[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 19948-19952]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the Energy bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment pending on the Energy 
bill which addresses an issue I think should have been the first title 
of this Energy bill. This is an amazing bill and there is a lot of work 
that has gone into it.
  S. 14 is entitled, ``A Bill to Enhance the Energy Security of the 
United States,'' an ambitious undertaking. I think it is appropriate we 
are now spending this time debating this amendment and many aspects of 
it because we all know that energy is essential to America's future, to 
our economy, and to our environment.
  If we do not do our best in the U.S. Congress to work with this 
Government and establish the right incentives for the production of 
energy, as well as the appropriate regulation of the use of energy, 
then the American economy and future generations will suffer.
  The reason I offered an amendment to this bill, I was presumptuous 
enough to believe there is an element that has not been addressed. As I 
read this bill, I found there was a terrible omission. This bill does 
not address one of the major uses of energy in America today. Most 
people, most families, most businesses equate the use of energy with 
the electricity they use in their home but certainly with 
transportation. How did you get to work this morning? How are you going 
to pick up the kids? What are you going to use over the weekend to go 
shopping? How are you planning vacation? Almost without exception, each 
of those decisions involves the application of energy.
  One would think an Energy bill that looks to America's future would 
not overlook this important element: Transportation and the use of 
energy for transportation.
  Let me show a chart that indicates the amount of energy used for 
transportation as opposed to other sectors in America. This chart 
addresses U.S. oil demand by sector. The blue portion of the chart, 
which is the largest portion, shows over 40 percent of oil usage by the 
year 2000. Forty percent was for transportation, another small portion 
of about 15 percent was for industrial, another portion for 
residential-commercial, and a much smaller amount for electric 
generation.
  If concern is about the use of energy and the use of barrels of oil, 
naturally one would focus on this chart and say this bill clearly must 
address this. S. 14 must address how we are going to reduce our demand 
for oil for transportation.
  The honest answer is, the bill does not. How can you have a thorough 
analysis and a good legislative program addressing energy and ignore 
the fact that out of the 20 million barrels of oil we use each day, 
many of them from overseas, over 40 percent of them are related to the 
transportation sector? This bill virtually ignores it.
  It is not that the words aren't in here but that the words have no 
teeth. The words are simply statements, little notes that we send out 
into space, saying: Wouldn't the world be better if we had more fuel 
efficiency? Wouldn't it be better if we had more conservation?
  If you believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, you will believe 
that these little notes tossed out into space are all we need to do 
here--just to give a speech on the floor, put an idea in a bill and 
hope that America finds it and, if they do, that they become inspired 
and show leadership and show the initiative.
  I don't think that is the way it works. It has not worked that way in 
the time I have served on Capitol Hill, nor in our history.
  Let's take a look from the beginning here at what we are dealing 
with. The vast majority of oil reserves, of course, are in the Middle 
East. This is an indication that 677 billion barrels of oil can be 
found in the Middle East as compared to 77 billion in North America. As 
a consequence, it is very clear that if we are going to have an oil-
driven economy, we are going to find ourselves spending more and more 
time focusing on the Middle East.
  People say, turn to Russia, turn to the former Soviet Union. Of 
course, that is not a bad idea. But the estimated reserves of oil in 
the Soviet Union are 65 billion barrels. It is the Middle East which 
has all the action, 677 billion barrels of oil.
  Yet, in 1999, the United States and Canada consumed 3 gallons of oil 
per capita per day whereas other industrialized nations consumed 1.3 
gallons per day and the world average was a half gallon a day. So when 
it comes to the consumption of oil, the United States, of course, leads 
the world, with Canada, dramatically.
  If you take a look at how that oil is then used, as I mentioned 
earlier, from this chart you will find that cars, SUVs, pickup trucks, 
and minivans account for 40 percent or more of U.S. oil

[[Page 19949]]

consumption; the transportation sector overall, about 60 percent.
  When you talk about energy and America's security, how can you ignore 
this? How can you put together a bill as lengthy as this bill--let's 
see how many pages we have here. It is hard work by a lot of staff 
people and Senators. There are 467 pages. How can you have a 467-page 
bill addressing America's energy security and fundamentally ignore 
needs for fuel efficiency and fuel economy and conservation to reduce 
the consumption of oil in the United States?
