[Pages S3145-S3150]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001--Continued

Amendments Nos. 3231, 3232, 3157, 3242, 3244, 3245, 3246, 3247, 3248,
3249, and 3250

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding rule XXII, the pending amendment be set aside and that
it be in

[[Page S3146]]

order for the Senate to consider en bloc the following amendments:
Amendments Nos. 3231, 3232, 3157, 3242, 3244, 3245, 3246, 3247, 3248,
3249, and 3250.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 3157 and 3231, As Modified

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that
amendments No. 3157 and amendment No. 3231 be modified with the changes
at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3157), as modified, is as follows:

On page 574, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

SEC. 17 . REPORT ON RESEARCH ON HYDROGEN PRODUCTION AND USE.

Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a
report that identifies current or potential research projects
at Department of Energy nuclear facilities relating to the
production or use of hydrogen in fuel cell development or any
other method or process enhancing alternative energy
production technologies.

(The amendment (No. 3231), as modified, is printed in today's Record
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am a product of West Virginia. I was
pulled from the hard scrabble mountains of Appalachia, and I burn with
a passion to serve this nation. I remember my roots. I am proud of them
as they have served me well throughout my career in Congress. I recall
the words of the legendary President of the United Mine Workers of
America, John L. Lewis:

When ye be an anvil,
lie ye very still;
When ye be a hammer,
strike with all thy will.

I believe that we should work diligently on legislation that is
beneficial to the American people--on education reform, Campaign
Finance Reform, border security, homeland defense, energy security, and
a common sense climate change policy. But, surely, we should not allow
the White House to hammer us, disregarding what we have introduced,
debated, and passed in this Chamber on a number of important policy
matters. We must let the democratic process work. It is an open
process, and it is the process that the Founders established so long
ago to make it possible to consider the people's business.
It was a little over a year ago that the Administration began a
comprehensive review of climate change--their alternative approach to
the Kyoto Protocol. I understand that any new Administration must
examine and develop its own set of policies and ideas on these issues,
but they should also understand that so must the Senate. In the absence
of any Executive Branch action last year, the Members of the Senate on
both sides of the aisle took the lead, putting forward new ideas and
approaches to address this climate change challenge.
In June 2001, I introduced bipartisan climate change legislation with
Senator Stevens. Our bill received unanimous support in the Government
Affairs Committee in July 2001, and Senators Daschle and Bingaman then
included this bipartisan legislation along with other climate change
provisions in the larger energy bill in December 2001. Our proposal is
based on scientifically, technically, economically, and environmentally
sound principles and would put into place a long-term, comprehensive,
national climate change strategy. I believe that this is the right
policy framework. The Byrd/Stevens legislation recognizes that what we
truly need is to find new ways to begin to solve the climate change
problem. Additionally, I believe that such innovation will be key to
the long-term viability of coal as an energy resource.
The primary cause of global climate change is due to the increase in
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, especially CO<inf>2</inf> which
results from the burning of fossil fuels. To deal with climate change
during this century, the world must find better, more efficient, and
