 
out into the future in terms of the market price of these various kinds 
of fuels, but we do have pretty good numbers as to what the penalties 
and the credits are going to cost because they are fixed in the 
statute.
  As a matter of fact, one could buy the credits from the Department of 
Energy at a very specific 200 percent of market or certain kilowatts 
per hour. So the costs are going to be significant to the retail 
purchasers of power. There is going to be discrimination from one part 
of our country to the next because the only real renewable that can be 
utilized under this legislation, according to the Department of Energy, 
is wind power, and the opportunities for that are somewhat limited.
  As a result, to those who say we need a national policy, I say, yes, 
we need a national policy, not a Federal policy, one that takes into 
account all of these differences. So let us stick with the State option 
that currently exists.
  Tomorrow our colleague from Texas, Senator Gramm, is going to address 
the allegation that this bill is, after all, patterned after the Texas 
legislation, so what could possibly be wrong with it? Well, somebody 
from Texas can explain what the Texas legislation does, and I will let 
Senator Gramm do that, but I would note the first point, which is that 
Texas did something on its own for the State of Texas does not mean 
therefore that the Senate should say everybody else has to do the same 
thing. I daresay, as much as I like Texas and Texans--I did not say how 
much; I said ``as much as I do''--I am not willing to say whatever 
Texas does is what everybody else in the country should be mandated to 
do. So bully for Texas.
  Arizona has a standard as well. I am not really keen on mandating 
that the rest of the country do exactly what Arizona did. So I am not 
much impressed by the fact that part of this is patterned after what 
Texas did. The Senator from Texas will point out why it really is not 
that much like the Texas plan.
  Leaving that aside, it is irrelevant. The fact that one State did it 
a certain

[[Page 3439]]

way suggests to me that the State found a way to make it work for 
itself and other States ought to look at it, too. But the State of 
Maine did not copy Texas. Maine has a 30-percent requirement. Should we 
pick Maine instead of Texas as the great example to follow and require 
everybody to have 30 percent? If 10 percent is good, why not 30 
percent? I ask my friends, if the object is to diversify, if 10 percent 
is good, why not 30 percent?
  One of my colleagues said the United States is too dependent on coal 
and natural gas. I have an answer. We can drill for oil at ANWR and 
produce more nuclear power. That is a great way to diversify.
  There is a problem. One of my colleagues from Washington State said: 
We need to diversify because in the Northwest, where we rely so much on 
hydro, we are getting killed by the drought. And it shows there won't 
be as much hydro available, so we need to diversify.
  Let's examine that. We get some hydropower in the State of Arizona, 
but we have diversified by relying a lot more on nuclear, oil, and 
coal. We know there can be a drought and therefore that renewable is 
not as much of a sure thing as our coal supply, our natural gas supply, 
or our nuclear energy supply.
  How about wind? Can you get wind power when the wind does not blow? 
No. How about solar? Can you get solar power when the Sun does not 
shine? No. That is why with all of the so-called renewables, because 
they are not as sure a thing as the other sources--which is why we use 
the other sources--we have to combine them with some other source. We 
have to combine them with a storage capacity or some other source so 
when the Sun is not shining, where the wind is not blowing, or the 
water is not flowing, you have stored the energy or you have an 
alternative source to provide that energy. That is one of the reasons 
these are not part of the baseline energy production in the country.
  Think about it. It is why you would not want to have too much 
dependence on these unreliable resources. We call them renewable 
because we know there will always be wind, sun, and water, but you do 
not know exactly when or where.
  We have an almost inexhaustible supply of coal in this country and we 
have spent millions to generate clean coal technology. We are producing 
a very large percentage of power in this country on clean coal. We 
added scrubbers. We demand all kinds of things that take the pollution 
out of the air. We now produce very clean power with coal.
  Natural gas is even cleaner. It is available where we are able to 
provide the exploration. Today we have an abundant supply of natural 
gas. And, of course, nuclear is virtually inexhaustible. We can produce 
nuclear power energy for centuries to come. It is the cleanest burning 
fuel, in effect. It produces no pollution whatever. Its supply is 
virtually inexhaustible.
  To those who say we should diversify in order not to be dependent 
upon a particular source of energy, and use the example of hydropower, 
I say you are absolutely right; that is why we do not rely upon these 
renewables. They are not dependable, as are the other major sources of 
electrical generation in the country today.
  Why should the Federal Government be mandating unreliable sources for 
generation if we want to become more energy dependent and diversify our 
capacity and have greater ability to be assured of power production in 
the future? This is folly. This is like going back to the 18th century. 
Windmills are great. If you are in the middle of ranch country, you 
have to have a windmill to pump the water. It is a great way to do it. 
But it is not a great way to generate thousands of megawatts of power 
to serve our great cities in the United States in the 21st century. At 
best, it is a supplemental source of power and we encourage it. We 
provide tax credits for it.
  The Kyl amendment will permit customers to say this is what we want, 
and if they want it, the States let them buy it at cost. I don't think 
we should be mandating all sellers of electricity have to provide more 
and more and more of their power from less and less and less reliable 
sources--all in the name of diversification and a new energy policy 
that is going to make us ``safer'' and less reliant upon others? It 
does not make any sense.
  There was a suggestion that the Federal mandate is not a preemption 
of the State plans. I beg to differ with my colleague. It certainly 
preempts the States that have decided to have no renewable portfolio 
and preempts those that want a different kind of standard than the 
Federal standard. There may be some things in common with some of the 
States that provide a requirement but only to the extent is it not 
preemption. To a far greater extent it is preemption.
  To say it does not transfer wealth from one part of the country to 
another clearly is erroneous. It will result in that disparity and 
differential treatment.
  I also pointed out other discriminatory features: this does not apply 
to governmental entities such as Bonneville and TVA or other 
governmental producers but investor-owned utilities. Why? What is the 
policy rationale for that? I happen to know, so I will explain.
  If it had applied to the governmental entities, that part of the bill 
would have been subject to a point of order because it constitutes an 
unfunded mandate, imposing huge costs on those governmental 
subdivisions which under our law, now at least, we cannot do without 
subjecting that proposal to a point of order by the Members of the 
body. To avoid that point of order, the sponsor of the amendment wisely 
removed those utilities from the requirement of renewables. That 
creates a great imbalance. The investor utilities have to comply.
  The public sector utilities do not have to comply. That is not fair. 
I guarantee we will see the customers of one screaming because they 
have higher utility bills.
  I take my hat off to the municipal power producers that have written 
letters saying, notwithstanding the fact we are temporarily out of this 
bill, we still think it is a bad idea. It is not fair for our 
competitors that we have an advantage over them. And besides that, we 
are not too sure you will not try to come back and do it to us at a 
later time.
  I appreciate their willingness to help out their competitors. There 
is probably some self-interest in it, but it does not matter. They are 
right.
  There is also discrimination with respect to States such as Maine 
that have a huge hydro generation right now. They call that a 
renewable. But the Bingaman amendment does not. Maine says hydro is 
good; This is a renewable source and we count it toward our 30-percent 
requirement. The Bingaman amendment says, no, we do not let you count 
that for this Federal standard. The only thing you can count is if you 
somehow rewind the generators there and get a little more capacity out 
of this hydrodam in the future. We will let you count that incremental 
savings, that economy that you effected or the additional production, 
as going toward the renewable. Why do we discriminate in that way? Why 
do we count solar twice as much as geothermal? Why do you get twice as 
much credit on an Indian reservation? It looks as if there was a lot of 
looking at special interests and politics and issues such as dealing 
with the point of order issue rather than sound policy.
  They talk about national energy policy. This looks to me as if it is 
a lot more than a national energy policy. There are a lot more 
different considerations than would go into a real national energy 
policy.
  I hope my colleagues who have already said to some folks--and I 
acknowledge this--I need a green vote, I need to show I am pro-
environment, that being for renewable energy will demonstrate that, I 
hope they ask themselves the following questions: What are all of my 
constituents who buy power going to think about that? I suggest that is 
almost everybody who is eligible to vote. You might want to please an 
energy company here or there or some environmental group

