Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2003

Mr. President, it is difficult to oppose a bill that has a number of provisions that I not only support, but worked to have included in the bill. However, the process and the product are deeply flawed and I cannot support it.

There are many objectionable provisions that were added to this bill that were not in either the House or Senate versions of this legislation; for instance the retroactive MTBE liability waiver, underground storage tank provisions that would require taxpayers, rather than polluters, to pay $2 billion to clean up leaking underground storage tanks containing gasoline and other toxic chemicals, even at sites where viable responsible parties are identifiable, and the numerable State-specific projects that will cost billions of dollars and were, again, not considered by the House or the Senate.

The Senate passed a comprehensive and balanced Energy bill in July. Then, after weeks of closed-door meetings with virtually no input from Democratic conferees, the Republicans put forward this ``take it or leave it'' Energy bill that is drastically different than the bill that the Senate passed. We have no opportunity to amend this bill, or choose among its good and bad provisions. It is all or nothing.

There are simply too many provisions on the negative side of the ledger. The massive power failure of August 2003, on top of the massive price manipulation perpetrated by Enron and others, provided additional proof, proof that shouldn't have been needed, that the United States' deregulated energy markets are not functioning well. This bill doesn't help that problem. It may make it worse.

The Conference report would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company

Act of 1934, PUHCA, longstanding consumer and investor protection legislation governing energy industry structure and consolidation, 1 year after enactment of this bill. Unfortunately, the bill fails to provide adequate protections to prevent industry market manipulation and consumer abuses. Governor Granholm of Michigan has said that replacing PUHCA with ``weaker anti-fraud and market manipulation rules'' could weaken the States' ability to protect consumers. Further, while the enactment of this legislation's mandatory reliability provisions would be an improvement over the current voluntary system of standards, the bill fails to ensure that regional transmission organizations will have the authority to enforce those standards in order to prevent, or respond effectively to, another blackout. Uncertainty in the power industry threatens our economy and security and creates the loss of investor confidence in U.S. energy markets. If necessary, we should adopt a stand-alone bill that sets mandatory reliability standards, requires utilities to join regional transmission organizations and establishes consistent rules for the enforcement of standards nationwide than pass an Energy bill filled with so many harmful provisions.

In addition, two provisions in this conference report would significantly impede the ability of Federal and State agencies to investigate and prosecute fraud and price manipulation in energy markets. These provisions would make it easier to manipulate energy markets without detection.

Section 1281 of the electricity title states: ``Any request for information to a designated contract market, registered derivatives transaction execution facility, board of trade, exchange, or market involving accounts, agreements, contracts, or transactions in commodities (including natural gas, electricity and other energy commodities) within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission shall be directed to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.'' Section 332(c) of the oil and gas title contains similar language specifically applicable to investigations by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC.

If adopted, this would curtail all State and Federal authority, other than CFTC, to investigate wrongdoing in CFTC-regulated markets. This would impede FERC, Department of Justice, and State investigations of fraud and manipulation in these markets. It would turn the CFTC into an impediment for all other Federal and State investigations into matters within CFTC-regulated markets, which would be an unprecedented intrusion into the enforcement of State and Federal consumer protection laws. Had this approach been in effect in recent years, FERC would not have been able to investigate manipulation of the energy markets, including the fraud and manipulation perpetrated by Enron through EnronOnline.

Section 1282 of the electricity title would impose a higher criminal standard, ``knowingly and willfully,'' for filing false information and for improper round trip trading than exists under current law. The new round trip trading provision is inconsistent with current law and the Cantwell amendment, which prohibited market manipulation in electricity markets, and which recently passed the Senate.

For example, section 4c of the Commodity Exchange Act states it is ``unlawful for any person to enter into . . . a transaction . . . involving the purchase or sale of any commodity for future delivery'' if the transaction ``is, of the character of, or is commonly known to the trade as a `wash sale' or . . . is a fictitious sale.'' There is no requirement that the violation be ``willful.''

Manipulation is difficult to prove even under current law. By raising the burden of proof, this provision will make it nearly impossible to prove illegal round trip trading or wash sales. Rather than weakening the laws preventing fraud and manipulation in energy markets, the Congress should be strengthening these prohibitions.

There are other provisions that would affect FERC's ability to ensure markets are transparent and fair.

The ``Enron loophole'' was attached during the conference on an omnibus appropriation bill in 2000, and was a factor underlying the massive manipulation of the energy markets in 2000 and 2001. The provisions in this bill, attached under hurried circumstances would widen the loophole and increase the chances of more manipulation and dysfunctional markets. This is the wrong response to the current crisis of confidence and integrity in our energy markets.

I am also disappointed that the conference report on this bill directs the Department of Energy, DOE, to ``as expeditiously as practicable, acquire petroleum in amounts sufficient to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the [1 billion] barrel capacity,'' but does not include any direction to DOE to fill the SPR in a manner that minimizes the cost to the taxpayer or maximizes the overall supply of oil in the United States. That second direction is critical--otherwise the filling of the SPR could lead to continuing high gas prices.

The Levin-Collins amendment, which was adopted unanimously by the Senate last month, directed DOE to develop procedures to fill the SPR in a manner that minimizes the cost to the taxpayer and maximizes the overall supply of oil in the United States. The Levin-Collins amendment expressed the sense of the Senate that the DOE's current procedures for filling the SPR are too costly for the taxpayers and have not improved our overall energy security.

DOE's internal documents state that filling the SPR without regard to the price and supply of oil in the global markets exacerbates price problems in those markets. By increasing demand for oil at a time when oil is in scarce supply, the SPR program pushes the price of oil up even further. Moreover, when near-term prices are higher than future prices, oil companies will meet the additional demand for crude oil by removing oil from their own inventories rather than purchasing high- priced oil on the spot market. Thus, under these price conditions, which have generally prevailed over the past year and a half, adding oil to the SPR will lead to a corresponding decrease in private sector inventories. Since market prices are so closely tied to inventory levels, filling the SPR under these market conditions both depletes private sector inventories and pushes up prices for America's consumers.

Furthermore, according to the Department of Energy's own analyses, taking costs into consideration--as the DOE did prior to early 2002-- can save taxpayers several hundreds of millions of dollars over the span of a few years. Acquiring more oil when prices are low will increase revenues to the Treasury from the sale of high-priced royalty oil that is not needed to fill the SPR. Secondly, allowing oil companies to defer deliveries to the SPR when prices are high in return for the delivery of additional barrels of oil at a later date--as DOE did prior to early 2002--enables the DOE to increase the amount of oil in the SPR without any additional costs.

In summary, the unqualified direction in the bill to DOE to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to 1 billion barrels is likely to increase the cost of crude oil and crude oil products, such as gasoline, home heating oil, and diesel and jet fuel, to American consumers and businesses, as well as to the taxpayer, with uncertain benefits to our national security.

Also, while I support the provision in this legislation that would increase the use of ethanol to 5 billion gallons by 2012 and 3.1 billion gallons by 2005, it needs to be reasonable in a way that ensures the continued viability of the Highway Trust Fund.

Twice the Senate passed legislation that included a Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit, VTEEC, that would address the shortfall in revenue to the Highway Trust Fund that was caused by the ethanol tax exemption. In addition to taxing ethanol, the VTEEC, as passed by the Senate, would maintain the credit for ethanol production by paying for it from the general treasury, create a biodiesel credit and ensure that all taxes charged on ethanol go to the highway trust fund.