cleaner ways to burn the very fossil fuels, including coal, that power
virtually the entire economy. Addressing climate change is one of the
greatest challenges facing the world in this century, and it will
require the development of advanced energy technologies, ideas, and
responses far beyond today's endeavors. Therefore, the U.S. must set in
place a framework with a comprehensive strategy and structure to better
address this global challenge.
The Byrd/Stevens legislation calls for the development of a national
strategy to coordinate the Federal Government's response to climate
change and to examine how the U.S. and other nations can stabilize
greenhouse gas concentrations over the long term. The strategy is built
upon a foundation of four key elements, including technology
development, scientific research, climate adaptation research, and
mitigation measures to deal with climate change in an economically and
environmentally sound manner.
Byrd/Stevens recognizes that the large number of Federal agencies are
engaged in climate change-related activities, often resulting in a
hodgepodge of ad hoc approaches. Our legislation calls for the creation
of a new, statutory office in the Executive Office of the President to
serve as a focal point of accountability and to integrate the work of
these Federal agencies while enhancing congressional oversight.
Byrd/Stevens also fills a critical technology gap with a long-term
research and development program through the creation of a new office
at the Department of Energy which will focus on the innovative
technologies necessary to move beyond the current, incremental steps
being taken to address climate change today and authorizes $4.75
billion over ten years for such programs. We must develop the critical,
innovative energy technologies that will help reduce emissions, while
simultaneously preserving a diversity of energy options to support our
growing economy.
Additionally, Byrd/Stevens understands that enhancing international
research and development efforts as well as opening markets and
exporting a range of clean energy technologies globally will be key to
addressing the long-term climate change challenge. Finally, while it is
critical to put in place the framework to address this long-term,
multifaceted issue, it should be noted that the Byrd/Stevens
legislation does not purposely include a mandatory or regulatory regime
for emission reductions.
Senator Stevens and I want to work in a bipartisan way to thread this
needle--to find a way to establish a balanced, long-term framework so
that the U.S. can better address the climate change challenge in a more
comprehensive way. Climate change policy is no more and no less than
cumulatively addressing good economic, energy, environmental,
transportation, agriculture, forestry, and other relevant policy
measures. At no time, was it our intent to presuppose or dictate any
specific policy outcomes to the Executive Branch or the public at
large. Rather, the Byrd/Stevens legislation incorporated the views of
many Members and was built upon the experiences from past
Administration's efforts in order to create a stronger, more stable
foundation that would span this and many Administrations to come.
In summary, I believe that, by working in a bipartisan way in the
Senate, we have refined the Byrd/Stevens legislation without
undermining its core principles. I hope to work with the White House
and other Members of Congress in the energy conference on this and
other energy-related provisions. I look forward to the eventual
inclusion of Byrd/Stevens in a comprehensive energy plan that can
ultimately pass the Congress and be signed by the President. Finally, I
ask unanimous consent that my full statement before the Senate
Government Affairs Committee on July 18, 2001, be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Remarks by U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd: ``Meeting the Challenge of
Climate Change''--Testimony Before the Senate Government Affairs
Committee, July 18, 2001

