[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4210-4223]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if I could enter into a 
colloquy with Senator Bingaman to try to move the energy bill along. I 
have a list of the pending amendments. We have had our staffs working 
together to try to clear amendments. I think we have done a pretty good 
job, but there are a significant number remaining.
  I know some Members have indicated their intent to bring them up, but 
we would like to have them come up. We are certainly ready. Perhaps we 
can identify some that we anticipate.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me say in response to my colleague 
from Alaska, I agree with him. We are trying very hard to persuade 
Senators to come to the floor and offer their amendments. Of all the 
potential amendments that might be offered by various Senators, we are 
trying to determine which they actually feel obligated to offer.
  We have not been able to do that as yet. Maybe at a time when the 
Senator was not on the floor earlier today, I propounded a unanimous 
consent request that we specify a time or that we limit the amendments 
to those that are on our list. There was objection raised to that 
unanimous consent request.
  I suggest again that perhaps we could work together over the next 
hour or so to get that list pared down and then once again propound 
that unanimous consent request and see if we couldn't get it agreed to 
at that time. That would at least give us a finite list of amendments 
so that we could then know what is the potential universe of 
amendments. But it is very important that we get some other amendments 
up and vote on them this afternoon. I think Senators are on notice that 
we are anxious to do that. I look forward to working with my colleague 
to get the list pared down so we can complete this bill.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I certainly agree and am anxious to 
work with Senator Bingaman in moving this matter along. My list 
currently shows 73 amendments pending on the other side, many of which, 
I am sure, can be addressed without a vote and simply dispatched--if 
Members would come over and discuss them with the professional staff in 
an effort to try to respond to the interests of the individual 
Senators. We probably have 18 amendments that I have identified over 
here on which Republican Senators have indicated they want to try to 
work out something.
  The generalization was made last night that we are filibustering the 
bill on this side. I want the record to reflect that clearly is not the 
case. In response to my friend's proposal that we limit amendments, I 
hope we get that agreement and that I can address the concerns of some 
of our Members. If there are any Members who want to add amendments to 
it, this is the time to do it. Then we can close out the amendment list 
and proceed to wind up this bill.
  I want to make sure everybody understands that we are not 
filibustering this bill or attempting to hold it up. The only way to 
move it along is by the amendment process. We want to move it along. It 
is my intention to work with our side to get an agreement on amendments 
and encourage Members to come over here. I understand we may be setting 
this aside again this evening to go on election reform, when we can 
clearly continue to be on energy. But if that is the wish of the 
leadership, obviously, that is what we will do. I assure my friend from 
New Mexico of my interest in moving along on the energy bill.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The bill 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.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have been advised that Senator Schumer is 
on his way to offer an amendment. This amendment, I assume, should 
require a vote. This is an amendment he is offering along with Senator 
Clinton, and he should be in the Chamber within the next few minutes.
  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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Amendment No. 3093 To Amendment No. 2917

  (Purpose: To prohibit oil and gas drilling activity in Finger Lakes 
                       National Forest, New York)

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3093 offered by 
myself and Senator Clinton, which I believe is at the desk.

[[Page 4211]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for himself and 
     Mrs. Clinton, proposes an amendment numbered 3093:

       At the end of title VI, add the following:

     SEC. 6.  . PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS DRILLING IN THE FINGER 
                   LAKES NATIONAL FOREST, NEW YORK.

       No Federal permit or lease shall be issued for oil or gas 
     drilling in the Finger Lakes National Forest, New York.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague, Senator 
Clinton, to offer an amendment to permanently ban oil and gas drilling 
in the Finger Lakes National Forest in central New York. The Finger 
Lakes National Forest is the only national forest in our State. It is 
the smallest in the country. It is about 16,000 acres. It is the size 
of Manhattan. It is in the middle of one of the few uninhabited areas 
in one of most beautiful parts of our State--there are many beautiful 
parts of course--the Finger Lakes.
  In 1998, two out-of-State firms offered a joint proposal to the U.S. 
Forest Service to lease the land for drilling. Subsequently, the Forest 
Service conducted an environmental impact study on the proposed 
drilling plan and decided to reject the proposal in December of last 
year.
  Paul Brewster, the Forest Service supervisor, said the following 
about the strong public input they received during the EIS process:

       Many [citizens] stated that public lands, such as those on 
     the Finger Lakes National Forest, are scarce in the region. 
     They point to its uniqueness as New York's only national 
     forest and its small size. They also feel the need for oil 
     and gas should not outweigh other resource values such as 
     recreation, grazing, sustainable timber harvesting, and 
     wildlife. They believe that this development would disrupt 
     the balance of uses that had previously been struck on this 
     national forest.

  There are a number of Members from the West, a number of my 
colleagues who came over to me and said: We have national forests, and 
they are drilling all the time. I point out to them the large 
difference between our situation and theirs. We don't have hundreds and 
hundreds and hundreds of square miles of national forests. This one is 
16,000 acres. I don't know how many square miles that is, but it is 
probably less than 100. Am I right on that? I see my colleague from New 
Mexico shaking his head ``yes.''
  It is the only national forest we have. It is one of the very few 
areas in a rather heavily populated part of our State. New York State 
has the third largest rural population in the country. To allow 
drilling there--and there is only a negligible, if any, amount of gas 
and oil there--wouldn't seem to make much sense.
  This is not a partisan issue. Both our Governor, George Pataki, and 
the area's Congress member, Amo Houghton, both members of the other 
party, are in support of our proposal. They know the tremendous 
environmental risks posed by allowing 130-foot rigs to drill in the 
Finger Lakes National Forest outweigh the limited benefits of doing so.
  As I said, this is not Alaska. This is not the Gulf of Mexico. This 
is not the great wilderness we have out West, beautiful wilderness that 
every summer my family traverses. It is, rather, a postage-stamp size 
park. And we have such beauty in our State, but we are so crowded that 
preserving this area from drilling makes a great deal of sense. It is 
one of central New York's main tourist attractions. It draws tens of 
thousands of visitors each year.
  There is no question of oil here. It is an almost unnoticeable amount 
of gas that could despoil this precious little pocket of wilderness and 
drive people away at a time when they are sorely needed to bolster the 
area's economy.
  The Finger Lakes area is starting to grow. Upstate New York has been 
one of the few areas in America that is shrinking in population. But 
wineries have developed on the shores of the Finger Lakes. Tourists are 
coming to the Finger Lakes. This forest is an attraction. A day of 
hiking undisturbed by manmade developments is a wonderful thing. For 
the small amount of natural gas that might be there, to allow rigs, to 
allow forest land to be despoiled, doesn't make much sense.
  I visited this forest and I can tell you, if every one of my 
colleagues would want to take a visit there--I know that won't happen; 
you have many places to go in your own States. But if you were to visit 
the region, you would agree. All you have to do is go there and take 
one look and you know it is the wrong place.
  With this amendment, we are not trying to comment in any way about 
drilling in other places. We don't want to get embroiled in that. Our 
only national forest, a tiny little 16,000-acre place, one of the few 
not-built-upon parts of our State, please let us keep it for the people 
of the Finger Lakes region and the new tourism industry that has 
started to grow there. Let them breathe a little easier, which this 
amendment would allow.
  I ask that this amendment be supported. I had hoped maybe we could 
work something out between the majority and minority. I don't think 
there are many requests like this, one that we haven't made before. But 
with the advent of somebody who is interested in trying to drill for 
whatever gas is there, the amendment is called for.
  I yield back my time. I believe my colleague from New York is here, 
with that bright orange, lovely outfit. I usually see her as she comes. 
I missed her today. Let me now yield the floor to my colleague and 
partner in this and so many other issues as we work for the Empire 
State together, Senator Clinton.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague in offering 
this amendment which is very important to our State and would 
permanently protect the only national forest in New York State and the 
smallest national forest in our country from drilling. The Finger Lakes 
National Forest is a part of New York that I wish everyone could see, 
as Senator Schumer so eloquently stated.
  We would love to invite everyone in the Senate to come and see these 
lakes, which were named from an old Indian legend that says the Great 
Spirit had put his hand down on the land and when he lifted it up, he 
left behind these Finger Lakes. These lakes are so beautiful and 
special that, in and of themselves, they provide not only a tremendous 
amount of recreational visitation for the area, but they are beautiful 
places to live and to farm and to work.
  The U.S. Forest Service sought public comment last year on a draft 
environmental impact statement on a proposal to lease 13,000 acres of 
the 16,000-acre national forest. Among the consequences of the proposed 
drilling action identified in the Forest Service's statement were soil 
erosion, contamination at or near well sites due to the construction of 
access roads, well paths and pipelines, and the use of trucks and heavy 
equipment in drilling activity. The report predicted that such 
construction would require several acres for each particular drilling 
site of vegetation clearing, including tree cutting.
  In addition, the quality of local water rights would be put at risk. 
There is also concern about the loss of habitat for birds and animals 
that call the forest home, and it would be a very difficult problem for 
us to figure out how to accommodate drilling at such a relatively small 
area.
  That is why Senator Schumer and I believe, because of the potentially 
dire environmental consequences, the relatively small amount of energy 
that would be secured, assuming such drilling was successful, it is not 
a sufficient reason to take a chance on this very precious resource. We 
think it is our responsibility to protect our State's precious natural 
resources, and that is why, once again, we offer this amendment to 
permanently prohibit such drilling.
  We also have on our side the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which, 
as both Senator Schumer and I remind colleagues on a regular basis, has 
a very prominent place in our State--certainly in the Finger Lakes 
region--where not only dairy farms but increasingly wine vineyards and 
other products are grown, but in its final environmental impact 
statement, the USDA recommended a no-action alternative. In other 
words, the USDA does

