[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 22]
[Senate]
[Pages 29908-29926]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003--CONFERENCE REPORT--Continued

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise to add my voice to the very 
spirited debate we have had about the Energy bill. A number of Members 
have come to the floor to talk about specific provisions--the concern 
for the liability waiver for MTBE, in particular.
  I want to step back and talk about the bigger picture--about the 
financial health of our country and the impact that this Energy bill, 
given its enormous size, will have on the long-term health of our 
budget, as well as our economy.
  During the budget debates, we hear a great deal about fiscal 
responsibility. People love to talk about fiscal responsibility in the 
abstract. When you are looking out 10 years and are talking about 
surpluses or deficits, or more broadly about revenues or spending, it 
is all about fiscal responsibility. But they don't like to talk about 
it as much when we have a specific piece of legislation on the Senate 
floor, as we have now, that will draw from the Federal Treasury and 
start spending that money in a way that I don't think is very well 
thought out. I certainly don't think it will have a very positive 
effect on our economy.
  In particular, if we look at the Energy bill and its scope and size, 
it not only breaks the budget that was agreed to just 6 months ago, it 
not only violates the budget once or twice or three times, it is in 
violation of the Budget Act in four different ways. In fact, in one 
area in particular, on spending, it violates the Budget Act three 
different times. A point of order, as has been indicated by the budget 
chairman himself, lies against this bill. It violates the budget caps, 
busts the budget by over $800 million next year alone, by more than 
$3.4 billion over the next 5 years, and by $4.3 billion over a 10-year 
period. It breaks the budget cap, breaks the budget agreement, and 
violates the Budget Act. That is a lot of money--800 million dollars, 
$3.4 billion, and $4.3 billion over the next 10 years.
  I think at a certain point we have to draw the line. We have to say 
energy is important to the country, markets are important to the 
country, competitiveness is important to the country, but we can 
achieve these things without violating the budget agreement that was 
just put into place several months ago.
  The bill includes new mandatory spending, which is effectively on 
automatic pilot, where once the bill is signed into law, the spending 
will take place automatically, without appropriations and without any 
new legislation passed. So it is $3.7 billion in mandatory spending 
over the next 5 years,

[[Page 29909]]

$5.4 billion in new mandatory spending over the next 10 years. In 
addition to that, we have all the authorized spending in the bill--over 
$70 billion in spending is authorized over the next 10 years.
  Looking at the authorization language, the different programs--dozens 
and dozens of different programs--total over $70 billion. These 
programs are effectively picking and choosing among different ideas and 
innovations and areas of the energy industry, picking winners and 
losers among the different competing forces. That is where we need to 
be very careful about the impact a bill like this would have. Why 
should any legislator, or bureaucrat, for that matter, be trying to 
pick the winning or the losing energy technology or innovation 5 or 10 
years out into the future? We are not experts in this area. We are not 
scientists. We don't dedicate our lives to understanding the nuances of 
new energy technology. We certainly should not be writing legislation 
that picks those winners and losers in the marketplace.
  If you read through--just to touch on a few to get a sense of what I 
am talking about--$250 million is in the bill for photovoltaic energy 
commercialization, the use of photovoltaic energy in public buildings. 
Photovoltaics is an interesting technology, perhaps a promising one. 
But to spend $250 million to try to commercialize this in public 
buildings suggests that we know, as Senators, that this is the right 
energy source to use in public buildings for the foreseeable future.
  Why not let the market compete? Why not let investors step forward to 
build or renovate or improve public buildings, to use energy more 
efficiently in public buildings, pick the best contractor, the best 
product, the product which delivers the best value for the public? Why 
do we have to spend $250 million biasing the marketplace? There is $125 
million for a coal technology loan. It turns out this particular one 
will actually go to convert a clean coal technology plant into a 
traditional coal-fired generation plant.
  Elsewhere in the bill, we have a couple of billion dollars to 
subsidize the clean coal technology industry. So this is a case where 
maybe we are just not sure what the winner is going to be, and we are 
trying to hedge our bets. There is nearly $100 million in the bill for 
the reduction of enginizing heavy-duty vehicles; reduce the amount of 
heavy duty vehicles' idle--I suppose in traffic, or sitting at the 
truck stop, or wherever else it might be. Energy efficiency in heavy-
duty trucks is a great idea. Somebody tells me that those who build, 
manufacture, and own and operate heavy-duty trucks have a financial 
incentive not to waste the diesel fuel they use to drive the trucks all 
over the country. I don't think they need a subsidy of $100 million for 
us to do the job that they ought to be doing to make themselves more 
competitive and ultimately earn more money in the marketplace.
  Engine testing program, $25 million. Why should we be subsidizing the 
testing of commercial engines that companies or industries use to 
operate and earn a good living, as they should?
  Here is another very interesting one. The next generation of lighting 
initiative; $250 million for the next generation of lighting. We have 
next generation Internet. I am still not sure why we put a billion 
dollars or $2 billion into that. The Internet is probably the one area 
of our economy that has attracted more capital faster than any other 
idea in our history. Why the Federal Government should be subsidizing 
that, I don't know. Why we should be subsidizing new lighting 
technologies, I certainly don't know. There are wonderful companies 
that make great lighting products, such as halogen lights, neon lights. 
I could name a few companies, but I am sure I will leave some out.
  When we go to the Home Depot to buy lighting products or to the local 
hardware store or COSTCO and buy lighting products, we know who the 
competitors are. Why does the Federal Government need to spend $250 
million to help develop better or newer lighting?
  Somebody might say we are working on more efficient lighting. If you 
build a better light bulb that is less expensive to use and/or less 
expensive to sell, I bet customers will recognize that value. It is a 
mature industry, a well-understood industry. You don't need a Ph.D. to 
understand why you would use a light bulb, how you use one, how much it 
costs, and what the value is. That is the classic example of an 
industry that certainly doesn't need a taxpayer subsidy.
  Let's recognize that all of this spending--$250 million for lighting, 
$125 million for a coal loan, $2 billion for MTBE producers--is not 
money just being printed out in a back room somewhere. These are 
dollars that we are collecting from working families, men and women who 
work very hard. We collect their Federal taxes and we have an 
obligation to be fiscally responsible and to do a thoughtful job in the 
way this money is spent in Washington.
  We have new mandatory spending, we have authorized spending, and then 
we get to the tax subsidies, some $25 billion. The President 
recommended only $8 billion. The Senate recommended $18 billion. It 
comes out of conference with the House and Senate at nearly $25 billion 
in tax subsidies, loan guarantees for diesel fuel plants, loan 
guarantees for three new coal plants. A loan guarantee to build any of 
these new plants effectively puts the taxpayer on the hook for all, or 
a very significant part, of that facility.
  Again, I think the coal industry is a terrific industry, and also the 
oil and gas industry, electricity generation, wind power, hydropower, 
solar power. What we ought to be working toward, however, is a level 
playing field where these competing ideas and competing technologies 
can provide electricity, can provide power, can provide energy so 
consumers and investors can make good decisions about where to put 
their money and which one of these competing technologies to buy.
  There are certainly some good provisions in this legislation. I think 
the electricity title takes important steps. I support repeal of the 
Public Utility Holding Company Act. We have better reliability 
standards in this legislation for our electric grid. We have regulatory 
reform which I think is important for building out the electric 
infrastructure and avoiding future crises, shortages, or blackouts. But 
we can do all of these things without busting the budget. We can do all 
of these things without violating the Budget Act. We can do all of 
these things without coming back with a bill that has three times the 
tax subsidies the President proposed.
  Like so many Energy bills I have seen in my short time working in 
Congress, this bill is full of some very grandiose pipedreams. One of 
my favorites is the hydrogen car--$2 billion for the hydrogen car. We 
are just coming off a $2 billion bender known as the Partnership for 
the Next Generation Vehicle. Mr. President, $2 billion of taxpayers' 
money was spent to try to develop an electric car that was going to be 
a hybrid electric car, a hybrid combustion engine and, at the end of 
the day, it was a failure--$2 billion later. It had no material impact 
on the delivery of more energy efficient vehicles into the marketplace.
  Someone somewhere suddenly decided: It turns out the car of the 
future is not an electric car, the car of the future is really a 
hydrogen car. We must have gotten that whole electric car thing wrong. 
Forget about that Partnership for the Next Generation Vehicle; it is 
really the hydrogen car, and we only need $2 billion to do it.
  I don't know if hydrogen is going to propel vehicles in the future. 
It would be terrific if it did. I think the right way to get the answer 
is to let the marketplace decide, to let competing technologies and 
ideas in the marketplace decide; put those ideas out, attract capital, 
attract investment, do the research and development, and, believe me, 
if somebody develops a cost-competitive electric car, let alone a 
hydrogen car, they are going to make a lot of money because there is a 
demand for that in the marketplace.
  People are willing to pay for a cheaper vehicle. People are willing 
to support initiatives that not only fulfill the needs in their daily 
lives traveling

[[Page 29910]]

around but also help keep our environment a little cleaner by reducing 
emissions.
  We have coal gasification, at $1 billion or so--nearly $1 billion for 
a coal gasification initiative. Twenty years ago, it was all about 
synthetic oil. That was clearly going to be the energy of the future--
the fossil fuel energy at least. I guess we must have gotten that one 
wrong because we spent $4 billion, $5 billion on that, and it turns out 
it is really not cost competitive. So we are going to go with coal 
gasification. Maybe that is what we meant to say or we learned a little 
bit since then.
  Now we can see the future much more clearly, and we are going to 
start out with a little bit less than $1 billion, but you can be 
assured that over time it is going to be a lot more than that.
  These are pipedreams. These are important visions for scientists or 
technologists to have, and we want them to put some funding or risk 
some capital for these ideas. The question isn't whether they are 
interesting ideas or whether they are even worthy of investment but 
whether they are worthy of taking Federal money, taxpayer money, and 
putting that money at risk in a marketplace that should be able to 
stand on its own, compete on a level playing field, and continue to 
deliver the innovation and technology of which I think most Americans 
would and should be very proud.
  We can do a lot better than this bill. We can do better than a bill 
that busts the budget. We can do better than a bill that has a $25 
billion grab bag of tax subsidies that distort the marketplace of ideas 
and the marketplace of capital. We can do better in terms of 
legislation that should be promoting a very competitive environment 
and, therefore, a stronger, more robust economy, but instead, in 
distorting the marketplace, I think we will do great damage to our 
economy.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SUNUNU. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, we can do better than this legislation. 
Frankly, we need to do better than this legislation because if we 
don't, I am afraid if we adopt this conference report, this will become 
the standard method of operation, the standard way we approach science, 
technology, and energy: That we get together in a room in a conference 
or in a committee, and we sit down as Senators and we try to pick the 
winners and the losers; that we distribute subsidies in the way of 
spending or we distribute--in some ways this is even worse--subsidies 
in the way of added complexity to the Tax Code. Instead of ending up 
with an economy that is robust, an economy that is the envy of the 
world, an economy that encourages new ideas and innovation, we end up 
with some sort of variant of what has already been defeated in the 
Eastern European countries and in the former Soviet Union--a 
manipulated government-subsidized enterprise or government-run economy 
where bureaucrats or elected officials try to pull the strings, but to 
no avail, degrading the economy, making it less efficient, making it 
less robust, and not discovering those very entrepreneurs we know are 
the heart and soul of the prosperity we enjoy.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the statement of Senator Kyl, Senator Graham of Florida be recognized 
for 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to join many of my colleagues 
in strongly opposing this Energy bill. The opposition is not reserved 
to only Democrats; the opposition is for those people who think about 
the implications of this bill and the serious concerns it raises.
  For one thing, it is terribly lopsided. It is out of balance. It is 
heavily weighted toward the industry because it was written by just a 
few select individuals with almost no conference input by Democrats.
  The bill is an embarrassing example of the public's worst fears about 
Washington power politics, and those power sources are the oil and gas 
lobbyists downtown. Though it is called the Energy Policy Act of 2003, 
this bill promotes the outdated policies of a generation ago. It should 
be called actually the Energy Policy Act of 1903. The policy here is 
simple: Drill for oil, drill for natural gas, dig for coal.
  While the country needs oil, natural gas, and coal, we also need 
leaders with a vision to promote clean sources of energy that won't 
harm the health of our children, our grandchildren, and future 
generations. It is the 21st century, and we have the technology to do 
better.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, between 1948 and 
1998 the Federal Government subsidized the energy industry by well over 
$100 billion. Unfortunately, less than $1 in $10 was used to promote 
renewable energy, that which you can find relatively easily and without 
the pollution that our present energy sources convey to the public.
  Now, in this single bill, we are being asked to spend another $50 
billion to $100 billion on tax credits and loan guarantees to the oil, 
gas, and nuclear industries. How will all of those taxpayer dollars be 
spent? They will be spent on a long list of brazen giveaways to 
polluting uranium companies, Archer Daniels Midland, to MTBE producers, 
and for a smattering of goodies and pet projects.
  Taking care of special interests has become a hallmark of this 
Congress. Peter Jennings highlighted it in a perfect example on the 
evening news the other night. He reported that taxpayers have so far 
contributed $1.3 billion to subsidize wealthy individuals who buy the 
biggest gas guzzlers sold in America. As he pointed out, one couple 
received $17,000 in tax breaks on their new SUV and boast: ``We have 
decided to take two extra vacations this year with the money we 
saved.'' But for the energy they used, they pose a whole different kind 
of issue.
  Why is the answer around here always to hand over cash to rich people 
and successful companies? Can we really justify turning over the hard-
earned tax dollars of Americans, who do not earn enough to benefit much 
from the Bush tax cuts, to companies flush with cash?
  Here is an issue that was announced August 1, 2003: ``Chevron 
Quadruples Profits.'' It goes on to say:

       Oil giant Chevron Texaco increased quarterly profits four 
     times to $1.6 billion.

