To amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal.

CRAIG THOMAS RURAL HOSPITAL AND PROVIDER EQUITY ACT

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I am very proud and honored to
cosponsor legislation along with my colleagues, Senators Conrad,
Harkin, and several Members of the Senate Rural Health Care Caucus, to
honor Senator Craig Thomas.
The bill is the Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act.
As we all know, last week the Senate lost a steady hand and man who has
done much for his State of Wyoming. Craig was dependable in the finest
sense of the word. He was the epitome of what I believe a Senator
should be.
On a personal note, he was not only a colleague but a dear friend,
and I will cherish that always. He was also a fellow marine. In this
case, Semper Fidelis, ``always faithful,'' is always appropriate. If
anyone faced trouble in their life, the one person they would want by
their side riding shotgun would be Craig Thomas. The people of Wyoming
and all of Craig's colleagues knew that he fought for rural America and
always put the needs of his State above all else.
On the health care front, Craig was truly a champion for
strengthening our rural health care delivery system and provided much
needed relief to our hospitals and other providers in our rural areas.
He served for 10 years as the cochair of the Senate Rural Health Care
Caucus. He actually took the reins over as cochair after my fellow
Kansan, Senator Bob Dole, retired from the Senate. As I know
personally, certainly, it is hard to follow in the footsteps of Senator
Dole. But Craig Thomas did this with great ease and with great pride.
His steady leadership put the caucus on the map, and he made great
strides in showing all of our colleagues the true needs of rural health
care. I know the members of the caucus will miss him and his leadership
greatly.
One of the biggest accomplishments for Craig in the Rural Health Care
Caucus was passage of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which
provided a big boost to our rural hospitals and our providers. Never
before have I seen such recognition and support for our colleagues from
all geographical areas--large, small, urban, rural--for including these
badly needed rural health care provisions.
However, you would never know that it was Craig Thomas's hard behind-
the-scenes work that caused these rural health care provisions to be
included in the Medicare bill. Craig Thomas was more concerned with
getting the work done rather than taking any credit. So instead of
taking individual credit for his hard work and dedication on the
Medicare bill, Craig simply applauded the entire Senate Rural Health
Care Caucus and patted everybody else on the back--so typical of Craig.
However, Craig knew that while the passage of the Medicare bill was a
giant step for rural health, we still have much more work to do to
ensure our rural health care system can continue to survive. That is
why we are proud and honored to carry on his legacy by introducing the
Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act.
Craig and his staff have worked extremely hard over the last 6
months, getting this bill together, working with other members of the
Rural Health Care Caucus to identify their top priorities. I thank his
health staffer, Erin Tuggle, for being such a champion alongside of
Craig. I know my staff worked extremely closely with Erin, as many
others in the Senate staff have done. I have a great amount of respect
for her hard work. Erin, we are proud of you and we thank you for
everything you have done on behalf of rural health care.
We had actually planned to introduce this legislation last week with
Craig leading the charge, but now Senators Conrad, Harkin, and I and
the other members of the Rural Health Care Caucus will do our best to
lead in his absence. I have made a personal commitment to making sure
we get this bill done and ultimately provide the much needed relief to
our rural communities.
The Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act recognizes
that rural health care providers have very different needs than their
urban counterparts and that health care is not one size fits all.
The Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act of 2007,
makes changes to Medicare regulations for rural hospitals and providers
recognizing the difficulty in achieving the same economies of scale as
large urban facilities. This legislation equalizes Medicare
disproportionate share hospital payments to bring rural hospitals in
line with urban facilities. This bill provides additional assistance
for small, rural hospitals who have a low volume of patients. Often,
these hospitals have trouble making ends meet under the Medicare
payment system.
The Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act also provides
a capital infrastructure loan program to make loans available to help
rural facilities improve crumbling buildings and infrastructure. In
addition, rural providers can apply to receive planning grants to help
assess capital and infrastructure needs.
The bill extends to January 1, 2010, two incentive programs aimed at
improving the quality of care by attracting health care providers to
health professional shortage areas. The first is the Medicare Incentive
Payment Program, which provides 10 percent bonus payments to physicians
practicing in shortage areas. The second is the physician fee schedule
work geographic adjustment, which brings rural doctors' Medicare fee
schedules for wages more in line with urban doctors'.

This bill also recognizes that other providers play a great role in
the rural health delivery system. Our bill increases the payment cap
for rural health clinics to keep them in line with community health
centers, provides a 5-percent add-on payment for rural home health
services and provides a 5-percent add-on payment for ground ambulance
services in rural areas.
One of the provisions in the bill Senator Thomas particularly
championed is a provision to allow marriage and family therapists and
licensed professional counselors to bill Medicare for their services
and be paid the rate of social workers.
Currently, the Medicare Program only permits psychiatrists,
psychologists, social workers, and clinical nurse specialists to bill
Medicare for mental health services provided to seniors. However, most
rural counties do not have a psychiatrist or a psychologist. Marriage
and family therapists and licensed professional counselors are much
more likely to practice in a rural setting and are often the only
mental health professionals available.

[[Page S7681]]

Finally, this bill uses technology to improve home health services
and quality for care by creating a pilot program providing incentives
for home health agencies to purchase and utilize home monitoring and
communications technologies and facilitates telehealth services across
State lines.
Mr. President, today I am proud and honored to co-author this bill on
behalf of Craig Thomas. We all miss him greatly as a personal friend,
confidant, and strong supporter. Our thoughts and prayers are with his
wife Susan, his sons Patrick and Greg, and his daughter Lexie. With
this legislation, Craig is still with us.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for 2 minutes as in morning
business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, let me say before you leave, first, I would
appreciate it if you would add me to the legislation, and, second, I
thank you so much for doing this, for offering this piece of
legislation. That is the best we can do. We can't bring him back--we
can't do much. We just hope everything will go well with his family,
and this will be something that in truth indicates how much we cared
for him and what a true gentleman he was--strong of will and yet very
kind and decent. We want to do this in his behalf. Thank you for doing
it.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the
remarks of the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, who is himself a
strong champion for rural health care, and thank him very much for
those personal remarks that are shared by every Member of this Senate.
I thank my colleague.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just recount the state of play
and where we are. I have just spoken to my colleague, Senator Domenici.
I advise all Senators and their staffs we are still hung up on the two
proposals that relate to requiring utilities to produce a larger amount
of their energy from renewables. The amendment I offered, which is
designated the renewable portfolio standard, requires 15 percent for
renewable sources. The amendment offered on behalf of Senator Domenici,
which has a different base against which it is applied--but it has a
requirement of 20 percent against that different base and has a wider
list of ways that people can meet that requirement, a wider set of
options available--is a second-degree amendment to my amendment.
It would be my hope that we could get a vote on both amendments today
and move on to other items on the bill. This is a very important part
of what we are trying to accomplish with this legislation, so I hope
very much we can do that.
I do have a unanimous consent request that I will propound at this
point.
I ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 11 a.m. this
morning be for debate with respect to the pending amendments, with the
time equally divided and controlled between myself and Senator Domenici
or our designees; that no other amendments be in order prior to the
vote; and that at 11 a.m., without further intervening action, the
Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Domenici second-degree
amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Bingaman
amendment, as amended, if amended.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. DOMENICI. I object, Mr. President.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in light of the objection, I have no
choice but to move to table the Domenici amendment, which I intend to
do sometime after 11 o'clock. I understand there are committees meeting
right now in important sessions, so I am not going to make that motion
right now, but I expect to sometime after 11 o'clock. Then the Senate
will be able at that point to go on record as to their views on the
Domenici amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I want all the Senators who are concerned about this
legislation, concerned about what they think might happen that is not
good if, in fact, the Bingaman portfolio mandates become law, to
understand I am holding down the amendments. Certainly we can, if they
wish--many of our Members do wish to--not let the Bingaman amendment
come up for a long time. We can do that. But we cannot then keep
Senator Bingaman from tabling my amendment. There will be a motion to
table, if that is what he desires to do, sometime before noon, if that
is the time he desires. I wish he wouldn't do that. I would prefer we
have a vote on ours and a vote on his. We have asked for that, side by
side, with 60 votes on each one. That would be satisfactory to me. But
that doesn't seem to be satisfactory to Senator Bingaman, which I
thoroughly understand.
With that, those who want to speak against Senator Bingaman's
amendment or in favor of the Domenici amendment, we gladly, on our
side, accept anything you would like to say. Come down here before 11,
or shortly after 11, and you will be heard. For those who want to be
part of what is normally called a filibuster, or delaying tactic, and
have asked me to be here with you, I do not mind doing that. In fact,
that is my job.
I think some of you should come down and speak and be heard on the
matter. I wish you would.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Obama.) The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wanted to speak in favor of the Bingaman
amendment. I have worked with Senator Bingaman not just in this
iteration of our energy policy choices but also previously as a member
of the Energy Committee when we put together an EPAct 2005.
My belief is we ought to manifest change here, and the change with
respect to the proposal offered by my colleague, Senator Bingaman, is
to require that 15 percent of the electricity that we would generate in
the future would come from renewable energy sources. That is change.
I do wish to say to my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici,
we work together on the Energy and Water appropriations subcommittee,
and we have a good working relationship. I do not believe he needs to
in any way injure or demolish the Bingaman amendment in order to
achieve his goals because, frankly, Senator Domenici has pushed very
hard, for example, to advance the nuclear energy industry in this
country.
In conversation with him, as I have told him, I believe we are going
to see additional nuclear energy power in this country because we now
come to a different intersection. That intersection includes energy and
climate change. As a result of climate change being a part of this
calculation, I think there will be some additional nuclear energy in
our country. I might say that Senator Domenici has made a substantial
amount of progress in recent years, both on the policy side and also
the appropriations side, in advancing those issues.
So the point I would make is this: I do not think one has to in any
way injure what Senator Bingaman is doing in order to accomplish the
other pieces that Senator Domenici wishes. Because of that, I do not
support the Domenici amendment which I think injures the center of what
Senator Bingaman is trying to do, because I support the renewable
portfolio standard. I do not particularly like that name because it is
not a very identifiable name. I used to call it homegrown energy. But
whatever it is, it is saying: We need a change.
What is that change? Well, let's decide that a portion--15 percent--
of our electric energy in this country shall come from renewable
sources. We have the capability of producing renewable energy from a
variety of sources: wind energy, biomass, solar, and others. There is
great promise in a number of these areas. Take a look at what Europe is
doing in solar energy. Some of the very large solar energy applications
are very promising and exciting, bringing prices down with substantial
widespread development.
Let me just mention wind energy for a moment. I know some have said
this is only about wind energy, but that is

[[Page S7682]]

not the case at all. But wind energy does have substantial potential.
Taking energy from the wind, using the new, advanced, highly capable
turbines, and using that energy to produce electricity--what a
wonderful thing that is. In fact, it is not even a new idea. Go to a
farmstead that has long since been abandoned and take a look at what
the homesteaders did on their farmsteads. They used their wind and
their wind-charger devices to pump water to produce some electricity.
This is not a new idea, but the new part of it is the unbelievable
technology leap in turbines, to be able to put up these wind towers and
take from the wind the energy through these turbines to produce
electricity and extend America's energy supplies.
Frankly, you can do even more with them, if you like. For example, we
have a project in North Dakota that I have helped create that I am very
proud of. We are taking energy from the wind to produce electricity and
using that electricity in the process of electrolysis--separating
hydrogen from water and creating a hydrogen fuel and storing the fuel.
So think of that. Use a turbine to take energy from the wind and
produce hydrogen fuel. That is pretty remarkable. There is so much we
can do. Now, I am talking about wind, but you can talk about biomass,
you can talk about wood chips, you can talk about all of the biomass
that is available in all parts of the country.
I know some have said, when talking about wind, that there are
certain parts of this country that have a fair amount of wind, other
parts do not have as much, and in any event, it is an intermittent
source of energy. That is true, but that does not deny the fact that
there are other kinds of renewable sources of energy, including biomass
and other forms of energy, that can be used to meet this new standard
we ought to be embarking upon. For example, we ought to be encouraging
solar energy. That is why this amendment by Senator Bingaman makes so
much sense.
There is this old saying: If you do not care where you are, you are
never going to be lost. Well, that is true. I mean, if you do not set
some standards, you are never going to wonder whether you got there. If
you did not decide where you were going and did not care where you
were, I guess you will never come up short, will you? But I think the
entire goal here of trying to put together a new energy policy ought to
be change, and change with respect to the production of electricity, in
my judgment, would be to say: Let's require 15 percent of our electric
energy to come from renewable energy.
Now, frankly, a lot of the utility companies around the country are
moving aggressively in those areas. I mean, they are moving
aggressively in pursuit of that kind of policy. I commend them. Boy, I
think many of them are moving in a way that is something they deserve
great compliments about. They understand renewable energy. Yes, even
intermittent sources of energy, if you put them together in different
ways, can provide almost a stable source of baseload.
So I think this amendment is one of the most important amendments on
this Energy bill because it represents profound change. We have only 2
or 3 percent of the electricity in this country now produced by
renewable sources of energy. We can just blithely go and act as if, you
know, things never change and we don't have to worry, we can just be
happy and decide we don't want to change in this area, or we can decide
now that as we debate the policies, let's try to develop fundamental
change. That is what the Bingaman amendment does.
I understand the resistance to it. I understand there is always
resistance to change. That is just a fact. There was an old codger who
was once interviewed by a radio station. He was 80-something years old.
The radio reporter said to him: Well, you must have seen a lot of
changes in your long life. He said: Yep, and I have been against every
one of them. Easiest thing in the world to be against change. In many
ways, it is the most natural thing in the world to be against change.
There are two changes here. The change with respect to the 15
percent--that change makes great sense. Senator Domenici is also
pursuing change in a different way. I think that makes some sense,
moving in other areas, but that should not be done in a way that
injuries the Bingaman amendment because I think, as I indicated
previously, this issue of clean energy, which represents the addition
of more hydropower, which I support, which represents the understanding
we are going to have additional nuclear energy, which I think most in
this body understand given the intersection now of climate change and
energy--but that ought not and does not have to come at all at the
expense of what Senator Bingaman is promoting with respect to
fundamental change in the construct of the electric energy that is
delivered around this country.
Mr. President, it will be a profound disappointment if we go through
a second round of energy policy discussion on the floor of the Senate--
we did it a couple of years ago; we are doing it now--it will be a
profound disappointment if we are not able to enact what is called a
renewable energy standard or renewable portfolio standard. I think one
would be able to look at this and say: Well, yes, you talked about
energy. Yes, you did some things that were good. But you missed a very
important opportunity. This legislation was brought the floor of the
Senate on a bipartisan basis; that means the absence of partisanship.

Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici, both people who know a lot
about energy, both have been leaders of the Energy Committee--I have
worked with both, and have great regard for both of them. So we did
not, in the Energy Committee, push this amendment to have a renewable
portfolio standard because we knew it would cause a division in what
was brought to the floor of the Senate. I think it was almost unanimous
in the Energy Committee, Republicans and Democrats. Now there is a
division. I don't think so much that it is Republican or Democratic,
but there is a division with respect to this larger question: Should
our electric energy reflect a change in how it is produced? Should we
require those who produce electricity in this country to produce 15
percent of it from renewable sources--solar, hydro and wind and biomass
and so on? The answer ought to be a resounding yes. It ought to come in
a chorus from this Senate because it reflects exactly the right kind of
change.
The question my colleague, Senator Domenici, is asking with his
second-degree is one that, in my judgment, I would prefer he ask
without injuring the Bingaman proposal. I don't think we have to try to
defeat a 15-percent requirement in order to say we believe there are
constructive choices ahead of us with respect to other forms of energy.
That is why I hope--I know there is this discussion about, we ought
not to have two votes, a vote on the Bingaman amendment and a vote on
what I believe is a second-degree, and each should require 60 votes. I
don't support that at all. That does not make any sense. Let's try now
to do two things. Let's try, in this area of constructing energy
policy, to pass the Bingaman amendment which reflects real change. The
construct of our electric production in this country ought to be 15
percent from renewables. If we cannot do that, then we are not going to
make great progress in changing energy policy. After we do that, I
would hope we could talk about Senator Domenici's aspirations. Could we
use more hydropower? Sure. Do I support that? Yes, absolutely. Are we
on the road to additional nuclear energy? Absolutely, and much to the
credit of his work in the authorizing and the Appropriations Committee.
But that need not be done at the expense of a policy that says: We
ought to, as a matter of course in this country, require 15 percent of
our electricity to come from renewable sources.
You know, this whole energy issue is interesting. I mentioned the
other day that we just take it all for granted. Every single day, we
get up in the morning and we just flip a switch; normally it is down,
we put it up. All of a sudden, there are lights. We plug something into
a wall which looks like an ordinary wall, with a couple of holes in it,
and all of a sudden, you can shave or you can run a hair dryer, you can
run an electric toothbrush. Through the rest of our entire day, it is
all about energy. We just take it for granted until it does not exist.
When that energy does not exist, our lives change.

[[Page S7683]]

The water is not hot--there are so many things in our lives that come
from energy, and we just take it all for granted.
Sixty percent of our oil comes from off our shore, much of it from
very troubled parts of the world. We want to deal with that. We produce
a substantial amount of electricity, and we now understand there is an
intersection between the energy production and also climate change in
our country that we have to address, not just in our country but on
this planet. So we bring a bill to the floor that has portions of each.
This is not so much a climate change bill as it is an energy bill, but
it reflects in the bill itself--recognizes where we are headed as a
Congress with respect to all of it.
I have said previously and I believe that we will continue to use
fossil fuels--coal, oil, and natural gas. That is just the fact. The
question is not whether we use them; it is how we use them. That is why
some of us are offering amendments. I will work on the appropriations
side on the issue of clean power and the issue of clean coal technology
and so on. But even as we do that, as we decide we will continue to use
fossil fuels, we should not embrace the same old nonsense we have heard
for decades around here; that is, real men dig and drill. If you are a
real man, you dig and drill. If you are talking about renewables,
somebody can pat you on the forehead and say: Good try. Its kind of a
softheaded thing to be talking about, but it does not have the
equivalence of understanding that you need to dig and drill for
America's future. Yes, we need to dig some. Yes, we need to drill some.
We are going to use fossil fuels. But we need to understand that
renewables are no longer just some sort of sideshow. Renewable energy
is a significant part of our capability. If we do not exercise that
capability and use it in a way that benefits our energy supply and also
benefits the climate change issues we confront, then we will have
fallen far short of what we should do.
I see my colleague from Idaho is here. I wanted to mention that he
has spoken on the floor about the need to increase supply, and he and I
agree on that. We introduced a piece of legislation called the SAFE Act
which supports increased automobile efficiency. It also supports
increased production of fossil fuels, of oil.

I see Senator Craig in the Chamber. He and I are filing an amendment
that deals with the increased production recommendations we had
previously made in legislation that is called the SAFE Act, Security
and Fuel Efficiency Energy Act. It would authorize additional
production, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico where the greatest
potential production exists. From my standpoint, Senator Craig and I
have had long discussions about this. We have filed the amendment. My
expectation is I would not call that particular amendment up. From what
we have learned in the Chamber, I don't think we have the capability to
get the votes for that particular amendment.
I believe filing it is important to say this: We need to do a lot of
things well, and we need to do a lot of things right in order to
address the energy issue. Part of it is conservation. Part of it is
efficiency. Part of it is production. There exists substantial
additional production capability in the Gulf of Mexico that is untapped
that I believe we ought to consider for additional production. Senator
Craig and I have worked on that.
The amendment is filed. It is likely we will not call it up for
consideration because we do not have the capability to get that enacted
in the Senate. Everything has a maturity date, and this is short of
that date. But because the Senator from Idaho came on the floor, I
wanted to mention that important issue.
Energy legislation that works for this country is balanced
legislation which balances a range of issues.
I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for yielding. I appreciate the filing
of that amendment.
What Americans are frustrated by--and I think the Senator realizes
that--is the lack of balance. He and I have said that. We can conserve
and we can change and we can adjust and we can adapt, but we also have
to produce, and that brings the balance. I think what you and I did
very early this year helped drive the debate that is on the floor now,
when we looked at biofuels and efficiencies and production in the SAFE
Act and began to argue and articulate those points of view. I thank the
Senator for filing that amendment because that completes a very
necessary package that brings us to the reality of what Americans want
from their energy portfolio.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague. I have been
pleased to work with him. Both of us have been putting together a piece
of legislation we introduced earlier this year. We believe there needs
to be some significant balance. We support conservation. We support
efficiency and additional production, all with appropriate safeguards
and restrictions.
Finally, the amendment offered by Senator Bingaman, I believe Senator
Bingaman and Senator Domenici, the chairman and ranking member of the
Energy Committee, have done a good job in bringing a bill to the floor
that allows us early on this year, in June, to debate an energy policy
so we can get something through the Congress. This is a good bill. It
is not the best bill, necessarily, but it is an awfully good bill. I
commend their work. I believe we will lose something important if we
get involved in this debate about the Bingaman amendment, the 15-
percent RPS, and we decide we can't move in that direction.
There is a Cherokee Indian chief who once said: The success of a rain
dance depends a lot on the timing. Timing is everything. That is
especially true in a public policy debate. We have been at this for a
long while talking about a requirement, a mandate that a certain
portion of what we produce for electricity come from renewables. The
only way we are going to get there is to pass legislation to do it.
Senator Bingaman proposes--and I support, as do others--a 15-percent
requirement. It adds to the bill. It creates an important public policy
change that will add to this bill in a way that tells the American
people: We are about constructive change for energy security. I hope
very much we can pass this amendment.
People need to understand, while Senator Domenici has offered his as
a second degree, some of what he is trying to do makes a lot of sense
to me and is being done in other venues and should be done in other
circumstances and can be done exclusive of the Bingaman amendment. What
he aspires to do and what I support, in many cases, ought not be done
at the expense of obliterating the 15-percent RPS that Senator Bingaman
and I and others are trying to get done. I hope we can move on at some
point, have an up-or-down vote on the Bingaman amendment, and add
something in policy to this energy bill that all of us will be proud of
in the future.
There are many utilities moving in this direction, probably not quite
this aggressively, but they are moving in this direction because they
too believe this is essentially good public policy. My hope is the
Bingaman amendment will be approved by the Senate, perhaps today, and
all of us will believe we have significantly strengthened the Energy
bill we are considering today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the debate that has had the Senate occupied
for the last several days is a fundamentally very important debate, for
not only this Senate but certainly for the American people. There are a
variety of things that have grasped the attention of the American
consumer at this moment. Obviously immigration has been one, and we
have been aggressively involved in that in the Senate the last month.
The other thing happens weekly, when that consumer goes to the gas pump
and pulls his or her car up and fills it. All of a sudden, they pay a
$45 or a $50 or a $60 or a $70 fuel bill. They say: My goodness, how am
I going to readjust my family budget to fit these kinds of needs?
The broad bill we have before us is in part attempting to address
that issue. There is no question about that. We are working very hard
to get this country back into the business of production but in a
diversified way. That is important. We should not be held hostage by
foreign energy suppliers. Yet over the years we have drifted into that
environment for a lot of reasons, some of them of our own doing,
because we constantly restricted our own ability to