Unfortunately, the arrangement worked out by House and Senate Republicans gives ethanol blenders the new option to receive a 5.2 cent tax credit after paying the federal gas tax or they could continue receiving the current ethanol exemption of 5.2 cents. Since most blenders likely would continue to choose to receive the exemption up front rather than wait for a tax

credit, the highway trust fund would still lose billions of dollars per year. Efforts by Senator Baucus to address this problem were approved by the Senate conferees, but was refused by the House. While I support increased ethanol production, it is imperative that increased ethanol production does not diminish the Highway Trust Fund.

Additionally, I am troubled that this legislation exempts producers of MTBE from liability. MTBE, an oxygenate that can and should be replaced by ethanol, is a potentially harmful product and its producers should not be exempt from liability. In Michigan, it has been estimated that MTBE has contaminated ground water around over 700 leaking underground storage tank sites. Further, as many as 22 water supply wells have been deemed unusable due to MTBE contamination. Because of this MTBE liability waiver, the State of Michigan may have to pay over $200 million to clean up those sites. Governor Granholm has strongly protested that we need to hold manufacturers accountable for the damage that MTBE does to public health and the environment, not guard them from liability which then allows them to pass the cleanup costs on to the States.

As I stated earlier, this bill has a number of provisions that I support and that I worked to have included in it. These include tax credits for advanced technology vehicles and joint research and development between the Government and the private sector to promote the expanded use of advanced vehicle technologies. But in the end, the good provisions must be weighed against the large number of bad provisions, and there are too many objectionable provisions for me to support this bill.

The Senate has worked to create a national energy policy for years. In just a few weeks, without bipartisan negotiation, this piece of legislation was created. We should work to complete a long-term, comprehensive energy plan that provides consumers with affordable and reliable energy, increases domestic energy supplies in a responsible manner, invests in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources and protects the environment and public health.

Mr. President, I rise in the strong opposition to the bill before us, the conference Energy Policy Act of 2003. The bill before us is a pork-laden, budget-busting, fossil-fuel promoting vestige of the past, developed largely in secret by a handful of GOP Members. This legislation is a mere shadow of what it was and could be.

This could have been a proud moment for this Congress and for the Nation. Rather than caving to special interests and wallowing in pork barrel politics, we could have risen to the challenge and met our obligation to help prevent such crises as the Enron energy scandal and the blackout of 2003 from reoccurring. We could have acted to promote our economic prosperity, strengthen our national security, and protect the health and welfare of all Americans through bold, balanced legislation. We could have finally tackled global warming--the greatest environmental challenge of our time. We could have considered a real jobs bill, based on opening new markets and spurring new technologies. We could have set American energy policy on a better, brigther course.

Instead, we are stuck with this--a sewer of an Energy bill. The bill that has emerged from the closed door, Republican-only conference, and which we consider today is a legislative disaster. Sadly, it bears little resemblance to the balanced, bipartisan legislation that passed the Senate last July. The Senate bill, which originally passed this body in the 107th Congress, strengthened our national security, safeguarded consumers, and protected the environment, and was developed in open, meaningful, bipartisan fashion.

Before I move to the substance of the conference bill, I must offer a few harsh words with the process of GOP majority employed to produce it. In all my time in the Senate, I have never witnesses a more unfair and unstatesmanlike spectacle. With the exception of the tax provisions of this bill, in which Senator Grassley seized every possibility to involve his Democratic colleagues, this is a thoroughly partisan product.

Here is the way the conference went: One conference meeting at which Democratic conferences offered opening statements only: complete shut out of Democratic conferences from negotiations over the substance of the bill: a few staff-level meetings for show after policy decisions had already been made and reflected in GOP-only developed text; special-interest lobbyists exerting extraordinary influence over the bill; release of a more than 1,000-page document only 48 hours before the scheduled meeting to adopt it--40 percent or more of which was new text. It is inconceivable to me that legislation of this import was developed this way. Quite simply, this process afforded no real opportunity for Democrats to influence the final product and no opportunity for the American public--whom this body is charged to represent--to view and comment on the final product. I second the comments of many of my Democratic colleagues that we will never be subject to a conference like this again.

In dissecting the pork-laden bill that emerged from the smoke-filled back rooms of the conference committee, let me first highlight one provision of extraordinary importance to the State of Connecticut. Connecticut has worked for decades to ensure that the construction and operation of natural gas pipelines and electric cables across our national treasure, the Long Island Sound, fully comply with State and Federal environmental and energy laws. The bill before us contains a provision to permanently activate the Cross Sound Cable--a provision that did not appear in either the House or the Senate bill and as to which no one received advance notice. The Cross Sound Cable had been temporarily activated by Federal order in emergency response to the summer's massive blackout, but had been prevented from permanent activation by the State of Connecticut until it complies with State laws. So much for States rights and environmental and consumer protection. Shameful.

That is only the tip of the iceberg. Let me review the most egregious offenses buried in this bill.

First, subsidies and giveaways to industries and special interests. My good friend, Senator McCain, has labeled this bill the porkiest of the porkbarrel, budget-busting bills. CBO estimates that the bill will cost more than $30 billion in industry tax incentives and direct spending. Taxpayers for Common Sense has estimated that it will cost in excess of $90 billion. This stunning price tag includes millions of dollars in direct incentive payments to mature energy industries, including payments to undertake equipment upgrades they would have to do anyway. The bill authorizes $1.1 billion for a nuclear reactor in Idaho to demonstrate uneconomic hydrogen production technologies. It has loan guarantees to build coal plants in several States, provided as last-minute sweeteners to secure Senatorial support for the bill. The bill contains interesting new ``green bonds'' for five projects throughout the country, by which projects would get financial benefits for ``green'' construction of primarily shopping centers. One project, in Shreveport, LA includes a new Hooters restaurant. Is this groundbreaking energy legislation? How can we approve legislation gushing money this way given the mushrooming budget deficit? Our neediest citizens will surely pay the cost.

Second, inadequate consumer protections. The bill does not adequately protect consumers against utility mergers and electricity market manipulation. For example, broad, effective prohibitions against price gouging schemes used by Enron and other energy trading firms, which passed the Senate 57 to 40 earlier this month, are excluded from the bill. The legislation repeals the requirements of the Public Utility Holding Company Act, PUHCA, without putting adequate consumer protections in place.

Third, electric transmission line and natural gas pipeline and construction. The bill allows the Secretary of Energy to determine the siting of transmission lines through Federal lands, including national forests and national monuments, except those in the National Park System, over the objection of the responsible Federal agency. The bill overrides State energy and environmental legal authorities to give the Federal Government power to site and construct transmission lines and natural gas pipelines.

Fourth, MTBE liability protection. In a provision added in conference to benefit companies primarily based in Louisiana and Texas, the bill provides retroactive and prospective liability protection for producers of methyl tertiary-butyl ether, MTBE, cutting off the rights of injured Americans across the country and imposing a huge financial burden for cleanup on our States and local communities. Simply unbelievable.

