Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment is not about the underlying provision, but I think it is worthwhile for the Members to understand what the underlying provision would do. The current tax law, consistent with generally accepted accounting procedures, provides that when royalty payments are made by oil and gas producers to the landowner during a period when there is no oil or gas production, during a suspension period, that those costs must be capitalized, and then they can be recovered when there is actual oil and gas production. That is both the accounting and tax law today. We are about to split the two and say that for tax purposes they can be expensed within a 2-year period. If that sounds a little bit like some of the things that Enron was doing on its books, the answer is it is a lot like what Enron was doing on its books. But the fundamental issue is, without examination, we are about to ask the Social Security trust fund to pay for the additional cost of this preferential depreciation treatment. I believe, if this is a worthy provision, it is worthy that somebody come up with an offset so that we decide who pays for it, not our children and grandchildren, by depletion of the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. GRAHAM. Let me ask then about a specific building component so that I can be certain I understand what the Senator has explained. Building insulation is not referenced in Section 2105, however it is referenced in Section 2103. Nevertheless, expenditures for insulation in a commercial building will qualify for the deduction so long as it meets the energy efficiency requirements laid out in this measure. Is that accurate?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, Section 2105 of this legislation, the section providing a tax deduction for construction of energy efficient commercial buildings, does not list the specific building components that will qualify the building. This is different from Section 2103, pertaining to energy efficient residential property, in which items contributing to building efficiency are listed in some detail. My concern is that certain energy efficiency improvements, if not specifically included, may not qualify for the deduction under Section 2105. I was wondering if the Senator from Montana could clarify for me the reasons behind the differences between these two sections.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield my time to the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold.

Mr. GRAHAM. The origin of my concerns regarding the enumeration of specific components stems from the language used to define energy efficient commercial building property expenditures at the beginning of Section 2105. It indicates that in order to qualify, energy efficient property must be eligible for treatment as depreciable property under section 167 of the tax code. There are many building components, like insulation, not specifically referenced in section 167. Can the Senator from Montana confirm that the intention of this measure is not to exclude these components from eligibility for the energy efficient commercial buildings deduction?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I will object to the unanimous consent request by the Senator from Nevada, and we will proceed on the amendment that was the original subject of the unanimous consent.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I was going to close on the amendment before we take up the tabling motion.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it had not been my intention to dwell on specifics of a particular tax measure because, as I indicated, if we had provided the offset for this, I would have voted for it. The issue for our colleagues and for the American people is that this provision would further deplete the Social Security trust fund. That is where it is coming from. This is not revenue eligible. As desirable as this may be, I do not believe it meets that test. It does not meet the President's test. It does not justify going into the Social Security trust fund. I share his position and urge that our colleagues use this as a line in the sand for fiscal discipline.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and amendments Nos. 3370 and 3372 be brought up, and that immediately after they are reported, they be laid aside and the Senate resume consideration of Senator Boxer's amendment No. 3311.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation at this time?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from Illinois. The fact that the two proponents have used their own States and their experience as the reasons for their opposition makes my point. My point is this is not an issue where one size fits all. It is not an issue where we can require uniformity of treatment across the entire mass of the United States of America. I will try to explain, using illustrations from my own State, why I think that is inappropriate policy. What this amendment would do is exclude the small amount of municipal solid waste to energy which is part of the current renewable portfolio standard. Over my objection, this bill does not allow new waste-to- energy incineration to count as renewable. We are only talking about whether you can include in the base amount for your State that which is already in place. A few weeks ago, in a statement I submitted for the Record, I pointed out how difficult it is going to be for many States to reach the 10- percent standard which this bill requires by the year 2020. I will add to that statement that I gave previously by saying Senator Fitzgerald's amendment makes the current renewable standard even more inequitable and more unfair in its treatment of particular States. The ability of the investor-owned electrical