[[Page S7684]]

produce and we have set standards that make it much more expensive to
produce. Some of that production has gone offshore. But we have also
grown, and we demand more. We have larger cars, and that is our choice
in the marketplace.
At the same time the American consumer is being hit by pump shock
today, or nozzle shock, whatever you want to call it, in the reality of
what we are about.
On the electricity side of the issue--because that is a bit more
subtle, because that bill doesn't happen every day or every other day
or twice a week at the pump by the digits rolling in the pump to show
you what it is going to cost you--it comes once a month in a power bill
or it may even be automatically deducted from your checking account.
The subtlety of energy costs from the electrical side are less, but
they are still very real. In creating an abundant electrical market, we
ought to be extremely careful that we don't limit it in a way that
continually drives up the cost of electrical production.
We have said, and we are continuing to say, the old concepts of
electrical production are largely out or at least they aren't as clean
as we want them to be. Because in the context of this whole energy
debate, several years ago entered the concern about climate change,
therefore, the emission of greenhouse gases that some believe are a
major contributor to the warming of our globe. That is in dispute. I
believe it is legitimately in dispute as to what or how or in what
volume greenhouse gases play to climate change and warming, but the
reality is, Americans say today: It has to be clean, or you shouldn't
produce it. So we are now on the floor debating, if you will,
cleanliness. Some years ago we started talking about that and we said:
Well, the only way, 10 or 12 years ago, you could get clean into your
electrical production was wind and solar.
In the Clinton years, because of the environmental movement and the
power they had over that administration, they no longer said hydro is
allowed to be considered a renewable or a clean fuel. It is an anomaly
of the past, and it dams up rivers and changes the ecosystems of
aquacultures. We can't go there anymore. So they pulled hydro out of
the mix and out of the blend. As a result, it doesn't get fitted into
the environment of a renewable portfolio standard of the kind we are
debating today.
What evolved out of a 1990s debate to today is a standard we call RPS
the Senator from New Mexico has introduced, and it is largely a wind
standard. Yes, it includes biofuels, but it is dominantly driven by
wind today. It creates a unique niche in the electrical market for
wind, and it subsidizes wind. It requires that to meet the standard,
you pretty much have to go wind.
I have not disagreed in total with it in the past, although I have
opposed it because I think it is an arbitrary act on the part of
Government to distort the marketplace. But at the same time there is no
question, through tax subsidy, a tax credit, that we have, in fact,
driven the marketplace toward wind. That was then. What is now?
The world has changed since the mid-1990s, since the concept of RPS.
But we are still here having a 1990s debate when we ought to be having
a 2010 and a 2020 debate. That debate is not all about renewable and
all about wind. It is partially about it, but it is not all about it.
Today it is about wind, biomass, biofuels in a lot of forms, nuclear--
clean, nonemitting sources. It is about new hydro efficiencies. We are
learning very rapidly that efficiencies in the marketplace can create
quantum leaps in savings and, therefore, less growth rate in demand of
production.
All of those ought to be a part of a test today, if we are going to
establish national policy. If we are going to demand certain levels of
performance out of the production side of our utility industry, our
electrical industry, then we ought to be balanced. We ought to be
broader and, most importantly, we ought to use a new, modern
definition, a new, modern screen, a measurement. I don't think it is
RPS anymore. I think it is clean.
Having said all of that, if RPS survives this debate, here is what is
going to happen. It is going to be a very expensive trip for the
consumer and the taxpayer. If RPS survives and we don't move to a newer
standard and we put into place the kinds of demands that take us to a
15-percent requirement and then we turn to the Finance Committee, I
believe Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley--and we will debate that as
it relates to wind energy and a tax credit on a 1, 3, 5, sometimes 10
years, someday probably a 10-year involvement--what will it cost? It is
estimated it could cost $3 billion, $5 billion, $10 billion, $15
billion, in a direct Government subsidy, a tax credit, to produce the
RPS requirement that is being proposed.
Fairness is fair. A CPS requirement will cost some money. We are
having it costed out today. We don't believe it will be anywhere near
as dramatic, because it will be spread amongst a much broader portfolio
than the narrowest of an RPS. Is this an expensive process? You bet it
is. When you enter a new technology into the market that isn't as
efficient or competitive, you subsidize it.
That is what we are doing with wind today. But we are creating a new
uniqueness. We are saying: OK, here is a market niche for your wind. We
are going to give you some of the market. Then we are going to give you
tax credits and benefits to get into the market because we want you
producing wind. So we are creating a very unique market niche, and we
are saying to all the utilities: You have to meet it.
Well, 23 States are already out in front of us. They have some form
of RPS or renewable portfolio standard. Some of them are higher than
the Bingaman standard, some of them are lower. But there is a movement
out there, and there ought to be flexibility in that movement, instead
of the rigidity that is the reality of the current RPS. That is what we
offer in a CPS or a clean portfolio standard--broaden the base, get
modern, let's do not keep regurgitating the past.
I am always amazed that once one group--any group, any interest
group--locks on to an idea they can capture the mind with, and they
ride that idea for decades, sometimes when it no longer fits the
technology of the day or the demands of the marketplace. I believe RPS
is that idea that got locked on to in the mid-1990s that no longer fits
the marketplace today. I do believe CPS fits the climate change
concern, fits the regional disparity as a result of the geography of
our country, where there is wind and no wind. I tell some of my
southern Senator friends there is a lot of hot air in the South but
there is not any wind. Well, there is not any wind in the South. So
they have to go out and buy it.
You have utilities in Florida buying wind farms out in the Midwest.
Is that somehow going to make Florida cleaner? Why don't we give
Florida the opportunity to build clean energy right in Florida, instead
of buying something out in the Midwest to offset? It is a strange
thing. It is kind of like: Well, we believe in a very green standard.
You are going to have to buy your way in if you cannot produce your way
in.
I disagree with that. I think you ought to be able to produce your
way in. I do not mind clean standards, but I do not think you ought to
disadvantage certain regions of the country by the standard you are
requiring. CPS changes that. It says we are requiring a cleaner
standard in new production. You can do it through wind, as the Senator
from New Mexico is proposing; you can do it through biomass; you can do
it through new nuclear; you can do it through new hydro; You can do it
through new efficiencies. If someday--and I believe it will--coal to
liquids comes on line, you can do it through carbon sequestration or,
ultimately, we may be able to retrofit our existing coal-fired
generation facilities in a way to capture that carbon and sequester it.
If we can, shouldn't they get credit for it? Shouldn't there be some
benefit for cleaning up the air, instead of letting that remain dirty,
but you buy your way out of it by going somewhere else to buy something
that is clean?
That is an interesting concept, but that is the concept if you do not
identify with the marketplace and you do not identify with the regions
and the capability of the regions and the uniqueness of our country
today. That is why Southern Senators are frustrated at this moment,
because the amendment on RPS says you cannot do it by what we say so
you have to go somewhere else and buy it.

[[Page S7685]]

Let's make the standard uniform. Let's make it fit all parties. Let's
allow it to reflect the diversity of the countryside and the resource
that is available in the countryside. We think that is possible. We
think if you do it, it is less expensive than the RPS that is currently
being proposed.
Here is what I am suggesting to those who are a little concerned
about budget exposure because we have not seen what the Finance
Committee will do. But if the Finance Committee brings about the tax
credits that we think for a 1-, a 3-, and a 5- and someday a 10-year
reality, that cost could be $3 billion, $5 billion, $10 billion, $15
billion. Current law is here. Future law could well be here based on
what we think the Finance Committee will offer. So we create the
marketplace niche today for wind, and tomorrow we finance it. It is a
very expensive proposition.
I have wind farms coming up in Idaho, and I am glad they are there,
and they are going to blend and be a part of our overall economy. I am
all for wind, but I am not just for wind. Again, it is a concept whose
day has matured. It is an idea that now fits well beyond the 1990s into
the year 2000 and beyond, as new concepts come on board.
In other words, let's get modern. Let's build a policy for the
future. Let's don't simply react to the past because the interest
groups of the past are still here driving it. Let's think beyond that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, before the Senator from Idaho leaves the
floor, I wish to make a short statement and then pose a question to him
so I am sure we are understanding things correctly.
My short statement is that the Energy Information Administration has
made it clear they see the main beneficiaries of the renewable
portfolio standard proposal I have put forward--not as wind--they see
the increase in wind capacity at 50 percent, but they say biomass will
increase 300 percent. Beyond that, they recognize biomass currently
produces more electricity--about twice as much electricity--as does
wind. So they see a dramatic increase in biomass, which the Southeast
part of the country has a great deal of. They also project a 500-
percent increase in electricity production from solar power.
But to the point the chart makes that the Senator from Idaho has in
the Chamber, first of all, there are two ways--Mr. President, this is
in preface to a question I am going to pose to the Senator from Idaho.
There are two ways we are trying to stimulate more use of renewable
energy and more production of renewable energy. One is through the Tax
Code. As he points out, there are various tax credits--the production
tax credit, the investment tax credit for various kinds of renewable
energy. The other is through what I have proposed here, which is the
renewable portfolio standard, which is a requirement that utilities
produce power from these sources.
Now, if we just do the tax provisions, and do not do the renewable
portfolio standard, then that is what is indicated on the bottom line
of the chart, as I understand it. You get the substantial increase in
budget impacts--that the red line reflects--if you do both, if you do
the tax provisions and you also do the renewable portfolio standard
because the renewable portfolio standard will ensure that more people
qualify for the tax credits because you are going to be producing more
electricity from solar, you are going to be producing more electricity
from wind, you are going to be producing more electricity from biomass.
Every time you do, it costs the Federal Treasury because that new
energy is eligible for these tax credits.

Am I understanding correctly that is why the budget impact is
reflected as it is there?
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, that is my understanding, I say to the
Senator, if there is a renewal of the tax credit based on what we think
Finance will do. Here is the problem--
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me ask another question. Does the
chart the Senator from Idaho has on the floor assume there is a renewal
of the tax credit or that the tax credit expires?
Mr. CRAIG. It assumes there is a renewal of it. Because what you do,
what you know you are doing, if your policy becomes law--there is no
opt out at this point--you drive the entire national utility
marketplace to a standard. By driving them there, you give them this
opportunity, and it is a U.S. tax opportunity. There is no question
that is the tax credit. You must go here. And when you go there, you
can identify with the tax credit under the assumption--and that is
fair--the Finance Committee is going to come forth with it. And we have
every reason to believe they will.
That is what drives it. The reason it does is because, if you do not,
you put the industry in a very precarious situation. Wind today does
not pay its way. It is still on the margin. Based on its productivity
in certain wind patterns, it has to be subsidized to fit into the
market. How you subsidize it is through the credit, or you are simply
saying you are going to do something you cannot afford to do, so you
are going to have to go right to the ratepayers and charge them a much
higher price than you otherwise would with the credit to come into
compliance with the RPS.
Yes. So that is the appropriate assumption of this chart.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me ask one other line of questioning
to the Senator, and I appreciate his answer.
The Domenici proposal, which is the alternative the Senator from
Idaho is advocating for, as I understand it--not only as it has been
described by the Senator from Idaho but by my colleague from New Mexico
and others--not only would encourage utilities to produce more power
from the sources I have identified--the renewable sources, traditional
renewable sources of solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, tidal and all--
but it also says we want to encourage more production of nuclear power,
as I understand it.
Mr. CRAIG. And new hydro, where it fits, and efficiencies and
sequestration, yes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Would the Senator from Idaho agree with me that to the
extent that amendment is successful in doing that, in encouraging all
of that additional nuclear power, nuclear generation, and all, that
also is going to cost the Treasury, and that is also going to drive up
what is indicated on the chart?
I notice there is no line on the Senator's chart to represent what
the fiscal impact on the budget would be from the Domenici proposal.
But my assumption is, it would be at least as expensive to the Federal
budget as mine would be, or else if it would not be as expensive that
is because the Domenici amendment would not be as effective in
promoting development of these sources; am I correct?
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, you are correct to
assume a CPS standard would have a budgetary impact as much as an RPS
standard. The RPS standard--as I have said, it is a bit old school, so
it is considerably more measurable, and you are forcing production into
a narrower slot in the marketplace--wind and bio--whereas we are
broadening the slot dramatically.
Yes, there are some of those new nuclear plants, as you know, as it
relates to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that are going to have some
tax benefits. The first certain numbers are. Sequestration, more than
likely--to encourage it, and to make it reasonable in the marketplace--
is going to have some tax consequence. We promote efficiency in the
marketplace through that. But in all fairness to the Senator, it is not
yet a measurable item. Those who are looking at it now say it is
probably spread and less costly, but it is also more than just a cost
item.
As I said, if you take a Florida utility that meets the standards by
buying wind in the Midwest, it does nothing for the airshed in Florida;
whereas, a CPS says you can build clean in Florida and benefit the
airshed of Florida. I think there is the other side of that value.
Lastly, if I could react, and the Senator would allow me to, I am all
for biofuels. But driving the biofuel market under the current
technology--I am surprised some environmentalists are not reacting
because it is not a totally clean emitting technology. We are all for
it because it is renewable. I am for it because it helps us clean up

[[Page S7686]]

the forest floors and do a lot of other things that are the right
things to do out there. But we also know when you burn it--and you are
burning it--you have carbons, and that is escaping to some degree.
So driving it is the right thing but giving clean options is also the
right thing. That is what CPS does.
Thank you.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Georgia is in
the Chamber wishing to speak on the bill. I will defer to him, and we
will come back for additional debate in the coming hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank both distinguished Senators from
New Mexico.
I rise for a few minutes to talk about this bill and the renewable
portfolio standards and the effects on my State of Georgia.
I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from
Idaho. I did not hear them all, but I heard the narrow stovepipe versus
the broad approach, and that is one of the things I want to talk about
because we have a diverse country with many assets that regionally are
very different. If we are going to have renewable portfolio standards
that call on us to find renewable energy to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil, we have to exploit and promote all those sources, not
narrow those sources.

I also wish to quote from our prayer this morning from Pastor
Sturdivant. Pastor Sturdivant called on all of us during this process
of legislation, prayed for us to have patience. I do think we all need
to have patience when dealing with this bill because I wish to tell my
colleagues what the effect of the renewable portfolio standards are on
the State of Georgia. We don't have the wind to meet the standards; we
don't have it. The tax that would in turn be imposed on these
utilities, all regulated, thus ultimately paid by the taxpayer, would
be the following: On electric membership cooperatives it would be a
half a billion dollars between now and 2020, and on Southern Company,
it would be $7.6 billion.
Now, I know the bill attempts to exempt electric membership
cooperatives, but when you analyze the bill, 7 of Georgia's 42
cooperatives would be included. Those 7 cooperatives produce 50 percent
of all the energy generated by cooperative services in Georgia. So,
therefore, because of the way it is worded in its current form, and as
I understand the Bingaman amendment, 10 States, mine being one of them,
would be in a position of not being able to meet the standard because
of nothing beyond their control and would have an imposition of
taxation that ultimately goes to our ratepayers, both to either the
Southern Company or the electric membership cooperatives who are not
exempt, to the tune of almost a total cumulatively of $8 billion.
Now, one of the things this bill talks about at its outset: It says
this is to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing
in clean, renewable, and alternative energy sources. I wish to talk for
a minute about a clean, renewable, alternative energy source that we
know exists, that we are currently utilizing, and that for some reason,
we continue to stay away from reenergizing, and that is nuclear energy.
We had great testimony by Vice President Gore before the EPW Committee
earlier this year, and each of us on the committee got to ask the
distinguished Vice President a question--or more questions--5 minutes'
worth of questions. When it came to be my time, I asked the Vice
President, accepting that every factor in the global warming argument
is correct, how can we not seek to reenergize the nuclear energy in
this country to help meet that demand of lessening carbon, having
renewable sources of energy that are safe, efficient, and inexpensive?
That is the question I pose today: How do we look toward meeting the
challenges of removing or lessening our dependence on foreign
petroleum, and yet not get back in the business of building nuclear
powerplants? It is something I think is essential for us to do, and an
energy bill that does not include it as a renewable source of energy is
missing the boat.
My State of Georgia has nuclear powerplants. When I was in the State
legislature, we were building plans for them. The Southern Company
wants to get licensing to put another reactor on Vogle to expand its
capacity. In talking about nuclear energy, most of the fears that
resulted in the 1970s, although well-founded because of Chernobyl,
have, in fact, proven American technology to be superior. The Three
Mile Island accident that happened in the 1970s was a tragic accident,
but it proved the redundant fail-safe mechanism of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission standards in the building of nuclear powerplants.
That was technology of the 1970s and late 1960s. Today we have the
knowledge we have gained from over 30 more years of the use,
development, and understanding of nuclear power.
Today, we power our nuclear aircraft carriers, such as the Eisenhower
returning from the Persian Gulf, on nuclear energy. In Georgia, the
Trident submarines, where our sailors, at close quarters for months on
end under the sea, live comfortably and with a nuclear reactor. Why is
it, when we have petroleum prices running through the roof, when we
want to sequester carbon and reduce its input, do we still look the
other way on a source of energy that is reliable, that is safe, that is
inexpensive, and that now we know its byproducts are recyclable for
further use? This brings me to a second point.
Four Senators in this body, the two Senators from South Carolina and
the two Senators from Georgia, along with the Governors of both of
those States and the mayors and city councils of the City of Aiken, SC,
and Augusta, GA, have gone to the Department of Energy and said: Why
not take the Savannah River plant, which for years manufactured the
warheads for our nuclear weapons, and turn it into a mock facility to
recycle spent nuclear material back into productive energy-generating
nuclear material. So you have two States volunteering to recycle. You
have a process that allows it to become renewable. You have a Federal
investment already at a site that has been used for years. These are
the types of creative things we need to do as we pursue reducing our
dependence on foreign oil.
Nuclear energy will not do it all. Wind cannot do it all. Solar
cannot do it all. Hydro cannot do it all, and biomass cannot do it all.
But collectively, together, operating as a team, incentivizing by the
laws we pass, we have a chance to do exactly what the title of this
bill portends.
I wish to associate myself entirely with the remarks of the Senator
from Tennessee yesterday afternoon, Senator Alexander, who so
eloquently expressed the punitive nature of the RPS standards in the
Bingaman proposal as far as his State of Tennessee and my State of
Georgia. I also associate myself with what Senator Craig from Idaho
said. If we are going to seek alternatives, let's seek them all. Let's
seek safety. Let's encourage them through tax policy, and let's reduce
our dependence, but let's not make the reduction approach so narrow we
penalize some and reward others.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am glad our country continues to focus
on what we can do better to produce energy for electricity, fuel for
our automobiles, and the like, in a way that is friendly to our
environment and promotes our national security because in many
situations, we are far too dependent on nations that are not friendly
and are hostile, actually. Huge amounts of our wealth each year,
particularly for the fuel that goes into our automobiles, is
transferred to nations, such as Venezuela. It has made them very rich
in the short term, and as a result, as Tom Friedman, a writer, said:
The richer they get, the worse they behave. So we need to reduce the
amount of America's wealth being transferred abroad.
With regard to electric power, almost all of that power is generated
domestically with our own energy sources and by our own American
people. It is not

[[Page S7687]]

as significant for us in the economic and national security area as is
automobile gasoline, 60 percent of which is imported. That is why I
think when it comes to choices, we need to emphasize automobile fuels
and what we can do to reduce our dependence and improve efficiencies.
I have been pleased to serve with Chairman Bingaman on the Energy
Committee. I just joined that committee. He is a man of intelligence
and decency and commitment to doing right. We have had quite a number
of hearings. We have not gone into this issue lightly. I am, however,
reluctantly compelled to oppose his renewable portfolio standard
amendment and would like to share a few thoughts about it.
First, the overall estimate is that in areas of the country that do
not have the natural conditions that allow us to expand renewable
energy sources there will be huge costs that will be borne. It seems
that some like to suggest those costs will fall on the utilities.
Nobody likes utilities because they send us a bill every month. We tend
to forget they send us electricity every month also. But they send us a
bill every month, and if we don't pay it, they will shut off our
electricity. It is not a very pleasant thing to hear from your utility.
But utilities throughout America are regulated utilities. What they
charge has to be approved by public service commissions or commissions
of a like nature.
We have a public service commission in Alabama. Those public service
commissions monitor their profits and monitor their charges for
electricity and disapprove many times requests for rate increases.
There is a principle that each and every one of our Senators need not
forget; and that is, if areas that don't have the capacity to generate
electricity with renewables have to pay the penalties and have to pay
for other ways to get electricity, that cost, which some have estimated
to be $100 billion to $200 billion annually, is the equivalent of this
Congress taxing the people in those areas of the country $100 billion
to $200 billion and directing it to be spent in this fashion whether or
not it is the best way to protect our environment.
In an economic sense and in a true sense, we are saying we are not
going to tax the people in the country to fund these programs. We are
just going to pass a mandate, and we are going to mandate it on these
businesses. And if they cannot meet it, then we are going to require
them to pay a penalty. We didn't tax them, we are not taxing anybody,
and we are going on about our business and we are going to move us to a
more renewable portfolio--a good goal, you see.
But if you step back and look at this, it is the equivalent of taxing
the people hundreds of billions of dollars, and that tax will be passed
on to consumers of electricity. Already their gasoline prices have gone
up dramatically, and now we are seeing some rise in electricity rates,
and this is going to be passed on. There is no free lunch. It will be
passed on, and the people to whom it is going to be passed on to the
most are the people in my State because our wind resources will not
work.
Wind in some areas of this country will work. It really will. It can
be virtually competitive with other sources of electricity, and that is
nice; although in areas that are fairly congested with people, people
don't like all these wind turbines. But out West, in some areas, I
assume there is still potential to expand wind, and I am for that. I
just don't like to see us require wind turbines where it is not going
to work, or solar panels where it won't work.
In my home State of Alabama, one would think we have a good bit of
sunshine, but in truth, we have a lot of clouds, and solar is not
effective in our area. It is not effective anywhere really. It is much
more expensive than any other form of generating electricity and least
effective in the Northeast. Even in the Southeast, because of our
thunderstorms and our long periods in which we have cloudy weather, it
is an unpredictable source of electricity, and it is very expensive
anyway. It will be a great expense.
I share with my colleagues a letter from the Southeastern Association
of Regulatory Utility Commissions. These are the people who, for the
most part, are elected by their constituents. They represent the States
of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. They are
very much opposed to this amendment, not because they are not for
renewables, not because they want to defend some utility, but because
they know if this amendment is adopted, rates are going to go up on
their constituents and with nothing to show for it.
This is their May 31 letter, just a few weeks ago, to the leadership
in this body and the House. They say:

. . . to express our concerns about the nationwide,
mandatory federal renewable portfolio standard being
discussed/introduced by Senator Bingaman. As state
regulators, we are responsible for ensuring that retail
electricity consumers receive affordable, reliable electric
service. We are concerned that a uniform, federal RPS mandate
fails to recognize adequately that there are significant
differences among the states in terms of available and cost-
effective renewable energy resources and that having such a
standard in energy legislation will ultimately increase
consumers' electricity bills.

Then they go on to note, quote:

The reality is that not all States are fortunate enough to
have abundant traditional renewable energy resources, such as
wind, or have them located close enough to the load to render
them cost effective. This is especially true in the southeast
and large parts of the Midwest.

They go on to say, quote:

Our retail electricity customers will end up paying higher
electricity prices, with nothing to show for it.

With nothing to show for it.
So the letter goes on, and they say, quote:

While State public service commissions and energy service
providers should certainly consider available and cost-
effective renewable energy resource options as they make
long-term decisions for incremental energy needs, the
imposition of a strict Federal RPS mandate, as contrasted
with a State-driven cost-effectiveness determination, will
only result in higher electric prices for our consumers.

So that is the fundamental concern.
The goal of how we can go about this is complicated. I think we can
make progress toward more renewable energy sources, but I don't see how
we can omit nuclear power as a major player in this as the source of
tremendous amounts of electricity with no adverse emissions into the
atmosphere. How we could be ignoring that is difficult for me to
understand, I would say to my colleagues.
My goal is pretty simple, in how I analyze legislation. First, I
believe we ought to consider our national security. How does it help us
remain independent? Does it impact our economy adversely? A healthy,
growing economy is good for this country. I certainly think we should
not and must not have a goal of raising energy costs, whether it is
gasoline at the pump or electricity on the monthly bill. Raising those
prices cannot be our goal. It can only make us less competitive in this
competitive global marketplace.
Our goal cannot be to raise prices, but I will tell you that it is a
secret, unstated goal of many of the people who are driving some of
this legislation. They think if they can drive up the price of
gasoline, if they can drive up the price of electricity, the average
person won't use so much of it because they do not have enough money to
pay for it.
Well, that is not good. Our goal as a nation should be to have safe,
clean, reliable energy available at a cost as low as possible as part
of living a healthy, productive life. Electricity in nations that have
it readily available compared to countries where it is not available
have twice the lifespan. You have twice the lifespan if electricity is
readily available in your country as you do if you don't. It is a
tragedy to see countries struggle so badly. So it is a blessing for us.
Energy is not something bad. It is a fabulous blessing to our Nation to
have it as readily available as we do, and we need to keep that cost
down.
The proposal requires all distribution utilities that sell more than
4 million megawatt hours a year to meet targeted levels beginning in
2010. The RPS standard in this amendment requires each such utility to
have 15 percent of its load in renewables, and renewables are only
solar, wind, geothermal--there is no geothermal out East, either; there
is no ocean capability in our area of the country--biomass--some small
possibility but nothing like this area--

[[Page S7688]]

landfill gas--which is only incremental--and the like. It does not
include nuclear or hydro, which is so important.
The Domenici substitute would require 20 percent by 2020, but it
would allow for new nuclear and incremental nuclear, new hydropower,
and certain efficiency measures to qualify. Even then, I am afraid we
cannot reach that number.
According to the Energy Information Administration, current
nonhydroelectric renewables only account for 2.3 percent of total
generation in the United States. To get to 15 percent of all
electricity from this source would require us to increase that
production over six times. That is a lot--over six times the current
rate. So under these standards, as they are written today, according to
the Tennessee Valley Authority, according to the Southern Company and
other companies that are in our area of the country, they say there is
only one way, one thing they can do, and that is to pay the Department
of Energy the two-cents-per-kilowatt-hour penalty to meet these
targets.
Let me tell you, two cents per kilowatt-hour is a big deal.
Huntsville Utilities in Huntsville, AL, a progressive utility run by
the city, a board appointed through the city, states that the Bingaman
RPS and even the Domenici CPS would cost them $4.2 million in 2010.
This is just the city of Huntsville--$4.2 million; $8.8 million in
2013; $14.1 million in 2017; and $19.8 million in just 1 year--2020.
That is a lot of money on a city--$19 million a year, $4 million a
year. They are trying to manage their budgets carefully.
The Tennessee Valley Authority, the governmental entity Franklin
Roosevelt started back many years ago, the conservative TVA--this is a
quasi-government agency--estimates that systemwide it would cost an
additional $70 million to comply with the 3.75-percent RPS requirement
in 2011 and $410 million to meet the full 15 percent requirement in
2020. That is $400 million for the TVA system per year. That is a lot
of money.
I think Senator Alexander had raised some points: Well, what if you
used all that money--the $100 billion, $200 billion--how could you use
it if you just applied it in some rational way to include renewables
and reduce our dependence on foreign oil and keep the cost of energy at
a good level and encourage research and development? Man, you could put
scrubbers on every coal plant in the country. You could build nuclear
plants in large numbers. We could do lots of things. So this is a cost
we are imposing, but the movement it will accrue in the direction we
want to go is not great. The Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners said, quote, ``There will be nothing to show for it.''