[[Page 3440]]

here or there. But you are going to have to be accountable to all of 
the people who use electricity in your State.
  For those who are going to have to buy credits from elsewhere, it is 
going to cost and they are going to wonder why their power bills have 
gone up. If that is the way you are inclined to vote, you are going to 
have to be prepared to explain that to them. I daresay there are 
probably going to be some political opponents or people in the media 
who are going to remind the folks about how this happened. So that is 
the first thing I think you are going to have to answer; you are going 
to have to answer to the people who buy the power at greater cost 
because you needed to have an environmental vote.
  Second, there is the matter of discrimination. How are you going to 
be able to explain that it is going to cost you, but it doesn't cost 
somebody else in the country, just because of where you happen to live 
and where the wind happens to blow? You are going to have to explain 
that.
  Frankly, to the extent solar power could be produced in my State, I 
could say I am really for this and I might benefit. The problem is, we 
don't have that much wind potential, as a result of which we are still 
going to be losers, so it wouldn't matter anyway.
  I don't want to make somebody else suffer to buy a product I produce 
except at the marketplace. If people need to buy what I can make 
available because they need it and the market is open to their purchase 
of it, then that is great and I am willing for Arizona companies to 
make some money on that. But I don't want to use the Federal Government 
as my hammer, as my agent, to say I have something I want to sell and I 
can't figure out a way to make people buy it. I know, I will get the 
Federal Government to pass a law to say people have to buy it. That is 
the way I will take care of my investment.
  That is wrong and that is what a few people are urging us to do. I am 
not talking about people in the body here, of course. I am talking 
about some folks on the outside. They have the good fortune of having a 
resource they would like to be able to sell. They would like to make 
some money on it and they haven't been able to do it that well yet 
because it is not that economical. The way they get it done is to have 
Congress pass a law to say you have to buy it. I don't think that is 
what the Federal Government should be all about.
  We are going to be taking up campaign finance reform tomorrow and my 
colleague, Senator McCain, has made a point that I totally agree with 
him on, that the real problem here ultimately is that the Federal 
Government has become so powerful now that everybody comes running to 
the Federal Government to seek special benefits because the Government 
can grant those benefits. It becomes very valuable after a while, so 
people decide they want to spend money influencing governmental policy.
  In the abstract that is fine. We understand that is the way it is in 
a democracy, and there is nothing wrong with spending money to 
influence Government policy. But when you have a lot of money and you 
can influence the Federal Government to make people buy something that 
you have to sell that you could not sell to them otherwise, that is 
wrong. It is an abuse of power. Frankly, it is something that we as 
Senators should not countenance.
  We should say to those people: Look, go develop a product that can 
sell. We have already given you a big tax break. If you can't sell it 
based upon that and you can't convince the State utility commissions or 
Governors or legislators to mandate a particular level of renewable 
energy resource in your own State, don't come to the Federal Government 
and ask us to do your work for you by forcing everybody to buy your 
product.
  That is wrong. That is what creates the problem with the campaign 
finance issue--we make the Government so powerful that it can make or 
break businesses and therefore they all come rushing to us to get us to 
change Federal policy and to use it as a hammer rather than as an 
inducement.
  I hope my colleagues will be able to answer these questions when they 
vote and that they will conclude we are really better off at this point 
in our history saying: We are not ready for an absolute Federal 
mandate. It is better to let the States decide this. With the 
encouragement that we provide through the tax incentives, we will see 
what kind of progress we can make toward the goal that we want. Then we 
will reevaluate it to see if we really want to impose something on the 
American purchaser of electricity.
  As I said before, we have to be very careful about mandating the use 
of unreliable energy sources. The renewables, with all due respect to 
those who think they are the great wave of the future, renewables 
provide some capacity for diversification, some ability to produce 
power in the future, but they should not be considered a good idea for 
baseload or for any significant portion of power requirements as a 
mandate because they are simply not that reliable.
  I hope colleagues will consider supporting the Kyl amendment, and, as 
a result of that, it will eliminate the underlying Bingaman amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request, that 
amendment No. 3023 be modified with the language that is at the desk. 
This modification is technical in nature.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3023), as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To expand the eligibility to receive biodiesel credits and to 
   require the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study on alternative 
                 fueled vehicles and alternative fuels)

       On page 185, strike lines 9 through 14 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 817. TEMPORARY BIODIESEL CREDIT EXPANSION.