[[Page 4212]]

not support drilling in the Finger Lakes National Forest. So that is 
why we are offering this amendment. We don't believe drilling in the 
national forest, in the Finger Lakes, would be sensible energy policy. 
It is certainly not sound environmental policy. It is not good 
agricultural policy, and it would undermine a lot of the progress we 
have made in bringing people to enjoy this very beautiful area.
  So I am proud to join my colleague in asking for support in 
prohibiting drilling in this very small national forest that we are 
very proud to have in our State. I yield back the time to Senator 
Schumer.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for her fine words in support of 
this amendment. I think we have said everything that has to be said. It 
is a very small national forest, so it requires only small speeches.
  I yield back our time and hope we can move this amendment without any 
problems. Maybe we can figure out something. I know there is some 
opposition, but I will yield to my colleague, the chairman of the 
Energy Committee, the Senator from New Mexico, who is working real hard 
on this bill, and we all appreciate that very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me make a couple of comments. I know 
we would not, of course, try to go to a vote on this matter without 
providing opportunity for Senator Murkowski and other Members to come 
to the floor and express their views.
  This is an issue about which I have spoken to Senator Schumer and 
Senator Clinton. I know they feel very strongly about it. It is the 
kind of issue that we address, as they are well aware, in the Energy 
Committee through specific legislation that is designed to provide a 
special level of protection for a particular area, a particular 
national park, a particular section of national forest; and I think 
that might be another alternative for them.
  I am not trying to discourage them from going ahead now if they wish 
to do that. Certainly, I don't intend to state a position on the bill 
on their amendment. I know some Members have expressed concern that we 
would not have the opportunity to consider this as legislation 
designating a particular area for special protection. That is another 
way to get to the same end result that they have proposed to get to 
with this amendment. So I mention that and I know that is something 
they might consider as an alternative to their amendment.
  The amendment is pending, and I understand other Members will come to 
the Chamber if the amendment remains pending and speak to it. With 
that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken to Senator Bingaman. It is my 
understanding from the Senator from New Mexico--and I haven't spoken to 
the Senator from Illinois--when this matter is resolved, Senator Durbin 
is going to offer an amendment relating to the Consumer Energy 
Commission; is that the Senator's understanding?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. It is my further understanding that the Senators from New 
York, at a subsequent time, will offer an amendment--maybe this 
evening--dealing with air-conditioners. I say to my friend from New 
York, is there sometime this evening the Senator might be in a position 
to offer his amendment on air-conditioners?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Yes. This is the amendment that would have the Federal 
Government augment a State program for people who would turn in their 
old air-conditioners and get some new ones. I think we would be willing 
to offer that sometime in the early evening, maybe at 5 o'clock or 
5:15.
  Mr. REID. That would be very good. We don't know how long the 
amendment of the Senator from Illinois will take. The minority will 
make that determination. The Senator from Illinois will not speak too 
long. He will offer his amendment very shortly.
  For the information of Members, possibly there could be two votes 
within the near future on two amendments. The leader has indicated that 
sometime tonight he will move to a different piece of legislation. So 
we are going to be working somewhat late tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, is it appropriate for me to send an 
amendment to the desk?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It requires unanimous consent.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be 
temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3094 to Amendment No. 2917

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

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3094 to amendment No. 2917.

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

   (Purpose: To establish a Consumer Energy Commission to assess and 
    provide recommendations regarding energy price spikes from the 
                       perspective of consumers)

       On page 523, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

     SEC. 1704. CONSUMER ENERGY COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment of Commission.--There is established a 
     commission to be known as the ``Consumer Energy Commission''.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) In General.-- The Commission shall be comprised of 11 
     members.
       (2) Appointments in the senate and the house.--The majority 
     leader and the minority leader of the Senate and the Speaker 
     and minority leader of the House of Representatives shall 
     each appoint 2 members--
       (A) 1 of whom shall represent consumer groups focusing on 
     energy issues; and
       (B) 1 of whom shall represent the energy industry.
       (3) Appointments by the president.--The President shall 
     appoint 3 members
       (A) 1 of whom shall represent consumer groups focusing on 
     energy issues;
       (B) 1 of whom shall represent the energy industry; and
       (C) 1 of whom shall represent the Department of Energy.
       (4) Date of appointments.--The appointment of a member of 
     the Commission shall be made not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Term.--A member shall be appointed for the life of the 
     Commission.
       (d) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 20 days after the date 
     on which all members of the Commission have been appointed, 
     the Commission shall hold the initial meeting of the 
     Commission.
       (e) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The Commission shall 
     select a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from among the 
     members of the Commission.
       (f) Administrative Expenses.--The Department of Energy will 
     pay expenses as necessary to carry out this section, with the 
     expenses not to exceed $400,000.
       (g) Duties.--
       (1) Study.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a nationwide 
     study of significant price spikes since 1990 in major United 
     States consumer energy products, including electricity, 
     gasoline, home heating oil natural gas and propane.
       (B) Matters to be studied.--The study shall focus on the 
     causes of large fluctuations and sharp spikes in prices, 
     including insufficient inventories, supply disruptions, 
     refinery capacity limits, insufficient infrastructure, 
     regulatory failures, demand growth, reliance on imported 
     supplies, insufficient availability of alternative energy 
     sources, abuse of market power, market concentration and any 
     other relevant market failures.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     first meeting of the Commission, the Commission shall submit 
     to Congress a report that contains--
       (A) a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of 
     the Commission; and
       (B) recommendations for legislation, administrative 
     actions, and voluntary actions by industry and consumers to 
     protect consumers (including individuals, families, and 
     businesses) from future price spikes in consumer energy 
     products.
       (3) Consultation.--In conducting the study and preparing 
     the report under this section, the Commission shall consult 
     with the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy and other 
     Federal agencies as appropriate.
       (h) Sunset.--The Commission shall terminate within 30 days 
     after the submission of the report to Congress.


[[Page 4213]]

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer this amendment that will 
establish a Consumer Energy Commission. It is a pretty simple 
amendment; yet I think it has the potential to be of great benefit to 
families and businesses across America.
  I am pleased that the Senate is turning to this debate on the energy 
bill to address our Nation's energy challenges. This debate really 
marks the first time that Congress has taken up the whole question of 
energy since 1992. As we consider the elements of this important topic, 
let us not forget what has happened to energy in our country during the 
last decade. One word you will often hear to describe energy during the 
past decade--especially in the last few years--is the word ``crisis.'' 
The California electricity experience has been cast in the terms of a 
crisis. Many point 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 appreciate the fact that one 
energy challenge our Nation faces is the price spike that consumers 
face in so many of our energy sources.
  Let's take an example of gasoline. We all know when you buy gasoline 
in America, prices fluctuate widely at the pump. We are seeing some of 
the highest prices now in the Midwest that we have seen in a year. 
Gasoline is reported at $1.60 a gallon in some areas, and it is even 
higher in others. This has become what I characterize in my part of the 
world as the ``Easter phenomenon.'' This is the third straight year 
when we have seen, at about Easter time, the price of gasoline spiking 
across the Midwest, sometimes over $2 a gallon, and even higher from 
those who are exploiting and ripping off consumers and businesses.
  The administration's energy policy indeed cites the 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 American consumers spent 
roughly $40 billion more on gasoline in the year 2000 than the year 
1999. In the spring of 2000, the cost of gasoline in Chicago shot up to 
$2.13 a gallon, well above the unusually high national average of $1.67 
per gallon at that time.
  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, dramatically fluctuating over the last 15 years.
  I can recall a year or so ago my wife called me at my apartment in 
Washington on Capitol Hill. She lives back in Springfield, IL. She 
called me and said: Senator? And I knew I was in trouble when she said 
that.
  I said: What is it?
  She said: I just got the heating bill on our house. What is going on 
here?
  The natural gas prices had gone through the roof. Every home across 
the Midwest saw it. Some people could afford to pay it--we could--and 
others could not. We are seeing that more and more. Consumers are 
saying: I can understand prices going up here and down there, but why 
these wild price fluctuations?
  If we break down the numbers on a month-to-month basis, we can see 
incredible price spikes. In the matter of 1 month, the national average 
price of gasoline jumped by 20 cents a gallon, residential heating oil 
rose by 10 cents a gallon, and residential natural gas led with 50 
cents per 1,000 cubic feet.
  In some sectors of the economy, price spikes were greater and had a 
more drastic impact. Home heating and cooling bills crippled family 
budgets in the Midwest and Northeast.
  It is not just a matter of residences, homes, and families. Farmers, 
small businesses, and industries dependent on natural gas for the 
production of fertilizer, chemical products, and other services and 
products suffered economically.
  I can recall trucking businesses coming to me when the price of 
gasoline was fluctuating out of control in the Midwest and saying: We 
have to lay off people; there is no way we can keep this business 
going.
  For a month or two at a time while this was happening, people were on 
the unemployment rolls, if they were lucky. Some of them were just out 
of work, trying to keep their families together, not because they were 
not willing to work hard or have a business but because one of the 
commodities of that business was fluctuating out of control.
  There is a way to demonstrate these problems. Let me demonstrate on 
this chart some of the fluctuation of prices. This chart shows motor 
gasoline retail prices from 1999 to the end of 2001. You will see the 
cost per gallon across America, U.S. city averages. Imagine starting 
back in January 1999, the cost per gallon was around 95 cents a gallon. 
Look at the spring of the year 2001. The price is up to $1.60. There is 
a fluctuation in price from 95 cents a gallon to $1.60 per gallon.
  To some it is a pinch on their pocketbook. To a business that has to 
meet a bottom line, that kind of fluctuation means: I can't put as many 
trucks on the road or hire as many people for our messenger service. We 
have to cut back on employment. This shows the price spikes that 
consumers have been faced with over that 2-year period.
  Let me show another chart: heating oil prices by region, and we can 
see the wild spikes. The cost per gallon in January 1996 was about $1 a 
gallon. Then we saw this price spike to about $1.50 a gallon in January 
of the year 2000, and then it dips and spikes again.
  Is this the natural operation of a market economy or is it something 
else? That is the question I have asked time and again. I understand 
supply and demand. I passed that course in my sophomore year in 
college, not with a great grade but a good one. I understand what the 
market economy is all about, supply and demand, but it struck me as odd 
that year after year with great repetition we would see gasoline prices 
go skyrocketing for a matter of weeks and months during certain periods 
of the year.
  That is why I brought this amendment to the floor. I think we can 
address the chronic national problem of significant energy price 
fluctuations, and we ought to do it by putting together a commission 
that is balanced.
  Whenever we get into debates about these price fluctuations, people 
say: We are going to get the captains of industry and Government heads 
of agencies and they are going to come together and talk this through. 
I thought to myself: Isn't it interesting these people talk about a 
problem that does not touch them personally as families, individuals, 
small businesses, and farmers. Why are we not bringing consumers into 
this discussion? Why shouldn't they be part of this analysis to make 
sure the market truly is working and nothing else is involved?
  That is why I am offering an amendment to establish the Consumer 
Energy Commission. This would be an 11-member Commission which would 
bring together bipartisan appointees and representatives from consumer 
groups, energy industries, and the Department of Energy to study the 
causes of energy price spikes and make recommendations on how to avert 
them.
  It is true the Federal Trade Commission took a look at the gasoline 
price spikes in the Midwest recently. Indeed, a lot of studies have 
investigated potential abuses of market power in the energy industry. I 
salute Carl Levin of Michigan who serves with me on the Governmental 
Affairs Committee. He is having a hearing very soon looking into the 
specific problems that have hit the Midwest.
  Other studies have looked at 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 big industry or big 
Government. I think the best approach is not to look at these issues 
narrowly but consider the big picture and, in particular, from the 
consumer's point of view.
  We need to give consumers a voice and opportunity to participate in 
this process. When consumers pay their grocery bills or tuition bills 
for their kids or even their residential utility bills in most States, 
and when businesses pay for raw materials and supplies, prices are 
usually rather predictable. But when they pay for heating and cooling,

