[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3786-3794]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.


                Amendment No. 3057 To Amendment No. 3016

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk numbered 
3057.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3057.

  Mr. KYL. 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:

       On page 9 after line 7 insert:
       ``(n) Protection of Consumers.--Upon certification by the 
     Governor of a State to the Secretary of Energy that the 
     application of the Federal renewable portfolio standard would 
     adversely affect consumers in such State, the requirements of 
     this section shall not apply to retail electric sellers in 
     such State. Such suspension shall continue until 
     certification by the Governor of the State to the Secretary 
     of Energy that consumers in such State would no longer be 
     adversely affected by the application of the provisions of 
     this section.''

  Mr. KYL. I will take a couple of minutes to explain this amendment. 
It is very straightforward. Since we have been through the debate, we 
do not have to have a great deal more. We have tried twice, once myself 
and once Senator Murkowski, to give the States more authority to deal 
with the problem of renewable energy. Both of our amendments have been 
rejected. We accept that.
  This amendment is one last attempt to preserve some semblance of 
ability by the States to protect their electric consumers in the event 
the costs of this Federal mandate program should be too great and 
allows, therefore, the Governor to opt out or waive the provisions of 
the program in that one eventuality.
  From the Energy Information Administration of the Department of 
Energy, we have an account of every single utility in the country in 
every single State, by State, showing exactly what this Federal mandate 
in the Bingaman provision is expected to cost

[[Page 3787]]

retail consumers. It averages around a 4-, 5-, 6-percent per year 
increase, but it varies from region to region and utility to utility.
  The point is, when customers begin to feel the pinch of the Federal 
mandate in the Bingaman amendment, they will ask you or your Governors 
is there anything they can do. My amendment says, yes, the Governor 
would have the ability in that event to waive the provisions of the 
Federal mandate, if he finds those provisions are adversely affecting 
the retail customers of the State.
  These figures may not be accurate. If that is the case, fine. But if 
these figures are accurate, I suspect your constituents, your voters, 
your retail electric customers, are going to want some relief.
  This is the last liferaft, folks. We have been defeated on everything 
else. This is at least a liferaft that provides some ability of the 
program to be waived so it would not adversely affect them. I ask my 
colleagues to consider not the utilities in your State; what we are 
saying is, if it should transpire that the Bingaman amendment adversely 
affects people, shouldn't we have some kind of escape valve, some 
ability for the Governor to say: We are going to opt out until the 
situation transpires in a better way for the people of our State, for 
our electric customers. That is what this amendment does. I hope my 
colleagues will support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I would like to ask a question of the 
Senator from Arizona on the renewable energy matter. I was looking at 
the information he has provide and saw that under the Bingaman 
provision electricity bills in Virginia would increase by 5.5 percent 
on average--some, for example at Virginia Power, would go up by 4.8 
percent.
  Having served previously as Governor of Virginia, we would take a 
bunch of businesspeople up to New York City. We called it a report to 
top management. We talked about the attributes of coming to Virginia 
and locating businesses in our State. We talked about taxes, right-to-
work laws, and regulations. But a key factor was the cost of 
electricity. Virginia's electricity costs are generally lower than 
those of the national average.
  A Governor heads up economic development efforts. Do I understand 
your amendment correctly that a Governor who knows how to attract more 
jobs into a State, as that usually is a priority for a Governor, if he 
or she saw this was harmful for creating jobs in his or her State, 
could waive out of this Federal mandate if it was harming the 
competitiveness of the State and businesses?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the only way a Governor could waive the 
provisions with respect to his State would be if he found that the 
renewable portfolio standard would adversely affect consumers in his 
State. So he would have to find it is adversely affecting the retail 
electric consumers in his State for him to be able to waive the 
mandated provisions of the Bingaman proposal.
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator.
  In view of this, we ought to trust the people in the States. The 
Governors can determine whether this is adversely affecting their 
consumers and the ability of their citizens to get good jobs. The 
definition of consumers is not restricted just to individuals. They are 
also business enterprises. We ought to trust the people in the States 
who have the same concerns as everyone in this body to make this 
determination as to how it may affect their respective States.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the Senator from 
Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent Senator Helms be listed as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes and there are 4 
minutes on the side of the opponent.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, one would hope we would not have to 
continue with the barrage of amendments that attempt to deprive the 
American public access for increased renewable resources. Make no 
mistake, the American public has made it very clear they support 
renewable energy. Poll after poll indicates the overwhelming majority 
of Americans support requiring utilities to produce electricity from 
renewable energy resources.
  Americans want clean energy. They want technology that leaves the air 
clean, that does not contribute to lung cancer, that does not sicken 
their children. They want to diversify or domestically produce energy 
to buffer against price instability, and to lessen the vulnerability of 
our energy infrastructure through terrorist attack.
  But we have yet another amendment that would weaken efforts to 
encourage production of renewable energy. This amendment allows a State 
to opt out of the energy program at any time the Governors certify it 
would adversely affect the consumers of the State. Clearly, this is no 
standard at all.
  First, a certification that something ``may adversely affect'' 
consumers is pretty close to being as loose a statutory requirement as 
anyone can craft. The obvious effect is to allow States to opt out, 
leaving a piecemeal and unpredictable program.
  As I said before, one of the overarching benefits of the Federal 
renewable energy standard is that it encourages regional generation and 
distribution of renewable energy. State provisions often limit credit 
to renewable energy generated within the States. A Federal standard 
encourages utilities to meet these renewable energy requirements by 
purchasing and selling renewable energy beyond State boundaries.
  This recognizes a reality that our electricity generation is in fact 
regional in nature, with customers in California using energy provided 
from New Mexico, and a variety of New England States receiving their 
power from New York. Exempting States on a piecemeal basis serves to 
significantly weaken the regional application of a nationwide standard. 
A national standard must be uniformly applied to be effective.
  When the American public says they want laws supporting renewable 
energy, they do not mean sham laws that, on their face, are going to do 
nothing.
  We have already spoken at length about all the reasons we need it. We 
have mentioned the health benefits, et cetera, so I am not going to 
spend any more time doing that, other than to say this amendment should 
be defeated.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me speak briefly, and I will yield the remainder of 
my time, and I hope the Senator from Arizona will as well.
  This will be the third time we have had essentially the same vote: 
The Kyl amendment earlier this morning, and then the vote we just had 
on the Murkowski amendment, and now this one. This amendment says that 
although we have a renewable portfolio standard, the majority of the 
Senate has agreed that makes sense, any Governor who doesn't agree with 
it can take his State out. He can sign a certification saying in his 
opinion----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. The point I was making is this amendment would 
essentially give Governors the option of taking their State out of this 
program by signing a certification to the effect that in their opinion 
this adversely affects folks in their State.
  The reality is the majority of the Senate has expressed their view. 
The majority of the Senate has indicated they believe putting a 
reasonable renewable portfolio standard in the law makes sense and this 
proposal does that in a gradual, moderate way.
  I think it would be a terrible mistake for us at this point to 
totally gut that provision, as the Kyl amendment would do. Anyone who 
voted against the Kyl amendment earlier today should oppose this 
amendment as well. Anyone who voted against the Murkowski