       (a) Biodiesel Credit Expansion.--Section 312(b) of the 
     Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13220(b)) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Use.--
       ``(A) In general.--A fleet or covered person--
       ``(i) may use credits allocated under subsection (a) to 
     satisfy more than 50 percent of the alternative fueled 
     vehicle requirements of a fleet or covered person under this 
     title, title IV, and title V; but
       ``(ii) may use credits allocated under subsection (a) to 
     satisfy 100 percent of the alternative fueled vehicle 
     requirements of a fleet or covered person under title V for 1 
     or more of model years 2002 through 2005.
       ``(B) Applicability.--Subparagraph (A) does not apply to a 
     fleet or covered person that is a biodiesel alternative fuel 
     provider described in section 501(a)(2)(A).''.
       (b) Treatment as Section 508 Credits.--Section 312(c) of 
     the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13220(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Credit not'' 
     and inserting ``Treatment as''; and
       (2) by striking ``shall not be considered'' and inserting 
     ``shall be treated as''.
       (c) Alternative Fueled Vehicle Study and Report.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) Alternative fuel.--The term ``alternative fuel'' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 301 of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13211).
       (B) Alternative fueled vehicle.--The term ``alternative 
     fueled vehicle'' has the meaning given the term in section 
     301 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13211).
       (C) Light duty motor vehicle.--The term ``light duty motor 
     vehicle'' has the meaning given the term in section 301 of 
     the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13211).
       (D) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.
       (2) Biodiesel credit extension study.--As soon as 
     practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall conduct a study--
       (A) to determine the availability and cost of light duty 
     motor vehicles that qualify as alternative fueled vehicles 
     under title V of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 
     13251 et seq.); and
       (B) to compare--
       (i) the availability and cost of biodiesel; with
       (ii) the availability and cost of fuels that qualify as 
     alternative fuels under title V of the Energy Policy Act of 
     1992 (42 U.S.C. 13251 et seq.).
       (3) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report that--

[[Page 3441]]

       (A) describes the results of the study conducted under 
     paragraph (2); and
       (B) includes any recommendations of the Secretary for 
     legislation to extend the temporary credit provided under 
     subsection (a) beyond model year 2005.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I know my colleague from Nevada is here 
to speak on this amendment, so I yield the floor to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                 UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.R. 2356

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request I would 
like to propound to the Senate. I see my friend from Kentucky, who has 
spent so much time allowing us to arrive at this point. I hope we can 
work this out for everyone's benefit.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 10 a.m. tomorrow, that 
is Wednesday, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 2356, the 
campaign finance reform bill, with the time until 1 p.m. equally 
divided between the leaders or their designees prior to the vote on the 
motion to invoke cloture, with the mandatory live quorum under rule 
XXII being waived; further that, if cloture is invoked, there be an 
additional 3 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or 
their designees, that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate 
vote on passage of the act with no amendments or motions in order, with 
no intervening action or debate; further, if cloture is not invoked 
this agreement is vitiated.
  I further ask unanimous consent that immediately after final passage 
of the bill, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of a 
Senate resolution, the text of which is at the desk, and that the 
resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, and I am not going to 
object, I say, once again, that what is missing from this consent 
agreement is a technical corrections package which Senators McCain and 
Feingold, and I have agreed to. This is the first time in the history 
of this debate, over all of these years, that the three of us have 
actually agreed to something.
  Regrettably, it has now been objected to by someone else on that side 
of the aisle. I say to my friend, the assistant majority leader, I hope 
at sometime during the course of the day tomorrow we can get that 
objection cleared up and hopefully Senators McCain, Feingold, and I 
will offer a unanimous consent agreement tomorrow related to this 
technical package which the three of us have agreed to and hopefully we 
can work out some way tomorrow to clear that as well.
  But I have no objection to this package as far as it goes. The only 
caveat I issue is that we hope to be able to achieve yet another 
consent agreement tomorrow, to move a technical package out of the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am grateful to the Senator from Kentucky 
for his work on this issue. It has been a very difficult thing for him, 
but he has persevered and we have gotten to the point where we are now 
and look forward to trying to work on the other problem that he 
mentioned today.
  I will be very brief. I know the hour is late. I say to the 
Republican manager of this legislation that at such time as the Senate 
gets back on this legislation, the first thing that will be done is 
move to table this Kyl amendment. I explained that to the floor staff. 
I have explained that to Senator Kyl. But we thought, rather than doing 
that today--we had the right to do that earlier today--that there was 
interest in this. Even though we had the right to do that, we wanted to 
make sure everyone had an opportunity to speak on this. People can 
speak as long as they want on this tonight.
  But I do say that as soon as we get back to this legislation, unless 
there is some kind of an agreement that we will vote on this motion 
where we would have 10 minutes equally divided or 20 minutes equally 
divided, something reasonable, the majority leader will seek 
recognition to move to table because we have spent enough time on 
renewables.