  Their revenues soared to $29 billion in the quarter. Do these 
companies really sound as if they need Government subsidies to do their 
job? Not to me.
  We have the perfect opportunity to guide the country toward clean, 
renewable energy. Yet most of the bill's tax credits for efficiency and 
renewables last only 2 or 3 years. Any business person knows this is 
not a sufficient time period to encourage significant investments and 
technology development.
  We Americans have always set ourselves apart by our ingenuity and 
creativity. Today, amid an avalanche of promising scientific 
discoveries in the field of energy, the majority can see no further 
than the lobbyists' interests which this bill follows to the letter.
  Recently, I read that in Amsterdam, a major European chip 
manufacturer has discovered a new way to produce solar cells that will 
generate electricity 20 times cheaper than today's solar panels. ST-
Microelectronics, Europe's largest semiconductor maker, says that by 
the end of next year it expects to have the first stable prototypes 
ready. If a decade ago we had been serious about promoting renewable 
energy, that discovery could have been made by an American company, but 
such breakthroughs are unlikely with the minimal incentives offered in 
this bill for development of better ways to be less dependent on the 
energy sources we have now.
  It is also disheartening that this bill grants exemption after 
exemption to the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and other 
protective laws. I do not

[[Page 29911]]

really understand it. Is boosting the profits of giant companies really 
more important to the bill's authors than the health of the American 
people?
  Let us talk about just one of the riders slipped in by House 
Republicans without a vote from either the House or the Senate. This 
was snuck in during conference. This rider amends the Clean Air Act, 
gives cities an easy out if they find meeting the new ozone standard is 
difficult due to transboundary pollution. It requires EPA to grant them 
an automatic extension. It does not say for how long. It fails to 
define the conditions that would precipitate such an extension.
  The result of this rider, of delaying implementation of the ozone 
standard for just 1 year, is severe. That rider is estimated to cause 
390,000 more asthma attacks, 44,000 of those in my State, 5,000 more 
hospitalizations, and 570,000 more missed schooldays. That is the 
result of just one of the many exceptions carved out of our 
environmental laws by this bill.
  Among my nine grandchildren, I have two who are asthmatic. The rate 
of asthma among juveniles is growing substantially. I lost my sister to 
an asthma attack. It was obviously a devastating event in our family's 
history. To those who see kids with asthma get fatigued after 
participating in sports or otherwise, it is the kind of anguish that 
drives parents to all kinds of anxieties.
  The bill fails the American people on every level. It fails to boost 
our energy security, it fails to safeguard electricity consumers, and 
it fails to protect the environment.
  It is astounding to look at what this bill does not do. While 
automobiles account for a whopping 40 percent of our Nation's growing 
oil addiction, the bill does not address fuel economy at all. The bill 
comes at the very time when fuel efficiency has arguably never been 
more important. America's fuel economy is at a 22-year low. Today, the 
United States spends $200,000 every minute on foreign oil. But the 
economic costs of weak fuel efficiency requirements go far beyond just 
the cost of oil. If we include the major oil price shocks of the last 
30 years and the resulting economic recessions, the cost goes up at 
least $7 trillion.
  Given these hard facts, one would naturally expect a national energy 
policy to aggressively pursue decreases in oil. It does not. Just the 
opposite. It generously promotes increases in oil use while tossing 
what I would call petty cash toward energy conservation, energy 
efficiency, and renewable energy.
  We never hear a word--and this has happened in Democratic as well as 
Republican administrations--about sacrifice, conserve, think about what 
happens when more fuel is ground into toxic emissions. It is terrible 
that we cannot understand there is a mission attached to saving oil and 
gasoline use.
  It is amazing what this bill fails to do on electric policy. This 
bill contains only one of three provisions the country must enact to 
prevent another massive blackout such as the Northeast experienced last 
August. We are being asked to support a dirty Energy bill in order to 
get one of the fundamental regulatory reforms to our electric grid 
system. I say the bad outweighs the good, and I cannot support it.
  Around here, it is often said that the perfect is the enemy of the 
good, but I say the bad far outweighs the good as an alternative.
  The administration's energy and environmental policies reflected in 
this bill are so utterly transparent in their goal of more corporate 
welfare that the consultant, Frank Luntz, warned the party:

       Watch your language--

  And here he is, the fat cat--

       A caricature has taken hold in the public imagination: 
     Republicans seemingly in the pockets of corporate fat cats 
     who rub their hands together and chuckle maniacally as they 
     plot to pollute corporate America for fun and profit.

  Unfortunately for many, that is no caricature. From where I am 
standing, that picture is pretty accurate. If one wants proof, look at 
this bill. It is filled with little but big breaks for those who need 
them the least. Yet rather than change their policies, Luntz offers 
them protecting language. He wrote a memo to Republicans instructing 
them on how to use the language tested on focus groups to hide their 
deplorable environmental record.
  This Energy bill is a great disappointment. It might have been 
acceptable at the beginning of the 20th century, but it is indefensible 
at the beginning of the 21st century.
  Mr. President, you know true patriotism is more than waving flags. It 
means putting the interests of the American people before the powerful 
special interests, the very thing this Energy bill fails to do. I urge 
my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak also to the 
Energy conference report. Unlike some of the previous speakers I 
listened to in the past 2 hours that I have been in the Chamber, I 
stand in support of the agreement that was reached in conference. It 
has been pointed out that this is not a perfect bill. I would be the 
first to chime in and say I agree with that. But in an effort to 
achieve the perfect, I don't think we should overlook the good in the 
conference report.
  Because of the hard work of Chairman Domenici and his staff, working 
with the others on the conference agreement, and spending many, many 
hours to reach the consensus we have before us, I think we can truly 
say this is a good bill and a bill that should be signed into law. 
There has been a great deal of talk, not just during this legislative 
session but in years previous: We need to have an energy policy for 
this country. We need to have the framework for an energy policy.
  It seems to me that so often what we do is react to situations, 
whether it is the blackout we experienced in August, or when the price 
of gasoline increases to a level where it gets our attention. We only 
respond when there is something that gets our attention and focuses the 
Nation on energy.
  Quite honestly, most Americans don't pay attention to energy. They 
don't pay attention to how they get their lights to turn on, or how we 
keep the temperature cool or warm. I have said many times as I talk 
about energy, most Americans ascribe to the immaculate conception 
theory of energy: It just happens. We know that is not the case. It 
doesn't just happen. It takes innovation. It takes incentives. It takes 
capital. It takes the desire to do something.
  But without the energy we have in this country, we would not have the 
freedoms or the liberties we take for granted--the ability to do what 
we want, to go where we want to go. We need to recognize that energy is 
something that has built our country and made us strong. We need to 
continue with that sound policy. I believe the conference report we 
have in front of us is a good first step toward that sound policy.
  As I say that in very general terms, I have to start off that this is 
not my perfect bill. At the top of my list for an energy policy for 
this country would be the opening of ANWR. We don't see that coming out 
of the conference report. Congress had the opportunity to include 
language that would have generated over 1 million jobs for American 
workers by allowing for oil and gas exploration on just 2,000 acres of 
Alaska's North Slope.
  I know we tried to keep ANWR in the conference report. The chairman 
was working hard. But we were threatened with that constant threat of a 
filibuster. You can't put ANWR in the Energy bill or it will be 
filibustered. It seems a little ironic to be standing here tonight. 
ANWR is not in the Energy bill yet we are still slowed in the task of 
getting to a vote on the Energy bill.
  The House adopted ANWR and wanted it in the conference report but 
there were continued objections, primarily from the environmental 
groups, that have kept us and will keep us this year from moving 
forward with jobs that truly could have been promised with the opening 
of ANWR.
  I have made the invitation to the Senators here on the floor and I 
know

[[Page 29912]]

my counterpart, Senator Stevens, has made the effort to invite all 
Senators to visit ANWR and see what this dispute over opening the 
Coastal Plain of ANWR to oil and gas exploration is all about. We want 
you to see Prudhoe Bay. We want you to see the developments in Alpine 
and the technology we have utilized to provide for the exploration and 
development of oil up on the North Slope. We want you to see the 
minimal impact to the environment, and how technology has helped us to 
advance.
  I get a few takers, primarily in the summertime. But I encourage you 
to come up in the wintertime. This is when we do the production up 
there. I know that is kind of a chilly invitation to some, but I think 
it would help to understand what we are dealing with in Alaska, how 
vast our spaces are, and just how small of an area the Coastal Plain of 
ANWR, the 1002 area, really is, in comparison.
  I agree with those of my colleagues who would argue we cannot drill 
our way to independence from foreign oil. They are absolutely right. We 
have to have the incentives for renewable energy sources. We have to 
have greater technological efficiency. We have to decrease our energy 
consumption. Those efforts need to be part of this comprehensive energy 
package. But we must also have increased domestic production. I suggest 
to you again, if you are going to argue that we need to have energy 
security, if we want to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, the first 
place we should be looking is ANWR.
  But I am not going to go into any further discussion about ANWR at 
this time. You have certainly heard the debate before. It will be an 
issue that we will revisit. We will continue to push for opening ANWR.
  I want to take one more second to remind folks that we had an 
opportunity here for over one million jobs across the Nation, at a time 
when millions are unemployed in our country. But some Members have 
declined to accept that offer. Instead, we are talking about extending 
unemployment benefits.
  I suggest to you that the unemployed people in my State, if given a 
choice, would certainly prefer to have a job than more unemployment 
benefits.
  But when we speak about jobs, I should not be talking exclusively in 
the negative here because all is not lost. We have an incredible 
opportunity in Alaska with our natural gas. Several very important 
provisions are included in this bill that will promote the construction 
of a natural gas pipeline to transport the vast quantities of natural 
gas that we have up on our North Slope, to bring it to market in the 
lower 48, be it down the Alaska Canadian Highway or through LNG tankers 
to the west coast. We have 35 trillion cubic feet of gas up there now.
  You have heard Members in the Chamber talking about the fact that 
right now that gas is stranded up there. Right now that gas is being 
reinjected instead of being shipped down here to the lower 48, where we 
need it. We have provisions in the Energy bill to get that gas where it 
is needed: We have guaranteed loans, expedited judicial and 
environmental reviews, and a program to train pipeline workers--again, 
talking about the jobs aspect. The pipeline, if constructed, could 
provide over one million jobs, direct and indirect jobs, through the 
construction of this pipeline alone.
  But the key here is, if this pipeline is constructed, there are no 
guarantees. We have done a great deal in this legislation to encourage 
the construction of the line.
  There is one provision that generated a great deal of attention and 
focus but is not included. There would have been a production credit to 
ensure the economic viability and provide a safety net in the event the 
price of gas drops to very low levels. That is not included in the 
legislation.
  This is a huge project. People need to understand how huge. This is a 
$20 billion project, 3,500 miles in length, 5 million tons of steel, 
delivering billions of cubic feet of gas per day to a nation that is 
starved right now for natural gas. And the situation is just getting 
worse.
  It would be the biggest construction project of its kind in the 
country. It is something that we can only imagine. When we imagine huge 
projects like this, every now and again they take a little bit of a 
boost to get going. What we have done in the Energy bill is to provide 
that boost, to provide the incentives to encourage the construction.
  Again, what we are providing is grants to authorize training of the 
crews and workers who will construct and operate the pipeline.
  We limit the period of time to bring a claim, if a claim should 
arrive, and we expedite the claim so the project doesn't get bogged 
down in the courts.
  We authorize the construction of the pipeline. We have loan 
guarantees of up to 80 percent of the cost of the project. It would be 
an $18 billion Federal loan guarantee--probably the largest loan 
guarantee we have ever seen given to a project here in the United 
States.
  We have also included a 15-percent enhanced oil recovery credit for 
the $2.6 billion gas handling plant that will be required on the North 
Slope.
  We have provided for accelerated depreciation on the project, again 
helping to provide that incentive which we need to encourage 
construction of this line.
  This only happens, the jobs only come, if the construction happens, 
if we can get moving with the line, if we convince the producers that 
it is timely, it is necessary, and that the demand is there. I think we 
have established that the demand is clearly there.
  I am going to be working with the State of Alaska and the industry to 
examine the options and to pursue those possibilities as we push this 
project to completion. It is imperative that we in Congress, through 
the passage of this bill, make our intent known that this is a priority 
for the country. It is a priority for Alaska. But it must be a priority 
for this Nation as well.
  I have been talking about the Alaska component in the bill. We are 
pleased with what I have spoken to so far. But we should be reminded 
about the other good things in the Energy bill that apply throughout 
the country.
  Authorized annual funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program, LIHEAP, is increased from $2 billion to $3.4 billion.
  There is $550 million in grants for biomass production, and it 
provides money for communities under 50,000 in population to improve 
the commercial value of their biomass.
  A couple of weeks ago, I stood on the floor during the debate on the 
Healthy Forests legislation and I showed a picture of Alaska Chugach 
Forest on the Kenai Peninsula where as far as the eye can see the 
standing trees are dead, killed by the spruce bark beetle. With the 
help of grants that we are seeing in the Energy bill, those trees can 
be converted into a biomass fuel providing a new source of energy for 
low-income communities.
  There is money for clean coal power energy for those projects that 
demonstrate the advanced technology that achieves significant emission 
reductions.
  I need to point out that there has been discussion on this floor that 
through the Energy bill perhaps we are not putting enough focus on 
clean air, clean water, and concern for the environment. We need to 
understand that our environment is only going to be helped. We are only 
going to get cleaner air and cleaner water when we have the advanced 
technology instead of the old stuff we had in the past. Those 
technologies might take some upfront money.
  I know there are programs that have already been spoken about--such 
as the clean schoolbuses--$100 million to retrofit existing diesel 
buses with new pollution control technology, $200 million in grants to 
replace older schoolbuses with clean alternative fuels and ultra-low 
sulfur fuel buses.
  Also, as has been referenced, there is funding for hydropowered 
automobiles that the President has made such a big push for.
  I might remind the body, though, that in order for us to make headway 
on this particular initiative, it will increase the demand for our 
natural gas. Again, the imperative is to move forward with a natural 
gas pipeline.
  The bill contains language to make permanent the United States' 
commitment to the energy security of Israel