[[Page 3788]]

amendment just now should vote against this amendment as well.
  I am advised there may be others wishing to speak, so I reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have had several of my colleagues say 
don't worry, this is a green vote; it will be dropped in conference.
  Let me tell you what we have done here. We have excluded the right of 
States to have a choice. We have mandated that one size fits all.
  As this chart shows, under the previous vote we just completed, we 
were going to give recognition to the States that addressed the 
initiative of coming up with renewables. But what we were going to do 
was force the others that had not to perform under the 10-percent 
mandate.
  The idea of the Senator from Arizona, to give the Governor some 
discretion, I think is responsible legislation. Why should we sit here 
and mandate that one size fits all? The States know what is best for 
them, and we should concur with that and recognize, indeed, that they 
have their own best interests at heart and they are responsible people. 
They are elected just as we are.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I was struck in listening to our dear 
colleague from Vermont tell us about how many people are for this 
renewable energy and what a strong base of support there is for it. I 
guess the logical question is: If everybody is for it, why are we 
making them do it? If everybody is for it, why would any Governor opt 
his State out when he has to stand for re-election?
  The problem is, not everybody is for it and the costs may be--in some 
States and under some circumstances--prohibitive. So I urge people, 
take into account that things in your State may align in such a way 
that you would want the option, under those circumstances, to opt out. 
On that basis, I urge people to please vote for the Kyl amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, all time has expired 
on the Republican side. I think we are prepared to yield back the 
remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will say, this will be the final vote for tonight. 
There will not be any votes tomorrow. But I do hope we can come back in 
2 weeks, and we are all going to help finish this bill on time; right? 
The week we get back.
  With that understanding, there will be no votes tomorrow, and the 
first vote will be on Tuesday, the second day of the week we come back.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMM. Let no one say the final action before the recess is not 
bipartisan.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. We yield back the remainder of our time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. We yield our time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3057.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the 
Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. 
Stevens), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond), and the 
Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 59 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Frist
     Gramm
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Warner

                                NAYS--58

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Enzi
     Hutchison
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
  The amendment (No. 3057) was rejected.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3058 To Amendment No. 3016

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent, I believe 
the Senator from Maine now is in order to offer her amendment which is 
an agreed-to amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senator from 
Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Snowe, I 
send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself and Ms. 
     Snowe, proposes an amendment numbered 3058 to amendment No. 
     3016.

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

    (Purpose: To clarify the definition of ``repowering or cofiring 
                              increment'')

       On page 8, line 15, delete the period and 
     add ``, or the additional generation above the average 
     generation in the three years preceding the date of enactment 
     of this section, to expand electricity production at a 
     facility used to generate electric energy from a renewable 
     energy resource or to cofire biomass that was placed in 
     service before the date of enactment of this section.''

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment that 
recognizes the value of America's existing renewable energy resources. 
The Bingaman amendment does not give credit to existing renewable 
energy facilities. I believe a facility should receive credit at least 
for new renewable energy generation that is higher than the facility's 
average generation over the previous three years. My amendment would 
allow existing facilities to receive credit for increased generation of 
renewable energy.
  I support increasing our use of renewable energy. I believe it is 
important that any comprehensive energy legislation significantly boost 
the use of electricity produced from clean resources such as biomass, 
wind, geothermal, and solar energy. I support a significant renewable 
portfolio standard, which requires electricity suppliers to sell 
electricity that has a minimum amount of renewable energy.
  Promoting our renewable energy resources will help diversify our 
energy supplies, increase our energy security, and reduce pollution. It 
will move us one step closer to a cleaner energy future that reduces 
our reliance on fossil fuels.
  States are leading the way in demonstrating the benefits of clean 
energy standards. Twelve States, including Arizona, Connecticut, Iowa, 
Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, 
Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin, have already adopted a renewable 
portfolio standard. A national RPS will complement and enhance the 
groundbreaking efforts by these states and will provide particular 
benefits to hard-pressed agricultural