[[Page 4214]]

natural gas, gasoline for trucks and autos, 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 to study these price spikes. We need 
these groups to work collectively to consider a range of possible 
causes of energy price spikes. We need them to look at both the supply 
and the demand side, including such potential causes as maintenance of 
inventory, delivery of supply, consumption behavior, implementation of 
efficiency technologies, and export-import patterns.
  After the Consumer Energy Commission studies energy price spikes 
comprehensively, its charge will be to develop options for ways we can 
avert and mitigate these terrible 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 cost 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 comprehensive way. No 
commission has ever promised to see things from the perspective 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.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Illinois 
on his amendment. I reviewed it. It deals with a very important set of 
issues about which we have all been concerned. His description of what 
this Commission would look at as the causes of large fluctuations and 
sharp spikes in prices, including insufficient inventories, supply 
disruptions, refinery capacity limits, insufficient infrastructure, 
regulatory failures, demand growth, reliance on imported supplies, 
insufficient availability of alternative energy sources, abuse of 
market power, market concentration, and other relevant market failures, 
are the exact kinds of issues we are trying to deal with in this 
comprehensive energy bill.
  Obviously, we need as much wisdom as we can find on these issues and 
how to address them. I believe this amendment would be a source of good 
advice to us, and I support the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to enter into a general 
discussion with my friend from Illinois relative to the substantive 
effect of his proposed Commission because while I certainly concur we 
are entitled to have this information, I am wondering why an inquiry by 
letter to the Department of Energy, the Federal Trade Commission, the 
GAO, or the Energy Information Agency would not suffice for the same 
purpose.
  The Senator from Illinois indicates the Commission shall conduct a 
nationwide study of significant price spikes since 1990 in major 
consumer energy products. I think we are all familiar with the 
situation in California relative to what happened when California chose 
not to pass on the full cost of energy to the retail customer. As a 
consequence, the price hikes associated with that activity were 
certainly evident when the wholesalers went out of business.
  I wonder if my friend could indicate if indeed there is not a little 
duplicity in the availability of this information. I do not have a 
problem with the amendment, but I do not want to build up a 
bureaucracy.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I might respond, I thank the Senator from Alaska 
because I think it is a good faith question and I think it is one that 
deserves an answer. I say to my friend from Alaska, what we are trying 
to do in this effort is to perhaps bring new perspective to this issue. 
The Senator's State of Alaska really prides itself on its individualism 
and its own special character. What we are trying to do is say we think 
it is not unreasonable, in fact it is valuable, to have consumers 
represented in this discussion. I know what I am going to get if I 
write a letter to the major Federal agencies in town. I know what I 
will get if I write to most of the investigative branches of the 
Government. Would it not be refreshing to have a new perspective with a 
Commission that really at least includes some honest-to-goodness 
consumers who take a look at this from the small business perspective, 
from the farmers' perspective, from the family's perspective? I do not 
think we have anything to lose. We may have a lot to gain, and I hope 
in doing that maybe we will convince some of the larger industries and 
utilities and even Government agencies that they ought to every once in 
awhile take a fresh look at things.
  I do not think this piles on to bureaucracy. It might open up a 
window and bring in some fresh air.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. My concern is whether or not the proposal would really 
create another study panel to study what has already been studied many 
times. Quite frankly, we already knew with what price hikes were 
associated; namely, a shortage. I often find it makes us feel good to 
bring in consumers and participate in a townhall meeting, but we have 
to educate the consumers on the factual information because they are 
the ones who are affected by the results oftentimes. A price hike 
obviously hits the consumers, and sometimes they are not knowledgeable.
  I refer back to the first page of the amendment of the Senator from 
Illinois; (A)1, and I quote: Of whom shall represent consumer groups 
focusing on energy issues.
  I gather that would be four members from the congressional 
appointees. Is that correct?
  Mr. DURBIN. The suggestion in this amendment is the majority leader 
and the minority leader of the Senate will each appoint two members, 
one from the consumer side, one from the energy industry side. So there 
would be two who would come from the Senate and the House, the majority 
and minority leaders. So there would be four altogether, and then a 
fifth would be appointed by the President. So 5 of the 11--not even a 
majority--would be consumer voices.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The consumer voices come out of that appointment?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes. Five of the eleven appointees to this Commission 
would be from consumer groups focusing on energy issues.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Ordinarily, the problems we have relative to energy 
are not enough electricity, not enough electric transmission in some 
areas, not enough oil and gas production in other areas, not enough 
refining capacity in other areas. Consumer protection obviously is 
involved in virtually every facet of our lifestyle. I do not have a 
particular objection to the information the Senator from Illinois is 
trying to generate. I am concerned we not duplicate this.
  Would the Senator allow us to put this aside and get back to it 
perhaps tomorrow after we have had a chance to look at it? We had not 
seen the amendment previously to have a chance to make a determination 
whether or not indeed there is another agency that has a responsibility 
that can provide the information the Senator believes is in the 
national interest.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to accommodate my colleague from Alaska. I 
hope when he takes a look at it, he will support it. I certainly want 
to give him a chance to review it.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If we expand this to consumer groups, would we not 
want to have some consideration or environmental input, too? Oftentimes 
if you have one and do not have the other, then the other wants to be 
heard. And if we are talking about more electricity or more 
transmission, this also could have some environmental concerns.
  Mr. DURBIN. It is hard for me to quarrel with the Senator's 
suggestion, but I think the focus of this Commission is to really talk 
about the pocketbook impact of these energy price

[[Page 4215]]

spikes. There are critical and important environmental issues, the 
Senator knows well because he studied it as much if not more than any 
other Senator. But really what I am trying to focus on is what the 
Senator has heard at home and what I have heard at home, that when the 
price of one of these energy suppliers goes out of control, we get 
calls from consumers and their families, as well as small businesses, 
who say: Senator, what is going on? Why does this happen every spring 
in the Midwest?
  So I ask the Senator from Alaska to take a look at it and join me in 
focusing on these price spikes and the consumer side of it, and I will 
gladly join him on any environmental aspect of another amendment. In 
this amendment, if we could try to confine ourselves to the economics 
of this issue, I think that was the reason I offered the amendment, and 
I hope the Senator will support it.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. What I would encourage is that the professional staff 
take a good look at this and see if indeed there is not some other 
agency that would have this information. I think it is important for 
the Senator from Illinois to recognize on renewability, which we 
passed, the 10 percent, that is going to cost roughly $100 billion to 
the consumers of this country by the year 2020. That is pretty much the 
agreed-upon, recognized cost of achieving a 10 percent reliability.
  I am sure the Senator from Illinois is also aware that within the 
last couple of days this Nation has lost about 25 percent, almost 30 
percent, of the capacity to import oil with the determination by Iraq 
to initiate a moratorium for 30 days, coupled with the strike in 
Venezuela. Clearly, that shortage has resulted in at least a $3-per-
barrel increase in the price of oil.
  These things seem to have a world application. If we look at Saudi 
Arabia and the OPEC nations which operate their cartel, by reducing the 
supply of oil they can clearly motivate and initiate the price. I think 
they advised us perhaps a year ago they were going to, as an objective, 
hold the cartel within a $22 to $28 framework, and they have done a 
pretty good job of it.
  Mr. DURBIN. May I respond to the Senator?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Surely.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator, he has made the point because he 
understands, as I do, how beholden we are to foreign interest sources. 
If there is a problem in Venezuela or a decision by gulf state oil 
producers that they are going to withhold supply from the United 
States, it has a direct impact on the price and certainly on consumers. 
That is one of the elements we raised and studied, the reliance on 
imported supplies. As we become less dependent and more energy secure, 
we are less susceptible to price fluctuations, which I would like to 
have studied as part of this Consumer Energy Commission.
  The Senator has made the point, and made it well, as to why we should 
look at this more closely. There are a dozen ways to go after this, as 
Senator Murkowski and Senator Bingaman know so well, having spent so 
much time on this bill. I hope we never lose sight of the ultimate 
consumer who ends up paying the bill. It is the mom and pop back home 
who end up with the natural gas bill to heat their home--or gasoline or 
heating oil. They are the ones who ought to be in on this discussion. 
That is what we tried to do with this Commission.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in responding, the examples I cited are 
beyond the control of the Senate, beyond the control of the consumer 
groups. It is just a world market that dictates, when somebody chooses 
to reduce the supply. As we increase our dependence on the Middle East, 
on OPEC, we increase our vulnerability. The other example I cited, our 
interest in stimulating renewables, does not come without a cost.
  I suggest to the majority as we look at the creation of this 
Commission--which as I understand would have an authorization of about 
$400,000, with no staff and no specific definition of powers--see if we 
can jointly work together and perhaps with the Comptroller General or 
others undertake this study. If it is not feasible, I will not reject 
the amendment necessarily. I am just a little sensitive to expanding 
bureaucracies.
  If the Senator allows us to work together, maybe we can work out 
something.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to share this with the Senator's staff. I want 
to give them ample time to look at it. I thank Senator Murkowski and 
Senator Bingaman. I don't know if I need to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest we set the amendment aside to 
consider other amendments as Senators offer amendments.
  Before yielding the floor, the study called for in this amendment by 
the Senator from Illinois is very time limited. It is 180 days. The 
report has to be concluded within 180 days after the Commission is 
appointed. Then the Commission goes out of existence. As my colleague 
from Alaska pointed out, the maximum amount this could cost is $400,000 
in expense funds that the Department of Energy would cover. There may 
be some way to improve the language, but I think it is a meritorious 
amendment and I hope we can adopt it. I thank the Senator from Illinois 
for offering it.
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 3093