That is the problem I have. I want to move in this direction. I would
like to see us use more biofuels, and I believe there is a potential
for that. That is the only thing that seems to be viable in my area of
the country, is expanded use of biofuels. But this is really such a
huge step that I don't think there is any way it can be met except by
paying penalties or a tax. Also, the way this thing works is the money
may very well end up just going to the Government in the form of
compliance payments or a penalty or a tax, maybe as much as $100
billion.
I really am excited about the leadership Senator Bingaman and Senator
Domenici have given to the Energy Committee. We have had lots of
hearings with some of the world's best experts on energy. We all share
a view that if we develop a good energy policy, we can improve our
environment, we can strengthen our national security, we can improve
our economy, and the like. Any change that can actually reduce our
consumption of energy and actually pay for itself over a period of time
is a step we clearly should take. But when you are taking steps that
are likely to cost far more than the benefit you receive, you have to
be very cautious.
Remember, we are not spending Federal taxpayers' money and,
therefore, creating a cost. We are passing a law which mandates that
the citizens around the country, particularly in areas that don't have
readily renewable power, will have to pay more for their electricity to
meet this standard. And they are going to have to pay a lot more. The
cost is going to be very significant, and the question is, Would that
cost have been better spent in other areas? I suggest that it would.
Some people have already made some suggestions about how we could spend
that money better.
I thank my colleagues for giving me a few moments to talk about this
amendment. I am sorry I could not be in agreement with it. The goal is
worthy. My analysis of it is the burden will fall disproportionately on
constituents in my area of the country, particularly in my State, and
therefore I must oppose it. I think we can do better in how to achieve
this goal.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, just to advise folks of what I believe
the course is going to be here in the next few minutes, Senator
Cantwell from Washington is waiting to speak. She is going to speak for
up to 10 minutes or something in that range; Senator Corker is here
from Tennessee, and he wishes to speak for a relatively short period
also; and then, as I have indicated to Senator Domenici, it will be my
intent at that point to move to table his amendment.
So that is my expectation of how we will proceed. I am not asking for
any consent to do that, but I wanted to advise Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of what is
the Bingaman amendment, to make sure we diversify our national energy
supply by investing in 15 percent renewables, and against the Domenici
amendment, which the chairman of the Energy Committee, the Senator from
New Mexico, just mentioned he is going to make a motion to table pretty
soon. I agree to tabling that amendment.
Let me say that I have listened to a lot of the debate on renewables
and what we need to do, and I have heard a lot of people talk about
wind out here and a lot of people talk about solar. I look at this a
little differently. I really think this debate is all about natural
gas.
I say it is about natural gas because I listen to the farmers in
Washington State and throughout America about the high price of natural
gas. I hear how much the price of natural gas is going up. The issue is
that natural gas is used both for our electricity grid and it is used
as a product to make a solid for fertilizer that farmers need, and the
price is going up. It has gone anywhere from what historically used to
be $2, to $7 or $8, and in some cases we have seen it go as high as $14
or $15.
What I am saying is that we are having competition for natural gas
between our electricity grids and our farmers. The future of natural
gas is only going to increase. It is only going to increase. That
leaves us with one choice; that is, to diversify off of natural gas for
our electricity grid. How do we diversify off natural gas for our
electricity grid? We start planning for renewables.

I know there are many utilities wandering the Halls of Congress
trying to lobby against this particular provision of the United States
setting a goal of focusing on renewable energy. I would say to them: Go
look at how the U.S. economy is being impacted because we are already
dependent on coal, already dependent on nuclear power, and already
dependent on this natural gas that is continuing to rise at steady
levels and is going to impact our agricultural economy.
In fact, 15 years ago, only 10 percent of our U.S. nitrogen, a
fertilizer product, was imported. Today about half of it is imported.
We have seen many of these businesses, over 21 of them in the United
States, shut down because of these high costs. What we need to do is
push to give alternative fuel; that is, alternative sources of
electricity generation, an opportunity to be used in America. The best
way for us to do that is to set this mandate in Federal policy so we
can protect consumers from the high cost of natural gas in the future.
To do nothing is to say that farmers are going to have to pay more or
maybe go out of business or their products are going to be too
expensive for international markets or say to consumers: You are going
to pay more for your electricity because natural gas prices are going
to rise or we can say to consumers instead: We took active

[[Page S7689]]

measures to diversify our electricity supply and to start using other
renewables that will help in getting off the high cost of natural gas.
To my colleagues who come to the floor and say alternative fuels are
going to cost more, doing nothing is going to cost more, and depending
on the current infrastructure is going to cost more because we already
know those supplies are going to go up. Let's take the use of natural
gas down by creating other alternatives.
I happen to believe that creating those other alternatives actually
will save consumers. I know people have mentioned how the Union of
Concerned Scientists say it will basically generate $16.7 billion
because of what it will generate in new economic activity, by using
alternative fuels. I do applaud the former chairman of the Energy
Committee, the other Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, because he
did get the ball rolling with the last Energy bill, getting us focused
on incentives for renewable energy. My State probably has taken more
advantage of that than just about any other State in the variety of
products that we are producing. We now have, in some of the communities
of our State, the alternative generation community--whether it is wind
or solar or alternative fuels. They are actually out there producing
large quantities of cheaper electricity for the grid, and they are also
becoming some of the largest employers in some of our rural
communities. From an economic development perspective, it is working.
In fact, one analysis on a national level says the clean energy
strategy could generate as much as $700 billion in economic activity
and create 5 million new jobs.
That is not just on this particular Bingaman amendment proposal but
the whole package, of which this is a symbol of the kinds of activities
that could be done with our electricity grid.
Let me say something about other sources because we keep hearing,
again, about wind and solar. This is a lot about biomass. I am a big
believer that we are going to see a lot of biomass generation across
this country--whether you are talking about switch grass or whether you
are talking about using waste to supply new electricity.
Two major industries just came by my office--one a big timber
interest and another a big existing oil company--talking about how they
are going to diversify in Southern States on biomass. I know of many
investments in the southern parts of our country in biomass, so I
expect to see a lot of jobs created in the southern region of the
United States from biomass. We have to push forward in saying we as a
nation want to see a percentage of our electricity grid from that
biomass--not just solar, not just wind, but from that biomass. To me,
this is a great opportunity to do that.
One cost that no one is talking about, because no one has put a price
on it, is the future cost of continuing to rely, with our electricity
grid, on CO<inf>2</inf> emittance and the cost to our environment of
relying on coal and some of our other generation sources in this issue.
I know my colleagues are working on what we think the cost of that will
be to future generations. But what is clear when you look at this
debate is that part of our clean energy policy, when the electricity
grid diversifies off of the more expensive products that we know are
going to go up, like natural gas, it creates more jobs in the short
term and diversifies our portfolio, driving down the demand for natural
gas and helping us on supply. It also helps us with that hidden cost
that we all are actually paying in the pollution of our current
electricity grid. It is helping individual regional economies grow.
I think the chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman, has
put forth a great proposal on 15 percent. Let's make sure we take this
stance so we let Americans know we don't think the existing energy
stream is what we are going to saddle them with for the future. The
American people believe alternative fuel can help us off of this
dependence we have right now on fossil fuel, and they believe its
development will be cheaper, cleaner, and more efficient for us in the
future. But we have to show them the Senate gets it and understands and
is willing to set that goal into Federal statute.
I hope the President will also join in this effort because the
President, as Governor of Texas, implemented a similar mandate in
Texas. I think it worked very well for them so I hope he will lend his
support; come up to the Hill and encourage people that the high cost of
natural gas on our farmers, on our businesses, is something we are not
going to tolerate, its continuing to rise is something we are not going
to tolerate. We are going to diversify off of that, protect consumers,
and give them alternative fuel sources to supply our electricity grid.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of
the Domenici amendment. I want to say as I begin my comments I think we
are extremely blessed in this Senate to have the two very distinguished
Senators from New Mexico, two Senators I respect greatly and have
advanced the energy agenda in our country in a very beneficial way.
While I speak against the Bingaman amendment, I do so with tremendous
respect for his leadership on our committee. I look forward to working
with him on many future endeavors. However, today, I must say I am in
strong opposition to that amendment. I have just come to the Senate 5
months and 2 weeks ago. One of the things the American people see in
the Senate is the tendency to want to create one-size-fits-all programs
and not take into account the various differences that exist around our
country. That happens in so many programs we put in place here in
Washington. People back home do not understand how we can be so
shortsighted as to try to put in place one-size-fits-all programs.
I think it is admirable that we are moving toward renewables. I am
very proud to be focused heavily on that in our Energy Committee and
very supportive of the base bill, with some amendments, that is before
us today. But this is nothing more than a tax, a tax on Southeast
United States, a tax where basically it is a transference of wealth
from Southeast America to other parts where wind and solar take place.
To me, a much more sensible approach is to say we do want to use
clean technologies, as the Domenici amendment does. We want to use
clean technologies, but we want to let the market do that. We want to
include technologies like nuclear. Many utilities around the country
have invested heavily in nuclear. We are finding even better ways to
process the unutilized fuel that is left. To me, what we ought to be
doing is setting a standard that allows many technologies to be brought
into America's energy production so that we are, as the Senator from
Washington just mentioned, far less dependent on carbon-emitting fuels,
far less dependent on natural gas, which is compromising our ability to
compete in other areas, in other industries, because of the high price
of natural gas.
I rise today, even though Tennessee is playing a role in wind and
solar. We have 500 employees in Memphis, TN, who are making solar
technology. I applaud the efforts to promote that technology in
America. But I rise to say the Bingaman amendment is a very
shortsighted amendment that does create a one-size-fits-all policy that
does not take into account the various geographical differences that
exist in our country. The Domenici amendment tries to rectify that. I
speak today in strong support of that amendment and hope that others in
the Senate will realize what we are doing and, hopefully, they will
embrace a standard that moves our country ahead while taking into
account the various geographic differences that exist.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from New Mexico is
recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me say a few words about the
Domenici amendment, which I will move to table. I know my colleague,
Senator Domenici, wishes to speak in support of his amendment. I
certainly will not make the motion to table until he gets a chance to
do that.
Let me say why I think his amendment is a major mistake for the
Senate to adopt and why we should table the amendment. The underlying
amendment that I offered tries to put in place a requirement that over
the next couple of decades we move toward more

[[Page S7690]]

electricity in this country being produced from renewable sources. We
have a very extensive list of what we are talking about. We are talking
about solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy, biomass, ocean
tidal current wave energy, incremental hydropower, landfill gas--those
are all what are defined as renewable energy sources, and we are trying
to stimulate the production of electricity from those sources.
We have said we have to get to a point by 2020, each utility does,
where it is either producing 15 percent of the power that it is selling
from those sources or it is buying 15 percent, taking 15 percent of
what it is selling from someone else who has produced it from those
types of sources or it is buying credits from someone who has produced
more than they were required to and therefore has sold them credits or
they have made a compliance payment. Those are all ways that utilities
can comply.
The Domenici amendment comes along and says three things: First, it
purports to say the 15 percent is not the right percentage, it ought to
be 20 percent. That sounds encouraging for those of us who like
renewable energy. But there is a bit of a sleight of hand in there, and
let me explain what that is.
In that amendment they say you take the base amount of electricity
that the utility sells and then go back and define what is the base
amount of electricity that the utility sells. It is what they sell
minus what they are selling that is produced from nuclear. That is 20
percent. So instead of taking 15 percent of 100 percent, which is what
my amendment proposes, they are taking 20 percent of the lower amount,
which would be 18 percent of the base because 20 percent of our
electricity today is produced from nuclear power. So we have
essentially a requirement that would be something in the range of 16
percent instead of the 15 that I have asked for.
Then they say: OK, let's define the requirement in a way that it does
not just include those things the Bingaman amendment calls for; that
is, production of electricity from solar power, wind power, geothermal,
biomass, ocean tidal, current wave energy, incremental hydropower,
landfill gas; you get credit for doing any of those if you want to do
them. But if you want to build a nuclear plant, we will give you credit
for that too. If you want to improve energy efficiency, we will give
you credit for that too. If you want to adopt the demand-response
program to reduce the demand of your customers, then we will give you
credit for that too. If you want to adopt capture-and-storage
technology for carbon in some coal plant, we will give you credit for
that too.
Then it has a general catchall. It says: The Secretary of Energy can
pick out other things in the future he may think people ought to get
credit for. So what it does is it eliminates any real requirement that
any company, any utility, actually go and produce additional power from
renewable sources. That was the whole purpose of the Bingaman
amendment.
There is one other provision I want to alert my colleagues to,
because it is a very important provision, and this relates to the
States' abilities to opt out. I know various people have been here and
said: Well, States ought to be able to opt out. Well, you don't have a
national renewable standard. You don't drive the development of these
technologies in a national market if it is up to each State to decide
whether they want to participate.
There is a provision in here called Governor certification. This is
on page 9 of my friend's amendment. It says: On submission by the
Governor of a State to the Secretary--that is the Secretary of Energy--
of a notification that the State has in effect and is enforcing a State
portfolio standard that substantially contributes to the overall goals
of the Federal clean portfolio standard, under this section the State
may elect not to participate.
Under this section, it is clear to me the problem with the Domenici
amendment is it essentially prescribes that utilities should do what
they are doing at any rate. Then it sets up a complicated procedure of
credits and monitoring and trading they have to comply with as well.
But it does not require any change in the mix of energy they are, in
fact, producing and selling. That, of course, is the purpose of the
Bingaman amendment, which is a second-degree amendment.
I do think it is very important we table this amendment so we have a
chance to consider the Bingaman amendment and add it to this bill. For
that reason I urge my colleagues to support the motion to table which I
will make following the remarks of my colleague from New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, fellow Senators, I know this is a
difficult situation for the Senator from New Mexico, because on big
matters of energy for the last 3 years, I have been working with my
colleague, and we end up coming forth with bipartisan ideas.
In fact, the basic underpinning of this bill that was brought before
us is bipartisan. If we can keep all of that that came through us, it
will be a very big and powerful bill. I am not sure we can, because
there will be those who are trying to take out big pieces of it before
we are finished.
But after the bill was out of committee and here on the floor,
Senator Bingaman proposed an amendment I could not possibly support, so
it did not end up in our bill. So it is not bipartisan; it is his. I
have to oppose it.
First, let me say if I were Florida, Georgia, North Carolina,
Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, or South Carolina--
and I am not, and nobody sent me here to represent them or defend them,
but they are busy and some of them understand this issue. I hope they
will vote accordingly. These States I have just mentioned--Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas,
Louisiana and South Carolina--are the States that are going to have to
pay into this program and they get nothing for it. They cannot produce
wind energy, and so Florida is going to pay $21 billion over the course
of this legislation; South Carolina is going to pay 6; Alabama is going
pay to 7, and so on. I think any piece of legislation that comes to the
floor in the field of energy that is so distorted that right off the
bat we can come here, whether we are from New Mexico or whether we are
from Louisiana, we can come here and say this about our sister States
and our fellow Senators should not be adopted. There are not enough
Senators to join this list, but we ought to protect them, and we ought
to inquire very seriously how can this be such a good bill.
Incidentally, these States have to pay 2 cents per kilowatt-hour.
That is where this money comes from I am talking about that I just said
they are going to have to pay. That is a huge amount of money they are
going to have to pay, these States I am here trying to protect. I am
asking them to come down and protect themselves a little more, because
I need your help. If you do not help, and if you do not stand up and
not let this amendment even pass, ultimately you have got to have a
filibuster on this amendment, you southerners and you people I just
mentioned, because this is the worst bill that could ever happen to
you.
Now what happened was the wind experts and the wind people in this
country got big headed. They got a big head. You see, I love them. I
have been part of giving them every energy credit we could give to wind
energy. Wind is doing preposterously well, but not because it is, per
se, such a great source of energy. We are giving it subsidies. And when
you give the subsidies, it is a natural that it is clean. I am not so
sure it is pretty. After people had it around a long time, they began
to complain. But in my State it is terrific. It is up in the low
mountains where it can't be seen too much. The ranchers who lease their
land love it too because they get paid very heavily, I say to my friend
from Alabama.
But the problem is we should have allowed more energy sources
included in this major program. My definition changed from Senator
Bingaman's to clean, to offer clean energy into this proposal. We
raised it to 20 percent with these new kinds of energy I have described
many times here on the floor, that everybody supports, that we ought to
encourage as much as we are encouraging wind, which cannot be built in
certain States of the Union, and yet this is a national policy. Openly
he states it is a national policy.

[[Page S7691]]

My friend Senator Bingaman says what is wrong with mine is it is not
national. I guess that means his must be a national policy. But it is
not, because the States I mentioned cannot do it. They cannot produce
the wind that is contemplated by this amendment. Since they cannot
produce it, they have to pay a fine, a pretty whopping penalty.
I think we ought to try every way we can to try to get alternatives
that are clean and put them in this mix. I believe we ought to keep it
open as long as we can for those who develop new sources to get in. I
am not embarrassed that our amendment says you can let some new sources
of energy in after the amendment is adopted, even 5 or 10 years into
it. If, in fact, America is acting the way it normally does, they will
do that.
I want to give those technocrats we like and love who get things done
maximum time to get in and improve clean energy and put it in this mix
likewise, since I do not think wind ought to be the national energy. I
am not impressed with wind being the national energy source for
America. Right now we are stuck; it is probably crude oil that is the
energy of America. We don't want it, but it probably is. But I don't
think we want to say America has nominated, of all of the sources we
have, wind to be the national source of energy.
I think that is what it says, because my opposition and good friend
says mine is not national, his is, so he is bragging about it being
national. I do not see why it needs to be national.
I never heard of a weaker energy policy being national for America
than wind. I mean, it is pretty. It produces energy. It has got a lot
of problems. It does not produce it all the time, so you have to have
backup energy for it. But it is pretty good stuff. I mean, it is doing
a great job.
What we ought to do is we ought to make sure it continues to get its
tax incentive. That would be the best thing we could do to keep wind
energy going. We don't need this for it. What we need is a 5- or 10-
year assurance that we are going to have the tax credit, if that is
what people think. That is another thing you look at. This is not even
an energy source that can make it on its own, and we are trying to make
it the national energy source, the national energy. It cannot do it on
its own. Right? It cannot do it without tax incentives right now. Maybe
it can later. Maybe that is the way a lot of them start and maybe later
on they get there.
I hope my friends in the wind industry don't think what Senator
Domenici has been saying here on the floor is anti-wind. It is anti
what people are trying to make wind be when it can't be; that is what I
am. I have supported everything that has caused wind to move ahead.
I urge my fellow Senators today not to table the Domenici amendment
and to leave pending in the Senate two amendments, the Domenici
amendment and the Bingaman amendment. Don't kill mine. Leave his here,
leave mine here. We will probably get up, get off that amendment, go on
to something else in the bill. But even if we close mine, then I urge
all of those who are here, who are listening and who understand, we
ought to be very careful about adopting this national standard, wind;
that you watch out and make sure that we try to force 60 votes on this
amendment before it can breathe as an amendment that will be part of
this bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DOMENICI. I would, but I don't want to hold him up.
Mr. SESSIONS. I won't persist. I thank the Senator for comments that
are very valid for my part of the country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the Domenici amendment
and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd)
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Okalohoma (Mr. Coburn) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was annoucned--yeas 56, nays 39, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 211 Leg.]

YEAS--56

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Sununu
Tester
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--39

Alexander
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Stevens
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--4

Coburn
Dodd
Johnson
McCain
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold?
Mr. BINGAMAN. I withhold that suggestion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the
pending amendment aside. I have an amendment, No. 1557, at the desk and
am asking for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
pending amendment?
Mr. DOMENICI. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am disappointed the Senator from New
Mexico has objected to the consideration of my amendment No. 1557. It
provides for a national greenhouse gas registry and has the support of
many people on the other side of the aisle as well as this side of the
aisle. I ask that we try to work this out in the future, but I ask that
I may discuss this amendment.
My amendment, which I have submitted with Senators Snowe, Bingaman,
Collins, Carper, Coleman, and Kerry, establishes a national greenhouse
gas registry--a comprehensive and uniform method of tracking greenhouse
gas emissions by major industries. This registry creates a national
framework for credible and consistent greenhouse gas emissions
reporting.
Currently, reporting of greenhouse gas emissions data falls under a
number of different Federal and State programs. Reporting is largely
voluntary, and the criteria and reporting formats are inconsistent. The
resulting data is meager and unsatisfactory.
The Klobuchar-Snowe-Bingaman amendment requires the Administrator of
the EPA to gather complete, consistent, transparent, and reliable data
on greenhouse gas emissions at the facility level. It builds upon
existing reporting requirements to minimize the impact on businesses as
well as the EPA.
This amendment is very similar to legislation that has passed this
Senate twice in the past 5 years as part of comprehensive energy
legislation.
A little over 5 years ago, Senator Brownback, along with then-Senator
Corzine, passed an amendment creating a greenhouse gas registry. This
registry would have been voluntary, but

[[Page S7692]]

after 5 years--if the registry contained less than 60 percent of the
total national greenhouse gases in the United States--mandatory
reporting of greenhouse gases would have been triggered.
Now it has been over 5 years since the passage of that amendment in
this body of Congress, and we still lack credible greenhouse gas
emissions data from nearly all major sectors of our economy.
This amendment is simpler than the Brownback-Corzine amendment,
requiring reporting from a little over 10,000 establishments in the
U.S. economy, representing over 80 percent of our human-induced
greenhouse gas emissions, without requiring costly monitoring equipment
for smaller entities.
Collection of greenhouse gas emissions data is necessary to better
understand how much greenhouse gas various sectors of our economy emit
and design effective strategies to address greenhouse gas emissions.
Last week, on National Public Radio's ``Morning Edition,'' a reporter
asked a seemingly simple question that helps illustrate the need for
such a registry: Who is the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the
country?
It turns out, finding the answer is not that simple. The reporter
could not find an answer because we do not have an accurate and
complete inventory of greenhouse gas emissions in this country.
This is a problem. As Peter Drucker, the famous business management
scholar, has said:

If you can't measure it, you can't manage it.

Without accurate measurement, it is hard to implement effective
solutions. At the moment, there is a void of accurate measurements on
greenhouse gases, and what data is available is not certified by either
the EPA or a third party.
There is strong support in the business community for the
establishment of a national registry. In January 2007, a group of
businesses unified to form the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. This
diverse group of businesses urged Congress to act within the year to
create a greenhouse gas registry, along with a number of other steps.
The group includes General Electric, DuPont, Duke Energy, General
Motors, PG&E Corporation, and many others.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of the companies
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

USCAP Members

Alcan Inc.; Alcoa; American International Group, Inc.
(AIG); Boston Scientific Corporation; BP America Inc.;
Caterpillar Inc.; ConocoPhillips; Deere & Company; The Dow
Chemical Company; Duke Energy; DuPont; Environmental Defense;
FPL Group, Inc.; General Electric; General Motors Corp.;
Johnson & Johnson; Marsh, Inc.; National Wildlife Federation;
Natural Resources Defense Council; The Nature Conservancy;
PepsiCo; Pew Center on Global Climate Change; PG&E
Corporation; PNM Resources; Shell; Siemens Corporation; World
Resources Institute.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. The strength and breadth of this coalition
demonstrates the fact that the U.S. business community anticipates a
mandatory greenhouse gas reduction program coming into force. Having
accurate greenhouse gas emissions data is necessary to assess risks of
capital investment decisions.
It also provides an opportunity for major industries to gather
information on greenhouse gas emissions from previous years and make
good decisions on the design of any future greenhouse gas regulatory
program.
In response to the absence of action by the Federal Government, 31
States--representing over 70 percent of the population of this
country--have banded together to create a greenhouse gas reporting
system called the Climate Registry.
While it is a good start, and a sign of bipartisan impatience with
the Federal Government's inaction, this registry is no substitute for a
comprehensive national registry. You now have a situation where 31
States are having to start their own registry because we have not
acted.
The other issue with the 31-State registry is that it does not
require mandatory reporting or third-party verification. Its
participants range from States that are moving to impose mandatory
greenhouse gas reduction programs to those that are beginning to
evaluate whether to take any steps.
According to Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano:

The State Climate Registries are another example of how
States are taking the lead in the absence of Federal action
to address greenhouse gas emissions in this country.

