Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the POPs Implementation Act of 2002. POPs, or persistent organic pollutants, are chemicals that are persistent, bioaccumulate in human and animal tissue, biomagnify through the food chain, and are toxic to humans. These substances travel across international boundaries, creating a circle of pollution requiring a global solution. In April 2001, one year ago, President Bush announced his support for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, POPs, and in May 2001, the U.S. signed the Convention. I share the President's enthusiasm for this sound and workable treaty that targets chemicals detrimental to human health and the environment. The Stockholm Convention seeks the elimination or restriction of production and use of all intentionally produced POPs. The POPs that are to be initially eliminated include the pesticides aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, mirex, and toxaphene, and the industrial chemicals hexachlorobenzene and polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs. Use of the pesticide DDT is limited to disease control until safe, effective, and affordable alternatives are identified. The Convention also seeks the continuing minimization and, where feasible, ultimate elimination of releases of unintentionally produced POPs such as dioxins and furans. Today, I am introducing a bill to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, to implement the Stockholm Convention on POPs and the Protocol on POPs to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. These are the first amendments to TSCA since its enactment in October 1976. Currently in the U.S., the registrations for nine of the twelve POPs covered by the Stockholm Convention have been canceled, the manufacture of PCBs has been banned, and stringent controls have been placed on the release of the other covered chemicals. The POPs Implementation Act of 2002 provides EPA with the authority, which it currently does not have, to prohibit the manufacture for export of the twelve POPs and POPs that are identified in the future. In addition, this legislation provides a science-based process consistent with the Stockholm Convention for listing additional chemicals exhibiting POPs characteristics, thereby attempting to avoid the further production and use of POPs. To assist in this goal, the National Academy of Sciences is directed to develop new strategies to screen candidate POPs and new sampling methodologies to identify future POPs. Although a previous EPA draft included a mechanism for adding new chemicals, the Administration's current POPs implementation package does not. The Stockholm Convention was not intended to be a static agreement, as it explicitly provides for the additional of new chemicals. If we are to be most effective in globally reducing these dangerous chemicals, we must fully commit to this treaty.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, allow me to state briefly that I will be voting against the amendment offered by Senator Craig. I do so not because I feel good about the existing provisions in the electricity title of this bill, but because I believe they are a starting point from which we ought to try to move forward. It is no secret that I am a strong supporter of renewable energy and a meaningful renewable energy production requirement. I admit to disappointment in the provision currently contained in this legislation. While it nominally contains a 10 percent renewable requirement, the various exemptions and carve-outs bring it down effectively to a roughly five percent requirement by the year 2020. This level of Federal commitment to renewable energy is painfully inadequate and I must express my concern and disappointment at this low number. I will also point out that, despite the assertions of my colleague from Alaska earlier today, a 10 percent requirement by the year 2020 would not raise consumer energy costs. According to the Department of Energy, a 10 percent Federal renewable portfolio standard would reduce overall consumer energy costs by $3 billion per year by the year 2020. The figures the Senator from Alaska was referring to were the gross price of renewable energy, not the increased costs to consumers of using renewable energy versus other forms of energy. The relevant figure is not what the renewable energy itself will cost, but the increased costs, if any, to consumers, from using renewable energy. As I have stated, the Department of Energy says under a 10 percent renewable energy mandate, consumer costs will actually go down, compared to energy costs with no renewable energy mandate. So even a 10 percent renewable energy requirement will benefit consumers, and I hope we can get to a point where this Congress can actually implement that required level. However, while I am disappointed in the provision currently in the bill, I do believe it is a starting point, and one upon which I hope we can improve. Senator Craig's amendment to strike it entirely is not moving forward, but backsliding to where we are right now, which is nothing. As to other portions of the bill, I have long held the position that we should not move forward with repeal of PUHCA and PURPA without substantial consumer protections, and substantial new investments in renewable energy, including net metering, strong interconnection standards and substantial investments by Federal agencies in renewable energy. Again, I am disappointed in the provisions currently in the bill, but would hope that we could improve these provisions as the bill moves forward, rather that just dropping everything. For that reason, I will not support Senator Craig's amendment, but urge my colleagues to make the needed improvements in this bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I rise today to congratulate and thank Ray Burke of Berlin, Vermont, for over 30 years of service as Vermont's highway dispatcher. Ray retires at the end of this month from the Vermont Agency of Transportation and he will be missed heartily. Humorist Kin Hubbard once said, ``Don't knock the weather; nine- tenths of the people couldn't start a conversation if it didn't change once in a while.'' I suppose then that the art of conversation is easiest for Vermonters, especially during the winter months. For most of us, that conversation often turns into complaining futilely about the weather, except, of course, when Ray was talking. And Ray, as dispatcher, is known for his talking. For 32 years, Vermonters have relied on Ray's constant updates and information on which roads were being treated with salt and sand, which routes we should avoid altogether, and how serious driving conditions were or were likely to become. And, of course, most importantly, Ray always reminded us to drive safely. Snow and ice can be