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, unfortunately, I was absent when the 
two Senators from New York proposed an amendment authorizing funding 
for prohibition on oil and gas drilling in the Finger Lakes National 
Forest in New York.
  My first reaction was that it was precisely in the wrong direction. 
At a time when we are increasing our dependence on imported sources of 
energy, oil and gas, this amendment prohibits oil and gas drilling in 
the Finger Lakes National Forest of New York.
  I am not knowledgeable as to the extent of interest to drill in this 
area. However, I am sensitive to Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton 
with regard to what they believe is best for their State. We have an 
amendment to put additional Federal lands off limits to oil and gas 
development. That is clearly what we are doing.
  The irony in this as far as my State is concerned is we happen to 
support opening ANWR, opening the area for oil and gas exploration, and 
we find a reluctance of some Senators to recognize that while I am 
certainly not going to take issue with the attitude prevailing of the 
two New York Senators who want this area put off limits, I find it a 
bit inconsistent that other Senators will not respect our views in 
Alaska relative to our support, which is nearly 70 percent of the 
population. Clearly, virtually the entire population of the North 
Slope, with the exception of the Gwich' in people, support opening 
ANWR.
  I take the opportunity to point out we have an amendment to put 
additional Federal lands off limits to oil and gas development at a 
time when we are increasing our dependence on imported oil, at a time 
when we have an opportunity to open domestic sources, specifically ANWR 
and Alaska.
  I respect the views of the Senators from New York. They have 
introduced this legislation. The legislation itself should be 
considered in the committee of jurisdiction. I am speaking for myself 
now, but I believe it should be brought to the committee before it 
comes directly to the floor for action. Otherwise, obviously, we bypass 
the committee process and the rules--which is the rule rather than the 
exception.
  I tell the Senators from New York I may very well support their 
legislation. I voted with and supported other colleagues on wilderness 
designation, from time to time, that put oil and gas development off 
limits. So this is not the first for me, in spite of the fact some may 
question that. But it is fact. I have supported and voted for wild and 
scenic rivers designations that foreclosed future FERC licensing.
  That is why we have a committee process, to understand the 
significance of the legislation's applicability. I do not think we 
should come to the floor on a bill that ostensibly is designed to 
increase our energy security and put

[[Page 4216]]

more Federal lands off limits without the benefit of the committee 
review.
  I certainly have great respect for the views of the State delegation, 
and I have regularly deferred to their views through the committee 
process. This is not a large area. It is a very small area of Federal 
land, with no existing leases, as far as I know. I am not aware of any 
pending proposal to create an emergency. I encourage the Senators from 
New York to allow us to let this go through the committee process and 
not send the legislation further down the road with increased Federal 
dependence. I encourage that consideration. Again, I have indicated I 
very likely would accept it in the traditional process.
  I 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. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Democrat 
floor leader will be coming to the floor in a moment to ask unanimous 
consent that we bar further first-degree amendments; that is, further 
as compared to a list already assembled.
  I see he has arrived, and so I will be brief, but I believe we have 
put together a bill that is an energy bill largely in name only. It 
will have a series of tax incentives, many of which are expensive and 
targeted to things which can never be reliable, significant energy 
sources for America. We will impose additional regulation and 
inefficiency in the market.
  As you have in any bill, you end up with a balance between good and 
bad from each individual point of view. But the key ingredient that is 
missing in this so-called energy bill is a commitment to open the one 
resource that can be developed on an environmentally sound basis and 
that can give us energy to turn the wheels of industry and agriculture 
here at home: the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  I have been frustrated throughout this debate in that we haven't had 
an opportunity to vote on ANWR. It is my understanding that there is a 
movement afoot in the body to deny us an up-or-down vote on ANWR.
  I hope it doesn't inconvenience my colleagues, but I wish to reserve 
my right to offer additional amendments until we have had an 
opportunity to vote on ANWR. When we have had an opportunity to vote on 
ANWR, I think at that point I would be prepared to lock in a list of 
amendments.
  It is my understanding that we could reach that point maybe by next 
Wednesday, but I would have to object now to limiting my ability or 
anybody else's ability to offer additional amendments until we know 
what is going to happen in the part of the bill that will most directly 
impact on energy production here in the United States--and that is the 
opening of ANWR.
  I also believe it is important that we preserve our ability to offer 
additional amendments in case there is an effort to deny us at least a 
chance to vote yes or no on ANWR. I think I will be unhappy if we can't 
get 51 Members to vote for ANWR, but at least if we have an up-or-down 
vote, the Senate has basically had its say on the issue. I have been on 
the losing side on many issues in my career in the Senate, and I have 
learned to live with each one of them, but I would like to have an 
opportunity to have that vote.
  I was going to say this before the distinguished Democrat leader came 
to the floor. But until we have this chance to deal with ANWR, I wish 
to preserve my right and every other Member's right to offer 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this unanimous consent agreement would not 
prevent my friend from Texas from offering amendments. But we have been 
on this bill now for 16 days. My friend from Texas says that he wants 
to vote on ANWR. We have been waiting for 16 days to have them offer 
the ANWR amendment. For my friend and others to say they want an up-or-
down vote on this issue is somewhat interesting because, for example, 
on the Feinstein amendment, which was under consideration for about 2 
weeks, we couldn't get an up-or-down vote as a result of a number of 
people, not the least of whom was the very astute Senator from Texas, 
Mr. Gramm.
  We are proceeding through this bill by the rules of the Senate. 
Sometimes the rules of the Senate are not convenient for some. But they 
are very consistent. That is why the Senate works so well for the 
American people.
  We have done everything but beg the proponents of drilling in ANWR to 
offer that amendment. We are coming to a point--and the majority leader 
will have to make that decision--where if they do not offer the 
amendment we are going to take the ANWR provision out of the House bill 
and offer it. Then that will be before us.
  We believe that energy legislation is important, and at this stage, 
of course, it is imperfect. But there are things in the bill which I 
personally like. I like renewables. It is not as much as I wanted. 
There are things in this bill that are good. The Senator from New 
Mexico has worked very hard on this bill as has the Senator from 
Alaska.
  I understand but disagree very much with my friend from Texas.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the list that I will send to 
the desk be the only first-degree amendments remaining in order to S. 
517, except for any first-degree amendments which have been offered and 
laid aside; that these first-degree amendments be subject to relevant 
second-degree amendments; that upon the disposition of all amendments 
the bill be read the third time and the Senate then proceed to Calendar 
No. 145, H.R. 4, which is the House-passed energy bill; that all after 
the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 517, as amended, be 
inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be advanced to third reading, 
and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that upon 
passage the Senate insist on its amendments and request a conference 
with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the 
Presiding Officer be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the 
Senate; provided further that S. 517 be returned to the calendar, with 
this action occurring with no further intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the unanimous consent request 
that I have propound stand on the Record. Before my friend reserves his 
right to object--and he probably will object--I also say to my friend 
that one of the things I have trouble understanding is if this bill 
goes out of here to the House--the Republicans control the House and we 
have a Republican President--I can't understand why people are afraid 
to go to conference on this bill. Senator Bingaman, of course, would be 
the person we would look to for leadership in that conference. We have 
great confidence in him. But he is up against the President and the 
Republican majority of the House.
  I don't understand why people are afraid to let us vote up or down on 
ANWR. It is not in the bill. There is certainly a procedure in 
conference for it to be in the final bill coming before the Senate.
  I think this is fair. We need to move this along. It is not as if 
there are no amendments. There are lots of amendments that people could 
offer.
  I hope my friend from Texas will reconsider his objection because I 
think from all I have been able to determine the Senator from Texas is 
the only individual Senator stopping us from going forward with having 
a finite list of amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first of 
all, I thank our colleague for his kindness to me. I think the 
criticism about the delay in offering an ANWR amendment is valid. I 
wanted to offer ANWR as the first amendment on the bill. That was not 
the collective decision on our side of the aisle. I respect that.
  The rules of the Senate are very clear. One of the things that makes

[[Page 4217]]