generators, which is the only class covered by this renewable portfolio, within a particular State to be able to meet the 10-percent standard by the year 2020 is substantially affected by conditions over which those same investor- owned electrical generators have no control. As an example, they have no control over the availability of renewables within their State. They have no control over the environmental characteristics that are peculiar to their State. They have no control over the growth patterns. If a State is stagnant or declining in its population, it is going to be a lot easier to meet these standards than if a State is required to add substantially to its generation capacity in order to meet demographic or economic growth. Let me use my own State of Florida as an example of some of those peculiarities. Florida, as many other States, particularly in the southeastern region, does not have conditions which are appropriate for hydropower. We are a flat State. We do not have any high, elevated water sources that can fall over and generate hydropower. Surprisingly, we are not a State which is very adaptable to wind power. We do not have winds that are reliable enough or sustainable enough to make wind power a commercially adaptable renewable source. In fact, the largest investor- owned utility in America for wind power is Florida Power and Light Company. Florida Power and Light Company is the largest wind power electrical utility in the Nation. It produces zero wind power in the State that bears its name, not because they are not interested in wind power, not that they have not had a lot of technical experience, it just does not work in the environmental conditions of Florida. Solar, which some think would be the silver bullet for renewables in Florida--I had a solar panel in my house when I was a boy, and that was a few years ago. Sixty years later, it still has not developed into a reliable source of energy at anywhere near economic cost. These factors are going to make it difficult for my State and others to meet the 10-percent renewable standard as currently included in the bill. In addition, 87 percent of what in the base is defined as renewable energy in Florida comes from waste to energy. Florida is in the course of building its 14th waste-to-energy plant, making it second only to New York State in the number of these plants. In my judgment, waste to energy is undoubtedly a renewable source of energy. Our cities and towns will continue to produce solid waste that must be disposed of in some manner. Waste to energy is a viable means of dealing with the problem of disposal. In my State, over 80 percent of our water supply is subsurface. It is in large aquifers that are just a few feet below the surface. That is the nature of our geology. One of the reasons that incineration has become such a popular alternative is not that people love to have incinerators or are not cognizant of the fact there are some negative implications, but the alternative of putting on top of our water supply mass amounts of solid waste is intolerable. So we have been moving away from that and towards incineration as a means of disposing of our pollution. I would describe myself as an environmentalist but an environmentalist who looks at what the reality is of the options before me. In my State, the options are we bury it or we burn it. I think the case is unquestionable that it is environmentally less offensive to burn it than it is to bury it right over your water supply. This method has the added benefit of being able to generate not a great part but approximately 1.6 percent of our electrical supply. I thought one of the purposes of this was to displace fossil fuels, and that is 1.6 percent of energy which, but for incineration, would have been produced through fossil fuel. It is 1.6 percent of energy that, if it were not being produced through incineration, would be lost and would be in a large landfill posing a continuous threat to our water supply. I believe in the principle of some flexibility in this law. I had a colloquy with the chairman of the committee a few days ago urging that when this got into conference committee, one of the areas that would be looked at would be how to take the differences that exist from State to State, region to region within our country into greater control, greater consideration in arriving at what is an appropriate renewable energy inventory. Also, our experience in terms of incineration has not been as dire as that of Illinois and New Jersey apparently. Our facilities are relatively new, as witnessed by the fact we have our 14th currently under construction. They use the maximum achievable control technology, including scrubbers, bag houses, selective noncatalytic reduction, and carbon injection. All of these are designed to reduce the amount of emissions, including the reduction of greenhouse gases. Emission data that has been circulated recently, in my judgment, is grossly out of date in terms of what modern waste to energy and efficient sources of biomass have been doing in reducing pollution while contributing substantially to alternatives to fossil fuels for energy. This is not just a Florida-specific issue. In 1993, the Los Angeles District Sanitation Department concluded that the waste-to-energy facility in Commerce, CA, created less pollution than the trucks used to haul the trash to a nearby landfill without regard to the environmental damage once it gets in the ground in the landfill. According to EPA calculations, if half of the trash produced annually in the United States were used to generate electricity, 1.4 billion fewer pounds of pollutants would be discharged into the atmosphere compared to the energy generation through coal or oil burning. Waste-to-energy has also been historically treated as a biomass, at least as far back as the FERC rules of 1978. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the number of States which today have defined for their own State law that waste-to- energy is a renewable energy source.