These States will benefit from a national registry, which will reduce
administrative costs, centralize technical expertise and support, and
greatly reduce the risk of under- or overreporting.
As the Climate Registry--the nonprofit entity coordinating the 31
States' efforts--claims:

The creation of a Federal greenhouse gas emissions
reporting system would be a significant step forward in U.S.
climate policy that will build on the progress made through
existing reporting systems and make it easier and less costly
for corporations to track and report their greenhouse gas
emissions.

We need a greenhouse gas registry because there simply isn't a
consistent set of data. We have a patchwork system that is simply
unworkable for accurate data measurement. We can't make good policy
choices unless we collect good data.
At the Federal level, the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of Energy collect a lot of data on energy production and
consumption. However, the quantity and quality of the data vary greatly
across different fuels and different sectors. For example, data on
crude oil and petroleum product stocks is collected weekly from
selected oil companies, while data on energy use in the industrial
sector is collected only once every 3 years through surveys. In some
cases, the EPA collects the data itself, while in other cases, the data
is collected through State or Federal agencies.
There are two existing programs that provide some, but not nearly
enough, data on greenhouse gas emissions. The first is the Department
of Energy's 1605(b) Program, and the second is EPA's Climate Leaders
Program. However, neither of these programs gathers facility-by-
facility emissions data. Additionally, both of these programs are
voluntary with no means of verifying greenhouse gas emission reports.
The PEW Center on Global Climate Change, as well as the National
Commission on Energy Policy, have criticized both of these programs for
lacking rigorous reporting standards and verification requirements,
allowing for the double-counting of reductions and failing to account
for overall greenhouse gas emission increases. This inconsistency in
approaches has resulted in a lack of comparability of reported
emissions from company to company, as well as a lack of comparability
of results from reporting program to reporting program. We need to have
consistent, high-quality data across all sectors, which is what I call
a national carbon counter system.
Our amendment--again, a bipartisan amendment--seeks to create common
standards for measuring, tracking, verifying, and reporting greenhouse
gas emissions by major industries. These standards do not currently
exist at either the State or the Federal level.
This amendment does not place limits on greenhouse gas emissions; it
simply requires that the EPA establish and maintain a database of
greenhouse gas emissions. A national greenhouse gas registry will
create reliable and accurate data that can be used by public and
private entities to inform their financial decisions and allows
investors to identify and manage future risks and opportunities.
The amendment has a number of checks to ensure it does not harm small
businesses, as defined by the Small Business Administration, which emit
less than 10,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases. It will promote full
and public disclosure by requiring the EPA to post greenhouse gas
emissions on its Web site. You really can't see greenhouse gas
emissions, but at least you will be able to check the Web site. It will
build on existing reporting requirements to minimize the impact on
businesses and the EPA.
This amendment is not designed to support any specific legislation or
policy position; it simply ensures that greenhouse gas emission data
will be generated and collected in a consistent manner, regardless of
its intended use. We will be able to make good decisions in the future
on policy only if we have good and accurate information.

[[Page S7693]]

I would note that Senator Boxer is also a cosponsor, in addition to
Senators Snowe, Collins, and Coleman, and Senator Kerry and Senator
Bingaman, who is managing this Energy bill, as well as Senator Carper.
I would like to add that I am very disappointed that the Senator from
New Mexico has objected to me putting this amendment in at this time.
There is support on the Republican side of the aisle for this bill. I
am hoping I can work with him and others to finally get this amendment
admitted and considered by the Senate. I believe it is very important.
I think it is the least we can do to begin information-reporting and to
begin doing something about climate change. So I will work with the
Senator from New Mexico and others to be able to get this amendment
considered.
I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 1573 to Amendment No. 1537

(Purpose: To provide for a renewable portfolio standard)

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bingaman, I call
up amendment No. 1573 and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. DOMENICI. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Minnesota [Ms. Klobuchar], on behalf of
Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 1573 to the
Bingaman amendment No. 1537.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, 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 the Record of Thursday, June 14, 2007,
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, 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.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I know there are other amendments pending,
but I wish to speak to an amendment that is to be offered by our
colleague, the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar, on creating a
national greenhouse gas registry. I am pleased to join her in this
effort because I do think it is so critical if we are to aggressively
and comprehensively address the question of climate change and
instituting some major initiatives with respect to global warming. I am
pleased to join Senator Klobuchar and the Senator from New Mexico, Mr.
Bingaman, in offering this amendment at the appropriate time today.
I know Senator Klobuchar has spoken to the question, and I want to
make sure I have the opportunity to express my views on creating this
greenhouse gas registry which I think is absolutely essential in
fulfilling the existing void by requiring vital information to help us
more effectively and efficiently reduce our Nation's carbon dioxide
emissions.
I know this is Senator Klobuchar's first major initiative in the
Senate as one of our newest colleagues. I had the pleasure of working
with her on this initiative. No question it is going to be a major
contribution to the environmental debate and to our national energy
policy because a greenhouse gas registry is an absolutely integral
beginning for collecting emissions data that will lead to an economy-
wide number for our Nation's greenhouse gas emissions.
Everyone rightly speaks of the increased greenhouse gas emissions
that scientists, through peer-reviewed research, have verified are
creating the temperatures to rise, severe droughts, weather events to
intensify, and sea levels to rise around the globe. We now have
sufficient scientific certainty to know we must act to decrease carbon
dioxide emissions, the largest greenhouse gas pollutant both
domestically and globally.
While there is this sense of urgency, as there should be, I think we
well recognize all the consequences of our failure to act both
internationally as well as domestically. The United States EPA has no
facility-by-facility inventory to even accurately report emissions in
the United States. We simply have no solid number representing how much
carbon is even emitted.
While the powerplant sector is responsible for reporting under the
Clean Air Act, the Government has no accurate system to account for the
largest U.S. emitters, as we are currently under an incomplete and
voluntary system for reporting yearly emissions for non-powerplant
facilities.
Now is the time to follow the lead of our neighbor to the North,
Canada, which already has a mandatory registry system in place. In
fact, the Senate has addressed establishing a greenhouse gas registry
in the past. Specifically, the 107th Congress 2002 Energy bill called
for a national database for greenhouse gas emissions with voluntary
reporting language, and also a hard trigger that I proposed that made
the program mandatory after 5 years if industry had not stepped to the
plate and voluntarily reported and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Yet, regrettably, no bill emerged from conference that year.
I have no doubt our Nation would be in a much better position today
if such a provision had been put in place 5 years ago. I also have no
doubt the United States would have engendered more respect
internationally if we had instituted a mandatory program for greenhouse
gas emission reductions.
Indeed, let us recall--and I certainly do because I was here, I was
in the House of Representatives at the time--the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change that was signed by former
President Bush and ratified by the Senate and which entered into force
on March 21, 1994. The United States agreed to gather and share
information on its annual greenhouse gas emissions.
In response, the EPA makes an estimate on what the total U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions are every year. Frankly, I would call it more
of a guesstimate because how precisely and exactly can emissions be
reported under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change when accurate data is not even available to the EPA from well
over half of the emitters in the United States?
There are around 12,000 U.S. industries, from petroleum refiners,
cement and steel manufacturers, chemical plants, and others, that do
not have to report any greenhouse emissions whatsoever. They are only
being asked to participate in a voluntary reporting scheme called the
Department of Energy's 1605(b) voluntary registry program which has
been marginally successful at best when one considers that according to
the Energy Information Administration, in 2005, only about 200
companies voluntarily reported their emissions--only 200, Mr.
President. It is truly alarming there is no comprehensive national
accounting of greenhouse gas emissions for major emitters in the United
States, nor is there any certification that the reported greenhouse gas
emissions are even accurate.
The Department of Energy's Office of Policy and International Affairs
is only asked to review the 1605(b) guidelines every 3 years. All we
are requiring today is a mandatory greenhouse gas emissions registry to
secure accurate numbers. For those who don't favor advancing climate
change legislation, they should at least be concerned that the United
States meets its obligations by accurately reporting its total annual
greenhouse gas emissions, not having a guesstimate or uncertain data,
but data that give us the most precise and accurate information.

For those of you, like myself, who support a market-based carbon cap-
and-trade system, as called for in the Kerry-Snowe legislation and the
Lieberman-McCain climate bill to decrease domestic greenhouse gas
emissions through a carbon cap-and-trade system, the registry we are
requesting has to be the very first step. It is an integral component
to any type of carbon cap and trade we might initiate in the future.
We are being proactive by not waiting until we have established a
cap-and-trade system that will require reporting emissions for major
industries. This will jump-start the actions in the United States for
decreasing emissions.
A trading system carries with it a value of every ton of carbon. A
ton of

[[Page S7694]]

carbon not emitted is worth a credit that can be sold to a company that
emitted a ton too much. So we will need a level of detail and
verification to make the market truly work in distributing credit for
tons not emitted in the shortest timeframe possible.
The European Union has been a living laboratory for its bold step in
setting up the world's first carbon cap-and-trade system. They modeled
its greenhouse gas emissions scheme after a sulfur dioxide cap-and-
trade program that was put into place by the Clean Air Act amendments
of 1990 to combat acid rain.
A European official, in appraising the mistakes made with their still
new system, said:

You need a registry, and you need a reporting vehicle.

That information gathering is vital, ``a very important first step,''
he indicated.
I recall it took EPA 5 years to get the acid rain program up and
running because powerplant operators had to install devices to gather
pollution rates. The European Union is going through similar growing
pains because they had no registry of verified data to make its cap-
and-trade system work accurately. Too many credits were given.
So a national greenhouse gas registry is a crucial precursor to both
mandatory and market-based carbon cap-and-trade regulations of
industrial greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming which we
know has been verified indisputably by the numerous reports and
scientific data and studies, such as from the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change.
It is quite simple: If there is no system for counting carbon
emissions, there is no accurate way these emissions can be reduced, and
certainly there is no accurate way they can be capped or a trading
scheme developed.
Once again, the States are undertaking initiatives. They are
certainly assuming a leadership role for climate change actions. There
are 31 States, with California and the New England States in the lead,
that represent more than 70 percent of the population in the United
States that are now participating in the Climate Registry, all
measuring in the same manner and jointly tracking greenhouse gas
emissions from major industries.
This partnership with the climate registry is yet another example of
the States going farther than the Federal Government and taking the
initiative and taking the steps essential to combating global warming.
More significantly, the emissions statistics of the new registry are
subject to third-party verification as opposed to the Federal voluntary
program that doesn't require any verification of any kind and,
therefore, undermines the certainty, the credibility, and the
confidence in that information because it has not been certified in any
way.
I hope my colleagues will support this initiative offered by Senator
Klobuchar, Senator Bingaman, and myself to establish this essential
accounting tool that will give businesses and policymakers the ability
to track emissions as a building block for climate change emissions
reduction initiatives that are currently before Congress.
Very recently, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, held a
meeting with a number of CEOs of various major corporations around the
United States who have supported a carbon cap-and-trade system. They
have joined in a major partnership, the U.S. Climate Action
Partnership, with environmental organizations and other stakeholders in
support of initiating domestic climate change initiatives and
legislation.
This is very significant because these companies and these corporate
executives have indicated their support for a carbon cap-and-trade
system for the very first time because they understand that many of the
States, as I indicated, the 31 States--with California having taken the
lead and now the New England States and my State of Maine is certainly
one of them that has been in the forefront of environmental
leadership--have adopted the various regulations that will be part of a
carbon cap-and-trade system.
The fact is, these States have taken the lead, and they have been
very aggressive and bold in their steps to reduce emissions in their
respective States and regions. Now companies understand the true value
that will emerge in having one national standard so they have
predictability, if they have a national standard that creates a carbon
cap-and-trade system, so they can plan for the future. After all,
companies have to make long-term decisions and have to have lead time
in making decisions 30 to 40 to 50 years and beyond. So they have to
understand exactly what regulations they will be governed by. They want
the certainty, and they do not want to deal with States' different
rules and regulations. They would like to be governed and regulated by
one standard, a Federal standard, with respect to regulations through a
national carbon cap-and-trade system.
In our discussions during the course of that luncheon, they indicated
a greenhouse gas emissions registry would be absolutely integral to
this process; that, in fact, it is the very first step that is so
essential in developing the predictability, the certainty, and the
confidence in the data that has been yielded so we know for sure which
companies are emitting how much so the carbon cap-and-trade system that
is ultimately put in place is put in place with confidence. We can then
have a verifiable trading system that can buy and sell credits that
will be important to this process if we are going to establish a cap
and trade program to ultimately reduce carbon dioxide emissions which
is, of course, what it is all about if we are ever going to begin the
process of curtailing climate change and to avert any increases in the
Earth's temperature by the year 2050, which most scientists have
indicated is the tipping point. We have to prevent an increase in the
Earth's temperature by more than 2 degrees centigrade by the middle of
this century.
Ultimately, it is going to require a major reduction in carbon
dioxide emissions at least at a minimum at 65 percent, which is the
legislation I have joined Senator Kerry on that will achieve that level
in order to avert that climatic tipping point we obviously want to
accomplish over the next few decades.
This carbon cap-and-trade system is going to be a vital component to
bringing everybody on board in industry, and having an economy-wide
approach is very important if we are going to be effective in
curtailing these emissions that indisputably and undeniably are having
an unambiguous impact on our environment. The science has obviously
been verified by so many of the reports that have been issued in the
last couple of years and these reports are alarming. Now is the time to
begin action. So I want to commend my colleague from Minnesota, Senator
Klobuchar, for taking this initiative for a national greenhouse gas
registry. By all accounts it is absolutely an integral part of our
effort as we begin to take the measures needed to be proactive in
combating global warming.
Mr. President, with that, 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. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Without objection, it
is so ordered.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment I filed
that would extend the current tariff on imported ethanol by 2 years.
Over the past 2 years, I have been proud to stand with my colleagues in
the Senate as we have made clean renewable energy a top priority in our
national energy policy. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed in the
previous Congress, made a historic commitment to renewable fuels by
establishing a national renewable fuels standard and extending several
important renewable energy tax credits. This law has effectively
promoted homegrown sources of energy such as ethanol and biodiesel. The
bill before the Senate today builds upon that success by boosting the
renewable fuels standard to 36 billion gallons by the year 2022 and
establishing other valuable incentives for renewable energy production.
The amendment I have offered to the underlying bill would
significantly add

[[Page S7695]]

to the existing renewable energy incentive promoted by this bill. My
amendment would extend the 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on ethanol
imports through 2010. The current tariff is set to expire at the end of
2008.
This energy legislation does some great things for renewable fuels
such as corn-based ethanol and advanced biofuels such as cellulosic
ethanol. However, if we increase the renewable fuels standard without
extending the tariff on ethanol imports, we are sending a mixed signal
to our ethanol producers, their investors, and the farmers who sell
their products to ethanol plants. In essence, Congress is telling the
ethanol industry that we are demanding more of your product, but at the
same time we are going to open the backdoor and begin subsidizing
foreign sources of ethanol.
We need to ask: What is the purpose of the ethanol import tariff, and
what will happen if the tariff is allowed to expire? First, the ethanol
tariff serves to offset heavily subsidized ethanol from foreign
countries. Brazil, which is a world leader in ethanol production, has
been subsidizing its ethanol industry for the past 30 years. Now that
Brazil's ethanol industry is mature and meeting a high percentage of
Brazil's fuel needs, Brazil is hungry to export their subsidized
ethanol to the United States. In 2005, Brazil exported 33 million
gallons into the United States. In 2006, that number increased more
than tenfold to 433 million gallons. That same year Brazil paid over
$220 million in duties to import this amount of ethanol. Further,
Members of Congress and the American public have every reason to
believe this trend will continue well into the future and will
certainly be expedited if the tariff is allowed to expire.
According to media reports, Brazil's state-run oil firm, Petrobas,
has publicly announced plans to build an ethanol-only pipeline from
central Brazil to ports in the western part of Brazil in order to more
easily export ethanol to North America and Asia. According to the
Inter-American Development Bank's Global Biofuels Outlook for 2007,
Brazil will be exporting almost 1.6 billion gallons of ethanol by 2012.
Clearly, foreign producers of ethanol would love to import billions of
gallons of unregulated ethanol into our country.
The second purpose of the ethanol tariff is to offset the current tax
credit available to domestic blenders of ethanol. It is important to
remember that each gallon of ethanol that is blended with gasoline in
the United States currently receives a 51-cent-per-gallon tax credit.
This tax credit, which has played a leading role in ethanol's success
story, does not discriminate between domestic or foreign sources of
ethanol. If a shipment of Brazilian ethanol arrives at a U.S. port and
is blended with gasoline on U.S. soil, this Brazilian ethanol is
eligible for the blenders tax credit. This tax credit is currently
scheduled to expire at the end of 2010.
Extending the ethanol import tariff to correspond with the expiration
of the tax credit is in the best interest of our ethanol producers and
the American taxpayer. If the tariff expires before the ethanol
blenders tax credit expires, American taxpayers will be subsidizing
hundreds of millions of gallons of foreign-made ethanol each year.
Simply put, the well-intentioned policy of boosting the renewable fuels
standard could have serious unintended consequences, if the ethanol
tariff expires at the end of 2008. In fact, we would merely trade our
dependence upon foreign sources of oil for a new and growing dependence
upon foreign ethanol. This tradeoff is dangerous and will undermine
hard-fought efforts to grow our domestic ethanol industry which is
creating jobs and economic growth in America's heartland.
Critics of the tariff claim that we will need ethanol imports to meet
a growing demand for ethanol and to comply with the strengthened
renewable fuels standard. However, the facts tell a very different
story. Our Nation's current domestic production capacity is 6.2 billion
gallons of ethanol. According to industry experts, an additional 6.4
billion gallons of capacity are currently under construction and will
soon be refining ethanol. That is a total of 12.8 billion gallons in
current and planned production. By comparison, the heightened renewable
fuels standard in this bill is 12 billion gallons in 2010, the year the
ethanol import tariff would expire under my amendment. The renewable
fuels standard will require 12.6 billion gallons in 2011. Clearly we do
not need imported ethanol to meet the renewable fuels requirement
included in this bill.
The Senate has also voted on extending the ethanol tariff to the year
2010. During debate on the transportation reauthorization bill in the
108th Congress, 76 Senators voted in favor of extending the ethanol
tariff through the year 2010. Again, I stress, the Senate is already on
record in support of the very proposal outlined in my amendment.
In addition to extending an effective renewable fuels policy, my
amendment would also shed light on a disturbing loophole in our trade
policy which allows foreign ethanol producers to avoid the ethanol
tariff by shipping ethanol through the Caribbean Basin Initiative. The
CBI is a Cold-War-era policy established to promote the political and
economic stability of 24 Caribbean countries. Under the Caribbean Basin
Initiative, many goods, including ethanol, can be shipped into the
United States duty free. Brazil is currently shipping wet ethanol,
ethanol that contains 10 percent water, to beneficiary countries, only
to be dehydrated and shipped to the United States duty free. According
to the Congressional Research Service, ethanol dehydration plants are
currently operating in Jamaica, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Trinidad, and
Tobago, all of which are Caribbean Basin Initiative countries.
Although Caribbean Basin Initiative imports are capped relative to
the size of the U.S. ethanol market, these imports are increasing
rapidly and could reach 2.5 billion gallons by the year 2022, under an
expanded renewable fuels standard.
The troubling part of this policy is that it is unclear how much of
this ethanol actually originates in Caribbean countries. If the
majority of this ethanol is simply dehydrated in Caribbean countries,
then the purpose of the ethanol tariff and of the Caribbean Basin
Initiative is being subverted. My amendment calls for a study of
Caribbean Basin Initiative imports to determine the origin of these
imports and the economic impact on both the domestic ethanol market and
the economies of the Caribbean Basin Initiative countries.
My amendment also promotes renewable energy on another front. Part of
the revenue generated by duties applied to ethanol imports would be
directed to a renewable energy fund within the United States Treasury.
This fund would be dedicated to funding renewable energy systems
rebates, which were authorized in section 206 of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005. Transfers from this fund would be subject to appropriations.
The section 206 rebate program offers incentives for the installation
of renewable energy systems in homes and small businesses. The amount
of the rebate is 25 percent of the costs for purchasing or installing
the equipment or $3,000, whichever is less.
According to the Energy Information Administration, section 206
rebates could increase residential renewable energy consumption between
7 trillion to 14 trillion Btu's by the year 2010.
The Energy Information Administration also predicts that section 206
rebates would greatly increase the use of geothermal heat pumps,
residential wood stoves, solar technologies, residential wind turbines,
and wood-pellet and corn-burning stoves.
This commonsense, bipartisan measure gives consumers choice and
flexibility to produce and consume renewable energy in their homes.
Although it was supported by the Senate in 2005, it is yet to be
funded. My amendment would direct some of the revenue generated from
extending the tariff toward funding this important program.
Specifically, it would direct up to $100 million in 2009 and $150
million in 2010 to fund the renewable energy systems rebate program--
well below the $250 million authorized level.
In conclusion, ethanol is being produced here at home at record
levels, but it is an industry that is still in its infancy, and we need
to be doing all we can to invest in it and encourage its growth--not
the growth of foreign ethanol companies. I encourage my colleagues to
support my amendment

[[Page S7696]]

which will keep American-made, homegrown renewable fuels at the
forefront of our national energy policy.
Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time and suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Warner amendment No. 1566 is offered and reported by number, the
amendment be temporarily set aside and that the Klobuchar amendment No.
1557 be called, and once reported by number, the amendment be set aside
and we return to the Warner amendment No. 1566.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Virginia.

Amendment No. 1566 To Amendment No. 1502

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent
agreement, I now call up the amendment I have at the desk. It is No.
1566.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an
amendment numbered 1566 to amendment No. 1502.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To authorize the State of Virginia to petition for
authorization to conduct natural gas exploration and drilling
activities in the coastal zone of the State)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN AREAS FOR LEASING.

Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(q) Availability of Certain Areas for Leasing.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Atlantic coastal state.--The term `Atlantic Coastal
State' means each of the States of Maine, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, New York,
New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, and Florida
``(B) Governor.--The term `Governor' means the Governor of
the State.
``(C) Qualified revenues.--The term `qualified revenues'
means all rentals, royalties, bonus bids, and other sums due
and payable to the United States from leases entered into on
or after the date of enactment of this Act for natural gas
exploration and extraction activities authorized by the
Secretary under this subsection.
``(D) State.--The term `State' means the State of Virginia.
``(2) Petition.--
``(A) In general.--The Governor may submit to the
Secretary--
``(i) a petition requesting that the Secretary issue leases
authorizing the conduct of natural gas exploration activities
only to ascertain the presence or absence of a natural gas
reserve in any area that is at least 50 miles beyond the
coastal zone of the State; and
``(ii) if a petition for exploration by the State described
in clause (i) has been approved in accordance with paragraph
(3) and the geological finding of the exploration justifies
extraction, a second petition requesting that the Secretary
issue leases authorizing the conduct of natural gas
extraction activities in any area that is at least 50 miles
beyond the coastal zone of the State.
``(B) Contents.--In any petition under subparagraph (A),
the Governor shall include a detailed plan of the proposed
exploration and subsequent extraction activities, as
applicable.
``(3) Action by secretary.--
``(A) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
receipt of a petition under paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall approve or deny the petition.
``(B) Requirements for exploration.--The Secretary shall
not approve a petition submitted under paragraph (2)(A)(i)
unless the State legislature has enacted legislation
supporting exploration for natural gas in the coastal zone of
the State.
``(C) Requirements for extraction.--The Secretary shall not
approve a petition submitted under paragraph (2)(A)(ii)
unless the State legislature has enacted legislation
supporting extraction for natural gas in the coastal zone of
the State.
``(D) Consistency with legislation.--The plan provided in
the petition under paragraph (2)(B) shall be consistent with
the legislation described in subparagraph (B) or (C), as
applicable.
``(E) Comments from atlantic coastal states.--On receipt of
a petition under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall--
``(i) provide Atlantic Coastal States with an opportunity
to provide to the Secretary comments on the petition; and
``(ii) take into consideration, but not be bound by, any
comments received under clause (i).
``(4) Disposition of revenues.--Notwithstanding section 9,
for each applicable fiscal year, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall deposit--
``(A) 50 percent of qualified revenues in the general fund
of the Treasury; and
``(B) 50 percent of qualified revenues in a special account
in the Treasury from which the Secretary shall disburse--
``(i) 75 percent to the State;
``(ii) 12.5 percent to provide financial assistance to
States in accordance with section 6 of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8), which shall
be considered income to the Land and Water Conservation Fund
for purposes of section 2 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 460l-5); and
``(iii) 12.5 percent to a reserve fund to be used to
mitigate for any environmental damage that occurs as a result
of extraction activities authorized under this subsection,
regardless of whether the damage is--

``(I) reasonably foreseeable; or
``(II) caused by negligence, natural disasters, or other
acts.''.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Presiding
Officer and my colleagues and, indeed, the floor managers for giving me
this opportunity.
I rise to bring before the Senate an amendment similar to amendments
I have put forward on this same subject in years past, but I think at
this time on this particular bill it is extremely important this body--
--
Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I ask my colleague from Virginia
to suspend for a moment while the clerk calls up the Klobuchar
amendment, as provided for?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I apologize, and I certainly allow that to
go ahead. I thought that was done.