                           Amendment No. 3038

  Mr. President, I feel very strongly we need to diversify the Nation's 
energy supply by stimulating the growth of renewable energy.
  America's abundant and untapped renewable resources are essential for 
the energy security of the United States, for the protection of our 
environment, and for the health of the American people.
  We should harness the brilliance of the Sun, the strength of the 
wind, and the heat of the Earth to provide clean, renewable energy for 
our Nation.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment by Senator Kyl to strike 
provisions in this important legislation that would establish a 
renewable portfolio standard. The prospect of passing an energy bill 
without a renewable portfolio standard, to me, is embarrassing. It 
should be, I would think, to the country.
  We have already told the automobile industry to build the cars as big 
as they want, using as much gas as they want. We are not going to 
increase fuel efficiency standards. So I think we can at least go this 
step further.
  In the United States today, we get less than 3 percent of our 
electricity from renewable energy sources about which I have spoken--
wind, Sun, geothermal, and biomass--but the potential is much greater.
  This visual aid in the Chamber says it all.
  In Nevada, we have great resources for geothermal. If you look on the 
map, you'll see that we also have wind all over the State. As the 
Senator from Alaska has heard me say, Nevada is the most mountainous 
State in the Union, except for Alaska. We have over 300 mountain 
ranges. We have 32 mountains over 11,000 feet high. By Alaska 
standards, I guess that is not very high. We have one mountain that is 
14,000 feet high. By most standards, Nevada is a pretty mountainous 
part of the world.
  In many of those areas we already have people who are beginning the 
development of wind farms, especially with the production tax credit 
that was passed for wind energy as part of the economic stimulus 
package. So, the credit for wind energy has been renewed, which is 
good. There is a 260-megawatt wind farm being constructed at the Nevada 
test site, as we speak. So there really are a lot of resources in 
Nevada and around America for this alternative energy.
  My friend, who I have the greatest respect for, the junior Senator 
from Arizona, has talked a lot about the cost in dollars of renewable 
energy. It reminds me that many years ago there was a company called 
the Luz Company, which was in Eldorado Valley, near Boulder City, NV. 
In this big valley, they wanted to build a big solar energy plant--
about 400 megawatts.
  They went to the Nevada Public Service Commission, and they were 
turned down. Why? Because, in effect at that time there was a law and a 
regulation by the utilities commission saying that you had to have 
power produced that was the cheapest. Solar was not the cheapest in 
actual dollars. But it is cheaper in many ways when it comes to 
providing clean air for my children and grandchildren who live in Las 
Vegas.
  What has happened? In that valley today they have natural gas plants. 
They are clean, but they are not as clean as solar energy. I think it 
would have been wonderful to build that solar facility. The cost is not 
always the dollars it takes to build a power plant. The cost is other 
things including environmental and health effects. What does it do to 
foul the air? What does it do to people's health? What does it do to 
the environment?
  That is why we need more alternative energy. It is more than just the 
cost that we see in dollars and cents that you can add up when you 
build a plant. It is the dollars and cents in people's health, people's 
comfort.
  Eldorado Valley used to be as clear as the complexion of a newborn 
baby. Not anymore. So the potential for renewable energy in real terms 
is significant.

[[Page 3442]]