this the most important deliberative body in the world is the ability 
of Members at any point to offer an amendment. I wish to preserve that 
right.
  I believe once we have had an up-or-down vote on ANWR I can take the 
position at that point that I am willing to join others who are willing 
to lock in a list of amendments and no others as first-degree 
amendments. But until we have had a chance to vote on ANWR, I feel 
constrained to object.
  I was a little bit confused as to whether the Senator was saying 
there was a willingness on his side of the aisle to give us an up-or-
down vote on ANWR. I think perhaps if we could have a commitment for 
that up-or-down vote perhaps we could work out an agreement on 
amendments before that vote occurs. But I would want to know that we 
have that commitment.
  In terms of the Feinstein amendment, 50 people voted against it 
today, and 48 voted for it. Senator Feinstein withdrew the amendment. I 
had hoped that we could work out a compromise. I intend to approach her 
to try to work out a compromise. But given the absence of an agreement 
to an up-or-down vote on ANWR in this unanimous consent request, I 
would feel constrained to object. And I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I understand the objection has been made, 
and I appreciate the Senator from Texas having the right to do that.
  I would say, I hope--well, I don't hope, because if the amendment is 
not offered pretty soon, we are going to offer it--somebody over here. 
I will offer it. But I hope when that matter is resolved--and it may 
have to be resolved the same way the Feinstein amendment was resolved, 
by filing cloture on that amendment--I say to my friend, if that in 
fact is the case, I hope the Senator then will allow us to have a 
finite list of amendments after that matter is voted on through cloture 
or otherwise.
  Mr. GRAMM. If the Senator will yield, I think once we have had a vote 
on ANWR, then my reservations about limits on the ability to offer 
other amendments will largely be eliminated. I might want to file some 
amendments, but I simply go back to the earlier vote on the Feinstein 
amendment. No one required that Senator Feinstein pull her amendment 
down. It was still the pending business of the Senate. I did not 
encourage her to do it. I had hoped we could work out a compromise. I 
still hope we can.
  I think there is a very big difference in voting on cloture on ANWR, 
where we are simply trying to bring debate to an end and having an 
opportunity to vote yes or no on ANWR. I think that is going to be a 
very critical factor with me, perhaps with others.
  But if next week we can move the process forward--and we can't offer 
the amendment soon enough to suit me--if we can have a debate on it, 
however long that takes, I am for it. But once we have had an up-or-
down vote on ANWR, then I will be ready to lock down the amendments and 
move toward passage and toward this conference. But I do believe it is 
important, on an issue that has profound national security 
implications, for the Senate to take a position yes or no on ANWR. I 
think that is very important.
  I am just one Member. Other people can disagree. But that is what I 
think. And I think the people of my State believe the same. So that is 
what I am trying to promote. I thank the Senator for his kindness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Feinstein withdrew her amendment 
because she had taken up enough of the Senate's time. We discussed 
this, and she believed, in that she did not have enough votes to invoke 
cloture, it would be in the best interest of the Senate to move this 
legislation down the road. That is the case.
  I say, as I said to the senior Senator from Alaska this morning, I am 
concerned about national security. We are all concerned about national 
security. But if we start talking about energy, I think one of the ways 
we can sustain national security very quickly is to increase the fuel 
efficiency of cars. That isn't something we have to drill under the 
ground for to find out how much is there. You don't have to build 
pipelines to move that oil around the country.
  What we simply have to do is make our cars more efficient. We have 
not done that in some 20 years. It would save millions of barrels of 
fuel a day. I think that is what we should do. So if we are talking 
about national security, let's look at fuel-efficient vehicles.
  Mr. President, 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have been involved in other matters, 
obviously, as all other Senators are. I understand that, once again, my 
friend, the minority whip, has mentioned the problem of CAFE and the 
CAFE standards. We had a discussion on that this morning in 
relationship to the ANWR problem that we seek to pursue.
  The Senate has voted twice on the CAFE standards. The first vote was 
on amendment 2997, and the vote was 62 to 38 to give the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2 years to establish standards. 
That vote was not filibustered. It did not need 60 votes. It was an up-
or-down vote. There was not a motion to table. Neither Senator 
Murkowski nor I filibustered or threatened to filibuster that issue.
  The second vote on CAFE was on prohibiting an increase in the average 
fuel standard for pickup trucks. Amendment No. 2998 passed on a vote of 
56 to 44. Again, there was no filibuster on CAFE. It was an up-or-down 
vote requiring only 51 votes on what my friend, the majority whip, said 
should be an issue of national security and is an issue of national 
security.
  During the debate on the Alaska pipeline, the then-leader, as I 
pointed out this morning, Senator Mansfield, and Chairman Jackson did 
not vote for the amendment that authorized the right of way but they 
did realize it was an issue of national security and it should receive 
an up-or-down vote. They allowed an up-or-down vote on the Alaska 
pipeline without filibuster. As a matter of fact, it became a part of 
the right-of-way bill at that time only by the vote of the then-Vice 
President breaking a tie in the Senate.
  In fact, Senator Jackson was so incensed at the thought of a 
filibuster on an issue he opposed that concerned national security that 
he threatened to have the Federal Government build the Alaska pipeline 
itself. At that time he said:

       Mr. President, I have come to the regretful conclusion that 
     if we are stalled here, early next year I give my pledge that 
     I am going to push legislation for the Federal Government to 
     build this line. It does involve a national crisis. It is 
     urgent, and I shall do everything in my power to move that 
     oil.

  We did not filibuster the CAFE votes, which the majority says are 
national security issues. But the majority says the ANWR issue is not a 
national security issue.
  I hope the Senate will come to the position that my great, late 
friend, Senator Mansfield, came to as leader--that there should be no 
filibuster on an issue involving a matter of national security, 
something that is seriously involved in the national defense, 
particularly at this time when the gas price in this city alone has 
gone up from $1.15 to $1.51 in 3 days.
  We face a national crisis. It is not dissimilar from the one we faced 
in the 1970s. And I believe those who oppose getting us to the point 
where we can determine whether or not we can produce substantial 
quantities of oil and gas from that million and a half acres, set aside 
by Congress in 1980 for that exploration and development--we are not 
drilling in the wildlife refuge. It was set aside and will not become a 
permanent part of the wildlife refuge until the drilling is over.
  This chart depicts one of the things we found recently. I want people 
to see it. That is my commander, General Eisenhower, pictured on this 
chart. It is a

[[Page 4218]]

poster that was put up by the Petroleum War Council during World War 
II. It is a statement to workers in the oil fields. Here is the 
commanding general of our forces at the time of the invasion of Europe 
saying to those people in the oil fields: Your work is vital to our 
victory . . . our ships . . . our planes . . . our tanks must have oil. 
Stick to your job--oil is ammunition.
  Our generation knew that oil was related to national security. I 
don't know how anybody today can say this is not a national security 
issue when we bring the ANWR issue before the Senate. We should have an 
up-or-down vote. We should not have to prove we have 60 votes. The 
reason the amendment is not here is we are trying our best to get 60 
votes. If I have anything to do with it, we will find a way to get 
them, but it should not be required. The requirement should be only 
that we come to the Chamber and demonstrate it is a national security 
issue, and that issue should not be subject to a filibuster.
  I believe those who filibuster against this amendment will be 
committing a grave error. The American public should know that. Anybody 
out there who is interested should look at this. This is the National 
Interest Land Conservation Act of December 2, 1980, section 1002, the 
Jackson-Tsongas amendment. It says:

       The purpose of this section is to provide for a 
     comprehensive and continuing inventory and assessment of the 
     fish and wildlife resources of the coastal plain of the 
     Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; an analysis of the impact of 
     oil and gas exploration, development, and production, and to 
     authorize exploratory activity within the coastal plain in a 
     manner that avoids significant adverse effects on fish and 
     wildlife and other resources.

  It has been 21 years since that bill was passed. I got this out of my 
archives, for anybody who is interested. That was one of my favorite 
photos. That is Senator Scoop Jackson, this is Paul Tsongas, and that 
is a younger Ted Stevens. Senator Tsongas has in his hand, and I have a 
copy, the final version that Senator Jackson and I agreed to with 
regard to that bill in 1980. That 1980 bill gives us the authority to 
proceed with the exploration in the Coastal Plain. It was the intention 
of these people--they made a commitment to us that we would be able to 
proceed with exploratory activity and development in the Arctic Plain, 
provided there was an environmental impact statement made that showed 
there would be no adverse impact on the fish and wildlife resources of 
that Arctic Plain, the million and a half acres set aside for 
exploration activity by the Tsongas-Jackson amendment.
  We have twice prepared these statements--twice. It was during the 
Reagan-Bush administration, and the first Bush administration. The 
President asked the Congress to approve proceeding on the basis of the 
finding of those environmental impact statements that there would be no 
adverse impact by gas exploration and development on the Coastal Plain. 
But twice the Congress, then under the control of the current majority 
party, refused to approve that request.
  During the Clinton administration, twice the Congress sent to 
President Clinton a bill that would authorize the commencement of this 
exploration and development activity in the Arctic Plain, and the 
President vetoed it.
  So there has been a stalemate now for 21 years. Had we started this 
development, we would not be under the threat of Iraq today; and had we 
started this development, we would not be importing from Iraq a million 
barrels of oil a day.
  We are sending to Iraq billions of dollars that they are using now to 
pay stipends to suicide bombers' families. Our money that is buying oil 
from Iraq is paying the suicide bombers' families.
  I cannot understand a Senate that would refuse to carry out the 
existing law that was a commitment made to my State. We are not a very 
old State, Mr. President. As a matter of fact, I had been here then all 
but 9 years that Alaska had been a State. This is a basic commitment to 
the developmental area of Alaska. This was set aside--the first 9 
million acres--during the period of time when I was at the Department 
of the Interior. At that time, it was the Arctic Wildlife Range. The 
wildlife range was subject to oil and gas development under 
stipulations to protect the fish and wildlife. It was never closed. It 
has never been closed to oil and gas development. It is not closed now. 
The 1980 act did not close this area to oil and gas development. On the 
contrary, it set aside specifically 1\1/2\ million acres in that 1002 
area, the amendment offered by Senators Tsongas and Jackson, as I 
indicated.
  I have here a history of the dates of Federal land activities with 
regard to this area. I want to put them in the Record so that there is 
a very clear statement that, from 1923 until now, this area has never 
been closed to oil and gas development. It has never been made part of 
the Arctic Wildlife Refuge that was closed to such development. It has 
never been wilderness. There is wilderness in the rest of the refuge, 
but this is not wilderness.
  I hear people saying we are proposing to drill in a wilderness area 
every day. That is not true.
  I ask unanimous consent this statement of select dates and Federal 
public land history in Alaska be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Select Dates in Federal Public Lands History In Alaska