Amendment No. 1557 To Amendment No. 1502

(Purpose: To establish a national greenhouse gas registry)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. BINGAMAN], for Ms.
Klobuchar, for herself, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Bingaman, proposes
an amendment numbered 1557 to amendment No. 1502.

(The amendment is printed in the Record of Wednesday, June 13, 2007,
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia, and
please proceed.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I say to the
distinguished floor manager, do we have to lay this amendment aside and
then go back to mine or is that taken care of? Could we ask the
Parliamentarian to clarify the situation in light of the recent UC
agreement?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the order we now return to the Warner
amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Automatically; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

Amendment No. 1566

Mr. President, as I was saying, I have raised this basic amendment or
similar ones to it over the years, but I think it is particularly
pertinent this Chamber once again address this issue. I am anxious the
Chamber give it very serious consideration because our situation in the
United States of America and, indeed, in the context of the global
demand for energy, is becoming more serious.
Our citizens are laboring under higher prices--be it for home heating
oil, gasoline, natural gas--and we must look at the full potential of
America to help resolve this situation. So in that sense we could,
hopefully, reduce some of our dependence on the need to import various
forms of energy from abroad.
It is my firm belief the United States must take a balanced approach
toward its energy policy. Not only must we increase conservation--I
support that--and efficiency efforts--I strongly support that--use more
alternative and renewable fuels--I support that, to the extent we can;
there is quite a deliberation going on as to the ability of certain
States, including mine, which does

[[Page S7697]]

not have a lot of natural wind power during much of the year, to try to
bring in wind power but, nevertheless, I encourage clean coal
technology. The bottom line is, we simply have to look at the natural
resources we have in this country.
Because the United States has strong domestic natural gas resources,
and because the potential for increasing our domestic supply exists--
because the demand is ever increasing for natural gas--I bring forward
this amendment.
Natural gas is the fuel of choice for many of America's businesses
and industries. Today, natural gas meets 23 percent of U.S. energy
requirements. It heats 57 percent of U.S. households and accounts for
90 percent of the new electricity--new electricity--capacity built in
the last 5 years.
I might also add, for those colleagues who have an interest in
gasohol, look at how most of the gasohol is produced and its reliance
on natural gas. That is a growing source of energy for our country, and
it involves a large usage of natural gas.
Our supply clearly is not meeting our growing demand. Prices--I find
this astonishing--prices for natural gas have risen 74 percent since
2000. That is in the last 7 years. Domestic production has remained
comparatively flat, but imports are on the rise.
I want Senators who are thinking maybe this amendment does not meet
all of their needs to think carefully about what I have said: a 74-
percent increase in prices, domestic production remaining basically
flat, and our imports, at considerable prices, are on the rise.

It is time America turned to its own resources. Therefore, I offer
today an amendment to the pending legislation that seeks to allow my
State--the Commonwealth of Virginia, providing its Governor and the
State legislature concur--to explore for natural gas offshore. If that
exploration--the first step. This is a two-step amendment. It simply
says, first, the Governor and the State legislature--going through the
various procedures with the Department of the Interior--can explore. If
they find a reservoir of natural gas which economically can be
extracted to help meet America's needs, then they can start a second
step. The Governor has to go back to the State legislature, and with
the concurrence of our Government--the legislature and Governor acting
together--then, working with the Department of the Interior, the State
can provide for the extraction of this natural gas, which will come--
all of it--to America--it is ours--thereby lessening our reliance on
importing it.
I know the Virginia General Assembly, over the years, and the
Governors of Virginia have already expressed--the last two--a measure
of support for exploring--I underline and I carefully delineate
``exploration'' from ``extraction.'' The Virginia Governor and the
State legislature have indicated, in various ways, they are receptive
to a program regarding the exploration of natural gas off the Atlantic
Coast.
The amendment I offer today returns power to the Commonwealth of
Virginia, using this two-step process I have outlined, to make
decisions about exploration and, if they wish to go to the second step,
taking the second procedure to extract that gas for purposes of
bringing it to America.
So, specifically, it first allows the Governor of our State to
petition the Department of Interior for a targeted waiver from the
current moratorium to explore for natural gas in the waters of the
Outer Continental Shelf. That term is well defined.
Should this exploration justify a second step--namely, that the
exploration shows there is a sufficient reservoir for economic
extraction--then the Governor goes back to the legislature, and if they
agree, they can further pursue that extraction by working out
arrangements, which are well known, with the Department of Interior;
namely, to petition the Department of Interior for the various
permittings that are required.
Again, the Virginia General Assembly has already passed legislation
in favor of, and the Governor of Virginia has already expressed his
support for exploring--that is ``exploration''--for natural gas in this
area offshore.
When drafting this legislation, I was certain to note that Virginia's
neighbors should also have an input on what goes on near their own
coastlines. Consequently, if Virginia petitions the Secretary of
Interior for the right to explore--that is, do the exploration--or the
right to extract--a subsequent step--the Secretary of the Interior, in
both instances, shall provide our Atlantic coastal neighbors with an
opportunity to comment on the petition or petitions coming from the
State of Virginia, because I want to ensure that these neighboring
States have a voice in this process before the Secretary of the
Interior--and therein resides the ultimate authority--issues the
appropriate concurrences to, first, explore and, then subsequently, to
extract.
This amendment also addresses a matter of equity by allowing for
revenuesharing between the Federal Government and the Commonwealth of
Virginia for this offshore reservoir of gas, should it be produced,
that is extracted and brought to America.
My bill is modeled, in large measure, after last year's Gulf of
Mexico Energy Security Act, S. 3711. That bill states that 50 percent
of all revenue would be tagged for the General Treasury. Mr. President,
37.5 percent would be for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Mr. President,
6.25 percent would go to the land and water conservation fund for
conservation purposes.

In addition, I have put in here--and this is for the first time that
I have seen it--I want to alleviate the concerns of bordering States,
and therefore, in this bill, another 6.25 percent of any revenues would
be placed into a fund administered by the Secretary of the Interior
which would be used to mitigate for any damages incurred by those
several States as a consequence of the drilling, the exploration
process, and the subsequent extraction process.
Now, it is highly unlikely, with the advanced technology, that
anything would occur. You need only look at the aftermath of the
travesty we experienced with the various hurricanes in the gulf
recently: While some rigs were made inoperable, to the best of my
knowledge, there was no consequent damage to the shoreline as
occasioned by the disruption of the operation of those rigs, certainly
none of any great consequence. So I repeat that it is a source of
revenue for Uncle Sam, the State, and it seems to me to be very
equitable in the distribution of these funds.
I once again note that this bill is natural gas only. There is no
mention, no request for other products such as oil.
I have again tried to make it clear that this Nation is in dire
straits regarding its domestic energy supply and its ever-increasing
reliance on foreign energy. Now is the time for each Member of the
Senate to stand and be counted. Geological exploration and geological
analysis of these areas offshore to date have indicated that there are
potentially enormous reserves of natural gas off the Atlantic
coastline. I say to my colleagues, I say to every citizen of this
country, now is the time we should begin to, first, find out and
corroborate and verify the existence of those reserves and, second, let
the individual States decide for themselves by a Democratic process--
i.e., the Governor working with the State legislature--to start the
extraction of those natural resources of gas.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.

Amendment No. 1578 to Amendment No. 1566

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment to the
Warner amendment No. 1578, and I ask that it be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] proposes an
amendment numbered 1578 too amendment No. 1566.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, 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 as follows:

(Purpose: To require the approval of certain States before approving a
petition for the issuance of leases authorizing the conduct of
exploration or extraction activities)

Beginning on page 4 of the amendment, strike line 20 and
all that follows through page 5, line 3, and insert the
following:
``(E) Comments and approval from other states.--
``(i) In general.--On receipt of a petition under paragraph
(2), the Secretary shall provide Atlantic Coastal States with
an opportunity to provide to the Secretary comments on the
petition.

[[Page S7698]]

``(ii) Requirement.--The Secretary shall not approve a
petition under this paragraph unless the Governors of all
States within 100 miles of the coastal waters of the State
have approved the petition.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate and respect the desire of
the Senator from Virginia to be an advocate for his State for the
pursuit of whatever natural resources it may have. However, the ocean
is not refined to defined blocks that can be confined in terms of
consequences. We share that Atlantic Ocean along many States. So the
decision of one State, while it may be seen to be sovereign to it,
actually has a ripple effect to other States, and the consequences can
be very significant.
Now, the Warner amendment, far from helping end our dependence on
oil, is seeking to tap another vein to feed our oil and our fossil fuel
addiction. I would say to all of my colleagues in this body, all States
and Members of those States who reside within the Outer Continental
Shelf should be paying a lot of attention to this amendment because the
undoing of the moratorium for one State can create a domino effect that
will undo the whole basis of the moratorium throughout both the east
and west coasts. That moratorium has existed for a quarter of a
century, and for good reason. It has existed for a quarter of a
century, and for good reason because it is about preserving the very
essence of other natural resources as well--the shorelines of those
States which often generate billions of dollars in economic activity--
and also about being good stewards of the land for future generations
of Americans.
Now, I appreciate that the Senator from Virginia has in his amendment
a percentage of the proceeds, some which will go to the Commonwealth of
Virginia, some which will go to a fund to potentially mitigate damages,
but that recognizes, in fact, that damage is possible to other States.
I don't want to be in a position of New Jersey having to mitigate
damages caused to its coastal shoreline which is critical in estuary
capacity, critical in terms of the economy of our State, critical to
the fishing industry of our State, critical to the tourism of our
State, and critical to the State of New Jersey. I would replicate that
through other States throughout the Atlantic seaboard as well as on the
Pacific seaboard. So having a fund that says to other States: Well, if
there is damage, we will work to mitigate it, is not very consoling.
And to think that one would say: We will only drill for gas, don't
worry about it, it is not about oil, we are only going to drill for
gas, but if while we are drilling for gas we happen to hit oil, to
believe that, oh, we are going to stop and plug it up and we are not
going to pursue oil exploration I think is rather ludicrous.
The Clean Energy Act of 2007 which we are debating is supposed to
be--supposed to be--about transforming our economy from one based on
fossil fuels to one based on renewable energy; from an economy which
threatens our planet to one which is sustainable; from energy sources
which are old and inefficient to ones which conserve our resources and
use them efficiently. Instead, this amendment would promote oil and
natural gas drilling in the mid-Atlantic. To me, that is an
unacceptable threat to New Jersey's coastline.
The area the Senator from Virginia is interested in opening to
drilling is about 75 miles from Cape May, NJ--more than close enough
for spills to pollute New Jersey's beaches. Furthermore, any drilling
in the mid-Atlantic puts us on a slippery slope toward a day when oil
rigs are the norm along the entire eastern coast. One of the greatest
jewels of New Jersey is without a doubt our shore. Millions of people
visit the Jersey shore every year, bringing an estimated $20 billion
into the State's economy--$20 billion into the State's economy--and
creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. We simply cannot afford to put
our shoreline at this type of risk.
Mitigation doesn't help us. We had a time in New Jersey history where
oil slicks, where garbage came up on New Jersey's beaches and shores,
and the consequences were enormous for the State's economy, for the
vitality of the communities that are along the shoreline, consequences
in employment. We worked very hard at cleaning up through the Clean
Water Act and other initiatives to make sure the shoreline was
preserved for future generations of New Jerseyans and, for that fact,
the entire Outer Continental Shelf for the future generations of
Americans who call that part of our country home.
Now, the proponents of this amendment say that other States on the
east coast will have the opportunity to provide input into any drilling
decision, but to be very honest, the Secretary of the Interior will
have the ability just to ignore their views and approve a
recommendation for drilling anyway. Actually, this administration has
already, through the mineral-mines management part of the Interior
Department, been promoting a plan that actually seeks to create more
drilling off the Outer Continental Shelf. It is an advocate of that
regardless of any potential consequences to natural resources. So I
have no faith in a Secretary of Interior directed by an administration
that promotes drilling, and all he has to do is say: OK, I heard you,
New Jersey; thank you, but no thanks. That doesn't do anything to
safeguard the sovereignty of any State that may be affected by the
decisions of another State as it relates to the Outer Continental
Shelf. This would leave States well within the scope of environmental
impacts helpless--helpless--to stop most leases and, more importantly,
for the circumstance at hand in my home State of New Jersey, we could
not object to any drilling off the coast of Virginia--object in a way
that would ultimately have a consequence--even though this drilling
could seriously endanger our coast.

Now, the proponents of this measure also claim drilling for natural
gas will not have any negative environmental impact on our shores. With
all due respect, that assertion is just simply not rooted in science,
and it couldn't be more wrong. Massive amounts of waste muds and drill
cuttings are generated by drilling operations. Most of this waste is
dumped untreated into surrounding waters. Drilling muds often contain
toxic metals, including mercury, lead, and cadmium. Mercury in
particular has been found in very high concentrations around rigs in
the Gulf of Mexico and has raised significant concerns about
contamination of fish.
In our own State of New Jersey, one of the challenges--and I know
Virginia has very significant port activity as part of its economic
generation--where there are ports, in the nature of the activity that
takes place in those ports, there is often contamination of various
sites. We had that reality as we dealt with the Port of Elizabeth in
Newark and the Port of Newark in New Jersey, the megaport of the east
coast. So the reality is that drilling muds often contain toxic metals,
and mercury in particular is one of those.
A second major polluting discharge is called produced water. Produced
water typically contains a variety of toxic pollutants, including
benzene, arsenic, lead, naphthalene, zinc, toluene, and can contain
varying amounts of radioactive pollutants. All major field research
programs investigating produced-water discharges have detected
petroleum hydrocarbons, toxic metals, and radium in the water column
down-current from the discharge. Again, these pollutants have a
devastating effect on fish populations that are already under
considerable stress, particularly along the eastern seaboard, and those
industries are very important, not only to the economies and the jobs
they create and the economies of those States but to the consumers of
those States who seek to have fish as part of their daily diet.
Now, even if offshore areas are leased for gas exploration, there is
always the possibility that oil could also be found, and if oil is
found, the exploration company will surely drill for it since there has
never been an instance where a lease prohibits--prohibits--an oil
company from developing oil if oil is found in a ``gas-prone region.''
Without such a restriction included in the lease, there would be no
assurances that oil, in fact, would not be developed, raising the
possibility of an oil spill.
According to the Department of the Interior, 3 million gallons of oil
spilled from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas operations in 73
incidents between 1980 and 1999. Oil is extremely toxic to a wide
variety of marine species. Even if oil is not found, liquid natural gas
condensates and can also spill. These gas condensates are highly toxic
to virtually all forms of marine life.

[[Page S7699]]

Those are just some of the environmental concerns. But beyond these
environmental impacts, the Department of Defense has specifically
expressed grave concerns about drilling off the coast of Virginia. In a
letter drafted on April 10, 2006, to the Minerals Management Service,
the Department of Defense made it clear that drilling off the coast of
Virginia would interfere with the Department of Defense training and
testing exercises.
The letter states in part that proposed drilling would compromise the
Virginia Cape's operations area. The Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marine
Corps all use the Virginia Cape's operation area for critical training
that could not be accomplished elsewhere.
The letter makes clear that any structures built in the water where
these types of activities are conducted would severely restrict
military activities to test missile systems or have amphibious or air
training missions. The letter by the Department of Defense concludes by
saying:

[b]ecause hazards in this area to operating crews and oil
company equipment and structures would be so great, the
department opposed oil and gas development activity in this
Outer Continental Shelf planning location.

The moratorium this amendment would begin to undo began in 1981, and
it has continued ever since then. Congress has imposed restrictions on
the Outer Continental Shelf leasing in sensitive areas off the Nation's
coasts. These moratoria now protect the east and west coasts of the
United States and a small portion of the eastern Gulf of Mexico near
Florida.
The moratoria reflects a clearly established bipartisan consensus on
the appropriateness of OCS activities in sensitive areas of the
country, and they have been endorsed by an array of elected officials
from all levels of Government and diverse political persuasions.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MENENDEZ. In a moment, I will be happy to. I strongly oppose
lifting these protections because not only is there concern for my home
State of New Jersey, which has enormous consequences, but at the same
time, the incredible domino effect it can have as it relates to the
overall moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf. Anyone who believes
it can just be done for Virginia and that others will not pursue it and
they have at least under this amendment's procedures very little to
say--they can raise a clamor, but they have no real ability to do
anything.
My amendment simply says, if we are going to let this happen, those
States within 100 miles from where the drilling should take place
should have some significant say, the ability to have a significant say
about their future as well, their economies as well, and the right to
be good stewards of the land for future generations of their States and
of this Nation as well.
I am happy to yield to my distinguished colleague from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have a couple questions for the Senator.
I am very taken with his response to this amendment offered by my dear
friend, one of the senior members of the Environment and Public Works
Committee. I feel the Senator from New Jersey has hit on a number of
points, and I wish to go over them. So if we reiterate, I think it is
important.
This Energy bill is supposed to be about reducing our dependence on
fossil fuels, not increasing it. It seems to me that by turning to the
same old, same old is ignoring the fact that our coastlines and our
shores and the area out 50 miles where this will kick in are huge
economic engines for our various States.
So doesn't my friend believe, to restate his argument in a slightly
different way, that we are going back to the same old solutions and
ignoring what has happened in the last 20 years since we protected our
coasts, that the economic engines of our coastal States have driven
jobs and tourism and all the good things that come with a protected
coast?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate the Senator's question. The reality is
that for a quarter of a century, we have had a moratorium exactly
because we have come to understand that the values that are generated
by our coastal regions, in economic terms, in terms of the environment,
in terms of marine and aquatic life, in terms of all the ripple effect
that means, has a greater value than any of the deposits that might
exist there.
The Senator from California is absolutely right as well, if all we
are going to do is go back to what this bill seeks to undo, which is
our dependency on oil, whether that oil is foreign or that oil is
domestic, at the end of the day, it is a nonrenewable source, it is a
highly polluting source, and it has consequences to the ozone. Yes, the
Senator is absolutely right. That is why I oppose it.
Mrs. BOXER. I have a further question. I would like to get the
attention of Senator Bingaman, if I may, on this particular question
because there are some people in this Chamber who think this particular
amendment just deals with Virginia. Is it not so, if we look at page 2,
it deals with any coastal State, and it is defined here to mean Maine,
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, New
York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, and Florida? So we are not just dealing at all, as I
understand it, with one State. It appears as if we are dealing with a
number of States on the east coast, if not all the States that border
on the coast.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I think the latest copy of the amendment that was
filed, the final copy that was filed by Senator Warner only says the
State of Virginia, if I am not mistaken, on page 2 at line 21. But I do
believe, however, that the consequence of opening the Outer Continental
Shelf, even for one State, has a ripple effect to all the States the
Senator mentioned.
Mrs. BOXER. So the amendment I have in front of me, 1566, is not the
amendment that is before the Senate; is that correct? Parliamentary
inquiry to the Presiding Officer: Is amendment No. 1566 not before the
Senate, or has it been modified since it included all the other States?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is before the Senate.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I perhaps can clarify for the Senator
from California, there is a definition of Atlantic coastal States on
the second page of Senator Warner's amendment. But the definition, as I
read the amendment, is there for the purpose of defining which States
are eligible to comment on a petition the Governor of Virginia would
make or submit. Only the Governor of Virginia and only the State of
Virginia is affected by it, except to the extent these other States
have a right to comment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I simply say to my distinguished colleague
and chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, on which I
am privileged to serve, this amendment is carefully drawn to apply only
to Virginia.
Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I understand.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator can oratorically describe something. This is
a one-State package.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. That is why I took the floor to ask
some questions because my staff reading of it was not correct. I am
glad it only applies to Virginia.
However, my next question I was going to ask of my friend from New
Jersey is this, because I think it is very important: We have one
country from sea to shining sea. It seems to me my friend is pointing
out, even with comments from other States, if, in fact, one particular
Governor prevails, will there not be impacts most likely on other
States?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes. The answer, in my view, is clearly yes. I
appreciate that Senator Warner says this is drafted only for the State
of Virginia. It is drafted only for the State of Virginia so far as
that State will make a determination as to whether to exempt itself
from the moratorium. But the consequences of that action clearly have,
in my mind, consequences to other States that will be absolutely
neutered in their ability to do anything more than to vociferously
object but without consequence. So, therefore, a drilling takes place.
Even the Senator recognizes by virtue of having in his amendment a
provision where some of the royalties go to the State of Virginia, some
go to a fund for the purposes of damages done by a spill. So,
therefore, there is a recognition of the possibility of damage, and who
is that damage to? To other States.

[[Page S7700]]

I don't want to be in a position of having to draw on a fund because
my State has been damaged. I wish to avoid the damage in the first
instance, and that clearly cannot be done under the amendment as
offered. That is why my second-degree amendment is so critical to
States for them to have a say as well about their well-being.
Mrs. BOXER. I am not going to take very much time. I say to my good
friend, I know he is just looking at his own State but, in essence,
what he will do today, if he succeeds, is to destroy, I believe, a very
important bipartisan environmental agreement that has been in place for
decades now--I guess it is, what, 25 years or so, or getting close to
that--where we have basically said as Republicans and Democrats: We
have a God-given country, and one of our most precious resources is our
coastlines, our shores; that because we have stood together, shoulder
to shoulder, on this issue perhaps until this moment--and I hope not,
but so be it, we are going to find out--we send a signal to our States
that they should preserve and protect their coastlines and, indeed, to
many in the private sector who have taken advantage of the fact that
the beauty of our coastlines, the beauty of our oceans that attract
millions of tourists, not just from around the United States to our
coastlines but from throughout the world.
I would hate to see us today, through the amendment process, without
a pretty good hearing, take a step to cast asunder 25 years of
bipartisanship and agreement by Presidents, both Republican and
Democratic.
Look, we know we want to become energy independent, and I think this
underlying bill takes us very far down that road. Why turn to the same-
old, same-old answers, when we have within our grasps the ability to
get better fuel economy in our cars, the ability to get new kinds of
renewable fuels, the ability to look forward, not backward, and not
cast asunder the beauty we have inherited, I believe, from our Creator?
I hope we can stand firm on this point because I am very fearful that
if this idea is adopted, it is the beginning of the unravelling of
something of which I have been so proud to be a part. I came to the
Congress in 1982. I know my colleague has been here much longer than
that. The fact is, since that time, we have worked in such a good way
to preserve and protect the coasts.
Again, I thank my colleague.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator entertain a question?
Mrs. BOXER. I will be happy to.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has the floor.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I will be happy to yield. I wish to make sure I have
not yielded the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this measure is deserving of a strong
colloquy. I have often felt it is through the colloquies that the
Senate does its best work, not through a series of canned speeches and
everybody getting up and down. Anyway, so much for that.
The Senator from California said 25 years this moratorium has been in
effect. I say to my good friend, I have been here 29 years, and I have
watched the Nation in these 25 years grow more and more dependent on
foreign energy. When this moratorium was put in, we didn't have $4 to
$5 a gallon gasoline prices. We didn't have natural gas at its all-time
high. I say to my good friend from California, this is a changing
world, and we cannot lock ourselves into a world that existed 25 years
ago and ask our citizens to continue to bear these ever-increasing
costs.
This Senate last year approved legislation which granted to the
several States in the gulf the right to continue drilling. So it is not
as if I am breaking a precedent. Other States have been accorded this
right. Why deny my State, if my citizens, my Governor, decide it is in
the best interest of our State? Is there nothing left to States rights?
The Senator talks about this pollution thing--
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, is the Senator asking a question?
Mr. WARNER. Yes. Then I will pose a second one.
Mrs. BOXER. I will answer that one because it was so brilliantly
posed. I got caught up in the Senator's poetic expression. I don't want
to forget.
I think Senator Menendez, and pretty soon we are going to hear from
an eloquent opponent of Senator Warner's amendment, Senator Nelson from
Florida, they are going to express how they feel being on the east
coast. I am on the west coast. But, again, to me the beauty of this
whole moratorium has been that we have said our coastlines and our
ocean, that those are national treasures, east coast, west coast. And I
think my colleague, Senator Menendez, has pointed out, it isn't as easy
as all that. You are not going to build some kind of a sand dune around
the drilling. You don't know what could happen. You don't know how far
the problem could go. I know the Senator talks about the mitigation
fund, but that just speaks to the point. So it isn't just about one
State, it is about an entire coast, and it is about a precedent.