  Senator Dorgan from North Dakota has talked about wind. The ``Saudi 
Arabia in America for wind'' is North Dakota. The ``Saudi Arabia in 
America for geothermal'' is Nevada. We need to change what we have been 
doing in the past and diversify the Nation's energy supply.
  My State could use geothermal energy to meet one-third of its 
electricity needs--a State which will soon have 2.5 million people--but 
today this source of energy only supplies about 2\1/2\ percent of the 
electricity needs in Nevada.
  I have said before that I remember the first time I drove from Reno 
to Carson City. I saw this steam coming out of the ground. I thought, 
what is that? I had never seen anything like that. It was heat coming 
from the depths of the Earth. Every puff that came out of the ground 
was wasted energy. We need to harness that steam energy and produce 
electricity.
  Other nations are doing better than we are doing. We started out 
doing great, but now we are falling behind. They are using a lot of 
equipment that we have developed. We need to stimulate the growth of 
renewable energy and become a world leader.
  Drawing energy from a diversity of sources will protect consumers 
from energy price shocks and protect the environment from highly 
polluting fossil fuel plants.
  Fourteen States have already enacted a renewable portfolio standard, 
including Nevada, which has the most aggressive standard in the Nation.
  I hope the Senate will be willing to establish a national portfolio 
standard with achievable goals. I support Senator Bingaman, but I think 
his goal of 10 percent is too low. I supported Senator Jeffords' 
amendment. I think we should go for 20 percent.
  In Nevada, we are going to require 15 percent of the State's 
electricity needs be met by renewable energy by the year 2013. That is 
pretty quick.
  We must diversify the Nation's energy supply by stimulating the 
growth of renewable energy. This is essential to the energy security of 
the United States, the protection of the environment, and the health of 
the American people.
  My friend from Arizona, the junior Senator, has stated that 
renewables are more expensive than conventional power sources, 
including nuclear. But I would just mention in passing, no electric 
utility of which I am aware--I could be wrong--has ever declared 
bankruptcy because of investments in renewable energy. But I do know 
that El Paso Electric, on the other hand, was driven into bankruptcy by 
its investment in the Palo Verde nuclear plant in Arizona.
  I think we need to be aware of the volatile nature of the supplies 
and price of natural gas. There have been charts shown earlier today 
where you see the amount of natural gas that is going to be used in the 
future.
  From 1970 up until 2020, natural gas is just going up in consumption, 
but the price variables during that period of time, because of supply 
and demand, have been really like a teeter-totter. With renewables, you 
do not have that. You have price stability.
  I am a big fan of coal. We have a lot of resources in America for 
coal. But I am for clean coal technology. We should be spending more, 
not less, money on clean coal technology. In the United States, we have 
more coal than the rest of the world. We need to figure out a way to 
use coal that burns clean. We have not done a real good job on that. We 
have made progress, but we need to do more.
  I hope we defeat the Kyl amendment. I cannot imagine an energy bill 
that has no renewable energy in it. I heard people get on the floor and 
say: Well, we have to look at this State by State. Some States are more 
able to produce alternative or renewable energy. That is probably true, 
but remember, we are not saying, in this legislation, it has to be 
State-by-State. We are saying utilities have to do that. As we know, we 
have excluded co-ops and a lot of the smaller producers.
  But there is no reason in the world these big utilities should not 
use renewables for part of their portfolio. That is what we are saying. 
It is not a State-by-State issue; it is a utility by utility issue.
  I hope we resoundingly defeat the Kyl amendment. If there were ever 
an amendment that deserves defeat, it is the Kyl amendment. We need to 
encourage the growth and development of renewable energy resources in 
our great country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have listened very carefully to my 
good friend, the majority whip, and I am certainly fascinated by the 
example he has given with regard to geothermal.
  Geothermal has a tremendous potential in certain parts of the United 
States. One of the problems, however, is that a lot of our geothermal 
is adjacent to or in national parks. Clearly, there is a tradeoff there 
as to whether or not we want to develop that. But in many cases, 
particularly out in California, there has been enough public pressure 
to suggest that this natural phenomena should remain untouched. As a 
consequence, to a large degree the potential has not been realized to 
the extent it might have.
  I am also inclined to question the tactics and the strategy of the 
Democratic side relative to the announcement that the amendment is 
going to be tabled. That sounds like a fishing expedition to me. They 
are going to make a determination of just where the votes are, and it 
might make it easier for some Members to simply justify their vote by 
saying, well, we tabled it. That doesn't really mean that we have a 
position one way or another on it.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a comment?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Without losing the floor, I will.
  Mr. REID. Of course. We would be happy if Senator Kyl and/or the 
Senator from Alaska wanted to have an up-or-down vote. We would agree 
to that also.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. All I know is that I was advised that the majority had 
made the decision to table it. I was not aware that the minority had 
made the decision. I can only comment on what I have heard. In any 
event, I would certainly honor the statement by the whip, as well as 
Senator Kyl, as to just how this is disposed of. But if indeed the 
commitment and the agreement is that we will have a tabling motion, it 
appears we will have a tabling motion.
  Again, I remind my colleagues, that kind of determination, in my 
opinion, is a bit of a finesse. There is other terminology I could use. 
Members have different ways of justifying tabling motions. We are all 
quite aware of it. I would prefer to see an up-or-down vote.
  We have had a good debate on this issue. Some of the things, however, 
that I think we have overlooked are, this isn't the first time we have 
come up with renewables in this country or discussed it or debated it 
or argued the merits. Clearly, there is a tremendous merit to 
renewables. But the question is, How fast and how far can we move?
  I am told that about 4 percent of our entire energy mix comes from 
renewables. That includes hydro. Two percent of our electricity is 
generated from renewables. That is significant as well. But, clearly, 
when you understand we have spent some $6.5 to $7 billion investing in 
renewables, in tax credits, in subsidies, in loans, I am sure it is 
well spent, but we have had a reasonable concentration.
  So as we look at the mix now and say, here we are going to have a 
mandate, a 10-percent mandate, we ought to look at just what the cost 
of this is and how significant it is going to be, what effect it is 
going to have on the economy. I know that is what Senator Kyl has been 
commenting on for some time.
  First, I would like to address a couple of statements made in this 
debate. One is that the U.S. is too dependent on coal and natural gas. 
I would be happy to be corrected, but I believe that was the statement 
made by the chairman. We can do something about that if we wish. We 
could concentrate on nuclear energy. I don't see any great support for 
nuclear energy in this package, even though it is clean and

[[Page 3443]]

the consequences of any air quality emissions are nonexistent. We have 
a problem with the waste, but everything seems to have a tradeoff.
  Certainly, we could go to my State and open up ANWR. That would 
address dependence on coal and natural gas.
  But we have to recognize the role of coal in this country. The United 
States is the Saudi Arabia of coal. U.S. coal, for all practical 
purposes, is never going to run out. The question is the technology of 
cleaning up the coal.
  I notice a good deal of attention has been given to the chart of the 
majority. That chart was rather interesting because it proposed 
biomass. Let's not make any mistake; I don't think a lot of people know 
what biomass is.
  Biomass is primarily wood waste. What do you do with wood waste? You 
burn it. And when you burn it, you generate heat. The heat generates, 
in the process of generating in a boiler, steam. The steam goes into a 
turbine, and it generates electricity.
  But is it magic? No, it has tremendous emissions. I know in my State, 
a few small sawmills that, by the Environmental Protection Agency, have 
been mandated to burn their waste. They have to use so darn much fuel 
oil to get it hot enough to burn that the economics are out the window.
  Another thing that I can't understand why the majority doesn't face 
up to is the provision in here that says you can't use any wood waste 
from public land. What does that mean?
  In my opinion, that is another finesse. I have another word for it, 
but I shall refrain. It simply is in response to America's 
environmental community. It doesn't want any timber harvesting in the 
national forests, which is where the public lands are. It says you 
can't, in your biomass mix, use anything from the national forests 
other than residue that has come from thinning. In other words, you can 
have a mill that has a timber sale in the forest, and they have mill 
ends, they have bark, they have sawdust. In this legislation, you can't 
use it.
  That is not a practical way. The specific reading deserves to go into 
the Record. These are the things that are wrong with this particular 
bill. That is why I think it is so important to recognize the 
contribution of the Kyl amendment. We will pick that up in a minute.
  Nevertheless, it is a crass inconsistency. Good heavens, what 
difference does it make? Waste is waste. If you have cut a tree from a 
national forest legitimately, you could make lumber out of it, but you 
can't use the residue for biomass. The issue here is obvious to those 
of us out West. This is to discourage harvesting in the national 
forests.
  What are you going to do in my State of Alaska? I don't have any 
nonpublic timber. We have two forests. We would have to, under this 
legislation, go out and buy credits. We couldn't make biomass because 
all our timber, all our sawdust, all our mill ends come from those 
forests. Let's get realistic.
  I will have to offer an amendment, and I am prepared to do it.
  Let me read what it says here. This is on page 6:

       With respect to material removed from the national forest 
     system lands, the term ``biomass'' means fuel and biomass 
     accumulation from precommercial thinning, slash and burn.

