[Pages S1715-S1726]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 517, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 517) to authorize funding the Department of
Energy to enhance its mission areas through technology
transfer and partnerships for fiscal years 2002 through 2006,
and for other purposes.

Pending:

Daschle/Bingaman further modified amendment No. 2917, in
the nature of a substitute.
Feinstein amendment No. 2989 (to amendment No. 2917), to
provide regulatory oversight over energy trading markets.
Bingaman/Domenici amendment No. 2990 (to amendment No.
2917) to promote collaboration between the United States and
Mexico on research related to energy technologies.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10
minutes as in morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Thomas are located in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S1716]]

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak generally today about the
energy policy in this country and especially about the energy bill we
are debating in the Senate. I also want to offer an amendment--a
noncontroversial amendment. I think both sides have been apprised of
it. I would like to get it pending. I will not ask that we vote on it
today. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment now pending be set
aside so I might offer an amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 2993 to Amendment No. 2917

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an
amendment numbered 2993.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for training of electric power generation plant
operators)

In section 1501(a)(1), strike ``nuclear power industry''
and insert ``the electric power generation industry
(including the nuclear power industry)''.
At the end of title XV, add the following new section:
``Sec. 1506. National Power Plant Operations Technology and
Education Center.
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a
National Power Plant Operations Technology and Education
Center (the ``Center''), to address the need for training and
educating certified operators for electric power generation
plants.
``(b) Role.--The Center shall provide both training and
continuing education relating to electric power generation
plant technologies and operations. The Center shall conduct
training and education activities on site and through
Internet-based information technologies that allow for
learning at remote sites.
``(c) Criteria for Competitive Selection.--The Secretary
shall establish the Center at an institution of higher
education with expertise in plant technology and operation
and that can provide on-site as well as Internet-based
training.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce an amendment to
establish a national energy technology training and education center.
This amendment is critical, because, as of yet, no comprehensive
education program exists for electric system operators. Meanwhile, our
energy sector and electricity grid are becoming increasingly complex.
These changes in the electric industry and changes in electricity
market structures require educated, highly-skilled operators and
technicians. In addition, electric system operators are essential to
reliable and safe generation, transmission, and distribution of
electric power. Education programs that provide training specific to
the electric industry are rare, because of the way the industry has
been structured and because, for example, most transmission system
operators are promoted from within and trained on the job, rather than
having had formal training.
One goal of an energy training center, such as the one this amendment
would create, would be to provide quality education programs for
workers who often are unable to participate in college programs, due to
their shift hours or other reasons. These programs would be offered via
the Internet, for example, to accommodate these workers. The programs
offered through this Energy Center would be directly related to the
industry, to ensure that a pool of multi-skilled workers are trained to
meet the future needs of the industry.
The energy industry needs an Internet program to train power plant
and other technicians to be experts in the various aspects of the
energy industry. To respond to this growing need, a certificate and
degree program is being developed in collaboration with regional
transmission representatives, utility experts, the Electric Power
Research Institute, and others. The objectives of this program are (1)
to prepare well-trained electricity system operators who can adapt and
be productive in power plant and process plant technologies and
environments; (2) to provide anywhere, anytime learning opportunities
through Internet courses for presently employed personnel who are
unable to leave their workplaces to attend courses and/or are
restricted by 12-hour work shifts or location in relation to the
educational site, and (3) to provide an associate degree option in this
field.
Over the next 10 years, the demand for electric power is expected to
increase by approximately 25 percent. Constraints on electric
transmission line capacity will result in additional transmission line
construction and improvements that will increase the need for skilled
line workers. Due to technological advances, line operators will
continue to need to update their knowledge base. Moreover, we will need
specially trained people to ensure the continued reliability of our
energy infrastructure.
The Energy Center would:
Work in conjunction with the North American Electric Reliability
Council to promote flexible continuing education opportunities for
system operators to help maintain their required certifications;
Offer flexible education opportunities related to the security of the
electric industry infrastructure and emergency preparedness;
Provide flexible education offerings directly related to the
generation, transmission and distribution sectors;
Provide national communication to the electric industry by hosting
conferences, forming national advisory boards, and facilitating chat
rooms and web-casts; and
Provide simulation opportunities for students to operate
sophisticated control stations and distributive control systems in a
supervised environment.
This is an amendment to which I believe both sides will agree. We
have had discussions with both sides. As I indicated, I will wait until
later to ask that it be voted on. I don't believe it would require a
record vote.
This amendment would establish a national energy technology training
and education center. Changes in the electric industry, and especially
changes in the electricity market structures, require a different set
of skills, a different education for operators and technicians of
electric powerplants. In addition to trying to establish that, we would
establish an energy training center, which would provide quality
education programs for workers who were often unable to participate in
other programs that would give them the kinds of disciplines that are
necessary in this new energy climate.
Let me talk more generally about the energy bill on the floor of the
Senate. I spoke last week at some length about it. The energy bill
includes four pieces. First, we need to produce more energy. All of us
agree on that. We are going to have a disagreement on the issue of
ANWR, but there is no disagreement over whether we should or whether we
need to produce more energy. The answer is yes, of course, we must.
We have had votes on the floor in recent months on the subject of
opening up portions of the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Florida for
additional energy production. I voted for that. We have also had
discussions and votes and other legislative consideration in other
areas to enhance incentives for the production of oil, natural gas, and
coal to be used in an environmentally sensitive way to extend America's
energy supply. We have to do that.
The point is, if that is all we do when we come to the floor of the
Senate in March of 2002, just to increase the supply of energy, this
country will be consigned to a strategy that I call ``yesterday
forever.'' Twenty-five years ago, when we debated energy, this is what
we discussed; 25 years from now, when we debate energy, this is what we
will discuss. It is a ``yesterday forever'' strategy--just dig and
drill, dig and drill, and somehow, that represents America's policy.
That is not enough.
Digging and drilling is important. It is important to do it, and it
is important to do it the right way, but there is much more to be done.
So production, No. 1.
Second, conservation. We waste an enormous amount of energy in our
country. We need a title in this energy bill, which is included in the
bill that is now on the floor of the Senate, that

[[Page S1717]]

talks about conservation--conservation in a range of areas.
One important area in this legislation that will be controversial
will be a new SEER standard for air-conditioners, called SEER 13. We
will have people try to knock that out, but the fact is conservation
means conservation in transportation, conservation with respect to
efficiency of appliances, and a whole range of areas by which you can
save a barrel of oil. A barrel of oil saved is just the same as a
barrel of oil produced. So it is important for us, it seems to me, to
be concerned about those areas.
We also need to be concerned about additional production of energy
from renewables and limitless sources of energy. That includes
biodiesel, biomass, wind energy, and a range of others--especially
something I am very interested in, called fuel cells.
When I talked about ``yesterday forever,'' I talked about the fact
that the automobile has not changed in a hundred years. You still pull
up to the tank and put the hose in the tank and pump gas. They did it
100 years ago, and we do it now. The internal combustion engine still
sucks gas and uses oil. The fact is, we have some interesting work on
the horizon suggesting to us, perhaps for the first time, that there
will be significant changes. An article in Energy Tech Online by Drew
Robb is titled ``Houston, We've Got a Solution; Fuel Cells Come Back to
Earth.'' It talks about much of the initial fuel cell research that was
funded by NASA, and although the technology of fuel cells showed
enormous promise, sky-high costs kept any commercial interest pretty
much as low ebb. Then, in the 1990s, investment poured in as a method
of reducing toxic emissions and greenhouse gases, and we began to see
some real progress. Commercial interests--many which are in the
development of funding for fuel cells--now come from the transportation
power generation and oil suppliers.
I drove a fuel cell vehicle on the grounds of the Capitol Building
some months ago. It did not make any noise. It did not have an internal
combustion engine. It used oxygen and hydrogen that combine to create a
fuel supply by which this automobile moved, and it pushed water vapor
out the back end.
That is a pretty good deal, it seems to me: A fuel cell engine, and
the effluent from the back end of that automobile is water vapor.
Does all of that make sense? It does to me.
DaimlerChrysler, for example, plans to spend over $1 billion in the
coming years on fuel cell research. In April of last year, it unveiled
its hydrogen-powered car called NECAR 4, based on the Mercedes A
series. They developed a prototype hydrogen fuel cell, which is one-
third the size of previous versions. Ford, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, and
others are pursuing similar projects.
The reason I talk about the fuel cell is because it is one of those
new technologies that offers the promise of unlimited, clean, quiet,
safe, and low-cost energy for the long term. It just makes sense for us
to move in that direction if we can.
How do we do that? As I said, we have been putting gas in our
automobiles the same way for a century. Just because every debate in
the Senate for 25 years has been a debate about doing more tomorrow
that which we did yesterday--that is not a debate, that is just a
thoughtless policy.
I come from a State that produces a fair amount of energy. We produce
oil, coal, some natural gas. We also have the capacity to produce a
substantial amount of wind energy. Last Friday's vote in the Senate to
extend the production tax credit for wind energy and renewables is very
important. Taking the energy from the wind and using it to turn the
blades of a new technology turbine, create electricity, and have that
electricity course through transmission lines and be sent to somewhere
in the country that needs it is a very important step in changing our
energy mix from an overreliance on natural gas, oil, and coal to a
reliance as well on limitless and renewable energy supplies.
One of the amendments we are going to be discussing in the Congress
in the next week or so will be what is called the renewable portfolio
standard. That is creating an aspiration or a goal on the part of this
country to have a certain percent of our energy needs coming from
renewable energy sources by the year 2020.
If we have a renewable portfolio standard of 10 percent, utilities
will be required to sell 10 percent of their electricity from renewable
energy by the year 2020. That makes good sense to me. We will have
people in the Chamber of the Senate who think it is not a good idea. I
think they are wrong.
Recently, I was in that part of the world that has so much
instability. I was in central Asia. I was in the ``stans'' countries--
Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan. One only has to go to the Middle
East and central Asia to understand how fragile our energy supply is in
this country. A substantial amount of our energy, 57 percent, comes
from imported oil. A substantial amount of that comes from the Middle
East and central Asia.
If, God forbid, a terrorist tonight after midnight found a way to
create an act of terror against the energy supply that comes from the
Middle East, our economy would be flat on its back tomorrow morning. It
is just that simple.
Shouldn't we be concerned about that? Of course. The answer is yes.
Today is the 6-month anniversary of the terror that was visited upon
this country on 9-11 last year. We have talked a lot in these last 6
months about American security, national security, and it is important
to understand that national security also means energy security.

