To improve the energy security of the United States and reduce United States dependence on foreign oil imports by 40 percent by 2025.

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 6, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 6) to ensure jobs for our future with secure,
affordable and reliable energy.

Pending:

Cantwell amendment No. 784, to improve the energy security
of the United States and reduce United States dependence on
foreign oil imports by 40 percent by 2025.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. The time has come to move back to this bill. I want to
say to Senators it happens frequently, when things are going well, that
nobody is very interested in moving along. So we have to push you along
by making sure Senators, or their staffs, understand this has to be a
day where we get rid of three or four amendments, including a couple of
very important ones that are here for the Senate to consider.
There is a pending amendment Senator Cantwell has before us. We are
trying right now to work out a unanimous consent agreement whereby we
will move off that amendment and have a time for a vote. Then we will
move onto an amendment--we are thinking that will be an amendment by
Senator Bingaman--with a time agreement, somewhere around 3 hours
equally divided. We will share that with Senator Bingaman and others.
Then there is a third amendment from our side of the aisle which, for
the sake of naming it, we will call the DeWine amendment. It is not
necessarily the name, but he is one of the Senators. We know he has an
amendment. We hope we can lock that in to follow after the Bingaman
amendment. We will agree on the time. Then the DeWine amendment will
have a certain amount of time after which it will be ready for a vote.
I am thinking with some degree of certainty we will have three votes.
That will take us into the evening. We will have this pending
amendment, the Bingaman amendment, that he considers very important on
the mandate for renewables across the land, and then we will have a
DeWine amendment that has to do with the oil cartel.
I am waiting for those who are putting these numbers together to come
here because Senators have to be consulted.
If people wonder why this takes a little bit of time, let me explain.
We are agreeing to something, but people in the Senate have to agree.
So we are checking with them now. The only other way we could do it,
you see, for those who wonder where they are, we could have all
Senators down here and say, Do you agree with this or that? But we
can't do that, so we have this little time interval where we ask the
Senate be put into a quorum call and that is what I was going to ask
right now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to speak to the pending
amendment, the Cantwell amendment, if it is appropriate, unless the
chairman has some other business he wants to raise at this point?
Mr. DOMENICI. I would ask the Senator, if he would, give me a little
bit of time before he does that and let me see if we can have a
unanimous consent agreement locked in so we have some idea how much
time you will use, or others.
Mr. DURBIN. Maybe I could make an alternative suggestion to the
chairman. I will speak until I receive a signal from him that he wants
to speak for any reason.
Mr. DOMENICI. If you are so generous, I will listen and when I think
I am tired of listening to you, I will put up my hand.
Mr. DURBIN. It will then be a very short speech, I am sure.
Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
Mr. DURBIN. I hate to live under that standard, but I will proceed
nevertheless, at my peril, to discuss this bill.
This 800-page bill is our energy bill. We have been working on it for
years. No one has worked harder than the Senator from New Mexico. This
Republican Senator has joined with the Democratic Senator from New
Mexico, Senator Bingaman, and they have produced a bill which in many
respects is a good bill. If this bill were presented to me today to
vote on, I would vote for it because I think there are so many
positives here. It not only is good in itself, it is certainly good in
comparison to what the House has produced. The House of Representatives
has produced a grab bag of incentives and benefits to energy producers
that doesn't get to the heart of the question: What is the best energy
policy for America, for our children and grandchildren? What is the
long-term view of America, when it comes to energy?
Senator Dorgan of North Dakota asked a question of the administration
when they came to testify on this bill. He said, You look forward 30 or
40 years on Social Security and say we have to be prepared. What are
you prepared to say will be our energy policy in 30 or 40 years? What
should we be aiming for?
The simple answer was they couldn't answer it. They had no long-term
energy policy. There is one thing we know will happen, unless we change
course from where we are today. Each and every day of every month of
every year for at least the next 20 years, we will become more
dependent on foreign oil. Today, 58 percent of the oil consumed in the
United States comes from overseas. That number has grown dramatically.
In 1973, that number was 28 percent. So in 32 years we have more than
doubled our dependence on foreign oil. We all need it: to fuel our
cars, trucks, businesses--the economy of America. So the obvious
question is, Is this something that should concern us? I think it is
clear on its face it should.
As we become increasingly dependent on Saudi Arabia, the OPEC cartel,
Iraq, Iran, Libya, and so many other countries for our oil sources,
frankly, we are surrendering some of our freedom and control of our own
future. If we lessen our dependence on their foreign oil, it
strengthens our economy. Less money is going overseas to buy oil. More
money goes into the United States. There is less dependence on what
happens.

[[Page S6672]]

Saudi Arabia is a country we ought to take a close look at because we
depend on it so much. Saudi Arabia is a royalty. It is a kingdom. It is
a government which, on any given day, we are either embracing because
they provide us with oil or admonishing because they are doing things
as a matter of policy that are inconsistent with American values. How
much longer do we want to be joined at the hip with Saudi Arabia? How
much longer do we want to wait for these sheiks and princes to decide
how much oil they will release from their country and directly impact
the cost of gasoline in America?
I think the answer is very clear. The sooner we move toward
independence, the more secure America is, the less dependent we are on
Saudi Arabia and other countries. The pending amendment by Senator
Cantwell of Washington sets a goal for America. I think it is a goal
that can be reached by people of good faith on both sides of the aisle
who are prepared to accept the challenge.
Here is the challenge: Can we, over the next 20 years, reduce our
dependence on foreign oil by 40 percent? It is a challenge. It is not
as great a challenge as putting a man on the Moon, but America did
that. It may not be as great a challenge as the Manhattan Project, when
President Franklin Roosevelt said develop an atomic bomb that will end
World War II, but we did that. I am confident, with the creativity and
ingenuity of America, we can meet this challenge--40-percent reduction
in dependence on foreign oil over the next 20 years. That is the
pending amendment.
You would think most Senators would say: Fine, let's accept the
challenge. Let America rise to this challenge and meet it. But sadly,
if you listen to the debate, primarily from the other side of the
aisle, that is not what we hear. We hear, instead: Oh, this is too big
a challenge for America. We can't do that. The technology isn't there.
We would have to change the cars we are driving. We would have to
challenge Detroit and automobile manufacturers to build more fuel-
efficient vehicles. They say that is impossible, America cannot meet
that challenge, and they oppose the pending amendment.
I would say from my point of view this should be a bipartisan
challenge we all accept. There are people who love their SUVs. I
understand that. But I think we can say to Detroit, you can, and we
know you can, produce a fuel-efficient vehicle that is safe and meets
the needs of America, our families and our businesses. But to continue
to build cars larger and heavier, that get fewer and fewer miles per
gallon, is to increase our dependence on oil, particularly foreign oil,
and our addiction to this source of energy. I think we can do better. I
think the amendment offered by Senator Cantwell of Washington does
establish that challenge for us.
I personally believe we should do something about the fuel efficiency
of the vehicles we drive. Do you know it has been 20 years since we
held Detroit responsible for reducing the amount of fuel that you
consume to travel a mile in America? For 20 years we have stepped out
of the picture, and what has happened in the meantime? The fuel
efficiency of vehicles in America has gone down, down, down. People
drive these Hummers. Have you ever seen them? I personally think if you
want to drive a Hummer, you ought to join the Army. People want them
and get 5 or 6 miles a gallon and Detroit keeps churning out these big,
heavy cars.
From my point of view, we ought to step back as a nation and say,
isn't it worth something for us to have more fuel-efficient vehicles so
we don't get drawn into foreign conflicts over oil? It is more
important to me to drive a sensible car and to spare someone's son or
daughter from serving in the military in the Middle East in a war. That
is not a great sacrifice on my part. And it is certainly a great
reward, when we have fewer and fewer times when we are entangled in
this Middle East problem that continues today over our sources of oil.
I happen to believe this is a good bill. It can be improved and the
Cantwell amendment improves it. There is one provision, only one in 800
pages, which talks about better fuel efficiency in America--or at least
reduces our dependence. Let me be more specific: reducing our
dependence on foreign oil. There was a provision that was passed by the
Senate the last time we debated this bill, 99 to 1. It was
overwhelmingly supported. It said, over the next 10 years we will
reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 1 million barrels a day. That
is a good step in the right direction. The Cantwell amendment takes us
a little further and I think is better overall, but I support what is
in the bill. Do you know, 2 days ago President Bush and his White House
sent us their evaluation of this bill and said if that provision is
included in the bill, the President will veto it.
The President will veto it if we embark on a policy of reducing our
dependence on oil by 1 million barrels a day over the next 10 years?
What are they thinking? How can we be any safer as a nation more
dependent on foreign oil? Should not we be accepting this challenge?
Why is the Bush White House walking away from it?
Senator Domenici, myself, virtually every other Senator, agreed to
put this provision in the bill last time. I think it is a good
provision this time. Yet the Bush White House is opposed to it.
There is only a certain amount of oil we can drill for around America
and around the areas we control to meet our needs. The total world oil
supply in the control of the United States is about 3 percent. Yet we
use 25 percent of the oil that is consumed each day. If we are going to
be realistic, we have to understand we need more efficient vehicles,
more use of alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel, and we
need to be looking for ways to reduce the waste of fuel, such as the
one included in this bill, and I commend the Senator from New Mexico on
this. The provision in your bill which relates to the idling of diesel
trucks is a great provision. All of these are sensible moves in the
right direction. If they are, why isn't this administration supporting
it? Why don't we have a good, strong bipartisan vote not only for that
provision but for the Cantwell provision, as well?

Let us accept the challenge. Let us not view that as a negative
alternative that America just cannot do it. We can. We have proven it
in the past. We can come together and pass this bill on a bipartisan
basis.
I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I am greatly rewarded by his
patience in allowing me to speak a full 10 or 15 minutes without
boiling his bile or whatever might have occurred.
I yield the floor and hope we are moving toward a vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. We are grateful. We will have a unanimous consent to
take care of today.
Let me just say briefly, if I were President of the United States--
which obviously is beyond the realm of possibility--I would be opposed
to this amendment. It is not as if it does nothing to the President. It
says, Mr. President, whoever you are--and it obviously will not be this
one--tell us how, give us a plan, tell us how you will reduce America's
consumption of crude oil by 40 percent by a year certain.
What President would like to do that? What President would think that
is a worthwhile effort if he would have to send up some kind of plan at
which the whole world would laugh? Our cars would have to be the size
of golf carts or we would have to make a breakthrough in the next 10
years, which we have been working on for 40 or 50 years, and we have
not made it yet.
The very ones talking about it do not want to even get the oil from
ANWR. That is a million of what they are asking for, and it surely
would be here by the time their resolution talks about it. What if the
President, whoever it is, says: Let's go to ANWR and get a million.
Guess what they would say: Destroying the world, getting rid of the
environment. But a nice little resolution, nice little bill saying we
have a solution to this. We will just be a John F. Kennedy and say our
goal is to some way, somehow, cut America's consumption of crude oil
from overseas by 40 percent, when it has been going up every year with
everything we are trying to do.
In this bill, we are trying what is real. We are challenging all of
the technocrats, the technologists, the scientists. We are telling
them: Here are resources, find solutions. What superentity would we
create in this country and say: Here you are. You are on top

[[Page S6673]]

of all this. You prepare this plan. You give it to the President so he
can give it to the people. To what end? What would it do? A 40-percent
reduction reduces our consumption by 7.2 million barrels. We cannot
even get anyone to vote to let America produce 1 million barrels now.
If that 1 million would come off 7.2 million barrels, we would still be
a huge way away.
Do not misunderstand, this issue is an American issue of high
consequence. America is doing everything it can. We did not used to.
That is why it is so hard now. We let it get away from us. It will not
come back under control with a gaudy, impossible resolution that will
sound like somebody has a plan.
I have attempted just to tell the Senate the truth. I have attempted
to offer an amendment to this and just up the ante and say if we can do
7.2 million, why don't we do 8.2 or 9.2, and put it in there and say we
will vote on a bigger one. Then I thought, maybe I ought to be what I
have tried to be on this bill all along, honest and forthright, and as
best I could explain to the Senate, we have to do everything we can,
with imagination, with vigor, with certainty, with resources, but the
kind of things we know we can do, that we know we put our shoulders to
it and we work hard.
We are finally coming to the point where Americans do believe it is a
big problem. I don't think they are blaming people anymore. It used to
be we called the big oil companies up, swear them in under oath--I
don't know if the Senator remembers the day we called them up here and
had them swear. We said: You are the problem; you are why we are
importing all this oil.

Remember those days? They told us everything they could. That hearing
went away. What happened? The next year we imported more oil and more
oil.
It isn't that the Senator doesn't think we should have an American
plan. What we have in this bill is an American plan. Senator Bingaman
and I and many others have worked hard to put it together. Some people
say it does not do enough as it is. I heard some reporters yesterday
commenting. I wondered what they were reading. They said: It doesn't do
anything for nuclear. It is the most far-reaching pronuclear set of
proposals we will have ever before us. The same commentators said it
cost too much money. I don't know where they got the numbers. We have
not even spent in this bill. We were given a $2-billion reserve fund.
We have not spent all of that yet. I shouldn't have said that because
everybody will be down here wanting to spend it, but they have to go
through us before they can spend it.
The tax portion is about like the House portion. It is a pretty good
bill. It is not a spending bill. When you authorize programs,
incidentally, you are not saying we are going to buy them or pay for
them. The distinguished occupant of the Chair knows in agriculture you
authorize programs, but you do not expect the appropriations to do
exactly what you say. You say: This is a program we would like you to
think about. That is what this bill does in terms of authorization.
Overall, it is a very good bill.
Is the proposed unanimous consent agreement satisfactory?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent the Cantwell amendment be
temporarily set aside, Senator Bingaman be recognized in order to offer
an amendment regarding RPS; provided further there be 3 hours of debate
equally divided in the usual form and that following the use or
yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the
amendment and that no second-degree amendments be in order to the
amendment prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

Amendment No. 791

(Purpose: To establish a renewable portfolio standard)

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself,
Mr. Coleman, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. Collins, Mr. Dorgan, Ms.
Feinstein, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Salazar, proposes
an amendment numbered 791.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is a proposal that has been offered
before in the Senate. This is a proposal that was included in the
comprehensive Energy bill we passed in the 107th Congress, again in the
bill that was passed in the 108th Congress. It sets a standard referred
to, generally, as a renewable portfolio standard. It is essentially a
requirement that those producing electricity in the country produce 10
percent of that electricity that they sell by 2020 from renewable
sources.
The Senate has approved this proposition again and again. As I
indicated, in the 107th Congress, we included such a portfolio standard
as part of an Energy bill. We had various votes in the Senate that
affirmed the Senate's determination that the standard should not be
weakened. In the 108th Congress, there was a letter signed by 53
Senators that went to the chairs of the conference on the Energy bill,
H.R. 6. Senate conferees went on to approve the portfolio standard and
pass it on to the House as part of the Senate action.
Now we have the opportunity to renew our support for this proposal to
place it in this bill where we can, hopefully, get broad bipartisan
support and get it to the President's desk.
There are good reasons for the strong support that we have seen in
the Senate. A strong renewable portfolio standard is an essential
component of any comprehensive national energy policy--not just an
important part of such a strategy but an essential component.
The benefits are clear and they are many. Let me cite the major
benefits: This provision would reduce our dependence on traditional,
polluting sources of electricity. It would reduce our dependence on
foreign energy sources. It would reduce the growing pressure on natural
gas as a fuel for the generation of electricity. It would reduce the
price of natural gas. It would create new jobs. It would make a start
on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It would increase our energy
security and enhance the reliability of the electricity grid.
The renewable portfolio standard that we are offering--and I have
various cosponsors--and I hope we have additional cosponsors before
this amendment is dealt with--Senator Coleman, Senator Jeffords,
Senator Collins, Senator Dorgan, Senator Cantwell, Senator Feinstein,
Senator Reid, Senator Salazar. I believe many other Members in the
Senate strongly support this effort.

The RPS we have offered is a flexible and market-driven approach to
achieving the various goals I have mentioned at a negligible cost to
consumers in this country. According to the Energy Information
Administration, the amendment would result in over 350 billion kilowatt
hours or 68,000 megawatts of renewable generation between 2008 and
2025. That is enough power generation to supply 56 million U.S. homes.
The cost to consumers would be about .18 of a percent or less than one-
fifth of 1 percent increase in overall energy prices.
This proposal would require retail sellers of electricity that sell
more than 4 million megawatt hours per year to provide 10 percent of
that electricity from renewable resources by the year 2020. The
requirement would be ramped up in 3-year increments to allow for
planning flexibility. The Secretary of Energy would be required to
develop a system of credits for renewable generation that could be
traded or sold; again, making the program easier to comply with.
Utilities could use existing renewable generation to comply with the
program or they could comply with the program by buying credits from
someone else who is producing renewable energy. New renewable producers
could receive the credits to trade or to sell.
The cost of the program to the utilities would be capped by allowing
the

[[Page S6674]]

Secretary to sell credit at 1.5 cents per kilowatt, adjusted for
inflation. As long as the difference between the cost of the renewable
generation is less than 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour, the utility could
buy or generate renewables. When it reaches or exceeds that price,
obviously the cap would kick in, and it would become more cost
effective for the utility to go ahead and buy the credits. We also
would create a program for the sale of the credits to fund State
programs for the development of renewables.
Congress has tried before to spur the development of renewables. In
1978, we passed the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, PURPA. That
bill required utilities to buy renewables if the generators could meet
the avoided cost of the utilities. Cogeneration--that is, the combined
use of heat for industrial processes and for generation of
electricity--was also eligible. That program resulted in a huge growth
of cogeneration. Over half of the new generation that came online in
the country during the 1980s and 1990s was from that resource.
It did not, however, do much for renewable generation. These
technologies have remained at about 2 percent of total electricity
supply for decades now. In other words, PURPA did not work to stimulate
development of renewables as we had hoped it might.
Let me put up a chart to make the point of this 2 percent figure to
give people an idea of what we are dealing with today.
This shows electricity generation by fuel for the period of 1970
through 2025. Of course, some of that is anticipated. This is from the
Energy Information Agency which is part of the administration.
You can see that by far the largest percentage of the electricity we
produce in this country is produced from coal. That is the case today,
in 2005, as shown by this white line on the chart. That has been the
case ever since 1970, and that will be the case in the future. That is
true regardless of whether this amendment is adopted or is not adopted.
The next source of power, the next fuel for electricity generation is
soon to be--right now it is nuclear but it is very soon to be natural
gas. You can see a green line there. It is probably a little hard to
see against that blue background on the chart, but there is a green
line which goes up pretty dramatically in the future. That is a concern
I know all of us who have looked at this issue share. We see the price
of natural gas going up a significant degree, because we have more and
more of our electricity being produced from natural gas. That puts
pressure on the price of natural gas. People who are buying natural gas
to heat their homes or their businesses see the cost of their utilities
going up because of the increased pressure on that price of natural gas
coming from the increased demand for natural gas to produce
electricity.
You can see the renewables number down here. The renewables is next
to the bottom line, and it is bumping along at less than 5 percent. It
is down around 2 percent today. It will increase very modestly.
This chart is a chart of how the Energy Information Agency would
expect production to occur absent a renewable portfolio standard. What
this amendment will try to do is increase somewhat the amount of
electricity we are producing from renewables and, by doing so, decrease
the amount of electricity we have to produce from natural gas. This is
a way to keep down the increasing cost of natural gas, and it is a way
to keep down the increasing price of natural gas as well.
Let me talk about some of the criticism that has been made of this
amendment and this approach. Critics of the proposal point to a number
of concerns they have. The No. 1 criticism I have heard is it costs too
much; also, that States are already requiring development of
renewables; and, third, some areas do not have readily available
renewable resources. Those are the three major criticisms we hear, so
let me respond to each of those.
In response to the argument that it costs too much, I will point to a
number of studies of this proposal that have been done over the last
several years.
In 2003, I asked the Energy Information Agency at the Department of
Energy to look at the effect the standard would have. They found our
standard would result in 350 billion kilowatt hours of new renewable
generation between 2008 and 2025. That would not happen absent the
adoption of this provision. They found the cost would be minimal. The
report indicated there would be an increase in the cost of electricity
of only one-tenth of a cent in 2025 over projected costs. When combined
with the reduction in natural gas prices that would be caused by the
RPS, total aggregate cost to the consumer on that consumer's energy
bill was projected to be less than one-twentieth of 1 percent.
I have asked the EIA to update this analysis with current conditions,
and we have their update. They have sent me a letter which I can put in
the Record. Let me cite the most important parts of it. It says:

Cumulative residential expenditures on electricity from
2005 through 2025 are $2.5 billion lower while cumulative
residential expenditures on natural gas are reduced by $2.9
billion, or 0.5 percent. Cumulative expenditures for natural
gas and electricity by all end-use sectors taken together
would decrease by $22.6 billion.

Now, that is their current estimate of what the effect of this
provision would be.
The report also indicates the generation of electricity from natural
gas would be 5 percent lower if we adopt this RPS than it would be
otherwise. It also projects that total electricity-sector carbon
dioxide emissions are reduced by 7.5 percent relative to the status
quo. They are reduced by 249 million metric tons.
A number of other studies have found positive results, even to the
point of reducing overall energy costs. Earlier this year we held a
hearing in the Energy Committee on generation portfolios. Dr. Ryan
Wiser of Lawrence-Berkeley National Laboratory presented a report that
summarized the results of some 15 studies of renewable portfolio
standards much like the one we are offering today. All of these studies
found that a portfolio standard would reduce natural gas prices. Twelve
of the 15 studies projected a net reduction in overall energy bills as
a result of the RPS.
The Energy Information Agency report projected that the RPS would
lead to a 32-percent lower allowance cost for sulfur dioxide emissions.
The cost is not great. So the argument we have heard that this is too
expensive a proposition I think does not hold water.
Many have argued that States are implementing renewable portfolio
standards and there is no need for a Federal program. It is true that
States have taken the lead in pushing for more renewable generation.
Eighteen States currently have developed renewable requirements. Three
more are soon to begin implementing renewable requirements.

Almost all of these standards are more aggressive than the Federal
standard in the amendment I am proposing today. My home State of New
Mexico requires 10 percent of electricity produced by utilities in that
State to be from renewable sources by the year 2011--not 2020. Mr.
President, 2020 is what our amendment calls for. But New Mexico says
2011. California says 20 percent by 2017. Maine requires 30 percent by
2000; Minnesota, 19 percent by 2015.
This will spur the growth of renewables in these regions. There is
one thing, however, a State standard will not do. It will not drive a
national market for these technologies. If some States have renewable
standards and others do not, or if the technologies and requirements
vary from State to State, it is impossible for a national market to
develop for renewable credits.
This credit trading system is the piece of our proposal that gives
the greatest flexibility for compliance. A credit trading system also
helps to reduce the cost of compliance by allowing credits for lower
cost renewables from one region to be bought by utilities in another
region.
Some argue this is a cost shift from the regions without renewable
resources to those with renewable resources. I would argue it is a way
to spread the cost to all who are seeing the benefits. If States do not
have or choose not to develop renewable resources, they still realize
the benefits of lower natural gas prices, of lower SO<inf>2</inf>
allowances, of lower cost carbon

[[Page S6675]]

reductions. It is only fair they share the slight increase in cost for
generation of electricity that has created these savings.
The argument that many regions do not have renewable generation
resources has also been made. While it is true that the best wind,
geothermal, and solar resources are concentrated in Western States, the
entire country has extensive biomass potential. We have another chart I
want to put up here for people to look at.
As Maine and other States have shown, paper production and
agricultural processes are available everywhere. If Rhode Island,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland can implement aggressive
standards, then other States can as well.
This chart makes the case very strongly about where these renewable
energy resources are available. You can see that solar, of course, is
available everywhere but more prominently in the Southwest. That is
shown in the upper right-hand part of this chart. Wind resources are
not available everywhere but clearly are in many States, and
particularly in the West and the Midwest. That is shown on the lower
right-hand part of the chart. Geothermal resources are primarily
concentrated in the West, but biomass and biofuel resources are
everywhere in the country, and are particularly concentrated in the
eastern part of the country. So as these technologies develop, as the
markets for these technologies develop, there is an ability to produce
energy from renewable sources everywhere.
The environmental benefits are clear. The renewable portfolio
standard would result, according to the Energy Information Agency, in a
3.6-percent reduction in carbon emissions in the year 2025. This is a
reduction of 31 million tons in that year alone. That reduction is the
equivalent to planting 27.5 million acres of trees, an area about the
size of Pennsylvania. And this is in one single year.
The RPS also benefits the economy by driving job growth. According to
the Union of Concerned Scientists, wind turbine construction alone
would result in 43,000 new jobs per year on average. An additional
11,200 cumulative long-term jobs would result from the subsequent
operations and maintenance of these renewable facilities.
The Regional Economics Applications Laboratory for the Environmental
Law and Policy Center found that 68,400 jobs and $6.7 billion in
economic output are a result of renewable energy; wind power creates 22
direct and indirect construction and manufacturing jobs for each
megawatt of installed capacity; wind power creates one operation and
maintenance job for every 10 megawatts of installed capacity.
A study by the State of Wisconsin found that increased use of
renewable energy sources would create three times as many jobs as
increased use of traditional fuels for electricity production. U.S.
PIRG reports that building 5,900 megawatts of renewable energy capacity
in California would lead to 28,000 yearlong construction jobs and 3,000
operations and maintenance jobs. Over 30 years, these new plants would
create 120,000 person hours of employment, four times as many person
hours as building 5,900 megawatts of natural gas capacity.
According to the AFL-CIO, an estimated 8,092 jobs would be created
over a 10-year period for installation and operations and maintenance
of wind power in Nevada, and another 19,000 manufacturing jobs.
Support for this concept and this proposal is strong throughout the
country. Recent polls have shown that support. A poll by Mellman
Associates found that 70 percent of those surveyed nationwide supported
a 20-percent portfolio standard. We are not proposing that aggressive a
standard. We are proposing 10 percent by the year 2020, which I pointed
out is substantially more modest than most of the States have embraced
that have gone this route. These results held about the same in States
as diverse as North Dakota, Georgia, Missouri, and Arizona.
Environmental groups from throughout the Nation, from the Sierra Club
to the Natural Resources Defense Council, from industrial associations
to the renewable trade groups and utilities, have all supported the
RPS.
We are trying in this bill to implement a policy to develop an energy
future for the Nation that would rely on our own resources, creating
energy security for the country; that would provide for cleaner air and
water; that would begin to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide into
the air; and that would drive our economy to greater heights. This
portfolio standard is a low-cost, effective, market-driven way to
accomplish these goals.
Let me put up one other chart before I yield the floor.
There is a chart we have that shows the production-added capacity of
wind energy which I wanted to reference. It is entitled ``Annual
Installed Capacity.''
One of the arguments being made against this legislation is, through
the Tax Code, we are already providing incentives for utilities to do
this. Therefore, something like this is not required.
The truth is, we have had incentives in the Tax Code. Our history of
success at getting additional installed capacity through that device
has been extremely mixed. We have a tax provision for a year, and then
we let it expire. Installation drops off dramatically. We have a tax
provision put back in place. The installation of capacity goes up. We
let it expire. Unfortunately, that has been the history in this
Congress.
I would like to say it is going to be different in the future, but I
am not persuaded. What the renewable portfolio standard will do is to
set a long-term path for how we want to proceed and would give
utilities and those who are involved in the generation of electricity a
clear idea of what is to be expected from them as they go forward. This
would have a beneficial effect on the development of these
technologies, on bringing the cost of producing power from renewable
sources down, and would bring us into line with many of the more
industrially advanced countries in the world.
This is a useful provision. It is one that has bipartisan support in
the Senate and one we have had the good sense to adopt in the previous
two Congresses. I hope we will do that again this year.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I remind the Senate that we have an hour
and a half on our side. I am in control of the time. I am going to
yield control of the time to the junior Senator from Tennessee. He will
start and use as much time as he wants. Then I will return and use
some. I have put the word out, if anybody else would like to speak in
opposition to the Bingaman amendment.
With that understanding, I yield the floor and thank the Senator from
Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
While both Senators from New Mexico are in the Chamber, all of us
appreciate the way they have brought this extremely important bill
together. We know there are a handful of tough issues about which we
disagree. Through their leadership, we have a consensus on what is well
on its way to being an American Clean Energy Act for 2005, something
that will dramatically transform the way we conserve energy, produce
energy, and will help us keep our jobs and be more competitive in the
world marketplace. That is our goal.
I also believe it will lower natural gas prices. And I thank the
chairman and ranking member for their contributions.
At the end of our committee markup, during which the vote was 21 to
1, there were compliments thrown all around. Senator Bingaman said he
couldn't remember a party-line vote in all the votes that we had, that
we were voting based upon our own individual views and our regional
differences. Senator Cantwell said it was not only a clean energy bill,
but it was a clean process. But that doesn't mean that when we
disagree, we shouldn't disagree. And we have differences of opinion.
That is what the Senate is for.
While I respect the other side for what is a high-sounding idea, the
idea of a renewable portfolio standard, I believe there is a better way
to spend these billions of dollars than the way

[[Page S6676]]

suggested by Senator Bingaman, if our real goal is to create an
adequate supply of low-cost, reliable American-produced energy.
It is always important to start from the proposition that this is a
big country and a massive economy. We use 25 percent of all the energy
in the world, and we spend about $2,500 a year per person to produce
that. So when we put up a windmill that only blows 20 or 30 or 40
percent of the time, it doesn't matter much in terms of what we do.
When we build a new nuclear power plant, which we haven't done since
the 1970s, it matters a lot. A windmill would be one of 6,700, but that
power plant would be only 1 of 1,300 or 1,400 power plants we have in
the country. So it takes quite a bit to affect our energy policy.
There are three reasons I hope my colleagues will vote against the
renewable portfolio standard. The first reason is that it is an $18
billion tax. It is a new $18 billion rate increase on the electric
ratepayers of America. The second reason is it is an increase in
subsidy for a number of people, especially wind developers who already
include a huge subsidy of a couple billion dollars over the next 5
years, which the Finance Committee has recommended we increase to $3.3
billion over the next 5 years just for giant windmills. Three, if not
technically, it is at least in the spirit of an unfunded Federal
mandate, the kind of thing that a lot of us were elected to stop, the
idea of coming up with a big idea here in Washington and imposing it on
the rest of the country and then sending them the bill.
I was thinking about this: We are all going to be going home in a
couple of weeks, having debated the Energy bill and hopefully having
passed it, feeling good about it. Our constituents are going to ask:
What did you do about high gasoline prices? What did you do about high
natural gas prices? What did you do about the possibility of blackouts
so my computer wouldn't work and so I wouldn't be safe in my home? What
did you do about the fact that China and India and other parts of the
world are buying up oil reserves and growing their economies and
creating constant pressure on the price of oil? What did you do about
that, Senator, while you were in Washington over the last couple of
weeks?
I wonder if what we really want to say to our friends who elected us
when we go back to Tennessee or Nevada or New Mexico is:
I raised your taxes $18 billion. I put a new $18 billion charge on
your electric bill. That is the first thing I did. The second thing I
did was I gave an increased subsidy to people who were already getting
a lot of money. Windmill developers are making $2 billion over the next
5 years just to put up these giant windmills. We gave them another
subsidy on top of that. And then the third thing I did was, since we
all get smarter when we go to Washington on the airplanes, we decided
that despite the fact that 17 or 18 States are already defining
renewable energy sources in their own ways and already trying to meet
them and already giving them incentives, we decided we would decide
that better. We would decide that from Washington, DC.