Mr. GRAHAM. For these reasons--primarily the fact that we need to be pragmatic--we need to recognize that different States have different conditions; that the options for disposal of solid waste in many instances, as in the case of Florida, are limited; and of those options, incineration represents one that is relatively environmentally appropriate and is one of the best sources that is available to us to begin to meet this 10-percent standard of a renewable portfolio. I urge the defeat of the Fitzgerald amendment, or the adoption of the motion that I anticipate is about to be made to table the Fitzgerald amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will ask to submit an amendment to the pending business which is the energy bill. As we have seen over the past several days as the Senate has considered a variety of amendments to the energy bill, energy is not a subject which can be taken up in isolation. It is such a pervasive fact of our existence that it necessarily has significant impacts on other important considerations. Two of those are our environment and other aspects of our economy beyond energy itself. The amendment I am offering today is intended to give to oil and gas companies, which currently hold leases for development in the eastern Gulf of Mexico planning area, an option. This would provide to these companies a voluntary option to trade those existing leases for credits of an equivalent value. These credits could be used toward royalty payments and rental fees. I have been working with mineral policy experts, representatives from the oil industry, and concerned citizens over the past several months to try to develop a process that is reasonable, flexible, and mutually beneficial. I believe this amendment captures all of those qualities. First, the amendment is reasonable because it gives to oil companies the voluntary option as to whether they wish to continue to pursue the development of the leases they have acquired--in many cases a considerable period of time in the past--or whether they would like to exchange those leases for credits which could be used to pay other costs the oil companies owe the Federal Government in the form of royalties or rentals. These credits take into account the amount the oil and gas company paid for the original lease and expenditures for exploration on those leases. Second, the amendment is flexible. It would require the Secretary of the Interior to offer this lease-for-credit program to all of the companies that would be covered by the amendment, those that have leases in the eastern planning area, except for those that are currently in the process of application for a drilling permit, and the companies that voluntarily choose to participate in this program would receive credits which can be used effective in the year 2012. The value of these credits would take into account inflation for the period between the time the credits were issued and the time in which the credits were submitted for redemption. There also is a provision for added flexibility to give the companies the ability to initiate the lease-for-credit process and not necessarily have to wait for the Secretary of the Interior to do so. Third, the amendment is beneficial because it provides a win-win-win situation for the current leaseholders, for the environment and the economy, and for the Nation as a whole. It provides to the oil and gas companies an option that will give them value for leases in which today they have substantial cost but in many cases limited prospects of deriving a benefit. It will be beneficial to the environment and the economy of the eastern Gulf of Mexico planning area. This is an area which is peculiarly dependent upon the quality of its water and the attractiveness of its coastal areas for its economic well-being. In my State of Florida, tourism is the leading business, and of all the reasons that people come to our State, consistently our coastal areas have been listed as the No. 1 attraction. They also are a part of our fundamental culture. They are to our State and to other areas in the eastern planning region what, for instance, the Platte River would be in Nebraska or the Rocky Mountains in Colorado. They help define what kind of place, what kind of people we are. They are a critical part of our environment, as witness the fact that the Federal Government, through the Coastal Zone Management Act, has made the protection of our coastal zones a national priority. The benefit to the Nation as a whole is seen by a precedent which has already occurred. During the administration of the first President Bush, there was concern about the potential adverse effects of a similar set of leases which covered approximately 600 square miles in the area south of the 26th latitude--the 26th latitude runs east and west, more or less, at the line of Naples to Fort Lauderdale--and that the development of those leases over that large 600-square-mile expanse could represent a serious threat to places such as Everglades National Park, the Dry Tortugas National Park, and the National Marine Sanctuary that protects the coral reefs of the Florida Keys. Therefore, under the leadership of the first President Bush, an effort was initiated to reacquire those 600 square miles of leases. This became embroiled in litigation. It took almost 8 years to resolve the matter. But in the final instance, in 1995, those 600 square miles of leases were terminated. A fair compensation was arranged with the previous leaseholders, and the Nation benefited because some of its most valuable treasures were no longer subject