[[Page 3789]]

and rural areas. Perhaps most important, a national RPS would create a 
new and vibrant national market across all states, and help to maintain 
America's international leadership in these energy technologies of the 
future.
  I commend the efforts to develop renewable energy in my home State of 
Maine. Maine has been a leader in developing renewable energy. In fact, 
Maine has enacted a state-wide renewable portfolio standard of 30 
percent. No other State has adopted as high a standard as Maine.
  Even though I am emphatically in favor of increasing renewable energy 
production, we must do so in a fair and equitable way. The proposal 
before us, offered by my friend from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, 
unfairly discriminates against existing renewable energy resources. 
Unfortunately, the Senator from New Mexico has drafted legislation that 
does not properly give credit to existing renewable energy production.
  Why should we discriminate against States which have been proactive 
and invested heavily in renewable energy? I know my home State of 
Maine, as well as California and a number of other States, have 
invested huge resources into developing our renewable energy resources. 
These States have developed new technologies and set an example for 
other States to follow. Let's not penalize those States which have 
worked to develop our renewable energy industry from the ground up.
  Ideally, every existing renewable energy resource should receive full 
credit. I would like to see existing renewable energy resources receive 
100% credit. Doing so would help bring our total renewable energy 
generation to a higher level at less cost. Under the Bingaman approach, 
existing renewable energy resources will find themselves in an unfair 
competitive environment with new renewable energy sources. Existing 
renewable energy facilities will shut down, and new ones will be built 
next door. That is a poor use of resources. It will cost more money and 
raise electricity prices. Wouldn't it be better if States could form 
partnerships with each other to develop renewable energy resources in 
the most cost efficient manner possible? Surely we should allow States 
which don't have a lot of existing renewable resources to save money by 
buying inexpensive, existing credits from other States.
  I am offering this amendment that would provide at least partial 
recognition of those hard working Americans who have built our existing 
renewable energy resources. I would like to see all existing renewable 
energy resources included in this standard. However, my amendment does 
not go that far in an attempt to accommodate Senator Bingaman.
  My amendment merely says that increased output at existing renewable 
energy facilities should be counted. If an existing renewable energy 
facility were to increase its renewable energy output by 50%, then 
under my amendment that facility would receive credit for that 50% 
increase. Thus, consistent with the interest of Senator Bingaman's 
proposal, my amendment only gives credit to new renewable energy 
production.
  Those who have developed America's existing renewable energy 
resources should have their efforts recognized. At a minimum, I hope my 
colleagues will at least join me in giving these hard working Americans 
who have led the way on renewables partial credit. I ask my colleagues 
to join me in supporting this amendment.
  To reiterate, my amendment merely says that increased output at an 
existing renewable energy facility should be counted under this bill. 
If an existing renewable energy facility were to increase its renewable 
energy output by 50 percent, then under my amendment that facility 
would receive credit for that 50-percent increase. Thus, I believe it 
is consistent with the intent of Senator Bingaman's proposal in that it 
gives credit to expand renewable energy production.
  I ask for consideration of the amendment, and I thank both Senator 
Bingaman and Senator Murkowski for their assistance in this matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment is acceptable on this 
side.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is cleared on this side, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 3058. Without objection, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3058) was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 3016, As Amended

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I believe the next item under the 
unanimous consent agreement is a vote on the Bingaman amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 3016, as amended. Without objection, the 
amendment, as amended, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3016), as amended, was agreed to.


                Vitiation of Action--Amendment No. 2996

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, last week the Senate adopted an 
amendment by Senators Murkowski and Daschle relating to rural and 
remote community grants. There were a number of inadvertent errors in 
the amendment as adopted. Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that the 
adoption of amendment No. 2996 be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


    Amendments Nos. 3059 through 3069 En Bloc To Amendment No. 2917

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, you have at the desk 11 amendments. I 
ask for their immediate consideration en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself and 
     Mr. Murkowski, proposes amendments en bloc numbered 3059 
     through 3069 to Amendment No. 2917.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 3059 through 3069) are as follows:


                           Amendment No. 3059

   (Purpose: To authorize rural and remote community electrification 
                                grants)

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text 
of Amendments.'')


                           amendment no. 3060

                    (Purpose: To strike section 264)

       On page 65, strike line 18 and all that follows through 
     page 67, line 4.


                           amendment no. 3061

   (Purpose: To permit the Department of Energy to transfer uranium-
           bearing materials to uranium mills for recycling)

       On page 121, line 24, strike ``and'' and all that follows 
     through page 122, line 2 and insert:
       ``(5) to any person for national security purposes, as 
     determined by the Secretary; and
       ``(6) to a uranium mill licensed by the Commission for the 
     purpose of recycling uranium-bearing material.''.


                           amendment no. 3062

         (Purpose: To define the term `traffic signal module')

       On page 289, after line 4, insert the following:
       ``(41) The term `traffic signal module' means a standard 8-
     inch (200mm) or 12-inch (300mm) traffic signal indication, 
     consisting of a light source, a lens, and all other parts 
     necessary for operation, that communicates movement messages 
     to drivers through red, amber, and green colors.''


                           amendment no. 3063

        (Purpose: To provide test procedures for traffic lights)

       On page 289, after line 21, insert the following:
       ``(11) Test procedures for traffic signal modules shall be 
     based on the test method used under the Energy Star program 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency for traffic signal 
     modules, as in effect on the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph.''


                           amendment no. 3064

   (Purpose: To establish an efficiency standard for traffic lights)

       On page 301, after line 5, insert the following:

[[Page 3790]]

       ``(z) Traffic Signal Modules.--Traffic signal modules 
     manufactured on or after January 1, 2006 shall meet the 
     performance requirements used under the Energy Star program 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency for traffic signals, 
     as in effect on the date of enactment of this paragraph, and 
     shall be installed with compatible, electrically-connected 
     signal control interface devices and conflict monitoring 
     systems.''


                           amendment no. 3065

  (Purpose: To clarify those entities eligible to participate in the 
             Renewable Energy Production Incentive program)

       On page 60, line 20-23, strike ``an electricity-generating 
     cooperative exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(12) or 
     section 1381(a)(2)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986'' 
     and inserting ``a nonprofit electrical cooperative''.