Let me just say to my friend that the world has changed after 9/11. I
voted to go to war against bin Laden--and we are still waiting--and,
clearly, we learned very quickly over the years that we have to not be
dependent on foreign oil, but we also understand we need a strong
economy and a good economy, which means some other things, too. It
means a beautiful coast, it means a healthy tourist industry, it means
a healthy fishing industry.
There are more jobs in tourism in my State than almost any other
sector. So I think it is simplistic to say the only thing that drives
us is oil. As I said, the beauty of the underlying bill is that we want
to get past that and into the new solutions that are coming. We are
going to have a vote, probably, on the CAFE standards, corporate
average fuel economy, if Senator Feinstein's provision remains. It will
be the equivalent of taking 5 million cars off the road.
So there are new ways to think about the future, new ways to get off
of foreign oil, and I don't think a good new way is to cast asunder
years of bipartisan agreement and perhaps endanger the economies of
many States along the Atlantic coast.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has the floor. If
there are other Senators who wish to ask a question, they need to ask
it through the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. WARNER. If the Chair would indulge as much colloquy as is
possible--and before the chairman leaves, she posed, in a sense, a
situation. So if I could ask just two quick questions, I ask of my
colleague.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Virginia
for the purpose of propounding his questions.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague.
Now, the Senator from California is the distinguished chairman of the
Environment and Public Works Committee, and she has raised this specter
of oil flow, and my good friend from New Jersey is talking about the
oil that has washed up.
Does the Senator from California know what percentage of the oil that
reaches our beaches, absent a tanker problem, the oil that seeps from
this drilling, what percentage ever comes to shore?
Mrs. BOXER. We don't have any offshore oil drilling very much anymore
in California, but I am familiar with the big spill that occurred in
Santa Barbara, which was so devastating that our State said never
again, and our Governors, Republicans and Democrats, have said never
again to drilling in State waters.
Now, I can't give the Senator an answer to his question, but I have
seen Exxon Valdez, and I have seen the great damage that has been done
in my home State, as we study what happened in Santa Barbara. It is
fortunate we don't have much offshore drilling in my State anymore, so
I would be happy to have my friend put that in the Record.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the following from the National Academy of Sciences, a very trusted and
respected objective organization. According to their studies, less than
1 percent of petroleum seepage comes from drilling and extraction
activity--63 percent, conversely, comes from natural seepage; 32
percent from cars, boats, and other sources; and 4 percent from
transportation.
So I just have to say this is workable.

[[Page S7701]]

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has the floor.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I will not ultimately object, but I would note that it
is not just the potential from drilling and it is not just the
potential of oil spills from drilling. I have listed in my remarks a
series of other consequences environmentally from drilling, but it is
also the consequence of when drilling takes place and then we have,
during hurricane seasons, the consequences to those drill rigs and how
that can create a disruption.
So there are many facets that are involved that are not addressed by
the National Academy of Sciences information. But as it relates to the
Senator's unanimous consent request, I will withdraw my objection so
that he may enter that into the Record, and I will reclaim my time.
Mr. WARNER. Well, then, I would say to both colleagues, if I could,
lastly, put the question to both colleagues, because this is intrinsic
to the debate: Is it your position that the United States of America
shall never permit its several States to ever, ever, ever drill
offshore, be it east coast, west coast? And, somehow, I don't know how
you rationalize it, we will let the gulf do it, but we won't let the
two coasts do it?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has the floor.
Mr. WARNER. If I could have my colleague answer that question.
Mrs. BOXER. I will wait in line. It is his time.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the dialogue, and if
the Senator from California would like to respond, I will yield to her.
Mrs. BOXER. I would. I want to be very clear--very clear. I support
drilling where it makes sense to drill. I oppose drilling where it
doesn't make sense. I submit to my friend and to the Senate and to the
American people that we made a very wise bipartisan decision a long
time ago--and I think we should stick to it--that the fact is, it is
important for the economy of the coastal States to keep and preserve
the coast in the pristine nature in which it was given to us by God.
That is my view, and I hope we will not support this amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, I see my colleague
from the State of Florida is here, and he has a lot of experience in
the situation, so I will be happy to yield to him for his comments.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the Senator, and while
the chairman is here and while the distinguished Senator from Virginia
is here, for whom, he knows, I have the utmost respect, I want to point
out very respectfully to the Senator that the statistics that he just
indicated from the National Academy of Sciences do not take into
consideration the natural disasters that occur, such as hurricanes.

As a result of the 2005 hurricanes all along the gulf coast, oil rigs
upended, and there were oil slicks on the beaches and the shores of
Louisiana. We have innumerable photographs of pelicans and other birds
completely covered. So there is the fact on the Atlantic coast and the
gulf coast of hurricanes.
The other thing I wanted to point out to the distinguished chairman
because someone will argue that the Senator from Virginia is only
proposing gas drilling, as the Senator from California knows, it was a
gas well off of Santa Barbara three decades ago that suddenly spilled
all of that oil, from which came this moratorium that was placed on the
Continental Shelf of the United States.
Now, with regard to the point of the distinguished Senators from
Virginia about drilling in the gulf but not off the rest--
Mr. WARNER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: I believe the
Senator from New Jersey has the floor, and I believe the rules do not
permit him--
Mr. NELSON of Florida. He yielded to me.
Mr. WARNER. I think he yielded for the purpose of a question, not to
your right to the floor. Just a technicality, but I think we ought to--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has the floor. The
Senator from New Jersey may yield for a question.
Mr. WARNER. That is right, but, Mr. President, I don't hear the
question. I hear a speech. That is fine. I think we want to hear the
speech. I don't wish to deny him the right to speak, but let us at
least follow parliamentary procedure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, if the Senator from New Jersey
will yield.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I will put it in the form of a question. But
the Senator from Virginia knows that this Senator did not object when
he did not make his remarks in the form of a question.
Now, my question to the Senator from New Jersey would be, since this
Senator was one of the people who crafted with other Senators the
compromise off the Gulf of Mexico last year, giving--I might remind the
Senator from Virginia--twice as much area to drill but was kept off the
State of Florida for the purposes that we have been discussing, but for
another reason was kept off, and that was the U.S. military--the
largest training and testing area in the world--would the Senator from
New Jersey be surprised to know that the Department of Defense,
Department of Navy, has objected to the drilling that the Senator from
Virginia has proposed off of his coast?
I read specifically a letter dated April 10, 2006, from the Assistant
Secretary of the Navy:

We have considerable concern, however, with the proposed
lease sale areas within the Mid-Atlantic Planning Area off
the coast of Virginia.

It goes on to reaffirm:

Because hazards in this area to operating crews and oil
company equipment and structures would be so great, the
Department opposes oil and gas development activity in this
OCS planning location.

I would further ask the Senator from New Jersey, does he not remember
that was one of the strongest arguments that this Senator made in
designing the area that could be drilled in the Gulf of Mexico,
basically off of Alabama and Louisiana and keeping it away from the
training and testing area where the live ordnance and the testing of
new weapons is?
Then, because of that, would it surprise the Senator from New Jersey
that one of the most eminent supporters of the U.S. military--the
Senator from Virginia, the person whose knee I have sat at and learned
so much as the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee--
would now be in contradiction with the request of the U.S. military?
Would the Senator believe what I just said?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, I appreciate the Senator from Florida asking a
question and raising a concern. I expressed it in my comments. I am
familiar with the letter of the Department of Defense to the Minerals
Management Service of the Department of the Interior that made clear
that drilling off the coast of Virginia would interfere with the DOD's
training and testing exercises, and it went on for a variety of reasons
and then concluded by saying:

Because hazards in this area to operating crews and oil
company equipment and structures would be so great, the
Department opposes oil and gas development activity in this
OCS planning area.

So, yes, I am aware, and it is an additional concern. However, I know
the Senator from Virginia has an exceptional record, which we all
admire, in his support of the Nation's military forces. I am sure that
somehow he believed he could overcome that objection. Nonetheless, it
is an objection on the record in addition to the objections of States
such as my own.
What I hope, in reality, is that the second-degree amendment I have
offered to the amendment from the Senator from Virginia would be
accepted and we could move forward because it still would allow
Virginia to move forward, but it would give those States whose
coastline is within 100 miles of the coastal waters of Virginia the
real opportunity to work between States to come to a mutually
satisfactory conclusion. I think that is a reasonable effort to try to
achieve some compromise.
I know the Senator from Virginia raised previously with the chair of
the Environment Committee: Well, does it mean that we shouldn't drill
anywhere else? Well, the gulf coast had already

[[Page S7702]]

been drilling. It had been well established. But there is a reason
there is a moratorium for other parts of the country, and the
distinguished Senator from Florida wanted to preserve what is a
critical part of the Florida coastline, which means so much to
Florida's economy and to all of us who visit, as Americans, the great
State of Florida--what it means to us as Americans, as one Nation.
Yes, there isn't a one-size-fits-all policy, I say to my friend from
Virginia. Just because the gulf coast has for quite some time pursued
it, there are limitations, limitations the Senator from Florida created
to ensure its coastline.
Last, we talk about the cost. What is the cost of an oilspill? What
is the cost of a leakage? What is the cost of the consequences? What is
the cost of a hurricane? What is the cost to the other States, not just
New Jersey, but the other States within 100 miles of the coastal waters
of Virginia?
I believe our amendment allows Virginia to move forward, but it has
to move forward in concert with those States that can most profoundly
be hurt, potentially, as is recognized by the amendment of the Senator
by virtue of the fact of creating a fund for damage, so they can work
together and come to a conclusion.
In the absence of that amendment being accepted, I have to notify the
body that this is such a critical issue to my State and to others along
the Outer Continental Shelf that this Senator is willing to spend as
much time on the floor as is necessary to pursue the full discussion of
this matter and, if necessary, to raise it to a 60-vote level because
it is that critical an issue.
I thank the Senator from Florida for his observations. I thank him
for his leadership in this regard, both past and present.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. I wonder if I might reply to my good friend for a minute,
and I will then likewise yield the floor so my colleague from Florida,
my good friend, can continue in his own right.
First, I think I have worked out with the Department of Defense an
answer to your question. I simply do not have with me at this time the
documents, so therefore I am going to have to indulge the Senate by
either laying my amendment aside or some other parliamentary procedure
to let the Senate go forward until I can come back with that. I thank
the Senator for bringing that up because it is an important
consideration. We have a significant command there, the Atlantic
Command.
I wish to go to the amendment of my good friend and read the last
paragraph:

Requirement.--The Secretary shall not approve a petition
under this paragraph unless the Governors of all States
within 100 miles of the coast waters of the State--

presumably the State making the petition--

have approved the petition.

That gives all the Governors a veto power on this; Mr. President,
would that be correct? I pose that as a question to my colleague.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I am happy to answer. What it is is an opportunity for
those Governors within 100 miles of the coastal waters of the State of
Virginia to work together to ensure that their interests are protected
and maybe come to a collaborative approach as to how it might be done,
which the Senator from Virginia does not, under his amendment, permit
in any way whatsoever.
Mr. WARNER. There is a difference between the amendments. My
amendment generally states the Secretary of the Interior, who is the
final arbiter of this whole issue, would entertain the petitions from
the several Governors, whatever geographic area, as he, the Secretary
of Interior, makes a decision.
But I think the Senator has gone a step too far. If there is anything
left of States' rights after this sort of paragraph, I don't know what
it would be. Listen to what you say:

The Secretary [Interior] shall not approve a petition under
this paragraph unless the Governors of all States within 100
miles of the coastal waters of the State have approved the
petition.

It doesn't say anything about working it out. It is flat veto power
put in the hands of such Governors within 100 miles.
Mr. MENENDEZ. If I can respond to my friend from Virginia, I would
say under the amendment of the distinguished Senator, clearly there are
no States' rights for those States that will be affected by the
amendment of the Senator. Second, there can be no negotiation of any
consequence if there is not some sound footing under which one can
negotiate. If you have no right, then there is very little to
negotiate.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am enjoying this debate, perhaps to
educate the Senate. But I bring up another situation to my good friend
who has recently joined this body. I don't know how many times I have
gone to the floor and contested the right of the several States north
of my State, largely, to ship through Virginia thousands of tons of
garbage by truck, by rail, leaking, exuding methane gas in my State.
You have the good fortune of a clause in the Constitution on
interstate commerce, by which you can throw up your hands and say it is
the exercise of that constitutional power. You say my State cannot
object to your shipping garbage through it every day. The Senator knows
New Jersey ships through 1,000 tons of it. Yet you are saying to me, we
cannot go through a process--working with the Federal Government of the
United States and the Department of Interior--to drill offshore unless
your Governor and all others, any one of the Governors within 100
States--if he has not given the approval, this thing stops?
Mr. MENENDEZ. If the Senator will yield, first of all it is all
Governors within 100 miles, not 100 States.
Mr. WARNER. No, 100 miles.
Mr. MENENDEZ. But the distinguished Senator from Virginia has a very
significant port operation in his State, and his trucks come through
the interstate into the State of New Jersey and do quite a bit of
damage on the roads of New Jersey along the way, in terms of the wear
and tear, in terms of the movement of its product. Some of that product
is not the most fanciful product we might all enjoy. That is the
collectivity of our consequence as a Nation.
There is a reason there is a moratorium that we, collectively as a
body, the Congress, have adopted for 25 years. The distinguished
Senator, whom I admire so much on so many issues, wants to aggregate
what the Congress has done as a body for his State, without recognizing
there are consequences to others. I simply offer an amendment that says
we will allow Virginia to do what they want, but they must do it in
concert with those within 100 miles of its territorial waters. I didn't
say the whole eastern seaboard but within 100 miles of its territorial
waters, to make sure those States rights are not affected.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, ``in concert'' to me means entrusting to
the Secretary of that department of our Federal system, by which the
power resides, to grant or deny the license. That Secretary has to
arbitrate the concerns of all Governors within 100 miles of this
drilling, so to speak. I thought that is the only procedure I know. But
I think you have gone to an extreme. You put an absolute veto power in.
At this time, I would like to advise my colleague that, in
consultation with the managers of the bill, I would like to lay my
amendment aside until I can give a definitive answer to the Senator
from Florida. I think I have it worked out in the Pentagon, but I need
to provide you with the documents to manifest that resolution.
I will put in a quorum call at this time, such that the managers can
advise me.
I will withhold that if the Senator wishes to speak.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I will only speak briefly, since the
distinguished Senator from Virginia is going to lay his amendment
aside. But I point out, when he does bring forth the documentation from
the Department of Defense, it needs to answer the Assistant Secretary
of the Navy's admonition:

. . . but because hazards in this area to operating crews and
oil company equipment and structures would be so great, the
Department opposes oil and gas development activity in this
OCS planning location.

Further, I remind the two Senators involved in this colloquy--the
Senator

[[Page S7703]]

from New Jersey and the Senator from Virginia--one of the reasons we
crafted the compromise last year that we did, that still allowed
drilling in the central gulf area and indeed allowed more acres of
drilling than had originally been sought, was we constructed it not
only so it was far away from the pristine beaches of Florida, which are
so necessary to our economy, that it did not intrude upon the military
testing and training area, which is essential to the preparation for
the defense of this country, but that in addition, we consulted all the
nautical charts to find the currents so that if an oilspill occurred,
it would lessen the likelihood that the currents would carry it to the
coastline.
As the Senator talks as if 100 miles is some statute of the Holy
Grail, I would simply say that what should be the concern, since
Virginia happens to be close to North Carolina and South Carolina and
also happens to be close to Maryland and Delaware and New Jersey--that
what clearly ought to be considered are the water currents, the ocean
currents, instead of an arbitrary question of miles.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in reply to the question of my good
friend, I remember that very well. As a matter of fact, he and I worked
on that. I remember breaking out the charts in the Armed Services
Committee and looking how the aircraft and everything would operate and
the ships in that area. You are well spoken and well taken on that.
But I have to tell you, Senator, face to face, things have changed.
Every day, things change. We have to reexamine, periodically, that
framework of laws that have protected our environment, to a certain
extent, in the light of our growing desperate needs for energy and the
growing capability of our industrial base to do the drilling, to do the
extraction in such a way as to minimally put at risk our environment.
I do not take a backseat to any person in this Chamber with regard to
my fervor in protecting the environment. I don't want to be called a
tree hugger, but I am one step removed. I work on that Environment
Committee, where I have now served 24 years or something--I don't know,
a long time.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator certainly doesn't take a backseat
to anyone in this Chamber in his protection of the interests of the
U.S. military.
Mr. WARNER. That is correct. But the military can't do a broad sweep.
I know what is underlying this thing. I have to get the papers here.
There are certain navigational aspects of it, certain electronic
aspects, but the military can't say no drilling on the east coast.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I further point out to the
Senators involved in this debate that this Senator's perspective
certainly agrees with that of the Senator, that we have to produce the
energy we have to produce. But the problem is, what has changed and
what ought to be changed, I say to the Senator from Virginia--the
distinguished senior Senator from Virginia, for whom I have great
affection and respect--is that the policy of this country has been
drill, drill, drill for too long. It is time for us to break that
psychology and start moving into alternative fuels other than oil.
This Senator from Virginia knows full well, as well as anybody else,
there is this precarious flow of oil from all foreign ports, including
the very hazardous port I visited in Nigeria, which is virtually
unprotected to any kind of terrorist activity and from which this
country gets 12 percent of its daily consumption of oil, from that one
nation, Nigeria.
The problem has been the past and the present policy attempted not to
be changed, this mindset of drill, drill, when, if we keep that up, we
will not do what we have to do to protect ourselves; that is, break
this dependence, wean ourselves from this dependence on oil.
So I am sure, with the eminent intelligence and salubrious nature of
the Senator from Virginia, we can work this out.
Mr. WARNER. I hope it works out my way, Madam President.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is soordered.

Amendment No. 1568

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I know there is at least one amendment
pending on the floor. I want to speak about a different amendment, but
I am not going to call it up. I only want to talk about it with hopes
that it will be called up in the near future and be given the kind of
consideration we do here in the Senate, and hopefully get it put on
this energy bill we are discussing. It is the geothermal initiative
amendment.
I first thank my colleagues Senators Bingaman, Reid, Murkowski,
Stevens, Salazar, Akaka, Sanders, Snowe, and Hatch for cosponsoring
this amendment. It is all about geothermal energy. It is what
geothermal energy can be as far as a key component to our Nation's
energy security, and how it can help contribute to a national renewable
electricity standard.
I have to point out that when we talk about the RPS amendment, the
renewable portfolio standard amendment Senator Bingaman has, it seems
as though the conversation always revolves around wind when, in fact,
we ought to be talking about a lot more than wind.
One of those things is geothermal energy. Geothermal energy is
something that is clean, it is efficient, it is, in fact, renewable and
can fight climate change. Once again, this amendment will do several
things to help our geothermal energy potential: It supports research
and development, development and demonstration of commercial
applications of geothermal energy projects, it supports State
cooperative development programs, and it supports research and
development of commercially viable applications. It advances high
pressure and high temperature drilling so we can get into the zones
that best have geothermal potential, and it prioritizes discovering and
characterization of geothermal resources.
If you take a look at the map we have here of the United States, you
take a look at this, and in the light green, or the lime green, I
should say, is where we have less ability to have geothermal activity.
The darker the green into the orange and red is where we have more
potential. Through this bill we can help develop that potential and
through an assessment determine where most of our ability to get
geothermal energy is. I think it is quite extensive. As you can see, it
is nationwide.
This amendment also has a national geothermal assessment component to
it. The last time we had a comprehensive assessment for geothermal
energy was back in 1978. We have got far better technology now, and we
need to do it right this time.
Unfortunately, this assessment program did not receive funding to
complete the assessment. But this amendment will provide the funding to
give us the assessment. Take a look at the map of the United States.
Take a look at the map of Montana. You can see once again we have
tremendous ability for geothermal development here and in the
Southwest. I live right here. It is blue. I can tell you from oil wells
that were drilled over 60 or 70 years ago, there is geothermal
potential there, but we do not know about it because we have not done
the assessment for so long. It doesn't even show up. So there are a lot
of areas around the country, I believe, where geothermal will work and
help create our energy independence in a long-term energy policy.
This bill also gives assistance to academic institutions and State
governmental agencies, particularly in the intermountain west and
Alaska. These are institutions that are teaming up with businesses to
get pipes in the ground.
Ultimately, we will have the ability, through this amendment, to
maximize our ability to have geothermal energy to contribute to our
electricity supply, heating supply, and other energy needs in this
country.
A couple of months ago I had the opportunity to meet with President

[[Page S7704]]

Grimsson of Iceland. Twenty-seven percent of their electricity comes
from geothermal resources. Of course, in Iceland that makes sense.
Eighty-seven percent of their homes are heated with geothermal heat.
They even lay pipes in the ground to melt the roads and keep them free
of snow in the wintertime. It is something that has already been done
and that we can do here in this country. It does not apply just to
Montana, it applies to the entire country, and we can have our
geothermal resources developed. Montana has great geothermal resources,
but we need to have an overall geothermal policy that maximizes our
ability to draw energy from the heat in the ground, not only in places
such as Montana, but also in places such as Arizona, Louisiana, Texas,
Maine, and New Hampshire, and just about every State in the Union.
I will tell you this amendment is a bipartisan amendment. It is
innovative, in that we have not even begun to tap our potential for
geothermal energy in this country, and it is clean.
I would encourage all of the Members of this body, when this
geothermal amendment comes to the floor, that we give it good
consideration and attach it to the bill so we can have geothermal
energy be a significant part of our energy future.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I recognize we are in the midst of a
debate surrounding the Outer Continental Shelf.
I would ask unanimous consent to speak briefly as in morning business
on a related but different topic.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, the facts about our Nation's energy
consumption are not pretty right now. The United States currently
consumes one-quarter of the world's oil. Sixty percent of the oil we
consume comes from foreign countries, including many countries whose
interests are hostile to us.
To make matters worse, the oil used in the U.S. transportation sector
accounts for one-third of our Nation's emissions of greenhouse gases.
It is long past time for us to take significant steps to use oil more
efficiently in order to deal with the dual challenges of climate change
and energy dependence.
In January of this year, California took an important first step
toward addressing this problem by establishing a low-carbon fuel
standard for passenger vehicle fuels sold in the State. Under the
California standard, the carbon intensity of these fuels would be
reduced by 10 percent by the year 2020.
In signing the executive order creating the low carbon fuel standard,
Governor Schwarzenegger noted some of the dangers of his State's
excessive reliance on gasoline: volatile oil prices dictated by hostile
foreign countries, lack of economic security, American jobs at risk,
businesses in jeopardy, and, most importantly, dangerous levels of
greenhouse gas emissions. I applauded the Governor's leadership on this
issue and want to take his proposal one giant step further.
Today, I rise to suggest that it is time for us to establish a
national low carbon fuel standard for the entire transportation fuel
pool in the country, whether the fuel is used for cars, trucks, or
airplanes. I recognize we will not be able to move this necessarily on
the legislation currently pending, but it is important for us to
introduce the concept. I have already spoken to Senator Bingaman.
If my proposal were to become law, by the year 2015, the carbon
emissions in our national fuel supply would be 5 percent less than they
are now. By the year 2020, the carbon emissions would be 10 percent
less. The effect of these seemingly modest reductions would be
significant. According to one estimate, a national low carbon fuel
standard would reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by about 180
metric tons in 2020. This is the equivalent of taking 30 million cars
off the road by 2020.
My amendment would reduce carbon emissions overall in the
transportation fuel pool, but it would not dictate what feedstocks
could satisfy the low carbon fuel standard or how many gallons of a
particular fuel would have to be produced. Instead, fuels could be
mixed and matched to achieve the carbon reduction targets. In essence,
the market would dictate what pool of fuels would be sold in the United
States in order to satisfy requirements. The fuels could be corn-based
ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel made from soybeans, electricity
used by plug-in hybrid vehicles, or perhaps some kind of fuel that has
not even been developed yet. The only requirement is that the overall
mix of fuels sold in the United States would have to meet the carbon
reduction targets set forth in my proposal.
This is a new concept. Indeed, fewer than 6 months have passed since
California adopted it. I know some of my colleagues are not familiar
with how it would work, so let me address the relationship between the
low carbon fuel standard and something we know a lot about, the
renewable fuels standard.
Under the able leadership of the two Senators from New Mexico, the
Energy Committee has crafted the underlying bill to require greater
volumes of biofuels in our national fuel supply. The bill increases
national production goals in the RFS over the next 15 years and
establishes the first production targets of next-generation fuels such
as cellulosics. Under the bill, the RFS target would increase to 36
billion gallons of renewable fuels by the year 2022. When combined with
the new advanced biofuels requirement in the bill, this would result in
an estimated 2 to 6 percent reduction in carbon emissions in our
national fuel pool in 15 years. These are significant reductions, but I
believe we can do better.
My low carbon fuel standard would require a 10-percent reduction in
carbon emissions by 2020. I know that sounds ambitious, but the
magnitude of our Nation's problems demands bold and innovative action.
Indeed, the experts with whom we have consulted firmly believe that a
10-percent reduction is realistic, with greater research in advanced
biofuels and new fuel sources. But that research will only happen if
businesses are assured of a market for their new products. Just as the
existing RFS has spurred the construction of ethanol plants, a low
carbon fuel standard would incentivize development of new advanced
fuels.
We in Congress support biofuels because these fuels strengthen our
energy security, support our rural economies, and reduce our greenhouse
gas emissions. But our current policy doesn't recognize producers when
they do a better job achieving these goals. Our farmers, manufacturers,
and investors are ready to produce better biofuels, fuels that are more
efficient, fuels that support a broader base of rural communities,
fuels that reduce greenhouse gases by 90 percent or more, but they need
a signal that their investment in better performance will be recognized
in the marketplace.
Let me be clear: A low carbon fuel standard is not intended to
replace the RFS. Instead, the two standards would complement each other
by encouraging greater use of renewable fuels. Here is an important
difference between the two standards: The RFS evaluates renewable fuel
based on the feedstock that creates the fuel, while the low carbon fuel
standard looks at the carbon emissions produced by the fuel. That is an
important distinction as we wrestle with perhaps the greatest challenge
of our generation--climate change.
Going forward, it is not enough just to say that a fuel uses
homegrown products such as corn or soybeans. We also need to look at
what effect the fuel has on carbon emissions. This amendment does that
and, in doing so, offers something for everyone. If you support rural
America, this approach ensures widespread development and use of
biofuels from agricultural products. If you support energy security,
this approach reduces our consumption of oil by 30 billion gallons by
2020, 60 percent of which would have to be imported from foreign
sources. If you support certainty for industry, this approach provides
the market certainty that is critical for investment dollars in key
technologies. Most importantly,

[[Page S7705]]

if you support the environment, this approach reduces carbon emissions
by 180 metric tons by 2020 and ensures that any future billion-dollar
capital investment in a fuel plant would have to produce a fuel with
better life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than conventional gasoline
because under a low carbon fuel standard there would be no place for
carbon-intensive fuels.