unpredictable and dangerous at their worst; Ray, at his best and always on the job, kept Vermonters' safety as his top priority. Heavy snowfalls, black ice, sleet, and freezing rain made Ray's work important and difficult. More challenging than Vermont's natural arsenal of inclement weather, however, was Ray's ability to always be there when we needed him. This is extraordinary because Ray has a disease that has slowly taken away his sight, although it has never disrupted his sense of service to Vermonters or his spirit. Ray has never stopped. His disability has never beaten him; his disability has never even slowed him. Aside from dispatching trucks and plows to deal with winter weather, Ray plays the saxophone in his band, Stretch and the Limits, along with drummer Conrad ``Stretch'' Normandeau and keyboardist Jim Thompson. I would like to close with a personal message to Ray. You will be missed dearly by every Vermonter who listened to you update conditions on the news, by the plow drivers who relied on your information, and by everyone who has learned to live with Vermont's weather with the help of your advice and forecasts.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the Daschle-Bingaman substitute amendment, also known as the Energy Policy Act of 2002, includes portions of a bill that was reported favorably last year from the Committee on Environment and Public Works. That bill, the Federal Reformulated Fuels Act, S. 950, was approved with the committee's understanding that further action by the full Senate would be necessary to solve the delicate problem of eliminating MTBE from the fuel supply to protect water resources, while maintaining air quality and stimulating renewable fuel use. The substitute amendment before the Senate now does a good job of resolving that problem and balancing many political and environmental concerns. This language does not represent the perfect solution for my State or the Northeast. However, without it, MTBE contamination of water resources will continue unabated. With it, at least we can be assured of greater protection of air and water quality. If States proceed to ban MTBE without clear Federal authority provided in this amendment, air quality could suffer as RFG areas would be forced to use ethanol in a very inflexible way due to the existing oxygen content requirement in the Clean Air Act. In that situation, and without the anti-backsliding provisions in the substitute amendment before us, there might be significant increases in vehicle emissions of both volatile organic compounds, which contribute to smog, and toxic air pollutants, and large and sudden increases in gasoline prices could also occur. I would have preferred a bill that, in addition to eliminating the oxygen content requirement, simply eliminated the existing one-pound waiver of Reid vapor pressure requirements for ethanol blends and allowed all Governors to opt-in easily to the RFG program for their whole States. But, at least this language expedites Governors' access to that RVP waiver's elimination and provides accelerated opt-in authority to the entire States in the ozone transport region, where the ozone problems are quite serious. My preferred construction would have gone even further toward providing ever greater air quality benefits and a clearer set of ``national'' fuels. The provision on liability limitations for renewable fuels is also problematic in that it is not clear to many of us why such a limitation is necessary. One would assume that Congress has required a renewable fuel content in motor vehicle fuel knowing what renewable fuels will be used to meet this requirement. Indeed, we assume that these renewable fuels will be ethanol and biodiesel. If these renewable fuels are as beneficial to the public health as we have been lead to believe, then there should be no need for such a liability limitation. Under the provision, it is clear that no liability limitation applies to MTBE. It is clear that no liability limitation applies to any cases filed prior to the date of enactment of the bill. It is clear that the limitation applies only to a defective product claim and no other type of claim. It is clear that this limitation applies only to a renewable fuel, and if such fuel is blended with substances that do not meet the definition of a renewable fuel, the limitation does not extend to those substances. The limitation is not intended to limit any legal requirements that apply to the use, distribution, transport or storage of these renewable fuels, and as such, this provision does not amend or modify any such requirements. Nor should this provision be read to curtail the duty of the producers, transporters and distributors of these fuels to act responsibly with regard to their products, including providing all warnings of dangers to human health or the environment associated with their products and taking all precautions to avoid any such harm which may include eliminating the use of the product altogether. The substitute amendment provides protection against increases in toxic air pollutant emissions by maintaining the overcompliance that refiners have achieved since the inception of the RFG program. This is particularly vital to the Northeast, as vehicles are a disproportionately large source of these emissions inventory. The language includes an important statutory deadline for further EPA rulemaking to impose any additional and necessary toxics reductions to protect public health. As my colleagues may know, several studies have implicated vehicle toxics emissions as a contributor to increased cancer and developmental risks in congested urban areas. Perhaps as important, the amendment requires the EPA to do a much better job of ensuring that fuels and fuel additives don't harm water quality, as well as air quality. Manufacturers will need to regularly supply information to the Agency on the public health and environmental impacts of the use of fuels and fuel additives. The Administrator will be held responsible for assuring that that data is up to date and adequate for determining whether those substances' use is a cause for concern. As my colleagues know, I have been a strong proponent of encouraging the use of alternative and renewable fuels for decades. That is why I have supported S. 760, a bill to provide incentives for those fuels and vehicles, and many many other efforts to motivate reductions in our dependency on petroleum. We are making a small dent in that dependency with this language. The total motor gasoline consumption in 2012 is expected to exceed 180 billion gallons annually. The substitute's provisions require that about 2.8 percent of gasoline consumption in that year to be fuel made from renewable sources. This is good for energy security and the environment. Work has been underway in Congress to try to solve this problem since MTBE contamination was first found. Senators Boxer, Feinstein and Bob Smith, in particular, have been instrumental in addressing the matter. Before S. 950, the Committee on Environment and Public Works reported a bill, S. 2962, in the 106th Congress which had an effect similar to what is contained in this substitute amendment. Many of the most important concepts in those bills are now embodied in the amendment. It is past time that Congress acted on this matter. Further delay will simply lead to more water resource contamination. I ask unanimous consent that a brief and informal section-by-section summary of the renewable fuels and MTBE provisions be included in the Record following my statement. This may assist Senators and their staff in understanding what we are attempting to do with this substitute. I urge them to help us solve this problem.