to that vulnerability. I believe the same win-win-win arrangement will be possible through this approach. It would be very appropriate that the now second President Bush, who as a candidate for President indicated his sensitivity to the importance of the coast, the environment, and the economic relationship of those in my State and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico planning area and indicated that he would use his influence to provide protection--there is no better form of protection that can be provided than that which is sought by this amendment and that which was achieved by his father's efforts in the area south of the 26th latitude. There have been some who have suggested that these are in some way selfish moves and motivated by a desire for self-protection; that every part of the country which is a user of energy, which means every part of the country, should also be a supplier of energy; and that no part of the country should be off limits to make that contribution. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the United States of America is. The United States of America is a republic of 50 States that have given to the central government certain powers to be administered under the laws that we and our colleagues in the House of Representatives pass. The United States of America represents a common destiny, but each State has different things to contribute to that common destiny. As an example, our State provides over half the national supply of phosphate, a critical mineral, particularly for agriculture and for industrial activities. It is an activity which has been environmentally difficult for our State. I think maybe we are doing a better job today than we did in previous times. But we accept that as part of our contribution to the Nation. Nature happened to put a lot of the world's phosphate in what is now the State of Florida. Near those phosphate mines is also grown over half the citrus that is consumed in the United States. That is a product that has great nutritional and health value. It requires a combination of climate and soil type that is uniquely found in Florida; therefore, we produce a lot of citrus. We also, during the winter months, provide a substantial percentage of all the fresh fruits and vegetables consumed in the eastern U.S. We are a major fisheries State. We are the largest State for tourism, and we have the highest percentage of Americans who move to retire to someplace other than where they had lived. Florida receives more of those retirees than any other State. So we make a substantial number of contributions to America. On the other side, we don't have much energy. Historically, we have not been a site where a significant amount of oil, gas, coal, or other major energy sources have been found. We even have difficulty with things that people find. Surprisingly, we are not a particularly good State for wind power because the winds are not reliable enough to convert it into commercial applications. We are also a State which has not benefited by the industrial revolution, as most other States have. We were a State that did not have the essential qualities that the industrial revolution required. Energy access to certain raw materials, such as iron ore, cheap transportation systems in proximity to markets--none of those were true in Florida in the 19th century. Therefore, we largely were passed over in the industrial revolution. So every State has its own strengths, weaknesses, and contributions. I believe one of the synergies which makes America a great place is that we recognize that and, collectively, we have almost a bounty of everything that humans would like to have. It just happens to be distributed over a continental landmass of the United States of America. What Florida has particularly contributed, and what the eastern planning area of the Gulf of Mexico includes, is beautiful waters, pristine beaches, areas that contribute substantially to the economy, while at the same time protecting the environment. The principal threat to that environment today is the potential of developing inappropriate oil and gas production, and that we might suffer some accident that would result in damage to those critically important parts of our State. This amendment I am offering, I believe, stands the test of being fair to all parties--fair to the oil and gas companies by giving them a voluntary election, a means by which they can recapture past expenses in the form of credits that they can use for required future expenses, balanced insofar as protecting the economy and the environment of the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and will meet the same kind of national standards as the first President George Bush did when he led the way to eliminate 600 square miles of oil and gas leases off the Florida Keys and the southwest coast of my State. This is an opportunity that I hope we will grasp as part of this energy bill. I recognize there are, in a parliamentary sense, other amendments that will be considered prior to this. We will be taking a vote tomorrow on a cloture motion, which could further affect the procedure for consideration of amendments. But I am committed that the Congress will have an opportunity to consider this approach, which I think brings such value and security to our Nation and to our future environment and economy. I appreciate this opportunity to outline this proposal. At the appropriate time, I look forward to calling this amendment before the Senate. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to extend congratulations to a group of outstanding citizens from Broward County, FL. Each of these men and women has given a special gift to their community--they have given of themselves. Their volunteer efforts should be an inspiration to all of us. On May 3, 2002, these 10 individuals will be inducted into the Dr. Nan S. Hutchison Broward Senior Hall of Fame. These selfless volunteers have contributed time, talents and love toward their fellow residents of Broward County. Allow me to tell you about each of them: Evelyn Denner helped found the We Care organization, providing assistance to the elderly and helping them to remain self-sufficient. Her work with many civic, political, and religious organizations continues to make Broward County a treasured place to live. Clara Font has volunteered for 12 years at the Horizon Club's ``Assisted Living Community.'' At 101 years of age, people young and old look to her service for inspiration. She has contributed time to those suffering from the debilitating effects of Alzheimer's disease, while also assisting friends and neighbors. Joan Hinden, a retired teacher, has provided support to Florida's youth for many years. She was appointed to the Family Care Council by Florida's Governor and has worked with the Department of Children and Families, aiding and encouraging people through difficult times. George Olferm has donated his time to many worthy organizations such as TRIAD, SALT, the Davie Fraternal Order of Police, and the Area Agency on Aging of Broward County. As a talented artist, George has donated stained glass artwork to help local charities raise thousands of dollars to support their ongoing projects. He has had a tangible impact on people's lives. Casey Pollack has worked diligently to improve the lives of Alzheimer's patients. He has established training programs for care givers and founded the Crisis Respite Program, helping many citizens fill a temporary need for Alzheimer's care. Sidney Spector has served as president of the Kings Point Culture Club of Tamarac. His leadership and energy have provided groups of senior citizens the opportunity to attend cultural events which enrich their lives. William Teague has served as president of the South Broward Chapter of the National Federation for the Blind, helping to serve over 51,000 visually challenged individuals. He has educated drivers to yield to blind pedestrians, thereby reducing the number of individuals involved in traffic accidents. Former State representative Jack Tobin has given over a decade of service as a legislator. He worked to secure continuing funding for Alzheimer's care and treatment centers, which has made an indelible impact on the quality of life for many Floridians. He participates on the board of directors for the Area Agency on Aging after serving as its president. He has contributed invaluable guidance as a Director of both the YMCA and Child Care Connection, helping to the continuation of social service programs for the future. Dr. Murray Todd's medical services have contributed to the health and well-being of countless Broward County residents, especially those with Alzheimer's. As a teacher, speaker and volunteer, he has trained others to join in the fight for a cure for this disease. Ellyne F. Walters has spent years serving her church, the city of Fort Lauderdale, and numerous organizations. As vice president of the Broward County Friends of the Library, she has helped strengthen local libraries and contributed to the opening of the African American Research Library. These ``volunteers for humanity'' have served diligently and tirelessly in their quest to enhance the lives of their fellow man. Our State and Nation are fortunate to have such inspiring senior citizens.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am not going to be debating the specific amendment on the floor now but, rather, a context in which I believe this amendment and most other aspects of this energy legislation should be considered. There are three principles I would like to discuss at this hour of the evening. First is, when should we, the Congress of the United States, adopt an energy policy? When can we legislate dispassionately, not in response to an immediate emergency? Second, an energy policy for when? It makes a considerable difference if we are developing a policy for the next 10 years as opposed to what I think should be the more appropriate timeframe, at least the next 50 years, that we are legislating not for ourselves but for our grandchildren. And third, an energy policy should include a recognition of other affected issues--economic, environment, and more. A persistent problem in crafting energy policy is the fact that our willingness to act is greatest in the midst of a crisis, a disruption, or spikes in prices. History has repeatedly shown us that energy crises are the worst time to try to solve our problems. Short-term policy initiatives that deal with things such as market upheavals are often counterproductive. They respond to temporary circumstances. They might be political; they might be economic. They could even be climactic. California blackouts were the initial impetus for the energy legislation we have today. Those blackouts are now hopefully a thing of the past. Yet we now are casting this issue as how to respond to the threat from Saddam Hussein, that he will cut off supplies from Iraq. Even if there were silver bullets that the Congress could use to deal with these short-term energy disruptions, Congress often moves too slowly to shoot those bullets in the right direction to hit the right target. Long-term measures, such as promoting energy efficiency and launching new forms of energy production, don't have time to affect the market if these conditions are temporary. It would seem to me that the solution to this problem is both logical and obvious. The solution, however, goes against our natural inclinations. The time to address energy issues is between crises, when there is a better chance to do something that will actually work. If I could refer on