Mr. Chairman, Senator Thompson, Senator Stevens, and
Members of the Committee:
I thank you very much for inviting me to speak on behalf of
S. 1008, the Climate Change Strategy and Technology
Innovation Act of 2001, and I appreciate your holding this
hearing on legislation that I believe incorporates the
interests of a wide range of Members.
I have spoken twice in recent months on the Senate floor
about the issue of global climate change. My desire to
discuss this important issue derives not only from my sense
of personal concern but also from my optimistic belief that
we can meet the climate

[[Page S3147]]

change challenge if we are willing to make a commitment to do
so. It is my position that all nations, industrialized and
developing countries alike, must begin to honestly address
the multifaceted and very complex global climate change
problem. At the same time, I believe that our nation is
particularly well positioned, with the talent, the wisdom,
and the drive, in leading efforts to address the problem that
is before us.
For these reasons, I, along with Senator Stevens,
introduced the legislation (S. 1008) that is under
consideration today. The Byrd/Stevens climate change action
plan recognizes the awesome problem posed by climate change,
and it puts into place a comprehensive framework, as well as
research and development effort to guide U.S. efforts into
the future. This insidious diseases that have ravaged the
earth. Our nation is a world leader in medical and
telecommunications technologies, and we should also be a
leader when it comes to revolutionizing our energy
technologies. Such a commitment would be important for our
economy, our energy security, and the global environment
overall. But I must ask how long are we going to wait to
develop these technologies. This is a huge opportunity for
our nation, but our efforts will only be rewarded if can
we make a concerted commitment and dedicate ourselves to
the task ahead.
Make no mistake about it, global climate change is a
reality. There are some who may have misinterpreted my stance
on this issue based on Senate Resolution 98 of July 1997,
which I co-authored with Senator Hagel. That resolution,
which was approved by a 95-0 vote, said that the Senate
should not give its consent to any future binding
international climate change treaty which failed to include
two important provisions. That resolution simply stated that
developing nations, especially those largest emitters, must
also be included in any treaty and that such a treaty must
not result in serious harm to the U.S. economy. I still
believe that these two provisions are vitally important
components of any future climate change treaty, but I do not
believe that this resolution should be used as an excuse for
the United States to abandon its shared responsibility to
help find a solution to the global climate change dilemma.
At the same time, we should not back away from efforts to
bring other nations along. The U.S. will never be successful
in addressing climate change alone. This is a global problem
that requires a global solution. It is critical that nations
such as China, India, Mexico, Brazil, and other developing
nations adopt a cleaner, more sustainable development path
that promotes economic growth while also reducing their
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
In the Senate's Fiscal Year 2001 Energy and Water
appropriations bill, I inserted language that created an
interagency task force to promote the deployment of U.S.
clean energy technologies abroad. Such an initiative is
complementary to the effort proposed in S. 1008. The Clean
Energy Technology Exports Initiative is now underway and will
help foreign nations deploy a range of clean energy
technologies that have been developed in our laboratories.
These technologies are hugely marketable. For example, if
nations like China continue to depend on coal and other
fossil fuels to grow their economies into the future, it is
incumbent upon the U.S. to accelerate the development,
demonstration, and deployment of clean coal and other clean
energy technologies that will be critical to meeting all
nations' energy needs while also providing for a cleaner
environment.
I believe that S. 1008 maps a responsible and realistic
course. That road may be bumpy--and I am sure that there will
be disagreements along the way--but it is a journey that we
must take.
We owe it to future generations. S. 1008, if adopted and
signed by the President, will commit the U.S. to a serious
undertaking, but one that should no longer be ignored. If we
are to have any hope of solving one of the world's--one of
humanity's--greatest challenges, we must begin now.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first, I thank the many Senators for their
involvement in these discussions on the very complex issue of climate
change. I applaud their efforts to reach agreement on these titles.
It is not often that several Committees come together to discuss an
issue that cuts across their respective jurisdictions. I think that the
agreement that has been reached thus far represents major progress on
the road toward addressing the problem of climate change. I, like other
Members, have concerns that need further discussion. I think that a
dialogue with the House and the Administration will be invaluable as we
continue our efforts to finalize a domestic approach to the problem.
Therefore, I look forward to working with the various Senators as we
continue these discussions on the bill during the conference with the
House.
In closing, I would like to note that I have concerns with the newly
established Office of Climate Change Technology in Title X of the bill.
I hope these concerns can be further addressed as we proceed on the
bill. Additionally, I have issues with the loan guarantee provisions of
Title XIII. I will speak further on these in a separate statement.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the
foregoing amendments be agreed to en bloc and the motions to reconsider
be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments Nos. 3231, as modified, and 3157, as modified, were
agreed to.
The amendments (Nos. 3232, 3242, 3244, 3245, 3246, 3247, 3248, 3249,
and 3250) were agreed to, as follows:

amendment no. 3232

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')

amendment no. 3242

On page 177, line 20, insert after ``information'' the
following: ``retrospectively to 1998,''
On page 177, line 25, strike ``consumed'' and insert
``blended''.
On page 187, line 2, strike ``commodities and''.
On page 188, line 20, strike ``distributors''.
On page 191, line 6, strike ``refiners'' and insert
``refineries''.
On page 191, line 17, strike ``distributes''.
On page 198, strike line 24 and all that follows through
page 199, line 21.
On page 204, line 3, strike ``importer, or distributor''
and insert ``or importer''.
On page 205, line 5, strike ``(2) Effective Date.--This
section'' and insert the following:
``(2) Exceptions.--This subsection shall not apply to
ethers.
``(3) Effective date.--This subsection''.
On page 222, line 23, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(C)''.
On page 233, line 18, strike ``(k)'' and insert
``paragraph''.
____