  I asked that question last night at a press conference in Chicago, 
which I am honored to represent. I said: If we are talking about 
dealing with energy, how can we miss this? How can we ignore the 
efficiency of vehicles?
  This morning, I attended a funeral for former State Representative 
John Houlihan, of Palos Heights, IL. Before that, I dropped in for a 
cup of coffee at a local Dominick's supermarket, and a woman I didn't 
know came up to me and said: I listened to you yesterday. You are 
absolutely right. We have to do something about the gas guzzlers and 
fuel economy in the United States of America. Otherwise, we are going 
to need foreign oil forever.
  She understands. She is a case in point. I don't know exactly what is 
her background. She appeared to be a suburban mom. Suburban moms have 
really been used a lot in this debate. Those who say we should do 
nothing, let the fuel economy continue to deteriorate in the United 
States, use women like her who are mothers with children going back and 
forth to school events and soccer events and basketball and baseball 
and all the things that consume your time, and they say: You can't take 
away that mother's SUV; it makes her feel safe.
  The fact is there is some safety attached to SUVs. But, sadly, there 
are just as many studies that suggest they are dangerous because of 
rollover and because of the impact they have on other vehicles. They 
turn out to be a danger on the highway. So safety is one of the 
elements that is contested about these SUVs. But what is not contested 
is they are terrible gas hogs. They guzzle gas and give you very 
limited miles per gallon.
  In talking to families around my State and other places, they said to 
us: We would like to have cars and trucks and light vehicles we can use 
that are going to be of service to our family, and safe, but we also 
want to see better fuel efficiency.
  My amendment that I introduced would save a cumulative 123 billion 
gallons of gasoline over the next 12 years. If we allowed drilling in 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we would extract less than one-
tenth of that in that same period of time.
  The new rule handed down by NHTSA would save about 20 billion gallons 
of gasoline, or one-sixth of what my bill would save by 2015.
  A lot of people were talking about fuel cell vehicles, hydrogen-
powered cars, and the like. It is a wonderful concept. We should 
certainly explore it. But the President's goal for these fuel cell 
vehicles would achieve a savings of less than 10 billion gallons of 
gasoline by 2015. That is less than a tenth of what my amendment would 
achieve.
  The annual survey by J.D. Power and Associates found fuel consumption 
was the second most common driver complaint industry-wide. Studies show 
that consumers could save as much as $2,000 over the lifetime of the 
car from higher fuel efficiency, even accounting for the cost of the 
new vehicle technology. My amendment would save $4 billion in fuel 
costs for consumers by 2015.
  This is an indication of the fuel savings. Here are some of the 
options that have been brought to us in the Senate in the course of 
this legislation. There are those who argue if we went to 10 percent 
fuel cell vehicles, this could really help us have more efficient cars 
on the road. Look at the limited savings in billions of gallons from 
that.
  Of course, there are those who argue if we could just drill for oil 
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, go into an area that was set 
aside and supposed to be protected, take away the rules, open it for 
exploration, oil exploration, that would solve America's energy needs. 
Look at the limited amount of value that has in terms of the production 
that would come out of that area.
  Then, of course, NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, has some new rules that would also amount to some 
savings. But all of these are down here below 50 billion gallons of 
gasoline that would be saved.
  Now take a look if we would go for the standard that I am asking for 
in this amendment. That standard would move us, by the year 2015, to 
cars and light trucks at 40 miles a gallon and to other vehicles at 
27.5 miles a gallon. The difference in savings is just dramatic. That 
is why my amendment has been supported, not only by groups who are 
looking for energy conservation but also groups who are very concerned 
about the environment.
  The United States produces a third of the greenhouse gases emitted 
from automobiles worldwide. A third of the world's production of 
greenhouse gases comes right out of the U.S.A.
  These gases affect every aspect of our lives: Agriculture, public 
health, the economy, our sea levels, and our shorelines.
  Do you know the No. 1 diagnosis of kids going into emergency rooms 
and hospitals across America today? It is asthma--asthma. Go to any 
classroom, you pick it, and ask the kids, as I do every time I step in 
the door--you pick the grade--how many of you have someone in your 
family with asthma? I guarantee you at least a fourth, maybe half of 
that class will raise their hands.
  Why is this? There are a lot of reasons; it is not just one. But one 
of them has to do with air pollution, and air pollution has to do with 
the ignition and burning of fuel sources such as oil.