  That is the limitation. You can't use the residue from a commercial 
tree that you take out of the forest.
  That is inconsistent with the utilization of the product. What are 
you supposed to do, waste it? Save this and waste that?
  The chart wasn't ours, but it was an interesting chart because it 
showed biomass. And, again, biomass is not the magic it is cracked up 
to be because you have to burn it. To burn it, you have emissions. 
Because of emissions, you have to address air pollution. Air pollution 
means technology. Technology means cost. Don't think you are going to 
get a free ride with biomass.
  Solar works great in Arizona and New Mexico, the Southern States. It 
doesn't work in Barrow, AK. We have a long dark winter where the sun 
never rises above the horizon for about 3 months. Solar has an 
application, I grant you. I don't belittle it. But nevertheless, the 
footprint is pretty broad. You would have to cover several States with 
solar panels to equal what I can produce from ANWR in 2000 acres. I can 
produce 1 million barrels a day, and it would take somewhere in the 
area of two-thirds, three-quarters of the entire State of Rhode Island.
  We had some discussion earlier today relative to wind generation. 
Wind generation has an application. I think one of the tremendous 
application of wind generation is using it to fill dams. In other 
words, the technology is relatively simple because when the wind blows, 
the wind powers electric pumps or generators that pump water from a 
lower area to an upper area. And then you have the fall into the 
turbines and you can generate. There is a lot of thought that says that 
some areas near saltwater, where you have canyons and so forth, you 
could theoretically dam up a little inlet where you have wind, and you 
could have the wind generating power for the pumps. And then you pump 
the saltwater up and run it through the generator. You are really 
picking up something if that is the kind of technology you are talking 
about. But make no mistake, there is a footprint.
  This chart shows San Jacinto, CA, between Banning and Palm Springs. I 
have driven through there many times. If you look at it, it is rather 
astounding because you see literally hundreds of these windmills. And 
some of them are turning; some are not. Sometimes they have technical 
problems because the wind pitch and velocity is such that it can tear 
up the transmissions.
  We have some in a few areas of Alaska where they actually have brakes 
on the ends of the blades. It has a tendency to brake itself rather 
than tear the transmissions up or to get ice on them, and so forth.
  But the point I want to make here is that this is about 2,000 acres 
of a wind-generating area that is committed to the placement of the 
wind generators and the towers, and that equates to making about 1,815 
barrels of oil. So the footprint there, 2,000 acres, equates to 1,815 
barrels of oil in an equivalent energy Btu comparison. Yet 2,000 acres 
of our area, in ANWR, will produce a million barrels of oil. So there 
is a tradeoff. So we have solar, and we have wind, and we have biomass. 
They are all meaningful, they all make a contribution, but they have a 
certain cost to them. Now, there is either biomass, wind, solar, 
geothermal--I mentioned geothermal and a good portion of those, 
unfortunately, are in or adjacent to our parks.
  Another point made earlier in the debate is that this is not a State 
preemption. It really is a State preemption, Mr. President. It preempts 
those States that have decided that a renewables portfolio standard is 
not in the consumers' interests. There are 14 now that have come in 
voluntarily. But this legislation would mandate that all States achieve 
it.
  Let's take the State of Michigan, for example. What is in it for 
Michigan? I am not from Michigan. I can't speak about it, other than to 
share some observations that the staff has made. But we have some wind 
in Michigan; some solar; not much hydro potential; biomass--I suppose 
there is some; geothermal, very little. But they clearly don't have a 
significant segment of one of these alternatives available. So what are 
they going to do? Well, probably buy credits.
  Another thing that came out of the debate that is wrong with this 
legislation is there is nothing to prohibit. The Three Gorges dam on 
the Yangtze River in China, which is about completed--but they are 
putting in turbines now, and so forth--it is my understanding that 
would qualify for credits. That is a pretty big project--one of the 
largest hydroprojects ever undertaken in the history of the world. Are 
we going to see a situation where utilities are going to be allowed to 
go buy credits? There is nothing in the legislation to prohibit it.
  That isn't the intent. The intent is to encourage the development of 
renewables.
  That is another thing wrong with this legislation. I am sure this can 
be

[[Page 3444]]