When you take a look at what is happening in the Middle East today,
look at what is happening in central Asia, then ask yourself: Does it
make sense for the biggest, the strongest, the largest economy in the
world to be this overly dependent on energy supplies from the Middle
East and central Asia? The answer is no.
How do we decide to change that? We pass legislation that has some
real bite to it in a number of important areas. One of them is, as I
mentioned, renewable portfolio standards by which we describe that we
want the generation of electricity in our country in the future to come
increasingly from renewable and limitless sources of energy.
We can do this if we decide we want to do it, or we can just slip
back into the same comfortable debate we have had decade after decade.
Will Rogers once said: When there is no place left to spit, you
either have to swallow your tobacco juice or change with the times. On
energy there is really no place left. It is an indelicate way, perhaps,
of describing our situation, but anyone who understands it understands
we have a requirement to do this differently.
It is our obligation now to make a difference with respect to energy
policy. This is not the best time to be debating energy. I bought
gasoline yesterday for $1.08 a gallon. In fact, go to a gas station
these days and buy a gallon of gas or buy 4 quarts of water. They sell
water now in quart jars in the cooler. It will cost you more to buy the
4 quarts of water than it will a gallon of gasoline. It says a little
something about priorities, I suppose. But it is not a great time to be
debating an energy bill when gasoline costs less than water at a gas
station.
Nonetheless, we would be ill advised as a Senate to believe this is a
good time for America's energy supply because somehow the prices are
low and that reflects stability for the future. It does not.
We must pass an energy bill now. In this next several-week period, it
is the right thing for this Congress to pass a comprehensive energy
bill. It ought not be a bill like that which the House of
Representatives passed which, as I said, is a yesterday forever policy.
It ought to be legislation that is balanced, that has all four pieces:
Encouraging additional production, encouraging additional conservation,
paying attention to additional efficiencies, and providing incentives
for additional renewable and limitless supplies of energy.
All four of those elements are part of a comprehensive and smart
energy policy for this country. It is not a smart energy policy to do
as the House of Representatives did and simply say we rest our future
on the basis of increased production. That is not a smart energy
policy.
Senator Bingaman and my colleagues on the Energy Committee have
worked

[[Page S1718]]

on this legislation. It has some significant points of disagreement, no
question about that. ANWR will be hotly debated. My colleague from
Alaska has a passionate feeling about that, as do some others. CAFE
standards will be passionately debated, and the Senate will make
decisions about both of them.
In the longer term, the question of whether we succeed for this
country in developing an energy policy that moves this country ahead,
reduces its dependence on foreign sources of energy, and increases this
country's energy and national security will depend on whether we pass
legislation that is balanced in all four areas I have mentioned.
At the start of my presentation, I offered an amendment. It is now
pending. I believe it will be accepted by both sides at some point when
they have considered other legislation.
I thank the Senator from Alaska for allowing me to proceed. He has
something like 564 charts or close to that. I suspect he will be making
a long presentation on a subject about which he is very passionate.
Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Alaska, I have visited
Alaska. It is a wonderful State. We might have disagreements about
certain production in Alaska, but I think he certainly speaks
aggressively on behalf of his view of those issues. I do think he is
right on the point that we must produce more. The question is not
whether; the question is how do we produce more and where do we produce
more.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. In response to Senator Dorgan regarding his amendment
which covers powerplant operator training, the amendment establishes,
as he has noted, a national center to address the need for training and
educational activities of operators of electric generator plants.
I think we would all agree we can improve this even though operators
have been trained in the past. But I want to emphasize the amendment
would improve the training of the operators and their ability to do
their job safely and efficiently. Therefore, I have no objection to the
amendment. My only concern is we have some norm that is reasonable in
the training, but I want to assure the Senator we will accept the
amendment in the spirit of moving along on the energy bill.
I want to comment on several aspects of amendments which we are going
to be taking up very soon. There are a couple of points I want to
address specifically. One is the Akaka Hawaii oil study which makes
technical changes to the study language which is contained in section
1702 of the original Daschle bill. It requires the Department of Energy
to assess the economic implications for Hawaii of its dependence on oil
as a resource for most of its energy needs.
I remind my colleagues the oil that Hawaii receives comes from
Alaska. It comes in U.S. ships because the Jones Act mandates the
carriage of commodities between two American ports has to be on a U.S.
vessel. So this is a significant contributor to the American merchant
marine inasmuch as it must use a U.S. vessel built in a U.S. yard with
U.S. crews for the benefit of Hawaii.
I want to assure the Senator from Hawaii that the amendment has been
cleared by both sides. It is an amendment of a technical nature. It
specifically requires the Department of Energy to assess the economic
implications of the dependence on oil as its principal source of energy
for the Hawaiian Islands. I have indicated I support the amendment.
We should all be concerned about the economic dependence of our
States on imported oil. Hawaii uses about 99.8 percent of its
electricity needs generated from oil. Of the 50-plus million barrels of
oil consumed in Hawaii, it comes primarily from Alaska. There is some
that is imported as well, but the imported oil comes in foreign ships
with foreign crews. As a consequence, the State Department indication
on tourism indicated the transportation fuel prices caused
substantially high impacts on the Hawaiian economy. Higher fuel means
higher airplane tickets. Higher energy costs means higher hotel bills.
So I agree with my friends from Hawaii, we should investigate our
options to ensure energy security. I know the Senator from Hawaii has
been working on the strategic petroleum reserve in case there are
interruptions because of Hawaii's dependence on imported fuel, and I
support that.
There is also an amendment we can accept, and that is the Bingaman
U.S.-Mexico energy technology cooperation. This amendment authorizes
$23 million over the next 5 years for projects to improve energy
efficiency and reduce environmental impacts of economic development
along the U.S.-Mexican border. It is the same as a bill approved by the
Senate in the 106th Congress. I am pleased to join with Senator
Bingaman in supporting this.

The program improves environmental quality and protection of public
health along the southern border with Mexico, and it prompts energy-
efficient, environmentally sound, and economic development. As we
address transboundary problems like air pollution and climate change,
we are going to need these kinds of partnerships with other nations
obviously, sharing the recommendations of Members from those States
that join our southern border. Clearly, they know what is in the best
interest of their area and their State. As a consequence, I respect
that and, hence, support the Bingaman U.S.-Mexico energy technology
cooperation.
We have another amendment we will be taking up tomorrow, and it is
the Feinstein energy trading market oversight. I think we are going to
probably be having some spirited discussions on this amendment. I am
anxious to learn a little more from the Senator from California. As I
understand, the amendment could potentially disrupt both the electrical
and natural gas trading markets. I hope that would not be the case, and
perhaps this could be brought out in the debate, but if it is the case
it could lead to significant increases in the price of electricity and
natural gas to consumers throughout the country. It could also lead to
energy price and supply problems on the level--I would hope not--of the
California disaster of last year. It seems to have a nationwide
application.
I want to emphasize these could be cases because, frankly, we do not
really know. The amendment has materialized without any hearings,
without any witnesses, without any testimony from the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission and the SEC or the Justice Department. So we do
not have any real analysis.
We do not know what problem this amendment is trying to fix. On the
other hand, I look forward to the debate. Perhaps we will be
enlightened by the Senator from California. We do not know if this
amendment actually fixes the problem, let alone recognizes the problem.
We do not know if this amendment has the right problem. So we look
forward to some clarification.
One thing is clear, if this amendment is intended to prevent another
Enron from occurring, in my opinion it will not work. Enron's collapse
had nothing to do with the energy trading business. It was triggered
when Enron's other business activities raised questions of accounting
irregularities and conflict of interest among the company's executives.
In other words, Enron's bankruptcy was not the result of unregulated
energy trading. It was the result of Enron's bad judgment, bad
accounting practices, a fundamental lack of honesty, and a loss of
investors' confidence.
Even if this amendment had been adopted 10 years ago, I do not see
how it would have done anything but recognize the free market would
dictate an environment where Enron still would have collapsed.
Many other honest and legitimate energy trading businesses have done,
and are continuing to do, the very same kind of energy trading in which
Enron was engaged. They have not gone bankrupt.
We all want information disclosure, and good corporate management. We
all want to fix the problem and prevent