[[Page 29913]]

ensuring, if Israel is unable to independently secure its own supply of 
oil, that the United States will procure the necessary oil to meet 
Israel's needs.
  There is much in this Energy bill that provides the incentives and 
the technology to move forward. We have language that will help in the 
rural areas of the nation--certainly those in my State. Not only do we 
not have affordable energy in parts of rural Alaska, we don't have any 
energy to speak of. We have a long way to go, but it is only with the 
assistance we are seeing through the Energy bill that we will get 
there.
  While I may suggest that Congress has missed an opportunity on 
certain topics, such as ANWR, this bill does offer new programs to 
improve our energy efficiency, increase the development and use of 
renewable energy resources, and promote domestic production.
  It doesn't go as far as it could in reducing America's dependence on 
unstable foreign sources of oil, but it is the beginning of a 
comprehensive energy policy for this country. It is a policy that has 
been lacking for many, many years, and one that I feel is badly needed.
  I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Domenici and 
his counterpart in the House, Chairman Tauzin. I appreciate their hard 
work and their leadership. Again, this is not a perfect bill, but it is 
a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support its adoption so we can 
move forward with a sound energy policy for the country.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Alaska for 
bringing up an important issue of jobs in this bill, because clearly 
one of the key components that we in the Northwest are interested in is 
that this bill might move us forward on an energy policy that would 
create jobs and diversify Northwest power.
  When we ran into a drought in 2000 and ended up having to go out on 
the spot market and buy electricity, we certainly were gouged by some 
manipulated contracts. But one of the things that could provide us some 
long-term relief in the near term from future droughts and overreliance 
on the hydrosystem would be a natural gas pipeline from Alaska down to 
the continental United States which would help us in diversifying and 
protecting against such incidents in the future.
  But let us be clear. This bill doesn't get the job done. The Alaska 
pipeline that we have all talked about as it relates to natural gas 
doesn't have the framework within this legislation to move forward.
  I commend the Senator from Alaska for focusing on job issues. I agree 
with her that an energy policy must accomplish two things. It must set 
a policy for us to get off our dependence on foreign oil and again for 
America to have an advantage in job creation as we move on a 21st 
century energy policy. But this bill does nothing to help us diversify 
in the short term on natural gas that is available to us in Canada and 
Alaska. It does very little to help us in the future with the hydrogen 
fuel economy which, it is estimated, could create 750,000 jobs over the 
next 10 years. That is not just the kind of activity that would make us 
a leader in the United States; it is the kind of activity that would 
make us a global leader in the energy system of the future.
  I will take a few minutes to talk about where we are with the Energy 
bill and where we have been because yesterday I spent quite a bit of 
time talking about the overall aspects of the bill. Something of great 
concern to me, being a member of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, I wanted to make sure, given the fact this bill has been 
drafted mostly in secret, starting with the Vice President's energy 
task force. That left many Americans out of the process of 
understanding what the administration's energy proposal would be, which 
led to a conference report that was done in secret by the Republican 
Party. Yesterday I needed to spend my time talking about the various 
aspects of this bill in a comprehensive way that would give my 
colleagues a perspective of someone from the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee who has dealt with some of the challenges and 
problems.
  Clearly, this 2003 Energy bill is becoming known as the bill about 
Hooters, polluters, and about the looting of America that has happened, 
particularly on the west coast, particularly in my State.
  Americans are trying to understand this. I have had phone calls to my 
office: I don't understand. I understand conservation, I understand 
renewable energy, I understand incentivizing. What does Hooters have to 
do with an energy policy?
  In this legislation we have included green bond projects; that is, we 
would help in the public financing of proposals to various developers 
in Colorado, New York, Iowa, and Louisiana, with $2 billion in private 
bonds to build energy-efficient developments. I am for energy 
efficiency, but last I heard Hooters had its own airline, was doing 
quite well and probably could borrow any money it needed to invest in 
energy efficiency.
  I have small businesses all over the State of Washington that got 
smacked with the energy crisis. They had to conserve; they had to shut 
down. Employees were coming up with all sorts of creativity: nobody got 
to borrow money from the Federal Government that would allow them to 
have a line item in a bill that said specifically, this project is for 
you.
  Broad tax credits for conservation programs in which all companies 
can apply for some of the incentives to get America to conserve--
because conservation is a great program, particularly in times of less 
supply--is a very good idea. But that is not what Hooters got. This 
particular project, and the three others mentioned in this legislation, 
specifically include a line item for particular projects. What 
qualifies them? I find it very hard to explain to my constituents. I 
know there is a daiquiri bar in and an energy efficient bowling alley 
and a movie theater and everything else as part of this Hooters 
restaurant development. But I don't understand why they should get some 
sort of line item for bonds, for money that needs to be borrowed for 
fuel efficiency when everyone else in the country has had to do their 
own jobs, to turn out the lights and conserve. What is so special about 
this particular restaurant?
  As far as the polluters, obviously, my colleagues have done a great 
job talking about the MTBE provision and the fact that people who have 
been involved with that product are seeking relief from being liable 
for cleanup. I have heard from elected officials all over the State of 
Washington that they do not want to be the deep pocket. Cities have 
asked: Why is it that you are going to let these particular polluters 
in this bill off the hook and stick us with the cleanup cost of this 
particular product? It is very unfair that that is the approach we 
would take. My colleague, the Senator from Illinois, and everyone else 
has been very articulate on that issue.
  I am also amazed, as we look at the other aspects of the bill, 
particularly relating to clean water and the Clean Water Act. Why would 
my colleagues would want to say, under the Clean Water Act, this is 
legislation that would somehow say to any coal-producing, oil, or gas 
company producer in the future under this bill, the 2003 Energy bill, 
that you do not have to comply with clean water runoff standards. Why 
should they be exempt? I cannot understand that. You build a shopping 
center. Guess what. You have to comply with runoff standards from the 
Clean Water Act. If you build a hotel, you have to comply with getting 
a runoff permit and saying how you are going to deal with runoff. Why? 
Because there are two sources of pollution. We have the source point 
pollution and then we have pollution that occurs from the runoff. We 
want to control that.
  We are demanding every other business in America has to get a permit 
when they go through development to deal with runoff, to make sure we 
have clean water. But somehow we are going

[[Page 29914]]

to allow certain types of industries in the Energy bill, particularly 
oil, gas, and coal, to be exempt? What kind of policy is that?
  The most famous person on this chart is Ken Lay. Why is he the most 
famous person on this chart to people in Washington State? My 
constituents want to know why, when they have been gouged with higher 
energy prices, why this man is not in jail. I don't have a very good 
answer.
  This bill is about pollution. It is about special deals. It is about 
allowing a part of our country to be looted, to allow special interests 
to stick their hands in the pockets of ratepayers. That is what I will 
focus on tonight. This bill takes a drastic step backward. While 
complex to understand, it is critically important for my colleagues to 
know they cannot take the drastic steps in this measure that will 
overturn 70 years of case law, protecting consumers with just and 
reasonable rates.
  I talked a little bit about the Clean Water Act. I don't know that I 
have to go over that again, but I ask my colleagues, why make every 
other business in America comply with the Clean Water Act? There are 
probably lots of other industries in the country; yet they have to 
comply--if they want to develop--with runoff standards. Yet we will let 
oil, gas, and coal companies off the hook. They do not have to get a 
permit anymore.
  What is the price gouging that has gone on in this legislation? It is 
significant, and I will talk about that price gouging because it is 
very important to understand.
  I see my colleague from Florida, and I agreed to yield him some time. 
Would the Senator like that time now?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. If the Senator from the State of Washington 
would yield.
  Ms. CANTWELL. How much time does the Senator from Florida need?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Five minutes.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I yield, from my half hour, 5 minutes to the Senator 
from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I rise in the Senate to tell the Senate that I 
have concluded after studying this matter considerably that I will vote 
against this Energy bill, and I will vote against the motion for 
cloture because I have concluded that it is clearly against the 
interests of the State of Florida.
  I am going to try to point out two particular areas of the bill that 
violate what everyone should consider in supporting the interests of 
the people of the State of Florida. This is a map of Florida with stars 
on it in dark colors. Each one of the dark-colored stars represents a 
hazardous material spill and an MTBE spill. There are 30,000 hazardous 
material spills in our State. There are over 20,000 MTBE spills.
  In the dark of night, in a conference committee that was closely 
controlled, a provision was inserted in this conference report that has 
come back to us for consideration, that all liability of the oil 
companies would be removed forever on any of the contamination that 
came as a result of those MTBE spills.
  That simply is not right. It is not right to wipe out the ability of 
18 counties and cities in Florida that are presently contemplating suit 
to sue for those oil spills with MTBE, nor is it right that you would 
wipe out Escambia County's present suit--Escambia County, up here on 
the map, the cradle of naval aviation, Pensacola--that you would wipe 
out their present suit against the oil companies because of the damage 
that has been done to the water supply from the MTBE leeching.
  There is a lot in this Energy bill that I would like to support. 
There is a lot in this Energy bill that I have helped put in and that I 
will continue to support, such as the incentives for wind energy. That 
is certainly desirable. There is a major Florida investor-owned utility 
that has wind energy in other parts of the country. I want to help 
encourage that renewable source of energy.
  But I cannot take the good parts of this bill and overlook the kinds 
of things such as this: wiping out any liability of oil companies for 
the harm they have caused to the environment.
  Now, there is another major part I have considerable objection to, 
and that is the coastal parts of this bill. Under section 321, the 
Secretary of the Interior will be given broad new authority to grant 
leases, easements, or rights-of-way on the Outer Continental Shelf in 
areas where there is a moratorium against oil and gas exploration.
  It is the ``Holy Grail'' of Florida that we do not want oil and gas 
drilling off of our shores, not only for environmental reasons but for 
an economic reason. We have a $50 billion a year tourism industry, a 
lot of which depends on the pristine, sugary white beaches that we have 
in Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator for 2 
additional minutes just to complete my statement?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I yield the Senator 2 additional 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator from Washington.
  Mr. President, I simply cannot support an Energy bill that suddenly 
eases the process of permitting or weakens the Coastal Zone Management 
Act, weakens the process of a State to object to the Federal Government 
doing anything having to do with oil and gas leasing off of the coast 
or with regard to the permitting process with regard to oil and gas 
pipelines.
  That is inimical to the interests of Florida and causes me to come 
down on the side that even though there are lots of meritorious parts 
of this bill, which I will continue to work for, at the bottom line, 
this is clearly not in the interest of my constituency.
  So I thank the Senator for yielding so that I could state my 
position, after a very deliberate consideration of this complicated 
legislation. That is the way I will vote when these issues are brought 
up tomorrow.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida for his 
solid statement about the challenges facing us in drafting an Energy 
bill. The Outer Continental Shelf areas are somehow thrown up in the 
open as to whether they are going to be part of the policy discussion, 
whether States have rights, whether the development along those coastal 
areas is going to go through the normal process or whether industry is 
going to be able to just run roughshod over that.
  So I appreciate the Senator's statement.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I will try to be brief to explain why I 
have a major objection to this legislation as it relates to what we are 
doing or failing, I should say, to do to protect consumers from the 
Enron price gouging that has happened. I think it is an amazing story.
  Some of my colleagues were on the Senate floor earlier today talking 
about how part of the California crisis was that in California they did 
not pass on the cost of electricity to the retail side and somehow 
artificially suppressed demand. They asserted maybe that would have 
worked everything out.
  Well, let me tell you, in Washington State we paid the cost at the 
retail level because we have a lot of public power in Washington State. 
And we had a drought. It was the second worst drought in the history of 
our State. It just so happened when that drought occurred it was the 
same time that California had deregulated, and the spot market was 
going crazy, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has 
oversight of these issues, was failing to do anything about it.
  But public power has a requirement that they have an obligation to 
serve. So that obligation to serve meant they

[[Page 29915]]

had to go find power somewhere. Now, they had reserves. They had 
alternative plans. But they went to the marketplace to buy power and 
found out the power was selling at exorbitant rates because of the 
deregulation that happened in California and the fact that the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission was failing to take action.
  In fact, it got so bad in our State because of the high rates that we 
had, in the county I live in, 14,000 people basically lost their 
electricity that year. We had a 44-percent increase in the disconnect 
rate in Snohomish County, my home county, that year because of the high 
cost of energy. People could not pay their bills.
  Now, I know some people think: Well, bad decisions were made by a 
company, and that may not happen again, or somebody did not plan for 
enough power in the future. But we all know now that Enron manipulated 
these rates. They have admitted to manipulating the rates. The Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission has said they manipulated those rates. So 
we all know what has gone on in those situations. But I don't think 
America knows that people in my State are still paying on those 
manipulated rates.
  And my consumers are mad. They are furious. They are furious that 
this Energy bill not only fails to recognize we need stricter 
guidelines against market manipulation to prevent that from occurring 
in the future, but somehow this bill actually goes further in condoning 
those acts by saying it is going to try to preserve those Enron 
contracts resulting from manipulation.
  Let me give you an idea of what consumers have said to me.
  One of my constituents writes:

       We are writing to express our extreme concern regarding our 
     latest electricity bill. We have done everything in our power 
     to conserve, and that is reflected in our usage, which has 
     been down to a very minimal level. We have lived at this 
     address since 1979, and we cannot continue to live in 
     Snohomish County because the electricity bills are almost 
     greater than our mortgage payments. We are currently 
     considering moving.

  Another constituent writes:

       I just received my bill today. I tried to prepare myself 
     before opening the envelope, but, guess what, I didn't 
     prepare myself 6,000 times enough because my bill was $800. 
     That's absolutely crazy. We have lived at this address for 23 
     years, and we have tried our best at conserving. Where is it 
     going to end?