While I am not sure about this, at least in earlier versions of the
proposal, in a number of cases the credit you got for what you were
doing according to your State renewable portfolio standard doesn't
count towards your national renewable portfolio standard.
I don't think I want to go home and say to the people of Tennessee
that what I did about the growth of China and India and the threat to
their jobs and what I did about high gasoline prices and natural gas
prices, what I did about blackouts was to add $18 billion to their
electric rates, to give a big subsidy to windmill developers, and to
put an unfunded mandate on top of what States ought to be doing for
themselves.
There are better ways, if our goal is to produce low-carbon or
carbon-free electricity, which is what this debate is really all about.
This debate is motivated by those who feel most strongly about global
warming and about low-carbon and carbon-free electricity. There is a
better way to do that, particularly if we have $18 billion. I want to
talk about that a little more as we go along.
The Senator from New Mexico, as he always does, gave a very careful
and well-reasoned explanation of his points of view. His proposal is a
little different from his proposal made in 2003. I want to go through
why I said what I said and make sure my point of view is understood.
Let me begin with the idea of the $18 billion. I didn't just pull
that out of the air. This is a letter from the Department of Energy in
Washington dated June 15, 2005, to Senator Bingaman. He quoted some of
it. It talks about a number of things. It does talk about some places
where in the whole economy there might be some reductions in
expenditures as a result of the RPS based on their monitoring. But it
also says the following:

From 2005 to 2025, the RPS has a cumulative total cost to
the electric power sector of about $18 billion. . . . This
cost includes $700 million in payments to the Government for
compliance credits once the price cap is reached and $10.7
billion in payments to owners of customer-sited photovoltaics
that are eligible for triple credits.

In other words, we are going to spend $11 billion in payments for
solar power.
Let me start by talking about what we mean when we say renewable
energy. Some people get confused about ethanol, renewable fuel, and
renewable energy. We are not talking about ethanol. We are only talking
about renewable energy, making electricity. There are only a handful of
ways to do that that make much difference. Senator Bingaman has defined
those very narrowly. Wind is one, giant windmills. Geothermal is
another. That is hot water coming out of the ground to heat your home.
Hydropower is one, but we exclude hydropower except for very limited
new hydropower in this bill. Solar is another, using the sun. And
biomass, putting grass and/or other things into coal plants and burning
them is yet another.
Today, all of those renewable fuels produce a little over 2 percent
of the electricity. Since the 1970s and 1980s, we tried very hard to
encourage more. I can remember President Carter 20 years ago setting a
goal of 20 percent of solar energy. In 1992, the wind developers said:
We can make wind electricity out of wind, just give us a little bit of
money to help get started, and then we will be off on our own. That was
1992.
Billions and billions of dollars later, wind is still not very much
because that is not the best way to produce carbon-free electricity for
an economy of this size, to compound the problem by putting new taxes
and new subsidies on the American people at a time when we are supposed
to be talking about lower prices. I haven't heard anybody say: I want
higher natural gas prices. I want to pay a higher electric bill.
We are talking about higher prices, 18 billion new dollars on your
electric rates. And for what? To build tens of thousands of windmills
and to spend nearly $11 billion producing what will end up being one-
fifth of 1 percent of all of the electricity that we will produce. That
would be the solar electricity.
I am all for solar power. I have an amendment for solar power with
Senator Johnson that we introduced as part of the Natural Gas Price
Reduction Act. It would spend $380 million over the next 5 years for
businesses and homeowners who want to use solar power. It would help
that industry get started and see if it could go on its own without
huge higher costs. But this is nearly $11 billion for solar power to
produce one-fifth of 1 percent of all the electricity in the United
States.
After solar, tens of thousands of these windmills is the other major
expenditure along with biomass. So what we are talking about to begin
with is wind and biomass and solar and landfill gas and geothermal, and
trying to take that from 2 percent up to 10 percent. To do that, we are
going to put an $18 billion tax increase on.
Now, let's go to the second objection I have. That is the size of the
subsidy and the people to whom the subsidy is going. I have been doing
a little investigating. It is hard to get these numbers down, to try to
see how much money we are spending for this kind of fuel, so I could
see if we could better spend it some other way. I have noticed that we
are spending about 1 percent of our--we have something called the
renewable electricity production tax credit. So far, it has been really
a tax credit for windmills because solar

[[Page S6677]]

hasn't had the chance to take advantage of it. It pays you 1.8 cents
for every kilowatt hour of wind power that you produce.
Now, wind has become--according to many of the utilities who buy and
sell wind power--a fairly competitive product where the wind blows. Of
course, where it doesn't blow, no amount of subsidy will help it. So we
have already committed $2 billion in our Tax Code over the next 5 years
to subsidize wind producers. And the Finance Committee, yesterday, said
they want to add a billion to that. The Finance Committee also said
they not only want to subsidize the production of the kilowatt hours of
power, they want to loan money so developers can build these giant
windmills.
Some people may think I am talking about your grandmother's windmill
out by the well somewhere pumping the water.
I will have to make one correction in trying to describe these. I
have said only one will fit into the second largest football stadium in
America in Tennessee. The Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum,
reminded me that Penn State is larger than the University of Tennessee,
and I stand corrected on that. But even at Penn State, and even at the
University of Michigan, which is the largest, or the University of
Tennessee, which is third largest, just one of these windmills will fit
in the stadium. The rotor blades extend from the 10-yard line to the
10-yard line, and it rises twice as high as the skyboxes, and you can
see the red lights from 20 miles away on a clear night. These usually
come in groups of 10, 20, or 30 windmills.
This proposal would have the effect of increasing the number of these
gigantic windmills from about 6,700, which we have in America today, to
45,000. That is the estimate of the Energy Information Administration.
Each of these produces about 1 megawatt of power--or to be accurate, is
rated to produce about 1 megawatt of power. The wind only blows 20 to
40 percent of the time, so it only produces about a third of a megawatt
of power. Also, you have to take into account the fact that since these
often are built in remote places or on top of scenic ridges, then you
would build large transmission lines through backyards to carry the
electricity to places. And you have to take into account the fact that
you cannot close down your coal plant and nuclear plant and your
natural gas plant when you put up windmills because people don't want
to shut off their computers, stop working, or turn off their lights.
They have to have their electricity all of the time, and you don't
store power from wind in these amounts to use later.
So the idea that the United States of America would look to the
future to keep its jobs and competition with Japan, with China, and
with India--our country that uses 25 percent of all the energy in the
world--by taxing its ratepayers $18 billion to build tens of thousands
of windmills and, as good as solar power is, to spend $11 billion on
solar power, which will produce one-fifth of 1 percent of all of the
electricity we need in this country--I don't believe, respectfully, it
is the best way to spend our money.
The third point is this about the States, and the Senator from New
Mexico mentioned about what the States are doing. Someone said,
``Senator Alexander hasn't gotten over being Governor.'' Maybe, in a
way, I hope I never do because I don't think you automatically get
smarter when you fly to Washington, DC. I know the Presiding Officer
goes home almost every weekend. You gain a lot of wisdom while you are
at home, and not here. To the extent that it is a good idea for
electric utilities to begin to use a variety of different renewable
sources, I submit that they are already doing it. They are working hard
on it. The Governor of California made a major address the other day
about the use of solar power in California.
There are 19 States, plus the District of Columbia, that have some
form of RPS today. They have all sorts of different approaches to this.
Iowa met its standard in 1999. Connecticut increased its standard in
2003. Texas has a well-regarded standard.
They use different definitions of renewable sources of energy. Maine
defines renewable to include pulp and paper waste and black liquor.
Pennsylvania has a clean energy portfolio standard that includes waste
coal. Connecticut includes fuel cells. The Western Governors
Association includes clean coal.
I have a number of examples of how, under Senator Bingaman's 2003
proposal, which I have studied since his new proposal came just today,
which I have not studied as closely, but there were a number of cases
where the credits at the local utilities would be received under their
State plans, but they would not be allowed under the Federal plan. So
we would be saying in Washington, DC, we see that in 19 States you have
this idea of more renewable energy, but we are going to do that
ourselves. We are going to preempt the field, we are going to set the
rules, we are going to define it, and we are going to spend $18 billion
our way instead of your way. I think that is unwise, Mr. President.
So the three arguments that I make against the Senator's amendment
are these:
One, it is an $18 billion new tax on ratepayers to build tens of
thousands of windmills and to spend $11 billion on solar power, which
would produce one-fifth of 1 percent of all of the electricity we need
by 2025. That is not the wisest use of money, and I don't think that is
what we want to say to our constituents when we go home.
Second, it adds an unneeded subsidy, especially to wind developers,
who we are giving $2 billion already over the next 5 years to build
these gigantic windmills, which mars the landscape and only work 20 or
40 percent of the time. The only reason they are being built is because
of these huge subsidized incentives.
I predict that if legislation like this passes and we go from 6,700
to 45,000 of these big windmills, you are going to have an uprising in
every State of people who don't want to see them and wonder why we are
taking $18 billion away from their electric bills and subsidizing
things like this.
Third, I trust the States. Nineteen of the States have an RPS, plus
the District of Columbia. These are the green ones on the chart, where
you see more capacity for renewable fuel. If you put a 10-percent
standard on Louisiana or Arkansas or Florida or Tennessee or Virginia,
and we cannot meet that standard, what do we do? Our utility just
writes a check to the Government under the RPS. It is a new tax, it is
a new rate increase, and that is not the kind of thing we ought to be
doing.
What should we be doing? Let me go back to my first chart, and then I
will conclude my remarks. I like the direction of our bill as it is.
You see, I think what our bill, as written, does--and it hasn't been
widely noted, and the Senator mentioned this a while ago--it would
transform the way we produce electricity in the United States. If we
really want carbon-free air, if we want to meet the Kyoto standards,
stop the global warming that people are concerned about, you are not
going to do it by building tens of thousands of windmills and spending
$11 billion on solar panels.
Here is how you will do it: conservation and efficiency. The
Domenici-Bingaman bill that is here already would save us from building
45 500-megawatt gas plants just because of appliance standards. The
hybrid car incentives coming from the Finance Committee will encourage
the buying of 300,000 hybrid cars, resulting in more efficiency, less
carbon in the air, and encouraging our auto industry to transform, as
many of us hope they will do. If we do that, we should spend another
$750 million, not on windmills, but on giving tax incentives to auto
plants in the United States that retool to be able to produce hybrid
cars. If we give incentives to buy those cars, we want them to be built
in Tennessee, Michigan, or elsewhere in this country, not in Yokohama.
If we spend a new $750 million for that purpose, which is a
recommendation of the National Commission on Energy Policy, it will
help to create 39,000 new automobile jobs in the United States.
Senator Feinstein and Senator Snowe have a proposal for energy-
efficient appliances and buildings. The cost, over 5 years, is $2
billion. Some of that is in the legislation. But more could be spent on
it to great effect. Coal gasification powerplants. We have talked about
nuclear, so I will go to nuclear; $2 billion for deployment of

[[Page S6678]]

advanced nuclear power plants. Mr. President, if we want carbon-free
air, we know how to get it. We get it from nuclear power. Twenty
percent of all of our electricity in this massive economy of ours that
uses 25 percent of the energy in the world is from nuclear power today.
So why would we subsidize windmills and solar panels instead of
spending $2 billion on advanced nuclear power plants? France does it.
They are 80 percent nuclear. Japan has one new nuclear plant a year. We
have not started one since the 1970s, although we have dozens of Navy
ships docking at our ports around the country with nuclear reactors
that have never had a problem. So $2 billion for advanced deployment of
nuclear power.
Right behind that, waiting in line--and I know both Senators from New
Mexico agree with this--is coal gasification in powerplants, along with
carbon recapture and sequestration technologies. If this could work,
this would back up nuclear power and produce the large amounts of low-
carbon or carbon-free energy that not only we need in the United States
but that the world needs. If we do it here, they will do it there. If
we don't do it, they will not, and they will produce so much pollution
and junk in the air that it won't matter what we do because the air
will blow around on top of us.
I mentioned solar energy development. I think there should be a
substantial increase for solar energy development. The production tax
credit, since 1992, has done nothing for solar power. It virtually all
goes to wind. But an appropriate amount of money would be, over 5
years, $380 million. That is even more than the Finance Committee
recommended. Under the RPS, we are talking about $11 billion collected
from increased rates and spent to produce one-fifth of 1 percent of the
electricity we need in 2025.
Mr. President, I want low-carbon air. I want to transform the way we
produce electricity. But I also want lower electric rates. The
Tennessee Valley Authority just raised our rates 7 percent. That is a
high rate increase. That means there are some manufacturing plants in
Tennessee that are going to think twice about whether the jobs stay
here or the jobs go somewhere else. If we start putting new taxes and
new rate increases on homeowners and manufacturing plants in Tennessee
and around this country in order to build tens of thousands of
windmills and this extent of solar power, we will not be taking the
wisest course.
I suggest we support the bill as it is written, and to the extent we
have dollars, let's spend it on hybrid vehicles, auto jobs, energy
efficiency, coal gasification, modest, reasonable solar energy, carbon
recapture research, advanced nuclear, and cogeneration projects.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I received notice that our Republican
leader wishes to speak, he said, at 11:15.
I want to make an observation and see if the Senator from Tennessee
will answer it.
The Senator from Tennessee went through all these other ways we could
go about cleaning up our air and reducing the carbon emissions. What
strikes me is, let's assume we are going to do all those things,
because I think we are. I remind the Senator, however, that the $2
billion in there on nuclear--we should all understand, we can produce
nuclear powerplants before that ever happens. That is fourth
generation. That is getting ready for hydrogen. That is not charged to
this, nor is it going to apply.
Nonetheless, take all the rest. Let's assume we are doing them. The
interesting thing about this amendment is, if we were doing them and
saving carbon emissions, we do not get any credit for that; am I right?
We still are going to have this 10-percent mandate for renewables. So
let's assume a State 4 or 5 years from now opens a nuclear powerplant.
That is as clean as wind, is it not? It is terrific from the standpoint
of emissions, but we still have to do the 10 percent, right, the way
this approach is; is that correct?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. And in every respect, a State will not get any credit
for the fact they are doing all these things that move in the direction
we want because here sits this mandate that says you do this anyway.
Mr. ALEXANDER. That is my understanding.
Mr. DOMENICI. I think that is not right, as I look at it. That
confounds me as to why that would be the case. We are urging they do
the others, but in some cases, they are going to be mandated to spend
this rather extraordinary amount. Once the credit is gone,
incidentally, this kind of energy is going to be pretty expensive
stuff.
Mr. ALEXANDER. That is true. In the case of wind power, it was
suggested to the Senators in the early nineties, give us a wind power
production credit for a few years and then it goes away. If it goes
away and it costs more, the ratepayers will end up paying for that
higher cost power.
Mr. DOMENICI. The mandate does not go away. Somebody has to produce
it and it has to be charged.
Mr. ALEXANDER. That is my understanding.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from New York and I be allowed to enter into a colloquy and that the
time not be charged against the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Frist and Mrs. Clinton pertaining to the
introduction of S. 1262 are printed in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will take a very few minutes to
respond to some of the points that the Senator from Tennessee was
making. We are back on the amendment that I have offered for purposes
of debate.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Obama be added as a cosponsor to
the Bingaman amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. The first point I would make, in response to the
comments of the Senator and my colleague from Tennessee, who has
contributed greatly to the development of this overall Energy bill and
whose contribution has been very substantial and I very much respect
his views, obviously we are in disagreement on this issue, and I will
explain some of the reasons why.
First, much of what he said related to big windmills and the fact
that this, in his view, is essentially a program that would cause the
establishment of more big windmills. He pointed out the reasons why
that was unwise.
This amendment is technology neutral. We have been very specific
about this. We have said that qualifying renewables include wind,
solar, ocean, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas, and incremental hydro
power. We have tried to talk about all of the different renewables and
make it clear we are not specifying which of these renewables are used
by particular utilities to meet this requirement.
It would be up to them, and it would be up to them based on how the
various technologies develop. In fact, many utilities have chosen to
pursue wind generation because they have found that that was the least
costly way to produce energy from renewable sources. Clearly, advances
are being made in solar power, advances are being made in biomass, and
in various others of these technologies. The purpose of this
legislation is to accelerate that.
There is a chart which my colleague from Tennessee put up indicating
the other ways in which we are trying to deal with our energy needs in
this overall legislation and the other ways in which we are trying to
reduce emissions into our atmosphere in this legislation. I agree with
all of that. We do have provisions in this legislation to encourage the
development of this gas-combined cycle technology and the use of that
in our coal-fired powerplants.
I will put up the chart that we had earlier that shows the different
sources for our electricity generation as they exist today and as the
Energy Information Agency would expect them to exist in the year 2025.
You can see that by far the most significant source of our energy,
our electricity generation in this country, is

[[Page S6679]]

coal. It has been in the past; it is today; it is going to be in the
future. The only question is to what extent does that number, that top
line, go up. And, more importantly, to what extent do we see pressure
put on natural gas as a source for electricity generation in the
future.
But we have provisions in this bill that try to encourage the use of
IGCC technology. That is very much in the public interest and I very
strongly support that.
We also have provisions in here to encourage more use of nuclear
power, more production of electricity from nuclear power. You can see
the nuclear line is largely flat coming from today, 2005, out to 2025.
It is my hope, just as it is the hope of Senator Domenici and I am sure
of many on our committee, you will see that line go up somewhat, as
companies are able to see the benefits that are provided in this
legislation and look at the cost comparisons, that they will choose to
put more resources into production of energy from nuclear sources as
well. That is very much to be desired.
But to accomplish our goals, our overall goals for this country and
our overall goals for our energy legislation, we need to pursue all
available resources. That is why I believe it is important we adopt
this amendment, to give that extra push for renewables. The chart from
the Energy Information Agency projects very little increase in this
line down here, this blue line for renewables, without this renewable
portfolio standard in place.
I saw the map of the United States the Senator from Tennessee put up,
showing the different States that are doing this. All of that is taken
into account by the Energy Information Agency. All of those State
renewable portfolio standards are taken into account in their
determination that there will still be only very modest, if any,
increases in the use of renewables over the next 20 years.
What we are trying to do through this renewable portfolio standard is
to increase the contribution from renewables somewhat. I am the first
to admit we are not going to solve our energy problems with the use of
renewables alone. We have to depend on nuclear power. We have to depend
on clean coal technologies. We have to depend on progress in all these
areas. But the effect of this amendment I have offered is to give some
additional impetus to use of renewables.
Let me make a couple of other points which I think bear mentioning at
the same time. I think the Senator from Tennessee suggested that--maybe
not the amendment that is currently before the Senate but an earlier
version, I believe he indicated, would say you don't get credit for
what you do to meet your State standard in order to meet this national
standard. Let me be clear. That is not the case. I don't think that has
ever been the case in any version I have seen of this amendment, but it
is certainly not the case in what we are talking about here. In States
where there is a renewable portfolio standard in place--and in almost
more cases that is a much more aggressive and demanding requirement
than anything we are contemplating here--clearly this standard would be
met without any difficulty. This is not an incremental standard above
what the State requires. This is an effort to require some effort to be
made nationwide and hopefully get us to a nationwide market and demand
for these technologies that we are promoting as part of this.
The other big point the Senator from Tennessee was making is this $18
billion cost. He is referring to this letter from the EIA. It does say
the cumulative cost to the electric power sector is about $18 billion.
Three bullet points down in that same summary page, it says the
cumulative expenditure for natural gas and electricity by end-use
sectors, taken together, decreases by $22.6 billion.
What it is saying is the effect would be to decrease what they spend
on natural gas and electricity by $22.6 billion at the same time there
is the $18 billion to be shifted over in this area. So clearly the
whole idea behind this legislation is that the people who are
producing, the companies that are generating electricity in this
country, will do less of that through use of natural gas, will invest
less in natural gas production facilities, or generating facilities,
and will invest more in these other areas. That is the purpose of it.
We believe that is a good public purpose, a good purpose for us to be
promoting in this legislation.
The final point the Senator was making is this is an unnecessary cost
to consumers. That is not what I understand the EIA to be saying. The
Energy Information Agency says, in a quote out of their letter to me
dated the 15th of June:

Cumulative residential expenditures on electricity from
2005 to 2025 are $2.7 billion lower, while cumulative
residential expenditures on natural gas are reduced by $2.9
billion.

That is if this amendment is adopted. So the cumulative expenditures
for natural gas and electricity by all end users, taken together, will
decrease by $22.6 billion. It is saying, for this 20-year period we are
talking about, if we adopt this amendment we will be saving consumers.
They, the people who are producing the electricity the consumers are
buying, will, in fact, be shifting resources to produce some additional
increment of that electricity from these renewable sources rather than
from natural gas plants as they otherwise would. But clearly there is a
savings here for the consumer, according to the Energy Information
Agency, and I think that is clearly to be desired and something we all
are hoping will result from this legislation.
Before I yield the floor, let me ask unanimous consent that Senator
Clinton be added as a cosponsor. She is available to speak.
Let me ask Senator Domenici, did you want to go back to your side to
speak now, or Senator Clinton would like to speak on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator will be added
as a cosponsor.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me ask, Senator Clinton, are you on some kind of
time-sensitive schedule? If you are, I will let you go. How long does
the Senator wish to speak?
Mrs. CLINTON. For 5 minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. We will yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I want to speak strongly in favor of
Senator Bingaman's renewable portfolio standard amendment. This is a
goal-setting amendment that gives us direction and impetus to do what
we should be doing. Requiring us to produce 10 percent of our
electricity from renewable energy sources in 15 years is something I
think is necessary so we begin to change how we do business, how we
conserve, what we invest in. This is a major step in the right
direction. Although the critics have raised some alarms about this
amendment, numerous studies have demonstrated the efficiency and
savings that would flow from the adoption of this amendment.
Senator Bingaman has spoken at great length about some of these
studies. The recent analysis conducted by the Energy Information
Agency, provided some very strong support for what Senator Bingaman has
proposed. In fact, it is the administration's analysis that shows if we
passed this national 10-percent renewable portfolio standard with a
2020 deadline on it, we would save residential customers over $5
billion, we would lower natural gas prices by 6.8 percent, and that
would have enormous benefits for our chemical, pharmaceutical, and
other industries that rely on natural gas. It would also reduce
electric utility carbon dioxide emissions by 7.5 percent.
This does not even take into account all of the benefits that I
believe would flow from this amendment. When it comes to renewables, we
in the United States need to catch up. We are behind in this effort
compared to other countries and we need to spur innovation and
creativity.
I also support Senator Cantwell's amendment. This improves on a
provision in the bill that would require the President to develop a
plan to save 1 million barrels of oil per day by 2015. That is a
laudable provision. Actually it was approved by the Senate 99 to 1, 2
years ago. It is unfortunate the President opposes this provision and
has even threatened to veto the Energy bill over it. At a time when oil
and gas prices are high, at a time when national security interests
clearly dictate that we reduce our dependence on foreign oil, rather
than rejecting this provision, we need to go further than we

[[Page S6680]]

went with the 99-to-1 vote, and that is exactly what the Cantwell
amendment does. It establishes an ambitious goal of reducing by 40
percent the amount of oil the United States is projected to import in
2025.
Finally, we are a can-do nation. We can do this. This is something we
should be committed to do. These are goals. These are not enforceable
standards, but they spur us, they raise our aspirations, they help us
to think more clearly about what we need to do to protect our Nation's
economy and security.
I hope the President will relinquish his veto threat and that we will
have strong bipartisan support on both the Cantwell and Bingaman
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remain 58 minutes on the majority side
and 50 minutes on the minority side.
Mr. DOMENICI. I want the Senate to know on our side we do not intend
to use as much time as we have, unless other Senators want to speak.
Senator Alexander certainly wants some additional time.

Senator Bingaman, I don't know if your side needs the whole amount.
We are trying to get a unanimous consent agreement shortly.
As the Senator from New York leaves the floor, let me say right at
the offset, the Bingaman amendment is not a goal. If it were a goal,
that would be something different. It is a mandate. There is a very big
difference between a goal and a mandate. This says exactly what each
State is compelled to do with reference to the kinds of energies that
are described. When you boil it all down, it means ``wind'' for the
time being. It means each State has to have it. And if they do not,
they have to pay money to the Secretary of Energy or they have to buy
wind-generated electricity from some other State.
While I am on that subject, I would like to put up one little chart.
I would like to show this to the Senate. If you look at this map, you
can see the white area, in particular the white area down here in the
Southeast. The interesting thing is that the white area does not have
any source of wind to meet this standard.
It is nice if you are not one of those States. But if you are one of
them, it is not very nice because you are sort of wind poor. The other
States are wind rich. Under this bill, the States that do not have that
have to pay money, either to the States that do produce it for their
wind energy or they have to pay money to the Secretary of Energy who
uses that for research and technology development in the area of
renewables and the like.
We have been on the floor many times when we spoke about issues on
coal. I remember when I was a very young Senator, we had a big debate
in the Senate about mandating a certain kind of coal be used. The
Senate got very excited and hot about it because we were sort of
drawing a line between the States and creating a terrible kind of chasm
between the States, saying these States are going to be the ``have''
States, these States are going to be the ``have not'' States.
I admit that was a very serious problem, for the clean coal was not
going to be used, in spite of it being clean, and the dirty coal was
going to be used because we were mandating it. So it was in some ways
similar, but it would have been billions upon billions of dollars in
the development of resources, so it truly would have divided the
country.
This divides us in another way, in a way that I think is not
necessary. Let me say from the outset, for those who do not think the
Bingaman amendment is the right way to go, they are not coming to the
floor in harmony, en masse, saying we do not like wind energy.
Some may, but there are many who think wind energy ought to be
developed and we ought to push the frontiers of technology. But no one
should think that if we do not adopt the Bingaman amendment, we have a
bill that is not going to push the development of renewables. The bill
is laden with incentives to produce renewable energy.
As a matter of fact, the tax-writing committee that will bring their
bill here shortly, I understand almost all of their allocation of tax
reductions, the loss of tax revenues by way of credits or the like,
almost all of it will be renewable. As a matter of fact, the very major
tax credit that, I might say, is the principal reason wind is being
developed at all is extended for 2 years at a very large cost to the
taxpayers--maybe $3 billion or thereabouts.
We are pursuing the development of renewable energy led by wind,
which at this point is the principal one unless we consider hydro, and
I don't think we are considering hydro in any of this debate. It
exists, and it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
What I am suggesting, if the amendment does not pass, we have not
abandoned an American approach to pursuing the technology called
renewables led by wind in these United States. What we are trying to
say is that one shoe should not fit every State. States that can't do
this because of the unfortunate situation of nature--they do not have
the wherewithal to produce it, or if they had to produce it, they would
produce it in places they would not want to produce it because it would
not be consistent with another use of that land that is paramount and
has a priority to the development of windmills, such as right down the
middle of a national park.
Having said that, another point was made by my distinguished friend
from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, who has been a tremendous partner in
this bill. He knows on this issue we do not agree, but he understands
that on 99 percent of this bill, we will fight for it and win and have
an energy bill for the first time that has a lot of good, solid things
for the country. My good friend Senator Bingaman said that other States
already have these goals. They set their own requirements--not goals,
their own requirements. He used the word that they have done so
``aggressively.''
I remind the Senator, and I think I am correct, that those States do
not use the same formula for what will make up their portfolio of
renewables. I submit, if the Senator would like to amend his amendment
and allow the myriad kinds of energy production used in other States to
meet their current goals or current mandates, that would be a good
bill.
For instance, the State of Pennsylvania has a very aggressive plan.
If you think ``aggressive'' means they have a very aggressive wind
program that would meet the mandates of this amendment, that is not
true. They are using other technologies consistent with their
resources, many of which are related to products related to coal.
Whatever remains after they use coal is reused, and they produce a
clean source of energy that counts toward their goal.
We think nuclear powerplants will be built in the future. It seems it
would be appropriate that a State might be given credit for that. We
believe there will be very formidable advances in converting coal not
only into clean coal but into coal that has the carbon removed that
will, indeed, qualify for being as good for cleaning up with reference
to the gases we are worried about in global warming as solar. It may
end up, and from what I understand, even though it is new technology,
it might be cheaper than what we think wind energy will be. It seems to
me that is a more sensible approach. Provide a variety, a mix that
would make up this 10 percent.
But we should not be causing certain States to pay a very big tax
because they cannot produce solar energy. No one calls it a tax, but
when someone takes funds out of their consumers' pockets and gives them
to some other State, to some other utility in another State, if it
looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. It seems to me
that the easiest way to talk about this is that it is a tax. I don't
think, when we look at all of that, this is the best way to do it.
I don't say this in any way to belittle those who have pursued this
with vigor, who think it is a very good approach. Senator Bingaman
makes valid arguments. The Senator from Tennessee, particularly in his
way of getting to the bottom of things and articulating eloquently
about what he has learned, has contributed immensely to learning just
what this is all about. As a consequence, I am not at all sure as many
people as thought this is a wonderful idea 6 months ago,

[[Page S6681]]

if they listen and understand, I am not so sure they would think this
particular way to get renewables, led by a renewable called wind, would
be the best way to go. I compliment him for that. I am not at all sure
enough people are listening if we judge by the attendance in the
Senate--and I don't think the people in America should do that.
Senators are listening even though they are not here. If we judge on
that, of course we will not change any minds.