[[Page S1719]]

another Enron from occurring, we want to protect the stockholders and
employee pension funds, and not inadvertently sow the seeds of an even
greater problem.
Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let us make sure we
know what is being done. Let us fix the problem that needs to be fixed.
Let us not make the problem worse.
This amendment preferably should be introduced as legislation.
Hearings should be held, with testimony from the FEC, the Commodities
Future Trading Commission, the Department of Justice, and others. The
committee of jurisdiction should consider testimony, weigh the
evidence, and report a well thought out bill that really fixes the
problem. I would encourage that we become enlightened because it is
rather inconsistent to recognize that some of these bills that have not
had a full evaluation could be dropped in conference, and that is not
fair to anybody, particularly those who have worked so hard and
presented responsible legislation.
So let us not just satisfy a pile-on, so to speak, to do something
regardless of whether it works or not. Our $200 billion a year electric
power system is too important to toy with. Confidence in our future
trading businesses is too important not to fix it properly, assuming
there is something that needs to be fixed.
As a consequence I remain open and yet somewhat guarded in my
evaluation of whether this amendment is going to do anything other than
pile on more criticism for the manner in which the Enron failure
occurred.
I would like to remind my colleagues, and staff particularly, that
when Enron collapsed two things did not happen. First, we didn't see an
increase in electric rates. Second, we didn't see a decrease in supply.
The conclusion we can draw is, clearly the system worked. There was a
transition where the open market simply picked up the volume that Enron
was trading and transferred that over to other organizations to
continue that function. I would hate to have seen a situation occur
where you would have to get approval from FERC on who would pick up
that additional responsibility after Enron's failure, as opposed to the
clear and workable process that filled the vacuum left by Enron. When
Enron failed, we didn't see price increases, and we didn't see a
shortage of supply.
I have a couple of other points I want to bring up relative to where
we are going with this legislation. I doubt very much we are going to
get anything introduced today on CAFE, although I had hoped that might
occur. I gather the principals are still in the process of some
discussion.
I would like to comment briefly on the electric provisions pending in
the Daschle legislation. I think we need to recognize that the process
is going to require a good deal of input from Members and staff because
it has not had the evaluation associated with a committee function.
There was not an opportunity where a committee could meet and come out
with a bipartisan opinion on various aspects of this complex piece of
legislation. We are reconciling our different views on electricity, but
one of the things to keep in mind is this industry is not broken. The
Enron collapse is something else. Again, I add that the industry is not
broken. It functions. We have not seen a shortage. We are not seeing
price increases. There are those who suggest if it is not broken, why
fix it? Sometimes Congress is the one fixing things, even when they are
not broken.
Let me first observe that there are ongoing discussions and
reconciliation of various views on electricity. I am hopeful and
optimistic that these discussions will bear some fruit.
I would like to discuss the existing provisions in the pending
Daschle bill as written. The current provisions exemplify the
fundamental philosophical differences between authors of this provision
and what I believe is a bipartisan majority of the Senate.
First of all, the authors of the electric provision want more Federal
Government participation and control by Federal regulators, which, in
my opinion, micromanages the marketplace and preempts State regulation
with Federal regulation--you have different regulations, not
deregulation. Again, think about it--you have different regulations,
not deregulation, and, further, to have the Government pick winners and
losers rather than trusting the consumers to the obligation of the free
market.
There is one reason why these provisions do not have any committee
blessing. The real reason, of course, is we haven't had any committee
hearings. We haven't had any markups. We haven't reported anything out.
That is the way the majority leader directed it, and he, kept the
committee from proceeding with its responsibility of holding hearings
and voting out action.
I believe the bipartisan majority of the Senate wants electricity
reform, wants legislation which specifically protects consumers, that
tries to streamline regulation rather than making it more complex, and
wants to enhance the competition while preserving State authority.
Further, it ensures the reliability of the grid, allows regional
flexibility, and promotes renewable energy and other types of
generation.
I am going to talk a little bit about renewable energy. There is a
great deal of concern and interest in the aspects of renewable energy.
I am going to take one example, which is something that is exciting to
many of us; that is, the potential solar panels being utilized. Of
course, you have to have some sunlight. In the winter in my State of
Alaska, it is dark a good deal of the time. So a solar panel would not
necessarily get you very far.
As we look at the contribution of solar energy in relationship to
oil, you have to look at an equivalent of what kind of footprint it
would make. Here is a chart that shows 2,000 acres of solar panels that
produces the energy equivalent of 4,464 barrels of oil a day. You have
2,000 acres that would be covered solid with solar panels. That would
be two-thirds of the State of Rhode Island.
Two thousand acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would
produce roughly 1 million barrels of oil per day. I think that gives
you a little comparison, if you will, of the footprint associated with
renewables in the sense of a meaningful and significant contribution.
It is important. We want to continue to look toward the renewables in
the future. But we should recognize that there is a legitimate
tradeoff.
We are going to debate ethanol, and it is certainly a significant
renewable source of energy. It comes from corn, primarily. If we were
to take 2,000 acres of ethanol farmland and plant corn, we would
produce the equivalent of 25 barrels of oil a day from 2,000 acres.
Take 2,000 acres of ANWR and it will produce 1 million barrels of oil a
day.
To produce a million barrels of oil, it would take corn fields
covering the entire States of New Mexico and Connecticut. You would
have to plant all the acres in the State of my friend, Senator
Bingaman, in corn, plus all the acreage in Connecticut to get 1 million
barrels of oil. In Alaska, you could get 1 million barrels of oil from
ANWR's 2,000 acres.
I have one more renewable energy source that might get the attention
of some of my colleagues. In the State of the current occupant of the
chair, the senior Senator from California, there is a wind farm located
between Banning and Palm Springs in San Gorgonio. She is quite familiar
with it. I have been through there many, many times. I don't know how
many windmills there are on this wind farm, but it is significant. Some
suggest it is a Cuisinart for the birds because while flying low they
occasionally have a problem getting through there. On the other hand,
higher flying birds don't have that problem.
The point is, you can look at it and say it is a pretty picture, or
you can say that there is a rather dramatic footprint that has its own
attraction, but I think it is important to look at the equivalent
energy.
I understand this particular area is a little over 1,500 acres of
wind generators, but 2,000 acres of wind generators produce the energy
equivalent of 1,815 barrels of oil. Yet 2,000 acres of ANWR produces 1
million barrels of oil a day. It would take about 3.7 million acres of
wind generators--or all of the landmass of Connecticut and Rhode
Island--to produce as much energy as the 2,000 acres of ANWR.
My point in going through this demonstration is to identify that
while renewables are important, they are simply not the answer for the
volume of