The energy debate this week underscores the fact that as we pursue
the best course of action for our energy independence, there are no
perfect answers. There is no single fuel or feedstock that offers the
best combination of affordability, reliability, transportability, and
sensitivity to the environment. Even if there were, I am not sure we in
this Chamber would be the most qualified to identify it. But our
current course; that is, maintaining our dependency on an unstable
region of the world for the fuel we cannot live without, is far too
great a risk to delay action. That requires us to take aggressive
action that will set the stage for the second and third generation of
fuels that will truly help us achieve energy independence and fight
global warming. A low carbon fuel standard accomplishes these goals.
Finally, let me say a word to my colleagues about climate change. I
know that when it comes to the word ``carbon,'' the range of views
among my colleagues is varied and complex. I am among those Senators
who believe carbon from human activities contributes to climate change,
that it is an immediate threat, and that we must immediately require
emission reductions through a strong cap-and-trade system. Others among
my colleagues agree with some type of carbon-controlled economy but
disagree with the various legislative approaches to date. Still others
believe the climate is in no imminent danger.
The approach I have suggested here today addresses carbon, but it
allows my colleagues to maintain their differences on the larger debate
of climate change while coming together to achieve progress on all our
multiple policy goals, whether it is ending our energy dependence,
attacking the problem of climate change, promoting economic stability,
or creating American jobs. I am aware this proposal may be a little bit
ahead of its time, but given the magnitude of our problems, we can't
afford to be too cautious in our policy solutions.
I am going to be urging my colleagues to learn more about this
approach. I have talked to Senator Bingaman. I will be talking to
Senator Boxer as well. My hope is that if we are not able to introduce
this amendment during the current debate, we reserve time when we have
a debate on dealing with global warming and climate change to ensure
that this approach gets full consideration.
I thank the Chair 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. KOHL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside and that I be recognized to call up amendment
No. 1519; that once the amendment is reported by number, I be
recognized to speak in reference to the amendment; that the amendment
then be set aside, and Senator DeMint then be recognized to call up his
amendment No. 1546, and that once Senator DeMint concludes his
statement, the amendment be set aside; and that prior to Senator DeMint
being recognized, Senator Byrd be recognized to speak as in morning
business; and that the DeMint amendment be called up after I conclude
my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. KOHL. Thank you very much, Madam President.

Amendment No. 1519 to Amendment No. 1502

Today, Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment with Senators
Specter, Leahy, Grassley, Biden, Snowe, Feingold, Coburn, Schumer,
Durbin, Boxer, Lieberman, and Sanders, which will authorize our
Government, for the first time, to take action against the illegal
conduct of the OPEC oil cartel. It is time for the U.S. Government to
fight back on the price of oil and to hold OPEC accountable when it
does act illegally. Our amendment will hold OPEC member nations to
account under U.S. antitrust law when they agree to limit supply or fix
prices in violation of the most basic principles of free competition.
Our amendment--identical to my NOPEC bill, S. 879; legislation that
now has 14 cosponsors--will authorize the Attorney General to file suit
against nations or other entities that participate in a conspiracy to
limit the supply, or fix the price, of oil. In addition, it will
specify that the doctrines of sovereign immunity and act of state do
not exempt nations that participate in oil cartels from basic antitrust
law. I have introduced this legislation in each Congress since 2000.
This legislation has passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously four
times since it was first introduced, including this April, and in 2005
passed the full Senate by voice vote as an amendment to that year's
energy bill before being stripped from that bill in the conference
committee. Last month, companion House legislation passed the other
body by an overwhelming 345 to 72 vote. It is now time for us to at
last pass this legislation into law and give our Nation a long-needed
tool to counteract this pernicious and anticonsumer conspiracy.
Throughout the last 2 years since we last considered this measure on
the Senate floor, consumers all across the Nation have watched gas
prices rise to previously unimagined levels. As crude oil prices
exceeded $40, then $50, and then $60 per barrel, retail prices of
gasoline over $3 per gallon have now become commonplace. While prices
have temporarily receded from time to time, the general trend is
consistently, and significantly, upwards. Gas prices have now increased
77 cents per gallon just since the start of the year to a national
average of $3.07 per gallon, which is an increase of more than 30
percent.
As we consider gas price changes, one fact has remained consistent--
any move downwards in price ends as soon as OPEC decides to cut
production. Referring to the 18 percent rise in worldwide crude oil
prices since the start of the year, OPEC President Mohammed al-Hamli
commented ``we had a bad situation at the beginning of the year. It is
much better now.'' The difference was OPEC's decision last fall to
enforce combined output cuts of 1.7 million barrels of oil a day in
order to drive up the price of crude oil. And while OPEC enjoys its
newfound riches, the average American consumer suffers every time he or
she visits the gas pump or pays a home heating bill. The Federal Trade
Commission has estimated that 85 percent of the variability in the cost
of gasoline is simply the result of changes in the cost of crude oil.
So there is no doubt that the price of crude oil dances to the tune
set by OPEC members. Such blatantly anticompetitive conduct by the oil
cartel violates the most basic principles of fair competition and free
markets and should not be tolerated. If private companies engaged in
such an international price fixing conspiracy, there would be no
question that it would be illegal. The actions of OPEC should be
treated no differently because it is a conspiracy of nations.
For years, this price fixing conspiracy of OPEC nations has unfairly
driven up the cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed of the
oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but, sadly, no one in
Government has yet tried to take any action. This amendment will, for
the first time, establish clearly and plainly that when a group of
competing oil producers such as the OPEC nations act together to
restrict supply or set prices, then they are violating U.S. law. The
amendment will not authorize private lawsuits, but it will authorize
the Attorney General to file suit under the antitrust laws for redress.
The most fundamental principle of a free market is that competitors
cannot be permitted to conspire to limit supply or fix price. There can
be no free market without this foundation. And we should not permit any
nation to flout this fundamental principle.
The suffering of consumers across the Nation in the last few years
has made me and many others more certain than ever that this
legislation is necessary. I urge my colleagues to support this

[[Page S7706]]

amendment so that our Nation will finally have an effective means to
combat this price-fixing conspiracy of oil-rich nations. The Senate
should now join with 345 of our colleagues in the House of
Representatives and vote to add the NOPEC legislation to the Energy
bill.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for himself, Mr.
Specter, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Biden, Ms. Snowe, Mr.
Feingold, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Lieberman,
Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Sanders, and Ms. Klobuchar, proposes an
amendment numbered 1519 to amendment No. 1502.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting
cartels illegal)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. NO OIL PRODUCING AND EXPORTING CARTELS ACT OF 2007.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``No Oil
Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2007'' or ``NOPEC''.
(b) Sherman Act.--The Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) is
amended by adding after section 7 the following:

``SEC. 7A. OIL PRODUCING CARTELS.

``(a) In General.--It shall be illegal and a violation of
this Act for any foreign state, or any instrumentality or
agent of any foreign state, to act collectively or in
combination with any other foreign state, any instrumentality
or agent of any other foreign state, or any other person,
whether by cartel or any other association or form of
cooperation or joint action--
``(1) to limit the production or distribution of oil,
natural gas, or any other petroleum product;
``(2) to set or maintain the price of oil, natural gas, or
any petroleum product; or
``(3) to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade
for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product;
when such action, combination, or collective action has a
direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the
market, supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural gas,
or other petroleum product in the United States.
``(b) Sovereign Immunity.--A foreign state engaged in
conduct in violation of subsection (a) shall not be immune
under the doctrine of sovereign immunity from the
jurisdiction or judgments of the courts of the United States
in any action brought to enforce this section.
``(c) Inapplicability of Act of State Doctrine.--No court
of the United States shall decline, based on the act of state
doctrine, to make a determination on the merits in an action
brought under this section.
``(d) Enforcement.--The Attorney General of the United
States may bring an action to enforce this section in any
district court of the United States as provided under the
antitrust laws.''.
(c) Sovereign Immunity.--Section 1605(a) of title 28,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``or'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and inserting
``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) in which the action is brought under section 7A of
the Sherman Act.''.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am proud to join Senator Kohl in
supporting his amendment to the Energy Act. Under Senator Kohl's
leadership, the NOPEC bill has passed unanimously out of the Senate
Judiciary Committee without amendment in four separate Congresses,
under both Democratic and Republican leadership.
This NOPEC amendment will hold accountable certain oil producing
nations for their collusive behavior that has artificially reduced the
supply and inflated the price of fuel. Unless this amendment becomes
law, consumers across the Nation will continue to suffer.
According to a recent Washington Post article, gas prices last month
came within a half-penny of the modern era's inflation-adjusted record
set in 1981. The rise and fall of oil and gas prices has a direct
impact on American consumers and our economy.
Prices have come down slightly in recent weeks, but that is no reason
to condone anticompetitive conduct by foreign government cartels.
American consumers should not be held economic hostage to the whim of
colluding foreign governments.
Just a few days ago, the Associated Press reported Iran's oil
minister's statement that the members of OPEC would not release more
oil into the market. This, despite reports that demand is on the rise.
Without collusion, OPEC members would compete to serve that demand and
prices at home would fall.
When entities engage in anticompetitive conduct that harms the
American consumers, it is the responsibility of the Department of
Justice to investigate and prosecute. It is wrong to let members of
OPEC off the hook just because their anticompetitive practices come
with the seal of approval of national governments. I am disappointed
that the administration, which announced it would oppose this bill,
does not share this view.
NOPEC has bipartisan, bicameral support. The Senate Judiciary
Committee approved it unanimously, and the House passed it with 345
Members voting for it.
We cannot claim to be energy independent while we permit foreign
governments to manipulate oil prices in an anticompetitive manner. It
is long past time for Congress to act. I thank Senator Kohl for his
leadership on this issue.

amendment no. 1546 to amendment no. 1502

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that
Senate amendment No. 1546 be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for Mr. DeMint,
proposes an amendment numbered 1546 to amendment No. 1502.

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, 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 as follows:

(Purpose: To provide that legislation that would increase the national
average fuel prices for automobiles is subject to a point of order in
the Senate)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. LIMITATIONS ON LEGISLATION THAT WOULD INCREASE
NATIONAL AVERAGE FUEL PRICES FOR AUTOMOBILES.

(a) Point of Order.--
(1) In general.--If the Senate is considering legislation,
upon a point of order being made by any Senator against
legislation, or any part of the legislation, that it has been
determined in accordance with paragraph (2) that the
legislation, if enacted, would result in an increase in the
national average fuel price for automobiles, and the point of
order is sustained by the Presiding Officer, the Senate shall
cease consideration of the legislation.
(2) Determination.--The determination described in this
paragraph means a determination by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office, in consultation with the Energy
Information Administration and other appropriate Government
agencies, that is made upon the request of a Senator for
review of legislation, that the legislation, or part of the
legislation, would, if enacted, result in an increase in the
national average fuel price for automobiles.
(3) Legislation.--In this section the term ``legislation''
means a bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report.
(b) Waivers and Appeals.--
(1) Waivers.--Before the Presiding Officer rules on a point
of order described in subsection (a)(1), any Senator may move
to waive the point of order and the motion to waive shall not
be subject to amendment. A point of order described in
subsection (a)(1) is waived only by the affirmative vote of
60 Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeals.--After the Presiding Officer rules on a point
of order described in subsection (a)(1), any Senator may
appeal the ruling of the Presiding Officer on the point of
order as it applies to some or all of the provisions on which
the Presiding Officer ruled. A ruling of the Presiding
Officer on a point of order described in subsection (a)(1) is
sustained unless 60 Members of the Senate, duly chosen and
sworn, vote not to sustain the ruling.
(3) Debate.--Debate on the motion to waive under paragraph
(1) or on an appeal of the ruling of the Presiding Officer
under paragraph (2) shall be limited to 1 hour. The time
shall be equally divided between, and controlled by, the
Majority leader and the Minority Leader of the Senate, or
their designees.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is set aside.
The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Byrd are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the
regular order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment 1546, the Kohl amendment, on behalf
of Senator DeMint, is the pending amendment.

[[Page S7707]]

Amendment No. 1572 to Amendment No. 1502

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 1572.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Tennessee has reserved the right to object.
The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, while my colleagues are seeing if they
can work out the objection, let me proceed to speak about this
amendment.
The amendment I hope to call up is amendment No. 1572, and it is an
amendment which is part of----
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, if the Senator will yield.
Mr. SALAZAR. I yield.
Mr. ALEXANDER. The Senator has a worthy amendment of which I am proud
to be a cosponsor. At the moment we are checking with Senator Domenici,
so if at this point the Senator wishes to speak to his amendment and
give us a few minutes, we would appreciate that.
Mr. SALAZAR. That will be fine. I appreciate the Senator from
Tennessee and his leadership, not only on these issues, but also on
park issues and so many other issues that he has spent a long career
working on in behalf of our country.
The amendment No. 1572, which I have introduced with my colleagues
Senator Bayh, Senator Alexander, Senator Lieberman, Senator Brownback,
Senator Coleman, Senator Cantwell, Senator Lincoln, Senator Clinton,
and Senator Biden, is an important amendment to move us forward in our
vision of energy independence and to set America free from the
addiction we have on imported oil. The amendment we have here is part
of the DRIVE Act, which is sponsored by a group of 26 Senators, a true
bipartisan coalition which has wanted to move forward in our efforts to
set America free from our addiction to foreign oil.
The DRIVE electric amendment will make better use of the electricity
in the transportation sector by spurring development and deployment of
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and by promoting oil savings at key
transportation hubs, including airports and truckstops. The amendment
we are offering today will move us toward our oil savings targets
included in this bill by making better use of electric in the
transportation sector.
Currently, it is our cars, trucks, boats, planes, and trains which
account for about two-thirds of the Nation's oil consumption. The
easiest way to save oil and reduce our dependence on imports is to
first improve the efficiency of our vehicles, which we are doing in the
underlying bill in a number of ways, especially by raising the CAFE
standards and helping manufacturers refuel their vehicle fleets;
secondly, by replacing the oil-based fuels that power our vehicles with
energy from other sources.
The amendment we are offering today will help substitute electric for
oil in the transportation sector in two ways. First, this amendment
encourages commonsense oil-saving electrification measures at
truckstops, ports, and airports. Our amendment directs the Secretary of
Energy, in coordination with the Secretary of Transportation and EPA,
to create a revolving loan and grant program to support the
electrification of these transportation hubs.
You would be surprised at how much oil we can save through these
simple measures. For example, truckers must rest 10 hours after driving
for 11 hours. When they do this, they often park at truckstops, leaving
their engines idling to power heaters, air-conditioners, TVs, or
refrigerators. This overnight idling by long-haul trucks consumes
around 20 million barrels of oil per year. The solution is very simple:
You simply give truckers the option of plugging their trucks into an
electrical outlet to power their systems while they are stopped at
these truck stops. The EPA today estimates that this measure alone
would save around $3,240 in fuel costs per truck parking space per
year. We can take similar measures at airports and seaports to improve
efficiency of handling cargo, refrigerating goods, and powering
vehicles. Our amendment helps transportation hubs make these oil- and
cost-saving investments.
The second way in which our amendment improves the use of electricity
in the transportation sector is through the development and deployment
of plug-in hybrid and electric drive technologies.
The National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, CO recently conducted a
simulation to assess the capabilities of plug-in hybrid electric
technology. The simulation showed that a plug-in hybrid electric
vehicle fleet with modest technological capabilities would double the
fuel economy of a conventional fleet, with less than half the energy
costs per mile.
Detroit is on the cusp of offering these plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles to consumers across the Nation and across the world. Some of
the prototypes are far more advanced than those which NREL studied and
would get over 100 miles to the gallon, with energy cost to the
consumer that is equivalent to around 75 cents per gallon of gas. These
plug-in hybrid vehicles are a building block of our new energy economy,
and we should be doing more to push these technologies out the door.
Americans will benefit from these plug-in hybrid electric vehicles with
lower costs and reduced emissions.
While the underlying bill would allow for basic and applied energy
storage research, the amendment we are proposing would also establish
an electric drive transportation research and development program. That
program would stimulate research into high-efficiency onboard and
offboard charging components, high-power and energy-efficient
drivetrain systems, powertrain development and integration, the use of
advanced materials technology, and several other areas that are key to
getting electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles to the American consumer.
Our amendment will also help prepare utility companies to handle the
added load these new vehicles will place on the electrical grid. We
have directed the Secretary of Energy and EPA to work with the
utilities to develop low-cost, simple methods of using off-peak
electricity and better managing on-peak use to support a growing fleet
of electric drive vehicles.
These investments in research and preparation of our electrical grid
will usher in an era when all assumptions about how we power our cars
and trucks will change. We will see oil consumption, emissions, and
costs fall, and we will see a new way of innovation and design, with
American engineers leading the charge.
So that America gets out front on the development of this electric
drive revolution, we are creating a nationwide education program for
electric drive transportation technology. The amendment will provide
financial assistance to create new university-level degree programs for
needed engineers, support student plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
competitions, and promote other educational initiatives. We believe
American minds can and should power this electric drive revolution so
that our best and brightest are delivering the next generation of
American cars to consumers.
I am proud of how far we have already come on the Energy bill that is
before us today. Chairman Bingaman and Senator Domenici, along with the
leaders of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Commerce
Committee, and the Finance Committee, have done yeoman's labor over the
last 5 months to get us to where we are today.
The DRIVE Act electric amendment will magnify the positive impacts of
this bill and accelerate the arrival of a clean energy future in which
all Americans can access plug-in hybrid technologies that save them gas
and money.
I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment which,
again, has the cosponsorship of Senator Lieberman, Senator Brownback,
Senator Coleman, Senator Cantwell, Senator Lincoln, Senator Clinton,
Senator Biden, and my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Alexander.
Madam President, I inquire of my friend from Tennessee if I can call
up my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, if I can say to the Senator through
the Chair, the Senator still would like to have a chance to talk with
Senator Domenici. In the meantime, both Senators Warner and DeMint have
brief

[[Page S7708]]

statements they would like to make. We are working quickly on Senator
Salazar's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

Amendment No. 1566, as Modified

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I call for the regular order, and I
believe that will make my amendment pending. I send to the desk a
modification. I have a right to modify my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right, and the amendment
will be so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN AREAS FOR LEASING.

Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(q) Availability of Certain Areas for Leasing.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Atlantic coastal state.--The term `Atlantic Coastal
State' means each of the States of Maine, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, New York,
New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, and Florida
``(B) Governor.--The term `Governor' means the Governor of
the State.
``(C) Qualified revenues.--The term `qualified revenues'
means all rentals, royalties, bonus bids, and other sums due
and payable to the United States from leases entered into on
or after the date of enactment of this Act for natural gas
exploration and extraction activities authorized by the
Secretary under this subsection.
``(D) State.--The term `State' means the State of Virginia.
``(2) Petition.--
``(A) In general.--The Governor may submit to the
Secretary--
``(i) a petition requesting that the Secretary issue leases
authorizing the conduct of natural gas exploration activities
only to ascertain the presence or absence of a natural gas
reserve in any area that is at least 50 miles beyond the
coastal zone of the State; and
``(ii) if a petition for exploration by the State described
in clause (i) has been approved in accordance with paragraph
(3) and the geological finding of the exploration justifies
extraction, a second petition requesting that the Secretary
issue leases authorizing the conduct of natural gas
extraction activities in any area that is at least 50 miles
beyond the coastal zone of the State.
``(B) Contents.--In any petition under subparagraph (A),
the Governor shall include a detailed plan of the proposed
exploration and subsequent extraction activities, as
applicable.
``(3) Action by secretary.--
``(A) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
receipt of a petition under paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall approve or deny the petition.
``(B) Requirements for exploration.--The Secretary shall
not approve a petition submitted under paragraph (2)(A)(i)
unless the State legislature has enacted legislation
supporting exploration for natural gas in the coastal zone of
the State.
``(C) Requirements for extraction.--The Secretary shall not
approve a petition submitted under paragraph (2)(A)(ii)
unless the State legislature has enacted legislation
supporting extraction for natural gas in the coastal zone of
the State.
``(D) Consistency with legislation.--The plan provided in
the petition under paragraph (2)(B) shall be consistent with
the legislation described in subparagraph (B) or (C), as
applicable.
``(E) Comments from atlantic coastal states.--On receipt of
a petition under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall--
``(i) provide Atlantic Coastal States with an opportunity
to provide to the Secretary comments on the petition; and
``(ii) take into consideration, but not be bound by, any
comments received under clause (i).
``(4) Disposition of revenues.--Notwithstanding section 9,
for each applicable fiscal year, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall deposit--
``(A) 50 percent of qualified revenues in the general fund
of the Treasury; and
``(B) 50 percent of qualified revenues in a special account
in the Treasury from which the Secretary shall disburse--
``(i) 75 percent to the State;
``(ii) 12.5 percent to provide financial assistance to
States in accordance with section 6 of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8), which shall
be considered income to the Land and Water Conservation Fund
for purposes of section 2 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 460l-5); and
``(iii) 12.5 percent to a reserve fund to be used to
mitigate for any environmental damage that occurs as a result
of extraction activities authorized under this subsection,
regardless of whether the damage is--

``(I) reasonably foreseeable; or
``(II) caused by negligence, natural disasters, or other
acts.''.

SEC. __

No extraction or exploration plan under this provision
shall be accepted by the Secretary of the Interior if the
Secretary of Defense determines that such a plan is
inconsistent with critical military test or training
activities off the Virginia coast.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I should like to read it for the benefit
of those following the debate. The modification is as follows. A new
section is added to my amendment:

(5) No extraction or exploration plan under this provision
shall be accepted by the Secretary of the Interior if the
Secretary of Defense determines that such a plan is
inconsistent with critical military test or training
activities off the Virginia coast.

The distinguished Senator from Florida referred to a letter he read
regarding the concerns the Department of the Navy--and most
specifically, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy--had
with regard to the ability of this body to enact legislation which
presumably would result in the Department of Defense finding that
something was done inconsistent with our national security interests.
So this modification corrects that so that the Secretary of the
Interior, acting under my amendment, would not take any such action
unless he had the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense.
I also have discovered, since the colloquy between Senator Nelson of
Florida and myself, a letter which was written subsequent to the letter
he had and addressed the Senate. This letter addresses a modification
to the letter of April 10, 2006. This letter was written on November
27, 2006, and it states the following:

Notwithstanding the above, the Department is willing to
discuss with you--

That is, the Department of Interior--

possible alternatives that may provide opportunities for
exploration and potential joint use of the Mid-Atlantic area
consistent with the critical military test and training
activities in this area.

The letter goes on to say:

Our departments--

That is, the Department of Defense and the Department of the
Interior--

have worked closely together over the years to insure a
continuing successful leasing program with a manageable
impact on defense operations. We agree that oil and gas
development on the Outer Continental Shelf must strike a
balance between our Nation's energy and national security
goals. As the administration moves forward on a plan to best
meet the Nation's oil and gas energy needs for 2007 to 2012,
we look forward to working with you to ensure its success.

Clearly, this indicates that with all good intention my colleague
from Florida read the older letter which is now amended substantially
by a subsequent letter that the Department of Defense will work with
the Secretary of Interior to make certain that any action with respect
to drilling off the coast of Virginia is not inconsistent with national
defense requirements.
Madam President, I am perfectly willing to accommodate the managers
as to how best they want to proceed on a vote. I hope I can get my
amendment up this afternoon for purposes of a vote, but I leave that to
the discretion of the managers.
I yield the floor, and I thank the Chair for her courtesy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Virginia is
pending. He called for the regular order.