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, one would hope we would not have to continue with the barrage of amendments that attempt to deprive the American public access for increased renewable resources. Make no mistake, the American public has made it very clear they support renewable energy. Poll after poll indicates the overwhelming majority of Americans support requiring utilities to produce electricity from renewable energy resources. Americans want clean energy. They want technology that leaves the air clean, that does not contribute to lung cancer, that does not sicken their children. They want to diversify or domestically produce energy to buffer against price instability, and to lessen the vulnerability of our energy infrastructure through terrorist attack. But we have yet another amendment that would weaken efforts to encourage production of renewable energy. This amendment allows a State to opt out of the energy program at any time the Governors certify it would adversely affect the consumers of the State. Clearly, this is no standard at all. First, a certification that something ``may adversely affect'' consumers is pretty close to being as loose a statutory requirement as anyone can craft. The obvious effect is to allow States to opt out, leaving a piecemeal and unpredictable program. As I said before, one of the overarching benefits of the Federal renewable energy standard is that it encourages regional generation and distribution of renewable energy. State provisions often limit credit to renewable energy generated within the States. A Federal standard encourages utilities to meet these renewable energy requirements by purchasing and selling renewable energy beyond State boundaries. This recognizes a reality that our electricity generation is in fact regional in nature, with customers in California using energy provided from New Mexico, and a variety of New England States receiving their power from New York. Exempting States on a piecemeal basis serves to significantly weaken the regional application of a nationwide standard. A national standard must be uniformly applied to be effective. When the American public says they want laws supporting renewable energy, they do not mean sham laws that, on their face, are going to do nothing. We have already spoken at length about all the reasons we need it. We have mentioned the health benefits, et cetera, so I am not going to spend any more time doing that, other than to say this amendment should be defeated. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today with a sense of pride that the Congress will soon pass comprehensive campaign finance reform. It has been a long time in coming, and the perseverance of Senators McCain and Feingold should be recognized as the reason we are here today. I would especially like to thank my colleague, Senator Snowe, for all her hard work and leadership in developing the language in this bill, the so-called Snowe-Jeffords provisions, which is a full and fair solution to the proliferation of electioneering communications. The last time Congress passed comprehensive campaign finance reform I was running for the House of Representatives for the first time. That campaign was waged between me and my opponent door-to-door, meeting the voters, standing on the street corner talking to the voters, or debating the issues at public forums. Our constituents knew who we were, what we stood for, and who was saying what about whom. Fast forward 28 years and today a campaign is waged on television and radio, many times by people and groups who the voters do not know. The Americana people deserve better from their candidates and campaigns. This bill, soon to be law, will make many needed changes to our campaign finance system and reconnect the electorate with their candidates for federal office. I am especially proud of the provisions in this legislation that reform the law concerning broadcast advertisements near an election that escape even minimal disclosure by not using the ``magic words.'' These electioneering communications are cleverly and clearly seen by the electorate to be trying to influence their vote, but the true nature of the sponsors and funding for these advertisements remain cloaked in the veil of secrecy. The American public deserves to know who is trying to influence their vote, and the Snowe-Jeffords provisions will provide them this necessary information. We will hear from some speakers during this debate that they are absolutely certain these provisions are unconstitutional and will be struck down by the court. I wish I could guarantee to my colleagues that these provisions will be found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court, but I am not so foolhardy as to predict the outcome of any case before the Supreme Court. I can, however, assure my colleagues that we have examined the important court decisions, talked to legal scholars, and reviewed the research on the topic to craft a provision that we believe will withstand constitutional scrutiny by the Supreme Court. A recently released study on the 2000 elections by the Brennan Center For Justice clearly demonstrates the need for the Snowe-Jeffords provisions, and the care we took in crafting these clear and narrow requirements. In the 2000 elections approximately $629 million was spent on television advertising for federal elections. This represents an all-time high. Even looking at the amount spent just on Congressional races, the $422 million spent in 2000 overwhelms the $177 million spent just 2 years earlier. That gives you an idea of what is occurring. The ``magic words'' standard created by the Supreme Court in 1976 has been made useless by the political realities of modern political advertising. Even in candidate advertisements, what many would say are clearly advertisements made to convince a voter to support a particular candidate, only 10 percent of the advertisements used the ``magic