Fifth, environmental protection rollbacks and giveaways. The icing on the cake for this bad bill is the significant environmental protections it strips away for the benefit of energy producers. The bill also contains new provisions to make our air much dirtier. The conference bill would exempt metropolitan areas from meeting the Clean Air Act's ozone-smog standard. This issue was never considered by the Senate or the House and was inserted into the conference report during ``conference committee'' meetings. A new report from Clean the Air reveals that the ill-conceived Energy bill would have severe public health consequences around the country, especially for children. Delays in implementing the Clean Air Act could lead to nearly 5000 hospitalizations due to respiratory illness and more than 380,000 asthma attacks and 570,000 missed school days each year. The bill exempts all construction activities at oil and gas drilling sites from coverage under the Clean Water Act and removes hydraulic fracturing, an underground oil and gas recovery method, from coverage under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The conference bill expedites energy exploration and development at the expense of current National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, requirements. Environmental review is waived for all types of energy development projects and facilities on Indian land.

I want to be fair. The conference bill does contain provisions that make limited progress--baby steps only--toward achieving energy goals. And the bill recognizes the political reality that the Senate has spoken forcefully to the fact that it will not permit the Bush administration to drill in another of our Nation's treasures, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. You can search the bill to find requirements for renewable fuels, (increase in sales of renewable fuels, including ethanol, from 2 billion gallons to 5 billion gallons by 2012); Federal energy efficiency standards for energy use and appliances; increase in Federal Government purchase of renewable energy, 7.5 percent of electricity from sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass; funding for energy research and development, including related to hydrogen fuels; and limited tax incentives for alternative vehicles, renewable energy sources, and energy efficiency. That is why some of my colleagues claim this bill articulates an energy program for the 21st century. Hogwash. These weak provisions do not even register on the scale against the predominant special interest, fossilized provisions of the conference bill.

What is this bill missing? Frankly, the list is staggering. I have time to highlight five key areas:

First, renewable portfolio standards. Our Senate-passed bill required utilities to generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewable energy facilities by 2020. Such a provision would spur new technology development and work to wean the country off foreign oil dependence and the drilling-first-and-only mindset that has predominated American energy policy for generations. In addition, the majority touts this bill as a great jobs creation bill; according to studies of the Tellus Institute and Union for Concerned Scientists, the renewable industry would create new, sophisticated job opportunities for hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Second, climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels threaten not only our environment, but also our economy and our public health. Should we continue unabated our current rate of polluting, we threaten to disrupt the delicate ecological balance on which our livelihoods and lives depend. This bill is so short-sighted that it contains no provisions of any kind to address climate change.

Third, fuel economy improvements. No credible Energy bill can lack means to improve fuel economy for automobiles and trucks. This is key to reducing our dependence on foreign oil because the transportation sector is the single largest user of petroleum.

Fourth, oil savings provision and specific hydrogen standards. Amendments agreed to by the Senate last summer contained provisions with specific deadlines--real teeth--to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and to move us to the hydrogen fuel program of the future. Neither appears in this bill.

Fifth, Alaska natural gas pipeline. I strongly support the construction of this pipeline, which will bring millions of gallons of natural gas to the lower 48 States and create almost half of the new jobs, 400,000, touted under this bill. The conference bill, however, fails to provide the necessary incentives to enable construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline, which would prevent the U.S. from becoming more dependent on natural gas imports.

This abominable bill must not be made law. Any Senator serious about advancing America's energy and environmental policies and curtailing Government waste is compelled to vote against the Energy bill before us. We can and must do better. Americans deserve a real Energy bill, one that we can be proud of. This is not it. Let us reject this legislation and return to the drawing board, recommitting ourselves to producing a balanced, innovative, and responsible energy policy for the 21st century.

Mr. President, I want to take time to comment on the Energy bill before us today.

It is disappointing that such a massive bill could do so little to promote our energy independence, national security, economy, or environment. It does nothing to protect our rate-payers from the type of energy crisis we faced in the Pacific Northwest and California. Those who claim otherwise are simply masking the real mission of this bill which is a taxpayer giveaway to the big energy companies.

A 1,200-page bill has much to comment on, but I will not take time to detail every concern I have. I want to discuss the electricity title, the lack of a true energy policy, and threats to our environment.

First let me discuss the electricity title of the bill. For those of us from the Pacific Northwest this title was of the utmost concern.

For over 2 years the Pacific Northwest has been struggling against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's, FERC, effort to deregulate the transmission system through its promotion of regional transmission organizations, RTOs, and standard market design, SMD, rules.

Two simple points: First, FERC had proposed a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist in the Pacific Northwest. Second, the one- size-fits-all approach being promoted by FERC would neither work nor be cost-effective in our unique hydropower based system.

With those concerns in mind I have been working with many of my colleagues in the Pacific Northwest and Southeast, who have similar regional concerns, to keep FERC from moving forward with these plans. I am pleased that the bipartisan group has been successful in delaying until 2007 FERC's ability to move forward with SMD.

While the bill delays SMD implementation, it does not permanently stop FERC from ultimately pursuing this power grab, and does nothing to stop RTO development.

In fact, the bill is an outright endorsement of the RTO plan, going so far as to provide incentives to utilities for joining such transmission organizations.

FERC has not demonstrated that such a system in the Pacific Northwest will be an economic benefit to the region and, to date, the majority of Washington State utilities remain opposed to the RTOs. Even with the SMD delay provision, this bill is a threat to the electricity system of the Northwest, and I cannot add my voice to this bill's support of RTOs.

Also of great concern in the electricity title is the bill's failure to deal with market manipulation. The Pacific Northwest and California are still feeling the direct effects of the 2000-2001 energy crisis that we now know was caused, in large measure, by energy companies manipulating prices.

Given the lessons we have learned over the past 3 years, one would have hoped that this Energy bill would aggressively attack these known methods of market manipulation. But that is not the case. This bill only bans one type of manipulation and ignores all the other methodologies we know were used.

By remaining virtually silent on market manipulation, this bill is giving a nod to energy companies to once again employ Fat Boy, Get Shorty, and other infamous price-gouging schemes.

This bill is an open invitation for companies to once again seek to fatten shareholders' wallets at the expense of ratepayers. This is more true now that the bill repeals the Public Utility Company Holding Act, PUHCA, without implementing any countervailing laws to protect against abuse in the industry.

In total, this bill promotes schemes that are counter to Washington's rate-payers and fails to protect them against the manipulative practices that have already raised their rates.

The bill also lacks a comprehensive energy policy.

During the past 3 years of debate on energy I have acknowledged we should recognize the current importance of oil, gas, and coal in our energy production today. But to ensure America's energy security for the future, it must strongly promote energy efficiency, conservation, clean, and renewable energy sources, and should diversify our energy sources.

But rather than aggressively promoting renewable energy and conservation, this bill maintains the status quo. This bill directs billions of taxpayer dollars to traditional energy producers who already have healthy market shares and hardly need Government support.

Of the roughly $23 billion in tax credits in this bill, only $4.9 billion, or 20 percent, would go towards renewable energy or conservation.

I support the production tax credits for wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass renewable energy in this bill, but unfortunately public power is left out of the equation.

Many Washington residents are served by publicly owned utilities and cooperatives and they should receive the same incentives to invest in renewable energy as this bill gives to the for-profit utilities.

Earlier drafts of the tax title included a tradable tax credit for public power investment in renewables. I know that Senate Finance committee members fought for this provision, but unfortunately the President and House objected to the provision.

With so much of Washington and the Pacific Northwest served by public power utilities, it will be much harder to get these type of investments made.