  So my constituents--and I could read many more. I could tell you how 
the Everett School District in Snohomish County ended up having a 
million-dollar increase in their energy budget, how small businesses 
have had huge increases in their energy budgets.
  It includes the grocery industry in the State of Washington--
everybody knows that grocery stores operate on slim margins and use a 
lot of electricity. Do you know what they have said to me? ``We are not 
going to build another grocery store in Snohomish County because your 
rates are too high.''
  And our rates are too high because we continue to have to pay on 
Enron contracts that Enron admitted they manipulated. Why is it that we 
have to continue to pay on these contracts?
  You would think that at least at a minimum the Energy bill would take 
a step forward and say: Let's prevent the kind of Enron manipulation 
from happening again. But we are not doing that.
  In this bill, originally Senator Domenici's proposal, roundtrip 
trading is prohibited. But there are other things we proposed: 
basically making sure people don't dodge price caps; making sure people 
don't falsify demand schedules, like the load shifting that happened in 
California; people who would go out of the region and then sell power 
back into the region; obviously, under the scheme Fat Boy, people were 
hiding some of the energy supply that they had--all those things are 
still allowed under this Energy bill.
  As much as my colleagues have tried to articulate this on the floor, 
somehow the other side of the aisle wants to ignore the reality: This 
bill is not dealing with the Enron manipulation schemes and blocking 
them from happening again. I don't see, just on this issue alone--if 
there was nothing else in the Energy bill--why people would support 
this Energy bill because of this policy.
  I ask my colleagues, I know it may not seem to you like an issue 
because it didn't happen to your State, but find me a Member on the 
other side of the aisle who would accept having a 50 percent rate 
increase for their consumers, not just for 1 year but for the next 5 
years because that is what we are paying. And we are paying on those 
contracts to Enron. I have a letter from a woman. I will not go into 
the details, but she basically ended up losing her job and having to 
move to a different area because of this.
  What is the real issue? These contracts have been manipulated. These 
rate are the increases. These are the numbers from 2002, but as I said, 
almost a 50 percent rate increase in Snohomish County where I live. 
Seattle City Light had a 60 percent increase. So we are talking about 
real dollars that my constituents are paying on these Enron contracts.
  Enron admitted they manipulated contracts. They admitted that they 
weren't just and reasonable rates and that they used all these schemes. 
You would think my utilities could get out of those contracts. You 
would think my utilities could reform those contracts. In fact, I am 
amazed; the Department of Justice actually went after Enron and got 
them to reform a contract as it related to a Federal entity, the 
Bonneville Power Administration, because they had the power of the DOJ 
behind them. But when my little utilities, which don't have the 
Department of Justice working on their side, tried to go to court and 
get those contracts reformed--no luck. They were sent to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, which got on a conference call with Wall 
Street investors, told the Enron company and their interests, don't do 
anything to negotiate and reform those contracts because basically we 
are going to rule in your favor.
  That is in a Wall Street Journal article. I ask unanimous consent to 
have it printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 31, 2003]

        Power Points: Second Thoughts on FERC's California D-Day

                            (By Mark Golden)

       New York.--Even though the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission's big day on California began Wednesday with a 
     400-page catalog of bad behavior by energy companies, the 
     second look by Wall Street was that things weren't so bad.
       FERC staff reported to Congress that Reliant Resources 
     (RRI) was significantly responsible for the high prices for 
     natural gas in southern California in the winter of 2000-
     2001, which may have cost consumers billions of dollars.
       Reliant and BP PLC (BP) did sham electricity trades, the 
     staff alleged, and dozens of companies used trading 
     strategies like the infamous ``Get Shorty'' stuff that Enron 
     Corp. (ENRNQ) used in California's power market. That was 
     illegal, staff said, and all those companies should be forced 
     to cough up any related profits. Refunds due California for 
     overpriced crisis-era power sales could be increased.
       But the ``D'' in what one Wall Street analyst has been 
     calling ``D-Day'' turned out to stand for ``dirt'': A lot of 
     ugly stuff that will make it hard for energy companies to 
     continue claiming as they have that there wasn't much funny 
     business during the crisis, but which isn't that horrible 
     from a financial or legal perspective for most of the 
     companies involved.
       Reliant's ``churning'' of the gas market, for example, 
     wasn't illegal, FERC staff said, and the conclusion that the 
     practice caused prices to rise required a leap of faith. The 
     Reliant-BP trades may cause BP to wonder if its trader rigged 
     a higher bonus, but they had nothing to do with the soaring 
     prices that prevailed during the crisis.
       FERC staff exonerated Williams Cos. (WMB) from claims it 
     manipulated the California gas market. And FERC commissioners 
     said they were going to take some time to decide whether 
     their staff was right about the Enron-like trades being 
     illegal.
       During the public meeting, the stock prices of several 
     companies named in the investigation fell hard. Most 
     recovered Thursday and again Friday as the smoke cleared.


                             mixed messages

       FERC's Donald Gelinas, who headed the investigation into 
     market manipulation for the past year, presented his findings 
     in the well-attended public meeting.
       After the meeting and a press conference, FERC Chairman Pat 
     Wood and Commissioner Nora Mead Brownell, the commission's 
     two Republicans, held a password-protected conference call 
     with a select group of

[[Page 29916]]

     Wall Street analysts. According to several of those present, 
     the commissioners conveyed the message that the staff 
     findings weren't that bad.
       According to one analyst on the call, the split approach 
     makes sense, FERC wants to present a public image as a tough 
     cop on the beat so that states and the U.S. Congress support 
     its push for advancing electricity deregulation. On the other 
     hand, FERC doesn't want to scare away more investment from 
     the decapitalized electricity sector, which is in desperate 
     need of new transmission lines and will need more power 
     plants soon in some regions of the country.
       ``It was the typical thing they've been doing--trying to 
     please Wall Street at the same time they are trying to please 
     California, and they end up not pleasing anybody,'' that 
     analyst said.
       Brownell discussed the prospects for the commission's 
     decision--expected but postponed on Wednesday--on whether to 
     abrogate long-term power contracts signed during the crisis. 
     She said there are likely two votes against abrogation on the 
     three-member commission, and that the commission will 
     hopefully issue an order in the next couple of weeks, 
     according to one analyst on the call, who took notes.
       Brownell's comments on the contracts were similar to what 
     was said in the public meeting, even if the latter tone was 
     more assuring to investors.
       Schwab Capital Markets energy stock analyst Christine Tezak 
     didn't agree that the commission has presented different 
     messages to different audiences. Instead, their discussion 
     with the analysts reflected the audience's primarily 
     financial concerns.
       ``For Wall Street, the whole blame game thing isn't that 
     interesting to us,'' she said. ``We want to know what actions 
     they took and what it's going to cost and when.''


                         ferc approach defended

       Observers shouldn't necessarily expect the messages of the 
     staff report and the commissioner's discussion with analysts 
     to be consistent, a FERC spokesman said.
       ``The intent was to get an independent fact-finding 
     analysis about whether Enron or any other company had the 
     ability to manipulate the markets for power and gas in the 
     western states in 2000 and 2001,'' spokesman Bryan Lee said.
       Chairman Wood wouldn't try to influence the outcome of that 
     investigation, nor does the investigation reflect his opinion 
     on the matters, Lee said.
       Still, a press release issued at the time of the report 
     promised ``tough action'' from commissioners based on the 
     report. Wood said that any doubts about FERC's role as 
     effective ``cop on the beat'' should be dispelled.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Enron is actually suing consumers across America. They 
are suing consumers in my State, in Washington, in Oregon, California, 
Nevada, Idaho, in the Midwest, in the East. The States on this map, 
those are States in which Enron is saying to utilities and to consumers 
and ratepayers: I am taking you to court to make sure you continue to 
pay on manipulated contracts because really you are going to be the 
deep pocket for these energy prices.
  It is just plain wrong. It is plain wrong that that is what America 
is dealing with and that this particular bill does nothing about it.
  Since the beginning of these contracts in my area, I have probably 
paid $700 on my own energy bill--$700 more than I would have paid if we 
would have had normal rates. Here is a check from me. It is not really 
my bank. It obviously doesn't have my bank number on there. But that is 
what I am going to next pay to Enron because of the fact that my 
utility can't get out of those manipulated contracts. My utility can't 
get out of those contracts. That is what everyone in Snohomish is going 
to have to pay, $370 more, even though we have already paid $796 more 
since the crisis began.
  There is another example of a woman in Snohomish County, where I 
live, who was trying to take care of her mother. Basically, she got 
laid off from Boeing. She got a utility bill for $605, nearly double 
the last bill she had. Her mother got a bill for $747. Her mother is on 
a fixed income. She only has $1,500 a month from Social Security, and 
she is supposed to pay 747 of those dollars out to Enron to foot the 
bill for manipulated contracts. And this body can't do any better than 
to condone those contracts and further protect them under this bill? It 
is amazing. It is truly amazing.
  So where are we on this problem and this issue? Just look at what 
ratepayers in my region have had to pay since 2001. The total my 
ratepayers have had to pay is $1.5 billion, over and above the amount 
they otherwise would have had to pay in the Northwest, all because they 
are stuck with long-term Enron contracts. It is unfair. It is unjust. 
It certainly isn't reasonable.
  What is the problem with this legislation in front of us? Again, you 
would say: That is an issue of manipulated contracts. You ought to go 
to court. You should figure out what the court has to say about those 
contracts.
  Actually, many of my constituents did go to court. Snohomish County 
PUD went to court. Enron turned around and countersued. Basically, the 
court said: You don't have standing here because this isn't a decision 
before our courts. You have to go to the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission. They are the people who oversee these issues.
  So when they went to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, they 
said: There is market manipulation, but we are not going to do anything 
about it. And, frankly, it is a problem, but our report only is going 
to demonstrate that there was manipulation and we are not going to do 
anything.
  So what we have had to do is really push on the fact that the Federal 
Power Act says there should be just and reasonable rates.
  This bill further amends the Power Act, and it basically says that 
these contracts should stand. It basically gives the contracts 
sanctity. It goes one step further than 70 years of case law and says: 
Even though the Power Act requires just and reasonable rates, we are 
going to guarantee these contracts. And FERC and the courts don't have 
to reform them ever, unless somehow someone can prove that a failure to 
do so is somehow contrary to the public interest.
  We are setting a whole new legal standard in this bill. We are 
failing to correct the Enron manipulations. We are failing to give 
direction in a key area of consumer protection. Not only that, we are 
changing 70 years of case law and saying it is OK to manipulate 
contracts.
  It is time to defeat this bill which supports Hooters, polluters, and 
the Enron looters that are gouging American ratepayers.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I congratulate Chairman Pete Domenici and his 
staff for bringing a comprehensive Energy bill to the Senate floor. It 
has many positive features. Unfortunately, on balance, the provisions 
he was not primarily responsible for, those that came out of the 
Finance Committee, are far too heavily weighted towards subsidies and 
mandates and require that I respectfully oppose the bill.
  Let me first mention some of the good in the bill. This is the part 
that came out of the Energy Committee. First, on the subject of 
reliability, since the year 2000, Congress has attempted to pass 
mandatory reliability standards. For some time it has been known that 
the voluntary reliability standards that currently exist were not 
adequate. This point was brought home in August with the blackout that 
hit New England and the Midwest.
  We know from the United States-Canada Power Outage System Task Force 
interim report on the causes of the blackout that First Energy failed 
to follow at least six voluntary reliability standards. The mandatory 
reliability standards in this bill will ensure that utilities cannot 
ignore the responsibility they each owe to maintaining the grid. It 
will go a long way toward keeping the lights on for millions of 
Americans.
  SMD delay, standard market design, the Government knows best, a one-
size-fits-all prescription for Federal domination at the expense of 
States and the market: This had to be stopped in its tracks before it 
cost consumers billions of dollars.
  The same bureaucrats who approved the plan that brought blackouts and 
skyrocketing prices to California, obviously, didn't learn their 
lesson.
  So we included a strong SMD delay provision in the bill. The message 
to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, is very plain: When 
Congress says no, it means no; and it says no rule before 2007. By 
that, we mean you cannot just slap another

[[Page 29917]]

label on SMD, such as WMP, or use a different legal basis, such as 
``just and reasonable rates,'' rather than discrimination, and then 
send the same straitjacket kind of a rule out the door. The same goes 
for standards of conduct rulemaking, a supply margin assessment test, 
or some other Federal Government regulatory scheme.
  Native load: The current stormy debates over how wholesale 
electricity should move and be traded in this country will mean nothing 
if we cannot guarantee retail customers, the families and businesses 
that pay their electricity bills every month, that when they flip the 
switch the lights will go on. The native load provision that I worked 
on with Senator Domenici guarantees Arizona's transmission lines will 
first be used to serve Arizonans and not just sold to the highest 
bidder. These are some of the good things in the bill. They are all in 
the electric portion of the bill that Senator Domenici presented.
  The bad comes from the Finance Committee on which I also sit, 
primarily in the form of tax subsidies. The conference agreement 
includes nearly $24 billion in tax incentives; most are tax credits. I 
advise my colleagues that the negotiating compromise process here was a 
curious one. The energy tax provisions in the Finance Committee this 
year totaled $15 billion over 10 years. The House tax incentives total 
$17 billion over 10 years.
  Mr. President, you would think that, between $15 billion and $17 
billion, there is a fairly obvious number there--$16 billion might have 
been the compromise between the House and Senate. That is not the way 
it works. The compromise between $15 billion and $17 billion was $24 
billion. Guess who lost in the compromise? The American taxpayers. How 
did you get to $24 billion? Well, obviously, there were a lot of votes 
that needed to be gained and that is how we got to $24 billion.
  Maybe there is another formula. The administration only asked for $8 
billion in energy tax incentives. This is three times that amount. 
Maybe that is the new formula for compromise in a conference committee. 
So that is not an appropriate number. It is way out of bounds. It is 
too much of a burden on American taxpayers for benefits that are 
dubious at best.
  Tax credits are not the most efficient way to set policy. They can be 
inefficient and wasteful. We should use them very sparingly. Tax 
credits distort the market and cause individuals or businesses to 
undertake unproductive economic activity that they probably would not 
do absent the inducement. They are, in effect, appropriations through 
the Tax Code; they are a way to give Federal subsidies, disguised as 
tax cuts, to favored constituencies.
  Here are some examples of tax subsidies in this agreement:
  Section 45, renewable energy tax credit: Cost, $3 billion over 10 
years. The conference agreement extends and expands the production tax 
credit for energy from wind and closed-loop biomass. It also extends 
credit to new forms of energy, such as solar, open-loop biomass, 
geothermal, small irrigation, and municipal solid waste. This provision 
includes energy produced from livestock waste and animal carcasses--so 
save your Thanksgiving turkey.
  Energy-efficient improvements to existing homes, $352 million, for 10 
years.
  Energy-efficient new homes, $409 million, for 10 years.
  Credit for energy-efficient appliances, $255 million, for 10 years. 
That is for washing machines, refrigerators, and the like.
  Extend and modify the section 29 credit for producing fuel from 
nonconventional energy sources, $3.1 billion, 10 years. Often, 
companies that claim this credit are not even energy companies. There 
is one I have familiarity with because Arizona tried something similar.
  Alternative motor vehicles incentives: Cost, $2.5 billion, 10 years.
  This agreement deletes a requirement that was in the Senate bill I 
got in for a study. Why did I do that? We found that the Arizona 
experience could have cost the State of Arizona hundreds of millions of 
dollars. I wanted to prevent that from happening here. We had a 
disastrous experience with alternative fuel vehicle incentives. This is 
a quote from the Arizona Republic when the Arizona Legislature repealed 
its alternative fuel program:

       Lawmakers gutted the disastrous alternative fuel vehicle 
     program . . . in a volatile and dramatic House vote, ending a 
     debacle that outraged taxpayers, panicked buyers, and brought 
     down one of the State's most powerful politicians.