words.'' Parties' and groups' use of the magic words is even smaller, with as few as 2 percent of their ads using the magic words. By not using these ``magic words,'' these advertisements escape even the most basic disclosure and keep the public in the dark about who is trying to influence their vote. One of the most important findings of this comprehensive study of television advertising during the 2000 elections is that the Snowe- Jeffords provisions are exceptionally well crafted and not too broad. Of the 50,950 group issue advertisements featuring federal candidates aired during the relevant time period, only 331 were about a genuine issue or bill pending before Congress. States another way, the Snowe- Jeffords provision correctly identify 99.4 percent of the advertisements as electioneering in nature and subject to the restrictions of the provision. I do not know how the opponents of this provision can say, faced with this empirical data, that our provision is too broad in nature. It is important that the public know the background and facts behind the Snowe-Jeffords provisions. Material on this provision can be found at www.senate.gov/jeffords/03202002cfr.hjml. I ask unanimous consent that some additional material concerning the Snowe-Jeffords provision be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I listen to this debate and at times it gets discouraging because I was around 27 years ago when the cars were lined up trying to get gasoline and the people of this country were absolutely ballistic about the fact that we were hostage to the oil suppliers in the Middle East. We did some authorization in the hopes we would build an energy supply and this Nation would make it so that those kinds of situations would never occur again. Here we are, with the recognition of the volatility in the Middle East, again ignoring the possibility of moving forward to ensure we do not become subject to that kind of control by the Middle East. So I oppose very strongly the practical effect of Senator Kyl's amendment. The practical effect will be to remove all renewable energy production from this bill. It would strike the modest 10 percent provision in the underlying Daschle bill and leave us with effectively nothing. It would strike the 10 percent renewable energy standard, even though most recent studies by the Department of Energy estimate that a 10 percent national renewable energy standard would cause consumer energy prices to decline by almost $3 billion by the year 2020. It is hard to understand why we would not want to encourage clean energy, energy which causes our consumer costs to go down. The amendment before us, however, says no to clean energy, no to reducing carbon dioxide, no to reducing smog and acid rain, and no to assisting our American companies to expand domestically and to compete in the thriving international market. I cannot support this amendment. It simply is not an option for me to go home to my State of Vermont and tell them I have done nothing to try to slow the flow of emissions from fossil fuel powerplants into Vermont's air and water. Remember, this is an air pollution problem as well. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, it is not an option for me to ignore the fact that electricity production is the leading source of carbon dioxide emissions in this country, accounting for over 40 percent of that total. I cannot be blind to the fact that the powerplants contribute significantly to emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury. These pollutants greatly increase asthma, lung cancer, and other health risks, and contaminate our air and our water. We must enhance production of clean, domestically produced, renewable energy in this country, and we can. The amendment offered by my colleague from Arizona would reject all Federal renewable energy standards and instead require utilities to offer consumers energy from renewable resources. It would also allow States to continue to establish State standards for renewable energy. States already are establishing State renewable energy standards, and utilities are already offering consumers green energy. Federal legislation along that line is already happening. It is not necessary. Even if such legislation were needed, it would not be enough. We would still have a national renewable energy shortage. We would have no standard. A nationwide standard would address the reality that electricity is generated on a regional basis. Many State standards require that renewable energy credits come from energy generated from within State boundaries. A national renewable standard would enable utilities to meet requirements by purchasing and selling renewable energy outside of the State boundaries. A national renewable standard would therefore guarantee broad, long-term, and cross-regional renewable power generation. To date, only 12 States have established State renewable energy mandates, although others are actively considering them. A national standard would increase renewable energy production, thereby expanding environmental and health benefits and facilitating greater market entry of renewables into the energy sector. As is indicated by this chart, public opinion polls constantly show that an overwhelming majority of voters nationwide favor requiring power companies to generate electricity from alternative energy sources. A 2002 survey conducted by the Mellman Group found that 70 percent of those surveyed favor requiring power companies to generate 20 percent--that was my amendment awhile back, which received a pretty good vote--from renewable sources, even if it would raise their monthly electricity bills by $2 or more. Polls conducted by Texas utilities show consumers are willing to pay as much as $5 per month to receive energy from renewable sources. This is almost five times as much as the Department of Energy has found that the national renewable energy standard of 20 percent would cost consumers. Without a strong provision to expand the use of renewable fuels, I have to question why we are here at all. If all we are doing is continuing business as usual, we might as well finish up and go home. We do not need massive new legislation simply to preserve the status quo. Before we do that, however, I think we need to remember that renewables will not only help clean our environment and provide countless new high-tech jobs, they will also diversify our energy use. In our current security conscious environment, that is worth doing. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed a letter written to myself and other Members by several former national security experts regarding a contribution of renewable portfolio standards to our national energy security.