We hear constantly that we need to decrease our reliance on oil from the Middle East and yet this bill does nothing substantive to increase automobile efficiency standards. The United States is the most technologically advanced country in the world. There is no reason we cannot build and produce more fuel-efficient cars.

Without addressing fuel efficiency standards, it is hard to praise this bill for promoting energy efficiency or national security.

In the end, this bill does nothing more than preserve the status quo of energy production in the United States. We are not more secure, we are not more independent, and we have not truly diversified our production sources. All we have done is promote the traditional energy sources of oil, coal, and gas at the expense of our national security and environment.

This bill does serious harm to our environment and our health by effectively turning back the clock on decades-old environmental protections.

First, the bill includes a provision that would amend the Clean Air Act to allow more delays for adhering to the EPA's smog regulations. This provision is not just illogical, it is dangerous.

Second, the bill's provisions for our coastal regions present a threat to an area my State wants protected.

For Washingtonians, the coastal areas are some of the most pristine and cherished natural areas in the State. Under this bill, these areas, along with coastal areas in many other States, would be placed in serious jeopardy.

The bill would grant new authority to the Department of the Interior to authorize energy development projects on the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, including the transport and storage of oil and gas. At the same time, it would undermine the rights of States to manage their coasts. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act, CZMA, States were given the right to have a say in Federal projects that impacted their coastal regions. This bill would severely compromise these rights.

Third, the bill has alarming environmental implications for drilling and construction projects. It would allow an expedited application process for drilling on Federal lands by requiring the Department of the Interior to automatically approve applications once they have met certain standards, regardless of any outstanding environmental concerns.

It also exempts companies from adhering to the Clean Water Act's runoff regulations for construction and drilling sites. Without adherence to these guidelines, the risk of ground water contamination increases dramatically.

Fourth, I am concerned about a measure to provide legal immunity to chemical companies that produce the gasoline additive MTBE. The toxic substance is known to have caused ground water contamination, and this bill shifts costs for cleanup to taxpayers.

Lastly, this bill contains huge amounts of subsidies for the oil and coal industries. Nearly half of this bill's incentives are given to the oil and coal industries, two of the most environmentally destructive fossil fuels that have contributed to global warming. This is not just irresponsible; it is wrong.

We must actively work to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but subsidizing the industries and rolling back environmental protections is not a logical methodology.

In contrast, the bill provides less than one-quarter of its incentives to industries that produce renewable energy. The facts are clear. Renewables are simply not the top priority of this piece of legislation.

These are some of the many reasons I cannot support this piece of energy legislation. Not only does it put consumers at risk by repealing necessary protections, but it seriously puts at risk our own health and the health of our environment with the special interest giveaways to the oil, gas, and coal industries.

Finally, let me address the claims about job creation in this bill. For Washington State, a more aggressive promotion of renewable energy could have been a boost to local companies involved in this area of generation, but this bill did not provide that direction.

Proponents have argued that the bill encourages the construction of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska, which would create jobs in Washington State. Unfortunately, the bill does not provide the guarantees needed for what could have been an important project. To construct the pipeline, its builders say they would need some protection against gas prices falling below a certain level. But, this bill provides no mechanism for risk mitigation, so according to its own builders, the pipeline will not be built.

The negative aspects of this bill are overwhelming. It fails to adequately address the real problems that we all face. It threatens the environmental progress we have made in the past and the progress we hope to make in the future. Without measures that substantively promote responsible energy use, increased conservation, energy independence, consumer protection, and environmental safeguards, this bill is simply unacceptable.

I cannot support legislation that puts us all in danger, and that is exactly what this bill does. The people of Washington State deserve better, and the people of America deserve better.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to support the energy bill conference report.

I have long believed we need a comprehensive national energy policy. The reality is that our economy depends on affordable energy. We often take it for granted, but just imagine how different our daily lives would be if we did not have plentiful, affordable oil, natural gas, and electricity. We depend on energy in almost everything we do in our lives, from turning on the light in the morning, to driving our cars to work, to cooking our dinner, to watching TV at the end of the day.

And energy is absolutely critical to the functioning of our economy. Our manufacturing sector uses vast amounts of energy to produce the whole range of products we take for granted in stores all across the country. Our services sector--and particularly our high tech sector-- rely on electricity. Our agriculture economy uses enormous energy inputs for planting, harvesting and processing its bountiful production. And without energy, we could not transport these goods and services to consumers.

It is virtually impossible to understate the importance of energy to our daily lives and to our economy. Yet our energy policy is seriously lacking.

As the blackout in the northeast demonstrated last summer, our national electricity infrastructure is decades old and dangerously overloaded. Quite simply, we have under-invested in making sure that the national electricity grid can keep up with demand for electricity. Since 1992, demand for electricity has been growing at 2-3 percent per year while transmission capacity has been growing at only .7 percent per year. At the same time, deregulation of the electricity industry has led to a hodgepodge of control over transmission capacity, without clear rules and responsibility for maintaining the reliability of the system. We need new rules to improve the reliability of the grid and new incentives to increase transmission capacity if we're to avoid future meltdowns.

And, we remain overly dependent on foreign oil. Oil imports now account for nearly 60 percent of consumption, and the projection is for that percentage to continue increasing inexorably. That puts our economy at risk, because it is vulnerable to price spikes caused by

OPEC or supply disruptions in foreign trouble spots. And it creates national security challenges. We currently rely on the vast oil reserves in the Middle East to meet our import demands, and that makes ensuring the free flow of oil from that unstable, undemocratic part of the world a vital national security interest. So we need an energy policy that will reduce our reliance on imported oil.

For these reasons, I have long believed we need to update our national energy policy. The bill we have before us begins to address these challenges. It will improve the reliability of our electric grid. It provides positive incentives for renewable energy. And it promotes conservation.

Let me be clear, though. This is not a perfect bill. It does not go nearly as far as I would like in addressing the issues I have outlined and other critical elements of a comprehensive national energy policy. It contains several provisions that I do not think should be in an energy bill. But on balance, it is a positive step for North Dakota and the national economy, and it will mean additional jobs in my State.

Let me first talk about the provisions I support that will help ensure our national energy security and benefit North Dakota.

First, the bill strongly promotes the use of ethanol and other bio- fuels. The bill will require 5 billion gallons of ethanol by 2012. And it will create a biodiesel tax credit of $1 per gallon for feedstocks such as canola and 50 cents a gallon for recycled feedstock such as restaurant grease. These are clean and renewable fuels, and these provisions are good for the environment, good for our energy independence, and good for North Dakota farmers.

Second, I am very pleased that the bill contains a provision I fought for to extend the production tax credit for wind for 3 years. North Dakota has the highest potential for wind energy of any State in the Nation. This provision will spur the production of wind energy facilities and equipment in North Dakota. That is good for electricity consumers, good for the environment, good for wind energy equipment manufacturing workers, and good for farmers and others who will benefit from having wind turbines on their land.

Third, the bill contains a 15 percent investment tax credit to support the development of clean coal technology that will benefit North Dakota's lignite coal industry. We have a thriving lignite coal industry in North Dakota, with seven lignite plants that use 30 million tons of lignite each year. And jobs in the lignite industry are among the highest paying jobs in my State.

Fourth, the bill contains incentives for adding pollution control equipment on older coal plants and incentives for building new, more environmentally friendly coal plants. This could be a big help in getting a new lignite plant in western North Dakota while maintaining our pristine environment, something I have been working on for years.