  So if you have inefficient vehicles that burn more gasoline per 100 
miles, and that is going to create more emissions, it is going to 
create more public health problems. That is very linear and very 
direct.
  The greatest environmental impact is felt at the poles. And I am not 
talking about the election day polls; I am talking about the North Pole 
and the South Pole.
  Scientists predict that polar bears could be extinct within 100 years 
if we don't address global warming. In fact, scientists say it could be 
50 years. If they are right that this species of animal faces 
extinction within 50 years, this is what you can tell your children and 
grandchildren. Take a good look at a polar bear at the zoo because it 
may be the last one you will see on Earth.
  Is this scare tactics? Is this the sort of thing we say? Why does the 
Senator raise that during the course of the debate?
  What I am trying to suggest to you is that this isn't just about a 
piece of legislation. It isn't about an energy security bill. It is 
about rational thinking.
  Rational thinking would suggest to us in the course of this debate 
that if America is going to be more energy secure, we should depend 
less on foreign oil. The biggest consumer of oil in America is 
transportation. If we are going to reduce the consumption and use 
conservation, we have to do something about the fuel efficiency of the 
cars and trucks that we drive. If we fail to do something about that 
fuel efficiency, we will need more foreign oil. We will consume more 
oil, and in burning it, we will create more emissions in the air 
polluting the environment.
  I don't think there is a single thing that I just described that is a 
big leap of faith. I think this is linear reasoning from point A to 
another point B. But this bill we are considering doesn't even take 
this into consideration but for a very symbolic gesture exhorting 
future generations to really get serious about this.
  Forgive me. Future generations will have their responsibilities but 
we have a responsibility today. We have a responsibility to make this a 
more secure nation from the energy viewpoint. We have a responsibility 
to require reasonable standards for the creation of better technology 
and for more fuel-efficient vehicles. Unfortunately, this bill doesn't 
do that.
  The amendment I am offering would cut a cumulative 250 metric tons of

[[Page 19950]]

greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2015. Otherwise, right out of the 
tailpipe of our cars and trucks will come these emissions leading to 
more greenhouse gases and leading to public health problems which we 
know exist.
  Earlier today, one of my colleagues from Oklahoma came to the floor--
and it is his right to make this argument--and argued that this isn't a 
problem. He argued that climate change never exists, and, if it does, 
it is really not that harmful. I don't know how you can reach that 
conclusion.
  Basically, we have been talking to scientists who are studying this 
issue with objective attitudes. They tell us things that are true--the 
extinction of species, the loss of polar bears, and receding ice caps. 
As a result of the receding ice caps, polar bears are having fewer 
young. As a result, we can just plot it out. Over a period of time they 
will become extinct. We also know that glaciers are disappearing. In a 
matter of 25 or 50 years, all glaciers on Earth are threatened and 
could be gone. Why? Because the Earth is heating up ever so slowly but 
in a way that is tipping the balance of Mother Nature against us. Why? 
Because we can't accept our responsibility on the floor of the Senate 
to say to the automobile and truck manufacturers around the world that 
if you want to sell in the biggest market in America, you have to do 
better.
  I listened to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and they 
basically say you can't come up with these technologies.
  Durbin, you are dreaming. There is just no way you could reach 40 
miles a gallon in our cars. Today we are barely getting a fleet average 
of 23 or 24 miles a gallon. There is no way that in 12 years you could 
reach 40 miles a gallon.
  Let me tell you what we do know. In 2002, the National Academy of 
Sciences found that existing technology could improve the fuel 
efficiency of light trucks by 50 or 65 percent and the fuel efficiency 
of cars by 40 to 60 percent.
  I am not an engineer. I used to think I could fix them. I gave up.
  This chart shows some of the technologies that could be used that 
could literally lead to dramatic fuel savings. We are not talking about 
mopeds and people going around the United States on tiny little 
scooters. We believe that with some changes available today in 
technology we could have much more fuel-efficient vehicles with four-
valve cylinders and variable valve timing.
  Isn't it sad that when it came to these hybrid cars using gasoline 
and electricity, the first ones on the market were from Japan? I beg 
your pardon. As good as this Nation is, as smart as our people are, as 
many engineers as we have, why are we always running a distant second 
in developing technology?
  There is promise that in a few years we will start seeing vehicles in 
America that have these type of engines. Thank goodness the Japanese 
did show the initiative. But we can do better.