Mr. JEFFORDS. On September 19, shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA, ADM Thomas H. Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Robert C. McFarlane, former National Security Adviser to President Reagan, sent a letter urging in the strongest possible terms that we must take immediate action to address our energy security. One portion of the letter reads: Americans are aware of the enormous and complicated task ahead in dealing with the consequences of the unprecedented September 11 attack against our nation. . . . There are actions that can and must be taken now. One of these critical issues is to advance America's energy security. . . . We urge the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to immediately adopt the renewable portfolio standard. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join with me in heeding this advice from the great leaders of our Nation who know best why we should do this. I strongly disagree with the amendment offered by Senator Kyl. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment which would do more to encourage development of renewable energy in this country than any other provision in the legislation currently before us. My amendment will gradually increase the amount of electricity generated by renewable energy in this country to 20 percent by 2020. I am deeply convinced that it is not only possible to achieve this goal, it is the best policy for this country, and for our energy future. For over 20 years I have pushed clean, renewable energy in this Congress. In fact, 25 years ago when I came into this body, we were in another energy crisis. That was brought about by the oil cartel that was holding up oil coming from the Middle East. We suffered greatly with long lines of cars. I have been involved with this kind of a problem ever since then. In fact, during that period of time where we had problems created by the OPEC cartel, I was able to offer very significant amendments, working with my partners at the time. For instance, at that time, we introduced an amendment to make sure we had a photovoltaic effort going on which would help increase the utilization of renewable energy by looking to the Sun for the answer. That was a time when a number of us had come to Congress and were freshmen, but we knew the kind of chaos we had. The amendment was to the appropriations bill. It was an $18 million amendment. I remember it very well. When I went to offer it, the chairman of the subcommittee, Tom Bevill of Alabama, came up to me and wrapped his arm around me. He said: Son, you don't offer amendments to appropriations bills until you have checked with me. I said: Gee, I am sorry, but I can't wait for that. He said: Well, why not? I said: Because I have 80 cosponsors. He said: 80 cosponsors? I said: Yes, 80 cosponsors. He said: Well, I guess we will have to go ahead. We went ahead. It passed. We created a photovoltaic industry in this Nation at that time which brought forward a considerable amount of energy relief. In addition, at the same time, three of us--Congressman Mineta, Congressman Blanchard, and myself--introduced one to create development for wind energy. At that time, we did not know who was going to get the credit, so we all kind of flipped coins. The winner was Congressman Blanchard from Michigan who went on to be Governor. Of course, Norm Mineta is now Secretary of Transportation. And I am still here. But those really were the only two significant renewable energy provisions that passed. They are still there. They were important contributions. But it is time for us to put further emphasis and create further opportunities with respect to the renewable energy field. It is hard not to, when you see the lakes and forests in my State dying from acid rain. We have to clean up our act. It is hard to read the health statistics from air pollution, particularly for the very young and elderly, and not worry about the emissions that continue to pour from this country's smokestacks. It is difficult not to care about renewable energy when the northern maple trees are disappearing and our ocean temperatures are rising. We all should care. I am disappointed that this White House and many in this Congress do not care quite enough. It is unconscionable to continue to shackle ourselves to fuels that dirty our air and water, and that compromise our national security, when clean, abundant, and affordable domestic alternatives exist. We owe something better to our children, to our environment and to our future. The amendment that I am offering this morning would gradually increase the amount of electricity produced from renewable energy nationwide, reaching 20 percent by the year 2020. States are already out in the forefront on this issue, with 12 States having already enacted renewable energy standards and almost a dozen others actively considering one. Governor Bush signed one into law in Texas in 1999. Nevada law currently requires that 15 percent of state electricity come from renewable energy by 2013, and California is on the verge of passing a state requirement of 20 percent renewables by 2010. This is twice as aggressive as the standard in my amendment. The technology to produce renewables is clearly sufficient to meet these standards. During the more than 20 years that I have been in this Congress, the costs of generating wind and solar energy have decreased by 80 percent. Throughout the world, wind is the fastest growing source of electricity generation, and in this country wind-generated electricity is generally competitive with traditional fossil and other fuels. In 2001, the U.S. wind industry installed $1.7 billion worth of new generating equipment. As this chart illustrates, current installed wind capacity almost doubled between 2000 and 2001, bringing total wind capacity in the United States to 4,258 megawatts, representing billions of dollars in jobs and investments. These two very different windmill projects, one from the 1800s and a modern Texas wind farm, illustrate how wind has moved from the past, and into our future. This Hawaii power plant is operating on geothermal energy, which is also found abundantly throughout the American West. This office complex in Louisville, KY, is heated and cooled by geothermal heat pumps. Vast sources of biomass, such as the wood pulp that fires this California power plant, are found throughout the United States. Biomass currently generates more electricity than any other U.S. renewable resource. As for solar, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District estimates that if every home built in California subdivisions each year had photovoltaic energy roofs similar to the one in this picture, they would produce the energy equivalent of a major 400 to 500 megawatt power plant every year. So the technology to produce renewable energy is clearly here. The resources also are here. Vast quantities of wind power are found along