As I see it, there is good reason to say: Look, we are doing enough
right now with this enormous credit. Frankly, I will add to the credit,
I will say something that is beyond dispute. We have asked those who
gauge and judge, How much wind energy can you produce? What is the
maximum that the fabricators of these products, these things you
describe, Senator, that someone is building, that we will pay for--
someone is making a lot of money on them right now because of the
subsidy. How much could we produce per year for the next 2 or 3 years?
The answer has come: You can't produce any more than the tax credit
will cause you to produce.
Let me put it another way: This mandate has nothing to do with
maximizing the production of wind so long as there is a credit. The
credit is going to produce it. In a sense, why do you need both? One
would say because of the long-term nature of a mandate versus we have 2
years, maybe 3 years of credits. But in America, the way we ought to
look at this, you subsidize the technology so everyone involved can get
with it and apply this ingenuity called America and do it better. This
very large subsidy ought to surely get us in position where we can
produce this wind--if that is what we want to do--that we can produce
it cheaper, so the incentive is relevant to the next 8 or 10 years in
that respect.
We ought to do better. To some extent, having the 10 percent out
there and having the credit out there is a disincentive to maximizing
innovation. What is the urgency? How are we sensitizing the marketplace
to produce more efficient wind? When you give a tax credit and put a
mandate on it, it seems to me whoever is doing it can sit around and
say: We have a nice thing going, we do not need to change, just keep
on.
I thought the idea was to move technology. It could be you are moving
other technology besides wind. But there is a long way to go before you
get some of that solar onboard. I don't think this will make that move
in the next 10 years unless there is a big breakthrough that I don't
believe will be caused by this mandate.
I have some other issues I was going to discuss. I will make a point
about States that are already doing something. I call to mind
Pennsylvania. One would not think of Pennsylvania as being a State with
a lot of wind, producing wind energy, yet they are in red on my chart.
That means they have to borrow from my friend, Senator Bingaman, an
aggressive policy on renewables. But it is not predicated upon the same
requirements of this bill. It is not a huge 10-percent wind component.
It is made up of other things.
If we look at each of these States in red and ask which States are
meeting this goal in an aggressive manner, and then come to the Senate
floor and say how each State is doing it, and then say, Why don't we
let any State that wants to do it in all of these ways and meet it--all
we have said is if the State is doing it, they get credit. That is what
the sponsor says. But we have not said if they do it differently than
this in the future, they get credit, as I understand it.
If we have another red State added up here--and I don't think the red
and the blue of the last election has anything to do with this map; we
don't have blue up there; we have red and white--but if we added more
reds before we had this bill, it would not be all wind or renewables as
prescribed by this bill. It would be whatever they find meets their
test of renewable energy. It seems to me that kind of flexibility would
be much better.
What we have is an attempt to saddle the industry and consumers with
a hefty price tag to support a limited set of renewable resources.
According to the Department of Energy, only 2.2 percent of total U.S.
electricity generation in 2003 was comprised of non-hydro renewable
energy sources such as geothermal, photovoltaic, solar thermal,
biomass, municipal solid waste and wind plants. This is so despite
years of government subsidies and programs to encourage renewable
energy.
Of this 2.2 percent total, 44 percent came from biomass generation
(mostly at industrial facilities), 26 percent came from municipal solid
waste, 16 percent from geothermal waste, 13 percent from wind, and 1
percent from solar technologies.
The RPS focuses on that 2.2 percent of our generation, mandates an
increase to 10 percent and essentially imposes a 1.5 cent per kilowatt
hour tax on an increasing percentage of each year's retail sales of
electricity.
If electric utilities do not build new renewable facilities and have
to purchase all their credits from the federal government to meet the
RPS mandate, the total cost of the inflation-adjusted RPS proposal is
an estimated $190.8 billion in nominal dollars.
That is a worst case scenario estimation, but we must consider that
risk when we are deciding whether this gamble on renewable resource
mandate is the right thing to do. This proposal is a gamble not worth
taking.
Mandating a Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard is an ill advised
means of achieving increased renewable resource use.
Any effort to legislate on renewable generation requires realistic
targets and due deference to States' rights to make decisions suited to
best serve their citizens' needs.
The proposed Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard fails to recognize
these principles.
States should definitely encourage their electric utilities to offer
retail customers electricity from green energy to the extent it is
available and encourage investment in renewable development. Most
importantly, States should be afforded the right to develop their own
RPS approaches without Federal interference.
States are best able to determine appropriate fuel types, societal
costs, consumer protections, and requirements to meet Federal and State
environmental regulations.
Today, 19 States and the District of Columbia have their own RPS
programs. Others should be afforded the same right to develop an RPS
without Federal interference.
The proposed RPS amendment penalizes those States that have already
acted to establish a renewable program by requiring them to replace
their State program with a new Federal program.
This amendment rewards certain regions at the expense of others.
Solar has limited application east of the Mississippi, wind almost no
application in the southeast, and virtually all geothermal is located
in the West.
We cannot ignore the reality that utilities in some regions cannot
meet a renewable mandate because they are not blessed with ample
renewable resources.
To ignore this would be to require these to buy credits, forcing many
consumers to pay for power they never receive, and would result in
massive interregional cash transfers.
Utilities that do not have access to new renewable assets will wind
up paying 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour and receive no power--their
customers will pay a tax with no benefit and this could have
significant costs to establishing competitive markets and to low income
consumers where such markets do not exist.
Each State should decide for itself and its own residents the optimal
mix of renewable and alternative energy sources.
I certainly advocate state policy makers coordinating choices to
maximize regional efficiencies, but I do not support instituting a one-
size-fits-all national plan.
States have historically had control over the fuel choices and
resource development decisions. Past federal endeavors to meddle in
fuel choice mandates have resulted in disasters.
Any effort to legislate on Renewable Portfolio Standards requires due
deference to States' rights to make decisions suited to best serve
their citizens' needs. This amendment fails to provide that deference.

[[Page S6682]]

Another problem with this RPS amendment is that it mandates an
arbitrary quota for some renewable energy resources without any
justification as to why only a limited set of renewable resources are
included as eligible.
At a hearing held by the Energy Committee in March 2005, Dr. Nogee
with the Union of Concerne Scientists was asked a Question about the
effect an RPM on production from wind power. He explained that \2/3\ of
the RPS requirements would likely be met by new wind generation.
Mandating mostly wind power when wind power is not mostly available
around the country is poor public policy.

Some claim that an RPS would help address emission problems. I don't
think that the goal of this RPS amendment is to help lower emissions at
all.
If the RPS was truly a device to help lower emissions, why shouldn't
companies receive credits for environmental improvement expenditures,
like pollution control equipment. The proposed amendment does not
include such credit.
If cleaner energy was truly the goal of the RPS amendment, why isn't
coal gasification technology or nuclear power credited?
The Energy Information Administration has noted that an RPS will
``have little impact on sulfur dioxide, SO<inf>2</inf> or nitrogen
oxide, NO<inf>2</inf>, emission levels.''
If the goal of the RPS was to lower emissions, then a broader array
of our renewable technologies--particularly clean coal and nuclear--
should have been included in the category of resources.
For similar reasons, I don't think that the RPS can be legitimately
justified as a means to help diversify our fuel needs or reduce
dependence on foreign resources. If that were the case, a greater
diversity of renewable resources should been included in the category
of resources.
More effective and efficient solutions to this problem are available.
In response to concerns with over dependence on foreign resources, we
should focus our efforts on:
Nuclear power--which is one of our cleanest fuel resources;
Oil and natural gas from Alaska and other regions of the United
States;
Coal of which we have abundant reserves; and
New hydroelectric generation--which have zero emissions.
If renewable resources are to become a greater contributor to our
power sector, then competitive market forces should be allowed to
operate. In order to facilitate the necessary competition, transmission
must be available.
One of the barriers to entry for renewable development is the lack of
transmission capacity to transmit electricity generated from remote
areas long distances.
Before mandating fuel choice, we need to address the real need for
improved transmission capacity. A number of the electricity title's
provisions are directed at accomplishing this goal.
Renewable energy should be encouraged in a reasonable, effective
manner. To that end, there are already extensive Federal and State
subsidies in place as well as tax credits that I support.
We all support renewables--what we should not support is Federal
command and control of the market in the disguise of help for
renewables. Would Senator Craig desire to speak on this issue before we
vote?

Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to speak.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to Senator Craig to manage time, and then when
he leaves, he will give that to the Senator from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Jeffords.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent to deliver my remarks from my
seat.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I speak on Senator Bingaman's
amendment to set a national goal to obtain 10 percent of our Nation's
electricity from renewable resources. I support this idea. In fact, I
have filed an amendment to go one step further--requiring 20 percent
renewables by the year 2020.
America needs a national commitment to encourage clean domestic
sources of renewable energy. I have been in the Congress for 30 years.
I have seen the Nation make tremendous advances in areas ranging from
medicine to the Internet. I have even witnessed the Red Sox win the
World Series. Yet the Nation literally remains dependent on many of the
same powerplants that operated when I first was elected to Congress in
1974.
When I think of the next 30 years, I envision an America where clean
domestic renewable energy sources are an integral part of our Nation's
electricity generation. As the ranking member of the Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works, obtaining 10 percent of our country's
electricity from a renewable energy represents the modest end of what
we could achieve. Let me offer three reasons I believe the Nation's
commitment to encourage renewable power is needed.
First, renewable power would help consumers by reducing electricity
prices. According to data provided by the Bush administration's Energy
Department, a renewables requirement would lower consumer energy costs
by the year 2020.
The second reason is the benefit to public health and the
environment. A renewables requirement would dramatically reduce carbon
emissions from powerplants. It would significantly also reduce
emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides. These pollutants contaminate
our water, cause smog and acid rain, and contribute to respiratory
illnesses.
Third, a renewable electricity standard would enhance our energy
independence and our national security by diversifying our energy
supply. As we increase our reliance on natural gas, much of the demand
may have to be met by liquefied natural gas shipped to the United
States from other countries. It is unthinkable that we should sink to a
greater reliance on foreign fuel imports when we have abundant,
inexhaustible renewable energy here.
Currently, renewable energy accounts for a little over 2 percent of
U.S. electricity generation. But the United States has the technical
capacity to generate 4.5 times its current electricity needs from
renewable energy resources. The potential is there, but we have to give
it the assistance of market incentives, as we have traditionally done
for our more established fuel sources.
I urge my colleagues to again demonstrate our strong commitment to
renewables and support the Bingaman amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Who yields time?
The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. President, in speaking to the Bingaman amendment, I believe
renewable energy resources are an important part of our energy mix. I
do not think any of us could argue they are not. I also believe all
consumers should have the opportunity to purchase green power if they
so choose.
But I must tell you, I strongly oppose including a nationwide
mandatory renewable portfolio standard in this Energy bill. Adoption of
this amendment, in my opinion, would increase consumer electrical bills
at a time when we are trying to do just the opposite by the very
legislation that is on the floor. This would have a particularly
negative consequence for those who can least afford it, such as the
working poor and the elderly living on fixed incomes.
For many regions of the country not blessed with renewable energy
wealth, or resources, this RPS mandate would essentially result in a
huge wealth transfer payment from consumers to the Federal Government
or to renewable energy generators located in other areas of the
country. In essence, if you say to all States, you have to meet this
standard, and you by your physical presence on the globe cannot, you
are not blessed with wind--and later on I will show this is dominantly
for that purpose--then you will pay the price.
Adoption of this amendment would conflict with the RPS programs that
have already been adopted in the way that we like good energy policy to
evolve; that is, within the State and within the State structure.
Twenty States already have developed renewable resource policies and
implemented

[[Page S6683]]

timetables. This amendment ignores those States' programs; in other
words, it says: Oh, well, if it fits there, it fits everywhere.
We have simply known in our country for a long time that energy has a
State, if not regional, character. While there is some national value
in tying it all together, the regional character of our energy
production is still very real today and my guess is will be tomorrow.
The national Energy Information Administration estimates that wind
energy would benefit most by the RPS mandate. In an analysis performed
in 2003, EIA projected that wind energy would provide 141 billion
kilowatt hours of generation by 2020. EIA's cost estimates for an RPS
are heavily dependent on wind energy being built.
I would point out that a wind resource map prepared by the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory graphically demonstrates that the entire
southeastern region of the country has virtually no wind potential.
Large areas of the upper Midwest have marginal wind potential, unless
those States plan to build wind farms in the Great Lakes.
EIA's wind energy projection seems wildly, even naively, optimistic
to me. Why? Because a wind turbine is just as vulnerable as any other
energy facility to a localized disease in our country called
``NIMBYISM,'' or ``Not In My Back Yard'' syndrome.
And the fewer wind projects that are built, the more the RPS mandate
ends up being just a new Federal energy tax that consumers will pay on
traditional sources of energy, such as nuclear, coal, and natural gas.
Dollars will just be transferred from consumers' pockets to the U.S.
Department of Energy to buy renewable energy credits so utilities can
meet these RPS standards.

Even self-proclaimed environmentalists fall victim to NIMBYISM when
the plans call for wind turbines to be built in their back yard.
Apparently, wind turbines are fine in theory as long as the alleged
proponents cannot see them.
Let's look at what has really happened when wind developers announced
plans to build wind energy facilities.
Nantucket Sound: A wind energy firm announced plans to install 130
wind turbines, spaced one-third to one-half mile apart, more than 6
miles off the coast of Hyannis in Nantucket Sound. This project has
been in the works for several years. The Massachusetts energy
facilities siting board, in May, finally approved construction of two
18-mile transmission cables that would link the wind turbines to the
shore.
The wind farms would provide Cape Codders with roughly 75 percent of
their energy and New England with about 1.8 percent of its total energy
needs. The power would come without air emissions or using a single
barrel of Middle East oil.
You would think, with that kind of glowing announcement, the
environmentalists would strongly support that approach. The answer is
quite obvious--they do not. Many of them are up in arms organizing and
moving against this very proposed idea. A coalition has been formed
waging very expensive campaigns to stop the wind farm project. They are
talking about it as if it were an ``Exxon Valdez'' crisis or disaster
because of what it would do to the character of Nantucket Sound. ``Not
in my back yard.''
Well, then, let's go to Vermont. A possible Vermont wind farm located
on the mountaintops around East Haven is drawing local opposition. A
``large, diverse, well-organized citizens group'' is fighting the
project and doesn't believe that wind energy has a place in Vermont.
Well, wait a moment. Vermont is one of the most environmentally pure
States in the Nation, by their own admission. And yet wind is supposed
to be the most environmentally benign form of energy production. The
``Montpelier Times'' reported on the East Haven wind farm's future.
Vermonters are saying it loudly and saying it clearly: Wind turbines
have no place in Vermont.
Well, let's go to Maine. How about Maine? A 29-turbine wind energy
project proposed for western Maine is being strongly opposed, again, by
the environmental community of Maine. They are saying it will destroy
the vistas of the Appalachian Trail. The project would be built 10
miles away from it. It is going to take a few roads and power lines.
You have to have a road to get the turbine in place, and you have to
have a power line to get the power away from the turbine. No, no. The
park manager of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail wrote to a Maine
newspaper that the project ``would be an `in your face' facility for
long stretches of the Appalachian Trail. . . .''
The debate goes on. But in Maine they are saying, as they said in
Massachusetts and as they said in Vermont: Not in my back yard.
Well, let's go to Virginia, then. How about Highland County in
Virginia? They are strongly opposing a wind turbine project 3 years
after it was proposed. The project proposes construction of 18 to 20
wind turbines. More than 500 people attended a May hearing on the
project. About two-thirds of the Highland County residents signed a
petition against the project.
Again, that dreaded disease of NIMBYISM has struck in the heart of
Virginia. ``Not in my back yard. No. Somewhere else. Not in my back
yard.''
But what does the amendment do? It says that it better be in
everybody's back yard or you are going to get taxed for it so it can be
built somewhere else.
In Kansas, landowners and environmental groups bitterly fought
construction of a wind farm. This is in the Flint Hills region of
Kansas. The area is the largest surviving vestige of the tall prairie
grass. I did not know that wind turbines would hurt prairie grass, but
it does. Of course, the tall-grass prairies out there, without
question, are a beautiful piece of nature. I do not deny that, as no
one should.
Work began on the $190-million project in May of 2005, despite
ongoing opposition. An environmental activist said:

It's not a time for celebration, but a time for folks to
redouble their efforts to protect the remaining Flint Hills.

And so on goes the article from the ``Kansas City Star.''
What is the conclusion one can draw from the opposition that is now
mounting against those very large turbines? The Senator from Tennessee
has been so clear in explaining what these turbines are all about. For
those of you who do not understand the visualness of the large German
turbine, step outside, walk out to First Street, and look back at the
Capitol building. Look at the top of the Statue of Freedom, and then
visually come all the way down to ground level. That is about tip to
tip on the large turbines. That is just about how big they are, about
300 feet tip to tip. So they have high visibility because you have to
get them up above the ground, on a large tower, and fit them into the
airstream.
That is why people are reacting today. Yet we know that this RPS
standard is dominantly a wind standard. That is how you get there--
because we are not going to build any more large power dams in Idaho.
Some would even deny that hydro is a renewable resource. We know we are
not going to do much more geothermal because not all States are blessed
with the dynamics of geothermal energy. My State has a little of that.
Dominantly, what we are talking about is wind, and some photovoltaic,
although wind is by far more advanced in its engineering and its
development.
As these stories and experiences make clear, wind energy facilities
are no more immune to NIMBYISM and the syndrome and that lethal virus
than any other item when it comes to disturbing the character or the
uniqueness of one's personal surroundings. It is how we believe. It is
the character of our own local community. So when many over the years
have said, ``Oh, but this is the most benign of all energy production,
this fits our environmental portfolio,'' we are finding it is quite the
opposite. Really, nothing fits some people's portfolio when it comes to
energy production.
If wind farms are OK as long as they are built somewhere else, then
where are the right places? Where are all these wind turbines going to
go to be built that EIA assumes are going to be built under an RPS
mandate? Will wind turbines be built in remote areas of the country
without enough transmission capacity to move the power to where the
consumer is? More than likely. Texas has a State RPS program, and a lot
of wind capacity has been built in

[[Page S6684]]

that State. Unfortunately, about 1,000 megawatts of wind capacity was
built in west Texas on the wrong side of a transmission constraint. Got
the turbines, can produce the power, can't transmit it to where the
people are. As a result, a lot of that wind power has been stranded.
The regional coordinator responsible for maintaining reliability of
the Texas transmission grid has stated that ``the sparse transmission
system in the area has required almost daily limits on the output of
this [wind] resource to keep within transmission operating limits.''
Maybe we can build all of the wind power we need in North Dakota. It
has been called the Saudi Arabia of wind potential. I know the Senators
of that State are strong supporters of this RPS mandate. Unfortunately,
according to the North American Electric Reliability Council, the
reliability region in which North Dakota is located is monitoring 31
transmission constraints already within the grid of that region.
The NERC 2005 Summer Assessment Report states that ``these
constraints can limit [power] imports and exports,'' and the story goes
on.
Now you can see why I suggest--and I hope many support the idea--that
States do it on their own as it fits their needs. But when we create a
national mandate on a renewable portfolio, and it is restrictive to the
character of the region or the capacity of the region, we are taxing
one area against another. That simply is not good public policy. I
don't think it ever takes us where we want to go.
What we crafted in our Energy and Natural Resources Committee and is
now on the Senate floor as a very important piece of legislation took
into consideration all of what we thought was important and right. It
is a bipartisan piece of legislation. I hope the amendment that I have
spoken to--and that others are speaking to--will be rejected by the
Senate. It simply does not fit. It will not bring us where all of us
want to go, and that is to greater sources, cleaner sources, reliable
sources, a mix of sources, in our energy production for this country. I
hope my colleagues will reject the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
Colorado, Mr. Salazar.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Bingaman's
amendment, the renewable energy standard or, as we have come to know
it, the renewable portfolio standard. When we consider the imperative
with which we deal today in the Senate, we are talking about whether we
can get the United States to energy independence, whether we can set
America free from being held hostage to the importation of foreign oil
from Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, from those places in the world where
for 30 years their stranglehold on America has continued to increase
day by day with no end in sight. Energy independence at the end of the
day is what we should have a bipartisan consensus on with respect to
this legislation.
The legislation which has been prepared by the Energy Committee came
together in that kind of a bipartisan fashion, led by Senator Domenici
and Senator Bingaman. It is a good piece of legislation that we can
improve on. I believe the RPS proposed by Senator Bingaman, which would
require that 10 percent of our electric generation come from renewable
sources by 2020, is a very modest goal for us to have. Indeed, the
experts around this country who talk to us about energy say if we have
the will and the courage, we could get up to a much higher amount than
10 percent by 2020. They will tell you that we could get to 40 percent
within probably 15 years, 20 years, to 2025. So the proposal that is
currently being considered under this amendment is a modest proposal
that moves us in the right direction.
In my own State of Colorado, in this last election in 2004, there was
a proposal considered by the voters of our State. That proposal on an
RPS was adopted by an overwhelming majority of the people of Colorado.
What it requires us to do is to get to a point where we have produced
15 percent of our energy by the year 2020. Fifteen percent of the
energy of Colorado will come from renewable sources by the year 2020.
The Bingaman amendment has a more modest goal at only 10 percent by
2020.
If we can do that amount of renewable energy and meet that standard
in my State by 2015, there is no doubt that we can do that with the
amendment that Senator Bingaman has offered. My view is that setting
America free from its overdependence on Saudi and Venezuelan oil is an
imperative for our Nation. We must first conserve and increase
efficiency, we must invest in renewable energy resources, we must
develop new technologies, and we must pursue a balanced approach to
developing domestic energy. This bill does much of that. The amendment
that is currently on the floor of the Senate will help us move even
further forward on those goals.
The oil savings provision that is already in the Senate Energy bill
represents an important, if modest, goal for achieving some measure of
independence from foreign oil. But it is, frankly, not enough. I am
encouraged by the strong show of support for the Cantwell amendment to
raise that bar even further. I am proud to be a cosponsor of her
amendment. I believe we need to do more to achieve oil energy savings.
But the grave problems we face with respect to long-term domestic
supplies of oil are only part of the story. Even if domestic reserves
of oil and other fossil fuels were limitless, the way we use
hydrocarbons is jeopardizing our way of life. Sooner or later--and I
prefer sooner--the people of our great country must embrace the energy
challenges of the 21st century and figure out how to produce clean and
abundant energy from domestic sources that do not produce carbon or
other greenhouse gases and that do not involve recurring problems of
intermittent supply from politically unstable and overly hostile
regions of the world.
Although we have been encouraging progress in the development of new
carbon-free technologies, there is still a lot of work for us to do.
Earlier this year I visited the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in
Golden, CO, and saw some of the cutting-edge technologies that the
scientists there have advanced with respect to wind energy. I saw solar
energy collection cells that could double as 20-year roofing shingles
and some of the most advanced solar technologies America has developed.
Today we produce only about 8 percent of our electric power needs from
renewable energy sources, and most of that--approximately three-fourths
of the total or 6 percent--comes from hydropower. By contrast, the two
most common sources of renewable--solar energy and wind power--account
for less than 1 percent of the total electric power.
Why do these sources of renewable energy account for such a small
fraction of our electric energy needs, even after three decades of
effort? There are at least three reasons to that question. The first is
technological, and the second is economic. Both of those are closely
related. As new energy technologies have advanced and solar panels and
wind turbines have become more efficient, the relative cost of
generating electric power from these energy sources has declined.
Despite these impressive growth rates, however, and despite decades of
research and development, these new energy technologies still suffer
from serious engineering and economic drawbacks. Hydrogen fuel cells,
despite their promise, are still many times more expensive than an
internal combustion engine, and they will require several more decades
of research and development to be competitive.
Likewise solar power, even after three decades of research and
development, still costs five times as much as coal-fired power.
Moreover, there are inherent limits in the quality of the energy these
new energy technologies can produce. They are intermittent sources of
energy, and they are not always located near a load source. Therefore,
investment in transmission infrastructure and advances in control
technologies are necessary before renewable energy sources can provide
a dominant share of the future energy mix.
The third reason that alternative energy sources claim such a tiny
fraction of the energy market is political. We can change that today.
Alternative sources of energy must compete in an energy market
dominated by hydrocarbons and the industries that profit from those
hydrocarbons. I introduced

[[Page S6685]]

legislation that would begin to level the playing field and provide tax
and other incentives for renewable energy sources. Today the Finance
Committee is marking up its tax title which will extend the production
tax credit for certain renewable energy sources. Those incentives are
extremely important for these relatively immature power industries.
Americans across the country recognize that renewable energy is an
important part of our future, and they recognize that Government should
be doing more to promote this type of energy. I stand with Americans
who have that point of view.
On Tuesday, the White House released a statement that they do not
support any kind of renewable portfolio standard. Here is one case
where the President and I differ in a fundamental way. I believe the
Energy bill should be a way to move us away from foreign oil, away from
pollution and towards independence. I do not understand the reason the
President is on the other side of this issue. The United States needs
to take substantial steps forward with renewable energy. Colorado and
all of the West is positioned to be America's innovation hub of the
future. That is why the Federal standard of renewable energy
development, which Senator Bingaman has proposed, is so important.
Investing in these nascent technologies now will significantly improve
our ability to produce energy from renewable resources.
But it is just as important for the U.S. Congress to establish a
Federal standard, an achievable goal of producing a minimum amount of
electric power from renewable energy sources, to establish uniform
national goals and an active credit trading market based on those
goals.
Other benefits of Senator Bingaman's renewable energy standard are
the following: A standard similar to Colorado's 10 percent by 2015 is
aggressive enough to stimulate the market and produce widespread and
rural economic benefits. Secondly, a 10-percent RPS by 2020 will help
reduce natural gas prices by reducing demand for electricity generated
from natural gas powerplants. Studies show that consumers will save
$9.1 billion on their natural gas bills and $4.4 billion on their
electricity bills between now and 2020, for a total savings of $13.5
billion. And third, renewable energy technologies create more jobs,
nearly twice as many as in traditional fossil fuel industries. The
Bingaman amendment would create about 58,000 new jobs a year for
America.
This kind of commonsense approach is something that the American
people expect of all of us.
Let me say two final things with respect to the RPS. First, it is
going to create a problem for industry and for this Nation to have a
haphazard patch of RPSs around the States as they are adopted State by
State. Therefore, it would make more sense to have a national standard
so that industry can recognize it has to live up to one standard.
Finally, I suggest that to make renewable energy a significant part
of our energy portfolio is something that makes common sense because of
the national economic security issues that we face, because of the
economic opportunities that it will bring to rural America, and because
of the fact that we need to deal with this issue that is creating so
many problems for us around the world, especially with overreliance on
oil from the Middle East.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Who yields time?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will defer to Senator Domenici if he
wants to do something at this point.
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. This has been cleared with both sides.
I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 today, the Senate proceed to a
vote in relation to the Cantwell amendment, which will be modified with
the changes that are at the desk, which we have seen. I further ask
that following that vote, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to
the Bingaman amendment; provided further, that no second-degree
amendments be in order to either amendment prior to the votes; and
finally, prior to the vote on the Cantwell amendment, there be 30
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form.
Before the Chair rules, I note that there is no provision for wrap-up
debate on the Bingaman amendment.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we would like 2 minutes equally divided
prior to the vote on the Bingaman amendment. I guess there is no need
for 2 minutes before Cantwell because they have a period of time before
theirs, but 2 minutes equally divided would be appreciated.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask that that be added to the unanimous consent
agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to Senator Dorgan
from North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, first I thank Senator Bingaman for this
amendment. I support the amendment. It advances, improves and
strengthens the underlying energy bill. I know that the term
``renewable portfolio standard''--we have talked about that--is not
necessarily something everybody understands. Much of what we do in the
Senate sounds like a foreign language. Renewable portfolio standard. I
think what this is is an American-made amendment, a home-grown energy
amendment. It says what we ought to do is take charge and decide we are
going to move in a different direction.
My colleague said, and other colleagues have said, yes, we are going
to continue to use coal, oil and natural gas, and I support that. We
must continue to use fossil fuels. We also need to understand that we
are increasingly dependent upon a supply of oil that comes from under
the sands of the Middle East. A very small part of this world has an
inventory of a very substantial part of the oil resources that exist in
the world. To be hopelessly addicted to that oil--foreign sources of
oil--makes no sense. So as we developed a new energy bill, I think we
did an excellent job in the Energy Committee. I have complimented
Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman at some length about that. We
have produced a bipartisan piece of legislation and brought it to the
floor.
During the debate in committee, we recognized that we would reserve
this amendment for the floor of the Senate and debate it here on the
floor. Again, I call this the home-grown energy, or an American-made
energy amendment.
Let me use a picture to make a point. This happens to be a photograph
of a wind turbine just south of Minot, ND. There are actually two wind
turbines that sit on a hill south of Minot. North Dakota is a wonderful
State. I am enormously proud to represent North Dakota. We happen to be
fiftieth in the 50 States in native forest lands. Translated, we are
dead last in trees. It is a great State. We happen to be dead last in
trees. We put up a wind turbine here and there, and we like it because
we are also a State that has more wind than almost any State in the
Nation. We are dead last in trees, but we are first in wind--some say
especially when I am at home on the weekends.
The Department of Energy says that North Dakota, among all of the
States, is the ``Saudi Arabia of wind.'' We have more potential to
develop wind energy than anywhere in America. So this wind turbine is
south of Minot, ND. I happen to have had a role in this wind turbine
because we on the Appropriations Committee put money in for the air
base to buy green power. Eight air bases are buying green power. Two of
these wind turbines went up, and they are supplying wind energy to an
air base. Incidentally, these turbines are named. The two south of
Minot are Willy and Wally. I am not able to determine at first glance
whether this is Willy or Wally. They are essentially twins. We care a
lot about them and this turbine is an example of the new technology--
much more efficient technology--by which you can take energy from the
wind and turn it into electricity.
In the long term, I think we will be able to take energy from that
wind, through these turbines, and turn it into electricity, and through
the process of electrolysis, separate hydrogen from water and produce
hydrogen for hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. What a wonderful thing for
this country. Then we won't be quite so addicted to oil from Saudi
Arabia, Iraq, Venezuela, or Kuwait. Maybe we can shed that addiction.

[[Page S6686]]

As we begin to talk about energy in the future, we have all talked
about natural gas and the increased use of natural gas as a result of
both our country and industry wanting to have cleaner burning fuels.
Now we are realizing that we don't have enough natural gas to keep up
with demand. So now we are beginning to talk about how much natural gas
we will import into this country. The demand for natural gas continues
to increase rather substantially. We are talking about new terminals
for LNG and how much LNG we will import into this country to keep pace
with our need.