                           amendment no. 3066

      (Purpose: To insert provisions relating to electric energy)

       On page 407, line 4, after ``including'', insert ``flexible 
     alternating current transmission systems,''.


                           amendment no. 3067

    (Purpose: To include geothermal heat pump efficiency among the 
      technologies to be reviewed under section 1701 of the bill)

       On page 568, line 20, insert ``geothermal heat pump 
     technology,'' before ``and energy recovery''.


                           amendment no. 3068

(Purpose: To provide for the updating of insular area renewable energy 
                      and energy efficiency plans)

       On page 574, following line 11, insert the following:

     SEC. 1704. UPDATING OF INSULAR AREA RENEWABLE ENERGY AND 
                   ENERGY EFFICIENCY PLANS.

       Section 604 of Public Law 96-597 (48 U.S.C. 1492) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) at the end of paragraph (4) by 
     striking ``resources'' and inserting ``resources'' and
       ``(5) the development of renewable energy and energy 
     efficiency technologies since publication of the 1982 
     Territorial Energy Assessment prepared under subsection (c) 
     reveals the need to reassess the state of energy production, 
     consumption, efficiency, infrastructure, reliance on imported 
     energy, and potential of the indigenous renewable energy 
     resources and energy efficiency in regard to the insular 
     areas.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end of subsection (e) ``The Secretary 
     of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior 
     and the chief executive officer of each insular area, shall 
     update the plans required under subsection (c) and draft 
     long-term energy plans for each insular area that will 
     reduce, to the extent feasible, the reliance of the insular 
     area on energy imports by the year 2010, and maximize, to the 
     extent feasible, use of renewable energy resources and energy 
     efficiency opportunities. Not later than December 31, 2002, 
     the Secretary of Energy shall submit the updated plans to 
     Congress.''.


                           amendment no. 3069

       (Purpose: To provide for access to the Alaska natural gas 
               transportation project and other purposes)

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text 
of Amendments.'')


                           amendment no. 3069

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, amendment No. 3069 incorporates all of 
the changes Senator Bingaman and I have worked out with the State of 
Alaska, the Alaska Legislature, the pipeline companies, the North Slope 
oil and gas producers, and northern Alaska petroleum explorers.
  One might imagine with the diversity of interests represented by this 
group of participants, there was not always unanimous agreement on each 
point.
  But at the end of the day, I believe what is contained in this 
substitute amendment is a fair compromise between often divergent 
points of view.
  I want to thank Senator Bingaman and his staff for all of the hard 
work they invested in working with me to craft this challenging 
amendment.
  Although Alaska North Slope gas has been available for over 30 years, 
development and commercialization has not been possible due to lack of 
local market and lack of transportation to commercial markets.
  The cost and risk associated with building a project of the magnitude 
we are speaking was just too daunting.
  All of you are aware of last year's efforts on the part of Exxon/
Mobil, Phillips, and British Petroleum to evaluate the commercial 
viability of transporting Alaska gas to markets in the lower 48.
  At the completion of their economic evaluation they determined that 
the project was ``not'' economically viable at this time.
  This negative economic determination set the stage for Congress's 
involvement in the Alaska gas debate.
  A way needed to be found to reduce both the cost and the risk 
associated with the construction of this $20 billion project.
  As you may know Senator Daschle and Bingaman introduced their energy 
bill last December--language was contained in that bill to assist in 
constructing the Alaska Gas Transportation Project.
  While that language was a good start, it did not address all of the 
problems that needed to be resolved in order to achieve the goal of 
cost and risk reduction.
  It also failed to address issues of significant concern to the people 
of Alaska.
  For the past several months Senator Bingaman and I have been engaged 
in discussions with all the interested parties in an attempt to come up 
with language that would remove as many barriers as possible standing 
in the way of constructing this project.
  The amendment that Senator Bingaman and I are offering today 
accomplishes this goal.
  I believe both the interest of Alaska and the nation are well served 
by the language we have crafted.
  It protects Alaska's interests by: prohibiting the ``Over-the-Top'' 
route thus keeping construction and operational jobs in Alaska ``and'' 
along with providing Alaskans with the opportunity to heat their homes 
and develop a gas based industry in our State; making it clear that 
Alaskans have full regulatory authority over gas coming off the 
mainline in our State; providing the opportunity for newly discovered 
Alaska gas to find its way to markets in the south; making special 
provisions for the transport of Alaska royalty gas to markets in 
Alaska; and setting up a $20 million dollar program to train Alaskans 
in the skills they will need to compete successfully for the high 
paying jobs created by the construction and operation of the Alaska Gas 
Transportation System.
  The national interest is protected by significantly reducing the risk 
associated with construction of a system that will provide the nation 
with a secure, abundant, and domestically produced supply of gas that 
will last well into the middle of the century.
  The national interest is served by: providing gasline builders with 
two separate and updated authorities to permit the project; providing 
expedited judicial review of legal challenges that might otherwise slow 
down the project; and creating a project coordinator to make sure that 
the scores of State and Federal agencies permitting the project are 
working together and not creating artificial bureaucratic barriers that 
will slow or halt the construction process.
  I firmly believe that the language contained in this amendment will 
go a long way towards reducing both the cost and the risk associated 
with the construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System.
  A system that will serve the special interests of Alaska and the 
Nation for decades to come.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, these 11 amendments have been cleared on 
both sides. I urge their adoption en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 3059 through 3069), en bloc, were agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I also move to reconsider the vote on 
the adoption of amendment No. 3016.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3023

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have two other amendments that are at 
the desk at this moment. Amendment No. 3023, which is an amendment by 
Senator Lincoln related to the biodiesel credit, is cleared, and I urge 
that we go ahead and proceed with it.