corrected; nevertheless, it suggests that we have left an open door in 
this concept of buying credits.
  Another point that was brought up in the debate is the issue of 
transferring wealth from one part of the United States to another. It 
is fair to say that the State of California, with a large population, 
dynamic economy, depends on energy coming from the outside. They would 
rather buy energy than develop their own. We saw that last year in the 
crisis in California. We have seen it time and time again. My good 
friends from Louisiana have indicated that they get a little tired of 
this ``not in my backyard'' business. Louisiana is developing oil and 
gas offshore. They are subject to the impact of that on their school 
systems, roads, and so forth. Do they get anything extra? No. The OCS 
goes into the Federal Government fund. Yet they are generating this for 
the benefit of other States.
  So it is not fair, necessarily, to consider this transfer of wealth 
from one part of the United States to another. In other words, those 
areas that have the potential of generating biomass from either solar 
or wind are not going to have to buy credits. Others that don't have 
this availability are going to have to do so. I suggest to you this is 
not necessarily equitable.
  There are other examples that I think deserve a little examination; 
that is, under this mandate, each electric utility, other than public 
power--and why is that, Mr. President? We have investor-owned power and 
we have public power. But we make a distinction here. We do the mandate 
on every electric utility other than public power. What is the politics 
of that? I don't know, Mr. President, but I know public power opposes 
it, and they have prevailed. They don't have to maintain a mandate. You 
are a businessman, Mr. President, and so am I. What does this mean?
  This means that investor-owned power companies are not necessarily 
going to have the same comparative cost mechanism because investor-
owned companies are going to have to go out and buy credits or put an 
investment in renewables.
  Does that mean public power can increase their rates a little bit to 
coincide within investor-owned? Who pays that, and is that kind of a 
windfall profit? I don't know, but I think every Member who is going to 
vote on this ought to be able to go home and explain this because it is 
not equitable. Power produced by investor-owned and by public power--
they both do a good job, but why are we excluding one? It is because of 
the politics. They don't want it. I would like to hear the debate from 
the other side, but I see they have adjourned for the evening--at least 
on that side of the aisle. I would like to hear an explanation of that.
  So what we have here is each electric utility other than public power 
must have one renewable credit for the required percentage of its 
retail sales. That starts at 1 percent and increases to 10 percent in 
the year 2020. Who are we exempting, Mr. President? We are exempting 
Bonneville, which you heard of, out West, and TVA, WAPPA, which are 
significant power groups in their own right, entitled to the process; 
nevertheless, the public and we should question this.
  To obtain a credit, a utility can, one, count its existing wind, 
solar, geothermal, or biomass, but not hydro. Well, I have been 
chairman of the committee, and I have been ranking, and how they can 
conclude that hydro is nonrenewable is beyond me. But I have made my 
case. It looks as if they have put this in here so it will fit. That is 
what is wrong.
  This legislation has been shopped on the other side to the point 
where it has accommodated virtually every special interest group. That 
is what is wrong with it. It never had the process that normally takes 
place around here, and that is the committee process, where the 
legislation is developed within the committee, the bill is introduced, 
referred to the committee, hearings held and markups and so forth. We 
know the history. But it is beyond me that the media has not picked up 
on the injustice of that.
  The majority leader obstructed the committee of jurisdiction --Energy 
and Natural Resources--to do this. He said it was too contentious. He 
pulled it away from the chairman. Here we are on the floor of the 
Senate at 7:10 enlightening one another as to what is in the 
legislation. That should have been done in the committee process. It 
was not and that is a tragedy.
  It is kind of interesting, to make a parallel--I will not make an 
issue of this, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander. 
Somebody made an observation of that nature, where we had the majority 
leader, in the Pickering nomination, on a question relative to sending 
the matter directly to the floor, taking it up, and resolving it on the 
floor. Oh, no, we had to observe the traditional process of the 
committee jurisdiction. I don't know why it is not good enough for the 
Energy Committee, but it certainly applies in the case of Judge 
Pickering. I don't want to go down too many rabbit trails this evening, 
but I wanted to point out an inconsistency.
  As I have indicated, to obtain a credit, a utility can count existing 
wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass, but not hydro.
  It can build a new renewable powerplant or purchase the credit from 
another new renewable powerplant or purchase the credit from the 
Secretary of Energy. Is the Secretary of Energy going to be selling 
these credits? Is that revenue to the Federal Government? What is it 
worth? What is it going to cost?
  My understanding is the average cost of electricity is about 3 cents 
per kilowatt hour. You are going to have to pay something for these 
credits. I am told it may be another 3 cents. So that is 6 cents. That 
is going to be passed on to the consumer, Mr. President. Public power 
is not going to pay it, just investor-owned companies. Isn't there some 
kind of subsidy, tax credit, associated with this of about 1.7 cents?
  We are now taking power that usually goes to the consumer, about 3 
cents, and that consumer is now going to be paying about 7.5 cents. Is 
anybody concerned about that? I do not see a lot of concern. Evidently 
the public is just willing to pay from the investor-owned business only 
an increase from 3 cents to 7.5 cents. Think about that: Every Member 
and staff who is watching, you had better be prepared to explain that 
to your ratepayers and your consumers. That is the price you are paying 
for this mandate.
  In the early years of the renewable portfolio program, there will be 
few tradeable credits because only new facilities produce credits for 
sale. The renewable credit would be, as I said, about 3 cents per 
kilowatt hour through the wholesale market price of power. This is on 
top of the 1.7 per kilowatt hour renewable tax credit. That 
substantiates what I said.
  Let's talk about a few key States.
  West Virginia: American Electric Power serves the bulk of West 
Virginia. Ninety-seven percent of the American Electric Power 
Generation is from coal. A smaller portion is from natural gas and 
nuclear, and eight-tenths of 1 percent is hydro. We are told that 
American Electric Power could not meet the renewable portfolio standard 
through existing renewable generation. They would have two choices: 
Build new renewable powerplants or purchase credit.
  New York: Consolidated Edison serves New York City. Con Ed has 
disposed of most of its generation, as we know, and now purchases 95 
percent of its electricity. All of its remaining generation is gas 
fired and located within the city of New York. Con Ed could not build 
renewables production in New York City to satisfy its renewable 
portfolio requirement. It would have to purchase credits to satisfy the 
renewable portfolio standard requirement. They simply cannot do it in 
New York. They acknowledge that.
  Arkansas: Arkansas is served by Entergy. It is 98 percent natural 
gas, nuclear, and coal, and only 2 percent hydro or wind. It would not 
meet its RPS--renewable portfolio standard--requirement through 
existing wind generation. It would have to purchase credits to satisfy 
the RPS requirement.
  Illinois: Exelon serves most of Illinois, including Chicago. It is 88 
percent nuclear, coal, and natural gas, and 8 percent hydro. They would 
have to