Isn't that moving in exactly the same direction as we find ourselves
now with oil? Should we not, with just as much aggressiveness, decide
we want to change the whole construct of our energy mix, to the extent
we can? The answer should be yes. That is why a home-grown energy
amendment makes a lot of sense.
As I said yesterday, I understand there will be opposition to every
proposition that changes the way we currently do things. I understand
that. ``It won't work, can't work, bad idea.'' The fact is, this
amendment asks the question, will we begin to take control ourselves?
Will we take control?
This is a very simple proposition--in fact, milder than some. It
says, of the electricity we produce in this country, 10 percent of it
should come from renewable sources. This is not a giant lift.
I understand there are some in the electric utility industry, and
others, who feel this should not happen. They don't want this. They
believe it is an intrusion. But I also understand we are trying to
march toward a different energy future. We are trying to push a bit,
trying to stretch a bit to see if we cannot remove this hopeless
addiction to foreign sources of energy. That is the basis of this
amendment.
My colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, is going to describe
information about what this amendment, if we pass it, will mean in
terms of the use of fossil fuels versus the use of renewable sources of
energy, what it means in costs, and what it means in the reduction of
energy dependency that now exists. I think this is not only a win-win,
but a win-win-win amendment for everybody. So what we are trying to do
is harness energy we can produce.
Using 100 kilowatt hours of wind power each month is the equivalent
of planting one-half acre of trees, or not driving 2,400 miles. Think
of that. Put up a turbine--by the way, I understand the turbines didn't
use to be so efficient. We had to have much more of a boost and
incentive. Now they are highly efficient. Put up one of these turbines
and use the wind to produce electricity. Use the wind to turn that
turbine, and from it produce the electricity. And 100 kilowatt hours--
incidentally, this is probably 10 times that; this is about a megawatt.
But 100 kilowatt hours is the equivalent of planting a half acre of
trees or not driving 2,400 miles. That is the savings in energy.
This amendment will also reduce electric sector carbon dioxide
emissions by 7.5 percent. That is a great result also, because we are
going to have other debates on the floor of the Senate about global
warming, about CO<inf>2</inf>, about all of these related issues.
This amendment moves us in the right direction in several areas. It
makes a lot of sense. I hope at the end of this discussion we will have
sent a message to the country and to the world that, while this is a
good bill that came out of committee, we have improved it. This
amendment moves us well down the road to a substantial improvement with
respect to our energy future.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we will have other debates of consequence
on these issues. Yesterday, we had a big idea, which said let's reduce
our dependency on foreign oil by 40 percent in the next 20 years. We
had people stand up and say, oh, my gosh, we cannot do that; what are
you thinking about?
We went to the Moon in 10 years. If we can go to the Moon in 10
years, we ought to be able to find a way to reduce our hopeless
addiction to foreign oil in 20 years. Of course we can do that. I am
tired of the can't-doers around here. Let's have some of the can-doers
decide to affect the destiny of this country's energy future. Our
country's economic future, our children's ability to find jobs, our
economy's ability to expand, and our ability to remain a world economic
power depends on energy. When the tank runs dry, this economy goes
belly up.
This amendment describes an opportunity for us to move in a slightly
different direction--toward home-grown energy, American made--believing
in ourselves, taking control and taking charge. I support this
amendment. I hope the Senate will give it very broad support.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am tempted to ask why we should have
to raise electric rates in Tennessee to build windmills in North
Dakota, even as much as they like them. I would prefer to send every
single one of these gigantic public nuisances to North Dakota if they
want them. What I object to is raising our electric rates to build
them. That is what we are doing. I want to go back over carefully what
Senator Bingaman said earlier about the letter, describing his
proposal.
The one thing we can be sure about, regarding the Bingaman proposal,
is it is a multibillion dollar increase in electric rates on the bills
of most Americans. Surely in Tennessee it will be, because here we are,
referring to this map. Senator Domenici pointed out the white area on
the map. The prior Presiding Officer is from South Carolina and the
present Presiding Officer is from Florida. They find themselves here in
the white area. There is no wind down there. Now, it is true that under
the Bingaman amendment, they might try to make enough electricity from
solar or from geothermal or from biomass. But what the letter says is
two things. The letter from the Energy Department describing the
proposal of the Senator from New Mexico says it will cost an $18
billion increase in electric rates between now and 2025 in order to
start making our electricity out of this limited number of ways that we
call renewable energy, instead of the way we normally would do it. And
if we are not able to do it--if in Tennessee, Florida, or South
Carolina we cannot meet the 10 percent with big windmills or solar or
biomass or landfill gas or geothermal, then we write a check to the
Government. So we pay a tax or we raise our rates or we do both.
Now, the Senator from New Mexico did correctly go back to the letter
of June 15 and point out I had said that the letter from the Department
of Energy says that, over 20 years, the cumulative total cost of the
electric power sector is about $18 billion for this amendment.
We have been having a big argument down here about the Clean Air Act,
whether to take the President's version or, say, the Carper version,
which I cosponsored. According to the Environmental Protection Agency
analysis, the difference is a $5 billion effect on the economy, and
everybody was shooting off rockets about that. This is $18 billion.
But the Senator from New Mexico said keep reading the letter. It
says:

. . . cumulative expenditures for natural gas and
electricity by all end-use sectors taken together decrease by
$22 billion.

That would look like the net increase was almost nothing.
The problem with that is that assumes the price of natural gas is $5.
That also looks at the year 2020. If you go out to 2025 with no RPS,
according to the Energy Information Administration, the cost of natural
gas is $4.79 and the cost with RPS is $4.79.
What I am saying is, I do not believe we can count on a reduction in
the price of natural gas to $5 to offset this $18 billion increase in
our electric rates that this amendment will produce.
The Senator from New Mexico is perfectly entitled to say: If you do
not believe their estimates about natural gas, why do you believe their
estimates about the increase in the cost of electricity? And he would
have a point. But I think the one thing we can be sure of about the new
mandate of the Senator from New Mexico is that it is a multibillion-
dollar rate increase of some number.
We do know in the area where the Senator from Florida lives and where
I

[[Page S6687]]

live, if the utilities produce what they are more likely to produce,
they will produce electricity using nuclear power, which is carbon
free, and coal. I am told that today the cost of nuclear, after it is
built, is 1 cent per kilowatt hour, coal is 2 cents, natural gas is 4.8
cents, and wind is 4.8 cents, and these preferred methods in the
Bingaman legislation all cost more. In other words, this is an order to
Tennessee and Florida to not do what we would normally do but do this
limited number of renewable fuels and, in the process, pay for it with
a big increase in our electric rates.
The Tennessee Valley Authority has just announced it is considering a
7-percent rate increase. I recruited a lot of automobile plants to
Tennessee. I know that aluminum is made from electricity, an
electrolysis process. If these electric rates go up too much, those
jobs go overseas. They will be gone by 2020 and 2025 if we put in an
$18 billion increase on electric rates.
You may assume that natural gas will go down to $5 a unit. It is $7
today. Or it might not go down to $5 a unit. But it looks to me, under
this mandate, the only way electric rates can go is up.
Also, the EIA letter says there is no appreciable decrease in
NO<inf>X</inf> to clean the air, no appreciable decrease in sulfur
dioxide to clean the air, and the price of natural gas does not go
down. By the year 2025, according to the Energy Information
Administration, the price of natural gas is $4.79, with an RPS or
without it.
What we have before us is a proposal to select out a very few nice
sounding ideas and say let's charge the ratepayers of America $18
billion to put them in and hope the price of natural gas goes down over
20 years to offset it. That is what we are saying. We are assuming
during all that time there is no growth in nuclear power.
Why would we be over here even talking about spending $18 billion to
create tens of thousands of new gigantic windmills to run the American
economy and spending $11 billion to produce by 2025 one-fifth of 1
percent of our total electricity in solar? That is what this would do.
Why don't we do something that we know would create large amounts of
carbon-free electricity?
I can go to that list. We know that nuclear power produces 70 percent
of our carbon-free electricity. For those who care about global
warming--and I am one Senator who does--I do not want to rely on
windmills and solar energy that produces one-fifth of 1 percent of our
total needs to get us where we need to go in terms of carbon-free
energy.
So why don't we take this money, if we have it, and accelerate
advanced nuclear powerplants, accelerate carbon recapture and
sequestration, spend a reasonable amount on solar, accelerate coal
gasification powerplants, accelerate conservation and energy
efficiency. That is the way you have carbon-free air--conservation,
nuclear power, coal gasification, and carbon sequestration, not tens of
thousands of windmills.
I am not anxious to go home to Tennessee and say: We are worried
about the Japanese, the Chinese, and the Indians taking our jobs and
buying up the oil reserves, we are worried about our clean air,
gasoline prices are high, natural gas prices are at a record high, and
our solution: tens of thousands of windmills.
The Senator from New Mexico said there are many things that can be
done, but the EIA letter which he cites has an estimate of what the
effect of this mandate would be. It could be more or less, but this is
what it says. It says we will have 35,100 new gigantic wind mills. That
is a lot. We have 6,700 today, and we will have 35,000 new wind mills.
Let me take an example of these wind turbines. There is one new
nuclear powerplant being opened in America today and that is at Browns
Ferry. It is about 2,000 megawatts. If you had 2,000 1-megawatt wind
turbines, that would spread over an area two times the size of the City
of Knoxville, TN. But 2,000 would not produce the same energy you get
from that one nuclear powerplant because wind turbines only work 20 to
40 percent of the time, so you have to have 4,000. So it is an area two
or three times the size of Knoxville, TN, and you do not even get to
close the nuclear powerplant because people want their electricity all
the time, not just when the wind blows.
The Senator from North Dakota mentioned he had gotten a nice subsidy
for his two big wind turbines in North Dakota. Well, that is terrific.
So now they have three subsidies to build these two giant windmills. We
committed $2 billion of taxpayers' money--that is such a preposterous
number for this purpose, I can barely speak it--$2 billion of taxpayer
money over the next 5 years for windmills. The Finance Committee
suggested another billion. This mandate would, by causing those who
cannot produce enough wind to write a check to the Government, be yet
another subsidy, and if you know the Senator from North Dakota, you can
get a third subsidy to build windmills.
Why don't we get the same amount of interest in conservation, nuclear
power, coal gasification, and carbon sequestration and really clean up
the air?
There is one last point I would like to make, and I will be through.
The Senator from Idaho talked about the landscape a little bit. I think
solar power is terrific. I have an amendment with the Senator from
South Dakota to expand solar-produced power. Production tax credits
have gone all to wind and left out solar power. Biomass has a great
future.
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I had always
thought that the great American outdoors was one of the most essential
parts of our character.
Egypt has its pyramids, Italy has its art, England has its history,
and we have the great American outdoors. I do not think it is right for
us to subsidize the building of these gigantic machines which are twice
as tall as a football stadium and extend from 10-yard line to 10-yard
line that can be seen for 20 miles away and destroy the American
landscape when there is no real purpose for it. At the same time, we
have unreasonable, massive subsidies to the developers to do it.
I hope we will defeat this amendment, and that is a part of the
reason. I will not be through looking at these subsidies for wind power
before we get through. I do not think any of us should be embarrassed
that it is not right to destroy and scar the American landscape by
building these what I believe are public nuisances when instead we
could be producing carbon-free energy by conservation, nuclear power,
coal gasification, and carbon sequestration.
This is an $18 billion increase to the ratepayers of America. Maybe
you believe that the lower price of natural gas in 20 years will make
up for that. I would not count on it.

regional capacity

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, energy diversification is
important to the future of our country; and for that reason, the
distinguished ranking member of the Energy Committee has proposed an
amendment to require 10 percent of our electricity to be produced from
renewable resources by 2020. However, for those regions of the country
that do not have the capacity to greatly increase renewable resources
in their State, a financial hardship may result through no fault of
their own. My State of Florida is one of the States that will have
difficulty meeting the standards because the geological, climatic and
topographical conditions make it impossible to harness certain forms of
renewable energy like wind and hydropower. Furthermore, the Energy
Information Administration concludes that Florida's energy technical
potential for renewable energy is 8 percent. Currently, Florida has 1.8
percent in existing renewables; and more than 50 percent of that 1.8
percent comes from municipal solid waste, a form of renewable energy
not included in the definition of ``new renewable energy'' in the
ranking member's amendment. For these reasons, I have expressed my
concerns to Senator Bingaman. While I remain supportive of expanding
the use of renewable energy supplies, I would prefer an approach that
recognizes the regional differences in the ability of States to meet a
renewable portfolio standard. An RPS standard cannot be rigid, it must
be flexible.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate the concerns of my colleague from Florida.
As you know, I continue to push for a renewable portfolio standard
because the increased use of renewables can ease natural gas price
volatility and

[[Page S6688]]

decrease our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign imports. Having
said that, differences do exist from region to region and State to
State with regard to renewable energy potential. I would like to extend
an offer to Senator Nelson of Florida to work in conference to find a
method that will enable a renewable standard to accomplish the goal of
increasing renewables while recognizing the legitimate differences
among States. I acknowledge that municipal solid waste plays a large
role in Florida's renewable potential and I would be willing to
recognize that potential as part of our discussions in the conference.
I believe we can find a way to help each State include a renewable
standard as part of their overall energy production, and I am committed
to working with Senator Nelson to accomplish this.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I want to thank Senator Bingaman for his work
on this energy bill and his commitment to work in conference to address
my concerns with the renewable energy standard specifically. I look
forward to working together on this important provision.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 791,
Senator Bingaman's amendment which would require a mandatory renewable
portfolio standard, or ``RPS.''
I am a big supporter of new, clean forms of energy. I am convinced
that we cannot become energy independent without making renewable
energy resources an important part of our energy mix.
I also believe that each region of the country has something to offer
to meet this country's clean energy needs, but what each region has to
offer is not the same. For that simple reason, I oppose including a
nationwide, mandatory renewable portfolio standard in this energy bill.
In particular, for many regions of the country not blessed with
renewable energy resources, this RPS mandate would essentially result
in a huge wealth transfer payment from consumers to the Federal
Government or to renewable energy generators located in other areas of
the country. The amendment ignores the reality that some regions of the
country simply do not have the amount of renewable resources demanded
by this amendment.
The leading advocate for wind power, the American Wind Energy
Association, lists my home State of Missouri as the 20th best state for
wind energy potential. That would seem to imply that Missouri would
have no trouble meeting a 10 percent RPS with wind energy.
However, the detailed studies done by the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory show that the wind Missouri does have is of insufficient
power and consistency for utility grade wind turbine applications. In
other words, the utilities in Missouri cannot build windmills in the
State to meet an RPS. There's just no wind to make them turn.
Missouri is not the only State that finds itself unable to use wind,
the one renewable resource that RPS proponents do not dispute is
central to meeting the proposed requirement. The wind resource map
prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory graphically
demonstrates that the entire southeastern region of the country has
virtually no wind potential. Those States are even worse off than
Missouri. Moreover, large areas of the upper midwest have marginal wind
potential, unless those States plan to build wind farms in the Great
Lakes, and I don't think any of us expect that to happen.
So if not wind, what else might be used? The proposed amendment lists
a limited number of forms of renewable energy that meet the
requirement--solar, wind, geothermal energy, ocean energy, biomass,
landfill gas, or incremental hydropower.
My State has just a little bit of hydropower. However, under Mr.
Bingaman's proposal, existing hydropower, though clearly a renewable
resource and one of the very cleanest and cheapest sources of
electricity, inexplicably does not count. All of the hydropower in the
Pacific Northwest also does not count under this proposal.
My State also has a generator that burns tire chips. Every tire that
is burned to make electricity is one less that will be tossed into our
overburdened landfills. That is certainly something we should
encourage, but are tires considered renewable? I do not see us driving
cars without tires anytime soon. Nevertheless, tire chips do not count,
either.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has also found that Missouri
does not have utility-scale geothermal, solar, or fuelwood biomass
resources, either. So what do I tell my homestate utilities that they
should use to meet this RPS requirement?
This morning, Sen. Bingaman acknowledged that many States do not have
access to the best renewable resources. He recognized that wind, solar,
and geothermal resources are generally concentrated in western States.
These are the major sources of clean, renewable power. He suggested
that, no matter, another renewable--biomass--is available in every
State. What he did not tell you, however, is that you can not just toss
switchgrass or other biomass into a boiler and churn out electricity.
Biomass is not generally used to make electricity today, and its use
is not without substantial costs. It must be thoroughly dried before
burning. That requires lots of space and energy for drying and,
obviously, it can not be stored outside in a heap like coal. Building a
drying and storage facility to process and store the mountain of
biomass it would take to meet an RPS requirement would cost a lot of
money. There would also be quite a cost to gather and transport these
materials from the hundreds of acres it would take to grow sufficient
biomass just to equal a couple of tons of coal. Plus, there is a
substantial cost to consumers for utilities to modify their boilers to
co-fire or blend biomass fuel. And, on top of this, burning biomass may
leave the utilities with additional cost to comply with the Clean Air
Act.
Proponents of a mandatory RPS say, ``Just buy wind power from wind
generators in other States.'' Sounds easy enough, but how do we get
that power to the State? Wind turbines obviously have to be built where
the wind is. These locations are usually remote and far from our cities
where the electricity is most needed. In most every instance, there is
insufficient transmission capacity to move that power to where it is
needed. And at $1 to $3 million a mile, new transmission does not come
cheaply, nor is it easy to get all of the necessary approvals to get it
built. So I am not ready to say I can count on economically
transmitting wind power to Missouri, if at all.
Moreover, wind turbines are just as susceptible to fierce local
opposition as any other energy facility proposed near population
centers. Senator Alexander has highlighted how large and intrusive each
of these modern wind turbines are. And while one on the horizon may be
interesting, it will take hundreds of them on that horizon to meet a 10
percent RPS requirement. I do not know that this is how any of us want
to meet our Nation's energy needs, if we can even get that many wind
turbines built.
What is the result if this wind energy does not get built or can not
be delivered? This RPS amendment will end up being nothing more than a
new energy tax on consumers who depend on traditional fuels for their
electricity. Higher energy costs, particularly those that result in a
wealth transfer payment from our constituents to the Department of
Energy, is not good energy policy.

Utilities in my State already voluntarily offer the green power that
they have available to their customers if they prefer to buy green.
They are adding wind generators where they can--For example, Kansas
City Power and Light is adding up to 200 megawatts of wind power in
Kansas. This is about as much as they have found feasible to produce
there. But this does not even come close to meeting a 10-percent RPS
requirement.
According to EIA, total electricity sold in 2002 by the Missouri
utilities that would have to meet the proposed RPS was 47,378,256
megawatt-hours, meaning Missouri utilities would have to produce 4.7
million megawatt-hours of renewable electricity, and this amount will
only grow, as electricity demand has increased in recent years by
nearly 5 percent.
KCP&L's 200 megawatts of wind energy capacity will translate into no
more than 584,000 megawatt-hours of wind energy, assuming the energy is
available \1/3\ of all hours of the year, far

[[Page S6689]]

short of the 4.7 million megawatt-hours that a 10-percent RPS
requirement would demand. Even on a capacity rather then energy basis,
the 200 megawatts would only equate to 5 percent of KCP&L's current
generating capacity of 4,000 megawatts.
KCP&L estimates that to meet the RPS requirement it would face with
wind energy, it would need as much as 450 megawatts of wind. This
equates to about 297 wind turbines, each of which needs at least 60
acres of land, meaning it would take upwards of 18,000 acres of land to
meet the RPS requirement. KCP&L estimates the total cost of complying
with the RPS proposal to be between $400 and $500 million. And that's
just one utility that serves just a portion of Missouri.
Today, the cost of all types of energy is at unacceptably high
levels. Adoption of this amendment would increase consumers' electric
bills, since if a utility cannot meet the standard, it would have to
buy credits at 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.
Missouri's average retail rate for electricity is around 6 cents per
kilowatt-hour, making the RPS amount to a 25-percent increase in cost
to Missouri customers for this portion of their electricity needs. This
would have particularly negative consequences for those who can least
afford it, such as the working poor and the elderly living on fixed
incomes.
This is just a wealth transfer from States with little renewable
resources to those with a lot. We do not do this for any other source
of electricity--States with low cost coal or hydropower do not
subsidize States that rely on higher cost fuels such as natural gas.
Why should we have some States subsidize others to promote a selective
fuel for producing electricity? At 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, this
could cost Missouri consumers as much as $71 million a year.
Such a large sum of money would be better spent in shoring up our
Nation's transmission grid or pursuing other clean energy sources.
Missouri utilities are voluntarily spending hundreds of millions of
dollars pursuing clean coal technology to take advantage of the natural
resource that is readily and economically available to Missouri, just
as other States are doing what they can with the resources they have
available, whether that is coal, natural gas, wind, biomass or other
forms of energy such as nuclear.
Utilities are also spending hundreds of millions of dollars to
retrofit their plants to remove NO<inf>X</inf>, SO<inf>2</inf>, and
mercury from emissions, and may be subject to CO<inf>2</inf> reductions
as well. KCP&L alone is spending $280 million to meet emission
reduction goals.
Adding a tax to support renewables in other regions of the country is
an excessive burden on this critical industry that needs to be focusing
capital resources on improving the transmission grid to increase
reliability. This transmission investment is needed to improve the
existing grid, not to extend the grid to remote locations where wind
turbines must be placed, far from where the electricity is used.
States that have renewable resources in sufficient quantity have
already moved ahead and adopted renewable portfolio standards tailored
to the resources of the State. Not surprisingly, adoption of this
amendment would conflict with the RPS programs adopted by 20 States
that have different eligible renewable resources and implement
timetables.
Even some of these States with their own RPS will not be able to meet
this mandatory proposal. Of the 20 States with portfolio requirements,
only 13 of them have set a standard high enough to meet the proposed
10-percent Federal standard by 2020. Some of 13 that meet the 10-
percent threshold may still fail simply because their definition of
renewable energy doesn't meet what would be the national standard
definition. They, like other States coming up short will be subject to
what amounts to a Federally-mandated energy tax.
I believe that, if we want to encourage renewable energy, and we do,
a better way of doing it, particularly for wind, is through stable tax
credits. Stable tax credits are the better solution to encourage
renewables. A greater need for wind developers than the RPS is the
certainty of a production tax credit that doesn't annually disappear
and reappear. Extending this credit from an annual credit to 5 or 10
years would make wind competitive in areas of the country where it is
viable and wanted. An RPS does not make wind competitive in the
marketplace; it just raises the cost of electricity to consumers, who
are already paying too much for energy. This is not good energy policy.
I urge the Senate to reject this amendment.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, many people think only of wind turbines
when renewable sources of energy are discussed. However, I see great
potential for Kansas and our nation in the production of renewable
energy from biomass sources. We have the technology to produce
electricity from grass, hay, wood, livestock manure and many other bio-
based sources that the State of Kansas has in abundance. This would not
only provide a new market for many of our farmers to access, but would
lead to a better environment for all of us by finding beneficial uses
for many of these waste products.
I believe the Flint Hills to be the most environmentally significant
treasure the state of Kansas has to offer. It's paramount that we
protect this native land from unsightly development that will ruin this
treasure for future generations of Kansans. Therefore, with my vote for
a nation renewable portfolio standard, I urge the State to protect
Flint Hills from wind turbine development and focus on producing
renewable electricity from biomass sources. It is good for our farmers,
it is good for the environment and it is good for Kansans.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I agree that clean, renewable energy
technologies are an important part of a program to achieve our national
energy and environmental goals. However, I do not believe that a
Federal renewable portfolio standard achieves this objective.
Twenty-three States have already adopted renewable technology
standards and have committed resources to find cleaner and more
efficient technologies to meet their energy needs. For example, Arizona
is in the process of increasing its renewable target to 15 percent by
2020, exceeding the proposed Federal standard in the amendment. I
expect that Arizona will implement its program in a manner that makes
the most of the State's solar potential in the long-term.
I do not believe that the proposed Federal standard would help
Arizona or any other State fully achieve their clean energy and
efficiency goals. I also understand that the penalty for noncompliance
with the proposed Federal standard is significantly lower than the
incremental cost of bringing renewables on line. While I do not believe
the intent of this amendment is to impose an energy tax on consumers, I
think that could be the economic reality in many circumstances.
My colleague from Tennessee has argued persuasively that this Federal
RPS is primarily a wind-power bill. I was interested to read in a fact
sheet from the Union of Concerned Scientists that, to achieve this 10-
percent Federal RPS, we would need to build almost 55,000 new wind
turbines. That is an enormous number. I suspect that the potential
adverse environmental effect such a massive construction project have
not been studied. In fact, it has already been suggested that in the
rush to take advantage of the current tax credit for wind generation
analyses of potential long-term consequences have been neglected.
I am not opposed to wind-power, but I have heard from utilities in my
own State that a Federal mandate of this sort is largely a requirement
to import wind, since Arizona has very limited wind resources. We are
already providing substantial subsidies for wind-power and the energy
tax title will provide more. I question why we need to subsidize wind
to the practical exclusion of other renewables.
The need for energy sustainability and cost-effectiveness does
influence my opposition to this amendment. What we need to do, what we
must do, is enact a mandatory cap and trade program for greenhouse gas
reduction and let the market drive the technology. A Federal RPS would
stand in sharp contrast to the market-based solutions in the Climate
Stewardship and Innovation Act, which Senator Lieberman and I
introduced last month. That legislation would promote clean and
efficient energy technologies

[[Page S6690]]

without relying solely on taxpayer subsidies or choosing particular
technologies over others. That is the vision I have for our energy
future--a clean, efficient and innovative mix of technologies that
benefit all Americans.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by the
Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman. This amendment is a breath of
fresh air in a bill that is filled with many stale concepts regarding
our approach to this Nation's energy policy. I am proud to be a
cosponsor of this amendment.
Producing a significant amount of our electricity from renewable
sources is not a concept for the future. It is a real possibility that
exists today using solar, wind, tidal, gas from landfills, and biomass.
In fact, 19 States around the country are using these renewable source
of energy to steer their States towards a future of clean, sustainable
energy use.
In my State of Illinois and in many other States, enacting this
standard is a no-brainer. This winter, Illinois Governor Blagojevich
announced a plan to adopt a renewable portfolio standard requiring
Illinois electric utilities to provide 8 percent renewable energy as
part of their overall power mix by 2012. This bold vision will make
Illinois the second biggest wind power State in the country by 2012.
The city of Chicago also has a strong commitment to using renewable
sources of energy and is already planning to surpass a 10 percent
contribution from renewables in its electricity stream and achieve a 20
percent goal.
In the 18 other States where renewable portfolio standards have been
successfully adopted, innovations in electricity generation have
flourished at virtually no cost to the consumer. Just imagine what
would happen to this industry of the future if we enacted a Federal
standard. And, here is the best news: According to the Union of
Concerned Scientists, a 10 percent renewable portfolio standard on the
Federal level would not add a single penny to consumers' bills.
Introducing renewable electricity into the mix of electricity
generation also brings us a measure of physical security. By creating
geographically dispersed sources of energy generation, we are providing
ourselves with greater electricity security by providing smaller
targets and reducing the transport of combustible materials. This is
smart policy at a time when we must be vigilant about homeland
security.
Our country's demand for electricity is expected to continue growing
for decades to come. Enacting a renewable portfolio standard ensures
that clean technologies will help us meet that enlarged demand, while
not offsetting the importance of investing in clean technologies in
other energy production methods, especially coal. Coal will undoubtedly
play a large role in our energy portfolio for years to come, and I look
forward to a vigorous debate on how we can best assist the utility
industry in employing clean coal technologies.
Abraham Lincoln once said: ``I am a firm believer in the people. If
given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises.
The great point is to bring them the real facts.'' The real facts are
that without forward-thinking amendments such as this one, the energy
bill is not going to bring us independence from the 20th century
mindset of energy production. Let us give the American public this tool
so they too can rise to meet this national energy crisis before it gets
worse.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am informed that the Senator from
Michigan and the Senator from Washington want to interrupt the
remainder of our debate on the Bingaman amendment in order to discuss
and do a modification of the Cantwell amendment. I ask unanimous
consent that they be yielded whatever time they need to accomplish that
and it not count against the Bingaman amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BURR). Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Washington.

Amendment No. 784, as Modified

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and I call up amendment No. 784 and send a
modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 784), as modified, is as follows:

Beginning on page 120, strike line 23 and all that follows
through page 122, line 14, and insert the following:

SEC. 151. REDUCTION OF DEPENDENCE ON IMPORTED PETROLEUM.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) based on the reports of the Energy Information
Administration entitled ``Annual Energy Outlook 2005'' and
``May 2005 Monthly Energy Review''--
(A) during the period beginning January 1, 2005, and ending
April 30, 2005, the United States imported an estimated
average of 13,056,000 barrels of oil per day; and
(B) the United States is projected to import 19,110,000
barrels of oil per day in 2025;
(2) technology solutions already exist to dramatically
increase the productivity of the United States energy supply;
(3) energy efficiency and conservation measures can improve
the economic competitiveness of the United States and lessen
energy costs for families in the United States;
(4) United States dependence on foreign energy imports
leaves the United States vulnerable to energy supply shocks
and reliant on the willingness of other countries to provide
sufficient supplies of oil;
(5) while only 3 percent of proven oil reserves are located
in territory controlled by the United States, advances in
fossil fuel extraction techniques and technologies could
increase United States energy supplies; and
(6) reducing energy consumption also benefits the United
States by lowering the environmental impacts associated with
fossil fuel use.
(b) Goal.--It is a goal of the United States to reduce by
40 percent the amount of foreign oil projected to be imported
during calendar year 2025 in the reference case contained in
the report of the Energy Information Administration entitled
``Annual Energy Outlook 2005''.
(c) Measures To Reduce Import Dependence.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every two years thereafter, the
President shall--
(A) develop and implement measures to reduce dependence on
foreign petroleum imports of the United States by reducing
petroleum in, end-uses throughout the economy of the United
States sufficient to reduce total demand for petroleum in the
United States by 1,000,000 barrels per day from the amount
projected for calendar year 2015; and
(B)(i) subject to clause (ii), develop and implement
measures to reduce dependence on foreign petroleum imports of
the United States by reducing petroleum in end-uses
throughout the economy of the United States sufficient to
reduce total demand for petroleum in the United States by
7,640,000 barrels per day from the amount projected for
calendar year 2025.
(ii) If the President determines that there are
insufficient legal authorities to achieve the target for
calendar year 2025 in clause (i), the President shall develop
and implement measures that will reduce dependence on foreign
petroleum imports of the United States by reducing petroleum
in end-uses throughout the economy of the United States to
the maximum extent practicable and shall submit to Congress
proposed legislation or other recommendations to achieve the
target.
(2) Requirements.--In developing measures under paragraph
(1), the President shall--
(A) ensure continued reliable and affordable energy for the
United States, consistent with the creation of jobs and
economic growth and maintaining the international
competitiveness of United States businesses, including the
manufacturing sector; and
(B) implement measures under paragraph (1) under existing
authorities of the appropriate Federal agencies, as
determined by the President.
(3) Projections.--The projections for total demand for
petroleum in the United States under paragraph (1) shall be
those contained in the Reference Case in the report of the
Energy Information Administration entitled ``Annual Energy
Outlook 2005''.
(d) Report.--
(1) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the President
shall submit to Congress a report, based on the most recent
edition of the Annual Energy Outlook published by the Energy
Information Administration, assessing the progress made by
the United States toward the goal of reducing dependence on
imported petroleum sources by 2025.
(2) Contents.--The report under paragraph (1) shall--
(A) identify the status of efforts to meet the goal
described in subsection (b);
(B) assess the effectiveness of any measure implemented
under subsection (c) during the previous fiscal year in
meeting the goal described in subsection (b); and
(C) describe plans to develop additional measures to meet
the goal.
(e) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section precludes the
President from requesting additional authorities to achieve
the targets in subsection (c).

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Michigan has

[[Page S6691]]

given a great deal of thought to this issue and to the modified
amendment, and I yield the floor to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank our friend from Washington for
making this modification. This is a very important modification from my
perspective. But for this modification, the language of the amendment
would propose that the goals that are set forth--which are only goals
but nonetheless they are goals--would need to be achieved by
implementing measures ``under existing authorities of the Federal
agencies.''
That is the language which is in 151(c)(2)(B) of the amendment. That
is lines 8 and 9 on page 4 of the amendment.
Now, that is very problematic language and unacceptable language
because if we are going to achieve the goals that are set forth, if we
have any chance of doing so, it would have to be with significant
changes in our authorities--for instance, in the tax incentives which
would be so essential in order to achieve a reduction in imports of
oil. There is no way I can see or that many others can see that we
could achieve the kinds of reductions that are hoped for without
significant tax incentives being put into the law--tax incentives that
do not now exist.
There are some existing authorities and some existing tax incentives,
but they do not come close to what they must be if we are going to
reduce the amount of imported oil that we use. So it is important to me
that the existing authorities language either be removed or superseded
in this amendment so that the President could seek and we could grant,
if we so chose, new authority, additional authorities, new tax
incentives, for instance, to move to new technologies. That is the
effect of the modification to the amendment that was sent to the desk,
which reads:

Nothing in this section precludes the President from
requesting additional authorities to achieve the targets in
subsection (c).