Fifth, the bill contains modest steps to promote energy conservation, including a tax credit of up to $2000 to encourage people to better insulate their homes, and provisions to encourage the purchase and use of more energy efficient appliances.

Sixth, there are provisions to encourage small producers of oil and gas. Many people do not think of North Dakota as an oil and State, but we have significant reserves that can be tapped to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and address the shortage of domestic natural gas production. The bill includes a tax credit for marginal wells, provisions to speed up permitting on Federal lands, and a section to encourage a particularly important process for natural gas extraction.

Seventh, the bill includes a set of provisions to improve the reliability of the national electric transmission grid, reducing the chances of a massive failure like the one that affected the northeast last summer.

Eighth, the electricity title also ensures that small cooperatives will not be subject to burdensome FERC jurisdiction and contains native load protections for co-operatives, which are a major source of electricity in North Dakota. These provisions ensure that North Dakota rural electric co-ops can continue to provide low-cost power to their consumers.

Finally, the bill expands and extends assistance to low income families in meeting their home heating needs. The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, has provided valuable assistance to thousands of North Dakota families in paying their winter heating bills.

Because of all these important provisions, a number of North Dakota groups support the bill. These include the North Dakota Farmers Union, the North Dakota Farm Bureau, the North Dakota Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the Lignite Energy Council, and the Greater North Dakota Association.

As I said earlier, however, this bill is far from perfect. There are a number of areas where it could and should have been much better.

For example, the conference report does not contain a Renewable Portfolio Standard. The bill that passed the Senate required that 10 percent of electricity be produced from renewable energy sources by 2020. This modest RPS would have helped to clean up our environment and spurred wind energy development. I supported this provision and wish it had been included in the conference report.

More generally, the conference report falls short on promoting the use of renewable fuels and emphasizing conservation. If we are ever to overcome our dependence on foreign oil imports, we will need to be more aggressive on these fronts. The conference report could and should have done more in this area.

I am also disappointed that the bill does not contain tradeable tax credits to encourage cooperatives and municipal utilities to further invest in renewable energy sources. Tradeable credits would have leveled the playing field for these electricity suppliers as we build wind farms and other renewable energy facilities. The conference report could and should have included this provision.

And I do not believe the conference report goes nearly far enough in creating new incentives for expanding transmission capacity to reduce the risk of blackouts. I had hoped the conference report would contain provisions to eliminate the transmission bottleneck that is preventing my state from expanding lignite and wind energy plants to export more electricity to regional markets. Here again, the conference report could and should have done more.

Finally, the bill contains a number of unnecessary provisions that I do not support. The liability waiver for the dangerous fuel additive known as MTBE--or methyl tertiary butyl ether--is troubling. Clean Air Act changes that will allow certain cities to postpone compliance with reductions in ozone damaging pollutants have nothing to do with promoting sound energy policy and should not be in the bill.

I believe we have more work to do to produce a truly comprehensive energy policy that addresses our energy, economic and national security challenges. In particular, I will continue to push for an expansion of transmission capacity to protect against the failure of our electricity grid and allow North Dakota to increase its exports of electricity. It is my hope that we will be able to work on these issues in a bipartisan manner.

Despite its shortcomings, on balance the bill before us takes positive steps to address our Nation's energy needs. It will encourage domestic energy production, promote renewable fuels, and modestly encourage conservation to help reduce our reliance on foreign oil. It will help to reduce the likelihood of major transmission breakdowns.

And it will provide significant benefits to my State of North Dakota. Energy is the second largest sector of the North Dakota economy, and it will benefit very directly from a number of provisions in the bill. And agriculture, the largest sector of the North Dakota economy, will also see important benefits from the various renewable fuel incentives.

For those reasons, I support the conference report.

Mr. President, I rise today to announce my support for the Energy Policy Act of 2003. I want to thank Chairmen Grassley and Domenici and Senators Baucus and Bingaman for working with me to include renewable energy and energy efficiency provisions important to my home State of Arkansas. While some may say this bill is not perfect, it is a step toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil and

increasing the use of renewable resources in this country.

Nine months ago, I stood before this body and spoke on the dangers of continued reliance on foreign sources of energy. Today, I am pleased to stand here in support of a bill that includes several provisions I believe will take our country's energy policy in the right direction. I know this bill is not perfect, and I am disappointed that some of my colleagues who have been leaders on this issue for many, many years were excluded from the drafting of this bill.

But I am pleased that those who did draft this bill made an effort to address energy concerns in every sector of this industry. In Arkansas, we have investor owned utilities and co-operatives. This bill will help both of these providers serve their customers in a more efficient and reliable manner. And while this bill may not go as far as some would like in the direction of renewable energy, there are many provisions in this package which will help the United States begin the long process of eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. I believe the renewable fuel standard, requiring our government to purchase at least 5 percent of its energy from renewable sources, represents a positive step toward this goal. I personally fought to include provisions that will encourage greater use of renewable resources, increased production of efficient appliances, and greater investment in delivering fuels to rural America.

In Arkansas, we recognize the importance of renewable fuels in helping the United States to become more energy-independent. That's why I am excited about the provisions in this bill that will encourage greater use of a valuable new alternative fuel, biodiesel. Biodiesel, which can be made from just about any agricultural oil, including oils from soybeans, cottonseed, or rice, is completely renewable, contains no petroleum, and can be easily blended with petroleum diesel. It can be added directly into the gas tank of a compression-ignition, diesel engine vehicle with no major modifications. Biodiesel is completely biodegradable and non-toxic, contains no sulfur, and it is the first and only alternative fuel to meet EPA's Tier I and II health effects testing standards. Biodiesel also stands ready to help us reach the EPA's new rule to reduce the sulfur content of highway diesel fuel by over 95 percent. These tax credits are necessary as biodiesel is not yet cost-competitive with petroleum diesel.

This legislation will provide tax incentives for the production of biodiesel from agricultural oils, recycled oils, and animal fats and will ensure that biodiesel becomes a central component of this Nation's automobile fuel market. This legislation is identical to language authored by myself and Senator Grassley included in the last Congress's Energy Bill. It is intended to be a starting point for our debate and discussion as we draft an energy bill for consideration in this Congress.

This legislation will provide a partial exemption from the diesel excise tax for diesel blended with biodiesel. Specifically, the bill provides a one-cent reduction for every percent of biodiesel from virgin agricultural oils blended with diesel up to 20 percent.

The legislation will also provide a half-cent reduction for every percent of biodiesel from recycled agricultural oils or animal fats. With today's depressed market for farm commodities, biodiesel will serve as a ready new market for surplus farm products. Investment now in the biodiesel industry will level the playing field and create new opportunities in rural America. This bill also contains a provision I fought for that will provide a tax credit for production of fuels from animal and agricultural waste.

Thanks to new technological developments, we can now produce significant quantities of alternative fuels from agricultural and animal wastes in an environmentally-friendly manner. The production incentives included in this bill will assure implementation and commercialization of this new generation of technology. I am also pleased this bill includes language to encourage additional collection and productive use of methane gas generated by garbage decomposing in America's landfills. Landfill gas is a renewable fuel that can be used directly as an energy source for heating, as a clean burning vehicle fuel, and as a hydrogen source for fuel cells. Furthermore, it can power generators to produce electricity. There are compelling environmental reasons to encourage these projects.