the East Coast, the West Coast, across large parts of the American West and across the Appalachian Mountain Chain. North Dakota also has consistent wind energy sufficient to supply 36 percent of the electricity needed in the lower 48 states. The United States has the technical capacity to generate 4.5 times its current electricity needs from a combination of wind, bioenergy, and other renewable resources. As to affordability, Federal studies have consistently shown that a Federal renewables standard of 20 percent will have little or no impact on overall consumer energy costs. The most recent study by the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration has found that consumer prices for electricity under a 20 percent standard would be largely the same as without one, resulting in an increase of only 3 percent by 2020. Further, as indicated on the chart--with purple indicating ``business as usual,'' and green representing a 20 percent RPS by 2020--EIA studies have shown that by 2020, a 20 percent Federal RPS would have no measurable impact on overall consumer energy bills, which would include electricity bills along with home heating and cooling bills, and commercial and industrial energy costs. So the technology is there, the resource is there, and the costs to consumers are minimal. Despite this, the contribution of renewables to the U.S. electricity market is still well under 3 percent. We must help promote these industries, the same way this Federal Government of our has assisted traditional fuels such as coal, oil and gas, nuclear and hydropower throughout their histories. We must level the playing field for the renewables industry and facilitate market entry of these valuable resources. Why focus so much on these resources? Renewable energy is good for the environment, provides jobs and investment, and increases our energy security. The U.S. Department of Energy has found that, as the demand for energy grows, without changes to Federal law, U.S. carbon emissions will increase 47 percent above the 1990 level by the year 2020. However, as this chart shows--with green representing carbon emissions with a 10 percent RPS by 2020, purple representing a 20 percent RPS by 2020 and pink showing the improvements that can be made by additional energy efficiency provisions--with a 20 percent renewables standard, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions will decrease by more than 18 percent by the year 2020. Adding renewables to our energy mix will also reduce emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide, which contribute to the problems of smog, acid rain, respiratory illness, and water contamination. A Federal 20 percent renewable energy standard will create thousands of new, high-quality jobs and bring a significant new investment to rural communities. It will create an estimated $80 million in new capital investment, and more than $5 billion in new property tax revenues. It will bring greater diversity to our energy sector, creating greater market stability, and reducing our vulnerability to terrorist attacks to our energy infrastructure. For all these reasons, I strongly support a requirement that would achieve the maximum amount of renewable energy production in this country. Claims that a 20 percent renewable portfolio standard by 2020 is impossible to achieve, would cost the American consumer billions, and would place an undue burden on industry are simply not supported by the facts. Clearly, renewable standards below this 20 percent are easily achievable, and should be strongly supported by this body. I urge my colleagues to support inclusion of a strong renewables standard in this bill. Without such a standard, I think we all must question whether this bill is in fact going in the right direction to ensure a clean, secure America. My amendment creates a renewable energy standard under which utilities would be required to gradually increase the amount of electricity produced from renewable energy resources, starting at 5 percent in 2005 and leveling out at 20 percent in 2020. That is plenty of time to adjust, plenty of time to make sure we can get to that goal without really creating any problems This level allows a long ramp-up time before utilities must begin to comply, and also gives them the flexibility of adjusting their renewable energy generation within 5 year increments rather than every year. My amendment places a cap on the cost of renewable energy credits by allowing retailers to purchase credits directly from the Secretary of Energy at 3 cents per credit, thereby ensuring price predictability for retail suppliers. The amendment recognizes the special economics of small entities, and excludes small retailers which sell 500,000 megawatt hours or less of electric energy from the requirements of the bill. However, my amendment recognizes that not only do we want to encourage renewable energy production and purchase by these small entities, they comprise a large part of the market for larger retailers. The amendment therefore directs the Secretary of Energy to apply money generated by the purchase of renewable energy credits to a program to maximize generation and purchase of renewable energy by these small retailers. My amendment will also allow utilities credit for existing renewable energy production, thereby increasing the potential for additional renewable production from existing facilities and rewarding those who have taken the initiative to develop green energy. Madam President, how much time do I have?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend my good friend. He has articulately outlined and put the issues in focus as to what we are discussing. Coming from Vermont, one of the States that has the most desire, perhaps, to take advantage of the situation, going to my own personal history back to 1939, I was just a kid, but we had the first commercial windmill in the United States. It was working fine until a hurricane blew it away. It was an example to us of what the potential is. Now we have windmills going over the State, up and down the State. Hopefully, there will be more and more. We have them located in nice places that do not spoil the view. What a great source of energy to take advantage of, especially in a State that is really being hard hit by all of the acid rain and other stuff that floats to us from places known and unknown. But I want to share with everyone the experiences we have had. Going back again, 29 years ago, the wind energy program started. It has come quite a ways, but now is the time to really maximize its utility and to keep this Nation going in the direction which will lead us away from the huge problems we have with being so dependent upon foreign oil and all those matters. Perhaps my good friend, the leader, can tell us what we are going to do next, but at this point I will save the floor and then come back.