[[Page S1720]]

energy we use to move America, whether it is in our automobiles, our
planes, our trains, and so forth, and that there is a significant
footprint associated with renewables. As indicated, for example, the
wind does not blow all the time.
So as we look at various aspects associated with the electric portion
that covers renewables, I think we have to keep in mind, indeed, there
is a tradeoff.
The philosophical difference is apparent when you compare the
electric legislation I had introduced earlier this year with the
pending Daschle bill.
My legislation was bipartisan. It was S. 388. We had three electric
provisions: We had PUHCA, we had PURPA, and we had reliability. The
PUHCA and PURPA repeal provisions promote competition by reducing
Federal interference with the marketplace.
The electric reliability provision protects consumers by creating an
industry-run, Government-overseen electric reliability organization
that has clear enforcement authority. Consumers will continue to be
fully protected because, first, the States will continue to regulate
retail rates, and, second, FERC will continue to regulate wholesale
rates, which I feel quite comfortable with and which has worked quite
well, in my opinion.
Let me identify some of the provisions in the majority leader's
electricity title which creates new Federal authority or preempts State
authority.
Section 202 expands FERC's jurisdiction over utility mergers and
acquisitions.
Section 203 gives FERC new authority to restructure the electric
power industry with no guidance--absolutely none--from Congress.
Section 205 gives FERC authority to order the construction of new
transmission lines and to order the sale of electricity on its own
motion.
Section 206 gives FERC new authority over publicly owned utilities to
order open access transmission. Although this section exempts all but
the largest publicly owned utilities, we all know what happens in
conference to those exemptions once the principle has been established.
Section 207 gives FERC new authority to establish and enforce
electric reliability standards, notwithstanding the fact that FERC, in
my opinion, does not have the expertise in this area.
Section 256 prevents States' consumer protection provisions if they
go beyond or are different from Federal consumer protection provisions
established by the Federal Trade Commission.
Section 263 places a Federal mandate on the Federal Government to
purchase renewable energy even if it is too costly or not available.
Mind you, if it is too costly or not available, it still provides a
Federal mandate on the Federal Government to purchase renewable energy.
I have a hard time with that--even if it is too costly or not
available.
Section 265 imposes a Federal Btu tax in the form of what I consider
an unrealistic, unachievable renewable portfolio mandate, which will
cost consumers an estimated $12 billion next year.
Madam President, I could mention other provisions, but I think you
get the sense of my concern.
But just as important as what is in Senator Daschle's electric title,
is what is not in it. There are no incentives to build new
transmission. We know our transmission lines are choking. There are no
incentives to build significant new generation. Instead, the majority
leader's bill places our future in the hands of conservation and
renewable energy. Turn off the lights; put a windmill in your backyard.
I have long had three principles for good electric legislation: We
should deregulate where we can; we should streamline where we cannot
deregulate; and we should not interfere with States' efforts to protect
their own consumers.
The electricity provision of Senator Daschle's bill, in my opinion,
fails on all three principles. Moreover, it does not do anything
significant to encourage the construction of new electric generation or
transmission.
Over the past several years, we have seen significant electric supply
problems in various parts of this Nation due to inadequate generation
of transmission. This became particularly acute in California and
resulted in price spikes and electric blackouts.
California is often cited as being on the leading edge of our future,
and in many ways that is true. Yet I am worried. If you think the
Federal Government can fix all the problems, then you should like the
approach taken by the Daschle electric title. If you are like me, you
would be somewhat worried about this approach.
I mentioned earlier the need for bipartisan efforts in this regard.
That would have been the case had the majority leader allowed the
Energy Committee to initiate and complete its work. In fact, we had the
chairman's mark on electricity pending before us when the majority
leader preempted the committee.
The Energy Committee has held 20 hearings on electricity in the 106th
and 107th Congresses. Last year, the committee even held several days
of business meetings exploring and marking up energy legislation. And
last Congress, the Senate, in an overwhelming, bipartisan effort,
unanimously passed reliability legislation.
Regrettably, all that effort was thrown out the window when the
majority leader stripped the Energy Committee of its jurisdiction and
put energy legislation directly on the Senate calendar.
I hope we are able to create an energy policy that enhances domestic
energy supply, makes the supply more reliable and affordable, and
reduces our dependence on imported oil. We need to foster a regulatory
and investment climate that encourages new energy sources of all types.
We are going to need them all. We are going to need oil. We are going
to need natural gas. We are going to need nuclear. We are going to need
coal, electricity, and certainly renewables.
We need to encourage the construction of energy infrastructure,
including transmission lines. I think that is what the administration
stands for. That is certainly what I stand for. I know that is what the
American people expect Congress to do.
So I look forward to working with Senator Bingaman and other Members
as we address an objective, from our opinion, to take a bill that is
not of our liking and to change it by amendments, and work to get this
bill into conference, because it is one of the priorities of the
administration and certainly one of the priorities, I know, of Senator
Bingaman and myself.
Madam President, I am going to take a few minutes to enlighten
Members on the concern over several articles that appeared in the
Washington Post and the New York Times over the weekend that I think
either blatantly misrepresent the facts in relation to the issue of
opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to responsible oil and
gas development or, indeed, are simply conscientious lobbying efforts
to twist factual information to represent the editorial policies of
various newspapers, specifically the Washington Post and New York
Times.
In Sunday's edition of the New York Times, it illustrates the height
of misinformation that has clouded this debate. This is a picture that
was taken from the New York Times of March 10. It is rather interesting
to read this article because it is so inaccurate that one wonders just
what kind of reporting and research was done.
This was March 10, the Sunday edition, and it shows an extraordinary
area under a title that reads ``Oil Industry Hesitates Over Moving Into
Arctic Refuge.''
When one looks at this, one has to reflect on what they are looking
at because it says directly above the picture: Oil Industry Hesitates
Over Moving Into The Arctic Refuge.
This picture we are seeing says: Drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge could soon be legal, but it is far from certain how
much oil may be found if exploration proceeds.
The only problem is, that is not the 1002 area of ANWR that might be
opened to responsible development. This is perhaps somewhere in the
Brooks Range. It shows a valley, it shows mountains. It shows an
extraordinary landscape. But it is very misleading because it is not
the 1002 area. It is not the 1\1/2\ million acres in question.
This is the area in question. This is what it looks like on a clear
day.

[[Page S1721]]

I have been up there. This is my State. I live there. You have what
they call whiteouts where the wind and snow blow and you can't see the
sky. It is all white. If the New York Times chose to put that as
depicting the 1002 area, I would not have an issue. That is what it
looks like; 10\1/2\ months of the year there is ice and snow on the
ground. The Arctic Ocean is open for 40 days a year ice free. That is
all.
I am very disappointed that the New York Times did not show an actual
portrayal and just threw a picture in of mountains and suggested this
is the area being debated.
It is important Members who are watching at least have some idea.
This Coastal Plain is the green area. That is the 1002 area. That is
the area where we are considering to whether open for oil and gas
exploration. It consists of 1.5 million acres. Then this area down
below, the wilderness area, is about 8.5 million acres. And the area in
the dark buff color is about 9 million acres. I suspect this picture
might have been taken somewhere in the refuge down below where the
mountains are because that is the mountain area. I have said this area
is 19 million acres, the size of the State of South Carolina.
I also take issue with some of the narrative because they totally
misrepresent reality. I will just read from the sixth paragraph:

Oil companies and industry experts say it is cheaper and
more promising right now to exploit large reservoirs of oil
elsewhere in the world. And it is easier: many companies fear
that drilling in the wilderness area . . .

There will be no drilling in any wilderness area, none whatsoever.
This is a refuge. It is not a wilderness area. The Coastal Plain up
there is the area in question. So when they characterize this as
drilling in wilderness, it is a total inaccuracy. They should be taken
to task for it.
Let me show a couple more pictures relative to this ANWR area, what
it generally looks like relative to what is there. We have one village
up there called Kaktovik where real people live. This is the only
village in the 1002 area and ANWR. You can see the Arctic Ocean out
there in the white, covered with ice. And that is the way it is most of
the year. This is in the spring. Again, I reflect on the reality that
this doesn't look at all like the picture we had previously shown of
the mountains because there are no mountains in the 1002 area. It is a
Coastal Plain. It does not look like that. If you can somehow generate
or pull out the Coastal Plain or an ocean anywhere near that area,
obviously I will stand corrected.
We have other pictures. This is some of the village activities and so
forth. I think it is important to note how inaccurate some of this
information is.
I would oppose any amendment that would open the wilderness area of
ANWR to oil development. But that is really not what this debate is
about. As I have indicated, the 1002 area of ANWR is situated on the
shores of the Arctic Ocean. It is several thousand miles from the lower
48. Somebody asked me how many visitors visited ANWR last year. Roughly
1,100 people have gone up to see for themselves. It is a remote area,
and it has certainly been the target of frequent misinformation.