this special day, the 54th anniversary of the establishment of the State of Israel, to an event which occurred in that region of the world and is recorded in the Book of Genesis. It is Joseph's interpretation of the Pharaoh's dream about 7 good years followed by 7 lean years. What Joseph's interpretation teaches us is that if we are going to deal with famine, the time to do so is not when the famine has commenced but, rather, the time to do so is during those years of plenty, to set aside for the lean years that will surely be ahead. The core of a wise energy policy is to avoid a focus on the here and now and look over the 50-year horizon. The focus should not be on us, the current generation but, rather, should be on the well-being of our grandchildren. An astute public official once said: If we ever go into another world war, it is quite possible that we would not have access to the petroleum reserves held in the Middle East. But in the meantime, the use of those middle eastern reserves would prevent the depletion of our own domestic petroleum reserves. That wise public official was Navy Secretary James Forrestal. And the date of his wise statement was 1946. Forrestal's statement was remarkable in several respects. First, he was looking beyond the next year to what would be happening over the next half century, setting a good example for the kind of thinking to which we should repair as we ask the question: What kind of an energy policy for America, for when? Second, James Forrestal suggests that we can't change the inevitable. We are not going to be able to produce our way out of the challenges created by our appetite for oil. If we were to take a 50-year view as Mr. Forrestal suggested, what are the challenges we must overcome? First, there is no likely scenario that will alter the reality that most of the oil consumed in the United States from today into the future will come from foreign sources. Shares of imported oil have been rising steadily for years. Proposals such as those before us in the past few days might slow this trend, but they will not reverse it. Second, we will likely see the need to dramatically reduce greenhouse gases that are the by-product of fossil energy use. There is definitive evidence that greenhouse gases impact our climate and our environment. Because greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere and remain there for decades, or longer, we must commence action now in order to avoid unrestrainable consequences in the future. We must prepare by taking steps to ensure that strong, early action will avoid the need for drastic, expensive, and maybe unavailable steps when it is too late. Third, we must develop and utilize alternative fuels, both as a means of reducing our total fossil fuel consumption and the greenhouse gases which are an outgrowth of the use of fossil fuel. Alternatives are an important component of a diverse national environmental portfolio. They represent a solution to our dependence on fossil fuels and environmental problems associated with fossil fuels. Alternatives are critical in a policy that does not believe we should focus our energy goals on draining America first. I suggest that there are some opportunities in an enlightened energy policy for our Nation. There are three points contained in the energy bill upon which I believe we can all agree. I will point to these as the core of an intelligent energy policy. Point No. 1: We know we need to increase storage in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to provide a greater cushion against disruption in oil supplies. Since the price of oil fell in the mid- 1980s, we have missed many opportunities to build petroleum reserves at a time when we can do so relatively inexpensively. One reason may have been the false sense of security that the end of the Persian Gulf war brought in the early 1990s. During that period, we were able to replace the lost production from Iraq and Kuwait with only a minor release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Why did this seem to happen so effortlessly? Primarily because we were fortunate to have allies, such as the Saudis, increase their production. The Saudis have been good allies on numerous occasions, but do we really want to have an energy policy for the next 50 years that depends upon the good will of our allies and their own uninterrupted excess capacity? One of the positive aspects of the President's strategy for energy is his announced support for filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to its current capacity. This act alone will not solve our problems, but it is a good first step and should be implemented. A larger reserve will not eliminate our vulnerabilities, but it will reduce the economic impacts of disruptions and threats from abroad. Point No. 2: We must use the energy we have available as efficiently as possible. Energy efficiency cannot be accomplished in one giant step. It takes time for manufacturers to modernize their means of production. It takes even longer for equipment stock to turn over so that customers are buying the more efficient product. What we need is steady progress. This is a marathon, not a 100-yard sprint. We cannot rely solely on research and development. Low average energy prices in the United States limit the economic incentives to research and develop fuel-saving technologies. More broadly, the entire marketplace does not fully reflect environmental and long-term strategic concerns. In order to mitigate these realities, we have used efficiency standards for automobiles and appliances to achieve national goals. These standards have allowed us to make significant strides in reducing energy use. During the 1990s, while we made significant progress in some areas, such as the efficiency of refrigerators, we have moved