amendment no. 3244

On page 3, line 4, strike ``Electrical'' and insert
``Energy''.
On page 3, line 5, strike ``electrical'' and insert
``energy''.
On page 5, line 4, strike ``electrical'' and insert
``energy''.
On page 5, lines 12-13, strike ``standard established by
a'' and insert ``applicable''.
On page 5, lines 13-14, strike ``standard described in''
and insert ``low emissions vehicle standards established
under authority of''.
On page 6, line 5, strike ``electrical'' and insert
``energy''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 3245

(Purpose: To clarify the definition of ``tribal lands'')

On page 101, strike line 24 and all that follows through
page 102, line 2 and insert the following:
``(6) Tribal lands.--The term `tribal lands' means any
tribal trust lands, or other lands owned by an Indian tribe
that are within such tribe's reservation.''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 3246

(Purpose: To clarify the definition of ``Indian land'')

On page 93, lines 8 through 9, strike ``on the date of
enactment of this section was'' and insert ``is''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 3247

(Purpose: To preserve oil and gas resource data)

Add at the end of title VI the following:

``SEC. 612. PRESERVATION OF OIL AND GAS RESOURCE DATA.

``The Secretary of the Interior, through the United States
Geological Survey, may enter into appropriate arrangements
with State agencies that conduct geological survey activities
to collect, archive, and provide public access to data and
study results regarding oil and natural gas resources. The
Secretary may accept private contributions of property and
services for purposes of this section.''.
____

Amendment No. 3248

(Purpose: To facilitate resolution of conflicts between the development
of Federal coal and the development of Federal and non-Federal coalbed
methane in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana)

Add at the end of title VI the following:

``SEC 611. RESOLUTION OF FEDERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
CONFLICTS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN.

``The Secretary of the Interior shall undertake a review of
existing authorities to resolve conflicts between the
development of Federal coal and the development of Federal
and non-Federal coalbed methane in the Powder River Basin in
Wyoming and Montana. Not later than 90 days from enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall report to Congress on her plan
to resolve these conflicts.''
____

amendment no. 3249

(Purpose: To facilitate timely action on oil and gas leases and
applications for permits to drill and inspection and enforcement of oil
and gas activities)

On page 126, strike line 2 and all that follows through
line 14 and insert the following: ``the States; and

[[Page S3148]]

``(3) improve the collection, storage, and retrieval of
information related to such leasing activities.
``(b) Improved Enforcement.--The Secretary shall improve
inspection and enforcement of oil and gas activities,
including enforcement of terms and conditions in permits to
drill.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--For each of the
fiscal years 2003 through 2006, in addition to amounts
otherwise authorized to be appropriated for the purpose of
carrying out section 17 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C.
226), there are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of the Interior.
``(1) $40,000,000 for the purpose of carrying out
paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (a); and
``(2) $20,000,000 for the purpose of carrying out
subsection (b).''.
____

Amendment No. 3250

(Purpose: To clarify the application of section 927 to certain air
conditioners)

On page 294, after line 18, insert the following and
renumber the subsequent paragraph:
``(6) Air conditioners and heat pumps that--
``(A) are small duct,
``(B) are high velocity, and
``(C) have external static pressure several times that of
conventional air conditioners or heat pumps--

shall not be subject to paragraphs (1) through (4), but shall
be subject to standards prescribed by the Secretary in
accordance with subsections (o) and (p). The Secretary shall
prescribe such standards by January 1, 2004.''.