  The repealed law, incidentally, paid for up to 50 percent of the cost 
of a car equipped to burn alternative fuels. The program could have 
cost Arizona $\1/2\ billion if it hadn't been repealed--11 percent of 
the State's budget. When proposed, the cost of the program was 
projected to be between $3 million and $10 million--less than 10 
percent of its true cost. So the question I wanted to study was, are we 
confident about the revenue estimates for our congressional provision?
  I have talked a little about some of the good and a little about some 
of the bad. Let me conclude by talking about the truly ugly.
  Ethanol: The ethanol provisions of the conference report are truly 
remarkable. They mandate that Americans use 5 billion gallons of 
ethanol annually by the year 2012. We use 1.7 million gallons now. For 
what purpose, I ask, does Congress so egregiously manipulate the 
national market for vehicle fuel? No proof exists that the ethanol 
mandate will make our air cleaner. In fact, in Arizona--and this is a 
critical point--the State Department of Environmental Quality found 
that more ethanol use will degrade air quality, which will probably 
force areas in Arizona out of attainment under the Clean Air Act. 
Arizonans will suffer as a result.
  Furthermore, according to the Energy Information Administration, this 
mandate, costing between $6.7 billion and $8 billion a year, will force 
Americans to pay more for gasoline. Nor is an ethanol mandate needed to 
keep the ethanol industry alive. That industry already receives a hefty 
amount of the Federal largess. CRS estimates that the ethanol and corn 
industries have gotten more than $29 billion in subsidies since 1996. 
Yet this bill not only mandates that we more than double our ethanol 
use, it provides even more subsidies for the industry--as much as $26 
billion over the next 5 years.
  Professor David Pimental, of the College of Agriculture and Life 
Sciences at Cornell, has studied ethanol. He is a true expert on the 
``corn-to-car'' fuel process. His verdict, in a recent study: ``Abusing 
our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process 
that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, 
subsidized food burning.'' It isn't efficient. The fuel is low-grade. 
And what is more, Congress, by going in for ``unsustainable, subsidized 
food burning,'' will impede the natural innovation in clean fuels that 
would occur with a competitive market, free of the Government's 
manipulation. These ethanol provisions, alone, dictate that I vote 
against the bill.
  So, Mr. President, in conclusion, while this bill includes several 
meritorious provisions, especially those negotiated by Chairman 
Domenici, I must vote against it because of the $24 billion in tax 
subsidies and the bill's irresponsible manipulation of the energy 
markets through the Tax Code and the ethanol mandate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are expecting 
Senator Graham as part of an order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Graham has 20 minutes under that 
agreement.
  Mr. REID. I will speak for a few minutes until he comes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. SCHUMER. May I be put in line after Senator Graham?
  Mr. REID. Will the Chair announce the schedule before the Senate as 
to what speakers will appear.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Graham is the last speaker under the 
agreement, with 20 minutes.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that following Senator Graham, the

[[Page 29918]]

majority be recognized if they desire, and then following that, Senator 
Schumer have an opportunity to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as we look around the world today, we see 
blackouts and we see wild price spikes in electricity markets. We see 
turmoil in the Middle East. We see global warming caused by fossil fuel 
emissions. We see air pollution that contributes to asthma attacks 
among our smallest citizens--our children. We see our parks that are 
smog-ridden. We see all these things, and we realize the United States 
needs a national energy policy with a purpose and a vision.
  We don't need more of the same old thing--more drilling, more 
burning, more shortages, more blackouts, more price spikes, and ever 
larger vehicles with inefficient engines. We need a national energy 
strategy that will protect our environment, provide a reliable supply 
of electricity for our consumers, and bolster our national security.
  Instead, we get a $75 billion grab bag that I believe has serious 
problems with the three P's--process, pork, and policy.
  The process of this bill was fatally flawed. The genesis of the bill, 
I believe, was hatched in secret almost 3 years ago by the Cheney task 
force and completed in secret just a few days ago.
  The usual policy--and we have tried to live up to that--is the Senate 
does a bill, the House does a bill, and both parties--that is the 
Senators from the Senate and Congressmen from the House, Democrats and 
Republicans--sit down together to try to work out an arrangement. In 
this instance, the ranking member of the committee, Senator Bingaman, 
who was also the former chairman of the committee, was not consulted. 
The first he saw the bill was when it was printed. The distinguished 
Senator from Vermont, the ranking member and former chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Jeffords, was not 
consulted, even though 100 titles of this legislation that is now 
before the Senate were under the jurisdiction of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee.
  The pork was best summed up by Senator McCain's description of this 
bill: Leave no lobbyist behind. It is shameful that two-thirds of the 
tax incentives in this bill go to oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy. 
This is an investment in the past, not an investment in the future.
  This bill will lavish more than $55 billion of taxpayer money on some 
of the wealthiest corporations in the world; namely, oil, gas, and coal 
companies. It would be better if the companies were all U.S. companies, 
but some of them are not even U.S. companies getting these benefits.
  The most disappointing aspect about this bill is its failure to enact 
a policy with vision. After pouring billions of dollars into oil and 
natural gas, we need to invest in clean technology, in a clean energy 
future. Sadly, this bill is more of the same old, same old. It 
endangers the environment; it does nothing to help consumers; and it 
will not break our dependence on foreign oil, a dependence that 
jeopardizes our national security.
  Let's start with the assaults on the environment that are included in 
this bill.
  There have been hours of speeches given in the last 2 days of how it 
endangers our water supply by granting MTBE producers immunity from 
claims that the additive is defective in design or manufacture and by 
weakening the leaking underground storage tank regulations.
  It allows large metropolitan areas to extend deadlines for ozone 
nonattainment areas to comply with the Clean Air Act, and it relaxes 
regulatory requirements for energy production on Indian reservations 
and public lands.
  It is beyond my ability to comprehend how anyone who is supportive of 
tribal sovereignty, reservations, and economic development with our 
Indian tribes could support this legislation.
  This bill also falls short of the real steps needed to guide America 
toward energy independence.
  For example, it is a great disappointment to me that higher fuel 
efficiency standards have not been included in this bill. If all cars, 
trucks and sport utility vehicles had a CAFE standard of 27.5 miles per 
gallon, the country would save more oil in 3 years than could be 
recovered economically from the entire Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 
A comprehensive energy strategy must include conservation, efficiency, 
and expand generating capacity.
  Certainly our Nation must promote the responsible production of oil 
and gas, but that doesn't mean we should sacrifice the environmental 
protections of our public lands.
  We can't drill our way to energy independence. America only has 3 
percent of the world's oil reserved, but we use 25 percent of the 
world's supply.
  This bill also fails to protect consumers.
  In the past few years, people in my home State and other Western 
States have experienced severe spikes in the price of electricity. The 
policies of the past are not the answer. Like Dorothy in the Wizard of 
Oz, the solution is literally right at our feet--under the ground, in 
the wind around us, and emanating from the Sun. In Nevada and other 
Western States, we have the potential to generate enormous amounts of 
electricity with geothermal, wind, and solar power. That is why I am 
disappointed this energy bill does not contain a renewable portfolio 
standard requiring that a growing percentage of the Nation's power 
supply come from renewable energy resources.
  I am proud that my home State of Nevada has adopted one of the most 
aggressive renewable portfolio standards of any State. It requires us 
to produce 5 percent of our electricity with renewable sources, not 
counting hydropower, by the end of this year. In 10 years, the goal 
jumps to 15 percent. We already have developed 200 megawatts of 
geothermal power, with a long-term potential of more than 2,500 
megawatts.
  Utilities in Nevada have also signed contracts to provide 205 
megawatts of wind power in 2 years, and an additional 90 megawatts is 
proposed. By some estimates, we could potentially produce more than 
5,700 megawatts from wind power--meaning we could meet our entire 
electricity needs with geothermal and wind. So I wish this bill 
included a Renewable Portfolio Standard.
  Thankfully, it does extend and expand the production tax credit on 
renewable energy resources from wind and poultry waste to include 
geothermal, solar, and open-loop biomass. I have spent years fighting 
for this tax credit, because it will give businesses the certainty they 
need to invest in geothermal and solar generating facilities. We know 
the production tax credit will work because it already has. With the 
benefit of the existing production tax credit, wind energy is the 
fastest growing renewable energy source. In 1990, the cost of wind 
energy was 22.5 cents per kilowatt hour. Today, with new technology and 
the help of a modest production tax credit, wind is a competitive 
energy source at 3 to 4 cents per kilowatt hour. I applaud the fact 
that wind, geothermal, and solar energy will receive a production tax 
credit of 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour.
  I had hoped the bill would provide geothermal and solar energy the 
same 10-year tax credit that wind energy enjoys, but a 5-year credit is 
a good start. The facilities to develop these energy resources are very 
capital intensive, and a 10-year tax incentive is needed to fully 
realize our renewable energy potential.
  Developing these renewable resources will not only help consumers, it 
will create thousands of jobs. And many of these jobs will be in rural 
areas that are desperate for economic growth. A report from the Tellus 
Institute, ``Clean Energy: Jobs for America's Future,'' found that 
investment in renewable energy could lead to a net annual employment 
increase of more than 700,000 jobs in 2010, rising to approximately 1.3 
billion by 2020, and that each State would experience a positive net 
job impact. This is why we must be bold. We must not cling to the 
fossil fuel technology of the past. We must explore and seize the 
potential of the future.

[[Page 29919]]

  I opened my remarks a few minutes ago by talking about all of the 
problems we see if we look around the world today. But I also see much 
that could be positive. I see renewable energy resources--the 
brilliance of the sun, the power of the wind, the eternal heat within 
the Earth. And I see the good old American ingenuity to unlock that 
enormous potential.
  With a little bit of incentive and investment, we can develop the 
technologies to efficiently develop our renewable resources. And as 
fantastic as it sounds, with the use of hydrogen fuel cells, oil will 
eventually be phased out as the primary transportation fuel.
  If we choose to invest in energy efficient and renewable 
technologies, we will create thousands of new jobs, we will protect our 
environment, we will provide consumers with reliable sources of energy, 
and we will bolster our national security. That is the vision our 
Nation needs. That is the leadership we must provide.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 20 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the Energy 
bill before the Senate today is the newest chapter in the book that we 
have been writing throughout this year. The title of that book is ``At 
War With Our Children.'' This legislation would represent another 
example of this generation taking the benefits of our profligate 
behavior and then asking our children and grandchildren to pay the 
cost.
  This chapter begins with the addition of over $30 billion in 
sanctioned appropriations and some $70 billion in authorized 
appropriations. This will be added to an already gigantic deficit. If 
it had been added to this year's deficit, it would have increased it by 
approximately 7 to 8 percent. This cost will be paid by our children. 
But this goes beyond just adding to the financial burdens of our 
future. It adds to the vulnerability of our children and 
grandchildren--a vulnerability that will be occasioned by the 
fundamental philosophy of this legislation, which is to drain America 
first.
  There are some small vows to conservation and alternative sources of 
energy, but the principle that lies behind this bill is to extract as 
much of our national treasure as quickly as possible and to accelerate 
the date when we will have depleted our domestic source of petroleum 
and other critical natural resources.
  Our generation gets whatever short-term benefits--physical 
maintenance of low prices of gasoline, the benefits to the oil and gas 
industry--that will come from this bill. But we again declare war on 
our children because they will end up paying for it.
  The great philosopher Yogi Berra once said:

       If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up 
     somewhere else.

  He can very well have been defining this energy legislation. For 
nearly three years Congress has been laboring to write a comprehensive 
energy bill and to deliver on our promise to give Americans certainty 
and security related to our energy future. Certainly none of us ever 
thought it would be an easy task, even under the best conditions, but I 
do not believe that we have made it any easier to achieve our goal 
because we have ignored what should be the guiding principles of this 
or any comprehensive public policy.
  We must start with a clear idea of where we are going, a map to guide 
us to that destination, and standards by which to measure our success. 
I would submit that if you look through the almost 12,000 pages of this 
bill to try to find what is our goal, where is the map that will guide 
us and by what standards you will measure our success towards that 
goal, you would find it an unrewarding effort. There are no such 
statements of vision, of means of achieving that vision, or of 
measurements of achieving that vision.
  At the beginnings of the hearings of the State Energy hearing, I 
advocated that we develop such a set of visions, maps, and measurements 
as we commenced our work on a comprehensive energy bill. There is 
simply no other way to draft a bill of such magnitude, importance, and 
promise. Without a specific purpose, this energy bill is lost in the 
wilderness.
  We can say that we have provided America with energy security, but 
what does that mean? Is energy security drilling America first and 
conserving fuel last? Is energy security ignoring the need for fuel 
efficiency while espousing the idea of decreasing dependence on foreign 
oil? Is energy security investing in targeted alternative technologies 
without setting timetables and goals and, at the same time, ignoring 
other promising technologies?
  Let me suggest what I think should be some goals of a reasonable, 
comprehensive energy policy. These would be illustrative of the kind of 
long-term goals that should be but, regrettably, are not the focus of 
this Energy bill. As an example, my goal No. 1 was that we must take a 
long-term approach to energy policy, establishing goals to reach for 
the next 50 years with milestones for each decade to guide our 
progress. We cannot be the generation that sets our national energy 
policy on a course which will inevitably result in totally depleting 
our domestic energy reserves by the time our grandchildren are adults.
  The United States is the model to the rest of the world. We should 
lead by example, using energy conservation and efficiency measures. We 
should husband our domestic reserves, particularly of petroleum, for 
times of international turmoil.
  Goal No. 2: We must wean ourselves from our unhealthy dependence on 
petroleum, both foreign and domestic. Current estimates show that the 
United States is consuming between 19 and 20 million barrels of oil 
each day. From the mid-1970s into the 1980s, use of petroleum sharply 
dropped in the United States. I propose we return to that path and aim 
to decrease the use of petroleum by approximately 10 percent over the 
next decade, with the ultimate goal of finding a cleaner and more 
efficient way of operating automobiles and expanding our transportation 
options such as high-speed rail.
  Goal No. 3: We must reduce our importation of foreign oil, which 
currently accounts for about 65 percent of the oil we consume. We must 
conserve our current use of domestic oil and gas in order to stretch 
their availability as far as possible.
  Under current levels of extraction and projected levels of use, in 
approximately 50 to 75 years, about the time our grandchildren will be 
our age, we will have exhausted our domestic petroleum reserves at 
current economic and technological levels of extraction.
  This is not a new problem, it is one that has been pointed out to us 
for more than half a century. In 1946, James Forrestal, then-Secretary 
of the Navy, said this:

       If we ever go into another world war, it is quite possible 
     that we would not have access to reserves held in the Middle 
     East. But in the meantime, the use of those reserves would 
     prevent depletion of our own, a depletion which may be 
     serious within the next 15 years.