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, if I may, I would like to respond to some of the statements that have been made by my colleagues. First of all, my friend from Alaska quoted a figure of $6.4 billion having being spent in the last 5 years on renewable energy. That sounds like a lot. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that between 1999 and 2003 the oil and gas industry received $11 billion in direct tax breaks--over three times what was given, in that sense, to renewables. If you want to take a look at where your money ought to go, it ought to go where you can get the best buck. It is certainly not with coal. These kinds of subsidies have been there for decades and decades--in some years greater than others. For example, in a typical year, $21 billion in Federal subsidies go to fossil fuels, $11 billion to nuclear, and $1 billion to renewables. Again, when you look at energy costs with those kinds of subsidies, renewables are obviously the best way to go. But you have to have the sources to be able to provide the electricity. As to the cost of the Federal 20 percent RPS, I note that the U.S. Department of Energy has consistently found that it will not raise the average overall energy sector costs at all. My friend says that whatever costs are incurred are passed on to the consumer. That is true. Consumers also pay the massive cost from powerplant emissions, both environmental and health related. For instance, recent studies have shown that emissions from coal- fired plants lead to a massive 12-percent increase in lung cancer. Obviously, if you are using wind, you do not have any ramifications. The Senator from Alaska, who just came back to the Chamber, points to a large ``footprint'' from wind turbines. Let me show you this picture, which shows how wind turbines are indeed ``multiple use'' in the best sense, with farmers able to raise crops and graze livestock beneath them. The wind energy alone from a 20-percent renewable standard will provide $1.2 billion in new income for farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners. That is $1.2 billion in income to our farmers. My amendment of a 20-percent standard by 2020 is achievable, good for the economy, good for consumers, and good for the environment. I urge all Members to please support my amendment. We have to make progress. It has been some 30 years that we have been working on renewables. The successes are growing, and they are spreading throughout world. But we are not maximizing it. In this Nation, we are not taking anywhere near the advantage we should in renewables. So I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment. Hopefully, this will lead to a much more prosperous future for not only the energy users but for those who produce the energy, such as those on our farms. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. The total was $1.2 billion.

Mr. JEFFORDS. That was only for that farm.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues on the Finance Committee, Senators Graham and Hatch, to introduce legislation to clarify the rules governing the low-income housing tax credit. This tax credit has played a critical role in the construction and renovation of housing for low-income Americans. The Internal Revenue Service has issued five technical advice memoranda, TAMs, affecting the definition of eligible basis as defined in section 42(d) of the Internal Revenue Code. These TAMs had the effect of reducing the amount of tax credits available with respect to projects financed with low-income housing tax credits. The bill we introduce today recognizes that certain expenses are legitimate development costs that are properly includible in the basis eligible for the tax credits. Among these development costs are: state and local impact fees, site preparation costs, reasonable development fees, professional fees, and construction financing costs, excluding land acquisition costs. The TAMs drew unworkable distinctions among various costs developers incur when they build low-income housing. For example, under the law as interpreted by the IRS, a low-income housing developer would have to distinguish between those trees and shrubs planted near a housing unit and those planted elsewhere on the property. The costs of trees and shrub near the housing unit could be included in basis; the costs of other landscaping could not. Rules like this are not only illogical; they also impose unnecessary burdens both on developers of affordable housing projects, but also on the IRS itself, whose employees must draw these highly technical distinctions when they audit the project. Our bill includes fair and rational rules, introducing the concept of ``development cost basis'' in lieu of ``adjusted basis'' to determine which costs may qualify for tax credits. It assures that reasonable and legitimate expenses which incurred only for the purpose of building low-income housing will be eligible for tax credit.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues on the Finance Committee, Senators Graham and Hatch, to introduce legislation to clarify the rules governing the low-income housing tax credit. This tax credit has played a critical role in the construction and renovation of housing for low-income Americans. The Internal Revenue Service has issued five technical advice memoranda, TAMs, affecting the definition of eligible basis as defined in section 42(d) of the Internal Revenue Code. These TAMs had the effect of reducing the amount of tax credits available with respect to projects financed with low-income housing tax credits. The bill we introduce today recognizes that certain expenses are legitimate development costs that are properly includible in the basis eligible for the tax credits. Among these development costs are: state and local impact fees, site preparation costs, reasonable development fees, professional fees, and construction financing costs, excluding land acquisition costs. The TAMs drew unworkable distinctions among various costs developers incur when they build low-income housing. For example, under the law as interpreted by the IRS, a low-income housing developer would have to distinguish between those trees and shrubs planted near a housing unit and those planted elsewhere on the property. The costs of trees and shrub near the housing unit could be included in basis; the costs of other landscaping could not. Rules like this are not only illogical; they also impose unnecessary burdens both on developers of affordable housing projects, but also on the IRS itself, whose employees must draw these highly technical distinctions when they audit the project. Our bill includes fair and rational rules, introducing the concept of ``development cost basis'' in lieu of ``adjusted basis'' to determine which costs may qualify for tax credits. It assures that reasonable and legitimate expenses which incurred only for the purpose of building low-income housing will be eligible for tax credit.