backward in the area that is the largest consumer of fossil fuels, which is transportation. During this period, numerous technological advances for automobiles were introduced and widely implemented, such as airbags, crumple zones, and all-wheel drive. But none of these advances was aimed at increasing the efficiency, increasing the gas mileage of the vehicle. Now we are on the verge of additional technologies coming to the market, such as the electric hybrid vehicle which is making its debut to very promising reviews. Let's assure the American people that some of these technological advances will go to reducing the amount of money we spend on petroleum. In the appliances market, we can reduce the summer peak loads of electricity by insisting on greater efficiency for air-conditioners. It will take years for new, more efficient models to completely absorb the market. The sooner we start, the sooner we will begin to see the results. Point No. 3: We must increase the share of alternative sources of energy. If we try to do this all at once, the economic cost will be high. But if we opt for a steady progress toward greater use of alternative energy sources, we can expand our energy options and do so at a reasonable cost. We also must do this with flexibility. We are a diverse nation of States. Each State, each locale, has conditions that make it different from others. Those differences often impact on the ways in which States can participate in national initiatives, including the efforts to increase the use of alternative energy and thus reduce the reliance on fossil fuel. Point No. 4: We should strive for diversity in our energy sources. Renewables will contribute to that diversity. Another area that I believe has and, in the future, will contribute to that diversity is commercial nuclear power. It wasn't long ago that commercial nuclear power was providing 25 percent of our Nation's electric generation. Today, it is down to 20 percent and sliding lower. At the same time, that proportion of energy that used to be provided by nuclear is being provided by natural gas. While there are some compelling environmental reasons that natural gas is an attractive energy source for electric production, it contributes to the depletion of an important American natural resource, to use an energy source which is a direct provider of energy, to become an indirect provider of energy by converting natural gas into electric generation. I applaud the provisions of this legislation that will, hopefully, begin to re-energize a safe and secure contribution to the diversity of our electric generation capacity through nuclear. In the coming years, we will see ups and downs in energy prices. We have been on a roller coaster for the past several months, seeing some of the highest and some of the lowest gasoline prices in recent memory. We will likely see times of turmoil. We are likely to see oil increasingly being used as a weapon in geopolitical disputes. We are likely to see times of calm. During those times, energy seems to be the least of our worries. But we have before us now an opportunity, an opportunity to create an energy policy for the next generations of Americans, the next generations of citizens of this planet. We are given the opportunity to develop an energy policy that can help us leave a cleaner, safer, more prosperous world, and a world in which energy is used to serve human purposes, not as a source of intimidation. Our grandchildren will thank us. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, on this date 54 years ago, the State of Israel was founded. Today, all over the world, friends of Israel are observing this anniversary of Israel's independence. The United States, under President Harry S. Truman, was the first country to formally recognize the State of Israel in 1948. We have a legacy of a special relationship based on shared values, among them support for democracy and human rights. Preservation of the integrity, vitality and sovereignty of Israel is the cornerstone of U.S. policy in the Middle East, as well as a fundamental prerequisite for winning the global War on Terrorism. On this day, when Israel and its allies should be celebrating, instead we see daily acts of violence and acts of terrorism that have led to the loss of innocent lives. The ability of the people of Israel and of the region to lead normal lives has been shattered. The United States is committed to leading the international community in ending the conflict and beginning the slow walk back to negotiations for peace. I urge President Bush and his Administration to recognize the importance of ongoing U.S. engagement in the Middle East at this crucial time. As the world's sole remaining superpower and the leader of the efforts to eradicate terrorism from the Earth, our commitment to allies such as Israel cannot and must not falter. Once a framework for peace is in place, and we pray that day will soon come, there should be no question that the United States recognizes we will be called upon to play an ongoing role in the region, and we are prepared to accept that role. Again, we offer our congratulations to the State of Israel on its 54th anniversary. And we assure our Israeli brothers and sisters that we share with them their quest for peace and the dream of turning swords into plowshares so that they can raise their children and grandchildren in a region of harmony.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we have heard hours of debate on the Senate energy bill. One of the messages that we've heard repeated in statements on many different energy related subjects is that energy policy is highly influenced by region. Energy policy that works in one region may not work in another, nor do policy decisions necessarily translate from state to state. For example, Florida's unique topographic, climatic, and geological conditions make it impossible to harness certain forms of renewable energy, such as wind and hydropower. Just as it would be difficult for the State of Alaska to rely on solar energy during its dark winter months. For these reasons, I have expressed my concern to the chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman, that a broadly applied renewable portfolio standard will not work optimally for all fifty states of the union. While I remain supportive of expanding the use of renewable energy supplies as an important part of our national energy portfolio, I prefer an approach that treats regions and states with deference to their unique circumstances. An RPS standard cannot be rigid, but must be flexible.