  What I hear from the other side is that it is impossible. The Durbin 
amendment is impossible. America is not smart enough to develop a fuel-
efficient car, and don't put us to the test because if you do, we will 
lose; we will always lose to the foreign manufacturers.
  When I hear this, it makes me angry. I do not see it that way. I look 
at how many foreign students want to come to the United States and 
learn. I know we have institutions of higher learning--some of the best 
in the world. Why is it that graduates of those institutions aren't 
going to work for the Big Three and other auto manufacturers to come up 
with the technologies to solve this problem?
  I will tell you this. If my amendment is defeated, they won't have 
to. There will be no push to make these changes.
  Let me show you one of the things that has happened. I think it is a 
positive thing. Let me give credit where it is due, having said the Big 
Three is a little slow to respond. Thanks to technology, many vehicles 
already exceed current standards.
  Here is the Ford Focus station wagon--city, 27 miles per gallon; 
highway, 36 miles per gallon.
  When I drive in Washington, DC, I drive a 1993 Saturn, a little car 
we bought used. It sure does run well. Two weeks ago, I took my wife 
down to North Carolina. It is about 350 miles in each direction. I put 
on the air-conditioner. It still works. I got 35 miles a gallon. It is 
possible. We don't feel like we are compromising for comfort. We drove 
that 10-year-old car and got 35 miles a gallon.
  The Ford Focus has a station wagon. It is a little larger than what I 
drive: highway, 36 miles a gallon.
  It can be done.
  Hybrid technologies are already utilized in vehicles available today 
and point to the future. I talked about those earlier. Unfortunately, 
too many of those are made in Japan. The ones on the road today are the 
Toyota Prius, the Honda Insight, and the Honda Civic, cars that have 50 
percent or greater improvement in fuel economy.
  I want to give credit where it is due. A Republican colleague, 
Senator Bob Bennett, drives a Toyota Prius. I have seen him in that 
car. If you have seen Bob Bennett of Utah who is about 6 foot 4 or 6 
foot 5, you ought to see him fold himself into that car and out again. 
But he does it. He said it is a great car. It is really fuel efficient. 
It even squeezes a little bit of his stature. Giving credit where it is 
due, he has one of those cars.
  I believe Senator Boxer of California also has one as well.
  Again, Ford, GM, Saturn, Chrysler, and others are talking about more 
cars like this.
  It isn't as if what we are discussing is the impossible. It is 
attainable. Certainly over a 12-year period of time it could easily be 
attainable.
  My amendment recognizes these technologies are real and can be put to 
use and can be expanded in American innovation.
  I am not going to stand here and quietly let my colleagues wave the 
white flag of surrender saying that we could never develop the 
technology in America to be more fuel efficient. I don't buy it. I 
don't think this Senate should buy it either.
  In 1975, those same voices of doom and despair came to the floor of 
the Senate and the House and said 14 miles a gallon is as good as it 
gets, and if Congress imposes a requirement to raise those to somewhere 
near 28 miles a gallon, it will never happen; that America can't come 
up with the technology; that the Japanese will beat us to the punch; 
that the cars won't be safe; that we will lose American jobs. The 
litany went on and on. Thank goodness, Congress ignored it. Congress 
had the courage to vote against it. Congress imposed standards to 
increase fuel efficiency, and they worked.
  We increased over a 10-year period of time almost double the fuel 
efficiency of the fleet across America. And we can do it again.
  My amendment would require cars, SUVs, minivans, and crossover 
utility vehicles to achieve a corporate average fuel economy of 40 
miles per gallon by 2015 and would require pickup trucks and vans to 
achieve a CAFE standard of 27.5 miles per gallon by the same year.
  In addition, this amendment starts to close some loopholes. It would 
fix the definition of passenger vehicles, so those large SUVs, such as 
Hummers, are no longer exempt from the CAFE law. Did you know that? 
Hummers are exempt from the CAFE law. They can get 2 miles a gallon and 
there is absolutely no requirement of the law they do better. And I 
think they are getting around 2 miles a gallon. It would also fix the 
definition of passenger vehicles so that SUVs, minivans, and CUVs are 
considered cars, not trucks.