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to express my concern about the provisions of this amendment, and state my reasons for opposing it. As Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, which has jurisdiction over the licensing and regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of the Nation's commercial nuclear power plants, I have a very strong interest in the application of the provisions of Price-Anderson. Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has the obligation to assure the safety and security of our Nation's nuclear power plants, and to oversee compensation to the public in the event of a catastrophic accident. This is the most serious of responsibilities. My State of Vermont receives much of its power from the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. While I am supportive of nuclear power and the many benefits it brings, I am deeply and personally aware of the potential dangers to the public that a nuclear power plant could pose, should something go wrong. Since the events of September 11, of course, intense scrutiny has been given to security at nuclear plants, and chairman of the EPW Committee, I am committed to ensuring that our obligations to protect the public are fully met. Because this amendment fails to satisfy that responsibility,I must oppose it. The Price-Anderson Act establishes a system of liability, and compensation to the general public for damages in the event of a nuclear accident, an ``extraordinary nuclear occurrence'' in the language of the Atomic Energy Act. The current language provides that every commercial reactor having a rated capacity of 100,000 electrical kilowatts or more must obtain insurance as provided in the act. Section 508 of the amendment would make an exception for modular reactors, which are small reactors in the 100 to 110 kilowatt range, that must be clustered together in order to be economically viable. The amendment would treat them as a group of units comprising a single nuclear reactor. This would prevent each module from being treated, for purposes of liability coverage under Price-Anderson, as an individual reactor. Without this protection, construction of these modular reactors would not in all likelihood be economically viable. The safety and performance of these reactors is still a matter of considerable speculation. I am not satisfied that these issues have been sufficiently reviewed within my committee or elsewhere to justify encouraging their continued development at this time. Particularly with the events of September 11 heavy in our hearts and in our minds, I believe we must act with due caution in authorizing activities which we are not fully satisfied meet our obligations for protection of the public health and safety. Along those same lines, there are a number of issues relating to the adequacy of Price-Anderson that should be given greater scrutiny following the events of September 11. We must determine whether liability limits established under the Act are sufficient, given the potential for terrorist attack as we now perceive it. In so doing, we must carefully examine what are likely to be the full scale impacts to the public from a terrorist attack resulting in an ``extraordinary nuclear occurrence.'' We have requested this information from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but have not yet received a full response. I intend to work with my colleagues to develop language to address some of these concerns. I do not believe the amendment adequately addresses these issues, and for that reason, I will oppose it. Amendment No. 2984 to Amendment No. 2983

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I wish to express my opposition and deep concern to the amendment being offered from my good friend from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman. This amendment would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating hydraulic fracturing, an oil and gas operation which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held should be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. As chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, which has jurisdiction over the Safe Drinking Water Act, I am very disappointed that this matter is being added to the Energy bill without my committee having held hearings on the matter. Hydraulic fracturing is a method for stimulating recovery of natural gas and coalbed methane by fracturing rock formations through the injection of highly pressurized water treated with various additives. There is substantial question as to the nature of these additives--which are not closely regulated under most state and Federal laws--and whether they have the potential to migrate to public sources of drinking water when hydraulic fracturing occurs. The amendment would in essence overturn the finding by the Court of Appeals that hydraulic fracturing must be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The amendment would require EPA to conduct a study to determine whether hydraulic fracturing would contaminate groundwater. Only after completing the study would EPA be free to regulate the activity and protect drinking water wells, unless during the interim the EPA found emergency circumstances. I do not believe the record provides ample support for a conclusion that little harm will occur during the course of this study, and the EPA should not be barred from regulating hydraulic fracturing until the study is completed. Further, I do not believe the EPA should be the sole determiner of whether these activities should ultimately be regulaed. That issue is properly within the realm of Congress to decide. Such a decision should be made after the benefit of full congressional review. That has not occurred here. This is not a question of blocking oil and gas development. Oil and gas development has been proceeding briskly within the State of Alabama since the EPA instituted new regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act for hydraulic fracturing operations, pursuant to the order of the court. Nobody has gone out of business. The industry simply objects to additional costs they are incurring, costs which appear to be relatively minor, and which are directed solely to helping protect the adequacy of the public's drinking water supplies. This matter is squarely within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and as chairman, I must object to inclusion of this amendment within the energy bill, without the matter being properly examined and dealt with within the committee. For the above reasons, I oppose the amendment.