[[Page 3791]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 3023.
  The amendment (No. 3023) was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3041

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
No. 3041 be voted on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 3041.
  The amendment (No. 3041) was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, that completes the items we intended to 
complete today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Florida for how 
much time?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Two minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. For not to exceed 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Florida.


                Amendment No. 3070 To Amendment No. 2917

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to offer an amendment and ask that 
it be laid aside for consideration after we return.
  This amendment will add to the list of items which are acceptable as 
renewable energy municipal solid waste. When we return, I will make a 
more extended statement. In a State such as mine, the options for 
dealing with solid waste are essentially two: One is to bury it in a 
landfill; two is to incinerate it. Of those two, clearly, the 
incineration is a more benign impact on our environment. Given the high 
water table we have, land disposal of the solid waste creates serious 
issues of water quality. In my opinion, we should allow, as we have 
allowed this afternoon through the amendment of Senator Craig, expanded 
use of biomass, and now Senator Collins extended use of hydropower, we 
should recognize the fact that both in terms of environment and energy, 
allowing solid waste to energy to be one of the allowable renewable 
energy sources is in the national interest.
  I offer this amendment. I ask that it be set aside and look forward 
to a fuller discussion when we return.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3070.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:


                           Amendment No. 3070

(Purpose: To clarify the provisions relating to the Renewable Portfolio 
                               Standard)

       Strike Sec. 606(l)(3) and replace with the following:
       ``(3) Eligible renewable energy resource.--The term 
     `renewable energy resource' means solar, wind, ocean, or 
     geothemal energy biomass, municipal solid waste, landfill 
     gas, a generation offset, or incremental hydropower.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, does the Senator from Alaska wish to be 
yielded to?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me thank my good friend, the senior Senator from 
West Virginia. I appreciate the opportunity to respond very briefly 
with a statement.
  Mr. BYRD. How much time?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. About 40 seconds.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator for 
whatever time he may consume, up to 2 minutes, without losing my right 
to the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the President pro tempore for 
his generosity.
  Mr. President, I will file an amendment, but I shall not bring it up 
at this time. This amendment would require the cessation of importing 
oil from Iraq, which is currently at 1.2 million barrels a day, until 
such time as the President certifies that Iraq, one, allows U.S. 
inspectors access to suspected sites for the development of weapons of 
mass destruction; and, two, ceases to cheat the U.N. oil program by 
smuggling oil out through third countries.
  It will be my intention to bring this amendment up upon our return 
from the recess.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 3042

  Mr. ROCKEFLLER. Mr. President, I am proud to submit today, along with 
my colleague Senator Carnahan, amendment No. 3042 to provide tax 
incentives to promote the use of a new type of energy-efficient 
technology for beverage vending machines. The Natural Resources Defense 
Council estimates that, when fully implemented, this new technology 
could reduce national energy use by up to 6 billion kilowatt hours, 
kWh, per year. This translates to an annual electricity savings of $600 
million, by encouraging the sale of new energy-efficient vending 
machines for bottled and canned beverages.
  Our amendment provides a $75 tax credit for the purchase of each 
qualifying energy-efficient vending machine. This incentive is 
necessary because vending machines are purchased by bottlers and other 
beverage machine operators and placed at third party locations to 
benefit consumers, but the types of machines purchased are not decided 
by the organization that pays the electricity bill. Unlike most 
products, the benefit of a vending machine's reduced energy consumption 
is captured by the third party location not by the machine's purchaser. 
Therefore, there is currently no economic incentive for machine 
operators to purchase energy efficient vending machines, many of which 
have useful lives of ten to twenty years.
  For instance, colleges all across the country have beverage vending 
machines for the students to use. A soft drink bottler purchases these 
machines from a manufacturer, and places them in student unions at 
universities, such as Wheeling Jesuit in Wheeling, WV. Wheeling Jesuit 
and other customers of the bottler have no control over what kind of 
machines are purchased. Because Wheeling Jesuit, and not the vending 
machine operator, pays the electric bill, the vending machine operator 
has no incentive to save Wheeling Jesuit money with more energy-
efficient machines that would cut down on the college's electricity 
bills. This amendment would change all of that, because the vending 
machine operators would receive the tax credit for their purchases. The 
new energy efficient machines will save the typical site owner $200 a 
year and more than $2,000 over the life of the machine.
  Technology is now available to reduce the energy consumption of 
refrigerated bottled and canned vending machines by as much as 50 
percent. One of the manufacturers using this technology to make energy-
efficient vending machines has operations in my home State of West 
Virginia, in the small town of Kearneysville. This energy-saving 
technology has been recognized by the Natural Resources Defense 
Council, and will be recognized next week at the Environmental 
Protection Agency's Energy Star Awards. This tax incentive will make it 
easier for bottlers do to the right thing, environmentally, while 
benefiting forward-looking manufacturers like the one producing these 
energy-efficient machines in the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia.
  Without this incentive, the likely result is that bottlers will take 
advantage of this improved technology much more slowly, and energy will 
continue to be needlessly wasted.
  Each new energy-efficient machine would save more than 2,000 kWh per 
year over its less-efficient predecessor. With approximately 225,000 
new vending machines purchased every year the energy savings potential 
is enormous. Once all machines are switched to the

[[Page 3792]]

more energy efficient models, our Nation can save six billion kWh per 
year. That is enough energy to power approximately 600,000 U.S. 
households for an entire year.
  Another feature of this tax credit is that it will provide a 
substantial energy savings to our nation without burdening the average 
American. Citizens will not even know the vending machines are energy-
efficient. There will be no change to the temperature of the beverages 
or the outward appearance of the machines. The tax incentive will tend 
to keep the price of the beverage where it is today.
  This amendment provides a boon to energy savings at little cost. This 
amendment will provide an energy savings of approximately three to one 
over the cost of the tax incentive. Not only does this amendment make 
good sense for energy efficiency; it makes good economic sense, too.
  Every small step we take toward reducing our nation's total energy 
consumption contributes to a more prosperous economy and a brighter 
future for ourselves and our children. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3043