Vitiation of Adoption of Amendment No. 3061

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
vitiate the adoption of amendment No. 3061, adopted on March 21, and
that the text of amendment No. 2917 stricken by amendment No. 3061 be
reinstated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3008, As Amended, and Amendment No. 3145, As Modified, To
Amendment No. 3008

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate now consider amendment No. 3008;
that amendment No. 3145 to amendment No. 3008 be modified by the
changes at the desk; that amendment No. 3145, as modified, be agreed
to; that amendment No. 3008, as amended, be agreed to, and that the
motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3145), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be added, insert the
following:

SEC. 8 . FEDERAL AGENCY ETHANOL-BLENDED GASOLINE AND
BIODIESEL PURCHASING REQUIREMENT.

Title III of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 is amended by
striking section 306 (42 U.S.C. 13215) and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 306. FEDERAL AGENCY ETHANOL-BLENDED GASOLINE AND
BIODIESEL PURCHASING REQUIREMENT.

``(a) Ethanol-Blended Gasoline.--the head of each Federal
agency shall ensure that in areas in which ethanol-blended
gasoline is reasonably available at a generally competitive
price, the Federal agency purchases ethanol-blended gasoline
containing at least 10 percent ethanol rather than
nonethanol-blended gasoline, for use in vehicles used by the
agency that use gasoline.
``(b) Biodiesel.--
``(1) Definition of biodiesel.--In this subsection, the
term `biodiesel' has the meaning given the term in section
312(f).
``(2) Requirement.--The head of each Federal agency shall
ensure that the Federal agency purchases, for use in fueling
fleet vehicles that use diesel fuel used by the Federal
agency at the location at which fleet vehicles of the Federal
agency are centrally fueled, in areas in which the biodiesel-
blended diesel fuel described in paragraphs (A) and (B) is
available at a generally competitive price--
``(A) as of the date that is 5 years after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, biodiesel-blended diesel fuel
that contains at least 2 percent biodiesel, rather than
nonbiodiesel-blended diesel fuel; and
``(B) as of the date that is 10 years after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, biodiesel-blended diesel fuel
that contains at least 20 percent biodiesel rather than
nonbiodiesel-blended diesel fuel.
``(3) the provisions of this subsection shall not be
considered at requirement of Federal law for the purposes of
section 312.
``(c) Exemption.--This section does not apply to fuel used
in vehicles excluded from the definition of ``fleet'' by
subparagraphs (A) through (H) of section 301 (9).''.

The amendment (No. 3008), as amended, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico mentioned that
all these amendments have been cleared on the other side.

Amendment No. 3115, Withdrawn

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I withdraw amendment No. 3115.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3225 To Amendment No. 2917

(Purpose: To modify the provision relating to the renewable content of
motor vehicle fuel to eliminate the required volume of renewable fuel
for calendar year 2004)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I call up, for the purposes of setting
them aside, two amendments. The first one is amendment No. 3225, and I
ask the clerk to report the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] proposes an
amendment numbered 3225.

(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text
of Amendments.'')
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, all this amendment would do is provide
1 additional year to prepare for the mandate. That would change one
date, changing this mandate from 2004 to 2005. And I ask unanimous
consent the amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
amendment is set aside.

Amendment No. 3170 To Amendment No. 2917

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3170, and I
ask the clerk to report the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] proposes an
amendment numbered 3170.

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

(Purpose: To reduce the period of time in which the Administrator may
act on a petition by 1 or more States to waive the renewable fuel
content requirement)

Beginning on page 195, strike line 19 and all that follows
through page 196, line 4, and insert the following:
``(B) Petition for Waivers.--
``(i) In General.--The Administrator, in consultation with
the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Energy,
shall approve or disapprove a State petition for a waiver of
the requirement of paragraph (2) within 90 days after the
date on which the petition is received by the Administrator.
``(ii) Failure to act.--If the Administrator fails to
approve or disapprove a petition within the period specified
in clause (i), the petition shall be deemed to be approved.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment would say that in an
emergency, instead of having to wait 240 days for the EPA to respond,
either to serious harm to the economy or an inadequate domestic supply
or distribution capacity to meet the requirements of the mandate, the
EPA would have 90 days to consider that.
I ask unanimous consent this amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

Amendment No. 3124 to Amendment No. 2917

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
the pending amendment to call up amendment No. 3124, which is at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside, and the clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Fitzgerald], for himself,
Mr. Corzine, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Chafee, proposes an
amendment numbered 3124.