  Secretary Forrestal's statement is remarkable for a couple of 
reasons. First, he was looking far over the horizon, beyond the short 
term, and trying to see what would be happening over the next 50 years. 
Second, he did not succumb to the mantra of independence from foreign 
oil through draining America first. Rather, he viewed use of foreign 
oil as a method of husbanding our domestic reserves.
  This Energy bill, with its drain-America-first policy, is a step 
backward from Forrestal's policy. It will assure that we deplete our 
own resources in the near future. Forrestal sets the examples of the 
kind of policy we should be making in this energy Bill today.
  Goal No. 4: We must increase the amount of renewable and alternative 
energy we use. This would include wind, solar, hydro, geothermal power, 
and municipal solid waste. It should also include clean coal and 
nuclear as alternatives to current fossil fuel use.
  Goal No. 5: We must eliminate our overreliance on a single source of 
power for electric energy generation. I am becoming increasingly 
concerned about our tendency to turn to natural gas to solve all of our 
energy woes. Clearly, natural gas has some significant advantages in 
terms of emission reduction, but we as a nation, in my

[[Page 29920]]

judgment, would be foolish to have only a single or even a single 
dominant source of fuels for our electric supply.
  The National Association of State Energy Officials estimates that 
natural gas used for electricity generation will increase by 54 percent 
between 2000 and 2015 as new powerplants are built and older plants are 
converted to natural gas.
  In contrast, our friends in Europe are making great strides in 
expanding their energy portfolios to include renewables. Denmark, for 
example, has a plan to eventually generate about 20 percent of its 
energy needs from wind power. The United States should take serious 
steps to include all available energy sources. One way to accomplish 
this would be to establish a national renewable portfolio standard. 
This simple measure would go a long way in putting us on the path to a 
sustainable energy future, by encouraging innovation in renewable 
energy technologies and by increasing the demand which would have the 
result of more efficient production. It would create jobs in America 
for Americans.
  Unfortunately, the Energy bill we are considering today ignores the 
renewable portfolio outright, even though Senator Bingaman's amendment 
to this effect was accepted by a strong bipartisan vote by the Senate 
conferees.
  Goal No. 6: We must provide Americans with a reliable electricity 
system. We all know that millions of people were affected by the 
blackouts of this past summer. What we do not know is how to prevent it 
from happening again. I am pleased that this bill begins the process, 
although distressed that this bill does not go as far as the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission has recommended to give us greater 
reassurance about the avoidance of August 14 calamities in the future.
  But there is even a more basic step we should be taking, and that is 
to accomplish the goal of a reliable electric grid, we must gather data 
about the current state of reliability.
  It is shocking to realize there is presently no national reporting of 
outages, which makes it difficult to determine the scope of the problem 
and the range of solutions. Electricity customers have the means to 
find information about the price of their electricity should we have 
such national data. They do not have such an opportunity today.
  I propose that consumers should also have the means to judge the 
reliability of the system that provides them their electricity.
  Goal No. 7: We should reduce the impacts of the use of energy on our 
environment. In the 1990s we proved that the American economy could 
grow while making meaningful progress to improve our environment. This 
means we should not drill America first without considering real 
conservation and real efficiency standards, as well as the effects of 
such drilling on the depletion of our domestic energy reserves. It also 
means striving to reduce carbon emissions.
  This bill does neither. It focuses, with laser-like precision, at 
giving big oil every item on its wish list while running roughshod over 
the rights of the States that depend on, for instance, healthy coasts 
for their economic security. Section 325 weakens the consistency 
guidelines of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
  Currently, States have the right to review proposed offshore projects 
and object if they find that these projects are inconsistent with the 
State's plans or policy. This Energy bill would impose severely 
restrictive guidelines and deadlines for decisions appealing States' 
consistency determinations. The practical effect of this would be to 
limit opportunities for States to comment and provide important 
information on issues which directly affect their coastal zones.
  Coastal States deserve to have a say in the fates of their shores. 
This is the basis upon which the Coastal Zone Management Act became 
law. This Energy bill includes provisions to get every drop of oil out 
of domestic reserves while refusing to improve CAFE standards for SUVs. 
With advances in technology, it is not difficult to improve the 
efficiency of vehicles while providing the other features that drivers 
want. Yet this bill creates the likelihood that fuel efficiency 
standards will continue to lag. We should resolve to move to at least 
the 35 miles per gallon level for new cars within this decade.
  The National Academy of Sciences says this is a reasonable goal. If 
we pursued this goal, we would lessen the impact of any oil 
interruption, we would sharply reduce the amount of money going to 
areas of the world where the cash might support undesirable activity, 
and, in addition, we would also make a significant dent in reducing 
greenhouse gases, an issue which is also ignored by this Energy bill. 
Any comprehensive Energy bill that doesn't commit to at least some 
reductions in the emission of greenhouse gases is not worthy of 
passage.
  Furthermore, this Energy bill goes one step further and actually 
rolls back important environmental standards. One example of this is 
the exemption of the hydraulic fracturing process from the Safe 
Drinking Water Act protection for drinking water sources. I have grave 
concerns about this action from public health, environmental, and legal 
perspectives.
  Hydraulic fracturing is a means by which certain energy sources are 
retrieved through the use of a heavy hydraulic process. The consequence 
of this is that after the useful materials have been recovered, there 
is a significant amount of water laden with materials which contain 
potentially serious carcinogenic and toxic substances. There are 
potential serious consequences for drinking water quality in areas 
where this hydraulic fracturing occurs. In many cases, the fracturing 
fluids being pumped from ground water contain toxins and carcinogenic 
chemicals. Diesel fuel is a common component of fractured fluids.
  The Energy bill before this conference permanently exempts the oil 
and gas industry from storm water pollution activities at construction 
sites. Since 1990, large construction sites have been required to 
control storm water runoff in order to prevent pollution from entering 
adjacent waterways, harming wildlife and impairing water quality.
  The irony of this is that the Senate will soon consider the 
transportation bill, the Surface Transportation Act. This act was 
amended in the Environment and Public Works Committee to mandate that 
States earmark at least 2 percent of their highway funds to deal with 
storm water runoff. While we are doing this to our public agencies, 
requiring them to devote substantial funds and attention to storm water 
runoff, we are permanently exempting the oil and gas industry at its 
construction sites from doing so.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes to 
complete my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, in the year 2003--this year--
smaller sites were to have been required to adopt the same pollution 
controls which, since 1990, have applied to large projects. Under 
industry pressure, the EPA issued a 2-year extension for the oil and 
gas industry. All other sectors, including small municipalities, still 
have to comply. This section of the Energy bill adopts a permanent 
exemption for all construction at oil and gas sites, including those 
sites that held permits for over 10 years.
  These are only some of the examples of environmental rollbacks in 
this Energy bill related to clean water, clean air, the National 
Environmental Protection Act, and other important enactments designed 
to protect the environment and the public health.
  The Energy bill we have before us today cannot guarantee Americans 
that their energy future is secure. Returning to the illuminating 
remark of Yogi Berra, if we look at this legislation, we begin to get 
some sense of where we are headed.
  With this Energy bill, we have written the next chapter in the book 
``War On Our Children,'' and it describes the next battle: Drain 
America First, overlook conservation measures, ignore strategies to 
reduce depletion of domestic reserves.

[[Page 29921]]

  The residue of these outdated ideas will undoubtedly stain the 
future. Our children and grandchildren will live in an America where 
water is more contaminated, where air is further clogged with 
pollution, where access to clean rivers and streams for drinking, 
swimming, and fishing will be diminished.
  The cost of this destruction is not only economic or environmental, 
it is societal. Future generations will be forced to fix our mistakes 
instead of focusing on a better tomorrow for their children and 
grandchildren.
  For these reasons, I strongly oppose this legislation and will vote 
no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
conference report accompanying the Energy bill. As I have often stated, 
we sorely need to develop a long overdue comprehensive energy policy 
for our Nation. The United States has a responsibility to develop a 
policy that harmonizes the needs of our economy and our environment.
  These are not competing needs. A sustainable environment is critical 
to a strong economy and a sustainable economy is critical to providing 
the funding necessary to improve our environment. We need to enact a 
policy that broadens our base of energy resources to create stability, 
guarantee reasonable prices, and protect America's security. It has to 
be a policy that will keep energy affordable. Finally, it has to be a 
policy that will not cripple the engines of commerce that fund the 
research that will yield environmental protection technologies for the 
future.
  The legislation we are discussing today is the key element in our 
effort to construct a viable energy policy. It will provide a 
tremendous boost to our economy, protect our environment, and create 
hundreds of thousands of jobs. Let me say this again. Passage of this 
bill will provide a tremendous boost to our economy, protect our 
environment, and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
  There are four huge reasons that my constituents in Ohio need this 
bill: Ethanol, natural gas, electricity and jobs.
  The fuel title in this bill will triple the use of renewable fuels 
over the next decade, up to 5 billion gallons by 2012. It will also 
reduce our national trade deficit by more than $34 billion, increase 
the U.S. gross domestic product by $156 billion by 2012, create more 
than 214,000 new jobs, expand household incomes by an additional $51.7 
billion, and save taxpayers $2 billion annually in reduced Government 
subsidies due to the creation of new markets for corn. In other words, 
we will not have to use the subsidies to farms to the tune of $2 
billion with this 5 billion gallons of ethanol.
  The benefits to the farm economy are even more pronounced. Ohio is 
sixth in the Nation in terms of corn production and is among the 
highest in the Nation in putting ethanol into gas tanks. Over 40 
percent of all gasoline sold in Ohio contains ethanol.
  An increase in the use of ethanol across the Nation means an economic 
boost to thousands of farm families across my State.
  Currently, ethanol production provides 192,000 jobs and $4.5 billion 
to net farm income nationwide. Passage of this bill will increase net 
farm income by nearly $6 billion. Passage of this bill will create $5.3 
billion of new private sector investment in renewable fuel production 
capacity, and expanding the use of ethanol will also protect our 
environment by reducing auto emissions which will mean cleaner air and 
improved public health.
  The use of ethanol reduces emissions of carbon monoxide and 
hydrocarbons by 20 percent. The use of ethanol also reduces emissions 
of particulates by 40 percent. The use of ethanol helped move Chicago 
into attainment of their Federal ozone standard, the only RFG area to 
see such an improvement.
  In 2002, ethanol use in the United States reduced greenhouse gas 
emissions by 4.3 million tons. That is the equivalent of removing more 
than 630,000 vehicles from the roads.
  Simply stated, this legislation is critical to our farm economy, 
especially in agricultural States such as Ohio. We need to get this 
bill finished.
  We are in the midst of a natural gas crisis in the United States. 
Over the last decade, use of natural gas in electricity generation has 
risen significantly while domestic supplies of natural gas have fallen. 
The result is predictable: tightening supplies of natural gas, higher 
natural gas prices, and higher electricity prices.
  Home heating prices are up dramatically, forcing folks on low incomes 
to choose between heating their homes and paying for other necessities 
such as food or medicine.
  Donald Mason, a commissioner of the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, 
testified earlier here in Congress:

       In real terms, the home heating cost this winter will 
     increase by at least $220 per household. That might sound not 
     significant, but during the winter season of 2002 to 2001, 
     one gas company in Ohio saw residential nonpayments jump from 
     $10 million a year to $26 million a year.

  As a result of these heating cost increases, 50 percent more 
residential customers were disconnected from gas service last year than 
in 2001.
  I have personally seen my own natural gas costs go from $4 an mcf to 
over $8 an mcf. Projections indicate that this winter could be 
devastating on the elderly and low-income families who are already 
struggling to survive.
  At a hearing last year, Thomas Mullen of Catholic Charities and 
Health and Human Services of Cleveland, OH, described the impact of 
significant increases of energy prices on those who are less fortunate.
  He said:

       In Cleveland, over one-fourth of all children live in 
     poverty and are in a family of a single female head of 
     household. These children suffer further loss of basic needs 
     as their moms are forced to make a choice of whether to pay 
     the rent, or live in a shelter; pay the heating bill, or see 
     their child freeze; buy food, or risk the availability of a 
     hunger center. These are not choices that any senior citizen, 
     child, or for that matter, person in America should make.