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am committed to helping craft 
national energy legislation that takes energy production and 
conservation, balanced with environmental concerns and economic issues, 
into consideration. Today, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senator 
Allen, Senator Specter, and Senator Warner, in submitting amendment No. 
3043 to the Senate energy bill to create an important tax incentive 
that I believe will encourage the recycling of coal combustion waste 
materials produced in the process of reducing sulfur emission in coal-
fired electric utility boilers.
  Currently in the United States, many coal-fired power plants are 
equipped with sulfur dioxide scrubbers, the purpose of which is to 
significantly reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide released into the 
air. In the process of cleaning the air, these scrubbers produce more 
than 20 million tons of coal combustion waste or sludge per year. 
Stabilization of the sludge increases the waste materials to over 40 
million tons per year, and this amount is expected to more than double 
as the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 continue to phase in. At this 
time, less than 20 percent of this waste material is recycled. In fact, 
the balance of the sludge is disposed of in landfills at a cost to 
electric utilities of as much as $40 per ton, depending upon the 
locale. I am concerned that, as landfills become full, and new 
landfills become more difficult to site, the costs to utilities, and 
ultimately to electric consumers, will continue to escalate.
  A tax credit is needed to encourage utilities that are controlling 
their sulfur dioxide emissions to recycle the waste material their 
scrubbers produce. By helping to alleviate and perhaps eliminate the 
cost of disposing of the waste products generated by using important 
emission control systems, we can realize the multiple environmental 
benefits: Cleaner air and less combustion waste being landfilled.
  There are basically two types of scrubbing, or emission control 
systems, currently in use. One produces a wet sludge and the other a 
dry sludge. Wet sludge is more difficult and costly to treat. 
Accordingly, the proposed credit is $6 for each ``wet ton'' and $4 for 
each ``dry ton'' recycled by a third party. The credit will have a 10-
year limit and includes strict requirements to determine that the 
sludge has actually been ``recycled'' and that a value-added product, 
with genuine marketplace appeal, is created.
  The tax credits will stimulate the development of new technologies to 
recycle the sludge and encourage existing technologies to enhance their 
recycling efforts. The 10-year life of this credit will provide 
sufficient time to aid the start-up of new companies and technologies 
and the further development of existing technologies; thereafter these 
recycling efforts should be self-supporting. The cost of these credits 
is less than $75 million over the next 10 years and could, in part, be 
offset by taxes generated by new businesses as well as the savings to 
the economy through reduced energy costs.
  I remain committed to promoting the use of coal as a primary energy 
source for this nation, and I wholeheartedly embrace tax incentives for 
the installation of clean coal technologies. I believe this credit to 
encourage combustion waste recycling efforts is an important addition 
to our energy policy. It will support economic development and protect 
the environment. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3044

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, 
Senators Ben Nelson and Chuck Hagel, in submitting amendment No. 3044 
addressing energy metering at consumers' homes and the availability of 
reliable energy usage data for consumers to use in making energy 
consumption decisions. The amendment we are submitting is very 
straightforward, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Under the Energy Tax Incentives Act a tax credit and accelerated 
depreciation is established for the benefit of electric and gas 
suppliers that install energy meters that provide consumers with real-
time information about the amount of energy they are consuming and the 
cost of that energy. This provision was passed by the Senate Finance 
Committee, and will become a part of the bill now under consideration.
  The intent of these provisions is to promote energy conservation by 
allowing consumers to monitor, in real time, their energy use and its 
cost. By providing consumers with access to current energy use and cost 
information, consumers will be better able to change their usage 
patterns, thereby conserving energy and saving money in the process. 
The one problem my cosponsors and I see with this provision is that it 
is limited to only one or two specific metering technologies, and I 
strongly believe there are other very cost effective and beneficial 
metering technologies, collectively referred to as ``time of use'' 
technology that would similarly allow consumers to better conserve 
energy.
  Our amendment would simply expand the availability of this tax 
provision to include those suppliers who provide consumers with time of 
use metering technology. One of these time of use technologies is 
manufactured by a company doing business in Scott Depot, WV. I have not 
brought this amendment to the floor of the United States Senate solely 
because it may benefit a business in my home State. I have brought this 
amendment to the floor because I believe it will enhance the 
effectiveness of the underlying bill by giving consumers and their 
utilities a number of options for conserving energy through the 
auditing of their energy use.
  By using time of use technology, consumers could easily and 
conveniently determine how much energy they consumed during different 
times of the day and the specific costs associated with their use 
during each time period. Consumers would have access to time of use 
information for pre-selected time segments of each day. Each selected 
time period would have the exact price of the energy consumed.
  For example, a consumer in New Manchester, WV, using this technology 
could determine how much energy was used between 6-7 p.m. each night. 
By knowing this information, this consumer would be able to change his 
or her energy-use habits during specific time periods, or as an overall 
policy. If helpful, consumers could also easily be provided with 
historic time of use information so they could compare their current 
use and costs with their past use to see the extent they have been 
conserving energy and saving money. I believe this type of metering 
technology would be particularly beneficial to many consumers in West 
Virginia.
  This is a good amendment, and I think that it improves the energy 
efficiency provisions of the underlying bill, without favoring one 
technology over another.


                           amendment no. 3045

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, amendment No. 3045 is very simple but 
it could make a life or death difference to miners who work in one of 
the most dangerous occupations in America.

