[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Pages 29586-29588]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 ENERGY

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, in thinking about my remarks today, I was 
reflecting back upon the investments made during the Great Depression 
in the Pacific Northwest by President Franklin Roosevelt, by his 
congressional friends. They were at the time expensive, but they were 
done at a time in America, particularly the Pacific Northwest, when 
only 30 percent of the American people had electricity. One had to live 
in the city to have electricity.
  President Roosevelt went to Oregon and Washington and dedicated the 
Bonneville Dam. At the time, in 1937, it was an enormous undertaking. 
He was a visionary when he dedicated that dam. He foresaw the benefits 
of universal electrification of our Nation from an economic and from an 
environmental point of view.
  There were those who expressed concern about the cost of this Energy 
bill. In preparing for these remarks, I read the address of Franklin 
Roosevelt those many years ago because it is applicable even today. He 
ends his address with this adage, which is as true today as it was 
then:

       We in America are wiser in using our wealth on projects 
     like this which will give us more wealth, better living, and 
     greater happiness for our children.

  It seems to me the difference between those for the bill and those 
against it has to do with money and the picking of winners and losers 
supposedly in this bill, and the difference of approach.
  The American people want affordable energy. The American people want 
a clean environment. It does seem to me there are those on the other 
side who believe the best approach to get energy and to get more green 
policies in place is through regulation. Indeed, I saw with some 
interest an article in the Washington Post this morning in which the 
probable Democratic nominee, Howard Dean, calls for: An age of 
reregulation. There is the headline. He was apparently a born-again 
reregulator. He wants to reregulate American industry, and specifically 
energy.
  It seems to me you can get different outcomes at the heavy hand, the 
club, of government. But I think what this legislation does is try to 
get to green results with affordable energy by incentivizing it with 
carrots. So you really have a choice between carrots and clubs, 
depending on which side you want to support in this debate and how you 
vote.
  But, Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
conference report on H. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. All of the 
conferees are to be congratulated for their tireless efforts to craft a 
bill that provides for real progress in securing our Nation's energy 
future. It is a positive step toward ensuring our farms, factories, and 
homes have energy they need at affordable prices.
  The bill provides significant incentives for diversification of our 
energy sources and for investment in needed energy infrastructure.
  I am pleased the bill authorizes $550 million in grants for biomass 
programs, which will help Oregon's communities and small businesses 
treat forested lands at high risk of catastrophic fires. This bill will 
promote the generation of electricity with the wood and brush removed 
from lands when lands are treated to reduce wildfire dangers.
  The extension and expansion of tax credits for the generation of 
electricity

[[Page 29587]]