       Feb. 27, 1923--Executive Order 3797-A (President Warren 
     Harding)--creates National Petroleum Reserve with six year 
     reservation for classification, examination and preparation 
     of plans for oil and gas development.
       Jan. 22, 1943--Public Land Order 82 (Abe Fortas, Acting 
     Secretary of the Interior)--(1) All public lands in Alaska 
     withdrawn from sale, location, selection, and entry under the 
     public-land laws of the United States, including the mining 
     laws, and from leasing under the mineral-leasing laws; and 
     (2) the minerals in such lands reserved under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior for use in 
     connection with the prosecution of the war.
       Included public lands:
       (1) Alaska Peninsula in South-Central Alaska.
       (2) Katalla-Yaktaga region around the Copper River and 
     Chugach National Forest regions.
       (3) All lands within the Chugach National Forest.
       (4) 48 million acres of public and non-public lands in 
     Northern Alaska from Cape Lisburne to Canada (includes 
     today's ANWR).
       The order did not affect or modify existing reservations of 
     any of the lands involved except to the extent necessary to 
     prevent the sale, location, selection, or entry of the 
     described lands under the public-land laws, including the 
     mining laws, and the leasing of lands under the mineral 
     leasing laws.
       July 31, 1945--Public Land Order 289--(Abe Fortas, Acting 
     Secretary of the Interior) Amended Executive Order 3797-A by 
     deleting the six-year limit for classification, examination, 
     and preparation for oil and gas development of NPRA.
       April 22, 1958--Public Land Order 1621--(Secretary of the 
     Interior Fred Seaton) Amended Public Land Order 82 by 
     allowing oil and gas exploration of approximately 16,000 
     acres within the known geological structure of the Gubik gas 
     field.
       Paragraph 3 of PLO 1621 established lands east of the 
     Canning River along the coast as the Arctic Wildlife Range 
     (approximately 5 million acres).
       Paragraph 3 specifically states in regard to the Range: As 
     provided by the regulations in 43 CFR 295.11, the lands shall 
     remain segregated from leasing under the mineral leasing laws 
     and from location under the mining laws to the extent that 
     the withdrawals applied for, if effected would prevent such 
     leasing or locations, until action on the application for 
     withdrawal has been taken.
       Paragraph 4 states: None of the released lands shall become 
     subject to oil and gas leasing until approved leasing maps 
     for such lands, or portions thereof, are from time to time 
     prepared, and notices of the time and place of filing thereof 
     and of the availability of lands for leasing have been 
     published in the Federal Register by the Bureau of Land 
     Management. These notices will describe the lands subject to 
     noncompetitive lease and will provide for a simultaneous 
     filing period of offers to lease. The leasing maps will not 
     describe any lands within two miles of the Naval Petroleum 
     Reserve No. 4.
       September 4, 1959--Public Land Order 1965--(Secretary of 
     the Interior Fred Seaton) Amended PLO 1621 to permit the 
     preparation and filing of leasing maps affecting all lands 
     situated within the Gubik gas field, and lying within the 
     two-mile buffer zone adjacent to NPRA.
       December 8, 1960--Public Land Order 2214--(Secretary of the 
     Interior Fred Seaton) Establishment of the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Range.

[[Page 4219]]

       Paragraph 1: For the purpose of preserving unique wildlife, 
     wilderness and recreational values, all of the hereinafter 
     described area in northeastern Alaska, containing 
     approximately 8.9 million acres is hereby, subject to valid 
     existing rights, and the provisions of any existing 
     withdrawals, withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under 
     the public land laws, including the mining but not the 
     mineral leasing laws, nor disposal of materials under the Act 
     of July 31, 1947, as amended, and reserved for the use of the 
     United States Fish and Wildlife Service as the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Range.
       December 2, 1980--ANILCA--Section 1002--(pertinent 
     subsections of 1002)--(a) Purpose--The purpose of this 
     section is to provide for a comprehensive and continuing 
     inventory and assessment of the fish and wildlife resources 
     of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; 
     an analysis of the impacts of oil and gas exploration, 
     development, and production, and to authorize exploratory 
     activity within the coastal plain in a manner that avoids 
     significant adverse effects on the fish and wildlife and 
     other resources.
       (i) Effect of other laws--Until otherwise provided for in 
     law enacted after December 2, 1980, all public lands within 
     the coastal plain are withdrawn from all forms of entry or 
     appropriation under the mining laws, and from operation of 
     the mineral leasing laws, of the United States.

  Mr. STEVENS. I am perfectly willing at any time to start the debate 
on ANWR. I prefer to start it when we know we can have an up-or-down 
vote. We had one on CAFE. We opposed that. I opposed that. I said at 
the time one of the reasons I did is I come from a State where every 
person who has a car has an SUV. Until they show me they are not going 
to outlaw them, we cannot support that. We can support reasonable 
restrictions on the use of automobiles that will lead us to have some 
savings, but savings doesn't produce oil.
  Oil is a lot more than gasoline, by the way. As I have repeatedly 
told people, everything from frisbees to panty hose comes out of the 
barrel of oil, in addition to gasoline. It is time we got down to 
discussing this amendment. But it ought to be discussed in a manner in 
which the national security issue is considered. Oil is a national 
security item for this country--more right now than at any other time 
except in the 1970s when we had an embargo. We are as near to an 
embargo as we have been since that time. As I said yesterday, I think 
we are very close to embargo now.
  Mr. President, the question of what happens to a barrel of oil has 
been very interesting. I showed this to the Senate some time ago. These 
are the items made from oil: Toothpaste, footballs, ink, lifejackets, 
tents, dyes, balloons, cameras, cranes, vitamin capsules, soft 
contacts, panty hose, fertilizer, photographs, roofing material, 
compact discs, shaving cream, perfumes, umbrellas, golf balls, 
aspirins, house paint, lipstick, dentures, glue, clothing, deodorant. 
Thousands of products come from oil.
  People keep talking about CAFE standards being able to produce 
savings and lead to somebody having oil--no, they are talking about 
gasoline. A barrel of oil is what we are talking about. We produce oil, 
the gasoline is produced in refineries in the south 48.
  Let me add this. One barrel of oil makes 44.2 gallons of economic 
essentials. Everyday products consume 56 percent, such as those I have 
mentioned. Gasoline takes 44 percent of the barrel. During the time of 
the Persian Gulf war, at my request, as a matter of fact, the oil 
industry increased the throughput to 2.1 million barrels a day. When I 
was home last week, there were 950,000 barrels a day going through the 
pipeline. Do you know why? The reserves are going down. It is 
uneconomic to produce at the rate we used to because reserves are going 
down--our reserves over in the Arctic Plain. If we had that producing 
now, we would not be buying a million barrels of oil a day from Iraq.
  The only reason he can use oil as a weapon now is we have decreased 
the throughput in the Alaskan pipeline. When it was running at full 
tilt, that pipeline carried, as I said, 2.1 million barrels a day. That 
was 25 percent of the domestic oil produced in the United States. Today 
we produce about 12 percent of the oil produced in the United States 
because we have been unable to get in there as was committed to us in 
1980, that we would be able to explore and develop the oil and gas in 
that area, provided there would be no permanent harm to the fish and 
wildlife in the area.
  The House bill--it is not before us now--set down a limit of 2,000 
acres out of the 1.5 million acres. Only 2,000 acres on the surface can 
be used for oil and gas development.
  I hope we can get down to the point where we are discussing reality 
and we are discussing issues and not the issue of whether we have to 
have 60 votes. The 60-vote requirement is only a requirement that comes 
from a leadership decision that a filibuster will be allowed.
  I wish to God Senator Mansfield was still with us so he could come 
and say to us why he did what he did. He prohibited a filibuster on the 
oil pipeline amendment. The same forces were opposed to it then that 
are opposed to ANWR now. In fact, the ads in the paper look almost the 
same: caribou, mountains, D-8 Caterpillars.
  One time I came to the floor after my good friend, Gaylord Nelson, 
left the Senate and showed the Senate a brochure that came out of the 
Wilderness Society. It had a picture of a D-8 Caterpillar over the top 
of a mountain out of a forest looking down with a beautiful lake with 
caribou, bears, and everything standing around it, and that was 
purported to be the North Slope.
  In the first place, there are no trees there. In the second place, 
all those animals are not there. In the third place, there is nothing 
there except tundra. There is fish and wildlife, we agree to that. We 
have had the studies made twice now that there will not be permanent 
harm to fish and wildlife, particularly the caribou.
  I invite the majority--let's get a couple planes and fly up there and 
I will show you that place right now. Oil and gas activity only takes 
place in the wintertime, not in the summertime. The caribou are there 
for a maximum of 6 weeks and for 3 of the last 5 years they did not 
come up there at all.
  This idea that somehow we are going to ruin anything about my State 
by allowing this development of oil and gas to continue is absolutely 
wrong.
  It is time we came down to the decision that there ought to be an up-
or-down vote. I go right back to where we started. The Senate voted 
twice on CAFE. It was not filibustered by this side. It was not 
filibustered by this side because we agreed the whole issue of foreign 
oil dependence and oil availability in this country is a national 
security issue.
  I hope the majority party will see fit to recognize that as such 
before we are through. If we live under the paradigm of getting 60 
votes, then I am willing to keep the Senate around until we get 60 
votes. It is time we really stood up for this. It is a national issue. 
It is absolutely necessary, I believe, for the future of this country 
to have that oil produced. It can be produced and the gas can be 
produced out of that area.
  I might also say in passing that this is just a preliminary. We are 
going from this issue to the natural gas pipeline. The natural gas 
pipeline will carry gas that has been produced in the process of the 
production of oil at Prudhoe Bay. Gas was produced with the oil and 
then it was separated from the oil and reinjected into the ground. We 
know there are trillions of cubic feet of gas down there because it has 
been produced and put back in the ground. There has been no 
transportation mechanism.
  We are very close to a decision now from the producers and the 
pipeline companies to bring that gas down to markets in the Midwest. It 
will be a 3,000-mile pipeline, maybe up to 1,500 miles of gathering 
pipelines, buried gaslines running through Alaska, through Canada, all 
the way down into Chicago. It will be the largest project in the 
history of man financed by private enterprise.
  It will require over 400,000 workers to complete that project. It 
will require new trucks, new backhoes, all kinds of new equipment to 
improve the roads so trucks can run on the roads up in the north 
country. It is a massive project. The gas pipeline cannot be completed 
until about 2009. I hope to God I live to see it done. I thank the 
Chair.