[[Page 3793]]

  This amendment would require the Secretary of Labor, in consultation 
with the Secretary of Energy, to review current staffing levels of mine 
inspectors, and considering current needs and expected retirements, to 
hire and train as many new mine inspectors as are needed to maintain 
proper safety in coal mines. The Secretary is to maintain the number of 
mine inspectors at a level no lower than current levels. When filing 
these positions, my amendment encourages the Secretary of Labor to give 
consideration to experienced miners or mine engineers.
  Coal miners are dying in alarming numbers in accidents that might be 
prevented if more mine inspectors were on the job. Coal mine fatalities 
increased in 2001 for the third year in a row. Forty-two miners died in 
mine accidents in the United States. Forty-two miners lost their lives. 
This is the most since 1995.
  Already in 2002, eight miners have died in American coal mines. 
Improved technology is increasing the productivity of our mines. We 
should also be seeing improvements in mine safety, not a rising death 
toll.
  Two of the miners who have died this year were West Virginians. On 
January 2nd, a 44-year-old miner with 23 years of experience was 
fatally injured when unsupported roof rock measuring seven feet by five 
feet fell on him in the Justice #1 mine in Boone County, WV.
  Just over a month later, on February 20th a 53-year-old miner at the 
Radar Run #2 mine in Greenbrier County was crushed by loose rock, some 
as large as 30 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 10 feet thick.
  These deaths are tragedies for the families and friends of the miners 
who died. If these accidents could have been prevented, it is 
unforgivable. Our industry and Federal mine safety system are supposed 
to protect miners to the maximum extent possible. The sheer number of 
mine deaths tells me that we are not doing enough to ensure miners' 
safety.
  I am proud that West Virginia produces much of the coal that powers 
the national economy. Over 50 percent of our electricity comes from 
coal. But in producing this fuel, year in and year out, too many West 
Virginia miners become casualties.
  Twelve of the 42 miners lost in coal mines in the United States last 
year were West Virginians. Nine West Virginians, died in both 1999 and 
2000. Since 1992, 114 of the 406 American miners who have died in mine 
accidents have been West Virginians. This is unacceptable. We must do a 
better job of preventing these accidents, with the goal of eliminating 
them altogether.
  West Virginia miners are not the only ones dying in coal mines. Last 
September 23rd, two explosions in the Jim Walter #5 mine in Brookwood, 
AL, took the lives of 13 coal miners, in the single largest coal mine 
disaster in the United States since 1984. Twelve of these miners had 
rushed into the mine to save trapped co-workers. That kind of heroism 
is frequently found in the history of coal mining. We need to make it 
less necessary.
  Anyone who has gone down into a mine knows that accidents happen. 
This amendment will cut down on preventable accidents.
  Retirements will reduce the current number of mine inspectors by 25 
percent in the next five years. Despite this trend, and the number of 
mine fatalities, the President's fiscal year 2003 budget request cuts 
the Mine Safety and Health Administration budget by $4 million.
  The premise is not that more money will necessarily solve the 
problem. The premise is this: The energy bill properly sees coal as a 
vital part of the nation's energy mix. The amendment intends to make 
sure that the hardworking men and women who bring that coal out of the 
ground are not doing so at an unacceptable risk to their lives.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3072

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, amendment No. 3072 to the energy bill to 
establish a Consumer Energy Commission. This amendment is simple, yet 
it has the potential to significantly benefit American families and 
businesses. It should garner widespread support.
  Like many of my colleagues in the Senate, I am pleased that we have 
turned to debate on an energy bill to address our nation's energy 
challenges. This debate marks the first time Congress has 
comprehensively considered energy policy since 1992. As we consider the 
many facets of this important topic, we must remember what has happened 
with energy in our country during the past decade.
  One word you will often hear to describe energy during the past 
decade, especially in the last few years, is ``crisis.'' The California 
electricity experience has been cast in terms of a crisis, and many 
have pointed to Enron as an indication of problems in our energy 
policy. While we may disagree with the extent of the energy crisis, as 
well as ways to address it, I think we can all agree that one energy 
challenge our nation faces is consumer price spikes.
  Let us take the example of gasoline. We all know that prices have 
significantly fluctuated at the pump. The Administration's energy 
policy indeed cites ``dramatic increases in gasoline prices'' as one of 
the challenges we face. The Consumer Federation of America and Public 
Citizen have also called attention to energy price spikes, explaining 
that American consumers spent roughly $40 billion more on gasoline in 
2000 than in 1999. In the spring of 2000, the cost of gasoline in 
Chicago shot up to $2.13 per gallon, well-above the unusually high 
national average of $1.67 per gallon at the time.
  Yet gasoline is not the only energy product for which consumers have 
had to pay dramatically fluctuating costs in recent years. Residential 
heating oil, residential natural gas, commercial natural gas, 
industrial natural gas, and motor gasoline, have all had fluctuating 
prices over the past 15 years.
  If we break down these numbers month-by-month, you can see incredible 
price spikes. In just a matter of one month, the national average price 
of gasoline jumped by 20 cents per gallon, residential heating oil rose 
by 10 cents per gallon, and residential natural gas leapt by 50 cents 
per thousand cubic feet.
  In some areas of the country and sectors of the economy, price spikes 
were greater and had drastic impacts. Home heating and cooling bills 
crippled family budgets in the Midwest and Northeast. Farmers and 
industries dependent on natural gas for the production of fertilizer 
and other chemical products suffered economically.
  To address the chronic national problem of significant energy price 
fluctuations, I am offering an amendment to the energy bill that would 
establish a Consumer Energy Commission. This 11-member Commission would 
bring together bi-partisanly appointed representatives from consumer 
groups, energy industries, and energy- and trade-related agencies, to 
study the causes of energy price spikes and make recommendations on how 
to avert them.
  It is true that the Federal Trade Commission recently studied 
gasoline price spikes in the Midwest. Indeed, several studies have 
investigated potential abuses of market power in the energy industry. 
Other studies have looked at the long-range supply and demand 
projections for energy products. But previous studies have tended to 
focus on a small set of issues, and on the perspective of industry or 
government. I think the best approach is not to look at these issues 
narrowly, but rather to consider the big picture. Most importantly, we 
need to give consumers a voice.
  When consumers go to pay their grocery bills, or their tuition bills, 
or even their residential electricity bills in most states, and when 
businesses go to pay for raw materials, prices are rather predictable. 
But when they go to pay for their heating and cooling, natural gas, or 
gasoline, families and businesses face the frustrating reality of wild 
price swings. We need to bring consumers to the table with 
representatives of the energy industry and government, in order to 
study price spikes. We need these groups to work collectively, and to 
consider a range of the possible causes of energy price spikes. We need 
them to look at both the supply and demand sides, including such