  I also offered a companion amendment we will debate when we get to 
the tax section of the bill which relates to tax incentives. My 
companion amendment would stimulate the market for more fuel-efficient 
vehicles by establishing a tax credit for the purchasers of vehicles 
that exceed the applicable CAFE standard by at least 5 miles per 
gallon.
  This companion amendment also would modify the gas-guzzler tax levied 
on manufacturers by applying it to vehicles that are more than 5 miles 
per gallon below the applicable CAFE standard, including SUVs. So if 
you put a car on the road that is better than the standard, you get the 
tax benefit. If you don't, you pay a tax cost.

[[Page 19951]]

  Now, I understand there is a controversy associated with this 
amendment. I have listened to some of the arguments made by critics of 
this amendment during the course of the day. They are certainly 
entitled to their point of view. I would like to address a few of the 
arguments.
  Several of my colleagues came to the floor and said the Durbin 
amendment will cost consumers. The technology he wants to put in these 
cars will cost $1,200 or more per car on average. While this is true--I 
will concede the point--the Union of Concerned Scientists finds that 
consumers will realize a net savings of $2,000 over the lifetime of the 
car due to lower gasoline consumption.
  So what do we get out of the deal? The consumers are ahead. It will 
cost $1,200 more for the vehicle, but there is $2,000 in savings. So 
there is a net gain of $800 per vehicle, on average, according to the 
Union of Concerned Scientists. There will be lesser dependence on 
foreign oil and fewer emissions coming out of the tailpipes as fewer 
gallons of gas will be consumed. So there are pluses they ignore.
  They also argue the Durbin amendment will cause Americans to lose 
their jobs. The Union of Concerned Scientists finds that increasing 
fuel economy to 40 miles per gallon will actually create 180,000 new 
jobs. You may say, How can this amendment do that? Won't we just give 
up automobiles to the Japanese and others to produce them?
  I certainly do not think so, nor do I believe that should be our 
standard of action around here.
  We are going to consider a trade bill the first thing tomorrow, and 
one of the premises of this trade bill is that America can compete. If 
you don't believe America can compete, you certainly don't want to 
allow other countries to export to the United States.
  Well, I believe we can compete, and we have proven it. So why do 
critics of this amendment want to throw in the towel right off the bat 
and say we are just going to lose all the way around? What they are 
ignoring is that the creation of new technologies will result in new 
jobs. These new technologies and new parts are going to have men and 
women working in good-paying jobs to create them. And the fuel 
efficiency that is involved is a savings to business. One of the costs 
of business, obviously, is fuel, as we have found when gasoline prices 
have spiked. If you bring down the cost of fuel by reducing consumption 
with more fuel-efficient vehicles, businesses can be more productive, 
and with that productivity have more competitive advantage and really 
employ more people.
  The naysayers and people who want to hang the crepe in this debate 
just think it is all a loss--a very negative attitude.
  Others argue this amendment is not necessary. There was an amendment 
earlier by Senator Landrieu of Louisiana. I voted for it. But that 
amendment, as I mentioned earlier--as good as it is, as well 
intentioned as it is--includes no new authorities to help reach the oil 
savings goal and no enforcement mechanisms to ensure the requirement 
will be fulfilled.
  There is also an argument that the alternative amendment by my good 
friend Carl Levin of Michigan and Christopher Bond of Missouri is based 
on sound science. Well, let me tell you, the National Academy of 
Sciences found that existing and emerging technologies are there to 
improve fuel efficiency. As I mentioned earlier, this report was 
written even before the hybrid technologies came to the market. So we 
know we can reach these goals if we just apply ourselves and set the 
standards.
  The alternative amendment, which they are arguing for, does not 
require any increase in fuel efficiency. It delays it. It passes the 
buck to NHTSA and adds new roadblocks to the NHTSA's decisionmaking 
process. NHTSA has failed to make any meaningful increase in fuel 
economy for over 10 years. Its latest increase of 1.5 miles per gallon 
for light trucks is just a drop in the bucket, considering the 
standards were last changed for light trucks in 1985. And cars remain 
unchanged since then as well.
  Another argument is that we are addressing fuel efficiency through 
the President's hydrogen fuel cell car. As I mentioned, this is several 
years to come and will not be as dramatic as those who argue against my 
amendment would have us believe.
  So I say to my colleagues, when this amendment comes up for a vote 
tomorrow, there is a very real choice: either we are serious about 
energy or we are not; either we are prepared to say the three big 
automobile manufacturers in Detroit are going to continue to lose in 
competition or we are going to reach a different conclusion.