[[Page 3445]]

build renewables or purchase credits to meet the RPS requirement.
  What are they going to do? Are they going to purchase them or build 
them? They are going to make a business decision, and the business 
decision is going to be made on the quickest return on investment. That 
is what you make business decisions on--the least risk and the highest 
return. Are they going to build renewables or buy? It depends on the 
mix.
  I do not think we have really reflected because the other side is so 
anxious to salvage something in this energy bill. This energy bill can 
only be salvaged by good amendments because it was a bad bill to start 
with. It has been improved dramatically. I support the continued 
process, but the continued process toward a good bill can only be 
resolved by amendments.
  The Kyl amendment is not a vote against renewables; it is a vote for 
States, it is a vote for consumers, and it is a vote for the freedom to 
choose.
  This is not in the House bill. What is going to happen when it goes 
over to the House for conference? There is nothing in the House bill. 
We all have a little idea what the House is going to do.
  The Bingaman amendment, in my opinion, subsidizes renewables at the 
expense of coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. What does that mean? 
To me that is a Btu tax, British thermal unit tax. It was the first 
legislation introduced by former President Clinton when he first took 
office, looking for revenues: We are going to put on a Btu tax.
  Do my colleagues know what happened? He was defeated because the 
public said: This country is energy rich. We have a broad choice of 
energy mix. We have coal, we have oil, we have natural gas, we have 
renewables, we have biomass, and you want to tax us first thing.
  This is a Btu tax on coal, natural gas, and nuclear power, make no 
mistake about it. Fourteen States have existing programs with different 
fuel mixes, and they would be preempted by this legislation.
  Senator Kyl's amendment replaces the Bingaman renewable mandate--and 
remember, renewable mandate; we all know what mandate means: you must 
do it--Senator Kyl's amendment would replace it with a program to 
encourage renewables without preempting the States, without 
micromanaging the market.
  What is the matter with the way this market is working? Fourteen 
States have initiated programs because they believed it was in the 
interest of their State, the consumers, the air quality, and good 
citizenship. But, no, we are going to mandate it, and at what cost?
  The Kyl amendment requires State utility commissioners--and I use the 
words ``to consider''; it is not a mandate--``to consider the merits of 
a green energy program.'' It does not order them to implement one. It 
says consumers can purchase green power if they want to; they are not 
required to. And I guess the utilities can charge them for green power 
if it is higher. There is nothing wrong with that if that is what they 
want.
  Over the past 5 years, Congress has provided more than $7 billion in 
subsidies, tax incentives, and other programs to assist renewables. As 
I said earlier, I support those. That is how we bring on technology. 
But you do not get a free ride from it. If we do make this mandate the 
law, we are going to increase the cost of electricity to the consumer, 
but only for the investor-owned company, because that is to whom it 
applies. It does not apply to public power. I have yet to get an 
explanation as to why. We all know why. It is politics. They do not 
want it. They want to enjoy a differential. Is the public aware of 
that? Are they aware why one source of power should enjoy the benefits 
and not another?
  If you happen to have public power providing you with energy, you are 
going to break. If you are an investor-owned business, you do not. This 
is not the American way, and people ought to begin to understand this. 
Members had better be able to explain it when they go home.
  Now the Bingaman amendment, in my opinion, is not good policy, 
frankly. I have the greatest fondness for my friend Senator Bingaman, 
but what it does, it picks winners and losers; it favors types of fuel 
based on politics, not policy; exempts public power, although there is 
no policy justification.
  On the other hand, the Kyl amendment points out fundamental 
philosophical differences between--and we have heard that today--
Daschle-Bingaman. We really want consumers to choose for themselves. On 
the other side, they want the Government to choose for the consumer. 
That is what this Daschle-Bingaman proposal is all about.
  We want the States to make decisions on the needs of the people. They 
want the Federal Government in charge. This issue, renewable mandates, 
is opposed by the United Mine Workers, Public Power, Investor Owner 
Utilities, Chamber of Commerce--well, I have an explanation, and I 
appreciate that. I want to make sure the record reflects it because I 
have been saying that this would benefit Public Power, but I have been 
corrected by my staff to say that Public Power also is opposed to it.
  Why is Public Power opposed to it? Because they are fearful it will 
be lost in committee, and they will in the committee process be also 
included in this mandate.
  The record should reflect my reference to Public Power and the 
clarification.
  So the renewable mandate is opposed by the Chamber of Commerce, 
United Mine Workers, Public Power, Investor Owned Utilities.
  The fear that Public Power has is they will be exposed in committee 
and have to be subject to this as well.
  I think all Members should consider the merits of what we are getting 
into, the precedence we are setting, and the emotional argument 
associated with: Gee, we have to do something on renewables. We have 
not been able to respond on CAFE. We have not been able to move in a 
manner in which we could address even the pickup issue, on which we had 
a vote. Let us make sure the legislation we pass is good legislation; 
that it is well thought out; it is applicable; that it does something 
meaningful that is in the appropriate role of government to do, as 
opposed to what I think the States are doing very nicely by themselves. 
They are proceeding, should they wish, with their own renewable mandate 
proposal, and that is where I think these types of decisions belong.
  I think we would all agree as Members of the Senate that one size 
does not fit all.
  With the recognition it is late, I am prepared to yield the floor. I 
believe we will be on this bill in the morning. Might I ask the 
Presiding Officer what the order of tomorrow might be again for those 
of us who might not have heard the majority whip?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be a cloture vote tomorrow at 1 
p.m. on campaign finance reform.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may ask further, upon the conclusion is there any 
order from the leader as to what we would go to?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no special order. The Senate, by 
default, will resume consideration of the energy bill.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3039 to Amendment No. 2917

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a technical correction to the desk 
with respect to amendment No. 2917. I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3039) was agreed to, as follows:

       On page 555, line 14, after ``Secretary'', insert 
     ``shall''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, this 
technical

[[Page 3446]]

correction is simply the addition of the word ``shall'' on page 555 of 
the amendment.

                          ____________________