There are some cuddly polar bears that we occasionally see in ads.
This is one of them. This was run in the Washington Post. This is
something that appeared on May 15, 2001. It shows Phillips Petroleum's
operation on the north shore, a very small footprint. That particular
facility is producing about 100,000 barrels a day, which puts it in the
top dozen of fields in the United States.
The picture says: A polar bear and her cubs at rest in Alaska's
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That picture was taken near Barrow,
roughly 900 miles further west. It is kind of interesting. I have never
heard an environmentalist acknowledge what has been one of the greatest
saviours of the polar bear; and that is, they are marine mammals and,
under Federal law, they cannot be taken as trophies. You can go to
Canada and Russia and take a polar bear, but you can't take one in
Alaska. The Natives that live there occasionally take a few for
subsistence, but very few. So for all practical purposes, they are
protected. To suggest that some action associated with oil and gas
might disturb their denning habits, is misleading, there is no
scientific proof to prove that. I rest my case that the greatest
contribution to the lifestyle of the polar bear in Alaska is that we
can't shoot them.
The interesting thing about this picture of the mountains is that it
never even attempts to show anything like a Coastal Plain of ANWR or
1002 area.
The New York Times is in the business of selling papers and probably
it looks a lot prettier to see those mountains than that blank white
chart we just showed which is the way it looks a good deal of the time
in a whiteout. As a matter of fact, you don't go out for a walk. You
can get totally disoriented.
One of the posters we have was supposed to show caribou in
undisturbed ANWR. But what they didn't tell you, the photo was taken on
the roof of a building in the small village of Kaktovik. That is the
picture. That shows the Coastal Plain going back into the wilderness
areas where the mountains are. The mountains back there are very
beautiful. That is somewhere in the area of 60 to 90 miles away from
the Coastal Plain. Again, it is a matter of trying to orientate people
with some degree of accuracy. If you are evidently from the New York
Times, you are not necessarily interested in accuracy. You are
interested in simply communicating a point of view which represents the
editorial policy of the newspaper.
On the Coastal Plain, winter lasts most of the year. As a matter of
fact, it is dark for 56 straight days. There is no sunlight. So clearly
that would not do very well up there. It is not pristine. It is a harsh
environment, and has a uniqueness and beauty all its own; but there are
buildings, an airport, schools, and a radar installation.
We have written a letter in the hopes that we can correct the
inaccuracies associated with the New York Times article, and we think
it makes sense to ensure our energy security by coming up with
solutions. We have the technology to do it safely. What we need is a
debate based on facts, not fiction, and the reality of what is and what
isn't ANWR. Again, I refer to the chart that shows what it looks like
most of the time. This isn't what the Times pictured.
I would like to address the fact that the Secretary of the Interior
also touched on the issue of accuracy in the debate on ANWR and
directed a letter to Mr. Tom Brokaw, of ``NBC Nightly News,'' among
others. She enclosed a tape--which they were free to use--showing the
North Slope of ANWR in the winter, the only time when energy
exploration would be allowed under the President's plan. The video was
produced for Arctic Power, an organization funded primarily by Alaskans
and our State government. She indicates she thinks it is important that
you have a factual idea from the video of the actual part of ANWR being
discussed so the viewers can have a more accurate understanding of the
issue.
I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

The Secretary of the Interior,

Washington, DC, February 27, 2002.
Mr. Tom Brokaw,
NBC Nightly News,
New York, NY.
Dear Tom: As the U.S. Senate debates President Bush's
bipartisan national energy strategy over the next several
weeks, I encourage NBC Nightly News to report about the
President's initiative to allow environmentally sensitive
energy production in the far north slope--commonly called the
1002 Area--of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Enclosed is a betacam tape, which you are free to use,
showing the north slope of ANWR in the winter--the only time
when energy exploration would be allowed under the
President's plan. The video was produced for Arctic Power, an
organization funded primarily by the Alaska State government.
I think it is important that you have video of the actual
part of ANWR being discussed, so that your viewers can have a
more accurate understanding of the issue. Frequently during
the energy debate, I have watched television programs feature
video that resembles ANWR's Brooks Range. This area is
designated wilderness in the central portion of the Refuge--
and is not the area proposed for energy development.
Winter-only exploration in ANWR is just one example of the
President's commitment to impose the toughest environmental
standards ever applied to oil production. For example, the
administration will also require the use of ice roads that
melt away in the spring and protect the tundra.
Morever, the administration will require directional
drilling and smaller production

[[Page S1722]]

pads, so that energy exploration can be accomplished
utilizing just 2,000 of the 1002 Area's 1.5 million acres.
These stringent requirements must be adopted so we can reduce
our dependence on foreign oil and protect ANWR's habitat and
the wildlife that call it home.
Please call Interior Department communications at 202/208-
6416 with further questions.
Sincerely,
Gale A. Norton.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Again, I want to make reference to some of the refuges
because some people make an automatic mental transfer that somehow this
is a refuge. Therefore, there should not be any exploration occurring
or any activity of any kind. This chart shows activities associated
with oil and gas in various refuges. In California, there are four
refuges that produce oil and gas. We only have one in our State of
Alaska, the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. There are nine in Texas and
there are many in Louisiana. These are specific ones. In California, we
have the Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge, the Sacramento
National Wildlife Refuge, Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, and the
Sutter National Wildlife Refuge, where oil production is taking place
and some of them are involved in various other discoveries, such as
gravel, desalinization, and so forth. So, again, saying we are somehow
initiating an action in Alaska that is unique and unfounded doesn't
face the sense of reality.
I will conclude by making a reference to the Washington Post and New
York Times then and now. As I have already indicated, the editorial
policy of the Washington Post is not in support of exploring in ANWR.
I ask unanimous consent this be printed in the Record, the Washington
Post editorial December 25, April 23; April 4, 2001, 1987, and 1989, to
be followed by editorials from the New York Times, March 2001, January
2001, April 1987, June 1988, and March 1989.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, Apr. 23, 1987]

In Alaska: Drill, but With Care

Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an untouched
and fragile place that supports rare mammals and myriad
species of birds. It is also the most promising untapped
source of oil in North America. Should America drill for it?
What Congress decided, in 1980, was not to decide. It
ordered a long study. The assessment is now in, and for
Interior Secretary Hodel the decision isn't even close:
leasing drilling rights to oil companies is ``vital to our
national security'' because it ``would reduce America's
dependence on unstable sources of foreign oil.''
Mr. Hodel is guilty of oversell. A single discovery can't
save us from increasing dependence on Persian Gulf oil but
the potential economic benefit of development--perhaps tens
of billions of dollars of oil--outweighs the risks. The
unanswered question is whether environmentalists and
developers can cooperate to minimize damage to the refuge.
The Interior Department estimates that between 600 million
and 9.2 billion barrels of oil are recoverable from a 20-by-
100-mile strip along the Arctic coast. But no matter how
carefully done, development of the coastal strip would
displace animals and scar land permanently. Tracks of
vehicles that crossed the tundra decades ago are still
visible. No one knows whether the caribou herd that bears its
young near the coast would stop reproducing or simply move
elsewhere.
Adversaries in this battle view development as ecological
catastrophe or energy salvation. Outsiders can wonder why
such apocalyptic fuss. An unusual environment would surely be
damaged, but the amount of land involved is modest and the
animals at risk are not endangered species. A lot of oil
might be pumped, but probably not enough to keep America's
motors running for an entire year. Ultimately, policy makers
must weigh the dollar value of the oil against the intangible
value of an unspoiled refuge.
The most likely net value of the oil after accounting for
costs and assuming a future world price of $33 a barrel, is
about $15 billion.
How much an untouched refuge is worth is anyone's guess--
but it's hard to see how it could realistically be judged
worth such an enormous sum. If America had an extra $15
billion to spend on wilderness protection, it wouldn't be
spent on this one sliver of land.
That doesn't mean, however, that developers should be
permitted to treat the refuge as another Bayonne. Elaborate,
necessarily expensive precautions are needed to contain the
disruption. Human and machine presence can and should be kept
to a bare minimum until test wells are completed. Dense
caribou calving grounds should be left alone until the
animals' response to change is gauged.
A decade ago, precautions in the design and construction of
the 1,000-mile-long Alaska pipeline saved the land from
serious damage. If oil companies, government agencies and
environmentalists approach the development of the refuge with
comparable care, disaster should be avoidable.
____

[From the New York Times, June 2, 1988]

Risks Worth Taking for Oil

Can Big Oil and its Government regulators be trusted with
the fragile environment of Alaska's Arctic Wildlife Refuge?
Congress, pressed by the Reagan Administration to allow
exploratory drilling in what may be North America's last
great oil reserve, has been wrestling with the question for
years. Then, last month, opponents' skepticism was heightened
by a leaked report from the Fish and Wildlife Service saying
that environmental disruption in the nearby North Slope oil
fields is far worse than originally believed.
The North Slope development has been America's biggest test
by far of the proposition that it is possible to balance
energy needs with sensitivity for the environment. The public
therefore deserves an independent assessment of the
ecological risks and an honest assessment of the energy
awards.
No one wants to ruin a wilderness for small gain. But in
this case, the potential is enormous and the environmental
risks are modest. Even if the report's findings are
confirmed, the likely value of the oil far exceeds plausible
estimates of the environmental cost.
The amount of oil that be recovered from the Wildlife
Refuge is not known. But it seems likely that coastal plain,
representing a small part of the acreage in the refuge,
contains several billion barrels, worth tens of billions of
dollars. But drilling is certain to disrupt the delicate
ecology of the Arctic tundra.
Some members of Congress believe that no damage at all is
acceptable. But most are ready to accept a little
environmental degradation in return for a lot of oil. Hence
the relevance of the experience at Prudhoe Bay, which now
yields 20 percent of total U.S. oil production. Last year,
Representative George Miller, a California Democrat and
opponent of drilling within the refuge, asked the Fish and
Wildlife Service to compare the environmental impact
predicted in 1972 for Prudhoe Bay with the actual impact. The
report from the local field office, never released by the
Administration, offers a long list of effects, ranging from
birds displaced to tons of nitrous oxide released into the
air.
According to the authors, development used more land,
damaged more habitat acreage and generated more effluent than
originally predicted. The authors also argue that Government
monitoring efforts and assessment of long-term effects have
been inadequate.
It's important to find out whether these interpretations
are sensible and how environmental oversight could be
improved. The General Accounting Office, a creature of
Congress, is probably the most credible agency to do the job.
But even taken at face value, the report's findings hardly
justify putting oil exploration on hold.
No species is reported to be endangered. No dramatic
permanent change in ecology are forecast. Much of the
unpredicted damage has arisen because more oil has been
produced than originally predicted. Even so, the total
acreage affected by development represents only a fraction of
1 percent of the North Slope wilderness.
The trade-off between energy and ecology seems unchanged.
If another oil field on the scale of Prudhoe Bay is
discovered, developing it will damage the environment. That
damage is worth minimizing. But it is hard to see why
absolutely pristine preservation of this remote wilderness
should take precedence over the nation's energy needs.
____