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

(Purpose: To modify the definitions of biomass and renewable energy to
exclude municipal solid waste)

On page 81, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 2 . DEFINITIONS OF BIOMASS AND RENEWABLE ENERGY FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL PURCHASE REQUIREMENT
AND THE FEDERAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD.

(a) Federal Purchase Requirement.--

[[Page S3149]]

(1) Biomass.--In section 263, the term ``biomass'' does not
include municipal solid waste.
(2) Renewable energy.--Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary in subsection (a)(2) of section 263, for purposes of
that section, the term ``renewable energy'' does not include
municipal solid waste.
(b) Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard.--
(1) Biomass.--Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in
subsection (l)(1) of section 606 of the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (as added by section 265),
for the purposes of that section, the term ``biomass'' does
not include municipal solid waste.
(2) Rewewable energy resource.--Notwithstanding anything to
the contrary in subsection (l)(10) of section 606 of the
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (as added by
section 265), for the purposes of that section, the term
``renewable energy resource'' does not include municipal
solid waste.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment
that excludes the incineration of municipal solid waste from the
definitions of renewable energy and biomass in the energy bill's
Federal purchase requirement and renewable portfolio standard. This
amendment, which is cosponsored by Senators Corzine, Jeffords, and
Chafee, closes a loophole in the bill that would encourage the use of
municipal solid waste incinerators that emit harmful pollutants into
our air. Increased incineration will result in greater pollution which,
in turn, will lead to greater health problems for all Americans.
The goal of the renewable portfolio standard and the Federal purchase
requirement in the energy bill is to promote a cleaner environment and
diversify our Nation's energy sources. My amendment to the Daschle
substitute helps to achieve that goal by eliminating the incentive for
environmentally hazardous municipal solid waste incinerators. Whatever
your thoughts are on the ultimate merits of incineration as a tool of
waste management, its inclusion in the energy bill as a clean and
renewable energy source is hard to defend.
This amendment does not preclude communities that elect to generate
electricity from incinerating their waste from doing so, but, rather,
prevents them from receiving special treatment under Federal law. As
many of you know, the renewable portfolio standard requires that
utilities either produce a percentage of their power from renewable
energy sources or that they purchase credits from another party for any
shortfall.
Similarly, the Federal purchase requirement in the bill, which I
championed during my tenure on the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, requires that a percentage of the power consumed by the
Federal Government come from renewable energy sources. Under the
existing language now in the Daschle substitute, as amended by Senators
Bingaman and Thomas, the incineration of waste would be considered
alongside wind and solar as a clean and renewable energy source. I
doubt that those in communities with waste incinerators would consider
those incinerators as environmentally innocuous as solar and wind
energy.
During my years in the Illinois General Assembly, in the Illinois
State Senate, I was confronted by a similar scheme to promote
incentives for waste incinerators. In 1987, prior to my arrival in the
General Assembly, that body approved a tax incentive that encouraged
the construction of waste incinerators to generate electricity.
This subsidy to the waste incineration industry, which amounted to
nearly $360 million over 20 years, according to some estimates, led to
a proliferation of planned incinerators in mostly poor communities
surrounding the city of Chicago. In response to significant public
health and environmental concerns raised by these and surrounding
communities, I joined several colleagues in repealing this subsidy and
preventing the actual construction of many of these incinerators in my
home State. I would hope that my colleagues could benefit from the
experience that Illinois gained from providing special incentives to