[[Page 3794]]

potential causes as maintenance of inventory, delivery of supply, 
consumption behaviors, implementation of efficiency technologies, and 
export-import patterns.
  After the Consumer Energy Commission has studied energy price spikes 
comprehensively, its charge will be to develop options for how to avert 
or mitigate price spikes. These recommendations can range from 
legislative and administrative actions to voluntary industry and 
consumer actions that can help protect consumers from the fluctuating 
costs of energy products.
  This Commission will be well-balanced, not only to reflect all groups 
with a stake in energy price spikes, but also to reflect both political 
parties. No commission has ever before brought together such a diverse 
group to study such a complex problem in a holistic manner. No 
commission has ever promised to see things from the perception of 
consumers: families and businesses that routinely face energy price 
spikes. The Consumer Energy Commission is long overdue, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3074

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, amendment No. 3074 would establish a 
Conserve by Bike Pilot Program in the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, as well as fund a research initiative on the potential 
energy savings of replacing car trips with bike trips. This program 
would fund 10 projects throughout the country, using education and 
marketing to convert car trips to bike trips. The research would 
document the energy conservation, air quality improvement, and public 
health benefits caused by increased bike trips. The goal is to conserve 
energy resources used in the transportation sector by turning some of 
our gas guzzling miles into bike rides.
  There is no single solution for our Nation's energy challenges. Every 
possible approach must be considered in order to solve our energy 
problems. Something as simple as traveling by bike instead of car can 
play an important role in reducing our dependence on foreign oil. 
Energy conservation does not have to be difficult: it can be as 
economical, healthy, and environmentally friendly as a bike ride.
  It would be unrealistic to expect Americans to make a substantial 
increase in the number of trips they make by bicycle. But even a tiny 
percentage of bike trips replacing our shorter cars trips could make a 
significant difference in oil and gas consumption.
  Right now, less than one trip in one hundred, .88 percent, is by 
bicycle. If we can raise our level of cycling just a tiny bit: to one 
and a half trips per hundred, which is less than a bike trip every 2 
weeks for the average person, we would save over 462 million gallons of 
gasoline in a year, worth over $721 million. That's one day a year we 
won't need to import any foreign oil.
  In addition to conserving our energy, an increased number of bike 
trips can improve our air quality. Significant declines in vehicle 
emissions would follow from increased bike trips. A study in New York 
City showed that bicycling spares the city almost 6,000 tons of carbon 
monoxide each year. A reduced number of trips made by cars would 
increase this number and help to clean our nation's air.
  The Federal Highway Administration estimates that 60 percent of all 
automobile trips are under five miles in length. And these short trips 
typically emit more pollutants because cars during these trips run on 
cold engines. Engines running cold produce five times the carbon 
monoxide and twice the hydrocarbon emissions per mile as engines 
running hot. These cold engine trips could most easily be replaced by 
bike rides.
  Americans would experience additional advantages from increased bike 
usage. The decreased number of cars on our nation's highways would help 
reduce traffic and parking congestion. Congestion costs have reached as 
high as $100 billion annually according to the Federal Highway 
Administration. A reduction in cars on the roads will decrease the high 
costs associated with congestion.
  The ``Conserve by Bike'' amendment will also improve public health. 
The exercise from more frequent bike trips would help improve our 
physical well-being. Biking has proven to be effective in the 
prevention of heart disease, our nation's number one killer. And, 
biking has also shown to help individuals in the correction of health-
impairing behaviors like smoking and alcohol abuse.
  The ``Conserve by Bike'' amendment will help America take a simple 
but meaningful step in energy conservation. It will help fund 10 pilot 
projects that will use education and marketing to facilitate the 
conversion of car trips to bike trips, and document the energy savings 
from these trips. These projects will facilitate partnerships among 
those in the transportation, energy, environment, public health, 
education, and law enforcement sectors. There is a requirement for a 
local match in funding, so that these projects can continue after the 
federal resources are exhausted.
  In addition, this amendment will fund a research initiative with the 
National Academy of Sciences. The study will examine such factors as 
weather, land use and traffic patterns, bicycle facility 
infrastructure, to identify what trips Americans could reasonably take 
by bike. It will also illustrate the benefits of converting bike trips 
to car trips, and explore ways that we can encourage Americans to pedal 
rather than gas guzzle.
  It is imperative that Americans are fully informed of the entire 
range of benefits from biking in terms of energy conservation, air 
quality, and public health. We also need to provide the best resources 
in bike safety and convenience.
  We have been spending a modest amount of federal, state and local 
funds on bicycle facilities since 1991. This amendment will leverage 
those investments and help people take advantage of the energy 
conservation choices they have in getting around their communities. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Iowa in 
the Chamber. Does he wish to have the floor?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. For about 6 minutes. Would that be possible?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my patience is becoming greatly strained, 
but I will yield to the Senator.
  I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the Senator from Iowa for 
not to exceed 10 minutes, without my losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia 
for his gracious attitude.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.

                          ____________________