  Manufacturers that use natural gas as a feedstock are getting 
hammered due to the doubling and even tripling of their natural gas 
costs and are either leaving the country or closing their doors.
  Lubrizol, a chemical company located in Wickliffe, OH, which was at a 
manufacturers' listening session that I conducted a couple of weeks 
ago, is moving part of its workforce to France due to the tripling of 
natural gas prices in Ohio.
  The president of Zaclon, Inc., a chemical manufacturer based in 
Cleveland, testified earlier this year that increased natural gas costs 
have resulted in loss of sales revenues and increased total energy 
costs.
  The president of one major international pharmaceutical company 
stopped by my office--a company that has 22,000 employees in the U.S.--
and basically said: Unless you do something about natural gas prices, 
we are moving most of these jobs to Europe.
  Due to the natural gas crisis, the Dow Chemical Company, which is 
headquartered in Michigan, will be forced to shut down several plants, 
and they are going to eliminate 3,000 to 4,000 jobs.
  The American Iron Steel Institute reported that an integrated steel 
mill could pay as much as $73 million for natural gas this year, up 
from $37 million last year.
  An east Texas poultry producer reported that his poultry house 
heating bill jumped from $3,900 to $12,000 in 1 month, forcing him to 
decide between paying the bank or the gas company.
  High natural gas prices have resulted in the permanent closure of 
almost 20 percent of the U.S. nitrogen fertilizer production capacity 
and the idling of an additional 25 percent.
  The Potash Corporation, one of the world's largest fertilizer 
producers, has announced layoffs at its Louisiana and Tennessee plants 
due to high natural gas prices.
  The company spends $2 million per day on natural gas.
  I could go on and on and on about the natural gas prices. This bill 
is going to provide more opportunity to increase the supply of natural 
gas and help limit the exacerbating needs for natural gas in this 
country because of the fuel switching that is going on. The end result 
is a drag on our economy.

[[Page 29922]]

  Don't take my word for it. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan 
has testified before the Senate Energy Committee, the House Energy 
Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the Congressional Joint Economic 
Committee on the supply and price of natural gas. He did it this year. 
He stated:

       I am quite surprised at how little attention the natural 
     gas problem has been getting because it is a very serious 
     problem.

  This Energy bill includes several provisions to increase domestic 
production of natural gas and to ensure that we have a healthy, vital 
fuel mix for electric generation.
  It is vitally important for us to finish this debate and pass this 
bill in order to relieve the pressure on our natural gas supply.
  This bill helps provide money for clean coal technology and use a 
250-year supply of coal. There are some people in this country who want 
to shut down coal and force our utilities to use more natural gas. This 
bill will increase the use of coal using clean coal technology and take 
the pressure off of energy companies fuel switching to natural gas.
  Electricity is another issue for the people of Ohio. There has been a 
lot of conversation here on the floor over the last couple of days 
about the electricity title of the bill. Several of my colleagues have 
talked about the need to prevent blackouts such as the one we 
experienced in August. Let me say that as a Senator from Ohio where the 
blackout was triggered, I know about the need to prevent more 
blackouts. In fact, I held a hearing on this exact topic this morning 
in the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee. The electricity 
title in this bill explicitly provides the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission with the authority to establish and enforce with penalties 
new national reliability standards that will be critical in helping to 
prevent future blackouts.
  For my colleagues who are having a problem with this bill, I remind 
them that this title is so needed if we are going to prevent future 
blackouts.
  It also provides the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with new 
authority to site transmission lines, encourages utilities to invest in 
increased transmission capacity, and encourages utilities to invest in 
new clean coal technologies that will allow more electricity to be put 
into the grid without increasing the pollution put into the air.
  At the oversight hearing that I held this morning, I asked the panel 
of electricity experts from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
the Department of Energy, and the North American Electric Reliability 
Council what we need in order to prevent future blackouts. Their 
response was overwhelming: Enact the provisions in the Energy bill, 
especially the reliability standards.
  Finally, I want to talk about jobs created by this legislation. The 
Energy bill saves jobs. It will create nearly 1 million new jobs. The 
Energy bill will prevent the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, 
like the jobs lost in the manufacturing sector in the past 3 years, in 
part due to high energy costs, which I have discussed, and the 
devastating impact it has in my State, particularly manufacturing jobs, 
but jobs in all sectors, including manufacturing, construction, and 
technology.
  Where are these other jobs going to come from? Natural gas and coal, 
more than 400,000 direct and indirect new jobs will be created through 
the construction of the Alaska national gas pipeline, while at the same 
time bringing an affordable energy supply to the lower 48 States. 
America's substantial investment in clean coal technology creates 
62,000 jobs and ensures Americans new electricity that is abundant, 
reliable, affordable, and cleaner than ever before; 40,000 new 
construction jobs created by the construction of approximately 27 large 
clean coal plants; 12,000 full time permit jobs related to plant 
operation; 10,000 research jobs in the fields of math, engineering, 
physics, and science, with an estimated annual salary of $125,000. A 
lot of the research jobs will be created right in my State of Ohio.
  The renewable fuel standard in the bill will create more than 214,000 
new jobs and expand household income by an additional $51.7 billion 
over the next decade.
  Building a first of its kind nuclear reactor to cogenerate hydrogen 
will create 3,000 construction jobs and 500 long-term high-paying, 
high-tech jobs.
  A nuclear production tax credit will spur the construction of 
approximately four light-water nuclear reactors for a total of 6,000 
megawatts of clean and affordable energy. This construction will create 
between 8,000 and 12,000 jobs. Running the plants will create 6,000 
high-paying, high-tech jobs. The Price-Anderson renewal in this bill 
will protect 61,800 jobs and 103 plants nationwide.
  Again, renewables, incentives for geothermal energy will bring 
between 300 and 500 megawatts of clean and renewable geothermal energy 
on line over the next 3 years that will create between 750 and 1,000 
direct jobs and between 7,500 and 10,000 indirect jobs.
  The fact is, this is a jobs bill. It will also do something else: It 
will prevent the loss of jobs. Mississippi Chemical and Yazoo City, MS, 
filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in May due to financial 
losses attributed to the combination of depression in the agricultural 
sector and extreme volatility in the domestic natural gas area. In 
other words, plants are shutting down because of the high cost of 
natural gas. This will produce more natural gas in this country and 
take the heat off the rising cost of electricity in our country.
  I have heard a number of my colleagues during the debate savage this 
bill, claiming it will devastate the environment, that it gives oil 
companies a free pass for MTBE contamination, and that it contains 
porkbarrel funding for energy companies. Unfortunately, this rhetoric 
is just another example of the old adage, you cannot let the facts get 
in the way of good judgment or a good argument. I will address a few of 
those most outrageous claims we have heard.
  The first complaint raised by many of my friends is that the bill is 
bad for the environment. What are the facts? Here are the environmental 
benefits to this bill. By promoting greater efficiency and cleaner 
energy technology, the Energy bill will improve air quality, reduce 
greenhouse gasses, protect our natural resources, and provide a 
cleaner, healthier environment for the American people. The Energy bill 
will reduce environmental impacts by improving energy efficiency, 
conserving energy, and improving air quality to renew energy efficiency 
standards for energy-efficient products such as consumer electronics 
and commercial appliances.
  It will provide tax incentives for energy-efficient appliances, 
hybrid and fuel cell vehicles, and combine heat and power products. It 
will authorize $1.2 billion over the next 3 years for weatherization 
assistance programs to help low-income families to make their homes 
more energy efficient and permanently reduce their energy bills. And it 
will increase dramatically the LIHEAP money that we will need during 
the next couple of years for the poor and the elderly so that they are 
not literally out in the cold.
  It expands the use of renewable energy, requiring the Federal 
Government to purchase up to 5 percent of its electricity from 
renewable sources and encouraging the installation of solar panels on 
public buildings. It increases production of renewable energy 
resources, such as geothermal on Federal and tribal lands. It provides 
tax incentives for production of electricity from renewable energy such 
as wind, solar, biomass, and landfill.
  Under this bill, the tax credits include $5.6 billion of tax 
incentives for thermal and for solar energy. We are going to see, as 
many of my colleagues have asked for the last couple of years, a lot 
more windmills and a lot more solar panels built as a result of this 
legislation.
  It reduces the use of oil for transportation. It authorizes over $2.1 
billion for the President's Freedom Car and hydrogen fuel initiatives 
to help reduce the use of oil for transportation needs.

[[Page 29923]]

This is a big issue in this piece of legislation. I have heard some of 
my colleagues say it will not do anything to reduce their reliance on 
oil. I have already talked about the contribution of reducing reliance 
on oil in terms of renewable fuels such as ethanol, but what it also 
does is invests substantial money in fuel cells that need to be moved 
along in this country.
  As a Senator and as cochairman of the auto caucus, I have been in 
automobiles powered by hydrogen and that use fuel cells. This bill will 
start us on the way to a situation where my children, and for sure my 
grandchildren, will not be using oil to power their motor vehicles. We 
have to get on with it and get serious.
  It creates new markets for renewable fuels for transportation such as 
ethanol and biodiesel to reduce the dependence on foreign oil. 
Expanding use of cleaner energy technologies is another issue in this 
bill, and modernizing our electricity grid with policies that promote 
the use of efficient distribution generation combined with heat and 
power and renewable energy technology. It authorizes a 10-year clean 
coal power initiative to enable the use of plentiful domestic coal 
resources with fewer environmental impacts.
  It also improves the hydroelectric relicensing process to help 
maintain this nonemitting source of energy while preserving 
environmental goals.
  The second complaint we have heard about is it contains provisions 
that give MTBE a free pass from any liability. Now, what are the facts? 
First of all, Congress has considered liability protections in a 
variety of settings, including medical care and educational 
institutions. This provision recognizes that when Congress mandates the 
use of fuel components and when those components have been studied and 
approved by the EPA, it is reasonable to disallow a case where the mere 
presence of a removable system fuel makes it a defective product. The 
safe harbor provision is intended to offer some protection to refiners 
that have been required to use oxygenated fuels under the Clean Air 
Act. They are being required to do it. We told them to do it. The safe 
harbor provision will not affect cleanup costs; it will not affect 
claims based on the wrongful release of renewable fuel into the 
environment such as a spill.
  The suggestion is with the spills that are going on, we will not be 
able to sue those people responsible. Anyone harmed by a wrongful 
release would retain all rights under current law and would be able to 
recover cleanup costs just as they do now. Those responsible for 
releasing oxygenated fuels will be responsible for cleaning them up.
  Federal and State environmental statutes such as underground storage 
tank laws will still apply if gasoline is released and gets into a well 
or contaminates a drinking water supply.
  Critics have charged that this bill will throw all MTBE lawsuits out 
of court. They could not be more wrong. The safe harbor only applies to 
product liability claims and does not affect any claims that have been 
filed prior to September 5, 2003. In fact, at a hearing that I chaired 
on this topic in March of this year, we spent a significant amount of 
time discussing current litigation going on in Santa Monica, CA. The 
facts in this case are pretty clear. MTBE has contaminated the city's 
water, and the city has had to undergo costly remediation to clean up 
the contamination.
  In that litigation it is worth noting that the oil companies have 
paid millions and millions of dollars for the cost of remediation and 
to bring in uncontaminated water to that community. I understand Santa 
Monica litigation is moving forward. Most importantly, this legislation 
will not change any aspect of that case. It will not cause any claims 
to be kicked out and will most certainly not cause the case to be 
dismissed.
  Let me state this again: The safe harbor does not apply in cases such 
as this. It does not let the oil companies off the hook. It does not 
throw any litigation out of court. And it does not give anyone a free 
pass.
  Now, a number of my colleagues have come to the floor during this 
debate and announced they will vote no on this bill because this safe 
harbor provision is contained in the fuels title. These Members are 
announcing they oppose the ethanol package purely for this reason. 
Cynically, I would like to say that, in my opinion, such an 
announcement is a statement that some of these Members have picked 
trial lawyers over farmers.
  The third complaint that critics of this bill have lodged against it 
is that it contains unreasonable handouts for big energy and oil 
companies. What were the facts?
  The authorizations and tax incentives contained in the bill are 
geared to promote the kinds of energy that our friends across the aisle 
and on this side of the aisle are calling for.
  The bill includes incentives for renewable energy--$5.6 billion 
worth--such as wind energy, solar energy, and the use of biomass. As I 
mentioned, over 26 percent of all the tax incentives in this bill go to 
renewable energy.
  The bill includes incentives for clean-burning natural gas 
production.
  The bill includes incentives for clean coal technologies. These are 
the technologies that will allow utilities to continue to use coal 
without continuing to emit pollution into the air.
  The bill includes incentives for increased energy efficiency and 
conservation.
  I would like to read a letter that was sent to Senator Domenici. It 
is from the American Wind Energy Association, the Geothermal Energy 
Association, the National Hydropower Association, and the Solar 
Industries Association:

       Dear Senator, on behalf of the leading renewable energy 
     trade associations, we are writing to urge your support for 
     passage of H.R. 6. H.R. 6 contains several important 
     provisions vital to the future of our industries. Its passage 
     will help expand renewable energy production and spur job 
     growth in the United States in the immediate future. We ask 
     that you support the bill and vote in favor of any cloture 
     motion filed on the conference report.