Even the large landfills that are required under the Clean Air Act to collect their gas and control non-methane organic compounds often find it more cost-effective to simply flare or otherwise waste the gas rather than use the methane to produce electricity. Some smaller landfills are not required to collect the gas, and may continue to emit it for decades under the Clean Air Act. Thus, landfill gas projects will not only reduce local and regional air pollution while yielding a renewable source of energy, they will also reduce the country's yearly emissions of greenhouse gases by a very substantial amount at a relatively small cost. I also worked to include a provision that will encourage new waste-to-energy facilities to produce electricity directly from the combustion of our trash. Arkansas stands with other environmentally conscious States in understanding that waste-to-energy technology saves valuable land and significantly reduces the amount of greenhouse gases that would have been released into our atmosphere without its operation. The volume of waste generated in this country could be reduced by greater than 90 percent by utilizing waste-to- energy facilities, and EPA has confirmed that more than 33 million tons of greenhouse gases can be avoided annually by the combustion of municipal solid waste. Municipal solid waste is a sustainable source of clean, renewable energy and I am proud to see this measure enacted into law.

Another provision I am extremely proud of is one that will provide a tax credit for the production of super energy-efficient clothes washers and refrigerators if those appliances exceed new Federal energy efficiency standards. Conservation and efficiency are the most effective and immediate ways to limit our energy consumption and reduce pollution. I am confident this provision will spur manufacturers to develop super-efficient appliances that will be affordable for consumers.

Another provision of which I am particularly proud relates to the clean-up of Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor, a decommissioned nuclear reactor near the community of Strickler, Arkansas, in the northwest corner of my State. The site is contaminated with residual radiation, liquid sodium, lead, asbestos, mercury, PCBs, and other environmental contaminants and explosive chemicals. I have been fighting to rehabilitate this site since I came to the Senate, and now we know that persistence pays off.

SEFOR was built by the Southwest Atomic Energy Associates, a consortium of investor-owned electric utilities, and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for testing liquid metal fast breeder reactor fuel. SEFOR began operations in 1969 and was permanently shut down in 1972. After the reactor's useful life, the ownership of the site was transferred to the University of Arkansas. The Federal Government helped create these contaminants, and therefore should pay to help clean them up. This is great news for northwest Arkansas, because this site has threatened public health and the environment in one of our state's most beautiful areas for too long. I thank the conferees for retaining my provision related to cleaning up this site.

The final provision I would like to praise relates to improving our country's natural gas infrastructure. I am proud that this bill contains provisions to make it easier for natural gas companies to deliver clean-burning natural gas to this Nation's rural homes, by decreasing the depreciation time for natural gas pipelines.

America's demand for energy is expected to grow by 32 percent during the next 20 years and consumer demand for natural gas will grow at almost twice that rate, due to its economic, environmental, and operational benefits. That level of natural gas use is almost 60 percent greater than the highest recorded level. To satisfy this projected demand, we must substantially expand our existing gas infrastructure and this provision will do that. These are provisions in this bill that I am very proud of, but there are also provisions in this bill that I am not proud of. I am very disappointed by the way in which the

issue of MTBE liability is handled in this bill. I am also disappointed by the lack of a renewable portfolio standard in this bill and I will continue to work to see that a RPS is enacted in coming years.

Our current global situation shows us just how important it is that we takes steps to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I hope that this bill is taken for what it is: not a comprehensive solution, but a certain step in the right direction. Much more work needs to be done if we ever expect this country to lose its dependence on fossil fuel and foreign sources of energy and I urge my colleagues to continue to work hard until we achieve this goal.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2003. I am pleased to have bipartisan support for this bill and to be joined by the chair and ranking Democrats of the Commerce Committee and the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries. Senators McCain, Hollings, and Kerry have been instrumental in developing the wide range of support for this bill, and I appreciate their interest in improving the way we manage our Nation's valuable coastal and marine resources.

In 1972, Congress responded to concerns over the increasing demands being placed on our nation's coastal regions and resources by enacting of the Coastal Zone Management Act. These pressures have greatly increased since the act was originally authorized.

Although the coastal zone only comprises 10 percent of the contiguous U.S. land area, nearly 53 percent of all Americans live in these coastal regions, and more than 3,600 people are relocating there annually. This small portion of our country supports approximately 361 sea-ports, contains most of our largest cities, and serves as critical habitat for a variety of plants and animals.

This bill reauthorizes and makes a number of important improvements to the Coastal Zone Management Act. Under the authorities in this act, coastal States can choose to participate in the voluntary Federal Coastal Zone Management Program. States then design individual coastal zone management programs, taking their specific needs and problems into account, and then receive federal matching funds to help carry out their program plans. State coastal zone programs manage issues ranging from public access to beaches, to protecting habitat, to coordinating permits for coastal development.

As voluntary program, the framework of the CZMA provides guidelines for State plans to address multiple environmental, societal, cultural, and economic objectives.

The health of our coastal zone is vitally important not only to the multitude of plants and animals that inhabit this area, but also to the people and communities that are dependent on it for their livelihood. For example, coastal areas provide habitat for more than 75 percent of the U.S. commercial fisheries and 85 percent of the U.S. recreational fisheries. In turn, the commercial fishing industry, along with value- added services included, contributes $40 billion to the U.S. economy each year. Recreational fishing adds another $25 billion to the economy.

The Coastal Zone Management Program can be used to help balance the conservation of fish stocks with the demands that we place on coastal areas. In my State of Maine, a $150,000 study of the State's cargo needs led to a $27 million bond issue for cargo port improvements. As a result, Bath Iron Works built a new $45 million facility, creating 1,000 new jobs. Similar work needs to be done with our fishing ports so that when fisheries stock rebound, the fishermen will be able to realize the returns.

Unfortunately our precious coastal resources are being threatened by environmental problems, including non-point source pollution. Although the States are currently taking action to

address this problem under existing authority, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2003 encourages, but does not require, them to take additional steps to combat these problems through the Coastal Community Program.

This initiative provides States with the funding and flexibility needed to deal with their specific nonpoint source pollution problems. The States will have the ability to implement local solutions to a broad array of local problems. Many States are actively engaged in nonpoint source pollution programs and all can benefit from this new tool I am proud to say that Maine has risen to the challenge and already spends close to 30 percent of its funding on such activities. This has led to the reopening of hundreds of acres of shellfish beds and the restoration of fish nursery areas. Even with these successes, Maine is looking forward to this new opportunity to do more.

The Coastal Community Program in this bill also aides States in developing and implementing creative initiatives to deal with problems other than nonpoint source pollution. It increases Federal and State support of Local community-based programs that address coastal environmental issues, such as the impact of development and sprawl on coastal uses and resources. This type of bottom-up management approach is critical.

The Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2003 significantly increases the authorization levels for the Coastal Zone Management Program, allowing States to better address their coastal management plan goals. The bill authorizes $135.5 million for fiscal year 2004, $141 million for fiscal year 2005 and increases the authorization levels by $5.5 million each year through fiscal year 2008. This increase in funding is necessary to allow the coastal programs to reach their full potential.

Additionally, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2003 increases authorization for the National Estaurine Research Reserve System, NERRS, to $13 million in fiscal year 2004 with an additional $1 million increase each year through fiscal year 2008. NERRS is a network of reserves across the country that are operated as a cooperative Federal-State partnership.