[From The New York Times, Mar. 30, 1989]

Oil on the Water, Oil in the Ground

Does the Exxon tanker spill show that Arctic oil shipping
is being mismanaged? Should the industry have been better
prepared to cope with the accident? Should the spill deflect
President Bush from his plan to open more of Alaska to oil
exploration?
Six days after the Exxon Valdez dumped 240,000 barrels of
crude into the frigid waters of Prince William Sound,
questions come more easily than answers. But it is not too
early to distinguish between the issue of regulation and the
broader question of exploiting energy resources in the
Arctic. The accident shouldn't change one truth: Alaskan oil
is too valuable to leave in the ground.
Exxon has much to explain. The tanker captain has a history
of alcohol abuse. The officer in charge of the vessel at the
time of the spill was not certified to navigate in the sound.
The company's cleanup efforts have been woefully ineffective.
Local industries, notably fishing, face potentially
disastrous consequences, and the Government needs to hold the
company to its promise to pay. More important, Washington has
an obligation to impose and enforce rules strict enough to
reduce the risks of another spill.
That said, it's worth putting the event in perspective.
Before last Friday, tens of thousands of tanker runs from
Valdez has been completed without a serious mishap. Alaska
now pumps two million barrels through the pipeline each day.
And it would be almost unthinkable to restrict access to one-
fourth of the nation's total oil production.
The far tougher question is whether the accident is
sufficient reason to slow exploration for additional oil in
the Arctic. The

[[Page S1723]]

single most promising source of oil in America lies on the
north coast of Alaska, a few hundred miles east of the big
fields at Prudhoe Bay. But this remote tundra is part of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and since 1980 Congress has
been trying to decide whether to allow exploratory drilling.
Environmental organizations have long opposed such
exploration, arguing that the ecology of the refuge is both
unusual and fragile. This week they used the occasion of the
tanker spill to call for further delays while the damage from
the Exxon Valdez spill is assessed.
More information is always better than less. But long delay
would have a cost, too: Prudhoe Bay production will begin to
tail off in the mid-1990's. If exploration is permitted in
the refuge and little oil is found, development will never
take place and damage to the environment will be
insignificant. If development does prove worthwhile, the
process will undoubtedly degrade the environment. But the
compensation will be a lot of badly needed fuel.
Environmentalists counter that, at most, the refuge will
add one year's supply to America's reserves. They are right,
but one year of oil is a lot of oil. The 3.2 billion barrels,
if found, would be worth about $60 billion at today's prices,
enough to generate at least $10 billion in royalties for
Alaska and the Federal Government. By denying access to it,
Congress would be saying implicitly that the absolute purity
of the refuge was worth at least as much as the forgone $10
billion.
Put it another way. Suppose the royalties were dedicated to
buying and maintaining parkland in the rest of the nation--a
not unthinkable legislative option. Would Americans really
want to pass by, say, $10 billion worth of land in order to
prevent oil companies from covering a few thousand acres of
the Arctic with roads, drilling pads and pipelines?
Washington can't afford to assume that the Exxon Valdez
accident was a freak that will never happen again. But
neither can it afford to treat the accident as a reason for
fencing off what may be the last great oilfield in the
nation.
____

[From the Washington Post, Apr. 4, 1989]

Lessons of the Oil spill

Because of the gigantic oil spill off Alaska, conventional
wisdom declares, this country is now going to restrict oil
drilling much more tightly. Maybe so. But you will notice
that conventional wisdom isn't sayng anything about cutting
down on the consumption of oil. Americans have organized
their lives in ways that require 700 million gallons a day of
it, and they do not welcome suggestions to use less. But if
less oil is to be produced here in the United States, more
will have to come from other countries. The effect will be to
move oil spills to other shores. As a policy to protect the
global environment, that's not very helpful.
The immediate cause of the Alaskan spill was slack and
solvenly management by Exxon. It is a familiar story. A
highly demanding industrial operation, set up with great care
and many safeguards, had been running smoothly so long that
people began to relax and get careless. Something similar
happened at Three Mile Island, the reactor accident 10 years
ago, which the conventional wisdom currently cites as a
parallel case to the Alaskan shipwreck. The nuclear industry
reacted with a vigorous improvement of both equipment and
training. The same thing is likely to happen on the West
Coast tanker routes.
But that's not quite what the conventional wisdom means by
drawing the parallel. Its point is that Three Mile Island did
much to turn the country against nuclear power, just as it
expects the disaster in Prince William Sound to turn the
country against further drilling in Alaska, particularly in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and perhaps in any new
sites off the Pacific Coast as well.
Because the United States has stopped building reactors, it
is now more reliant than ever on coal to generate its
electricity--which means pumping enormous volumes of
pollution into the atmosphere. The country cut back on
nuclear power, but it didn't cut back on its demand for
electricity--which is now rising half again as fast as the
government's forecast.
All of the technologies for producing energy are
unforgiving. They punish incompetence savagely. That
frightens people. The conventional wisdom is now turning
against oil drilling, just as it has turned against nuclear
power and will turn against coal with its implications of
acid rain and a changing climate. But that same conventional
wisdom has not turned against the idea that energy for the
consumer should be plentiful, reliable and cheap.
The first lesson of the oil spill is that it's time for
this country to get serious about energy conservation. The
second is that, since energy production is dangerous and even
a company as well equipped as Exxon can't be counted on the
maintain discipline, the government will have to do more of
it--and Exxon will have no one to thank but itself. The
lesson that conventional wisdom seems to be drawing--that the
country should produce less and turn to even greater
imports--is exactly wrong.
____

[From the Washington Post, Apr. 23, 1987]

Caribou vs. Motorist

It's the Caribou versus the motorist, again. Secretary of
the Interior Donald P. Hodel has recommended opening part of
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil
drilling. That was what the oil companies hoped he might do.
A predictable shriek has gone up from the defenders of the
refuge. The decision is up to Congress.
Environmental quarrels always seem to generate billowing
exaggeration. Another major oil discovery in Alaska would
certainly be convenient, postponing the effects of the
decline in Prudhoe Bay production that the government expects
within the next year or so. But it's not quite so vital as
Secretary Hodel suggests. With or without more Alaskan wells,
oil production in this country is likely to stay on a
downward trend.
As for the caribou, however, oil drilling seems very
unlikely to be the dire threat to them that their friends
here in Washington claim. While the two cases are not
entirely comparable, the Interior Department points out that
the number of caribou around Prudhoe Bay, 60 miles west of
the refuge, has tripled in the 19 years since oil operations
began there. The aesthetic objections to oil drilling may be
substantial, but the caribou do not seem to share them.
Preservation of wilderness is important, but much of Alaska
is already under the strictest of preservation laws. The area
that Mr. Hodel would open to drilling is 1.5 million acres,
running about 100 miles along the state's north coast near
the Canadian border. He points out that adjacent to it is an
area five times as large that remains legally designated as
wilderness, putting it off limits to any development
whatever.
Human intrusion on the scale of oil exploration always
makes a difference in a landscape. But that part of the
arctic coast is one of the bleakest, most remote places on
this continent, and there is hardly any other where drilling
would have less impact on the surrounding life.
Drilling in the Arctic Refuge is not crucial to the
country's future. But there is a respectable chance--about
one in five, the department's geologists say--that
exploration will find enough oil to be worth producing
commercially. That oil could help ease the country's
transition to lower oil supplies and, by a small but useful
amount, reduce its dependence on uncertain imports. Congress
would be right to go ahead and, with all the conditions and
environmental precautions that apply to Prudhoe Bay, see
what's under the refuge's tundra.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, the editorial in the Washington Post
indicates that we can't drill our way out of our ties to the world oil
market. Well, I agree with that. They further state that they feel we
can generate from conservation what we would potentially recover from
opening ANWR. It is kind of interesting to see what they said back in
1987. I will read a portion of it. The Washington Post, April 23, 1987:

Preservation of wilderness is important, but much of Alaska
is already under the strictest of preservation laws. . . .