  I think the men and women working for these companies are ready to 
rise to the challenge. I have seen them do it. I think the leaders of 
these companies need to be nudged because, frankly, they have a market 
today, a market where very few cars and vehicles are that profitable, 
but SUVs and light trucks are profitable. They don't want to rock the 
boat. They want to continue to build and put on the highways these 
monster cars of dubious safety that are continuing, frankly, to consume 
oil at rates that are not good for this country and certainly not good 
for our environment.
  There are two ways to get more fuel-efficient vehicles--guess three. 
One of the ways is to rely on the hope, as some of the authors do in 
this bill, that someday Detroit will wake up to this need. And when 
they wake up to it, they will lead the American consumers into wanting 
more fuel-efficient vehicles. I don't think so. We have 18 years of 
experience to argue against that. We have seen CAFE standards and fuel 
economy declining over the last 18 years. Detroit showed little 
leadership. Cars that are innovative in this area, unfortunately, are 
not built in the United States.
  There is a second way to do it. If you raised the price of gasoline 
tomorrow--doubled it tomorrow--I can guarantee you most families and 
businesses, by the end of the week, would be asking a question they 
have not asked in a long time: How many miles a gallon do we get in 
this car, anyway? If you started asking that question, and realized you 
have a gas guzzler, you might make a consumer choice next time. But 
raising gasoline taxes or gasoline prices comes at an additional cost 
to the economy.
  For individuals, workers, and families, it means an added cost of 
getting up and going to work. I don't want to impose that cost, 
particularly in the midst of this recession, with so many jobs we have 
lost. And for small businesses, it is an additional cost of doing 
business to have new fuel costs. It will force them, perhaps, to lay 
off people. I don't want to see that happen.
  But there is a third option, and that is this amendment. It has been 
proven. We did it in 1975. We established CAFE. That was not even a 
word in the law until 1975. We said we can do better. And we did 
better. That is what this amendment does.
  I am honored this amendment has been supported by many groups, 
including the League of Conservation Voters, which has made it one of 
their key votes for this session of Congress. They understand, as well 
as the Sierra Club, Citizen Action, and a number of other groups across 
the United States that any meaningful and serious discussion of energy 
security for America must include the issue of fuel economy and fuel 
efficiency.
  If we pass this bill without real language and real law that has 
teeth in it to improve fuel efficiency and fuel economy, we will have 
done a great disservice not just to the people we currently represent 
but to future generations and to the environment, which will be damaged 
because of our neglectful attitude.
  I hope my colleagues will, at this point, look beyond the big, 
special interest groups that have come in and said: Please, stop the 
Durbin amendment; don't let him improve the fuel efficiency of 
vehicles. I hope they will listen, instead, to their own consciences 
and their own minds and hearts about what is at stake. We can make the 
right move for future generations. The adoption of this amendment will 
achieve it.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment.

[[Page 19952]]


  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that my amendment to the 
Energy bill to create a demonstration program on production of hydrogen 
from renewable resources was adopted at the end of last week. The 
hydrogen title in the Energy bill contains a number of important 
provisions, many of which closely overlap with the Hydrogen and Fuel 
Cell Energy Act of 2003, which I introduced in April. Perhaps most 
important, it authorizes several significant demonstration programs for 
various applications of fuel cells. These programs are the critical 
next step in bringing hydrogen and fuel cells from the laboratory bench 
into widespread commercialization. They provide a realistic test of how 
the laboratory technologies work in the real world, and they provide 
funding for pre-commercial prototypes of the technologies, including 
starting to build a hydrogen fueling infrastructure.
  However, there were no demonstration projects in the title on how we 
will obtain the hydrogen to run the fuel cells. The bill reauthorizes 
the Matsunaga Act to continue and improve research on a variety of 
hydrogen technologies, which we have been trying to enact for more than 
2 years now. Elsewhere, the bill contains a massive and dubious subsidy 
for a nuclear plant in part to produce hydrogen, as well as support for 
production of hydrogen from coal, but there is nothing to demonstrate 
production of hydrogen from renewable resources.