waste incinerators.
As many of you already know, municipal solid waste consists of
residential and commercial refuge or garbage and is the largest source
of waste in industrialized countries. Municipal solid waste is often
burned as an alternative to placing the waste in landfills. Municipal
solid waste incinerators burn this waste and, in the process, can
generate electricity. This process only produces a minimal amount of
electricity, while the environmental costs are immense. The
incineration of municipal solid waste releases numerous pollutants into
the air, including acid gases, toxic heavy metals, dioxins, particulate
matter, nitric oxide, hydrogen chloride, and furans, to name but a few.
The EPA has found that municipal solid waste incinerators are the No. 1
source of dioxin emissions nationwide and are responsible for nearly 20
percent of the Nation's mercury emissions.
The release of pollutants from municipal solid waste incinerators can
lead to a myriad of serious public health problems. The hazardous
materials emitted by municipal solid waste incinerators are deposited
in fields, streams, woodlands, and other places. Municipal solid waste
pollutants are linked to cancer, respiratory ailments, and reproductive
problems.
Some contend that incineration can be made clean by removing harmful
materials from the waste prior to its incineration or by limiting
emissions by using filters and other pollution-control equipment. But
regardless of these or other steps taken by municipal solid waste
incinerator operators, such as scrubbing technologies, to limit the
pollution, incinerators are still not a clean source of energy.
Pollution control efforts are largely ineffective because they fail
to contain 100 percent of these emissions. And even when most of the
emissions are contained, the resulting ash left over from the
incineration process must be disposed of as a hazardous waste. If this
hazardous waste is not disposed of properly, the ash can also cause
considerable health problems. When fly ash is released into the air,
people breathe in the small particles which can then sit in their lungs
and lead to a number of the ailments I have already mentioned.
My amendment clarifies that the definition of biomass in the energy
bill should not be construed to provide any special incentives to
businesses that incinerate municipal solid waste. Eliminating these
types of waste from the definition of biomass is consistent with the
definition of biomass provided in the tax portion of the energy bill.
The tax portion of the energy bill specifically excludes municipal
solid waste in its biomass definition. If we choose to include
municipal solid waste incinerators in the definition of biomass, we
will be advocating for the economic interest of waste incinerator
operators at the expense of the health of the American people.
The amendment I am offering seeks to preserve the health of our
citizens and to keep our environment clean. Excluding municipal solid
waste from the definition of biomass and renewable energy is the
environmentally responsible thing to do. It would seem incomprehensible
to me to grant municipal solid waste incinerators a special incentive
to increase the burning of municipal solid waste that would spoil the
environment and put the public's health in jeopardy.
This is a commonsense amendment that separates municipal solid waste
incinerators from the other clean and renewable energy sources already
included in the Daschle substitute amendment. It is consistent with the
tax provisions and the energy bill's overarching goal of providing
clean energy and a safe environment for future generations.
I hope you will join me in voting for this amendment to protect our
environment and the health of the American people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the amendment proposes to eliminate
municipal solid waste as a qualifying generator type for the purpose of
the renewable portfolio standard. I rise to oppose the amendment.
Specifically, I am opposed to the renewable portfolio standard as a
matter of policy because I think the cost to consumers is exorbitant,
some $88 billion over the next 20 years. I also am opposed to the
pending amendment because consumers are going to pay even more than
that. By reducing the types of qualifying generators, that will
increase the cost of renewable credits which will be passed on to
consumers through, obviously, the only alternative, which is higher
electric rates.