So that change seems to be very essential since there is no practical
way that these goals can be met, in my book--either the short-term
goals of one million barrels per day or the long-term goals of 7.64
million barrels per day--unless there are changes in our tax structure
and the other authorities that we provide in the executive branch. This
savings clause now makes it clear that both as to the short-term and
the long-term goal for savings, there is not a limit in the amendment
to using existing authorities but rather additional authorities can be
sought by the President.
I thank the Senator from Washington for making that change. In the
colloquy between myself and the Senator from Washington, it makes clear
that the amendment does not assume or require changes in technologies
or CAFE standards or anything else. It is technology neutral. According
to this colloquy, the amendment does not assume or propose an increase
in CAFE standards. All of the other potential changes, technologically,
that could help get us to where we want to go, including diesel
technologies that are so important, hybrid technologies, hydrogen
technologies--it does not put those specific technologies in place,
either requiring them or, of course, not precluding them because this
is technology neutral. That becomes critically important because,
again, without those technologies there is no way we can achieve these
goals. But there is no effort in this amendment to identify the
specific technologies or the mechanisms by which these goals would be
achieved. Particularly important, obviously, is the language that
states that the amendment does not assume or propose an increase in
CAFE standards, and another part of the colloquy makes it clear that
the amendment neither assumes nor proposes regulatory changes to the
CAFE system and that is not part of this amendment.
So the colloquy will speak for itself. It is a lot longer than I have
just summarized, but it is a very significant colloquy to me in terms
of what the amendment does and what it does not do.
I thank the Senator from Washington for working out this colloquy
with me.

modification of cantwell amendment 784

Mr. LEVIN. The amendment sets a goal for a savings of 7.6 million
barrels of oil by 2025. Are there assumptions made by the amendment?
Ms. CANTWELL. This amendment is technology-neutral. It simply lays
out a vision that the United States should attempt to achieve over the
course of the next 20 years. The only assumption underlying this
amendment is that the United States has the ingenuity and innovative
spirit to reverse the rising trend of American dependence on foreign
oil imports. Today, foreign oil constitutes approximately 58 percent of
our domestic supply, a figure that is projected to reach 68 percent by
2025. Because of the nature of world oil markets and the geologic fact
that two-thirds of global reserves are located in the Middle East, the
United States is on track to become increasingly dependent on OPEC to
fuel our economy; and will be competing with developing nations such as
China for access to these oil supplies. Because of the economic and
national security implications of foreign oil dependence, this
amendment simply states that it is in the national interest of the
United States to attempt to curb our appetite for imported oil. The
underlying bill provides a number of tools to help this country achieve
the goal established by my amendment, and there are many potential
pathways to its attainment. However, none of them are specifically
assumed by the Cantwell amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Does the amendment assume an increase in CAFE standards?
Ms. CANTWELL. This amendment neither assumes nor proposes an increase
in CAFE standards. In fact, some have erroneously concluded that
increasing CAFE standards is the only means of achieving the goal
established by the Cantwell amendment. Multiple analyses by national
security-related organizations and others have concluded that
increasing CAFE standards is not necessary to attain savings of 7.6
million barrels of oil a day by 2025. In addition, it is important to
note that some have circulated erroneous estimates of CAFE standard
increases necessary to achieve the goal in the Cantwell amendment,
attributed to the Energy Information Administration, EIA. The staff of
the EIA has said that these flawed estimates have no grounds in
analyses performed by the EIA.
Mr. LEVIN. Does the amendment assume an increase in ethanol
production and use?
Ms. CANTWELL. Because the amendment is technology-neutral and simply
lays out a vision, accelerated ethanol production and use is not
specifically assumed. However, there is no question that biofuels can
play an important role in achieving the goal established by the
Cantwell amendment, by displacing imported petroleum-based products
with domestic fuel derived from plant matter. In fact, it has been
estimated that increased domestic biofuels production can contribute
more than half of the oil savings goal established by the Cantwell
amendment. It is also worth noting that the underlying bill contains
important provisions that will help accelerate the production of
ethanol and other alternative fuels, including provisions I authored
that would provide incentives, research, development and demonstration
of processes to produce ethanol from cellulosic sources. While not
specifically prescribed by the Cantwell energy security amendment,
these measures would assist substantially in achieving the amendment's
goal.
Mr. LEVIN. Does the amendment assume an increase in use of biodiesel
fuels and technology?
Ms. CANTWELL. Again, increased use of biodiesel fuels and technology
is not specifically assumed by the Cantwell amendment. However, these
fuels can also help achieve the amendment's goal. It is worth noting
that one of the barriers to achieving cost-effective biodiesel
production is increasing the diversity of feedstocks from which
biodiesel can be economically produced. The key to unlocking the
potential of biodiesel is performing the research, development and
demonstration of new technologies that will allow the co-production of
biodiesel fuel and value-added bioproducts that lower overall costs. I
was proud to add specific provisions to this underlying legislation
that authorize an Advanced Biofuels Technology program, designed to
accelerate the development of these processes. Again, while one of the
potential

[[Page S6692]]

tools the U.S. can use to achieve the goal, additional biodiesel
production is not explicitly assumed by the Cantwell amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Does the amendment assume an increase in the use of diesel
engine technology?
Ms. CANTWELL. While advances in diesel engine technology are another
potential tool for accelerating oil savings, they are not specifically
assumed nor mandated by the Cantwell amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Does the amendment assume a major increase in the use of
hybrid electric vehicle technology?
Ms. CANTWELL. Because the amendment lays out a vision rather than
mandating specific measures, increased hybrid use is not specifically
assumed. However, some have estimated that growth in the hybrid vehicle
market can achieve oil savings of up to 2 million barrels a day by
2015, 10 years before the Cantwell amendment's ultimate goal. Taken
together, biofuels production and growth in the market for hybrid
vehicles could provide more than two-thirds of the energy security goal
established by the Cantwell amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Does the amendment assume a major shift to use of
renewable hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles?
Ms. CANTWELL. There is no question that hydrogen provides another
potential pathway to achieving substantial oil savings in the United
States. However, because the technology remains at a relatively early
stage in its development, no specific estimates exist for the economic
and energy efficiencies this technology may provide. It is not
specifically assumed by the Cantwell amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Does the amendment assume an increase in tax incentives to
encourage use of advance technologies?
Ms. CANTWELL. Certainly, tax incentives can help spur the development
of markets for advanced technologies, and help expand the choices
available to American consumers. But these are not specified or assumed
within the Cantwell amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Does the amendment assume regulatory changes in how the
CAFE system works?
Ms. CANTWELL. The amendment neither assumes nor proposes regulatory
changes to the CAFE system. I view the debate regarding the efficacy of
the existing CAFE program as beyond the scope of this amendment, which
lays out a national vision for reducing American dependence on foreign
oil imports. Certainly any changes to the CAFE system's regulatory
regime would require additional legislative action, action that is not
assumed in the Cantwell amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Does the amendment assume regulatory changes that would
allow for greater use of diesel technology?
Ms. CANTWELL. Certainly other nations have begun the transition to
more wide-spread use of diesel technology, and initiatives or programs
in this regard may ultimately be consistent with the Cantwell
amendment. But they are neither specifically assumed nor required.
Mr. LEVIN. Does the amendment assume the Congress will provide other
new authorities to the President?
Ms. CANTWELL. The Cantwell amendment establishes a national goal. As
such, it directs the President to design and implement measures
designed to help achieve the goal, and assumes that, if the President
deems his existing authorities insufficient, he will propose to
Congress legislation or recommendations that would help achieve the
amendment's energy security target. At that time, it would be up to
Congress to consider the merits of the President's proposals, via the
typical legislative process.
Mr. LEVIN. Does the amendment assume that there are adequate
``existing authorities of appropriate Federal agencies'' to meet the
goal of saving 7.64 million barrels of oil per day by 2025?
Ms. CANTWELL. The amendment assumes that the President has at his
disposal adequate authority to develop and implement measures that will
help achieve the goal of reducing imports on foreign oil. However, the
amendment is technology-neutral and establishes a 20-year vision. As
such, it is difficult to predict with any specificity what direction
new technologies may take, and whether issues may arise that require
additional legislation or Congressional action. For example, if
biofuels begin to displace a significantly larger portion of petroleum-
based fuels in the United States, certain infrastructure-related
barriers may arise that require additional authority or Congressional
action. Similarly, there are certain to be issues associated with
infrastructure, interoperability and international technology standards
associated with the development of hydrogen fuel cells. Because the
Cantwell amendment is a call to accelerate the development of
alternatives to petroleum-based fuel, yet does not purport to choose
technology winners and losers, it is premature to speculate on whether
additional authorities or Congressional action may be required.
However, it does assume that proposals to expand the range of tools
available to the President to achieve the Cantwell amendment's goal
would be considered through the normal channels of Congressional debate
and approval.
Mr. LEVIN. Does this amendment set a goal of reducing imported oil or
reducing overall use of fossil fuel?
Ms. CANTWELL. The goal of this amendment is to reduce our foreign oil
imports and exposure to the uncertainties of world oil markets. Because
of the geologic realities of the way in which oil reserves are
distributed across the globe, continued increased demand for oil will
result in a growing dependence on imports. While the U.S. is situated
on just 3 percent of the world's reserves, the Middle East is home to
two-thirds, with a full quarter located in just one country, Saudi
Arabia. In order to curb our growing reliance on imports, it is thus
necessary to reduce demand for petroleum itself, across all sectors of
the economy.
Mr. LEVIN. To achieve the one million barrels of oil a day in savings
required by 2015, must the President use existing authorities, or can
the President seek additional authority?
Ms. CANTWELL. There is nothing in this amendment that precludes the
President from requesting additional legal authority to achieve the
target for 2015. Certainly, any legislative proposal or recommendations
from the President would be considered by Congress, through the typical
legislative process. Rather, the provision in (c)(2)(B) is intended to
make clear that this amendment, on its face, does not grant the
President any broad, new additional authorities not previously
contemplated.
Mr. LEVIN. If the President can seek additional authority to meet the
requirement to save 1 million barrels of oil a day, would the Senator
be willing to modify the amendment to make that clear?
Ms. CANTWELL. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask how much time remains on the
Bingaman amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has just under 23
minutes. The majority side has 10 minutes 40 seconds.

Amendment No. 791

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will take part of the time remaining
for me to respond to a few of the points made by my good friend from
Tennessee and clarify the effect of this amendment as best we
understand it. Contrary to what a person might believe by listening to
a lot of the debate today, this is not an amendment just about
windmills. This is an amendment about trying to stimulate the
development of a range of technologies, solar technologies, biomass
technologies, wind technologies, clearly, and get the cost of producing
electricity from those different technologies down to a more reasonable
level. That is the purpose of the legislation.
My good friend from Tennessee says that in his opinion, based on his
understanding of the position the Energy Information Agency has taken,
this would result in an increase in electricity rates, or electric
rates. He reads their analysis and their recent report in a totally
different way than I do. It is very clear this does not cause an
increase in electricity rates. It causes a decrease. It is clear it
does not cause an increase in gas prices. It causes a decrease. It is
clear it does not cost the electric power sector more. It costs the
electric power sector less than it otherwise would be spending.
Let me talk about this $18 billion he continues to refer to. It does
say in

[[Page S6693]]

their report that from 2005 to 2025, the renewable portfolio standard
has a cumulative total cost to the electric power sector of about $18
billion. Now, that is true. Then it goes down a couple of sentences
further on. It says, the cumulative expenditures for natural gas and
electricity by all end user sectors taken together will decrease by
$22.6 billion. So what it is basically saying is if this amendment is
adopted, which I hope very much it will be, there will, in fact, have
to be more investment by the utility sector, by the electric power
generation companies, in these alternative fuel generation
technologies, these alternative energy sources. But it will be more
than offset by what they save in fossil fuels and what they save in
investment in those other areas.

As far as rates are concerned, it is very clear in this language, and
I will read this again. It says: ``Compared to the reference case.''
That means with the amendment. It says: ``The cumulative residential
expenditures on electricity from 2005 to 2025 are $2.7 billion
lower''--that is with the amendment--``while the cumulative residential
expenditures on natural gas are $2.9 billion lower with the
amendment.''
Residential expenditures it is talking about. These are the
ratepayers that we all represent in our individual States. They are
saying that, if this amendment is adopted, it is going to be cheaper
for them to pay their gas bills, cheaper for them to pay their
electricity bills in the future because, frankly, this will take some
of the pressure off the price of natural gas. That is very much to be
desired.
Let me read further from their report. They say: ``The increase in
renewable generation''--which is contemplated by this amendment--``will
lead to lower coal and natural gas generation. By 2025, coal generation
is reduced by almost 9 percent, natural gas generation reduced by over
5 percent from their respective reference case levels.'' That is from
the level that it would be if we didn't adopt this amendment.
So in my view, this is a very substantial improvement. This
legislation, this amendment will be a substantial improvement to the
underlying bill which I think is a very good bill. I do not disagree
with anything the Senator from Tennessee said about the advisability
and desirability of seeing more nuclear power generated in our country,
the advisability and desirability of seeing cleaner technologies used
in coal production. All of that is in the underlying bill. What this
amendment says is let's give an extra impetus to renewable power so
that we can get all of the benefit from renewable power that it is
reasonable for us to achieve over the next couple of decades.
That is exactly the purpose of the amendment. I think that is what
the effect of the amendment will be. We have had the good fortune of
passing this amendment before in the Senate. I hope very much we can
pass it again this time. It will strengthen the bill, it will persuade
the American people that we are trying to move this country in a
different direction, as far as its energy future is concerned.
We are not satisfied with just saying that current technologies are
adequate. We are not satisfied with saying the current mix of energy
sources is adequate. We are trying to get back to more use of American
ingenuity and creativeness to produce energy that we do not have to
import from somewhere else in the world.
I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. We will have a
chance to summarize very briefly the reasons for the amendment. I will
have a chance, and my colleague from Tennessee will have a chance, to
argue the other side of that argument before we have the vote. As I
understand our agreement now, the Senator from Washington is going to
have an opportunity to once again argue the merits of her amendment.
That vote will occur, I believe, at 2:15. Then, after that, we will
have the vote on this RPS.
With that, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from
Washington.

Amendment No. 784

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for
his fine amendment. I would like to take a minute to state that I am a
cosponsor of the Bingaman amendment and very much believe in the
renewable portfolio standard for our electricity grid. I guess if you
looked at the Northwest, particularly Washington State, you would say
we are already using 80 percent renewable energy because 80 percent of
our electricity grid is provided by our hydro system. So we, in the
Northwest, are very big believers in renewable power.
But we also believe in the other technology that is in the underlying
amendment and in the underlying bill that will help us support
renewable technologies. We have a lot of wind farms. We have had a lot
of discussion out here on the floor this morning about wind energy. We,
in Washington State, are already employing wind energy in a variety of
locations in our State and getting great response. In some areas, it is
some of the best job growth we have had in rural communities. Farmers
love it because, aside from providing an agricultural product, they get
a second source of revenue from their land by having agriculture and
wind technology on their farms. It works very well for our farmers, and
the combination of hydro and wind technology works very well for
Washington state and the Northwest.
But we also have solar power. We are about to have one of the first
demonstrations of wave power. We, in the Northwest, are using all sorts
of renewable technology to meet these goals. Certainly, I want to
endorse this particular amendment as a great step forward, saying we
can do more with renewable technology.
I would like to turn to the Cantwell amendment, on which we are going
to have a vote I believe at 2:15, and summarize, for my colleagues who
might have missed yesterday's discussion, a few points I think are
important as we talk about our reliance on imported oil and the fact we
want to diversify.

In the New York Times, there was an article about OPEC and their
increases in quotas for various OPEC countries. It is interesting, and
every day Americans want to know what is going to happen with oil
futures and gas prices. You look to find out what OPEC is doing. This
article, I think, brings up the very point we were trying to make
yesterday; that is, that China's demand for oil continues to grow. In
fact, this article says that global oil consumption climbed 2.4 or 2.5
million barrels a day in 2004, the fastest growth rate since 1978. That
is world demand for energy increasing. Basically, that was a result of
China's increasing energy consumption. We know what the trends are, and
we know what the challenges are that are facing us.
I found it interesting, too, that the New York Times article talked
about how OPEC was actually concerned that alternative fuels might
affect their future price of product. They are almost telling us, yes,
they are a little concerned about competition from alternative fuels.
I welcome that. I think it is about time that America make an
investment in alternative fuels and about time we give consumers a
choice when it comes to the demand and supply of oil in the future and
not continue to be held hostage by foreign governments.
I would like to review for my colleagues what exactly the Cantwell
amendment does because it is so important that we understand what the
underlying bill does and what our challenges are as a country going
forward.
In 1973, we were importing only 28 percent of our demand--our U.S.
demand--for oil. We were importing 28 percent of what we used as a
country.
Today, 2004, we are at 58 percent, a huge jump, a huge dependency by
the United States on a foreign source to provide us an oil supply.
When I look at the countries involved and I look at the instability
in the Middle East, I don't want to be 58 percent reliant on foreign
sources of oil. I want American ingenuity to be a driver in what we can
provide to the American people in driving down the cost of energy.
If we do nothing, in 2025, the United States will be importing 68
percent; nearly 70 percent of our oil supply will come from abroad. Who
in their right mind thinks that 70-percent dependence on foreign oil is
wise economically, to our national security, or internationally as we
have to deal with international competition? Why would

[[Page S6694]]

we want to be almost 70-percent reliant on foreign entities for
something that is the backbone of our economy--energy?
I am offering a simple amendment. My amendment simply says by 2025,
instead of being reliant on foreign sources for 68 percent of our
supply, we bring that down to 56 percent. That is not much of a change.
We are at 58 percent today, and we want to go down to 56 percent. That
is a modest goal.
It is hard to achieve because our amendment assumes the growth and
demand that will happen as our Nation grows. That is why we have to
assume in 2025 we will be at 68 percent, and we want to see a serious
reduction. That is the way my amendment is crafted.
The underlying bill says we are currently at 58 percent and let's
reduce our consumption of foreign oil by 1 million barrels a day. One
million barrels a day by 2015 still has us importing 60 percent of our
supply from foreign sources. In 2015, instead of consuming 58 percent
of our oil supply from foreign sources, we would be at 60 percent. The
underlying goal in the bill does nothing to get us off our overreliance
on foreign oil. It is the status quo and a bump in an increase. It is
too timid in responding to what has been a gouging of the American
consumer on gas prices.
This debate we have just had for the last couple of hours is
interesting because a lot of my colleagues have said they refuse to
support a mandate. They do not want to have a mandate in this bill. I
am not proposing a mandate. It is interesting: Some Members do not
support mandates. They do not even support goals. The American people
deserve, on something as important as our national security and
economic livelihood, to have this Senate, in transportation and energy
policy, set a goal to get off our overdependence on foreign oil. Are my
colleagues just giving lip service to this idea of a goal of getting
off overdependence on foreign oil? Or are we willing to set a goal and
do something about it?
I have pointed out that the goals we have are doable. My amendment
does not say specifically how or what the mandate is. We have simply
said, that from various studies, we know we can get the savings my
amendment calls for in a goal. Here are a variety of sources: Fuel
efficiency for tires and motor oil. The encouragement of a biofuels
industry. A big chunk of this comes from alternative fuels. That is why
OPEC, in today's paper, says they are very concerned about this because
they know it is competition. They realize it is competition. Why don't
we realize it is competition and ensure we get about making an
alternative product?
Other countries certainly have this idea. One is Brazil and based on
their overdependence on foreign oil they came to the same conclusions.
They did not want to be in the same boat we are in today. In 1975, they
were importing 80 percent of their fuel supply from foreign sources.
They made a decision that was too much for them, both economically--I
don't know if there are security issues--but economically they thought
that was not wise so they started a process of taking steps. In 1990,
they almost cut that in half. By 2003, they were down to importing only
11 percent of their fuel supply. Next year, they might achieve the
great milestone of not only becoming self-sufficient but actually
becoming an exporter of fuel to other countries.
They have done this because they made an investment in ethanol. They
made decisions about their transportation sector so they could run on
biofuel products. They have changed the economic picture of their
country.
Is there something Brazil possesses that the United States cannot
achieve? Are they smarter than we are? Do they have greater political
will than we do? Do they have more consumers holding their politicians
accountable than we do? What Brazil showed is they have a resolve
because of their own national interests to get off the foreign
addiction to oil. I applaud them for that.
They are only one-eighth the size of our economy, but they are proven
to be smart enough to figure out how to make sugar-based ethanol in a
cost-productive way, so efficient they can send it to the United States
cheaper than we can produce it to the degree that some of my colleagues
want to put a tax on it so that it is on a more level playing field
with what sugar-based ethanol in the United States costs. To me, the
Brazilians have come up with something.
I ask my colleagues, if you do not want mandates and you do not want
goals and you do not want to get off our overdependence on foreign oil
by setting a milestone or coming up with a goal or statement, what is
it that you do want to do? The underlying bill increases our dependence
by 2015 on foreign oil to 60 percent. We are at 58 percent today. It
increases it to 60 percent. So we have accomplished nothing in the goal
in the underlying bill.
I would like to set, primarily for international reasons, a goal to
get off our dependence on foreign oil because these are our suppliers.
These are the countries where the majority of U.S. oil supply comes
from: Saudi Arabia sits on the largest percentage of oil reserves in
the world today. I wish geography and geology had been kinder to the
United States and that we sat on more than 3 percent of oil reserves.
But we don't. We do not have that product. We have a very small
percentage of the world reserve for oil. That is a fact of life. These
are the countries and this is the State ownership of companies that are
part of OPEC and have the oil supply of the future.

I didn't expect I would be in the Senate agreeing with George Shultz
and James Woolsey and a bunch of neoconservatives who were espousing
ideas about our national security, but I actually do agree with them
that reducing our dependence on foreign oil should be a national
priority and a national goal. That is why we have crafted this
amendment this way.
We simply want to say to our colleagues and to the President of the
United States that we believe increasing our consumption of foreign
products as a way to support our economy is not a wise decision, given
what growth and demand and oil prices are going to be. Yesterday, the
market closed at $56.20 for oil. Economists at various Wall Street
firms are saying we could easily see an oil spike of $100 a barrel.
They say that oil futures have a fear premium on them; that is, there
has been lots of discussion about how the price of oil futures is
basically impacting the price of oil on a day-to-day basis. That is
right, the speculative market about energy futures in oil basically
causes the price at the pump today to increase. I find that unfortunate
because the speculative price of oil futures takes into consideration
those nine countries I mentioned, the fact that you could have a
terrorist attack, the fact that you could have unrest in a region and
that somehow supply would be diminished, thus affecting the price of
oil futures.
Economists and people on Wall Street--Goldman Sachs and others--
basically say there is a fear premium on the price of oil futures; that
is, we are paying more for oil because we are paying for the
uncertainty and the instability in the political and geographic region
where oil exists. That is what I am supposed to tell Washington State
residents as to why they pay some of the highest gas prices in the
country? That is why they should pay almost $2.30 a gallon for
gasoline? That is why I should tell people they have lost their
pensions in the airline industry because the airline industry has not
passed on the high fuel costs? That is what I am supposed to tell the
farmers who cannot keep their farms running because of high fuel costs,
or somebody who has lost their job in a transportation-sensitive
industry. I am supposed to tell them that I am going to continue to put
an energy goal in legislation that makes us more dependent on foreign
oil than we are today?

No. We want to reverse the trend. That is what the Cantwell amendment
does. It is not a mandate. It is a goal. It says that instead of being
more dependent on foreign oil in 2015, as the underlying bill directs
us, let's become less dependent. Let's go from 58 percent, where we are
today, down to 56.5 percent. It is a goal we can achieve. It is a goal
I am willing to set as a legislator for our country because I believe
in the ingenuity of Americans to achieve this goal.
There is nothing the country of Brazil can do that the United States
cannot do. I guarantee you that if we set our resolve to do it as a
nation, we will achieve this goal as well. The reason why we, as a
government entity,

[[Page S6695]]

need to set this goal is because the private sector is going to
diversify at its own darn pace; that is, the oil companies will decide
what their investment in new technology and alternative fuels is at
their own pace, their own wishes, their own response to their corporate
shareholders, not at the interest of individual consumers who are
getting strangled by the high cost of gasoline.
It is our job to set this goal and that is why we are on the Senate
floor today. We are here to say we agree with the American farmers that
they can produce a biofuel product in the future that can be
competitive, that we agree with neoconservatives that the security risk
of being 70 percent dependent on foreign oil is too great a security
risk for our Nation, that we agree with technology and research experts
that American ingenuity can get us to this 56.5-percent goal.
I ask my colleagues, what is wrong with setting this goal? Let's not
continue to give lip service to a goal of getting off our foreign
dependence and then do nothing about it in a legislative proposal.
Let's show the American people we are concerned about the economic
hardship they are facing and that we believe in American ingenuity. We
believe in our farmers. We believe in our technology leaders. We
believe that we, as a country, can achieve this great goal. If the last
generation of Americans were smart enough to put a man on the Moon in a
decade, this generation of Americans ought to be smart enough to reach
this goal. I ask my colleagues to have the courage to set it in a piece
of legislation as a mark for us to achieve.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand--because of certain committee
meetings and time considerations--that we have been asked to extend the
time in which there will be a vote. So I ask unanimous consent that the
time of 2:15 be extended until 2:30 on a vote on the two amendments
that are on the floor and that time be equally divided between both
sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am not objecting, but I am just asking
for the yeas and nays on my amendment. I think moving to 2:30 is fine,
given the markup.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am sure many people have been following
closely the debate on the Energy bill, an 800-page bill that is trying
to set the energy policy for America. It is an important piece of
legislation we have debated for several years. It has so many different
sections involved in all the aspects of energy. It has as its goal
making certain that America has enough energy to fuel its economy,
making certain that we use that energy in a responsible fashion so it
does not create pollution that would cause environmental harm. These
are some of the basic elements of what we are trying to achieve here.
But the pending amendment we have before us comes to a basic
conclusion that I think most Americans agree with. America cannot be a
safer and more secure nation in the future if we are more dependent on
foreign oil. The more we have to depend on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and
other countries to send their oil to us, the less secure we are. The
more independent we are in terms of our own energy needs and
production, the stronger we are as a nation.
In 1973, we imported 28 percent of the oil we consumed. Today, 32
years later, we are importing 58 percent, more than double. We are that
much more dependent on foreign countries to provide us with oil, which
means two obvious things. If the OPEC cartel should decide they want to
restrict the oil they will produce, prices will go up in the United
States. Reduce the supply, and if demand stays the same, the price goes
up. It is a basic law of economics. And they have done it. You have
seen it at the gas pump.
When the OPEC cartel sits down and tries to figure out ``How can we
make the maximum profit?'' they do not shed tears for American families
and consumers and businesses. They try to figure out how they can make
the maximum profit on the oil they have in the ground. They have the
vast majority of the oil resources in the world today.
The second thing we know is that if you want to strike a crushing
blow at the American economy, you may consider attacking the United
States, but it may be a lot simpler to attack our oil supplies coming
into the United States. If, God forbid, they could interrupt those oil
supplies coming into the United States, it would really create a
dangerous situation.
So the more dependent we are on that foreign oil, the less secure we
are when it comes to the price of energy and the availability of
energy. You would think that one of the things we would try to do as
part of a national energy policy is to think ahead 10 years, 20 years,
``How can we reduce our dependence on foreign oil?'' since most people
agree that would be a good thing.
Well, there is one provision in the bill which suggests that over the
next 10 years we would reduce our demand for foreign oil by 1 million
barrels a day.
That is about 6 or 7 percent of the total amount that is being
consumed each day in the United States, but it is a step forward over
the next 10 years. It is something the Senate agreed on 99 to 1. So
over 10 years we will think of strategies which will reduce our
dependence on foreign oil at least a million barrels a day. That is in
the bill. It is a good provision.
Two days ago, President Bush sent a letter to us and said: You keep
that provision in the bill, and I will veto the bill. Stop and think:
Why? Why wouldn't the President want us to move as a national goal to
reducing our dependence on foreign oil? It makes no sense. It is a tax
on our economy. It is a question of national security. But, in fact,
that is what the White House said. If you put a provision in here to
reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 1 million barrels a day over
the next 10 years, I will veto the bill.
I don't understand. In fact, I think the President has it exactly
wrong. We should be even more ambitious and more innovative in our view
toward this challenge.
Senator Cantwell has an amendment now pending that will be voted on
soon. Her amendment says: Keep to that goal over the next 10 years, but
over 20 years, let us reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 40
percent of what we anticipate. So what does it mean? Fifty-eight
percent of the oil we use is imported. If we do nothing, in 20 years,
it will be 68 percent. More than two-thirds of the oil we use will come
from overseas. If we adopt the Cantwell amendment, it will go down to
56 percent of the oil we use in 20 years being imported. It is still a
lot. But keep in mind, the economy is going to grow. Energy needs are
going to grow. We are going to find ways to work together to reduce
dependence on foreign oil.
I would think most families and people who think about our
environment and think about our economy would applaud the idea of
setting this as a national goal, a challenge to the President, to
Congress, and to the American people: Find ways to reduce our
dependence on foreign oil. It will make us stronger as a nation. It
will make our economy stronger. Instead of sending billions of dollars
overseas to the Saudi oil princes, the money comes into the United
States for investment in our own economy, building businesses, helping
people prosper and create jobs.
Sadly, there is resistance to this amendment, the idea of setting
this goal. There are those who say: Don't set any goals. Leave it
alone. Don't touch it.
How could you possibly draw that conclusion from the current
situation?

[[Page S6696]]

Left untouched, we will continue to be dependent on foreign oil and our
economy will suffer.
How do you reach a goal of reducing dependence on foreign oil by 40
percent over the next 20 years? There is a variety of ways. There are
ways within this bill to do it--some large, some small. Some have to do
with the most basic thing, the tires on our automobiles. Replacement
tires give more fuel efficiency and reduce the oil consumption and the
gasoline consumption. Idling trucks--have you ever gone by a truckstop?
They are all over my State of Illinois. There are lines and lines of
these tractors with trailers behind them with the engines running
constantly, around the clock, idling engines burning up oil just to
keep that engine alive and ready to perform when the driver comes out
and is ready to go. There is a provision in this bill that talks about
smarter ways to do that. Is there a way to use an electric engine to
keep that tractor in a position where it can go into service and not be
burning all this fuel while the driver is in eating dinner, for
example?
These are simple things which, when added up over the course of our
economy, lead to dramatic improvements. There are many ways to address
this. They come down to three basic things we can do. First is
conservation. I just gave you two examples of conservation, the ways to
reduce the use of energy and still get as much performance as we want
from the vehicles we use and the vehicles we drive. The second is
alternative fuels. What can we use instead of the oil that now is being
imported, 58 percent of it from overseas? This bill talks about it. It
talks about ethanol. What is ethanol? An alcohol fuel is made from
things such as corn and cellulose that can, in fact, create more
independence in our economy.
Senator Cantwell tells the story that the nation of Brazil, 10 or 20
years ago, imported 80 percent of its oil and said as a nation: We
can't continue to prosper if we are so dependent on imported oil. They
set out on a national goal of reducing dependence on foreign oil. They
are now down to 11 percent. They have done it. They are choosing
alcohol fuels. That is included in this bill, the concept of alcohol
fuels. It can be done. So alternative fuels--ethanol, biodiesel--are
practical alternatives to importing more oil.
The third, of course, is to find environmentally responsible ways for
more exploration. There is a limit to where that will take us. The
United States owns about 3 percent of the known oil resources in the
world. We consume 25 percent of the oil that is consumed each day. So
even if we were able in an environmentally responsible way to take
every drop of oil out of the ground, you could see it is not going to
sustain our economy. We are going to be dependent on foreign sources.

