Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I think we are ready to vote on amendment No. 3332.

Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time remains for the opponents?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding rule XXII, it now be in order for the Senate to consider, en bloc, amendments No. 3082, No. 3130, No. 3331, No. 3336, No. 3338, No. 3349, No. 3350, No. 3351, No. 3352, No. 3353, No. 3356, and No. 3359; that the foregoing amendments be agreed to en bloc, and that the motions to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me first say that the general sentiment that the Senator from Florida has expressed is one I agree with--which is that I am disappointed that we have not come up with a proposal to offset the cost of the various tax provisions in this bill. I hoped we could do that in the Finance Committee. I think that clearly would be the better course to follow, and perhaps, if we could get the support from the administration, we could move in that direction. But that has not been possible. I am constrained to oppose the amendment of the Senator from Florida. This amendment would simply pick out the tax provisions in the bill, and the particular provision that he finds objectionable, which is intended to maintain domestic production when world oil prices are lower. We have several provisions in the bill which are so-called countercyclical provisions, which basically say that when the oil price goes down below certain levels, there is a tax incentive for companies to stay in the business and not to shut down production in this country. This is one of several provisions intended to maintain reasonable cashflows to keep the service sector in the oil economy working. The provision would stimulate the economy and producing areas in our country. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Graham amendment that has been presented to the Senate at this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, it is clear to me there are a great many benefits to be achieved for our country, for consumers, and for the environment, in lower electricity bills, by going ahead and maintaining the provision we have in the bill, the 13 SEER standard. My colleague from Iowa says it is going to cost a tremendous number of jobs. The Department of Energy itself--this Department of Energy--says this will create jobs and it will not lose jobs. It requires a few more workers to produce these air-conditioners with this higher standard. Instead of losing jobs in 2006 when this new mandate will be effective, we will be creating jobs. If this is an effort to protect jobs for manufacturers in this industry, it is a misguided effort. I believe strongly that the provision we have in the bill is the right provision. I urge my colleagues not to support the amendment that is offered by the Senator from Iowa. Exhibit 1 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, October 19, 2001. Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, Docket No. EE-RM/STD-98-440, Washington, DC. Dear Ms. Edwards-Jones: On behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, I am pleased to submit the attached comments to Docket No: EE-RM-98-440, the Department of Energy's Proposed Rule: Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Energy Conservation Standards. DOE has proposed a change to its previously issued standard that decreases energy efficiency requirements for residential air conditioners and heat pumps. DOE proposes to withdraw its previously issued 13 SEER standard and replace it with a 12 SEER standard. These comments affirm EPA's support for DOE's original 13 SEER standard. EPA believes there is a strong rationale to support a 13 SEER standard. A 13 SEER standard represents a 30% increase in the minimum efficiency requirements for central air conditioners and air source heat pumps. In contrast, a 12 SEER standard represents only a 20% increase. The Administration's National Energy Policy stresses the important role that energy efficiency plays in our energy future. A 13 SEER DOE standard will do more to stimulate energy savings that benefit the consumer. DOE has quantified these savings at approximately 4.2 quads of energy over the 2006-2030 period, equivalent to the annual energy use of 26 million households and resulting in net benefits to the consumer of approximately $1 billion by 2020. In comparison, DOE projects that only 3 quads of energy would be saved over that same period with a 12 SEER standard. A 13 SEER standard will also do more to reduce fossil fuel consumption and more to limit emissions of air pollutants. For example, by avoiding the construction of 39 400 megawatt power plants, a 13 SEER standard will reduce nitrous oxides (NOx) emissions by up to 85 thousand metric tons versus up to 73 thousand metric tons that would be reduced with a 12 SEER standard. A 13 SEER standard will also result in cumulative greenhouse gas emission reductions of up to 33 million metric tons (Mt) of carbon. This is in contrast to a 12 SEER rule which will reduce up to 24 Mt of carbon equivalent by avoiding the construction of 27 400 megawatt power plants. At a time when many areas across the nation are struggling to improve their air quality, the additional emissions reductions achieved by a 13 SEER standard are especially important. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these written comments. Should you have any questions, please contact Dave Godwin in EPA's Office of Air and Radiation at 202-564-3517 or via e-mail at godwin.dave@epa.gov. Sincerely, Linda J. Fisher, Deputy Administrator.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, to just put this in perspective, this is another one of these amendments that we have seen a few of during this debate over the last several weeks--the sky is falling, don't try requiring anything that is onerous. The truth is the provision in the bill says that by the year 2006 we believe the air-conditioners sold in the country ought to meet this SEER standard. Lennox, the manufacturer which is the one the Senator from Iowa referred to today, has over 19 models of air-conditioners, and 130 of those models already meet the standard in 2002. We are saying that 4 years from now we would like for the others to meet the standards as well. Carrier lists 1,000 models that they make available. Of those, fewer than 100 have a SEER standard of less than 13. They don't have any air- conditioners on the market with a SEER standard of less than 12.25. So we are saying, 4 years from now let's move to the higher standard. The EPA--not just the EPA of the prior administration but the EPA of this administration--agrees with our position. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, we have printed in the Record a letter dated October 19 from Linda Fisher, Deputy Administrator of EPA, saying that EPA believes there is a strong rationale for the 13 SEER standard we have in this bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote on Amendment No. 3225