  What is the downside of promoting clean-burning and renewable energy? 
Aren't these the same things that many have been attacking us for not 
including in the bill? This criticism is one more example of overheated 
rhetoric that, frankly, does not stand up to scrutiny.
  If we do not pass this legislation, we will continue to see the 
hemorrhaging of jobs in America, especially in States such as mine, and 
we will lose all of the potential jobs that I have just outlined.
  This is the largest jobs bill we have seen on the Senate floor in 
decades. It is my hope and expectation that the Senate will pass it. 
These issues have been in front of us for far too long--far too long.
  Last year, when this was brought up, I spent 6 weeks on the floor of 
the Senate debating the Energy bill. We finally passed it in the 
Senate, and it died.
  This year, we started out for 2 or 3 weeks and finally were able to 
enter into a compromise with the other side of the aisle and pass the 
bill that we passed last year so it could go into conference.
  We have worked very hard on this piece of legislation. It is not 
perfect. There are people who have problems with it. But, overall, it 
is a very good piece of legislation. The result of not passing it--God 
only knows what would happen.
  For example, this morning, when I had the hearing with the folks who 
are trying to do something about the blackout problem in this country, 
they indicated the only salvation for them is this Energy bill. They 
said: Please pass it, we need it now.
  If we do not pass it now, then when are we going to get to mandatory 
renewable standards, with penalties, and get on with making sure we do 
not have more blackouts in the United States of America?
  As I said, these issues have been in front of us for too long. Now 
that we are so close to the finish line, I ask my colleagues to vote 
for cloture on this bill, prevent a filibuster that will hurt our 
economy, cost us jobs, and hurt our environment. Most importantly--most 
importantly--we have never had an energy policy in this country. It is 
long overdue. It is long overdue. We need to

[[Page 29924]]

move on with this for the future of our economy, for our environment, 
and for our national security.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I appreciate that this debate is now coming to a 
close, and we will, evidently, vote on cloture tomorrow morning at 
about 10:30. It has been a long debate. It has been a good debate. I 
think it has been an elucidating debate. I think the longer we debate 
this bill, the more unfavorably it is looked upon by the American 
people.
  I would like to make one general comment about the process before 
getting into the substance of the bill. I have tremendous respect for 
my friend from New Mexico, Senator Domenici. He is a fine man. We have 
worked together on legislation. I think he works hard. I think he is 
dedicated.
  I have a very fond relationship with my former colleague from the 
House of Representatives, Congressman Tauzin, head of the House Energy 
Committee. We came into the Congress together in 1980.
  But no matter who it is, you cannot negotiate a bill with only two 
people in the room. Our ranking member from New Mexico, Senator 
Bingaman, was excluded. The Democratic side in the House was excluded. 
But it was not just the Democrats who were excluded; too, too many of 
the Members were excluded.
  Why is it that those of us in the Northeast, Democrats and 
Republicans, think this bill is so bad for our region and our 
communities? Well, maybe it is because when you have a Senator from New 
Mexico and a Congressman from Louisiana negotiating the whole bill, 
there is not enough input from other parts of the country.
  The beauty of the system that the Founding Fathers created--and that 
we have carried forward in our own fashion 215 years later--is that it 
understood those things, and it understood that we should not have a 
major bill negotiated by two people behind closed doors.
  The fact that this bill is teetering on the edge of survival right 
now, I think, in part, is because of the process by which it was 
constructed. I hope we will not do it again.
  If we should win our vote tomorrow, those of us who are arguing 
against cloture, I hope that the lesson will be learned. I hope we will 
have real debate and real conference committees.
  I also hope that, even here, we do not make the same mistake of 
passing last year's bill and then just saying, ``Let it go to 
conference,'' which was a mistake, I think, made on our side as well.
  The process works. It is long and slow and laborious, but it works.
  Again, a bill that has so many goodies for so many people--that such 
a bill should be teetering on the edge of extinction, I think shows we 
ought to go back to the process, the open process, the process that has 
Members of various parts of the country represented, the process of 
debate and refinement, because that ends up making better legislation.
  Now, I have a whole lot to say about this bill, but the hour is late. 
So I will just put my comments into two categories: one, what the bill 
contains; and, two, what the bill does not contain--neither of which 
makes me happy.
  What the bill contains: There are some good provisions in this bill. 
I am not going to get up here and do a diatribe against these little 
narrow things that are there for everybody. There are a few in there 
for my State, too. I think those sometimes are the grease that makes 
good legislation move forward, but alone they are not enough to carry a 
bill, alone they are not enough to justify a bill.
  Some of the bad things contained in this bill, as well as some of the 
things that are so missing from this bill, make a complete case against 
the bill.
  To me, the two things that are in the bill that should not be, more 
than anything else, are the ethanol provisions and the MTBE provisions.
  On the ethanol provisions, I would say this to my colleagues: We do 
have to find a substitute for MTBE. We do have to keep our air clean. 
And ethanol is a good way to do it. I am not against ethanol per se. 
What I am against is mandating ethanol for every region in the country 
whether it fits or not. Ethanol would be a good standard to meet the 
oxygenate requirements in areas where there is abundant corn and 
abundant ethanol manufacturing facilities. But in many regions of the 
country, particularly on the coasts, there is not. And there are better 
ways to meet the clean air standards.
  Refiners in my area say that by changing the blend and changing the 
method of refining, they can do just that without ethanol. And they 
will do that to meet the oxygenate clean air standards. But this bill 
has the nerve--that is the only way you can put it--to require them to 
buy ethanol anyway or at least buy ethanol credits. I have never quite 
seen anything like it.
  Ethanol is a very subsidized product with many different types of 
advantages. Corn growers get all sorts of subsidies. I am not against 
those subsidies. I think we need to have a farming community. And just 
as we need dairy farmers in New York, we need corn growers in the 
Midwest and other places. But I wouldn't dare require people in the 
Midwest to buy some kind of dairy product made in New York for some 
other purpose. I might subsidize the product and say: Go out in the 
free market and make it work. But I wouldn't force them to do it. This 
goes a step beyond anything we have ever done in this Chamber.
  If we wanted to help the corn growers and we are not helping them 
enough through the Agriculture bill, then let the Government do it. But 
the ethanol bill says to the traveling salesmen in upstate New York: 
You are going to do it. It will raise the price of gasoline 4 to 10 
cents a gallon in my area.
  How can anyone in this Chamber ask those of us from the Northeast and 
the West to impose that kind of gas tax on our constituents? It is just 
unfair. It is just wrong. I, for one, resent it. Again, if you want to 
subsidize the corn growers, do it. But not in this inefficient, unfair, 
regionally slanted way. Therefore, I very much oppose the ethanol 
provision.
  My folks can't afford another 4 to 10 cents a gallon, likely to be 7 
or 8 cents a gallon. Gasoline is high enough. We should be doing things 
to lower the price of gasoline. In that one fell swoop, all the good in 
terms of trying to produce alternative fuels will be undone.
  Probably even worse in terms of its egregiousness, in terms of its 
arrogance, in terms of its nerve, its gall, is the MTBE provision. 
Parenthetically, I say to my friend from Ohio who said it doesn't stop 
lawsuits, it certainly does. It doesn't stop lawsuits if the little gas 
station on the corner was negligent. But if you have lost your home to 
MTBEs, you are not going to get anything out of that little gas 
station.
  We know the only way that homeowners are going to get recompense 
here. It is through the oil companies, the producers of MTBEs. And 
those suits are prohibited.
  So it is small comfort to the thousands of citizens in Fort 
Montgomery or in Hyde Park or in Plainview, NY, different communities 
in different parts of our State who have lost use of water in their 
home.
  This is not just some environmental fetish. I have visited these 
homes. I feel for these people. Every time your child wants a bath or 
shower, you have to get in the car and drive a mile. You must use 
bottled water. For most of the people I know--these are middle class 
people, not rich people--the value of their home has been it. All they 
have been able to do is save for their home, and it is gone.
  Now you say: Well, we are just going after the oil companies because 
they have deep pockets. Bunk. The bottom line is, the oil companies 
knew, the producers knew this was harmful. And here is the rub: They 
didn't tell a soul. It is not simply that they didn't produce it, but 
they didn't tell a soul. When they sold the gasoline with MTBE to the 
gas station down the street, they didn't say: Be careful. They didn't 
say: If you sit on top of an

[[Page 29925]]

aquifer or a well, maybe you shouldn't use it. They didn't say: Make 
sure your tanks don't have leaks because this is dangerous stuff if it 
leaks into the water. They didn't say any of that.
  Had the oil companies, the MTBE producers, come clean and let people 
know that this might be harmful and that they ought to take remediation 
the minute there is a spill and deal with prevention so there wouldn't 
be spills, we would not be asking that they be sued.
  The analogy is to the cigarette industry in the sense not that the 
product was harmful, not even that people might have known it was 
harmful--that is probably true in each case--but, rather, that it was 
kept secret. It was concealed. People didn't have the ability, the 
choice, to prevent the harm from occurring.
  The suits have been successful. My friend from Ohio just mentioned 
the suit in Santa Monica. Hundreds and hundreds of suits like that will 
be stopped if we pass this legislation.
  I wish every one of my colleagues had come with me to Fort 
Montgomery, a little community in the hills overlooking the Hudson, a 
few miles south of West Point. The people there are mostly retired 
soldiers, not generals, rather, they are captains and majors and 
sergeants. It is a modest community. They worked hard for their country 
and they served their country. All they have is these little homes. And 
look at their faces. They all gathered one fall afternoon on someone's 
front lawn and talked to me. They are lovely people. They said: We 
don't want any money; we are not suing for money.
  This isn't one of these lawsuits where they say, ``Give us millions 
of dollars,'' and claim some alleged damage. I don't like those 
lawsuits. In fact, right now we are trying to put together a class 
action bill that would make the lawsuits fairer. But the lawsuits were 
their recourse. The oil companies were beginning to negotiate with 
them, either to put filters on their water or to help build a new 
system.
  If this bill passes, these people will have two terrible choices: 
Sell their home at maybe the half the value it was a few years back 
before MTBE leached into their water supply, or spend thousands and 
thousands and thousands of dollars each year, each taxpayer, to build a 
whole water system.
  Who is more to blame? The company that produced the MTBE and didn't 
tell people it was harmful, although they knew it, or these majors and 
sergeants and captains who served their country for years and have lost 
just about everything they have had?
  That story can be repeated in many parts of New York and many parts 
of California and many parts of New Hampshire and many parts of Iowa 
and many parts of America. We should not allow it to happen.
  As I said, I am not the leading advocate on our side of the aisle of 
lawsuits as a solution to everything. I would much rather see 
government regulation than lawsuits. But if there was ever a situation 
where lawsuits are justified, it is here.
  What is infuriating is we are giving the MTBE industry $2 billion for 
closing. My friend talked about the money for LIHEAP. It is good that 
it is in the bill, but it is an authorization. Every time we do the 
appropriations bill, we don't come close to the authorization level. 
That is not real money. Put that $2 billion into LIHEAP, real money. 
But here we are, instead, giving it to the MTBE producers for closing 
down.
  Do we give money to the little drycleaner shop that has to close down 
even though the blood and sweat and tears of the person who ran it are 
real? Do we give money to other businesses that have closed down, the 
thousands in my State, because maybe our country has not done enough to 
defend them from unfair trade practices? No. But not only do we give 
this industry $2 billion as recompense for closing down, but then we 
protect them from liability. This bill chooses those companies over 
tens of thousands of innocent homeowners. It is an egregious decision, 
and it shall not pass--if we have anything to do with it.
  Those two provisions are at the top of my list as the most egregious 
in the bill. I will tell you what bothers me just about as much. It is 
not just what is in the bill, it is what is not in the bill. As 
everybody who has come to the floor to speak has said, we need an 
energy policy in America. This bill is a hodgepodge of little things, 
without much of an energy policy. It is a stitching together of a 
coalition of individual ideas. I like the tax deductions for the 
renewables. The reliability provisions don't go far enough, as far as I 
am concerned, but at least there is a step forward there. But there is 
no real energy policy.
  Mr. President, 9/11 showed us many things, and one thing it showed us 
is that we have to be independent of Middle Eastern oil. The best and 
quickest way to do that is by some measure of conservation, and it is 
MIA in this bill. When China can pass CAFE standards more significant, 
more stringent than our own, this country is headed for a fall. If we 
cannot tighten our belts now, before there is a crisis, then something 
is wrong with the way our country is governing itself. Yet there is 
virtually nothing in terms of oil independence and conservation. Even 
the rather modest provisions that the Senator from Louisiana put in the 
Senate bill are gone. Again, on issue after issue, that occurred--issue 
after issue after issue.
  There is no real conservation measures, at a time when we cry out. If 
you ask experts what is most needed in terms of our energy policy, it 
is conservation. We can increase production, and we can try to do 
experiments with coal or nuclear or hydrogen or whatever you want, but 
those are 10, 15 years down the road. We can talk about the timetables. 
I disagree with my friend from Ohio on that. The quickest way to do it 
is by conservation. We are not doing it.
  Then we have the blackout in the Northeast. It cried out for a 
national grid to make our electricity system like our highway system, 
where the Government has direct and fairly strict oversight of the 
means of transportation--in one case of cars, and in another of 
electricity. And we do the most modest of steps--after we got a huge 
warning.
  The report yesterday showed how little oversight there is, how little 
coordination there is. One energy company in Ohio and one voluntary 
organization in part of Ohio dropped the ball. My view is simple. This 
ought to all be done not by the electricity companies, which have a 
dramatic interest against spending the money to make the transmission 
wires work because that is not where they want to make money. It is not 
a cost that brings them a big rate of return. We should turn that over 
to FERC and let them set the standards and require the companies to 
meet it.
  This bill doesn't come close to that. Once again, a shot across the 
bow, so close to us, and we do virtually nothing. The special 
interests--the Southeast doesn't want to be part of a national grid. 
Fine. They don't want to give up any rights or be governed by rules 
that might be good for the common good. Fine. The grid provisions here, 
better than much of the bill, leave so much to be desired and are 
emblematic of this bill. The special interests say jump and the bill 
says, How high? No energy policy. And the same with the problems we 
have had with deregulation and the sale of electricity out in 
California and in the West. I am not an expert on that, but my 
colleagues from California and Washington State have talked about that. 
We are MIA.
  So instead of a coherent energy policy, which the times cry out for, 
we have a mishmash of goodies, of nods in the direction of the best 
parts of the bill, and away from some very bad things that hurt many 
parts of our country.
  It is no wonder, Mr. President, that editorial pages across the 
country have condemned this bill in a way we have not seen in a long 
time. There is virtually no division. Frankly, I have not seen one 
article, one editorial--I have probably missed it--that defends this 
bill. The New York Times--probably the leading liberal editorial page--
and the Wall Street Journal--the leading conservative editorial page--I 
think on the same day said, ``Don't vote for this

[[Page 29926]]

bill.'' And they are joined by about everybody in between. That is not 
just the media ranting and raving and not understanding the realities, 
or being too much in their ivory tower, or on their high horse, which I 
will be the first to admit happens all the time. That is because there 
is something wrong with this bill.
  So it is my view that we are better off going back to the drawing 
board, open up the process, include the ranking member from New Mexico 
of the committee, and include the members of the committee, debate the 
bill even if it takes a few weeks. I guarantee you that we will get a 
much better bill.
  This bill is an overall negative for what it contains and for what it 
doesn't. We can and must do a lot better. If we defeat cloture 
tomorrow, we will.
  I yield the floor and 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. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________