We have 56 million acres of wilderness in our State.

But that part of the arctic coast is one of the bleakest,
most remote places on this continent, and there is hardly any
other place where drilling would have less impact on the
surrounding life. . . .
That oil could help ease the country's transition to lower
oil supplies and . . . reduce its dependence on uncertain
imports. Congress would be right to go ahead and, with all
the conditions and environmental precautions that apply to
Prudhoe Bay, see what's under the refuge's tundra. . . .

April 4, 1989:

But if less is to be produced here in the United States,
more will have to come from other countries. The effect will
be to move oil spills to other shores. As a policy to protect
the global environment, that's not very helpful. . . .
The lesson that conventional wisdom seems to be drawing--
that the country should produce less and turn to even greater
imports--is exactly wrong.

I had an opportunity to meet with the editorial board of the
Washington Post, and I asked them why they changed their position from
1987, 1989, and 2001. Their response was rather interesting. They
indicated they thought President Bush was too forward in pushing the
development of a national resource on domestic areas of the United
States and, therefore, they were in opposition. I didn't accept that,
but that is the rationale they gave me.
The New York Times is also very interesting because back in 1987,
April, they said:

Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge . . . the most
promising untapped source of oil in North America.
A decade ago, precautions in the design and construction of
the 1,000-mile-long Alaska pipeline saved the land from
serious damage. If oil companies, government agencies and
environmentalists approach the development of the refuge with
comparable care, disaster should be avoidable.

June 2, 1988:

. . . the potential is enormous and environmental risks are
modest . . . the likely value

[[Page S1724]]

of the oil far exceeds plausible estimates of the
environmental cost.
. . . the total acreage affected by development represents
only a fraction of 1 percent of the North Slope wilderness.

They did a little licensing there because it is not wilderness.

But it is hard to see why absolutely pristine preservation
of this remote wilderness should take precedence over the
nation's energy needs.

The last was March 30, 1989:

Alaskan oil is too valuable to leave in the ground.
The single most promising source of oil in America lies on
the north coast of Alaska, a few hundred miles east of the
big fields at Prudhoe Bay.
Washington can't afford . . . to treat the [Exxon Valdez]
accident as a reason for fencing off what may be the last
great oilfield in the nation.

I went up to New York and asked the editorial board why they changed
their position and that, too, was rather enlightening. They said, well,
the editor of the editorial board had been transferred to California
and, as a consequence, they had changed their position because they had
a change of the editor of the editorial board.
It is interesting to see how these major newspapers change their
opinions on national issues, and one can only guess at what the
motivation was. We will have to leave that for another day and perhaps
another explanation.
I ask unanimous consent that an editorial called ``A Better Energy
Bill,'' which appeared in the Washington Post today, also be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

A Better Energy Bill

As the Senate opened debate on an energy bill last week,
the White House fired a shot across its bow. The bill on the
Senate floor is not comprehensive energy legislation, said
the Office of Management and Budget, because it doesn't do
enough to increase domestic oil production, failing in
particular to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to
drilling. The administration opposes the higher automobile
fuel efficiency standards that are in the bill, and it
objects to a provision that would require facilities that
emit large quantities of greenhouse gases to register those
emissions. The administration is right that the House and
Senate are heading in different directions, but it's wrong on
the relative merits. The pro-conservation tilt of the Senate
bill makes it the better measure.
It's possible neither version will become law. While all
sides agree on substantial sections of the legislation,
divisions over Arctic drilling and fuel economy are deep.
Even if the Senate can pass a bill, it is likely to be so
different from the House version that a conference committee
will have trouble bridging the gaps. The issues that were
driving debate when President Bush put his energy plan
together last year have faded: Prices for oil and natural gas
are down, and California no longer is suffering from rolling
blackouts. Since Sept. 11 the rallying cry is national
security. But it's worth remembering that both drilling in
Alaska and auto fuel efficiency standards would take years to
bear fruit. And neither the House bill nor the measure now
before the Senate would make the country energy independent.
Imported oil now provides 57 percent of U.S. needs; left
unchecked, imports are expected to make up two-thirds of
consumption by 2020. The energy measures aim to reverse that
trend, but the best either side predicts from the range of
measures in either bill is to bring imports back under 50
percent of consumption, not eliminate them. As long as the
economy and most modes of transportation rely on oil, America
will remain economically tied to the world oil market.
But it makes ecological sense to reduce dependence on oil,
foreign or domestic, and on other fossil fuels, so there's
merit in the Senate bill's emphasis on conservation, new
technology and new sources of energy. Raising auto fuel
efficiency standards, unchanged since 1985, would help. So
would the bill's proposed tougher efficiency standards for
new air conditioners and its demand that, by 2020, 10 percent
of electricity come from renewable sources; several states
already have used this kind of requirement to boost
generation from wind and other renewable sources. As debate
opened Wednesday, Alaska's Sen. Frank Murkowski broadly
described these initiatives as an ``unacceptable intrusion of
the federal government into the marketplace.'' But they're no
more of an intrusion than the Republicans' tax breaks for
drilling. The difference, as Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman
(D-N.M.) said, is that his bill's incentives seeks to bring
about change that wouldn't occur otherwise. The Republican-
favored approach renders more profitable activity that likely
would take place anyway, or (as in the case of Alaska)
encourage activity that we'd be better off without.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that letters
to the editors of the Washington Post and New York Times dated today
also be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The New York Times,
New York, NY.
To the Editors: I was deeply concerned by the misleading
photograph that accompanied your recent article discussing
the safe exploration of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR).
The presence of such a large mountain range in your picture
tells me that the photograph is not located in the area of
ANWR discussed in the story. In fact, it is probably more
than 75 miles off the mark.
This would be not unlike using a photo of the Philadelphia
skyline for an article about New York City. At the very
least, it's like using a picture of the Meadowlands for a
story about JFK International airport. They are simply not
interchangeable because they are two very different places.
Fewer than 1,000 visitors a year have a chance to see for
themselves what is--and what isn't--ANWR. This remoteness
makes the ANWR debate the frequent target of incorrect
information and inaccurate portrayals.
ANWR is composed of 19 million acres--an area the size of
all of South Carolina. The 17.5 million acres that is off-
limits is the actual home to the mountains and wildlife that,
during a brief spring, make for some of the picturesque
photos we've seen. Let me be clear--this is not the area
where oil exploration will occur.
If allowed, oil exploration will be limited to a flat,
barren portion of the 1.5 million acre coastal plain--a
section set aside for the express purpose of oil exploration
because of the tremendous oil reserves geologists believe
exist there.
To help ensure our nation's energy security, we must make
certain that our energy solutions begin and end here at home.
We can do that by recognizing the vast energy resources that
exist on our shores and that our technology and ingenuity can
ensure their safe recovery.
Very truly yours,

Senator Frank H. Murkowski,

Ranking Member, Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee.
____

The Washington Post,
Washington, DC.
To the Editors: I do not disagree with your statement that
``as long as . . . most modes of transportation rely on oil,
America will remain economically tied to the world oil
market'' (``A Better Energy Bill'', March 11, 2002). We
should reduce our dependence on oil and especially foreign
oil. The comprehensive energy plan proposed by President Bush
and passed in the House includes a number of proposals to
spark the development of alternative fuel and help reduce our
future use of oil.
But I disagree with your assertion that the safe
exploration of domestic energy resources in Alaska is
``activity that we'd be better off without.'' Geologists tell
us that ANWR is believed to have more oil than all of Texas'
proven reserves--enough to end more than 30 years of Saudi
Arabian imports. American technology and ingenuity will
ensure its safety recovery with a minimum amount of
disturbance--just 2,000 acres.
Domestic oil from ANWR has, in fact, been supported by this
paper before. In 1987, the Washington Post editorialized that
oil from ANWR ``. . . could help ease the country's
transition to lower oil supplies'' and that it could ``. . .
reduce its dependence on uncertain imports.'' Again in 1989,
the Post said ``The lesson that conventional wisdom seems to
be drawing--that the country should produce less and turn to
even greater imports--is exactly wrong.''
What has happened since 1989? We fought a war over oil in
the Gulf. Our dependence on foreign oil has increased. The
Middle East has grown more unstable. And never before in our
history have we gained a greater appreciation of national
security and the impact of ensuring our energy security.
Domestic energy production must be part of the Senate's
efforts to construct a national energy plan. Any plan that
fails is no solution at all.
Very truly yours,

Senator Frank H. Murkowski,

Ranking Member, Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee.
____

Mr. MURKOWSKI. In conclusion, Madam President, I think we deserve
better from two of our leading newspapers than to have such gross
inaccuracies perpetrated on the American public in the interest of news
or formulating public opinion. I do not mind taking my licks as long as
it is a fair portrayal, but when it is an unfair portrayal or it is
journalism that reflects simply a prevailing attitude and ignores the
facts, the only thing I can do is call it to the attention of Members
and the public in the interest of fairness.
I ask unanimous consent that a portion of the Sunday New York Times
which factually mischaracterizes the issue of ANWR be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S1725]]