Despite this challenge and despite the obvious ways to meet it in
this bill, there are some who have come to the floor--on the other side
of the aisle, particularly--and have argued against setting this goal
of lessening our overdependence on foreign oil. One of the arguments
they make is: If you do this, you are going to have to have more fuel-
efficient cars and trucks, as if that is something that should be
avoided in America. Why would we avoid that?
Take a look at Ford Motor Company. They had a huge advertising drive
to tell us about their new Ford Escape hybrid. They had so many
requests to buy that car, they couldn't make it fast enough. I think
Ford produced about 20,000. There were some 50,000 people who wanted to
buy it. They liked the idea, a small SUV that has an electric engine as
part of it that is going to get better gas mileage. Ford was moving in
the right direction. I know about this because my wife and I decided to
buy one. We like it. I wish it got better mileage than it does, but we
didn't make any great sacrifice in our way of life. We maybe spent a
couple extra thousand dollars to buy it. Yet we have a more
environmentally responsible, energy-responsible vehicle.
The other side of the aisle argues we shouldn't even suggest to
American consumers to change their buying habits. I will bet if Detroit
or any other company started producing more and more energy-efficient
vehicles, more and more Americans would be interested, not only because
it reduces the cost at the gas station, but because it is good for the
environment. Why wouldn't you want to do that? Why would you want to
knowingly drive something that is more polluting and uses more energy
or more gasoline?
The American consumers would, in fact, gravitate toward those
automobiles as they did toward the Ford Escape hybrid. They like the
idea. It is a good concept. The other side says: You don't want to tell
people they can't buy whatever they want to buy. If they want to buy
the heaviest, least fuel-efficient SUVs, you can't stand in their way.
I suppose that is true, but we will pay a price for it. By buying and
driving inefficient vehicles over and over, it not only costs more at
the pump and makes our country more dependent, it draws us into the
Middle Eastern problems. Witness 150,000 American soldiers now risking
their lives today in that part of the world.
Moving toward more efficient vehicles is a good thing economically.
It is certainly a good thing from a security viewpoint. It is a good
thing in terms of our future as a nation.
I believe we are up to the challenge. Most of the critics of the
Cantwell amendment say it just can't be done. Don't challenge America.
America can't rise to the challenge. We can't possibly in 20 years
figure out a way to do this. Those naysayers have no place in the
American tradition. We have risen to the challenge time and again. When
President Franklin Roosevelt needed an atomic bomb to end World War II,
he created the Manhattan project and got the job done. When John
Kennedy came to the Presidency in 1960, he said: We will put a man on
the Moon. And in 9 years, it happened. He challenged America, and we
rose to the challenge. We can rise to the challenge, and we must.
Otherwise, we will continue to be dependent on foreign sources of oil.
When I consider some of the challenges we face, I look at the loss of
jobs. It troubles me. In the State of Illinois, 400,000 or 500,000
manufacturing jobs in the last several years have been lost. I don't
know if these jobs are ever coming back. I have been to Galesburg and
places around our State where good-paying jobs have disappeared. A lot
of them have gone to China. China has one of the fastest growing
economies in the world.
We just had a little presentation in the other room. The CEO of
General Electric Energy was there. He said China is in a position to
dominate the world energy scene over the next 10 years, that in 10
years China will have 30 percent of the electric generating capacity in
the world. China's economy is no longer a closed, backward, Communist
economy. It is an exploding, expanding economy that is taking jobs away
from the United States.
There are two things we ought to think about: The Chinese have fuel
efficiency standards for their vehicles higher than the United States.
They know they don't have the energy in their own country. They are
trying to find the most fuel-efficient vehicles to move their economy
forward and they are thinking about the future. Are we? Is the United
States thinking about the future and the cost of fuel inefficiency, or
the cost of dependence upon foreign oil?
The second point is this. If we are in a position of competing with
China for foreign oil, since they have to import it, too, what happens
when there is more competition for a limited supply? The price goes up.
So $50 a barrel oil today may be $100 a barrel 5 or 10 years from now.
Look at what $50 a barrel oil has meant to you and your family and our
economy. Filled up lately? Taken a look at what it costs? It has gone
up dramatically in a short period of time to fill your car or truck.
Talk about the airlines and their future lately? The cost of aviation
fuel has gone up so dramatically that a lot of airlines are in
bankruptcy, or facing it. That is at $50 a barrel. What happens when we
reach $100 a barrel? What will it mean to the future of these same
companies?
If we don't take a serious look at our energy future, sadly, we are
going to leave ourselves vulnerable to competition from China, with
higher costs for the basics to keep moving. Senator Cantwell's
amendment is a challenge, but one we should accept. As this President
ends his term in office, another President of his party or another
party will come in and see the same national goal: Reduce our
dependence on foreign oil. It will call for work and

[[Page S6697]]

dedication. We have risen to that challenge time and time again. There
is no reason we cannot rise to it today.
I impress upon my colleagues the absolute necessity to reduce
America's dependence on foreign oil. This is not an issue of whether we
can, this is something we must do. It is imperative we impress upon
America that setting a national goal of reducing our dependence upon
foreign oil is a national priority and in the best interests of the
American people. I believe when we send a signal we are serious about
changing the future and the track we are on, people will join us in
that effort. The best and brightest minds in our country will rise to
the challenge.
When we go back to our States and constituents and they ask what we
have done in Washington to address the growing threat to our oil supply
posed by the emerging markets in China and India, and the high gasoline
prices, we can take pride in the fact that the Cantwell amendment says
we are charting a new course for our Nation's future. Opponents have
argued we cannot do it, we don't have the smarts or the technology;
they wring their hands and curse the darkness and say, ``This is the
way it is always going to be. We will be just more dependent upon
foreign oil, so be prepared for it.''
I disagree. There is technology available today, let alone
advancements that may come over the next 20 years, that can move us
forward on this goal. We, as leaders in this country, must signal that
we won't let the future of America fall into the hands of foreign
governments that own the oil supply of this world. Many of these
governments are politically unstable and they don't promote the same
values we do in the United States. The uncertainty of that alliance for
our future oil should be enough to give us pause.
Security experts, economists, foreign policy experts, and scientists
recognize that the terrorist organizations want to target the United
States, that they can target the supply of our energy and threaten our
economy. This is an amendment about national security, economic
security, and the belief that America, with the right leadership and
vision, will rise to the challenge, as we have so often done in the
past.
We can use American ingenuity, innovation, and genius to reduce the
growing stranglehold the foreign governments that are supplying oil to
the United States have on America's future. I encourage colleagues on
both sides to embrace this challenge. Don't run from it, don't be
afraid of it. It is about the future of our country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from North
Carolina is recognized.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I am glad I stayed on the floor because I
was a little dismayed when I heard Senator Cantwell describe her
amendment. Senator Durbin helped to clear it up for me in the fact that
if we cut trucks off at the truckstop and if all the American people
take the tires that are on their car now and we change those to new
tires, we can eliminate a million barrels of oil. It is incredibly
easy. It is unrealistic, but if you hear it portrayed, it is portrayed
as something that is easy to accomplish.
I rise in opposition to the Senator's amendment because I believe one
of the responsibilities we have as Members of the Senate is to, in
fact, pass legislation that is reasonable for the American people,
legislation that is technologically possible to achieve--even if we
stretch technology and we push technology, and even if we were to
create a ``Manhattan Energy project.'' The reality is that some of the
same individuals who stand in this chamber and claim this is easily
achievable are the same ones who for the last decade have blocked
domestic exploration, which is crucial to less reliance on foreign oil.

I believe every American agrees with me that we want to become less
reliant on imported oil, but it is not just for national security, it
is for job security. When we talk about policies on this floor that
affect the cost of manufacturers in a global marketplace, we are
talking about the jobs our constituents have, about the manufacturers
who used to compete domestically within North Carolina or within the
Southeast, or within this country, and now compete with people they
will never meet. Of this year's group of graduates from college, 20
percent of them will compete for a job with somebody they will never
meet and who will never live in this country because technology allows
us to do it. It will be incredible when technology gets to that point,
that it won't take government pushing it and saying implement it; it
will implement itself because it brings efficiencies and savings to the
marketplace naturally.
I think, as the occupant of the chair does, as we have gone through
the creation of this energy bill, we have pushed technology and we have
brought those minds into the committee in a bipartisan way and said:
``Tell us where this can go over the next decade.'' We have truly tried
in this legislation to create a blueprint for the American people and
for the American economy, one that makes predictable what energy costs
will be and how it will affect our competitiveness in this country and
internationally. At the end of the day, if we do anything that forces
American business to be at a competitive disadvantage, we have done a
disservice to the American worker, who is the recipient of that
business.
We need to vote against the Cantwell amendment. We need to tell the
American people we have an energy policy. And if we believe that policy
will lead us down the road to new technologies this year, next year, 10
years from now, it may be that 20 years from now we are all driving
hybrid cars. I happen to believe that technology will make the hybrid
car, 20 years from now, probably obsolete; there will be a new
technology out there. But I am confident of one thing: You cannot push
the mileage standards of automobiles further than where technology will
allow; that for every place you surge and you try to reach a little too
far, you cause, in fact, an unintended consequence on the other side.
We will also have an opportunity to vote on Senator Bingaman's
amendment on a renewable portfolio standard, one I know the Senator
from New Mexico is passionate about.
I want to correct something that Senator Cantwell said. She said--and
she is from Washington--that hydroelectric power makes up a majority of
their electricity generation today, and she is right. The unfortunate
thing is, hydroelectric power is not considered a renewable source of
electricity unless it is new hydro.
It is incredible, the history we have in this country of
hydroelectric generation, but we do not consider that to be a
``renewable source of electricity.'' The only way hydro would qualify
under a renewable portfolio standard is if it is new hydroelectric
generation.
For those of us in the Southeast of the United States who for years
have used electricity generated by hydro plants to compliment our coal-
fired generation facilities or our nuclear facilities or our gas-fired
facilities, we have understood for some time what made up a portfolio,
and we assumed part of it was made up of what we considered to be
renewable-hydroelectric power.
At 50 years old and now in my 11th year in Congress, I am reminded
that hydroelectric power is not renewable, that water is not a
renewable substance.
It is crazy it is not included. If we did include hydroelectric
generation, North Carolina would in all likelihood hit the 10 percent
mandate required in this amendment. I believe the Presiding Officer
would hit the 10 percent possibly in Tennessee today. But the reality
is we are being asked to accept a renewable portfolio standard that
does not even include the generation of electricity with hydro. It does
not require that rural electric cooperatives that generate electricity
participate in the renewable portfolio standard. Electric co-ops
account for a sizeable amount of the electricity generated in this
country on an annual basis, but they are not included. We just want to
place it on the backs of the ratepayers of investor-owned utilities.
I happen to come from a State that is rich with investor-owned
utilities, but it is rich in electric co-ops and municipal power,
probably richer than any State in the country. I defend them, but I do
not believe if we put a burden like this on the ratepayers of the
investor-owned utilities that we should leave anybody out and say they
should be unaffected.

[[Page S6698]]

The fact is, what they have tried to do is put the cost of the
renewable portfolio standard on the backs of one slice of electric
generation, and that is the ratepayers of investor-owned utilities.
They know if it extended to electric co-ops, there would be no way for
this amendment to pass. There would be opposition on both sides of the
aisle, on every level of our desks to this amendment.
The fact is, today we are here because we need to defeat the Bingaman
amendment for a renewable portfolio standard, but we also need to
defeat the Cantwell amendment. She said it is not a mandate but a goal,
a goal that we cannot achieve today based upon available technology and
one we ought not put into this bill, in fact, because it is
unachievable.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment
offered by the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell. I am proud to be
submitting this amendment.
Forty-four years ago, John F. Kennedy challenged America to put a man
on the moon by the end of the 1960s. A bipartisan coalition in Congress
joined with Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon to make this goal a
reality.
Today, we are considering a similarly bold challenge to the Nation--
to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil by 40 percent by the year
2025. This challenge is no less important, no less laudable, and no
less worthy of bipartisan support, Presidential leadership, and
national commitment.
The bill before us purports to offer a comprehensive energy solution
for the future. But, as currently drafted, the bill does nothing more
than lead us down the same dangerous and unsustainable path that we
have been traveling for the last several decades. Unless we draw the
line now, outlining a bold change in course, with time enough to
prepare, we will see the United States in 2025 even more tethered to
foreign oil, and even more subject to economic shocks, than the United
States of 2005. Unless we reverse course, we will continue putting our
economic well-being and national security at the mercy of unstable
foreign governments.
Some will argue that the goals in this amendment are unrealistic and
unattainable. I do not agree with these naysayers. When President
Kennedy announced his challenge in 1961, he said the following: ``This
decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and
technical manpower, materiel and facilities, and the possibility of
their diversion from other important activities where they are already
thinly spread. It means a degree of dedication, organization and
discipline which have not always characterized our research and
development efforts.''
Likewise, meeting the requirements of the Senator's amendment will
require a similar commitment. But I believe the task before us is much
simpler than the one that faced President Kennedy, because we already
know how to decrease our reliance on foreign oil. A smart energy policy
that focuses on a greater commitment to technology; including hybrid
and hydrogen fuel cell technology, renewable fuels, and greater
efficiency can take us a long way, if not the entire way, to the goal
proposed by the Senator from Washington.
As difficult as it may be, we must try to meet the goal set forth in
this amendment. We would be far worse off as a country if we just threw
up our hands and admitted defeat.
The people I meet on my travels around Illinois are ready for the
challenge. They are tired of giving their hard-earned dollars to
foreign governments in the form of record-high gasoline prices. They
are tired of seeing their foreign policy being influenced by America's
insatiable need for Middle East oil. They are looking to their leaders
in Washington for innovative leadership. If we lay down the challenge
in this amendment, I have every reason to believe that the American
people will rise up to meet it--much like they met a similar challenge
40 years ago.
In 1962, President Kennedy traveled to Rice University to speak about
the challenge that he had laid down the year before. He stated:
``Surely the opening vistas of space promise high costs and hardships
as well as high reward. So it is not surprising that some would have us
stay where we are a little longer, to rest, to wait. But this city of
Houston, this State of Texas, this country of the U.S. was not built by
those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.''
When it comes to our energy policy, we are long past the point of
waiting and resting and looking behind us. I urge my colleagues to
support the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to briefly explain why I
support Senator Cantwell's oil savings amendment to H.R. 6, the Energy
bill.
First, Senator Cantwell's amendment sets a goal for the United States
of reducing our dependence on foreign sources of oil by 4 percent by
2025. I do not understand how anyone could argue that it is not in this
Nation's best interests to increase our domestic energy security and
reduce our dependence on unreliable and undemocratic regimes abroad. We
all like to talk about energy independence, but our efforts in that
direction are lacking, as evidenced by the rapid growth in our
dependence on oil imports that is projected to continue well into the
future. I think Senator Cantwell's amendment sets a worthy target that
we can all work together to achieve.
Second, we--the world' s greatest economy--can certainly achieve this
goal in a way that not only reduces our reliance on foreign oil but
spurs new innovation and economic growth, without penalizing any sector
of our economy. This amendment is not a back-door effort to
dramatically increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, which I
would not support. As modified it allows the President the flexibility
to achieve the oil savings goal with existing authorities, or with new
authorities that he or she requests from the Congress. Thus, the goal
could be reached through a variety of means, including increased
investments and incentives for hybrid vehicles and other transportation
technologies or increased use of biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel.
Additionally, if the President is having difficulty reaching the
goal, he or she need only reduce our depenence on foreign oil to the
maximum extent practicable, and must ensure reliable and affordable
energy for the country, and maintain a healthy economy with strong job
growth.
This is a fair and sensible amendment, and I support it.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the goals for reducing this
Nation's dependence on foreign oil that are embodied in the Cantwell
amendment. We need to strive for energy independence, and I believe it
is important to take bold steps toward reducing our oil consumption.
Our policies have long ignored the problem of U.S. dependence on
foreign oil, and we remain as vulnerable to oil supply disruptions
today as we have been for decades. Taking the steps necessary to reduce
our dependence on foreign oil is a critical objective for this country.
I have long supported a broad array of Federal efforts to meet this
objective. I believe that we need a long-term, comprehensive energy
plan, and I have supported initiatives that will increase our domestic
energy supplies in a responsible manner and provide consumers with
affordable and reliable energy. There are many provisions included in
this bill that will help take important steps in this direction--
particularly those provisions of this bill that address energy
efficiency and renewable energy and will lead us toward greater uses of
alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.
I have also long advocated Federal efforts that will lead to
revolutionary breakthroughs in automotive technology. As many of my
colleagues have said, we need a level of leadership similar to the
effort of a previous generation to put a man on the moon. I believe we
need our own moon shot in the area of automotive technology to develop
alternatives to petroleum and to make more efficient use of all forms
of energy.
We need a significantly larger effort than anything on the drawing
boards. We need to put greater Federal resources into work on
breakthrough technologies--such as hybrid technologies, advanced
batteries, advanced clean diesel, and fuel cells--that will provide
potentially dramatic increases in vehicle fuel economy and help us

[[Page S6699]]

move toward making this Nation less dependent on foreign oil and
reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases.
Federal Government investment is also essential not only in research
and development but as a mechanism to push the market toward greater
use and acceptance of advanced technologies. For example, expanding the
requirements for the Federal Government to purchase advanced technology
vehicles will help provide a market for advanced technologies. We also
must have far greater tax incentives for advanced technologies than
have been proposed to date.
I believe the goals for reducing our dependence on foreign oil in the
Cantwell amendment can be met by taking bold actions in the areas I
have mentioned and without relying on increases in Corporate Average
Fuel Economy standards. Higher CAFE standards will not produce real
results--they will only exacerbate the inherent discriminatory features
in the CAFE system that give an unfair competitive advantage to foreign
auto manufacturers and have contributed to the loss of manufacturing
jobs in this country. Senator Cantwell and the sponsors of this
amendment have assured the Senate and her amendment was modified so
that there are no policy assumptions in this amendment that will
increase CAFE standards. The goals of this amendment are laudable, and
since they are simply goals--which after the modification can be
achieved with new authorities, tax incentives for instance, and do not
rely on use of existing authorities--I can now support the amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I strongly support the objective of
Senator Cantwell's amendment. It is difficult to disagree with
legislation that proposes to achieve the important goal of reducing our
dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, the amendment is an exercise
in setting expectations without establishing how they will be met. As
such, I cannot support it.
The job of Congress is not only to determine policy objectives, but
also to establish the means to achieving such goals in a manner that
best services the public interest. While this amendment sets aggressive
goals for cutting America's dependence on foreign oil, it places the
total burden on the President and the administration to develop and
implement the measures to reduce our dependence without one iota of
guidance as to how this reduction should occur. Frankly, that is both a
risky and an irresponsible proposition.
What if this or any future President were to decide to meet this
amendment's targets by drilling in ANWR, or by raising gasoline taxes?
This amendment does not speak to those policy options, and--as shown by
the examples I have set forth--the end of reducing our dependence on
foreign oil does not necessarily justify the means. Instead of relying
on wishful thinking and trust that the executive branch will do the
right thing, we should consider and approve commonsense policies that
will make our Nation more energy efficient, less dependent on foreign
oil, and more competitive in the global energy market, and that will
effectively address global warming.
The national energy policy that we establish in this Congress will
deeply impact our security, economy, and our environment. Even though
we agree on goals, we cannot in good faith transfer all responsibility
for determining how to achieve them to the executive branch. That is a
dereliction of our duty as Senators--a duty that I take seriously and
will not relinquish merely to show that I support the laudable goal of
reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I support the Cantwell energy security
amendment, which would set a national goal of reducing projected
imports of foreign oil by 40 percent by 2025 in the United States.
I strongly believe we must be more proactive in reducing our
dependence on foreign oil, and Senator Cantwell's amendment is a great
start to accomplishing that goal. The current path we are on is
detrimental to numerous facets of our economy, environment and national
security. This is due to the ongoing instability in the Middle East,
which is where the vast majority of our oil comes from, and coupled
with the environmental problems associated with the use of fossil
fuels. At present, petroleum imports account for fully one-half of our
national oil use and one-third of our trade deficit. In addition, the
use of oil and other fossil fuels contributes to global climate change,
air pollution, and acid rain.
In order to achieve this ambitious plan we will have to implement
many comprehensive energy saving policies. Many people believe this
amendment down the road could raise fuel efficiency standards on
automobiles. There are many energy policies we need to pursue to
achieve this ambitious goal. In the past I have not supported raising
CAFE standards and I do not believe this amendment would require such a
change. In order to make this plan successful we need to support the
development of alternative energy, such as ethanol, hybrid vehicle
technology and others.
I have long believed that our Nation must implement a sensible
national energy policy which emphasizes greater energy conservation and
efficiency, as well as the development of renewable resources. Simply
put, we cannot continue to rely on imported oil to meet such a large
part of our Nation's energy needs and that is why I support Senator
Cantwell's amendment to the energy bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Dodd are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All remaining time is controlled by the
majority.
Mr. DODD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the only time
remaining is that of the majority. Is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will use leader time or, if no one is
going to use their time, I will just use whatever is available.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
Mr. REID. If someone from the majority wants to speak, I will be
happy to put the vote over for a few minutes for whatever few minutes I
use.
I, first, want to thank Senator Bingaman for his leadership on the
renewable energy issue. He has always been there. It is also important
to mention Senator Jeffords. Senator Jeffords has been so stalwart. I
remember an Energy and Water bill that Senator Domenici and I did in
years past. We did not put enough renewable in there and Senator
Jeffords brought amendments to the floor and fought us on this on the
Senate floor. He has been a stalwart.
In this particular instance, the leader has been Senator Bingaman,
and I appreciate very much the work he has done.
There is no question in my mind that we must harness the brilliance
of the Sun, the strength of the wind, and the heat of the Earth to
provide renewable energy for our Nation. There are many reasons our
Nation needs to develop more renewable energy. It can power our homes
and businesses without polluting the air we breath or the water we
drink. Renewable energy will protect consumers from wild price swings
by providing steady, reliable sources of energy. There is a reason we
call the famous geothermal geyser Old Faithful, and that is because
renewable energy is as old as the wind, as durable as the Sun, and as
constant as the Earth.
Renewable energy will bolster our national security because it is
made in the USA. The supply cannot be manipulated by any foreign power.
Scientists have said, for example, the Nevada Test Site where we have
detonated about 1,000 nuclear weapons, one could have solar power that
would supply the whole Nation with electricity.
We do not have that, of course. We have no solar energy at the Nevada

[[Page S6700]]

Test Site, but it is an example of what can be done.
Finally, renewable energy creates jobs, often in rural areas that
need them the most. Nevada is a perfect example. Most of our geothermal
energy is in rural Nevada. The steam has been coming from the ground in
those places since man started coming there. When the pioneers came
across Nevada, one of the places they would come after leaving the area
that is now Utah is this dry, parched desert. The first thing they
would see is water in a place near Gerlach, NV. The first few pioneers,
immigrants, and their animals went into that water. They did not do
that very often. They could not do it because it would kill them. It
was boiling water. As thirsty as they were, they would have to siphon
the water down and cool it.
It is still there, the same hot water, the same steam coming from
areas around Gerlach. There is tremendous potential for renewable
energy. In 2002 and 2003, the Senate passed the renewable energy
electricity standard requiring that 10 percent of the electricity sold
by utilities be generated from renewable energy sources. We should do
no less this year. It would be even better if we could match our
friends in Europe and achieve 20 percent.
Other nations have been developing renewable energy resources at a
much faster rate than the United States. In 1990, America produced 90
percent of the world's wind power. Today, it is less than 25 percent.
Germany now has the lead in wind energy; Japan in solar energy. We have
an opportunity to regain the position as a world leader in renewable
energy. In the United States today we get about 2 percent of our
electricity from renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar,
geothermal, and biomass. That is a paltry sum. The potential is there
for a much greater supply.
The renewable electricity standard and the production tax credit are
critical to growth of renewable energy in America. The State of Nevada
is blessed with enough geothermal energy to generate one-third of the
needs of Nevada today, but geothermal supply is only about 2 percent of
our power. I am happy that Nevada has adopted one of the most
aggressive renewable portfolio standards in the Nation. We set a goal
of generating 15 percent of our electricity with renewable energy by
the year 2013. Our legislature is to be commended. They did that 2
years ago.
Developing these resources will protect our environment, will help
consumers, and will create jobs in our State. If Nevada can meet its
renewable energy goal of 15 percent by 2013, then the Nation certainly
should be able to meet a goal of 10 percent by 2020.

Many States are blessed with abundant supplies of renewable energy
resources. Twenty-one States have already adopted renewable electricity
standards. If we consider environmental and health effects, the real
costs of energy become more apparent, and we see the renewable energy
is a winner. A national renewable electricity standard by 2020 will
also spur nearly $80 billion in new capital investment and $5 billion
in new property tax revenues to communities.
Let's never lose sight of the fact that renewable energy sources are
domestic sources of energy and using them instead of foreign sources
contributes to our energy security.
I urge my colleagues, both the majority and minority, to vote for the
Bingaman amendment.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield back all remaining time on this
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 140 Leg.]

YEAS--47

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Wyden

NAYS--53

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
The amendment (No. 784), as modified, was rejected.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 791

Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry: What is the regular order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). There are 2 minutes evenly
divided on the Bingaman amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, when I go home on the Fourth of July
and my constituents ask what I did about high natural gas prices, high
gasoline prices, about our competition with China and Japan and India
to keep our jobs, I am going to tell them I voted no on the Bingaman
amendment to order utilities to make 10 percent of their energy from a
limited number of renewable fuels, because it is an $18 billion
electric rate increase over 20 years. At a time of high natural gas
prices, high gasoline prices, the last thing we should do is an $18
billion electric rate increase over 20 years.
The distinguished Senator from New Mexico will tell us that it will
be offset by natural gas reductions, but that is only if there is a $5
natural gas rate in 2025. One thing we know is, it is a big electric
rate increase when we should be reducing prices.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment which says
utilities that produce electricity in this country by the year 2020
should ensure that up to 10 percent of their electricity comes from
renewable sources. It doesn't specify which renewable sources. It gives
them a variety of choices. According to the Energy Information Agency,
the $18 billion is more than offset by the savings these utilities will
get by not having to invest in additional traditional sources of
generation. This will result in a reduction in electricity rates and a
reduction in gas rates, according to our own Department of Energy. I
believe this is good legislation. I hope my colleagues will support it.
It will strengthen this bill and give us a much better energy bill to
take to conference.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Snowe of Maine be added as a
cosponsor to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 791.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 141 Leg.]

YEAS--52

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brownback
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Grassley
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed

[[Page S6701]]

Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Wyden

NAYS--48

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
The amendment (No. 791) was agreed to.
Mr. DORGAN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Are we, under
regular order, scheduled to move on to another amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no amendment pending at this time.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator
from Georgia would like to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from
New Mexico. For that purpose, I yield to the distinguished Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in hope that the chairman of the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Senator from New Mexico,
will engage in a colloquy with myself, as well as Senator Smith of
Oregon, regarding some concerns we have about the renewable portfolio
standard amendment.
While I support the development of renewable energy and other clean
energy resources, I believe that each region of the country has the
ability to develop these resources in a variety of ways. In fact, at
least 21 States already have a State RPS, and many other States have
programs to promote renewable energy, all of this being accomplished
without a Federal mandate.
The problem with the RPS amendment is that it imposes a one-size-
fits-all mandate on the whole country without regard for whether the
requirement is technologically or economically feasible. Not every
State or region has the same amount of renewable energy available to
comply with the rigid 10-percent RPS mandate the amendment would
impose. As a result, utilities in States that do not have enough
renewable energy will need to comply with the RPS mandate by purchasing
credits at a cost of 1\1/2\ cents per kilowatt hour. Mr. President,
1\1/2\ cents may not sound like a lot of money, but when it is
multiplied by the number of kilowatts needed to comply with a 10-
percent RPS by 2020, it can add up to billions of dollars--billions of
dollars in what should be called a tax on consumers. I call it a tax
because that is essentially what it is. It is dollars that will come
out of the pockets of consumers and go straight to the Federal
Government. That makes no sense at all.
If the Government wants more renewable energy, it does not make sense
to take billions of dollars away from consumers in a region simply
because they do not have access to adequate renewable resources at a
reasonable cost.
If there must be an RPS provision in this Energy bill--and I do not
believe it is necessary--it must, at a minimum, allow more flexibility
for each State and region.
I ask that the distinguished chairman commit to work with me in the
conference to modify the provision to allow greater flexibility and to
protect consumers from unnecessary cost increases. In particular, I ask
that we work together to address the regional issues inherent in any
such provision and ensure that States that do not have the
technological capabilities to comply with the RPS mandate are not
penalized. I note that even many supporters of a Federal RPS mandate
recognize the need for State-by-State flexibility.
The Senator from Oregon does have a comment relative to this issue,
and I yield to the Senator from Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for his
comments. He reflects well the views of his State and the region.
Those of us, such as myself, who voted for this RPS standard
understand the regional differences. In my view, an important purpose
of an RPS is to diversify the Nation's energy supply. I understand that
different States have different resources. For that reason, I believe
it is appropriate to provide for greater flexibility for the States.
I would like to work with the Senator from Georgia and the
distinguished chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to
make appropriate modifications to the provision.
I yield back to the Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his
comments. Again, I strongly oppose the RPS, but if there must be one in
the Energy bill, I ask the distinguished chairman if he will commit to
work with the Senator from Oregon and myself in conference to make
these modifications to the provision to ensure that the RPS promotes
renewable energy where it is most needed without harming consumers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I respond by saying to the
distinguished Senator from Georgia and the distinguished Senator from
Oregon that I would be delighted to work with them and, obviously, with
other members of the conference in an effort to do what I can to ensure
that each State is treated fairly and that none are penalized by an
overly rigid mandate.
I am fully aware of the disparity between States, and I say to the
Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Oregon that their States were
on the map showing they are the have-not States in terms of wind. They
have a lot of other items with which they can meet a standard.
Renewable is going to be the test here, and it is going to be
difficult.
The Senate has spoken--close vote. We will do what we can in
conference. The Senator understands there is no such provision in the
House bill. We will do our best to see what we can do to recognize the
Senator's position and yet recognize the closeness of the vote and the
very severe repercussions on some States.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his comments,
and I look forward to working with him.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today with a profound sense of
optimism and appreciation. We have not enacted a comprehensive energy
bill since 1992. Many programs need reauthorization and many need
revision. Programs and demonstrations must be updated to today's and
tomorrow's energy parameters.
I have long said that the Nation needs a comprehensive blueprint for
an energy policy that will take us in advanced directions, away from
dependence on declining reserves of fossil fuel and foreign sources of
oil. We need a policy which will reconcile growth and energy
conservation in our transportation, manufacturing, utility, and
consumer sectors across the Nation. We need to bring down the high
costs of electricity and gasoline for the country, particularly in my
State of Hawaii, and pursue greater energy independence from petroleum
products. S. 10, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, provides the best
opportunity that I have seen in years.
As a senior member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, I am familiar with cutting-edge technologies and approaches
to generating energy. I was closely involved in crafting several parts
of this energy bill--legislation that contains three bills that I have
introduced, and a hydrogen title that was crafted with the leadership
of Senators Dorgan, Graham, and myself as members of the Senate
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Caucus. I have contributed to comprehensive
energy bills in 2002 and in 2003.
I wish to thank both Senators from New Mexico for their leadership
and hard work in bridging many regional

[[Page S6702]]

differences in this comprehensive bill, while still keeping in mind the
overall vision for an energy bill. The Energy Committee, under the
leadership of Senators Domenici and Bingaman, held a series of
structured hearings that were informational briefings from a broad
spectrum of industry, environmental groups, non-profits, and small
businesses. Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman are to be commended
for keeping an open mind about the potential for new energy sources and
a balance of renewable and fossil fuels, science and research and
development. In sum, this is a balanced energy bill.
The energy policies that we address in this legislation cover a vast
range of authorities and a patchwork of unruly regional alliances. This
translates to an enormous challenge, and I appreciate Senator Domenici
and Senator Bingaman's hard work and the work of their staffs. I want
to compliment them on crafting an energy bill that will help the Nation
as well as States with special ``off-grid'' energy needs such as
Alaska, my state of Hawaii, and insular territories and commonwealths.
I support this bill and voted for it in our Committee. The bill is
well-balanced between renewable energy production, energy efficiency
provisions, oil and gas technologies, electricity provisions, and
alternate and visionary sources of energy such as hydrogen. The bill
invests in the Nation's Research and Development for energy
technologies, something that we must continue doing to remain leaders
in the world, as global demand for energy increases. The last title of
the bill, Title Fourteen, provides much-needed incentives for
innovative technologies, through loan guarantees for new energy
facilities and projects.
I greatly appreciate the inclusion of title VIII, the Hydrogen title.
I am an original cosponsor of S. 665, the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technology Act of 2005, and worked with Senators Dorgan, Graham, and
other members of the Hydrogen Caucus to craft this bill, which is
included in S. 10. The bill reauthorizes and amends the Spark M.
Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of
1990, which has been the basic authority for Federal hydrogen programs
for the last 20 years. Reauthorization of the Matsunaga Act is badly
needed and I have been working toward that goal for several years. The
bill provides for robust R&D for hydrogen fuel cells. It includes a
provision to enhance sources of renewable fuels and biofuels for
hydrogen production among its R&D priorities, which is very important
for isolated areas such as Pacific islands and rural areas across the
Nation.