Currently, there are 25 reserves in 22 States. They provide an important opportunity for long-term research and education in these ecosystems. Additional funds will help strengthen this nationwide program which has not received increased funding commensurate with the addition of new reserves.

I wish to address a very serious problem facing the Coastal Zone Management Program that we have tried to rectify in this bill. The Administrative Grant Program, section 306, serves as the base funding mechanism for the States' coastal zone management programs. The amount of funding each State receives is determined by a formula that takes into account both the length of the coastline and the population of each State.

However, sine 1992, the Appropriations Committee has imposed a $2 million dollar cap per State on administrative grants. This was an attempt to ensure equitable allocation to all the participating States. Over the past 8 years, appropriations for administrative grants have increased by $19 million, yet the $2 million cap has remained. The result has been an inequitable distribution of these new funds. By fiscal year 2000, 13 States had reached this arbitrary $2 million cap. These 13 States account for 83 percent of our Nation's coastline and 76 percent of our coastal population.

It is not equitable to have the 13 States with the largest coastlines and populations stuck at a $2 million dollar cap, despite major overall funding increases. While smaller States have enjoyed additional programmatic success due to an influx of funding, some of the larger States have stagnated.

In an attempt to reassure members of the Appropriations Committee that a fair distribution of funds can occur without this hard cap in place, I have worked with Senator Hollings to develop language that has been included in this bill that directs the Secretary of Commerce to ensure equitable increases or decreases between funding years for each State. It further requires that States should not experience a decrease in base program funds in any year when the overall appropriations increase.

I thank Senator Hollings for his assistance in resolving this matter and his commitment over the years to ensuring that the states are treated fairly.

The Coastal Zone Management Program enjoys wide support among all of the coastal States due to its history of success. This support has been clearly demonstrated by the many members of the Commerce Committee who have worked with me to strengthen this program over the past several years.

I thank Senator Kerry, the ranking Democrat of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, for his hard work and support of this bill. I would also like to express my appreciation to Senator McCain, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Senator Hollings, the ranking Democrat of the Committee, for their support of this measure and for their willingness to discharge this bill out of the committee so that we may begin working with our colleagues in the House of Representatives to enact this critical piece of legislation.

This is a solid, reasonable, and a realistic bill that enjoys bipartisan support on the Commerce Committee. It is time that we now turn to legislation reauthorizing a program with a long track record of preserving our coastal environment while allowing sensible development.

I am pleased to support this legislation that will provide the States with the necessary funding and framework to meet the challenges facing our coastal communities in the 21st Century. I urge my colleagues to support.

Mr. President, there is an old adage we have heard many times that says that the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Today we are taking another one of those steps in a long journey that will hopefully lead to an increase in our energy independence, more reliable sources of energy, and more stable prices that are not so subject to fluctuations in the energy market.

The bill we have before us is something that will truly affect every American, no matter their age, where they work, where they live, or what activities they pursue in life. One of the many things that bonds us as Americans is our love of so many things that makes us consumers of energy. No matter who you are, you are a strong and vital part of that market.

If you drive a car, you won't get very far without a full tank of gas.

If you use a computer, you have to tie it to some source of electricity to get the power you need to access the Internet or the information stored on your hard drive.

If you live in a mobile home, or in a cabin in the woods and cook your food over an open fire, you are still an energy consumer who is using a resource to make your dinner.

Every lifestyle has its own energy needs and we have been incredibly blessed to have had access to an abundance of energy for many, many years.

In fact, we had such relatively easy access to energy we started to take it for granted. That led to calls for conservation and more wise use of our resources when energy costs first started to rise. That was the start of our journey to create an energy policy--one that has seen us through these past years. Unfortunately, it has taken quite a long time to agree on an update to our policy, one that takes into consideration the changes we have seen in our society and in the availability of energy both here and abroad.

Our dependence on foreign sources of energy continues to be a national concern, one that had me and many others calling for the creation of a national energy policy, which we have done since 1973 when OPEC and the Saudi Arabians first pulled the plug on our supply of crude oil.

The irony was the fact that we had an abundance of oil here in the United States at the time. In fact, we still have a huge supply of oil in the country today, but that oil has not been made available for exploration. Because we hadn't taken the steps to develop it, we allowed a foreign government to disrupt and control part of our daily lives. We became vulnerable to their manipulations and it took us months to recover. In some ways, we are continuing to recover from those days of the long gas lines, high prices and short supplies that we saw in the 1970s.

Things were bad enough back then when we didn't have an energy policy. Still, they could have been much worse. I shudder to think what might have happened if we'd had a situation like 9/11 occur at the heart of that crisis. If the terrorists had struck when we were economically crippled and energy supplies were low, what effect could they have had on our national security?

That kind of scenario is exactly the kind of thing that a national energy policy like the one we are taking up today is supposed to avoid.

It has taken us quite a while to get where we are, but we finally have something before us that will provide us with a plan, a blueprint for the future that will also address our needs in the present. It is time now for us to take it off the planning board and put it into action. After all, 30 years ought to be enough time to put the basics of a plan together, and that is how long we have had since the energy crisis of the 1970s to work out a plan like this. Now we have before us the beginning of what will be a long and continuing effort to stabilize our energy markets and protect our national security.

This bill isn't perfect, but it is a good start. It is more than a beginning, but it is not the final answer. It is a temporary remedy that will start producing results immediately while it lets us continue working on a more permanent solution. In other words, it is a chance to grab the brass ring and get another ride on the energy merry-go-round, while providing for the ride we are currently on.

I am pleased that this bill includes a number of important provisions that support and promote clean coal development. Coal is an important product of Wyoming, and one of the most important ways we can reduce our dependence on foreign energy is to find ways to diversify our energy supplies and better utilize our Nation's abundant coal supplies--especially clean burning coal like what we mine in Wyoming.

In addition to our coal supplies, in recent years our new energy development has focused on the increased use of natural gas. I support natural gas development and I hope that our gas industry continues to grow and flourish. IO am also keenly aware of the fact that there isn't enough natural gas or infrastructure available to supply all of the world's energy needs so we are going to have to continue relying on coal for some of our energy uses.

That does not mean we have to continue doing business as usual and continue to push our aging coal-fired power plants well beyond their originally designed lifetimes. We have the technology and the ability to design and build cleaner and more efficient power plants that utilize new clean coal technology, but we won't be able to do that if we cripple our economy and prohibit new development.

This won't surprise anyone, but none of us are going to be enthusiastic about everything in this bill. Again, it is not a perfect bill, but it is a good start on a policy. It does not have everything I want in it, but it does have more than enough to make it worth our support. There is a provision that would have greatly helped Wyoming get the more than $400 million that it is owed by the Federal Government through the Abandoned Mine Lands Trust Fund, but that provision was not included in this bill. We have received assurances from the Finance and Energy Committees that they would take up this matter early next year, and we are grateful for their commitments. However, I would have preferred that the provision had been included in this bill and we didn't have to take up any of the committee's time next year. Still, again, on balance, and taking the whole bill into consideration, it is a good bill and it deserves our support.

I know I am not the only one who feels that one provision or another

could have been added or left out and it would have made for a better bill. Like me, almost every State can point at something that they wish could have been included but was not. It is a reason to be disappointed, but it's not a reason to ignore the task at hand, which is to continue the process and develop a national energy policy.

There are just too many positive things that the bill would do for the country in the long and short term. To begin with, the bill would create nearly 1 million jobs and implement mandatory electricity reliability standards that we believe may prevent future massive blackouts as was experienced in August by the Northeast.