[From the New York Times, Mar. 9, 2002]

Oil Industry Hesitates Over Moving Into Arctic Refuge

(By Neela Barnerjee)

More than three decades ago, the world's largest energy
companies led the charge to drill for oil on the North Slope
of Alaska. But now, as the debate rages over opening the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, those
same companies remain surprisingly silent.
Drilling in the Arctic refuge, which has already been
approved by the House, has become a touchstone issue for the
Bush administration, and the issue promises to produce a
nasty fight in the current debate over the energy bill in the
Senate. Publicly, the biggest multinational petroleum
companies, like Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP and
ChevronTexaco, back the Bush administration's assertion that
developing the oil in the Arctic refuge is critical to the
American economy. But privately, many large companies say the
prospect, solely on business terms, is not terribly
attractive.
``Big oil companies go where there are substantial fields
and where they can produce oil economically,'' said Ronald W.
Chappell, a spokesman for BP Alaska, which officially
supports opening the area to drilling. Using the acronym for
the refuge, he continued, ``Does ANWR have that? Who knows?''
Oil companies and industry experts say it is cheaper and
more promising right now to exploit large reservoirs of oil
elsewhere in the world. And it is easier: many companies fear
that drilling in the wilderness area may be blocked by
persistent litigation, or that a future president or Congress
could put the refuge out of bounds once more.
``There is still a fair amount of exploration risk here:
you could go through eight years of litigation, a good amount
of investment, and still come up with dry holes or uneconomic
discoveries,'' said Gerald J. Kepes, the managing director
for exploration and production issues at the Petroleum
Finance Company, a Washington consulting firm for oil
companies. ``It's not clear that this is quite the bonanza
some have said.''
Supporters and opponents alike of drilling in the Arctic
refuge have noted the reticence of the largest multinational
oil conglomerates on the issue. ``They are not present at
all,'' a Senate aide said.
Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman, said that the
administration believed that oil companies would be
interested in exploration if the refuge is opened to
drilling. ``What's important is that we have this option due
to the vast potential to reduce our reliance on foreign
sources of energy,'' she said.
The fight over oil drilling in the refuge has flared in
Congress every few years, and so far, opponents of drilling
have kept the area off limits. Now, proponents of drilling
smell the sharpest whiff of victory ever.
They still face an uphill battle. The energy bill narrowly
passed last year by the House included a passage permitting
oil exploration in the refuge. But in the Senate, two
Democrats, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joseph I.
Lieberman of Connecticut, have threatened to filibuster any
amendment on drilling, meaning that proponents will have to
muster at least 60 members to force a vote. Given the
deepness of the divisions, the entire energy bill could
unravel if both sides tug hard enough at this single issue,
Congressional aids and energy industry executives said.
The battle centers on drilling on the coastal plain of the
refuge, a narrow ribbon of land that stretches about 110
miles along the Beaufort Sea. Environmentalists and wildlife
biologists say that in the summer, the coastal plain teems
with caribou and millions of migratory birds. Drilling for
oil there, they argue, would ruin one of the few pristine
wilderness areas left on the planet.
Those who back drilling are varied and formidable,
including a bipartisan array of politicians from southern and
western states, nearly the entire political establishment of
Alaska and several labor unions, led by the Teamsters. They
contend that the coastal plain is a snowbound wasteland, and
the oil there could be developed with little environmental
damage. They say the coastal plain's reservoirs hold about 16
billion barrels of oil, or enough to meet the country's
appetite for petroleum for a little more than two years.
The oil companies themselves, however, are less certain of
how much oil lies below the coastal plain. No precise data
about the amount of oil in the plain is publicly available.
In the 1980's BP and what then was the Chevron Corporation
drilled an exploratory well on private land owned by native
tribes that is inside the refuge, but BP said that those
results were a proprietary secret. The United States
Geological Survey estimates that at oil prices around $20 a
barrel, the amount of oil that could be recovered
economically from the federally controlled part of the
coastal plain is 3.2 billion barrels.
Of course, companies face severe difficulties in developing
oil fields overseas, from the rough winters in the North Sea
to the endemic corruption in Nigeria to the long-running
civil war in Angola. But the size of the discoveries and the
relative cheapness of exploiting them often make the
investments worthwhile. Within each oil company, prospects in
the Arctic refuge would be measured against fields elsewhere.
A political mandate to explore the region, executives of
several major oil companies said, would not necessarily
compel them to rush into the area.
``All our Alaska projects need to compete worldwide with
other Phillips projects,'' said Dawn Patience, a spokeswoman
in Alaska for Phillips Petroleum, the largest oil producer on
the North Slope. ``And it does come down to economics.''
The calculus includes the usual factors like the cost of
producing oil and shipping it to market. But drilling in the
Arctic refuge holds significant political risks that would
lead to delays and with that, higher costs, oil company oil
officials said.
``There will be tremendous debate or delays due to
litigation,'' an executive with a major oil company said.
``All that has to go into the assessment of whether that
project would be economically viable.''
Still, there would be pressure on companies already working
in Alaska, like BP, Exxon Mobil and Phillips, to bid for
leases if the area is opened to drilling. The state, which
issues so many of the permits oil companies need to work in
Alaska, might take their indifference as a slap in the face,
said environmentalists and some industry executives.
At the same time, smaller companies, particularly those
looking for a foothold in Alaska, might be willing to take on
the risks and aggressively pursue drilling in the refuge.
``Smaller companies are involved in fewer places, and what is
a marginal opportunity for us is a big opportunity for an
independent,'' the executive with the major oil company said.
``This is not a huge priority for us.''
Even without lawsuits by environmentalists, the earliest
any oil from the wildlife refuge would make it to market is
2010, industry executives said. But development efforts could
drag out well beyond that date. ``To protect the refuge,''
said Deborah Williams, executive director of the Alaska
Conservation Foundation in Anchorage, ``national
environmental law firms and Alaskan environmental groups will
find every opportunity to challenge drilling.''
Oil companies know too well how projects can atrophy within
a web of litigation and political resistance. They hold
hundreds of leases for places where they cannot drill because
of litigation, Congressional action or a change of
presidential administration. Among them are Bristol Bay in
Alaska, the western and eastern seaboards of the United
States and the eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico.
The champions of drilling in the refuge are the State of
Alaska and the unions. In fiscal 2001, 82 percent of the
unrestricted funds in the state budget came from the
petroleum industry, which is also a major employer. But oil
production on the North Slope has fallen by half since its
peak of two million barrels a day in 1988, said Mark D.
Myers, director of the State Division of Oil and Gas.
And as oil production dwindles, so might revenues and jobs.
``The primary reason is job creation,'' said Jerry Hood, a
Teamsters union energy specialist. The Bush energy policy,
Mr. Hood said, ``is, frankly, a way to re-employ American
workers.''

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I see my friend from New Mexico, the
chairman of the committee, with us today. I ask him if he knows what
business we might take up today.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, in response to my friend from Alaska,
my understanding is the leader intends that we remain in session until
approximately 5 o'clock and then go out of session. I do have one
amendment that I believe has been cleared related to U.S.-Mexico
technology cooperation which both myself and Senator Domenici have
sponsored. It has passed the Senate before. I hope to do that by voice
vote in the near future.
Then, as I say, the intent is to recess the Senate around 5 o'clock.
Then tomorrow morning, it is my understanding the majority leader
intends to have a vote at 10:30. I am not sure the subject of that
vote.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, if I may respond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the floor.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe the Akaka amendment has been accepted by
this side and the U.S.-Mexico amendment offered by Senator Bingaman,
and Senator Dorgan has spoken on an amendment which we have no
objection to on our side, but we are still clearing it at this time. I
suspect that can be accepted, but I have to hold off. I anticipate that
tomorrow we will go to Senator Feinstein's amendment, which I believe
is pending. Then I hope we might get to CAFE.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I certainly agree with what my
colleague has said. Unless there is other business at this particular
moment, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S1726]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2990

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I call up for consideration amendment
No. 2990 dealing with U.S.-Mexico energy technology cooperation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, this amendment is one I offered on
behalf of myself and Senator Domenici. It is an amendment that was
adopted by the 106th Congress. It merely tries to ensure maximum
possible cooperation between our two countries along our common border
on issues related to health and energy production and to ensure that
the Department of Energy environmental management technologies are used
to help clean up serious and pressing public health problems along the
border.
This is an amendment that I believe has strong support on all sides.
I believe it has been cleared on both sides. I urge it be adopted.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we have agreed to it on our side, and
I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
There being none, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2990.
The amendment (No. 2990) was agreed to.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2989 to Amendment No. 2917, As Further Modified

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask for the regular order to return
to the Feinstein amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________