from renewable resources will also benefit Oregon, which has been a 
leader in renewable energy production, particularly in wind energy.
  There are tremendous amounts of incentive here for windmills. In 
fact, I heard Pete Domenici say: In 10 years, you are going to be tired 
of seeing all the windmills that will be produced from this.
  Now, the Federal Government can mandate it and impose it on 
electrical utility companies, or it can incentivize it by helping these 
renewable types of energy to be more affordable and more marketable in 
the marketplace of today. Again, it is the carrot approach, not the 
stick approach.
  We will further improve the environment by establishing tax credits 
for energy-efficient homes and appliances, and for energy efficiency 
improvements to existing homes. Expansion of the Energy Star program 
builds on the success of the collaborative effort between Government 
and industry to inform consumers about energy-efficient appliances.
  Mr. President, hydroelectric facilities in the Pacific Northwest 
provide almost 60 percent of the region's electricity. That is why I am 
so supportive of the provisions in this bill that authorize $100 
million for increased hydropower production through increased 
efficiency at existing dams. People worried about global warming ought 
to be very interested in this provision because hydroelectric power 
produces abundant electricity without global warming.
  The bill also contains important reforms to hydroelectric relicensing 
laws, allowing for increased production while maintaining existing 
environmental safeguards.
  Our Native-American tribes in Oregon will benefit economically from 
provisions that promote the development of energy resources on tribal 
lands and extend the accelerated depreciation benefit for energy-
related businesses on Indian reservations. I thank Senator Campbell for 
his leadership on this important Indian energy title.
  The bill also recognizes that not everyone is sharing in the Nation's 
economic recovery. It is very important that we approve the 
authorization in this bill of $3.4 billion a year from 2004 to 2006 for 
the Low Income Housing Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP. It is an 
important addition to this bill.
  Nationally, we have finally established mandatory reliability 
standards for the electric transmission system, including enforcement 
mechanisms. This is something the Senate has attempted to do for the 
past three Congresses. These standards will help avoid future blackouts 
like those that plunged the east coast into darkness last August 14 or 
the August 1996 event which paralyzed the Western United States.
  Finally, let me turn to the electricity title. This has been an issue 
of particular importance to my constituents in Oregon and to the West 
in general. In recent years, Oregon ratepayers have been harmed as a 
result of market problems that spread from California throughout the 
West. Most Oregonians have seen their electricity rates increase by 
around 50 percent in the past 3 years.
  FERC's proposal on standard market design, SMD, threatened to raise 
Oregon's rates even further. As originally proposed, it simply would 
not have worked in the Northwest, where hydroelectricity is the 
dominant resource.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SMITH. Might I have another 2 minutes?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eighteen minutes 50 seconds.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield 1 more minute to the Senator from Oregon, and 
then I will yield up to 8 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH. In short, SMD was bad for the consumers of Oregon, 
particularly those in rural areas.
  Led by the Senate, this Congress has taken the extraordinary step in 
this bill of blocking FERC from continuing with this rulemaking that 
would have been so harmful to so many areas of the country.
  Unfortunately, the SMD is only part of a FERC vision for 
restructuring the wholesale electricity industry in a way that puts 
consumers at risk. FERC appears bent on ``competition at all costs,'' 
regardless of the costs to consumers, and without justifying the need 
for its draconian proposals.
  We have stopped SMD in this legislation, but other proposals are out 
there. Even now, utilities in the Northwest are concerned that they 
will once again be harmed by California's efforts to get FERC approval 
for new market structures under what is commonly known as MDO2.
  We cannot continue to legislate against specific FERC proposals for 
market design.
  I do hope that FERC gets the message we are sending them, however. 
The goal of Federal policy, which I believe is furthered by this 
electricity title, is to promote universal access to electricity at 
affordable prices.
  Electricity is too fundamental to our lives, and to this Nation's 
economic well-being to be subjected to radical experiments, such as the 
one proposed by SMD.
  In closing, Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Domenici and 
Senator Grassley for their leadership in crafting this important 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Mississippi is recognized for 8 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from 
Oregon and his thoughtful comments about the electricity section. I do 
think this legislation includes good language in that area that will be 
fair to all sides of electricity production.
  I do believe, as a result of this legislation, we are going to have a 
better grid. There are incentives to expand the grid where it is 
needed. In my part of the country, there have been significant 
investments in the grid already. We have a surplus of power. We are 
delighted to have more competition. We are delighted to work to have 
interconnectibility.
  But my concern had been that this language, this section, was not 
written properly, that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would 
have come up with a plan that would have forced ratepayers in my State 
to pay for additional transmission lines which would not benefit them. 
So it is a delicate balance.
  It has been very hard to work through this with regional differences, 
with Senators on both sides of the aisle coming at it from a different 
viewpoint. But through the efforts of Senator Domenici and Senator 
Craig Thomas, and the interest of Senators such as Gordon Smith and 
Larry Craig, and the chairman in the House, Billy Tauzin, we came up 
with a good package. I appreciate the efforts of all concerned.
  We will hear from the chairman and ranking member about details of 
this legislation. I am sure they will go into some of the specifics 
about policy decisions that were made in the electricity section and 
also give us detailed information about some of the tax policy, the tax 
incentives that were included in this bill.
  I guess there is some sticker shock when we learn that the tax 
section would actually wind up being some $23.5 billion. But it is a 
diverse package and one that I do believe will produce more energy in 
this country.
  It has a lot of incentives. Some of them will not produce that much, 
and I acknowledge that. Some of it I would not have included. Probably 
two-thirds of it I would not have included. But this is the art of 
legislating.
  So I want to speak to the broader perspective of what we are doing.
  We have not passed major energy legislation in the Congress for 10 
years. The truth is, we have done very little since 1979, when we were 
dealing with lines at gas stations and unreliability of supply. 
Frankly, it has not been getting better over the years. It is getting 
worse. We are becoming more and more and more reliant on foreign oil 
for our energy needs--now well over 50 percent, probably headed for 60 
percent.