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding rule XXII, it now be in order for the Senate to consider, en bloc, amendment No. 3258 and amendment No. 3170; that the latter be modified with the changes that are at the desk; that the foregoing amendments be agreed to en bloc, and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, before the majority leader leaves, let me return the compliment. This was the Daschle-Bingaman bill we passed in the Senate. It was his leadership that was absolutely essential in getting this to the floor and his continuing leadership in keeping it on the floor. He has devoted 6 weeks of Senate floor time to this bill, and at many crucial points he made absolutely essential decisions to get us to closure. Let me also indicate what everyone in the Senate knows, and that is without the superb work that Senator Reid, our assistant floor leader, does, without his tremendous effort, we could not possibly have completed this work. He was present every day, every hour, moving this bill forward, working with Senators on both sides of the aisle. To the extent we have succeeded, he deserves the lion's share of the credit. Let me also acknowledge the great work Senator Murkowski has done. He has been committed to getting an energy bill through the Senate for a very long time. He had strongly held views on certain aspects of that bill, with which we are all familiar. He was very committed also, though, to work with those of us on this side of the aisle to see to it that we got a bill through the Senate. So I compliment him. I did want to also thank and compliment the excellent staff we had on the Energy Committee. First, I thank Bob Simon, who is the staff director for the Democratic side in the Energy Committee. He did a superb job working on every aspect of this. I have a long list of folks to thank. I will run through the list. I acknowledge the tremendous contribution each one has made: Vicky Thorne, who is central to our activity, John Watts, Bill Wicker, Patty Beneke, Jonathan Black, David Brooks, Shelley Brown, Mike Connor, Deborah Estes, Kira Finkler, Sam Fowler, Amanda Goldman, Leon Lowery, Jennifer Michael, Shirley Neff, Malini Sekhar. All of those staff people on our Energy Committee did an absolutely superb job. My personal staff, James Dennis, John Epstein, and John Kotek, all made a great contribution. The floor staff the cloakroom staff did a tremendous job, Lula and Marty and all the others who have worked on this bill. They work day in and day out on the floor and do a superb job. I appreciate their good work. Senator Daschle's staff, Eric Washburn, Peter Umhofer, and Senator Reid's staff, Peter Arapis, all did a wonderful job, and I appreciate the good work. Those of us who are elected to these jobs get to take the credit, but we know who actually does the work. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator from Arizona for not pursuing his amendment at this time, and I agree to work with him to try to find an acceptable solution. To further this effort, I am willing to hold a hearing on the matter.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I would like to pose a question to my esteemed colleague from Kansas. It is my understanding that there was a terrible accident involving the death of several people in Kansas from the leakage of natural gas from a shallow underground storage structure. As a result, you are offering a noncontroversial amendment to authorize the Department of Energy to conduct a detailed study on the engineering and geology aspects of these shallow underground structures so that their safety can be assessed on a rigorous basis. I appreciate my colleague's desire to work with me on addressing this issue in conference. I agree with him that it can be dealt with in the conference appropriately without taking up valuable Senate floor time. I would just like to clarify that as this Energy Policy Act of 2002 moves into conference, if the good Senator from Kansas that it might be appropriate to move some of the detailed language under your amendment's section (c) to the subsequent conference report so that it gives the proper guidance and intent to the deparment?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President there is no aggressive advocates on this issue than Senator Boxer. I am willing to continue working with her to see if there is a solution that addresses the environmental concerns of her state, the concerns of the oil and gas industry, and the need to develop additional energy resources. I also want to thank the Senator for her willingness to put their issue aside for now so that consensus can be reached. I am hopeful that through continued efforts we will be able to achieved that consensus. Comprehensive studies of Shallow Underground Structures Holding Natural Gas

Mr. BINGAMAN. The Senator is correct, Section 602 does not change any existing requirements or policies, including the potential wilderness review policy.

Mr. BINGAMAN. The Senator from Illinois is correct.

Mr. BINGAMAN. The Senator from Illinois is correct. Section 602 simply states that in order to ensure timely action on oil and gas leases and applications for permits to drill on lands otherwise available for leasing, the Secretary of the Interior is required to ensure expeditious compliance with the requirements of section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, improve consultation and coordination with the States, improve the collection of information related to such leasing activities, and improve inspection and enforcement activities related to oil and gas leases. The section also authorizes appropriations to the secretary. Section 602 does not change any requirements under current law applicable to the management of public lands, including any requirements imposed by NEPA, FLPMA or any other applicable law.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I respond to my colleague from New York by stating that I do in fact share his understanding of the intent of the language relating to HTSC research in the Energy Policy Act of 2002. oil and gas development on public lands

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding rule XXII, it be in order to consider amendment No. 3230; that Senator Cantwell and Senator Smith of Oregon be added as cosponsors, the amendment be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, it now be in order to consider the amendments numbered 3196 and 3209; that the amendments be modified by the changes at the desk, the amendments be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment numbered 3380 be in order notwithstanding rule XXII; that the amendment numbered 3380 be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent the adoption of the amendments numbered 3059 and 3258 be vitiated.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent amendment No. 3355 be modified to reflect changes to the fuel cell credit adopted as part of the amendment by Senator Murray earlier this afternoon.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent amendment No. 3146 be withdrawn.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I think it is appropriate to dispose of this amendment by voice vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I suggest the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Kansas be allowed to explain that amendment.