  Currently, most hydrogen is made by reforming natural gas. This is a 
relatively clean and efficient way to use natural gas. But there are 
still emissions of greenhouse gases and some pollutants. Equally 
important, use of natural gas for hydrogen continues our dependence on 
natural gas supplies. As the recent price runup on natural gas has 
shown us again, supplies of natural gas may not always meet demand, and 
prices can be volatile. I support use of natural gas to make hydrogen 
in the near future, but in the long run, hydrogen and fuel cells must 
help us reach an economy based on clean, domestic, renewable sources of 
energy.
  This amendment will help us get there. It authorizes $110 million 
over 5 years to conduct demonstration programs on production of 
hydrogen from renewable resources. The resources might include biomass, 
such as switchgrass and ethanol, wind energy, solar power, and other 
sources. The program would help prepare a variety of emerging 
technologies for renewable hydrogen production for widespread use. 
These demonstration programs would be conducted using competitive merit 
review of funding proposals from a wide variety of companies and 
organizations, and they would require cost sharing from awardees.
  Technologies that combine production of hydrogen with other 
activities show particular promise for clean, efficient production of 
hydrogen at this time. Two approaches are specifically included in the 
scope of the program. Biorefineries can make hydrogen, along with other 
products, from biomass. And in ``electrofarming'' the hydrogen is 
produced and used on the same farm or in nearby facilities. The 
hydrogen might be made by growing and reforming biomass, from wind 
energy, or from farm waste; it could be used in farm vehicles and 
equipment and for heat and electricity in farm buildings. By placing 
production and use together, this approach saves on transportation of 
the fuel or the hydrogen. It also avoids any large-scale energy 
facilities that might present security risks.
  I am pleased this program will be in the portfolio of measures in the 
hydrogen title of the Energy bill that will help develop and 
commercialize hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, and turn into 
reality a vision of cars that don't pollute, of power that won't go 
out, and of feeling less dependent on an area of the world where we 
recently fought the second war in recent years.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my colleague, 
Senator Baucus, I will offer an amendment to the pending Energy bill 
that will make it economically feasible to make improvements to and 
operate the Flint Creek Hydroelectric Project at Georgetown Lake in 
Granite County, MT. Specifically, this amendment limits the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission's, FERC, annual land use fee at the 
project to $25,000 for so long as Granite County, or the neighboring 
county, Deer Lodge County, holds the license to the project. This 
amendment is very similar to legislation which Senator Baucus and I 
introduced in the 104th Congress and which was reported unanimously 
from the Senate Energy Committee.
  The Flint Creek Project does not currently generate electricity, nor 
will it without a limitation placed on the FERC annual land use fee. 
Under the status quo, FERC's annual fee for the project would be more 
than $83,000, an amount that simply makes the project uneconomic. The 
GAO recently released a report that concluded that the FERC generally 
sets land use fees too low for non-Federal hydroelectric projects 
located on Federal lands. In the case of the Flint Creek Project, the 
opposite is true.
  The Flint Creek Project is more than 100 years old. It was operated 
by the Montana Power Company for many years. Since 1992, when it was 
transferred to Granite County, it has remained idle. In order to become 
operational again, it will require more than $2.3 million in 
investment. This includes building a new powerhouse that replicates the 
architectural style of the historic structure, installing new intake 
facilities, replacing the old woodstave line with a new low-pressure 
pipeline, new generation turbines, swiftgear equipment, stream flow 
control, data logging systems and a new substation and metering 
equipment to connect the project to the Northwest energy transmission 
grid.
  All of this investment is necessary to get the Flint Creek Project up 
and running in an operationally efficient and environmentally 
responsible and safe manner. When these investments are made, the 
project will have an installed generation capacity of 2 megawatts. That 
translates into anticipated annual power sale revenues of between 
$300,000 and $350,000. Under the current FERC fee regime, however, the 
annual fee of $83,000 would amount to nearly 25 percent of the gross 
revenues of the project. With this kind of bureaucratic overhead, no 
one with an ounce of business sense would make the $2.3 million 
investment required to restart the project. My amendment reduces this 
annual fee to a level that fairly compensates the Federal Government 
for the use of its property, while at the same time encouraging 
investment in this project by assuming a modest rate of return.
  As we sit here debating new mandates to diversify this Nation's 
energy portfolio and increase the amount of renewable electricity 
available for the marketplace, it strikes me that this is one small, 
site-specific yet beneficial way in which we can appropriately 
encourage new investment in clean, renewable electricity.
  Mr. President, 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. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________