[[Page S3150]]

I encourage consideration of opposing the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3234 To Amendment No. 2917

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I send to the desk amendment No. 3234.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Washington [Ms. Cantwell], for herself,
Mr. Dayton, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Wyden, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Jeffords, proposes
an amendment numbered 3234 to Amendment No. 2917.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. I would like to say a word about an amendment to the
energy bill that I filed today and about a couple tax provisions on
which I have been working. As my colleagues know well, I have long
sought to promote hydrogen and fuel cells as clean, efficient energy
technologies that also will enable an economy based on domestic
renewable energy sources. There are a number of provisions in the
energy bill that help move us in this direction. I am pleased that the
bill includes the Hydrogen Future Act I introduced in the Senate to
reauthorize DOE hydrogen energy programs. The energy tax provisions
intended for the bill include strong tax credits for both stationary
fuel cells and fuel cell vehicles, as well as for hydrogen and hydrogen
fueling appliances.
However, I believe more Federal action is needed to accelerate the
commercialization of fuel cell technologies and bring their benefits to
our country. In particular, the Federal Government needs to take bolder
action to bring about the introduction of fuel cell passenger vehicles
and of a hydrogen refueling infrastructure. Thus my amendment would
create a federal fuel cell vehicle pilot program. In this program the
Department of Energy would work with other federal agencies to identify
several Federal fleets that would be suitable for demonstrating fuel
cell vehicles under a variety of real-world conditions. DOE would help
install the necessary fueling infrastructure at those sites; this
infrastructure could also be used for a stationary fuel cell at the
same location and be made available to other fuel cell vehicles. DOE
would purchase several hundred fuel cell vehicles, and DOE and the
companies that make the vehicles would assist the federal fleets to
operate and maintain these vehicles in normal service. Data would be
collected both to improve the next generation of vehicles and to assist
fleet operators in incorporating fuel cell cars, and there would be
regular reporting to Congress. The amendment also requires at least a
50 percent cost share from non-federal sources, as in most DOE
demonstration programs. The total authorization for the program over
six years would be $350 million.
This amendment includes a second provision for a study of the
potential of stationary fuel cells in federal buildings. Even before
fuel cell vehicles are commercially available, fuel cells have a great
potential for providing distributed, highly reliable power for
buildings, as well as heat. This study would look at what should be
done to incorporate fuel cells into new federal buildings, so that
planning for the buildings from the first stages can optimize the use
of fuel cells and so that appropriate incentives can be put in place to
encourage Federal purchase of stationary fuel cells. Again the Federal
Government can become a lead consumer to foster commercialization of
fuel cells and to demonstrate their benefits.
We also need to build a hydrogen fueling infrastructure. I am working
with the Finance Committee to make two important changes to the
excellent alternative fuel provisions that are in their package, in
order to make the provisions effective for hydrogen fuel. The first
would extend the credit for installation of hydrogen fueling property
through 2011. This would simply match the credit for the fuel cell
vehicles themselves, and recognizes that it will be several years
before commercial fuel cell vehicles are readily available and there is
significant demand for hydrogen fuel. The second change would alter the
definition of refueling property so that not only storage and
dispensing of hydrogen but also production of hydrogen from natural gas
and other alternative fuels would be included. This is necessary
because unlike natural gas, for example, today you can't just pipe in
the hydrogen to a fueling station. You need to make the hydrogen on-
site, most likely be reforming natural gas. This amendment would
clarify the definition to be sure that such equipment is covered.
Finally, on the tax provisions, I hope to extend the tax credit and
the exemption from the excise tax for biodiesel. Biodiesel is a
renewable product made from soy beans that can be mixed with diesel
roughly like ethanol is mixed with gasoline. Its use would cut our use
of diesel and thus our consumption of petroleum, and also cut
associated emissions. The tax provisions include a three-year tax
credit for biodiesel. While this credit could be very helpful to
establishing a strong biodiesel industry, three years is not enough to
ensure return on investment in a new biodiesel plant. Both the
investors and the creditors need a longer planning horizon to be
confident of a stable market for the biodiesel. Thus I hope we will be
able to extend this important new incentive in order to maximize its
effectiveness.
With these provisions, and many others in the bill and the tax
package, I look forward to a bright, clean, domestic, renewable energy
future.

____________________