In addition to the R&D section, the bill includes hydrogen fuel cell
demonstration programs for vehicles and for national parks, remote
island areas, and on Indian tribal land. The bill authorizes system
demonstrations, including distributed energy systems that incorporate
renewable hydrogen production and off-grid electricity production. In
other words, the bill includes a broad range of hydrogen energy
applications that will reach out to rural communities and lower income
families, hospitals, military facilities--not solely vehicle
applications and infrastructure. It recognizes the importance of
developing hydrogen from renewable sources and demonstration projects
for stationary and distributed energy systems in remote areas and
islands.
I am pleased that the bill contains my request for an energy study in
Hawaii. I thank Senators Domenici and Bingaman for including my bill,
S. 436, the Hawaii Energy Study bill. Hawaii is uniquely dependent on
crude oil for its energy sources. Before we invest in a different
energy mix and infrastructure, we need to make transparent all the
dynamics between fuels, generating electricity, and the consequences of
the directions we choose.
The bill directs the Secretary of Energy to assess the short- and
long-term prospects of oil supply disruptions and price volatility and
their impacts on Hawaii, and to assess the economic relationship
between oil-fired generation of electricity from residual fuel and
refined products consumed for transportation needs of Hawaii. In
Hawaii, the costs of gasoline, electricity, and jet fuel are
intertwined in an intricate relationship, because they all come from
the same feedstock, and changes in the use of one can potentially drive
consumer prices up or down.
Although we approved an ethanol title yesterday, I would like to add
a few words on the topic of the ethanol mandate. First, I would like to
extend my appreciation to Senators Talent and Johnson, and their staff,
who have shown great leadership in working with committee members to
understand the challenges that States face with a Federal ethanol
mandate. I am particularly sensitive to States' needs with respect to
renewable fuels and renewable energy. In Hawaii and other remote areas
we lack the ability to produce ethanol. We would like to have that
ability to free us from importing ethanol and the rising price of crude
oil.
Hawaii has had the highest gasoline prices in the Nation over the
last 10 years. We also have a State mandate to use ethanol, enacted
last year and due to go into effect in spring of 2006. Our State
ethanol mandate is driven by the desire to increase the use of biomass,
increase the renewable content in our transportation fuels, and
decrease the imports of crude oil to Hawaii. These are all good goals.
Our sugar interests and ethanol producers are struggling to put
facilities into place to produce ethanol because we need to meet our
State mandate.
This is why Senator Inouye and I greatly appreciate the inclusion of
cellulosic and sugar cane-to-ethanol provisions in this bill. The
demonstration provisions will greatly assist us in reaching our ethanol
goals in the State.
We also need a loan guarantee program to help our producers. The loan
guarantee program in the amendment we adopted is more restrictive than
the one approved and reported by the Energy Committee. Hawaii's ethanol
facilities are projected to produce between 7 and 15 million gallons of
ethanol and the market in Hawaii is about 45 million gallons. Hawaii
has an independent market and a State requirement for ethanol. Our
plants will be smaller than in other States and would greatly benefit
from a loan guarantee program for smaller producers. This is very
important to my State and I look forward to working with my colleagues
to further address this issue in conference.
In other titles of the Energy bill, I am pleased that title VI,
Nuclear Matters, includes provisions of a bill I introduced earlier
this year, S. 979, to require the Department of Energy to provide for a
facility for the safe storage of greater-than-class-C radioactive
waste. Radioactive sealed sources, which can be used to create a
``dirty bomb,'' are all around us and pose a great risk. The
administration must take action to ensure the control and safe disposal
of those sources.
The energy bill also includes S. 711, a bill I introduced with
Senator Murkowski to reauthorize the methane hydrates program at the
Department of Energy. Hydrates are important--the U.S. has enormous
hydrate resources, perhaps as much as a quarter of the world's gas
hydrates. As increased demand draws down natural gas reserves, we must
look to additional sources, such as hydrates, for the future. The bill
includes a robust methane hydrates program that includes the
recommendations of the National Research Council's study on the program
and future of methane hydrates.
We still have much work ahead of us. The bill does not include fuel
economy standards which significantly increase the fuel efficiency of
automobiles and are a vital component of a comprehensive energy policy.
The American people want to spend less money on gasoline, be less
dependent on foreign oil, address the issue of climate change, and
breathe cleaner air. Strong fuel economy standards help provide some
solutions. Also the bill does not address the growing emissions of
carbon dioxide, which are radically changing the world around us. I am
hopeful we will address these matters on the floor and I look forward
to the debate.
Again, I appreciate and commend my colleagues Senators Domenici and
Bingaman on the bipartisan nature of this bill and the process by which
it was developed.

amendment no. 794

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator
Bingaman, I send a managers' amendment to the desk. It has been agreed
to on both sides, is predominantly technical, and

[[Page S6703]]

has been agreed to by anyone who has any interest.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for himself and
Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 794.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 10, strike lines 5 through 8 and insert the
following:
(2) Institution of higher education.--
(A) In general.--The term ``institution of higher
education'' has the meaning given the term in section 101(a)
of the Higher Education Act of 1065 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
(B) Inclusion.--The term ``institution of higher
education'' includes an organization that--
(i) is organized, and at all times thereafter operated,
exclusively for the benefit of, to perform the functions of,
or to carry out the functions of 1 or more organizations
referred to in subparagraph (A); and
(ii) is operated, supervised, or controlled by or in
connection with 1 or more of those organizations.
On page 121, lines 9 and 10, strike ``subsection (a)'' and
insert ``paragraph (1)''.
On page 223, line 16, strike ``date of enactment of this
Act'' and insert ``effective date of this section''.
On page 225, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
(e) Effective Date.--This section takes effect on October
1, 2006.
On page 451, line 8, insert ``manufacturability,'' after
``electronic controls''.
On page 452, strike lines 8 and 9 and insert the following:
``(b) Membership.--The Task Force shall be
On page 452, line 15, strike ``members'' and insert
``Federal employees''.
On page 452, strike lines 18 through 21.

On page 478, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

SEC. 916. BUILDING STANDARDS.

(a) Definition of High Performance Building.--In this
section, the term ``high performance building'' means a
building that integrates and optimizes energy efficiency,
durability, life-cycle performance, and occupant
productivity.
(b) Assessment.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into an
agreement with the National Institute of Building Sciences
to--
(1) conduct an assessment (in cooperation with industry,
standards development organizations, and other entities, as
appropriate) of whether the current voluntary consensus
standards and rating systems for high performance buildings
are consistent with the research, development and
demonstration activities of the Department;
(2) determine if additional research is required, based on
the findings of the assessment; and,
(3) recommend steps for the Secretary to accelerate the
development of voluntary consensus-based standards for high
performance buildings that are based on the findings of the
assessment.
(c) Grant and Technical Assistance Program.--Consistent
with subsection (b), the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.), and the
amendments made by that Act, the Secretary shall establish a
grant and technical assistance program to support the
development of voluntary consensus-based standards for high
performance buildings.
On page 497, line 13, strike ``using thermochemical
processes''.
On page 505, line 23, strike ``proton exchange membrane''.
On page 742, line 8, strike ``Power'' and insert ``Energy
Regulatory''.
On page 755, after line 25, insert the following:

SEC. 1329. OVERALL EMPLOYMENT IN A HYDROGEN ECONOMY.

(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a study of
the likely effects of a transition to a hydrogen economy on
overall employment in the United States.
(2) Contents.--In completing the study, the Secretary shall
take into consideration--
(A) the replacement effects of new goods and services;
(B) international competition;
(C) workforce training requirements;
(D) multiple possible fuel cycles, including usage of raw
materials;
(E) rates of market penetration of technologies; and
(F) regional variations based on geography.
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report describing the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the study under subsection (a).

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 794) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I would like to begin my remarks by
thanking Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman, the ranking member, as
well as their staffs, for the hard work and excellent effort they have
made in preparing an energy bill. Their leadership has allowed the
Senate to come together on a comprehensive energy policy that is of
paramount importance to our Nation's future security and economic
interests. While there are provisions in this bill about which I am
troubled, I did vote for it in committee and would like very much to do
so here on the floor. But there are some reservations I have. There are
some things that were omitted, some that have actually been included
and others that might be included about which I would like to speak,
one in particular is one of great importance to the State of New
Jersey.
I see my esteemed colleague Senator Frank Lautenberg here as well. He
will be speaking about this issue. That is the threat of oil and gas
drilling off the coast of southern New Jersey's 127 miles of shore.
All of you heard Senators Nelson and Martinez speak on the floor
earlier this week about Florida's treasured coast and how important it
is to Florida's environment and economy that its coast be protected
from any weakening of the moratoria on drilling in the Outer
Continental Shelf. My colleagues from Florida should take every step
necessary to protect their beaches and coastal waters. As a Senator
from a coastal State where tourism is the second largest industry, I
think Senator Lautenberg and I also want to take every step necessary
to protect the New Jersey shore from any effort to weaken the
longstanding, bipartisan moratorium that exists on drilling in the
Outer Continental Shelf.
As I understand it, the chairman and ranking member have both agreed
to oppose any amendments that open up the OCS moratoria on submerged
lands off of Florida's coast. I am, of course, pleased that recognition
was taken in that instance. But it is a bit disconcerting that the rest
of the moratoria on offshore drilling was not addressed. Many OCS areas
still seem vulnerable to something that could destroy that moratoria,
and that is a problem. It is a problem for the State of New Jersey. I
think it is for many, if not all, of the other coastal States that are
protected by the moratoria.
This has been a priority of mine since I have been in the Senate.
Along with Senator Lautenberg, I introduced the Clean Ocean and Safe
Tourism Anti-Drilling Act in the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses.
This bill would make permanent the moratoria on drilling in the Mid-
and North Atlantic Planning Areas, as opposed to having it be an issue
that is dealt with year to year in the appropriations process or by
Executive order.
I know, with certainty, the people of New Jersey--I mean with
certainty--do not want to see oil and gas rigs off their coast. The
Jersey Shore is one of the fastest growing parts of the State of New
Jersey. It is in the most densely populated State already. The New
Jersey shore is one of those things that defines our State. We want to
maintain the beauty and cleanliness of our beaches as well as protect
our fishing grounds as they make up a huge portion of our State's
revenue.
The New Jersey Department of Commerce calculates that tourism in our
State generates more than $31 billion in spending. Almost all of that
is focused on our shore. It directly and indirectly supports 836,000
jobs, more than 20 percent of the total State employment. In addition,
it generates about $16.6 billion in wages and $5.5 billion in tax
revenues for the State. It is a big deal for us, a very big deal. If we
are going to take a risk with our shoreline, we must first look at the
cost-benefit analysis.
Any threat of drilling, any threat to New Jersey's environment and
economy compel me to stand here and make sure people understand how
important it is to us.
New Jersey is not alone in this. This is something that people
recognize up and down the eastern seaboard and on the western coast.
New Jersey is already a State that is carrying a heavy load in terms
of supporting the energy production needs and the refining needs of
this Nation. We have three nuclear powerplants. We export energy. We
have many traditional powerplants, and support siting of an LNG
terminal. We are also a

[[Page S6704]]

place that has been supportive of alternative energy. We are moving in
the direction toward all of those things that promote efficiency. New
Jersey is the east coast hub for oil refining, for the chemical
industry. We are doing our part in growing and sustaining the Nation's
energy resources.
But risking and exploiting our shore, to do that is a step too far. I
repeat, it is a step too far, risking what I think no one else would do
if it were related to their economy, their people's quality of life,
their people's needs.
I am not the only Senator who has concerns about amendments to this
bill that will weaken the moratorium. I have been in contact with a
number of coastal State Senators. We will have a letter that speaks
against any changes to the current OCS moratoria. My concern about some
of the provisions of the bill, including the inventory provision, are
reinforced by some of the rumblings I hear about trying to move further
in opening up this Outer Continental Shelf.
I fear we are on a slippery slope that would lead to eventual
drilling off the New Jersey coast, which is of great concern and will
lead to the kinds of actions that can stand in the way of the overall
bill. It will not be just a New Jersey issue; it will be a broader
issue.
Given the minimal benefit of offshore drilling--at least based on the
science that has been applied to this issue--I don't see the need to be
threatening over 800,000 jobs and the state revenues I mentioned
earlier for what the Minerals Management Service (MMS) estimated in
2000 to be roughly 196 million barrels of oil off our coast. That, by
the way, is enough to fuel this country's needs for only 10 days. The
MMS also estimated a mean of only 2.7 trillion cubic feet of natural
gas for the entire Mid-Atlantic region. Compare that to areas already
open to drilling in the Gulf--not those adjacent to Florida--that
contain 18.9 billion barrels of oil and 258 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas.
I don't know what kind of cost-benefit analysis is being taken to be
pushing forward with this offshore inventory, when the studies have
already shown the great capacity of one area versus what is expected to
be found off of New Jersey's coast.
We want to protect this moratoria. It is an issue I take very
seriously. We hear there is the potential for weakening the moratoria
in another way by providing for potential amendments that allow States
to opt out of the moratoria and possibly even revenue-sharing
amendments that would encourage states to opt out of the moratoria.
Allowing States to opt out would be detrimental to States' neighbors.
This is an argument long understood and argued by Florida. New Jersey's
coastline, obviously, is very close to other States. Tides move across
state borders and fisheries don't recognize state borders. One State's
choice could end up being detrimental to another.
We have ample reason to say that coastal states ought to be concerned
about this issue. In fact, we have, for planning purposes, divided up
the country into planning areas. The Mid-Atlantic and the North
Atlantic OCS Planning Areas, which extend from North Carolina to Maine,
is of most concern to New Jersey. But I understand the same arguments
from everyone else in every other planning area. Water does not
recognize the borders we have established in a political contest. We
need to protect the offshore moratoria so that we can protect our
beaches and our shores as we go forward.
Mr. President I have here a bipartisan, bicameral ``Dear Colleague''
letter from almost every member of the New Jersey Congressional
Delegation that expresses the concern of those who represent New Jersey
that this moratoria be sustained. I also have a bipartisan letter
signed by over 100 Members of the House of Representatives, both sides
of the aisle, stating their strong support for the legislative
moratoria on activity in submerged lands of the Outer Continental
Shelf. I ask unanimous consent that these two letters be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, June 15, 2005.
Hon. Peter Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman and Ranking Member: We are writing to express
our strong opposition to any amendment to the Senate Energy
bill that would weaken or destroy the 24-year moratoria on
drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
As we understand, you have agreed not to vote for any
amendments that alter the current OCS moratoria with respect
to submerged lands off of Florida's coast.
While believe that the current OCS moratoria off the
Florida's coast should be protected, we are deeply concerned
that this agreement leaves the coasts of our states
vulnerable to amendments that would weaken the moratoria off
other areas of the Outer Continental Shelf.
As senators of coastal states whose environment and
economies would be in serious danger should the OCS moratoria
be weakened in any way, we will oppose any provision that
would threaten the moratoria, including, but not limited to
amendments allowing states of opt out of the OCS moratoria or
provide for revenue-sharing as an incentive for states to opt
out of the moratoria.
We are liking your commitment to oppose any amendments that
endanger the moratoria on one oil and gas leases in the
entire Outer Continental Shelf. As you know, Congress has
infused language protecting the current OCS moratoria in
annual appropriations bills since 1982. In addition,
President George H.W. Bush declared a leasing moratorium on
many OCS areas and President Clinton issued a memorandum to
the Secretary of the Interior that extended the moratorium
through 2012 and included additional OCS areas.
Given this history, any change to the moratoria will be a
dramatic change in policy. It is our hope that this important
bill will not get bogged down by this issue, but without
assurances that you would oppose any amendments that would
undermine the current moratoria, we will be forced to use all
procedural tactics to protect our precious resources.
We hope we will be able to work together with you to
resolve this issue.
Sincerely,
Jon S. Corzine, Paul Sarbanes, John F. Kerry, Dianne
Feinstein, Patty Murray, Frank R. Lautenberg, Edward M.
Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and Ron Wyden.
____

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, April 29, 2005.
Hon. Charles Taylor,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Environment, Committee
on Appropriations, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Norm Dicks,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Interior and Environment,
Committee on Appropriations, Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Taylor and Ranking Member Dicks: We are
writing to express our strong support for the longstanding
bipartisan legislative moratorium on new mineral leasing
activity on submerged lands of the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS). We are deeply appreciative of the leadership your
Subcommittee has shown on this issue over the years and hope
to work with you this year to continue this vital protection.
The legislative moratorium language prohibits the use of
federal funds for offshore leasing, pre-leasing and other oil
and gas drilling-related activities in moratoria areas,
enhancing protection of those areas from offshore oil and gas
development. As you know, in 1990 President George H.W. Bush
signed an executive memorandum placing a ten-year moratorium
on new leasing on the OCS. In 1998, this moratorium was
renewed by President Bill Clinton and extended until 2012. As
you know, President George W. Bush endorsed the moratorium in
his 2006 budget. These actions have all been met with public
acclaim and as necessary steps to preserve the economic and
environmental value of our nation's coasts.
With a renewed interest in developing natural gas and oil
on the OCS, we believe it is again imperative for Congress to
reaffirm its authority on this issue. Therefore, we
respectfully urge you to include the OCS moratorium language
in the fiscal year 2006 Interior and Environment
Appropriations legislation. Specifically, we ask you to use
the language in Sections 107, 108 and 109, Division E,
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies of the fiscal
year 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447).
These sections restrict oil and gas activities within the OCS
in the Georges Bank-North Atlantic planning area, Mid-
Atlantic and South Atlantic planning area, Eastern Gulf of
Mexico planning area, Northern, Southern, and Central
California planning areas, and Washington and Oregon planning
area.
Once again, we encourage the Subcommittee to support these
important provisions, which represent over 20 years of
bipartisan agreement on the importance of protecting the
environmentally and economically valuable coastal areas of
the United States. Thank you for your consideration of this
request.
Sincerely,
Members of the House of Representatives:

Lois Capps, Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, Jeff Miller, Jim
Davis, Michael

[[Page S6705]]

Michaud, Madeleine Bordallo, Ginny Brown-Waite, Jay
Inslee, Frank LoBiondo, Rob Simmons, Mark Foley, Jim
Langevin, Ed Case, Jim McGovern, Sherrod Brown, Chris
Smith, Dennis Cardoza, Frank Pallone, Jr., G.K.
Butterfield, Tom Feeney.
Pete Stark, Robert Wexler, Anna Eshoo, Zoe Lofgren,
Katherine Harris, Jerry Nadler, Carolyn Maloney, Alcee
Hastings, Mike Honda, Hilda Solis, Grace Napolitano,
Mark Kennedy, Brian Baird, Susan Davis, Sam Farr, Clay
Shaw, Christopher Shays, Rush Holt, Betty McCollum,
Ellen Tauscher.
Barbara Lee, Dennis Moore, Raul Grijalva, Chris Van
Hollen, Rahm Emanuel, Nick Rahall, Loretta Sanchez, Tom
Allen, Anthony Weiner, Jan Schakowsky, Brad Sherman,
Jim McDermott, Kendrick Meek, Bob Etheridge, Dale
Kildee, George Miller, Donald Payne, Tom Lantos, Earl
Blumenauer, Maxine Waters.
Wayne Gilchrest, Rosa DeLauro, Nancy Pelosi, Richard
Neal, Dennis Kucinich, Ed Markey, Henry Waxman, Michael
McNulty, Michael Bilirakis, Jane Harman, Bart Stupak,
Robert Menendez, Barney Frank, Lynn Woolsey, Luis
Gutierrez, Jim Saxton, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, William
Delahunt, Peter DeFazio, Mike Thompson, Juanita
Millender-McDonald.
David Wu, Carolyn Maloney, Bob Filner, Mario Diaz-Balart,
Robert Andrews, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Xavier Becerra,
Howard Berman, Walter Jones, Connie Mack, Diane Watson,
Doris Matsui, Linda Sanchez, Debbie Wasserman Schultz,
Ric Keller, Adam Schiff, Corrine Brown, Jim Costa, Joe
Baca, Bill Pascrell, and Eliot Engel.

Mr. CORZINE. This is a big deal for the State of New Jersey. It is
for anyone who is exposed to the coast and has a tremendous amount of
industry and tourism that is the livelihood of those individuals who
live near the shore. We can avoid the conflict as it relates to the
overall energy policy. But it is the responsibility of those who are to
defend the interests of our State, to stand up firmly to protect our
economy, to protect our environment, to protect our quality of life. We
do not need this conflict with regard to this bill.
I hope my colleagues will keep that in mind in the days ahead.
Otherwise, there will be those who have to fight in ways that are not
our preferred approach especially when we would like to get a
bipartisan energy bill to go forward.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first let me say to my friend and
colleague from New Jersey how much I admire his commitment to our State
and to the things that protect our environment and our well-being. I am
very proud of Senator Corzine. I have mixed feelings about whether I
want him to win the race in New Jersey because it is nice to have a
hometown boy around.
I join Senator Corzine in this attempt to protect our State from
being affected by drilling for oil off our shore line. When I was a
boy, I had occasion to spend time at the New Jersey shore. It was, for
me, a matter of almost paradisiacal value to be able to get to that
shore and never think about whether we were going to step on plastics,
needles, oil spills, or anything like that. It was so much a part of
our culture that to change it in any way that we do not have to is an
act of poor judgment.
The top of the list, as far as we are concerned, is the New Jersey
shore. We call it ``the shore.'' In the summertime, few things are
better than a day at the beach, watching your children or your
grandchildren play in the surf or go out on a fishing boat or learn
something about marine life. We have seen times when a spill occurs how
it spoils an entire area.
We are at a time now where in desperation we are searching for ways
to make up for our profligate use of oil. We are looking around, trying
to find ways to substitute for the bad judgment we used for so many
years, for letting it go, for not requiring cars to meet standards for
oil consumption or gas consumption.
Hurting our environment, having oil ruin our most delicate and
precious resources. It is just not right.
If one wants to fish or walk along the boardwalk, those from New
Jersey go to the shore. If you want an evening's recreation, you go to
the shore. It is nearby. It is part of our life. It is part of what we
think of as the periphery of our State: 127 miles of shore line, the
major economic engine for New Jersey.
Tourism, as we heard from my colleague, is a $30-billion industry and
supports hundreds of thousands of jobs. Seventy percent of all the
State's tourism revenues originate at the shores. Our shores are very
important to us. But it goes beyond the economy. It goes beyond all
kinds of things that one might think. When you look at the marine
ecology, when you see what happens with clam beds or shellfish beds, we
cannot fish them any more because of contamination, because of toxins.
Those affect our everyday lives.
For 35 States in this country, the coast is at our door, the shore is
right there for us--for 35 coastal States. Of course, it includes the
States in the Great Lakes area. They too have an interest in protecting
their waters. So when anyone proposes something that could put our
shores at risk, we take it very seriously.
Of course, that brings us to the bill we are currently considering.
There has been a great deal of discussion about violating our
longstanding prohibition against offshore drilling by allowing States
to opt out of the moratorium. Now, what would that mean? We recently
had a spill in the Delaware River. Did it do more damage to New Jersey
than it did to Pennsylvania or Delaware? It damaged all of them. Oceans
know no boundaries, unless we put up a seawall that extends beyond the
borders of our State way out into the ocean and say: OK, you can drill
on that side but not the other.
I see the majority leader and Democratic leader looking at me so
wistfully, and I wonder if it is in admiration or whether it is
something else they had in mind.
Mr. REID. Admiration.
Mr. FRIST. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield, provided I do not lose the floor.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we will have a very short colloquy here as
to what to expect over the next several days. It will take 3 or 4
minutes.
Mr. President, Senators have been asking about the schedule for the
afternoon, tomorrow, and Monday. First of all, let me congratulate the
chairman and ranking member. We are making good progress. The fact that
we do not have a lot of amendments flowing out tonight or a lot of
requests even for tomorrow or Monday is a good sign. That, coupled with
the fact we made substantial progress, leaves me very optimistic. We
dealt with ethanol and oil consumption. So we are making progress.
I will come back to what we are going to have to do next week. We
will remain in session this afternoon for Members to offer additional
energy-related amendments. However, if the amendment requires a
rollcall vote, we would order that for next week because of the
schedule of tomorrow. We will have no further rollcall votes today.
After our business today, we will return to the bill on Monday.
I do want to continue to rely on the continued efforts of our
colleagues to come forward and offer amendments now. They have the
opportunity this afternoon, early into the evening, and throughout
Monday.
I do want to put our colleagues on notice that if it looks as though
there is any question about finishing this bill Thursday or Friday of
next week--I have told Senators on our side of the aisle to expect
votes on Friday, but we are going to complete this bill next week. If
there is any question about that, I do want to put our colleagues on
notice that I likely will file cloture on Wednesday. And that is not
even a veiled threat at all, but it demonstrates the importance on
behalf of our leadership, working with the Democratic leader, that we
need to move ahead now and that we will finish this bill next week.
Finally, it is also our intention on the Bolton nomination to
reconsider the cloture vote on Monday evening. I mentioned earlier that
we might do that today, but discussions have continued, constructive
discussions have continued over the course of yesterday and over the
course of today, and that being the case, we have elected to have that
vote on Monday evening. That vote will likely occur--I have not talked
specifically with the Democratic leader--around 6 o'clock. Therefore,
Senators should be present for that important vote.
Let me turn to the Democratic leader. I would ask if he concurs that
we must finish this bill next week. And that is why, indeed, I
mentioned we

[[Page S6706]]

may have to file cloture, if we do not make continued progress.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the two managers of the bill are here. They
are ready to take amendments. All amendments cannot be offered next
week. When we come to these bills, it is always: I am not quite ready;
I will do it tomorrow or next week. That time has arrived. We have
worked through some very difficult amendments this week--three
extremely difficult amendments. They are disposed of now. They were
complicated. They were difficult in the eyes of many.
As I see it, Mr. Leader, I think the big issue left, in major scope,
is the global warming issue. A number of Senators on both sides are
concerned about this. I would hope that an amendment would be offered
Monday when we come in, debate this however long it takes, within a
reasonable period of time, and dispose of it, maybe Tuesday. I just
think it is time we move on.

I think what the majority leader has outlined, in consultation with
me, is extremely good; that we are going to finish this bill next week.
And no one has been jammed on time. It has been a hard week also
because there have been funerals and events that have taken some of our
time, but we have worked our way through that.
I think it would be good for the country that they see we are now
legislating. We have had a number of problems earlier in the year.
Those are over. And now the leader has said he wishes to pass a couple
of appropriations bills before we leave in August. That would set a
good tone. The Appropriations Committee met today. That work has been
done. The bill is ready to bring to the floor.
So I hope we can move forward. There is a tentative agreement--it is
not finalized in any written form yet, but I have worked with the
distinguished majority leader now for a couple weeks. There is an issue
that is before the country, and that is stem cell research. We are
going to try to work out something on that so we do not have a bunch of
side issues coming up on the legislation we have. We have had a number
of important meetings, and I think we are at a point soon where we can
arrive at some way to dispose of this at a time certain.
We have other issues that we have talked about--the Hawaiian issue
and China. These are all in the Record that we have to bring those up
at a specified time. So we have our plates full. And I would
acknowledge we probably might have to do some of this next Friday.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader. I believe it
is pretty clear in terms of the plans: No more rollcall votes today. We
will have a pro forma session tomorrow. We expect people to continue
today to offer amendments and to bring them forward on Monday as well.
We will have a rollcall vote on the Bolton nomination, to reconsider
the cloture vote on the Bolton nomination, at 6 o'clock on Monday. We
will complete the Energy bill next week. And then we will turn to the
appropriations bills, as we had planned.
Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, I also think if cloture is going
to be filed on this bill, it would be on a bipartisan basis. I think
you would have an equal number of Democrats and Republicans signing
that cloture motion. And I think that it is really important for this
body that we do that on occasion.
Mr. FRIST. That is the cloture motion----
Mr. REID. On the Energy bill.
Mr. FRIST. On the Energy bill.
Mr. President, we yield the floor and do thank our distinguished
colleague from New Jersey for his consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the point I was making just a few
minutes ago was that we ought not permit States to opt out of this
moratorium, this prohibition against offshore drilling because what
happens in a neighboring State, whether it is Delaware or Maryland or
New York State or Connecticut or Massachusetts, affects what happens in
my State very often. The same is true on the Pacific side of things.
The same is true for the Gulf of Mexico. You cannot simply say: Let a
State do the drilling. They may be more interested in the income than
in the protection of the environment. But we are not. I can't emphasize
strongly enough the importance of protecting the sensitive marine areas
off the New Jersey coast and other coastal States.