[[Page 4220]]




   Amendments Nos. 3098 through 3102, En Bloc, to Amendment No. 2917

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send a series of five amendments to 
the desk, and I ask for their immediate consideration en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
laid aside. The clerk will report.
  Mr. STEVENS. May we see the amendments.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendments have been cleared on both 
sides. I will be glad to put in a quorum call until the Senator from 
Alaska has had a chance to review them. 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. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:
  The Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman) proposes amendments 
numbered 3098 through 3102, en bloc, to amendment No. 2917.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 3098

(Purpose: To require a National Academy of Sciences Study of renewable 
               resources on the Outer Continental Shelf)

       On page 80, line 21, strike ``development; and'' and all 
     that follows through page 81, line 2, and insert the 
     following:

     ``development.
       ``(h) National Academy of Sciences Study.--Within 90 days 
     after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall contract with the National Academy of Sciences 
     to study the potential for the development of wind, solar, 
     and ocean energy on the Outer Continental Shelf; assess 
     existing federal authorities for the development of such 
     resources; and recommend statutory and regulatory mechanisms 
     for such development. The results of the study shall be 
     transmitted to Congress within 24 months after the enactment 
     of this Act.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3099

      (Purpose: To promote energy efficiency in small businesses)

       On page 292, line 18, insert after the word ``label'' the 
     following: ``, including special outreach to small 
     businesses;''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3100

  (Purpose: To include units of local government in energy efficiency 
                             pilot program)

       On page 252, strike section 904 and insert the following:

     SEC. 904. LOW INCOME COMMUNITY ENERGY EFFICIENCY PILOT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Grants.--The Secretary of Energy is authorized to make 
     grants to units of local government, private, non-profit 
     community development organizations, and Indian tribe 
     economic development entities to improve energy efficiency, 
     identify and develop alternative renewable and distributed 
     energy supplies, and increase energy conservation in low 
     income rural and urban communities.
       (b) Purpose of Grants.--The Secretary may make grants on a 
     competitive basis for--
       (1) investments that develop alternative renewable and 
     distributed energy supplies;
       (2) energy efficiency projects and energy conservation 
     programs;
       (3) studies and other activities that improve energy 
     efficiency in low income rural and urban communities;
       (4) planning and development assistance for increasing the 
     energy efficiency of buildings and facilities; and
       (5) technical and financial assistance to local government 
     and private entities on developing new renewable and 
     distributed sources of power or combined heat and power 
     generation.
       (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``Indian tribe'' means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or 
     other organized group or community, including any Alaskan 
     Native Village or regional or village corporation as defined 
     in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), which is recognized 
     as eligible for the special programs and services provided by 
     the United States to Indians because of their status as 
     Indians.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purposes of 
     this section there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary of Energy an amount not to exceed $20 million for 
     fiscal year 2003 and each fiscal year thereafter through 
     fiscal year 2005.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 3101

   (Purpose: To set a funding goal of $100 million for research and 
                       development on wind power)

       On page 408, line 20, strike ``2006.'' and insert the 
     following: ``2006, of which $100,000,000 may be allocated to 
     meet the goals of subsection(b)(1).''.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 3102

(Purpose: To clarify the requirement for the use of advanced meters in 
                          federal facilities)

       On page 258, line 1, strike Sec. 912 in its entirety and 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 912. ENERGY USE MEASUREMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

       Section 543 of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 8253) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e) Metering of Energy Use.--
       ``(1) Deadline.--By October 1, 2004, all Federal buildings 
     shall, for the purposes of efficient use of energy and 
     reduction in the cost of electricity used in such buildings, 
     be metered or submetered in accordance with guidelines 
     established by the Secretary under paragraph.
       (2) Each agency shall use, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, advanced meters or advanced metering devices 
     that provide data at least daily and that measure at least 
     hourly consumption of electricity in the Federal buildings of 
     the agency. Such data shall be incorporated into existing 
     federal energy tracking systems and made available to federal 
     facility energy managers.
       ``(2) Guidelines.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Department of Defense, the General 
     Service Administration and representatives from the metering 
     industry, utility industry, energy services industry, energy 
     efficiency industry, national laboratories, universities and 
     federal facility energy managers, shall establish guidelines 
     for agencies to carry out paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Requirements for Guidelines.--The guidelines shall--
       ``(i) take into consideration--
       ``(I) the cost of metering and submetering and the reduced 
     cost of operation and maintenance expected to result from 
     metering and submetering;
       ``(II) the extent to which metering and submetering are 
     expected to result in increased potential for energy 
     management, increased potential for energy savings and energy 
     efficiency improvement, and cost and energy savings due to 
     utility contract aggregation; and
       ``(III) the measurement and verification protocols of the 
     Department of Energy;
       ``(ii) include recommendations concerning the amount of 
     funds and the number of trained personnel necessary to gather 
     and use the metering information to track and reduce energy 
     use;
       ``(iii) establish 1 or more dates, not later than 1 year 
     after the date of issuance of the guidelines, on which the 
     requirements specified in paragraph (1) shall take effect; 
     and
       ``(iv) establish exclusions from the requirements specified 
     in paragraph (1) based on the de minimus quantity of energy 
     use of a Federal building, industrial process, or structure.
       ``(3) Plan.--No later than 6 months after the date 
     guidelines are established under paragraph (2), in a report 
     submitted by the agency under section 548(a), each agency 
     shall submit to the Secretary a plan describing how the 
     agency will implement the requirements of paragraph (1), 
     including (a) how the agency will designate personnel 
     primarily responsible for achieving the requirements and (b) 
     demonstration by the agency, complete with documentation, of 
     any finding that advanced meters or advanced metering 
     devices, as defined in paragraph (1), are not practicable.''.


                           amendment no. 3099

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Bingaman for offering an 
amendment for me and Senator Landrieu to the energy bill regarding 
small business and energy efficiency. Quite simply, this amendment says 
that as the Department of Energy and the Department of Environmental 
Protection work together to raise public awareness of the Energy Star 
Program, they must make a special effort to reach out to small 
business.
  What is the Energy Star Program? It is an initiative that identifies 
and promotes energy-efficient products and buildings in order to reduce 
energy consumption, improve energy security, and reduce pollution. 
Because small businesses have little time and few resources to learn 
about options for energy efficiency, within Energy Star there is a 
voluntary and free program for small businesses that enables owners to 
calculate the costs of energy efficiency upgrades, estimate payback 
periods and explore providers of products, services, and financing.

[[Page 4221]]

  It only makes sense to focus on small businesses. America's 25 
million small businesses make up half the economy and, according to a 
report by E SOURCE, entitled ``The Forgotten Majority: Small Business, 
Hidden Opportunities,'' small businesses account for more than half of 
all the commercial energy used in North America. Small businesses 
represent significant buying power for energy efficient technologies, 
many of which are developed and manufactured by small businesses. By 
promoting the development and use of energy efficient products and 
practices in our small businesses, we will not only help reduce energy 
use and pollution, but we will also help small businesses cut costs, 
saving billions of dollars, according to the Center for Small Business 
and the Environment. By reducing their bottom lines, small businesses 
increase their competitiveness in the market.
  In the last few years, I have held three hearings on small 
businesses, energy and the environment. Testimony after testimony from 
policy experts to small business owners validated that investing in 
energy-efficient and environmentally friendly technologies is a good 
business, returning far more than compliance with environmental 
regulations.
  While energy efficiency is a major cost-cutting option for small 
businesses, too few know about it or the Energy Star Program and 
endorsed Energy Star products. In addition to this amendment, there are 
other steps we can take to increase awareness. One, enlist the Small 
Business Administration to spread the word and coordinate efforts with 
the EPA and DoE. Right now, in spite of a hearing we held last August 
regarding the business of environmental technology and the benefits of 
Energy Star services to small businesses, SBA continues to bury Energy 
Star within its website. The three agencies should coordinate their 
efforts, SBA has contact with thousands of small businesses daily, and 
is in a unique position to reach them compared to DoE and EPA.
  Another step we should take is to have SBA's disaster loan program 
and Federal Emergency Management Agency promote Energy Star products 
when small businesses rebuild or replace equipment. Billions of dollars 
each year go to rebuilding businesses and homes, and it presents an 
excellent opportunity to invest in products that are good for the 
economy and the environment.
  Last, for small businesses that do want to make upgrades, the upfront 
cost is often a deterrent, even with rebates from local utility 
companies. Small businesses typically don't have a lot of extra cash 
lying around to finance the purchases. SBA should find a way to work 
with the DoE and EPA to facilitate upgrades by getting financing for 
qualified businesses through the SBA's loan programs. Because we know 
energy efficient products increase profits, that should help lenders 
approve loans because there will be money for repayment.
  I thank Senator Landrieu for joining me in offering this amendment. I 
thank Byron Kennard of the Center for Small Business and the 
Environment and his colleague Carol Werner for educating the public and 
policy makers about the significance of small businesses to energy and 
environmental policy. And, lastly, I thank Senators Bingaman and 
Murkowski and their staff for making this amendment possible.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as a member of the Small Business 
Committee, I just want to echo the remarks of my chairman and 
colleague, Senator Kerry, concerning the amendment that we have 
proposed today. I also want to thank Chairman Bingaman for offering 
this amendment for us. I know he has been exceptionally busy with the 
energy bill the past few weeks, and I am grateful that he took the time 
to allow us to raise this issue.
  I am proud to join Senator Kerry in support of this important 
amendment. The Energy Star Program is an excellent program which can 
provide a great deal of assistance to small businesses; but to 
participate in the program, these same businesses must be aware of the 
program. That is why coordinated outreach efforts by agencies like the 
Small Business Administration, the Department of Energy, and the 
Environmental Protection Agency is so important.
  Of particular importance, as Senator Kerry stated, is to get SBA 
involved in this effort. We need to provide for both the financial 
assistance and the information that our small businesses need to 
upgrade to more energy-efficient products. Because for every dollar 
that these businesses spend on energy efficient products now, several 
dollars will be saved down the road. So this is something that makes 
good economic sense.
  As a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I also 
believe that this amendment is important in the context of an overall 
energy policy. After all, one of our priorities in the energy bill is 
to make our Nation more energy efficient, and less dependent on foreign 
sources of oil. If small businesses use more than half of all 
commercial energy in North America, it makes a great deal of sense from 
a national security perspective to help these businesses become more 
efficient.
  So this is much more than a one-time purchase; this is a long-term 
investment. And the Federal Government, through the SBA in particular, 
has a clear role in helping these small businesses make these 
investments, both through financing assistance and the dissemination of 
relevant information. Again, I am happy to join Senator Kerry in 
support of this amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, these are five amendments that have been 
cleared on both sides: one by Senator Kennedy, one by Senator Kerry, 
one by Senator Wellstone, one by Senator Conrad, and one by myself. I 
believe there is no objection to them. I urge the Senate to adopt them 
at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendments.
  The amendments (Nos. 3098 through 3102) were agreed to en bloc.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                Amendment No. 3097 To Amendment No. 2917

  Mr. DAYTON. I send to the desk amendment No. 3097.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Dayton], for himself, Mr. 
     Wellstone, and Mr. Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3097 to amendment No 2917.