It would encourage the Federal Government to increase energy efficiency in Federal installations.

It would increase assistance for lower income families by raising the base authorization of LIHEAP to $3.4 billion. The bill also includes incentives to increase solar, wind, geothermal and other biomass technologies.

It encourages modernizing and streamlining our Nation's hydropower laws.

It provides incentives for responsible oil and gas development and royalty relief for marginal wells. In other words, it helps keep wells that are slow, but long-term energy suppliers going so we don't always have to rely on short-term, get-rich-quick wells for all of our energy needs.

It provides incentives to encourage consumers to purchase more hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles and authorizes two new programs that would improve the efficiency and quality of our Nation's fleet of school buses.

There are a number of other provisions included in this bill that will contribute to our Nation's energy security and I hope my colleagues will take the time to look at what is in this bill for what it really is: A desperately needed and all-important first step toward a policy that will increase our energy independence, ensure we have a more reliable supply of energy available, and a more stable energy market for consumers to purchase from with prices that are not so subject to as much fluctuation and change.

Mr. President, for our national security, for our economic future, for the health of our environment, our country needs an effective, comprehensive national energy policy. We must free ourselves from dependence on foreign sources of energy. We must leave behind costly, inefficient energy practices and invest in cutting-edge technologies that will keep our economy the most productive in the world. And we must protect and heal the natural environment that we will leave to our children and grandchildren.

The legislation before us fails to meet those needs. When I, and 83 other Senators, voted for the Energy Policy Act on July 31, it was very a different piece of legislation. Unfortunately, the bill has been drastically changed since then. Without sufficient discussion and input from our side of the aisle, unacceptable parts were added to this legislation and crucial parts were taken away. We have been left with a bloated symbol of lost opportunity. I cannot support it.

This is not a trivial matter. This bill would set our energy policy for the next 10 years; we must get it right. Consider how things have changed since we last enacted an energy policy in 1992 and what new challenges we will face in the next 10 years.

Cracks in our energy policy, both in infrastructure and regulation, have become evident in the last few years. They have been most clearly shown during the Enron scandal and the August blackout in the Northeast and Midwest. These were clear signals of serious problems in the current system. Sixty million people were affected by the blackout, and it cost New York City alone $1 billion. This should have been a call to action, but it was not. This bill fails to address the weaknesses in our electrical grid that were exposed over the summer.

The Federal Energy Regulation Commission is prohibited in this bill, until 2007, from reforming the national power grid through mandating Regional Transmission Organizations, which would be necessary to ensure that further blackouts don't occur. This legislation also requires those who want to construct a Regional Transmission Organization to foot the full bill themselves, basically guaranteeing that it won't happen. I have received complaints from the Public Service Commission in Delaware on this very provision.

As our colleagues from the West Coast have reminded us so forcefully, Enron-style energy market manipulation was a major force in undermining the energy system in that part of the country. But this bill does not close the loopholes, with cute names like ``Fatboy'' and ``Get Shorty,'' that allowed Enron to inflate their profits, and that directly caused some of the disruptive and costly power shortages.

The bill also rescinds the Public Utility Holding Company Act without providing an adequate replacement. PUHCA has for decades protected energy customers from energy corporations, like Enron, who might undertake predatory actions or make risky acquisitions or mergers. The repeal of this legislation leaves consumers holding the bag if a power company loses money on a non-energy investment. They could just put it on their customers' electric bills.

Not only does this bill not address the problems of the past, it doesn't plan at all for the future. Our reliance on oil and gas today is inescapable, but the need to move toward something better is undeniable. We will invest billions of taxpayer dollars in this bill for a resource that can't possibly sustain us. Our dependence on oil ties us to internal politics of unstable countries around the world. It condemns us to unsustainable levels of pollution. It should not be a very radical idea to suggest that we need to shift the type of energy that we use in this country. We consume almost 25 percent of the world's daily production of oil, though we hold only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. This is a deficit that we will pay for with lack of control over our own economy and security. We are bound to the price fixing of Middle East suppliers and unrest in South America and the states of the former Soviet Union, and we will continue to be unless we invest in alternate sources of energy and curb the rate at which we consume.

Unfortunately, this bill takes no major steps toward these goals. In fact, the conference refused to include renewable portfolio standards, supported by 52 Senators, which would have required utilities to generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020.

To deal with our dependence on fossil fuels, we must address both supply and demand. But this bill fails to provide us with a sensible energy conservation program. It doesn't address the need to improve fuel efficiency in our cars and trucks. In that regard, we can now count China among the countries with more foresight than this legislation provides on the issue of automobile efficiency. And this bill simply dropped a measure, accepted 99 to 1 by the Senate, that would have instructed the President to reduce our daily oil consumption by a little more than 5 percent by 2013.

Instead of a forward-looking policy on energy, this bill has been turned into a vehicle to undermine our Nation's environmental laws to the benefit of fossil fuel producers. The bill spends $1.8 billion in taxpayer dollars for the purchase of conventional coal-burning technologies, which reduces future demand for ``clean-coal.'' At the same time, subsidies to promote the cleanest coal technologies have been cut by 20 percent.

It rolls back provisions of the Clean Air Act, by allowing communities to bypass compliance deadlines on ozone attainment standards if they can prove that some of the pollution drifts into their area from upwind locations. Unfortunately, almost all communities with poor air quality can meet this test. The result is a significant weakening of the Clean Air Act and a slap in the face to cities, like Wilmington, DE, who have met clean air standards despite dealing with upwind pollution.

This is not only an environmental problem. Currently, 130 million Americans are living in areas that don't comply with the air quality standards, and non-compliance has been linked to an increased occurrence of respiratory problems. A group of health organizations including Physicians for Social Responsibility and the American Lung Association have estimated that this rollback would cause more than 385,000 asthma attacks and nearly 5,000 hospital admissions per year.

The Clean Water Act has likewise been weakened. Oil and gas drilling sites are exempted in this bill from run-off compliance, and hydraulic fracturing, an oil and gas recovery technique, has been completely removed from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

These are two major changes, but there are other assaults on the environment. For instance, royalties charged to oil and gas recovery units on public land were reduced; offshore oil drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf was authorized; and, a Senate-approved provision, authorizing research on global climate change, was eliminated. This bill prefers ignorance to understanding when it comes to the most important environmental issues that our planet faces today.

And, in perhaps the most transparent concession to special interests, this bill not only waives liability, retroactively to September 5, for those who have produced the toxic substance, MTBE, that is polluting our ground water supply, but it grants its manufacturers $2 billion in transition funds and doesn't ban the additive until 2014, a provision which can be easily waived by the President or any Governor. This leaves those affected communities with a $29 billion clean up tab.

But, that is not the only tab that this bill leaves with the American people. It leaves us to pay $25 billion,

mostly in pork, almost half in backward-looking tax breaks to fossil fuel producers. That is simply too much to be spent on a bad idea. This is not a roadmap, a vision on the horizon, to guide us for the next decade.

This bill fails to give us the comprehensive energy policy our Nation needs in this new century. It does nothing to free us from our dangerous dependence on fossil fuels. It does not set a clear course toward cleaner, more efficient technologies. And it fails to protect our environment. In too many ways it has sacrificed the long-term interests that we all share for shortsighted special interests. We can, we must do better.