Mr. GRAHAM. I want to thank Senator Bingaman for his work on the energy bill and for his offer to help address on my concerns with the renewable standard specifically. I look forward to working together on this important provision, and I withdraw my related amendments.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the minority leader's efforts to get unanimous consent to consider the Andean Trade Preference Act, which I consider to be a matter of not only urgency but also a matter of national moral responsibility for the United States. For 10 years, we had a special relationship between this country and four countries in Latin America: Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and, primarily because of its size, Colombia. All of those countries now are in various forms of threat to their sovereignty, to their democracy, and to their economic well-being. The United States, at this time of need, I believe, is morally obligated to reach out to our good neighbors in the hemisphere through the adoption of this legislation, which would essentially extend what we have done for 10 years, a very successful relationship on both sides, and modernize and bring it up to the same standards we have already provided to the countries of the Caribbean Basin. Since we are not going to be dealing with this issue tonight, I hope we will make a commitment that early after we return on April 8 we will give attention to this matter so we can send the strongest possible signal to these beleaguered countries that we understand their need and that we want to be a partner in their resolution. I urge our leadership to give priority attention to this issue at the earliest possible time.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Two minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to offer an amendment and ask that it be laid aside for consideration after we return. This amendment will add to the list of items which are acceptable as renewable energy municipal solid waste. When we return, I will make a more extended statement. In a State such as mine, the options for dealing with solid waste are essentially two: One is to bury it in a landfill; two is to incinerate it. Of those two, clearly, the incineration is a more benign impact on our environment. Given the high water table we have, land disposal of the solid waste creates serious issues of water quality. In my opinion, we should allow, as we have allowed this afternoon through the amendment of Senator Craig, expanded use of biomass, and now Senator Collins extended use of hydropower, we should recognize the fact that both in terms of environment and energy, allowing solid waste to energy to be one of the allowable renewable energy sources is in the national interest. I offer this amendment. I ask that it be set aside and look forward to a fuller discussion when we return.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, an estimated 200,000 new Floridians every year move into the Sunshine State, making Florida one of the fastest growing States in the Nation. As the population increases, so do the number of people seeking justice from the Federal Courts in our State. Few are more familiar with these demands than the judges and personnel of the United States Courts in Florida's Middle and Southern Districts. The Judicial Conference of the United States has established a benchmark caseload standard of 430 case filings per judgeship. This is a goal that is rarely met in Florida's Middle and Southern Districts. In fact, the number of case filings per judgeship in the Southern District has remained above 500 since 1995; at the end of last year it stood at 609. In the Middle District the courts' weighted caseload with 547 per judgeship at the end of 2001, 27 percent above the Conference standard. In light of this considerable burden on Florida's judges and the outlook for continued growth within the State, the United States Judicial Conference has recommended that Congress add one permanent and one temporary judgeship to the Middle District and one permanent judgeship in the Southern District. It is in accordance with these recommendations that my colleague from Florida and I introduce legislation to establish these needed judgeships. It is my hope that these additional judges will help to alleviate the heavy burden currently placed on Florida's Federal courts. The administration of justice will continue to be a challenge in Florida's Federal courts unless adequate resources are committed. Perhaps the most egregious example of this lack of resources is in the Fort Myers division of the Middle District, where judge's criminal caseloads stand at an astounding ninety percent above the national average. As Florida continues to grow, this burden will only increase. The services provided by the Federal judiciary must grow to meet these demands. I urge the Senate to support this legislation, ensure adequate resources for the administration of justice, and uphold the United States Constitution's guarantee of fair and speedy justice.