[[Page 29588]]

This is dangerous. We are relying on Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Venezuela, 
Nigeria, and other countries such as Canada and Mexico, countries on 
which it makes me very nervous that we are dependent for their oil to 
power this country.
  This issue is about the future of America. Are we going to continue 
to be dependent on this foreign oil and, if we are, what will that mean 
for our economy if they decide to jack up the prices or cut off the 
supply, or if there is a change of government that produces uncertainty 
as we have seen to a degree in Venezuela, not to mention Iraq, of 
course.
  That leads to the national security aspects. If we don't have a 
reliable energy supply, it will affect our ability to power our ships, 
our planes. I thought it was so ironic last year that we were involved 
in a direct conflict with Iraq and yet we were winding up relying on 
Iraqi oil which we brought to the United States, refined, and put in 
airplanes to bomb Baghdad. This is a dangerous situation.
  What is the solution? Produce more energy supply of our own. The 
whole package, not just oil but, yes, oil. We have a lot of oil in 
America that is captured in these stripper wells, these small wells. We 
have natural gas that we could produce more of. What we have done in 
America is there is no incentive to produce it, and by the way, we have 
locked up lots of it. You can't drill in most of the Gulf of Mexico, 
not on the Atlantic or Pacific coasts, not in certain areas in the 
west. So slowly but surely we have stopped production in America.
  This bill will produce some more oil and natural gas. We will be able 
to have greater use of coal because we are going to put an investment 
in clean coal technology. We are going to have more hydropower and, 
yes, more nuclear power. The cleanest power producers are natural gas 
and nuclear power. Why don't we encourage more of that?
  And we have lots of incentives in here for alternative fuels: 
ethanol, biodiesel, whatever that is. We are going to use biomass, and 
some of that will be done in my State. I don't think it is going to 
produce a whole lot. I think it is going to eat up a lot of money. But 
we will look for alternative fuels, and that is good. So that is part 
1: more production.
  Some people say we don't need more production; we can conserve 
ourselves into an energy policy. How ridiculous can you get. What are 
we going to do, go back to just burning coal in the fireplaces? I used 
to have to bring in a scuttle of coal every morning before I went to 
school, and I didn't like it. It was cold to bring in the coal, and it 
was dirty burning. I never liked it. Well, what are we going to do? 
Just produce more blankets. They would probably be sent to us from 
China.
  Let's get real. In conservation, yes, give incentives to people to 
better insulate their homes and to maybe buy more fuel-efficient and 
better appliances that don't create pollution. Let's include that. More 
production: let's go after alternative fuels. Let's have conservation. 
Let's have the whole package.
  What will be the result? America will be more secure. Our economy 
will be stronger because this bill will produce jobs. You may say, 
well, they are not real jobs or maybe they are temporary jobs. A job is 
a job where I come from. Where I come from, if you want to eat and live 
and do well, you have to find a job. You take what you can get. This 
will produce over 800,000 jobs. This is a jobs bill.
  It is about the future reliability of our economy, about the future 
of our national security, and it is about jobs, which will help our 
economy.
  It is also about ensuring clean, affordable, and reliable energy--the 
whole package. I think we have good legislation here. We do have 
incentives in it for ventures such as geothermal energy. That will 
bring a renewable energy online, could create a few hundred jobs. We 
also are going to put a real emphasis on clean coal technology. We have 
an abundant supply of coal, and we are developing the technology to be 
able to use it, burn it, and in a clean way.
  I commend my colleagues for producing this bill. It is like every 
legislative piece. It has a few warts on it. If you are expecting the 
perfect, this is not it. But we need to do this. We have been arguing 
about it for 3 or 4 years. The things that held us back in the past we 
did set aside. Now we are going to be able to get this legislation.
  When you look back on this year, there is going to be a lot the 
Senate can take credit for having made a difference in the country--the 
tax bill, the partial-birth abortion legislation, energy legislation, 
and transportation bills.
  I am glad we have this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support 
it. It will make a difference for the future.
  I thank Senator Hutchison of Texas for putting together this 
opportunity for us to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the 
Senator from Mississippi. He was on the conference committee. He worked 
hard, knows how hard the compromises were. I appreciate his leadership 
because we can't depend on foreign countries for 60 percent of our 
energy needs and have a stable economy and keep the jobs we have and 
create more jobs for our recovery. I thank the Senator from Mississippi 
and the Senator from Oregon. The Senator from Oregon also has been a 
leader in this field. I appreciate so much his remarks and his 
leadership in this area.
  I ask how much time remains in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes ten seconds.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum.

                          ____________________