For more than two decades, both Democratic and Republican
administrations have respected the moratorium on leasing and preleasing
activities on the Outer Continental Shelf. But now we are talking about
doing away with this protection. It would be foolish and shortsighted.
One only needs to look at the list of accidents at sea and see what
happened to neighboring States or neighboring communities not at all
connected to the place where the accident happened. We just ought not
permit it.
The Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service estimated in
the year 2000 that the waters off New Jersey might hold enough oil to
supply the country with 10 days of oil. What does it mean in the scheme
of things? Ten days of oil and run the risk of destroying marine life
and a culture that is associated with coastal States? It is a part of
our lives. Heaven forbid that it changes from being part of our daily
lives.
Do we want to risk hundreds of thousands of jobs for 10 days? I don't
think so. Do we want to risk changing the culture of our society, our
coastal society? I don't think so.
The people of my State and the residents of all coastal States do not
want oil and gas rigs marring their treasured beaches and fishing
grounds. The occupant of the Chair, coming from a beautiful coastal
State, tiny though it is, but so much dependent on the sound and the
ocean, I am sure understands the risks of having oil rigs out there
that could damage the culture of the State as well as the marine life
and the ecology. We don't want that to happen. I don't mean to speak
for the Presiding Officer, but I know that Rhode Island has similar
problems to States such as New Jersey.
Drilling poses serious threats to our environment and to our economy.
Drilling requires onshore infrastructure that can harm sensitive
coastal zones. The massive amounts of mud it displaces when drills go
down into the earth must be dumped somewhere else.
The constant risk of oil spills cannot be minimized.
I was chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee of Appropriations
about 15 years ago when the Exxon Valdez ran aground. Because I had
Coast Guard in my subcommittee, I took the opportunity to get up to the
place where the vessel was floundering within 3 days after it ran
aground. It was in some way kind of a mystical allure. You could see
the sheen on the water, and it spread with all of its color but all of
its menace at the same time. I saw brave people from our Department of
Interior and Fish and Wildlife getting off on these tiny islands with
helicopters and small boats and taking the birds out and fish and
trying to clean them up one by one wherever they could. It was
devastating. I visited there at that time. I find out that today, 16
years later, that disaster is still taking a toll on the environment.
When I take my grandchildren to the beach, I don't want them to
discover oil underneath a rock, as one still does in the area where the
Exxon Valdez ran aground. I don't want them to see birds or mammals
sickened by their inability to breathe properly as a result of a
coating of oil. I don't want to hear about the coral destruction that
provides the nutritional base for our fish and marine life.
The Exxon Valdez spill was one of the largest oil spills we have
suffered, and it was only one of many. According to the Department of
Interior, 3 million gallons of oil spilled from offshore operations in
73 incidents between 1980 and 1999. It is an average of about four
incidents a year, more than 40,000 gallons of oil per spill. That is
more than enough oil to ruin a beach town's tourist season for years to
come.
We cannot afford to damage our shorelines--and we should not be asked
to do it--or the marine life that inhabits our coastal waters. Nature
has been good to us. It supplies us with the seas and the water and the
land and the mountains. We ought to try as much as possible to keep
that intact.
Ending the moratorium in any State completely undercuts the position
our Nation has upheld for many decades. It clearly undercuts the stated
wishes of coastal States that would incur the

[[Page S6707]]

greatest damage. The United States needs new sources of energy. I agree
with that. But where have we been in these past years as the
consumption of oil increased? Buying it from people who aren't even
friends of ours, but who are always asking us to protect them in
moments of trouble. And some of those states we know have been accused
of and it has been established that they support terrorists who fight
against us. Did that cause us to say: Hey, we ought to change things?
No. It didn't. We simply said: Get bigger cars and use more gas and let
the devil take the high road. It ought not be that way. The United
States needs new sources of energy.
Fortunately, our Nation has many energy sources that are vastly
underutilized. One of those sources for finding our way out of this
mess is to continue to invest in alternative methods for producing
energy in universities and research institutes. We can bolster our
Nation's energy security without drilling offshore. A day at the beach
should mean fun, clean water, natural beauty, not oil slicks or
drilling rigs. We need to keep the existing prohibition on offshore
drilling in place. That is what Senator Corzine and Senator Bill Nelson
and other Senators from coastal States and I intend to do.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Energy bill. Before
starting my remarks, I want to once again thank Senator Domenici and
Ranking Member Bingaman for their excellent work on this bill for the
last 5 months. It is a source of great pride for me to see my two
neighbors from the South, from the Land of Enchantment, working so well
together on such an important issue.
I also want to reiterate my thanks to their key staff, Alex Flint,
Judy Pensabene, Lisa Epifani, Bob Simon, and Sam Fowler. Without the
work of the staff, we would not have gotten to the point in this
legislation where we are today.
I also want to congratulate Senator Bingaman and his staff on their
successful inclusion of the RPS amendment. They have done this Nation a
great favor.
The Nation has a real problem. When I look at the issues that face
America today, I believe the two most significant domestic issues
facing America, America's families and America's businesses are health
care and the energy crisis of America. Today, this Chamber is
addressing the challenge of energy.
The problem can be described in lots of different ways, but it is, in
fact, an emergency. In the 1970s, our Nation imported about one-third
of our oil needs. Many of us still remember then-President Jimmy Carter
talking about the OPEC oil embargo and talking about the energy
independence of America being the moral equivalent of war. Yet, since
that time during the last 30 years, we have seen continuing reliance
and dependence on foreign oil so that today 58 percent of the oil we
need is being imported. By 2020, we will be importing 70 percent more
of our oil. America today consumes one-quarter of the world's oil
supplies but has only 3 percent of the global reserves. Currently, OPEC
member countries produce about 40 percent of the world's oil and hold
80 percent of the proven global reserves, and 85 percent of those
reserves are in the greater Middle East, including countries that are
not particularly friendly to the United States: Iran, Iraq, and Saudi
Arabia.
Twenty-two percent of the world's oil is in the hands of state
sponsors of terrorism and under U.S./U.N. sanctions, and only 9 percent
of the world's oil is in the hands of countries ranked ``free.''
We are importing more oil at a time when other growing nations
continue to increase their imports of oil, including China, which is
exponentially increasing its oil demand and imports. China's oil
imports were up 30 percent from the previous year, making it the
world's No. 2 petroleum consumer only after the United States, and
there is no end in sight in terms of how this nation of 1.3 billion
people will continue to import oil from other places around the world.
Experts predict China's large and rapidly growing demand for oil will
have serious implications for United States oil prices and supplies.
Fully one-quarter of the U.S. trade deficit today is associated with
oil imports, and as we have continued to grow on our overreliance on
foreign oil, it is incredible for me to take a look at the statistics
with respect to American vehicles. American vehicles today get fewer
miles per gallon than they did in 1988.
What that tells us is this Nation has not taken the energy crisis we
currently have in a series enough fashion. It is an imperative for us
to do so, and this energy bill we are considering today in the Senate
is part of our response to try to make sure we live up to the
challenges we face in America today.
In my view, the answer to the energy crisis we face is that we must
do everything we can to set America free from its overdependence on the
importation of foreign oil. Indeed, leading American conservatives and
progressive organizations, both Republicans, Democrats, and
Independents alike, have come forward with a concern about the security
and economic implications of America's growing dependence on foreign
oil. These groups have formed a coalition called Set America Free. We
should embrace the Set America Free agenda as an imperative for America
for energy independence and security.
Since most of the oil and the overwhelming source of known oil
reserves lie in one specific region of the world, the Middle East, our
national security is held hostage to the whims of despotic or
increasingly unstable regions. Ominously, the money we pay for foreign
oil helps pay for the activities of extremists and terrorists who hate
the United States and the West in general. We need only to recall the
horrors of 9/11 to know this hatred is real. Even worse, the money pit
grows deeper because as the world consumes more oil, that oil becomes
more expensive and the money that keeps some of those regimes in place
gets more and more concentrated. So America is held hostage in a
tighter and tighter grip. There is only one way for us to fix this.
America must embrace an imperative of energy independence and security.
We have to set America free.
This energy bill, which is a bipartisan bill, is a good first step.
This energy bill that is before the Senate takes some very important
steps: an important step in energy conservation, which means we will do
more with what we have; an important step in embracing a new ethic of
renewable energy for the 21st century, which will help us grow our own
energy resources in our country; an important step in developing new
technologies that will help us address the energy demands of our Nation
and, also importantly, balanced development of existing fuel supplies.
These are important steps to lead us to the goal of energy independence
and security.
I want to review each of those steps briefly. First, conservation.
Energy efficiency is the cheapest, cleanest, and quickest way for our
country to extend its energy supplies and to begin to tackle the
alarming increases in energy prices we have witnessed in the past few
years.
This is far cheaper than any other form of energy, and for a good
reason. Energy efficiency is not subject to transmission losses, and it
is not subject to fluctuations in the price of fossil fuels or the
availability of a renewable resource.
The Energy bill contains a number of very good provisions for
conservation. It establishes requirements for energy and water savings
in congressional buildings so that we in Congress can tell the rest of
the Nation that we also will walk the walk on conservation. It
establishes new conservation goals on energy measurement and
accountability standards for Federal buildings and agencies all over
the country. This is significant, for one of the Nation's largest if
not the largest landlords is the Federal Government.
It extends the energy savings performance contracts, ESPCs, for 10
years. These contracts are an excellent mechanism by which the Federal
Government is guaranteed to save money

[[Page S6708]]

and save energy, savings that can be passed on directly to the
taxpayers of America.
The program provides private financing of energy-saving improvements
for Federal buildings.
The Senate Energy bill also authorizes or extends energy assistance
for State programs, such as weatherization assistance, energy-efficient
appliance rebate programs, and grants to States and local governments
to create more energy-efficient buildings.
The Senate Energy bill also sets energy efficiency standards for exit
signs, for lamps, certain transformers, traffic signals, heaters,
lamps, refrigerators and freezers, air conditioners, washing machines,
dehumidifiers, commercial ice makers, pedestrian signals, mercury vapor
light ballasts, and pre-rinse spray valves. The energy portions of this
legislation are a strong indication of the direction in which this
country has to head, and that is to be more efficient with the fuel
resources that are available for us.
Second, renewable energy--renewable energy is a great opportunity for
the United States of America in the 21st century. Nothing is more
important in this bill than its call for increased use of renewable
energy. I am particularly proud of the people of Lamar, CO. Their
efforts to produce clean, renewable energy are a great service to the
entire Front Range of Colorado. The efforts in Lamar literally keep the
lights on.
This morning, in our Denver Post in Colorado, they talked about the
town's efforts to make their voices heard on the Senate floor. I assure
you, Mr. President, and all of the people in Lamar, we hear you, and we
thank you for your support for renewable energy.
The Energy bill directs the Secretary of Energy to compile a detailed
inventory of the Nation's renewable energy resources and also
establishes a renewable fuels standard. I am proud to be a cosponsor of
the renewable fuels standard provision of the Senate Energy bill.
This amendment calls for 8 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel
to be produced in America by 2012. This amendment is good for America
and good for the environment.
Growing our own transportation fuels directly reduces our dependence
on foreign oil. It not only reduces our dependence on foreign oil now,
it promises to reduce our imports even more in the near future. The
production and use of 8 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel by
2012 will displace more than 2 billion barrels of crude oil, and it
will reduce the outflow of dollars to foreign oil producers by more
than $60 billion.
An important provision of this renewable fuel standard is that it
provides incentives for the development of cellulosic ethanol. Current
methods of producing ethanol have an energy return of about 35 percent,
but cellulosic ethanol, which will soon become economically feasible,
will provide as much as 500 percent energy return. And once we are at
that point, we will be on the edge of a brand new frontier for domestic
biofuel production.
Finally, ethanol and biodiesel are good for the environment. Net
carbon dioxide emissions from biofuels are lower than from fossil
fuels, because the carbon released during combustion was taken out of
the air by the agricultural crops in the first place.
Ethanol and biodiesel are both young industries in Colorado, but I
believe that these biofuels are essential to our energy future, and the
farmers of Colorado believe that they are a key component of that
future. And truth be told, I simply like the idea of growing and
harvesting our transportation fuels. It seems to me that this is a true
way forward for America.
Third, Technology. The energy bill also includes provisions for the
development of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle plants--IGCC,
commonly referred to as gasification. Using this technology, we can
extract energy from coal in a much more environmentally responsible way
than the pulverized coal plants in use today. IGCC significantly
reduces mercury, sulfur, and nitrogen oxide pollution. It uses our most
abundant natural resource--coal. And it can be used to fake a synthetic
natural gas, which means coal can help drive down the price of natural
gas. IGCC can also be used to make fertilizer--fertilizer is normally
made from natural gas. The fertilizer industry has been shutting its
doors in America, and fertilizer prices have been going up ever since
our natural gas prices became so high. IGCC also offers modest gains in
efficiency today, and the potential for great gains tomorrow. I think
that the steps the energy bill takes towards developing IGCC are good
ones. And I it comes at a crucial time.
Although the bill contains good provisions to move forward with
gasification for electrical energy production, it does not yet have the
necessary incentives for reducing gasoline consumption by motor
vehicles.
There are about 800 million cars in active use worldwide. By 2050, as
cars become more common in China and India, it will be 3.25 billion.
In America alone, two-thirds of U.S. oil consumption is due to the
transportation sector.
These two facts alone tell us that we need greater fuel economy.
I do not believe we are doing enough to promote vehicle fuel economy.
The Energy Future Coalition and Set America Free are promoting the
idea of a plug-in, hybrid car that gets 500 miles per gallon. Unless
you are a multimillionaire, I imagine you--most consumers in America--
would go for cars that can go 70, 100--500 miles on a gallon of gas. As
revolutionary as it sounds, consider that a significant portion of
American driving is done over short distances to and from the store or
to and from work. With shorter trips powered purely by electrical
batteries, the amount of gasoline conserved in America would increase
significantly.
This kind of out-of-the-box thinking, combined with solid
technological underpinnings, is exactly what America needs to move us
forward.
Already a hybrid plug-in car has been demonstrated at over 100 miles
per gallon, nearly 4 times our current national fuel economy. Five
hundred miles per gallon is a lofty goal, no doubt. But only by setting
high standards can we achieve great results and see progress soar.
Let me address balanced development and non-traditional sources of
energy in the bill. To pursue energy independence, we must also work to
develop our own natural resources. But this development must be done in
a balanced and responsible way.
Over the past 2 decades the Rocky Mountain West, including my State
of Colorado, has experienced an incredible boom in natural gas
exploration and production. This activity has been centered in Western
Colorado, also known as the Western Slope.
The exploration and production taking place on the Western Slope is
on public lands as well as private lands. With over 60 drilling rigs
operating in our state this month--as many as Wyoming--there is
tremendous pressure on our local land and communities.
Responsible development, balanced development, means that some places
are simply not appropriate for drilling or exploration. Some places are
too pristine to allow the potential environmental damage that comes
with fossil fuel development. In Colorado, we have the unique Roan
plateau, and I do not believe the top of the Plateau should be opened
for drilling.
Colorado is also home to the world's best deposits of Oil Shale from
which unconventional oil can be derived. Estimates are that over one
trillion barrels of unconventional oil could be recovered from the oil
shale in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Even a fraction of that amount
would be an important contribution to what must be a national priority:
lessening our dependence on foreign oil.
Oil shale development has failed in the past due to technical,
environmental and economic problems. If we are to successfully develop
oil shale we must follow the principle of sustainability; a marathon,
not a sprint. Sustainability will focus on the long-term development of
oil shale. The development must take place in cooperation with States
and local communities. The development must be based on sound
economics. We must make sure we have developed oil shale in an
environmentally responsible manner.

I am cautiously optimistic that the future of oil shale will include
its contribution to lessening the dangerous dependence of the United
States on foreign oil. If we do not rise to meet this opportunity, we
will only have ourselves to blame when in the years

[[Page S6709]]

ahead we look back and wonder what we might have done better to set
America free.
There is a component of the energy challenge we face which must be
addressed and on which there will be further dialog in this Senate in
the days ahead, and that is the issue of climate change. Climate change
is happening. The scientists of America agree that climate change is
here and that we must address it. The business community of America
comes together with companies such as DuPont and GE. They say we must
address this issue. As we move forward in the days ahead to complete
our work on the energy legislation, it is my hope that we include
provisions that address the issue of carbon emissions and global
warming.
In conclusion, let me say that when I think back to the greatest
generation of time, just like many of my colleagues in this Senate, I
think back to my father and my mother, part of that ``greatest
generation'' of World War II, where they knew that anything was
possible in America and no challenge was too high or too steep to climb
as an American nation. That was truly the unique spirit of the American
people.
Today, when we face the crisis we are in with our overdependence on
foreign oil and our energy crisis, it requires the same kind of spirit
we saw in that generation of World War II. It requires the kind of
leadership and courage we saw with people such as Abraham Lincoln, who
staked the life of the Nation over the Civil War and resulted in the
13th, 14th, and 15th amendments and forever changed our Nation. It
requires the leadership and vision and courage of someone such as
Franklin Roosevelt, who could lead us through the Depression and
prepare us to win World War II. It requires the leadership of people
such as John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who said that we could reach the Moon
and we could do it within 10 years. That is the kind of boldness we
need in this energy legislation to make sure we get rid of our
overdependence on foreign oil and that we set America free, not only
for our generation but for generations to come.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from
Colorado for his remarks on energy and for his work on the Energy
Committee this year.
The Senator from Colorado is new to the Senate. I have not been here
that long myself, but it is refreshing to see him here. I loved it when
someone asked, How long have you have been in the United States--12
generations or 13?
Mr. SALAZAR. We were here before the United States was here, so 407
years ago.
Mr. ALEXANDER. So he has the longest lineage--his family does, I
believe--of anyone in the territory we now call the United States of
America. He has made a terrific contribution on energy. I appreciate
his remarks.
We have come a long way in our work on energy over the last couple of
years, and while we still have some important differences of opinion--
we saw some of those expressed today--they are differences of emphasis,
important differences of emphasis. I don't want to minimize that. For
my part, I see us moving toward a different way of thinking about how
we produce energy in this country. We have gone from having the lowest
natural gas prices in the world to the highest. Gasoline prices are too
high. We see that despite all of our efforts to reduce our use of oil,
we are still importing more oil than we should. So we need to do things
differently.
My formula for doing that is largely representative of the bill that
was reported 21 to 1. First, conservation and efficiency. I heard the
Senator talk about that. Second, new supplies of natural gas, as well
as oil try to get the price of natural gas down for farmers, for
homeowners, and for businesses. To do that, unfortunately, we will have
to import liquefied natural gas for the next few years. Otherwise, we
will be exporting jobs. We can either import some gas or export the
jobs, one or the other--that is going to be our choice--so we have an
adequate and substantial supply of low-cost American-produced clean
energy. We then need to aggressively move on nuclear power, and we
aggressively need to--and I believe there is a consensus on this--we
aggressively need to explore the best technology for clean coal
gasification and to make that work best to see if we can find a way to
capture the carbon that is produced and put it in the ground. If we are
able to do that, we then will have enough clean energy to run this
economy and keep our jobs here as well as set an environmentally good
example for the rest of the world. I hope that is the path we are on.
I salute the Senator for his contributions.
Mr. SALAZAR. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Of course.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I wish to provide a note of commendation
for the junior Senator from Tennessee. We have long known his work as
Governor of Tennessee, where he worked hard on behalf of land and water
issues. It was through his leadership and the leadership of both
Democrat and Republican colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee that we were able to accomplish what is only seldom
done in Washington, DC; that is, the production of a bipartisan piece
of legislation that is a very good beginning for energy policy
framework for the 21st century. I acknowledge the great contributions
to that effort on the part of Senator Alexander and all the members of
the Energy Committee. I thank the Senator.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I first thank Chairman Domenici and the
ranking member, Senator Bingaman, as well as both of their staffs on
the Energy Committee for all of their hard work on preparing an energy
bill. Their leadership has allowed tbe Senate to come together to
develop a comprehensive energy policy that is paramount to our Nation's
future national and economic security.
With reservation on some issues, I supported the Energy Committee
bill.
I rise today to speak about one of those particular issues--one of
great importance to the people of New Jersey--the threat of oil and gas
drilling off the coast of New Jersey's 127 miles of shore.
All of my colleagues heard Senator Nelson and Senator Martinez speak
on the floor this week about Florida's treasured coasts and how
important it is to Florida's environment and economy that its coasts be
protected from any weakening of the moratoria on drilling in the Outer
Continental Shelf.
My colleagues from Florida should take every step necessary to
protect their beaches and coastal waters. As a Senator from a coastal
State where tourism is the second largest industry, I, too, will take
every step necessary to protect the Jersey shore from any effort to
weaken the longstanding bipartisan moratoria on drilling in the OCS.
As I understand it, the chairman and ranking member have both agreed
to oppose any amendments that would open up the OCS moratoria in the
submerged lands off of Florida's coast.
I am, of course, opposed to any such exemptions from the moratoria,
so I am pleased that both Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman have
also taken that position.
That being said, I find it more than a little disconcerting that the
rest of the moratoria on the OCS still remain vulnerable to similar
amendments that seek to weaken or destroy the moratoria.
As you may know, protecting the OCS moratoria has been a priority of
mine since my tenure began in the Senate.
Along with Senator Lautenberg, I introduced the Clean Ocean and Safe
Tourism Anti Drilling Act, COAST, in the 107th, 108th and 109th
Congresses. This bill would make permanent the moratoria on OCS
drilling in the Mid- and North Atlantic planning areas.
I know with certainty the people of New Jersey do not want to see oil
and gas rigs off of our coast. As one of the fastest growing regions in
the most densely populated State in the country, the New Jersey shore
relies on the beauty and cleanliness of its beaches and the protection
of its fishing grounds for a huge part of our State's revenue.
The New Jersey Department of Commerce calculates tourism alone
generates more than $31 billion in spending, directly and indirectly
supports more than 836,000 jobs, more than 20

[[Page S6710]]

percent of total State employment, generates more than $16.6 billion in
wages, and brings in more than $5.5 billion in tax revenues to the
State.
Any drilling or even the threat of drilling poses a real threat to
New Jersey's environment, economy, and way of life. Remember, New
Jersey is a State that already holds its own in supporting energy
production and refining for the Nation.
We have three nuclear power plants, many traditional power plants,
support siting of an LNG terminal, and we are debating wind
alternatives. And New Jersey is the East Coast hub for oil refining. We
are growing our energy businesses. But risking and exploiting our shore
is a step too far.
I am not the only Senator who has concerns about the amendments to
this energy bill that would weaken the OCS moratoria. I have been in
contact with many coastal State Senators who agree that this bill must
not include any provisions that undermine the moratoria.
My concern is reinforced by the inventory provision already included
in the underlying bill. I am strong1y opposed to this provision and
voted against it during committee markup.
I consider this provision a step onto a slippery slope toward the
eventual drilling off the New Jersey coast and other areas currently
under the OCS moratoria and possibly exposing our beaches and fisheries
to unnecessary risks from adjacent locals.
Give the minimal benefit and significant downside of drilling off the
coast of New Jersey, I do not believe it is worth threatening over
800,000 New Jersey jobs to recover what the Minerals Management Service
estimated in 2000 to be 196 million barrels of oil, only enough to last
the country barely 10 days and 2.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas
for the entire Mid-Atlantic region.
This level of estimated production can in no way be justified.
In comparison, areas off the Gulf of Mexico already open to drilling
contain 18.9 billion barrels of oil and 258.3 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas.
There are other amendments being floated about which cause even
greater concerns with regard to weakening the moratoria. One of these
potential amendments would allow States to opt out of the moratoria.
Allowing States to opt out of the moratoria could be detrimental to a
State's neighbors--an issue Florida has long understood and argued.
New Jersey's coastline is very close in proximity to other States'
coasts.
Tides move across State borders. Fisheries and fish don't recognize
State borders. New Jerseyans have more than ample reason to be
concerned if a nearby State decided to opt out of the moratoria and
allow drilling off its coast.
As you can see, we appear dangerously close to the beginning of the
breakup of the OCS moratoria. This should not occur, and I am prepared
to fight any amendment promoting a weakening of the moratoria. These
actions are as threatening to New Jersey's economy as killing ethanol
is for corn growing States.
I am also prepared to fight any amendment that would provide a
revenue-sharing incentive for States to opt out of the moratoria. There
is much that is good in this bill and many good amendments to be
considered, especially those offered by Senator Cantwell and Senator
Bingaman.
I have a bipartisan, bicameral Dear Colleague letter from the New
Jersey delegation expressing our concern with the inventory included in
this bill, as well as these moratoria-threatening amendments I have
been discussing. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, June 13, 2005
Dear Colleague: We are writing to express our strong
opposition to a provision in the Senate Energy Bill that
directs the Department of Interior to inventory all potential
oil and natural gas resources in the entire Outer Continental
Shelf, including areas off of the New Jersey coast.
This provision runs directly counter to language that
Congress has included annually in appropriations bills to
prevent leasing, pre-leasing, and related activities in most
areas of the Outer Continental Shelf.
Since 1982, a statutory moratorium on leasing activities in
most Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, areas has been included
annually in Interior Appropriations acts. In addition,
President George H.W. Bush declared a leasing moratorium on
many OCS areas on June 26, 1990 under Section 12 of the OCS
Lands Act. On June 12, 1998, President Clinton used the same
authority to issue a memorandum to the Secretary of the
Interior that extended the moratorium through 2012 and
included additional OCS areas.
In addition, this provision in the Energy Bill would allow
the use of seismic surveys, dart core sampling, and other
exploration technologies, all of which would leave these
areas vulnerable to oil spills, drilling discharges and
damage to coastal wetlands.
The people of New Jersey, and other residents of States
along the Atlantic Coast, do not want oil or gas rigs
anywhere near their treasured beaches and fishing grounds.
Such drilling poses serious threats not only to our
environment, but to our economy, which depends heavily on
tourism along our shore. Coastal tourism is New Jersey's
second-largest industry, and the New Jersey Shore is one of
the fastest-growing regions in the country. According to the
New Jersey Department of Commerce, tourism in the Garden
State generates more than $31 billion in spending, directly
and indirectly supports more than 836,000 jobs, more than 20
percent of total state employment, generates more than $16.6
billion in wages, and brings in more than $5.5 billion in tax
revenues to the state.
Considering the minimal benefit and significant downside of
drilling off the coast of New Jersey, we do not believe it is
worth threatening over 800,000 New Jersey jobs to recover
what the Minerals Management Service (MMS) estimated in 2000
to be 196 million barrels of oil, only enough to last the
country barely ten days. The MMS also estimated a mean of
only 2.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas for the entire
Mid-Atlantic region. In comparison, areas of the Gulf of
Mexico already open to drilling contain 18.9 billion-barrels
of oil and 258.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
In addition, we will also work to fight against any
provision that would allow states to opt out of the OCS
moratorium. If a state chooses to opt out of the moratorium,
it would be impossible for nearby states to protect their
coasts from accidents that could happen as a result of
drilling.
We will take every step to oppose any provision that would
weaken the OCS moratorium. We ask you to join us in our
effort to protect our nation's precious coastlines, marine
ecosystems and ocean waters.
Sincerely,
Jon Corzine, Frank B. Lautenberg, Frank Pallone, Jr.,
Frank A. LoBiondo, Jim Saxton, Robert Menendez, Donald
M. Payne, Steven R. Rothman, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Robert
E. Andrews, Rush Holt, Chris Smith, Mike Ferguson, and
R.P. Frelinghuysen.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am also circulating a letter
that has already been signed by many coastal Senators and I
expect will be signed by additional Senators that expresses
our firm resolve that any amendments that threaten the OCS
moratoria in any way is unacceptable.
Finally, I have a bipartisan letter here signed by over 100 Members
of the House of Representatives stating their strong support for the
current legislative moratorium on new mineral leasing activity on
submerged lands of the Outer Continental Shelf. I ask unanimous consent
that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, April 29, 2005.
Hon. Charles Taylor,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Environment, Committee
on Appropriations, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC
Hon. Norm Dicks,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Interior and Environment,
Committee on Appropriations, Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Taylor and Ranking Member Dicks: We are
writing to express our strong support for the longstanding
bipartisan legislative moratorium on new mineral leasing
activity on submerged lands of the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS). We are deeply appreciative of the leadership your
Subcommittee has shown on this issue over the years and hope
to work with you this year to continue this vital protection.
The legislative moratorium language prohibits the use of
federal funds for offshore leasing, pre-leasing and other oil
and gas drilling-related activities in moratoria areas,
enhancing protection of these areas from offshore oil and gas
development. As you know, in 1990 President George H.W. Bush
signed an executive memorandum placing a ten-year moratorium
on new leasing on the OCS. In 1998, this moratorium was
renewed by President Bill Clinton and extended until 2012. As
you know, President George W. Bush endorsed the moratorium in
his 2006 budget. These actions have all been met with public
acclaim and as necessary steps to preserve the economic and
environmental value of our nation's coasts.
With a renewed interest in developing natural gas and oil
on the OCS, we believe it is again imperative for Congress to
reaffirm its

[[Page S6711]]

authority on this issue. Therefore, we respectfully urge you
to include the OCS moratorium language in the fiscal year
2006 Interior and Environment Appropriations legislation.
Specifically, we ask you to use the language in Sections 107,
108 and 109, Division E, Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies of the fiscal year 2005 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447). These sections restrict
oil and gas activities within the OCS in the Georges Bank-
North Atlantic planning area, Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic
planning area, Eastern Gulf of Mexico planning area,
Northern, Southern and Central California planning areas, and
Washington and Oregon planning area.
Once again, we encourage the Subcommittee to support these
important provisions, which represent over 20 years of
bipartisan agreement on the importance of protecting the
environmentally and economically valuable coastal areas of
the United States. Thank you for your consideration of this
request.
Sincerely,
Lois Capps, Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, Jeff Miller, Jim
Davis, Michael Michaud, Madeleine Bordallo, Ginny
Brown-Waite, Jay Inslee, Frank LoBiondo, Rob Simmons,
Mark Foley, Jim Langevin, Ed Case, Jim McGovern,
Sherrod Brown, Chris Smith, Dennis Cardoza, Frank
Pallone, Jr., G.K. Butterfield, Tom Feeney.
Pete Stark, Robert Wexler, Anna Eshoo, Zoe Lofgren,
Katherine Harris, Jerry Nadler, Carolyn Maloney, Alcee
Hastings, Mike Honda, Hilda Solis, Grace Napolitano,
Mark Kennedy, Brian Baird, Susan Davis, Sam Farr, Clay
Shaw, Christopher Shays, Rush Holt, Betty McCollum,
Ellen Tauscher.
Barbara Lee, Dennis Moore, Raul Grijalva, Chris Van
Hollen, Rahm Emanuel, Nick Rahall, Loretta Sanchez, Tom
Allen, Anthony Weiner, Jan Schakowsky, Brad Sherman,
Jim McDermott, Kendrick Meek, Bob Etheridge, Dale
Kildee, George Miller, Donald Payne, Tom Lantos, Earl
Blumenauer, Maxine Waters.
Wayne Gilchrest, Rosa DeLauro, Nancy Pelosi, Richard
Neal, Dennis Kucinich, Ed Markey, Henry Waxman, Michael
McNulty, Michael Bilirakis, Jane Harman, Bart Stupak,
Robert Menendez, Barney Frank, Lynn Woolsey, Luis
Gutierrez, Jim Saxton, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, William
Delahunt, Peter DeFazio, Mike Thompson,
Juanita Millender-McDonald, David Wu, Carolyn Maloney,
Bob Filner, Mario Diaz-Balart, Robert Andrews, Lincoln
Diaz-Balart, Xavier Becerra, Howard Berman, Walter
Jones, Connie Mack, Rep. Diane Watson, Doris Matsui,
Linda Sanchez, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Ric Keller,
Adam Schiff, Corrine Brown, Jim Costa, Joe Baca, Bill
Pascrell, and Eliot Engel.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, these letters indicate the bipartisan,
bicameral support to protect the current OCS moratoria. Moving in the
direction of ending the moratoria will bring unnecessary opposition to
the overall objective.
Residents of coastal States should not have to fear the specter of
oil rigs off their beaches. Again, I thank the Chair and ranking member
for their leadership on the bill, and I look forward to working with
them. I hope they will join me in protecting our precious coastlines.

____________________