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

   (Purpose: To require additional findings for FERC approval of an 
                        electric utility merger)

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

     SEC. 2__. ADDITIONAL ELECTRIC UTILITY MERGER PROVISIONS.

       Section 203(a) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824b(a)) 
     (as amended by section 202) is amended by striking paragraph 
     (4) and inserting the following:
       ``(4) Approval.--
       ``(A) In general.--After notice and opportunity for 
     hearing, if the Commission finds that the proposed 
     transaction will advance the public interest, the Commission 
     shall approve the transaction.
       ``(B) Minimum required findings.--In making the finding 
     under subparagraph (A) with respect to a proposed 
     transaction, the Commission shall, at a minimum, find that 
     the proposed transaction will--
       ``(i)(I) enhance competition in wholesale electricity 
     markets; and
       ``(II) if a State commission requests the Commission to 
     consider the effect of the proposed transaction on 
     competition in retail electricity markets, enhance 
     competition in retail electricity markets;
       ``(ii) produce significant gains in operational and 
     economic efficiency; and
       ``(iii) result in a corporate and capital structure that 
     facilitates effective regulatory oversight.''.

  Mr. DAYTON. I am pleased, along with Senator Wellstone, to present 
this amendment. I certainly want to

[[Page 4222]]

thank the chairman of the committee and the manager of the bill, 
Senator Bingaman, for his extraordinary efforts over the last weeks in 
regard to this regulation. It is difficult because it reflects the 
varied interests of different parts of the country and, frankly, within 
my own State of Minnesota some very different perspectives on how 
utility policies should be directed.
  The electricity title is one that is of concern to the smaller 
utilities in Minnesota, particularly the municipal and cooperative 
electric utilities because of its repeal of PUHCA and then because of 
the lack of any regulatory oversight and control over the mergers of 
these utilities. I remember when I was a youngster playing the game of 
monopoly, the utility companies existed because they were monopolies 
and also that they were regulated because they were monopolies. I am 
concerned and have been for some time--I saw this starting when I was 
Commissioner of Energy and Economic Development in Minnesota--as the 
regulations are taken off, they still, in many respects, have the same 
monopoly control over markets and geographical regions they had before.
  Because of the lessons of Enron, it seems to me we are going in the 
opposite direction if we are saying we are now going to remove any 
Government oversight before these mergers take place. We have seen in 
the instance of telephone companies, the mergers of smaller companies 
into larger local companies. I called my local telephone company in 
Minnesota and asked for a number in Bloomington, meaning Bloomington, 
MN, and they asked me: What State? I am asking for directory 
assistance. That is hardly your local telephone company.
  We have seen in Minnesota a merger of our largest utility, formerly 
Northern States Power, with another company, to make Xcel Energy. We 
see these utilities having more and more control over the markets, and 
we do not have a way, if we eliminate PUHCA, of looking out for the 
public interest and the consumer interest. These mergers ought to go 
forward if they are going to benefit the public interest, but we have 
learned over and over again that the lack of competition inevitably 
works against the consumer interest, and that is where this amendment 
steps in.
  If this bill were to pass in its present form, it would mean the 
repeal of PUHCA. That is why this amendment, which I coauthored with my 
colleague Senator Wellstone, would improve the language in the bill, in 
my view, because it requires that these proposed utility mergers 
advance the public interest. It spells out specific standards for the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to consider in determining if a 
proposed merger advances the public interest.
  It says FERC shall find at a minimum that, first, the merger enhances 
competition in wholesale electricity markets; second, that the merger 
produces significant gains in operational and economic efficiency; and, 
third, that the merger results in a corporate and capital structure 
that facilitates effective regulatory oversight.
  In the aftermath of Enron, I think it is particularly important that 
we know this entity that is going to be coming out of this merger is 
one which still exists in a way that can be overseen in a regulatory 
way, and that it is a genuine company; that it has a genuine financial 
underpinning for the sake of investors, for the sake of consumers.
  I think this amendment will fill a void which otherwise leaves this 
title decidedly neglectful of the protection of many of the residents 
in Minnesota, businesses, and particularly those in more rural parts of 
our State who still depend upon the smaller electricity and other 
energy providers that, in this case, run the risk, if we are not 
careful, of being swamped, driven out of business, and then underserved 
by those that come in as very large entities to take their place.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Dayton in 
this effort. I think there are some other Senators who also want to 
join in the debate. There are others who have some ideas about 
additional consumer protection provisions, and we will see later on in 
the debate whether or not we further modify the amendment.
  I say to the Presiding Officer this amendment basically would 
strengthen the underlying merger review standard that FERC would 
undertake, and I say with a smile to the Presiding Officer that 
basically this is all about PUHCA. I mean, who the heck knows what 
PUHCA means? Public Utility Holding Company Act.
  This is legislation that was actually in this bill and was basically 
repealed, although the chair of the committee, Senator Bingaman has 
tried mightily to kind of work out a compromise arrangement to try to 
provide some protection.
  In Minnesota, the little people, the little interests, the smaller 
businesses, the smaller companies, they are really worried about this 
because we see the way in which we have had this wave of mergers.
  In the last 3 years, there have been 30 major utility mergers and 
acquisitions. Everybody is really worried. It is a little bit like the 
packers and what we were trying to do to make sure our independent 
livestock producers had some honest to goodness free enterprise, real 
competition. It is kind of analogous because a lot of the smaller 
companies and smaller businesses, much less a lot of rural citizens, 
are just real worried that without the protection we had with PUHCA on 
these mergers, albeit it was not ever really enforced like it should 
have been, that we are going to see a wave of more mergers, which are 
not always bad. I want to get to that in a moment. That could very well 
be to the detriment of consumers and some of the smaller companies that 
are driven out of existence.
  I do not know whether or not we can win on this amendment. I have no 
idea, but I will say this, and I make this prediction tonight in this 
Chamber: This decade there is going to be a lot of discussion and 
debate and more focus on the whole problem of concentration of economic 
power in our economy. It is going to go in that direction. It is 
everywhere.
  The Telecommunications Act in 1996 was supposed to be great for 
everybody. Cable rates were supposed to go down. They have not. It was 
supposed to lead to all kinds of positive benefits.
  One of the things that has happened is all of these local radio 
stations have been driven out of existence, and we have a few large 
conglomerates that are now controlling the flow of information in a 
representative democracy. The same thing with banks, with the health 
insurance industry, with the food industry and agriculture, and with 
energy companies and utility companies. There comes a point in time 
where I think people in coffee shops in Minnesota are saying: Where is 
Teddy Roosevelt when we need him?
  Let us talk about putting some free enterprise back into the free 
enterprise system. Let's have some protection for ordinary 
citizens. That is what this amendment is about.
  What this amendment does is simply apply the same merger review 
standard under the Public Utility Holding Company Act to the FERC 
review of electricity mergers. That is what we are worried about. That 
is why I think this bill is a step backwards. We have taken away this 
important review standard.
  The electric utility industry is undergoing rapid consolidation. 
Again, we are not speaking to a small issue. In the past 3 years, 30 
major utility mergers and acquisitions have taken place. Not all of 
these mergers are inherently bad. Some should not be prevented. Some of 
the mergers can produce efficiencies, economies of scale, cost savings, 
and more. However, a merger can also reduce competition, increase 
costs, and frustrate regulatory oversight.
  Federal merger review policy should distinguish between those mergers 
that promote the public interest and those mergers that do not. That is 
what we are saying. I think the ordinary people--which I don't mean in 
a pejorative sense but in a positive way--ordinary citizens have a 
right to make sure

[[Page 4223]]

their interests as consumers are protected.
  This amendment improves the base language of the bill by doing a few 
things:
  One, requiring that proposed mergers promote the public interest in 
order to secure Federal regulatory approval. That is the threshold. If 
you are going to do a merger, it could be it is good, but at least it 
ought to be a standard that you are advancing the public interest.
  Two, spelling out specific standards for assessing the impact on the 
public interest. In other words, we spell that out in this amendment, 
including what will be the effect of this merger on competition, what 
is going to be its effect on operational efficiency, what is its effect 
on regulatory oversight.
  Three, expanding that all mergers between electric and gas utilities 
are reviewed. Given, by the way, the rather unpleasant experience we 
all had last year with natural gas prices, there is a real need to look 
at the natural gas utilities. That is part of what this amendment is 
about.
  Finally, preventing utilities from skirting Federal review by using 
partnerships or other corporate forms to avoid classification as a 
merger.
  Colleagues, this amendment does not impose new regulatory 
requirements on the proposed utility mergers. Rather, the standards 
contained in this amendment mirror those that have been in PUHCA, which 
the bill would repeal. While the standards are comparable, the 
amendment actually provides greater flexibility than under PUHCA. We 
are just trying to restore some consumer protection. PUHCA requires 
that utilities be physically integrated in order to merge. The 
amendment waives that requirement. PUHCA prevents the merger of 
multistate electric and gas utilities. The amendment waives that 
requirement. But we do provide for FERC review of such mergers.
  Colleagues, I said on the Craig amendment, I think they were right in 
their concern about the repeal of PUHCA. The amendment was wrong 
because it basically also eliminated a section of the bill, which was 
the renewable portfolio for electricity, which, as the Presiding 
Officer knows, is important to our State--very important. From my point 
of view as a Senator from Minnesota, I did not vote for that amendment. 
However, I believe the part of the Craig amendment that was right on 
target was that we basically repeal PUHCA. Mr. Bingaman, the Senator 
from New Mexico, has put some good language in here and has taken some 
positive steps.
  But, again, the key point is we have a threshold which is the same 
threshold we have had with PUHCA which goes back to the 1920s or 1930s. 
If Senators think we do not need it anymore because there are no 
mergers or acquisitions, quite to the contrary; we ought not be giving 
up on the consumer protection. At the very minimum, we should have the 
language that requires that the proposed mergers promote the public 
interest. Then we get FERC approval. At the very minimum, we ought to 
do that. Let's make sure they promote competition, make sure they are 
good for consumers, make sure they add to economic efficiency.
  Right now in this legislation, I am sad to say, we do not have that 
standard. We are going to make a huge mistake if we do not have a 
stronger consumer protection standard and a stronger competition 
standard. That is what this amendment is about.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to 
proceed as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 2085 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________