Amendment No. 1546

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment, and I call up amendment No. 1546. It is pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DeMINT. I understand the amendment is pending.
Madam President, my amendment will make it harder for this body to
enact legislation that increases the price of gasoline. That may sound
unneeded in a debate where the whole purpose is to supposedly relax the
price of gasoline in this country, lower the price for our consumers.
The whole bill is supposedly aimed at providing stable and affordable
energy, including gasoline for all American citizens; however, I am
disappointed that this bill actually does nothing to reduce prices and
may very well show that Congress will propose policies that would raise
the prices of gasoline in the future.
Specifically, there is nothing in the bill to ensure Congress will
not enact legislation that actually increases the

[[Page S7709]]

cost of gasoline. At the very least, this Senate should take a ``do no
harm'' approach to legislating and enact safeguards to ensure that we
do not increase the cost of gasoline for American consumers. My
amendment will do just that. It is very straightforward. It would
require that the Congressional Budget Office evaluate legislation and
determine whether it would increase the cost of gasoline. If the
legislation does increase the cost of gasoline, a 60-vote point of
order would lie against the bill. This applies the same principles we
use in the congressional budget process to energy policy.
The traveling public is coping with high prices of gasoline every
day, and while there are many factors out of our control that are
forcing up the cost of gasoline, we can control what we do in the
Senate.
I know some of my colleagues may support policies that would raise
the price of gasoline and, consequently, raise the point of order that
I am proposing, but I encourage them to amend this bill anyway. If the
policy they are proposing is important enough, then this body will come
together with more than 60 votes to pass their bill.
We can adopt this commonsense proposal which ensures that at the very
least, the Senate is less likely to increase the cost of gasoline as we
seek to improve the Nation's energy policy.
I thank the Chair for this time. I encourage my colleagues to support
this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.

Amendment No. 1572 to Amendment No. 1502

(Purpose: To reduce United States dependence on foreign oil by
promoting the development of plug-in electric vehicles, deploying near-
term programs to electrify the transportation sector, and including
electric drive vehicles in the fleet purchasing programs)

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 1572.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Salazar], for himself, Mr.
Bayh, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Coleman, Ms.
Cantwell, Mrs. Lincoln, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Biden, proposes
an amendment numbered 1572 to amendment No. 1502.

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, 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. SALAZAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Brownback be recognized to speak on this amendment for up to 10
minutes, and following Senator Brownback, then to hear from Senator
Cardin for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Colorado
for this recognition. I am a cosponsor of this amendment, and he is the
lead sponsor of the drive electric amendment. This is an exciting
bipartisan proposal. It has 26 cosponsors. It does one narrow issue,
but it is a big one, and that is this: It gives consumers another
option in the marketplace.
Right now, we are 97 percent dependent on oil for our transportation
fuel. We are trying to expand that into ethanol, having more ethanol in
the marketplace, and I think that is key. What this amendment focuses
on is getting another option out there, a great one--it is an electric
option--and to put it forward so we can have more transportation
running off electricity. I think one of the key things for us to do in
our future is to be able to reduce our consumption of oil, particularly
foreign oil, and one of the key ways for us to do that is to have our
transportation fleet become more electric--a plug-in technology where
you plug the car in at night in the garage and you drive the next day.
About half of the Nation doesn't drive over 30 miles a day. Having
plug-in cars that can go that first 30 miles off electricity and then
switch over, I would hope, to ethanol, E85 ethanol at that point, in
fact, could reduce aggressively, substantially, and quickly our
dependence on foreign oil.

This amendment is a part of an overall strategy that a number of us
have put forward. One of the amendments of this strategy was passed on
Monday, where an oil savings plan was put forward and accepted by this
body in the overall bill.
Let me go to the specifics of this particular bill, if I could, and I
know the Senator from Colorado will get to these more in depth, but the
DRIVE electric amendment would expand the advanced transportation
technology program in H.R. 6 and augment the energy storage
competitiveness program in section 244 of the bill. The funding of $125
million would be authorized for the near-term deployment, market
assessment, and the electricity usage provisions of the amendment.
The point of this is, if we are to rapidly expand plug-in technology,
where the car is driven initially, or the pickup is driven initially
off of electricity and then on to gasoline or ethanol, we need to get
storage technology in the batteries. We need to get drive train
technology to be able to do this, and it is within reach. I talked to a
representative of General Motors yesterday about having the first wave
of plug-in cars in the marketplace as soon as possibly 2008 or 2009.
These are exciting prospects, but you have clear hurdles that we have
to overcome in the process. Those are identified in this bill, and we
provide funding for the research in those areas to go forward. We also
urge the Federal Government in fleet acquisition programs to establish
under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 an assurance that fleet operators
subject to that law can choose electric drive transportation
technology, including hybrid electric vehicles, for compliance.
This amendment is endorsed by a large group, certainly electric
companies, as you might suspect, but also others interested in
stretching our fuel usage, our oil usage in this country, and getting
it from other sources. I might point out, too, one of the things people
ask about: OK, if you are going to switch to electric, you are going to
have to build more power-generating units, and that may happen in the
future. But initially we can handle this by using the power grid we
have now in offpeak hours.
Most of the plug-ins will happen at night. Most of the recharging
will happen at night. So you don't have to build additional capacity to
be able to do this. It is good for the environment, reducing our
CO<inf>2</inf> emissions overall into the atmosphere, and it is good
for the economy. It develops a new way of moving forward on personal
transportation on a mass quantity basis for us to be able to do it in
this society and then sell that technology globally. So it helps our
car manufacturers to be able to compete.
I think this is a win all the way around, and I am delighted to be a
cosponsor of the amendment with my colleague from Colorado, Senator
Salazar, and many others.
I would urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment as a key provision
to how we become energy secure in the next 15 years, while at the same
time growing our economy and helping the environment. All together it
is an exciting and excellent amendment, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Klobuchar be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I thank my friend from Kansas for his
great statement with respect to the DRIVE electric amendment, and I
also recognize that he was one of the original members of the whole
coalition that put together this DRIVE Act and was part of implementing
the principles of the Set America Free Coalition.
Madam President, I yield the floor to my friend from Maryland, Mr.
Cardin, who is up next.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.

Amendment No. 1566

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, let me thank my friend from Colorado for
his courtesy.
This Nation needs energy independence for many reasons. We need it
for

[[Page S7710]]

our national security. We should not be making decisions on foreign
policy based upon our oil needs from countries that disagree with our
foreign policy objectives.
We need energy independence for economic reasons. Today, we held a
hearing in the Committee on Small Business and pointed out the dangers
to our economy because of the unpredictability of gasoline prices.
We need energy independence because of environmental issues. For this
reason, I want to emphasize why I have great respect for my colleague
from our neighboring State of Virginia, but I very much disagree with
the amendment that he has submitted, and I urge my colleagues to reject
the Warner amendment.
For 25 years, the Outer Continental Shelf moratorium and the long-
standing Presidential OSC withdrawals have protected our coasts. There
are several reasons I oppose the Warner amendment. Virginia and
Maryland are neighboring States, and we share a lot. We share a coast,
we share the Chesapeake Bay, and we share a special way of life because
of the Chesapeake Bay.
The coast and the bay are critically important to our region because
of tourism, because of commercial and recreational sports fishing,
because of the real estate impacts, and because of the quality of life.
Billions of dollars in our economy depend upon the health of our
coasts, and many jobs are dependent upon what we do in protecting our
shores.

Gas drilling presents an unacceptable risk, and we should not allow
it to take place. I heard my friend say this is a Virginia issue. No,
it is not a Virginia issue. It will have a direct impact, or could have
a direct impact on my State of Maryland and on neighboring States.
Liquid gas condensed is highly toxic to marine life. Waste discharges,
mud spills, everything you can conceive of related to drilling presents
a true risk to the environment in my State and surrounding States. We
don't need to incur this type of a risk.
Now, we don't have to look very far to see what has happened
historically with spills. In 2002, there was a spill 150 miles--not 50
miles but 150 miles--off the coast of Spain. It affected 1,000 beaches
in Spain and France. If there is a spill during unpredictable weather,
it can be transmitted hundreds of miles and can affect an entire
region. So this is a very important decision we are making as to
whether to open up drilling along the Virginia coast, which will affect
our entire east coast of the United States.
The main tragedy is that we don't need to do this. We can't drill our
way to energy independence. The United States has but 5 percent of the
world's reserves in oil and gas. That is not the way we are going to be
able to achieve energy independence. The bill that we have before us is
a balanced bill. It recognizes first and foremost that we need to
become energy independent through efficiency, saving energy use, using
less energy in our buildings, using less energy in transportation, and
conserving our energy use. That is the first way to do it.
On alternative and renewable energy sources, yes, we can achieve a
lot toward energy independence, and we also should be doing a lot more
in research to determine ways in which we can use energy more
efficiently and produce more alternative and renewable energy sources.
But we are not going to drill our way out of our energy problems.
As I said in the beginning, energy independence is important for our
security, for our economy, and our environment. I believe the Warner
amendment will take us a step backwards in trying to make sure as we
present policies to make us energy independent that we also protect our
environment. I urge my colleagues to reject the Warner amendment.
Madam 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. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

General Peter Pace

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, the other day I saw something--and I
should have it with me but I don't now--in the media that was critical
of GEN Peter Pace, the outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
When I think of words to describe Peter Pace, the words that come to my
mind are always loyalty and honor. Those happen to be the words of the
United States Marine Corps. These are their watch words.
Peter Pace is today, and has always been, a true marine--the first
marine to serve as both the Vice Chairman and Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. He is loyal to this country, its people, and to the
men and women who wear the uniform of its Armed Forces.
He served this country with honor as a rifle platoon leader in
Vietnam. He has done everything: a marine commander in Somalia,
commander of U.S. Marine forces in the Atlantic, commander of the U.S.
Southern Command, and then Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
As Chairman, he has led our military during one of the most critical
times in history, fighting in wars against terrorists in Afghanistan
and Iraq, engaged throughout the world providing support and aid to our
allies and friends.
I have long been, and still am, a real fan of Peter Pace, and I
cannot think of one military leader I have known in the 21 years I have
served on the House Armed Services and the Senate Armed Services
Committees who is a greater American than Peter Pace. Let me just pay
this tribute to him today as one great marine and one great American.
(The remarks of Mr. Inhofe pertaining to the introduction of S. 1623
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor and 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. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, today we are considering the Energy bill.
When you talk about energy policy, you think about--you almost can't
separate it from trade policy, from manufacturing policy, from what is
happening to American jobs and American industry. American
manufacturing has been a bedrock of our country's strength and
prosperity for much of this country's existence, certainly for the last
century and a half. Our current trade policy has caused our Nation to
hemorrhage manufacturing jobs and devastated communities in my home
State of Ohio and across the Nation. Last week, Senator Stabenow and
others participated in a manufacturing summit with leaders from
Government and industry, trying to figure out how we remain
competitive, how we shape trade and tax policies to help, not hurt, our
small companies or medium-size manufacturers.
I live in a state, from Steubenville to Toledo, from Ashtabula to
Dayton, where job loss has way too often been the order of the day--
manufacturing jobs lost, often jobs going to Mexico when plants close,
often jobs outsourced to China--so often devastating communities. When
a plant shuts down in Lima or Mansfield or Zanesville or Marion, that
is not just a loss to those workers or to those families, but it is
layoffs of firefighters and police officers; it is fewer schoolteachers
to teach children in those communities where parents may have lost
their jobs. It is pretty clear as a Nation we need to fight back.
When I look at what this Energy bill can be about and the leadership
of Senator Bingaman and what he is doing with this energy legislation,
I think about Oberlin College. Oberlin College, a school in northern
Colorado, is the site of the largest building on any campus in America
that is fully powered by solar energy. Yet the solar panels in Oberlin
College to power this solar building, this building on Oberlin's

[[Page S7711]]

campus, were all purchased in Japan and Germany because we don't make
enough of them in this country.
The same can be said for wind turbines. As we have begun to construct
wind turbine fields around the country, looking at places such as Lake
Erie and the Great Plains and other places, we know that most of the
components for these wind turbines are built abroad. That is something
where a manufacturing policy and an energy policy come together.
At the same time, we have seen across the hall, in the House of
Representatives, a move afoot with the Bush administration to pass two
more trade deals, a trade agreement with Panama and a trade agreement
with Peru. The trade policy in this country--you have to wonder how
many more trade deals are we going to pass before the powers that be in
the White House understand our trade policy has failed? Fourteen or
fifteen years ago, when I ran for Congress, we had a trade deficit in
this country of $38 billion. Today that trade deficit exceeds $700
billion. It is a growth of almost 20 times.
To understand in some sense what a $38 billion trade deficit that a
decade and a half later is a $700-plus billion trade deficit means,
think about it in these terms. The first President Bush said a billion
dollar trade deficit translates into 13,000 lost jobs. Do the math and
you can see why we have had the devastation across particularly the
industrial Midwest, but also every State in this country has lost
significant manufacturing jobs. Five million manufacturing jobs have
been lost during the Bush administration, hundreds of thousands of
those in Ohio, in places such as Bryan and places such as Portsmouth,
in places such as Xenia and Springfield.
The President said he is willing to sign now a trade agreement with
Peru and Panama, with labor and environmental standards in those trade
agreements. That was the announcement the President recently made, the
U.S. Trade Representative recently made. But go back and look. We have
a history with this administration of not doing what they promised in
trade agreements. Go back to an administration before, the North
American Free Trade Agreement. They passed labor/environmental
standards as a side agreement in those trade agreements, something
probably they plan to do with Peru and Panama. Those side agreements
for labor and environmental standards in the end meant absolutely
nothing.
Then go back to the year 2000, where both Houses of Congress passed--
I supported it--the trade agreement with Jordan. That trade agreement
had strong labor and environmental standards. But one of the first
things President Bush's Trade Representative did--back then it was
Robert Zoellick--was to send a letter with the Jordanians regarding
dispute resolution, saying they would not enforce, telling the
Jordanian Government they were not going to make them enforce their
labor and environmental standards.
What happened, you got a good trade agreement with strong labor and
environmental standards with Jordan. When you don't enforce those
standards, you end up with Jordan being a sweatshop and an export
platform, with mostly Bangladeshi workers imported into Jordan, making
textiles and apparel, mostly apparel, sewing clothes, as a sweatshop
that simply violated all we say we stand for with American values and
all we said we stood for in this trade agreement.
The point is, before we pass trade agreements, we need labor and
environmental standards at the core of the agreement; we need
commitment from the administration that they will, in fact, unlike in
the past, enforce these labor and environmental standards; and we need
benchmarks--as Senator Dorgan has said many times, benchmarks that
allow us to gauge whether these trade agreements serve our national
interest. We pass a trade agreement, and we then begin to measure its
success. Does it mean more jobs or fewer jobs for American workers?
Does it mean a trade increase in the trade deficit or does it mean a
shrinking of the trade deficit? Does it mean an increase in income or
does it mean stagnant incomes, as we have seen for so many American
workers?
We know profits are up. We know salaries are up for top management.
But we also know wages for most American workers--especially
manufacturing workers but most American workers--have been flat. This
was brought home to me at Senator Stabenow's manufacturing summit a
week or so ago when John Colm, a businessman from Cleveland, handed me
a stack of auction notices about this high. There were 47 of them he
had received since December 2006. These were auction notices from small
companies which were selling off their assets in machinery, which were
cannibalizing their plants, selling off at rock-bottom prices because
they can't compete with cheap imports and can't compete because of this
unlevel playing field because of trade agreements and because of tax
law in this country that is simply so uneven.
That is why, before we consider trade promotion authority, before we
consider the Peru or Panama trade agreements, before we consider
Colombia or South Korea trade agreements, we have to ask ourselves the
question: Are these trade agreements fair to American workers? Will
they help our communities? Will they help us strengthen the middle
class or will these trade agreements continue to contribute to an
exploding trade deficit, to lost jobs, to devastating communities all
over my State of Ohio and all over the country? That is the fundamental
question on trade policy--what does it do to strengthen the middle
class? If it fails that test, these trade agreements should fail in the
Senate.
We will hear more in the upcoming months about these trade agreements
and about U.S. trade policy and how we cannot just oppose bad trade
agreements but bring forward trade agreements with benchmarks that help
American workers and help to strengthen the middle class.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown.) The Senator from Minnesota is
recognized.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

AMENDMENT NO. 1557

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here to make some brief comments
about amendment No. 1557, which was introduced today. I spoke about
this earlier, but it had not yet been accepted and introduced.
I appreciate that Senator Snowe, one of the coauthors on this
amendment, also spoke. I wish to thank the other authors of this
amendment. That would be Senator Bingaman, who is managing this Energy
bill, as well as Senators Carper, Coleman, Kerry, and Boxer.
This amendment is a very important one. It establishes a national
greenhouse gas registry that will gather and consolidate consistent,
transparent, and reliable data on greenhouse gas emissions.
Now, it may not be the most exiting amendment that is being
introduced today or this week, but it is a very important one. The
reason we need this amendment is we actually do not have mandatory
reporting right now for greenhouse gas emissions. I think that is
surprising for people. If you were to ask what are some of the largest
emitters of greenhouse gasses, you would not be able to easily find
that information. Recently, a reporter for National Public Radio tried
to find out that answer. She was unable to do it.
Although most electric powerplants already report their carbon
dioxide emissions to the EPA, this only represents 37 percent of total
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions that are reported. As for the remaining
greenhouse gas emissions data, the Department of Energy and the EPA
collect data on energy production and consumption; however, the
quantity and the quality of this data collected vary significantly
across different fuels and different sectors. For example, data on
crude oil and petroleum products is collected weekly from selected oil
companies, while data on the industrial sector is collected only once
every 3 years through surveys. In some cases, Federal agencies collect
the data themselves, while in other cases data is collected through
voluntary reports. This

[[Page S7712]]

inconsistency in approaches has resulted in a lack of comparability of
reported emissions from company to company within specific economic
sectors, as well as the lack of comparability of results from reporting
program to reporting program.

Many people have called for a national registry. Currently, as you
know, 31 States have asked for some type of registry. They have
actually joined together and tried to create their own national
registry because of inaction by the Federal Government. I cannot think
of a better example when you have 31 States banding together when, in
fact, they would prefer a national registry with the EPA. That is why
these States are interested in a national registry.
We also have some significant businesses which would like to see a
registry such as this. They have come together as part of the U.S.
Climate Action Partnership. They have urged Congress to fast-track a
greenhouse gas inventory and registry. They actually did this back in
January of this year. We still see no action. These are companies such
as Boston Scientific, BP America, Caterpillar, Deere and Company, Dow
Chemical, Duke Energy, DuPont. It is time to act.
Justice Brandeis once talked about how the States were the
laboratories of democracy and how one courageous State can go ahead and
do things and experiment and set an example for the Nation. Well, that
is happening right now across this country. He never meant, however,
for the Federal Government to be complacent.
This is a simple piece of legislation with bipartisan support. It is
time to act. This is the bill to do it. We can get the accurate data.
It does not dictate the policy with greenhouse gas emissions. We will
have as many policy choices as we do now; the difference is we will get
this national greenhouse gas registry in place, not for small business,
as there is an exemption, but for our largest emitters of greenhouse
gases so that we can have accurate information with which to proceed.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

Amendments Nos. 1566 and 1578

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
until 5:20 today be for debate with respect to the Warner amendment,
No. 1566, and the Menendez amendment, No. 1578, with the time to run
concurrently and be equally divided and controlled between Senators
Warner and Menendez or their designees; that the Menendez amendment be
modified to be a first-degree amendment; that no amendment be in order
to either amendment prior to the vote; that each amendment must receive
60 affirmative votes to be agreed to; and that if each amendment fails
to receive 60 affirmative votes, it will be withdrawn; provided further
that the first vote occur with respect to the Warner amendment; that if
the Warner amendment does not receive 60 votes, then the Menendez
amendment, as modified, be withdrawn; that at 5:20 today, the Senate
proceed to vote in relation to the Warner amendment without further
intervening action or debate; provided further that Senator Lautenberg
control up to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment No. 1578), as modified, is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN AREAS FOR LEASING.

Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(q) Availability of Certain Areas for Leasing.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Atlantic coastal state.--The term `Atlantic Coastal
State' means each of the States of Maine, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, New York,
New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, and Florida
``(B) Governor.--The term `Governor' means the Governor of
the State.
``(C) Qualified revenues.--The term `qualified revenues'
means all rentals, royalties, bonus bids, and other sums due
and payable to the United States from leases entered into on
or after the date of enactment of this Act for natural gas
exploration and extraction activities authorized by the
Secretary under this subsection.
``(D) State.--The term `State' means the State of Virginia.
``(2) Petition.--
``(A) In general.--The Governor may submit to the
Secretary--
``(i) a petition requesting that the Secretary issue leases
authorizing the conduct of natural gas exploration activities
only to ascertain the presence or absence of a natural gas
reserve in any area that is at least 50 miles beyond the
coastal zone of the State; and
``(ii) if a petition for exploration by the State described
in clause (i) has been approved in accordance with paragraph
(3) and the geological finding of the exploration justifies
extraction, a second petition requesting that the Secretary
issue leases authorizing the conduct of natural gas
extraction activities in any area that is at least 50 miles
beyond the coastal zone of the State.
``(B) Contents.--In any petition under subparagraph (A),
the Governor shall include a detailed plan of the proposed
exploration and subsequent extraction activities, as
applicable.
``(3) Action by secretary.--
``(A) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
receipt of a petition under paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall approve or deny the petition.
``(B) Requirements for exploration.--The Secretary shall
not approve a petition submitted under paragraph (2)(A)(i)
unless the State legislature has enacted legislation
supporting exploration for natural gas in the coastal zone of
the State.
``(C) Requirements for extraction.--The Secretary shall not
approve a petition submitted under paragraph (2)(A)(ii)
unless the State legislature has enacted legislation
supporting extraction for natural gas in the coastal zone of
the State.
``(D) Consistency with legislation.--The plan provided in
the petition under paragraph (2)(B) shall be consistent with
the legislation described in subparagraph (B) or (C), as
applicable.
(E) Comments and approval from other states.--
``(i) In general.--On receipt of a petition under paragraph
(2), the Secretary shall provide Atlantic Coastal States with
an opportunity to provide to the Secretary comments on the
petition.
``(ii) Requirement.--The Secretary shall not approve a
petition under this paragraph unless the Governors of all
States within 100 miles of the coastal waters of the State
have approved the petition.
``(4) Disposition of revenues.--Notwithstanding section 9,
for each applicable fiscal year, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall deposit--
``(A) 50 percent of qualified revenues in the general fund
of the Treasury; and
``(B) 50 percent of qualified revenues in a special account
in the Treasury from which the Secretary shall disburse--
``(i) 75 percent to the State;
``(ii) 12.5 percent to provide financial assistance to
States in accordance with section 6 of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8), which shall
be considered income to the Land and Water Conservation Fund
for purposes of section 2 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 460l-5); and
``(iii) 12.5 percent to a reserve fund to be used to
mitigate for any environmental damage that occurs as a result
of extraction activities authorized under this subsection,
regardless of whether the damage is--

``(I) reasonably foreseeable; or
``(II) caused by negligence, natural disasters, or other
acts.''.

SEC. __

No extraction or exploration under this provision shall be
accepted by the Secretary of the Interior if the Secretary of
Defense determines that such a plan is inconsistent with
critical military test or training activities off the
Virginia coast.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Virginia is
recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to speak on behalf of my
amendment, which presumably will be voted on here in a matter of
minutes.
I accept the 60 votes because what I want to do is to have a record
of just where the sentiments are among my esteemed colleagues with
regard to what I view as an advancement in technology and a worsening
of the situation with regard to our energy supply and why these two
forces cannot converge in such a manner as to enable a Member of the
Senate to acknowledge that a State has a right to utilize those
resources on the Continental Shelf off of its shore. It just concerns
me greatly. I mean, natural gas is up--a 78 percent increase in price
since the year 2000.
My good friend and chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee got up in her usual eloquent way to explain why she was very
much opposed to my amendment. So I went back and did a little homework
and determined that California is the second largest consumer of
natural gas in the Nation. So I say to my colleague: Where is it going
to come from? Where is it going to come from?
Florida. My good friend got up and raised a technical amendment,
which momentarily knocked me off stride, but I went back and found
documents

[[Page S7713]]

which clarify the situation that the Department of Defense will work
with the Department of the Interior, and in no way should a petition be
filed by the Governor of Virginia for a drilling permit to explore and
determine the presence or absence of natural gas off our coast, in no
way will that interfere with national security. And that letter is in
the record. But he is very much against that. It is interesting;
Florida consumes 2\1/2\ times the amount of natural gas that Virginia
consumes, and New Jersey--my good friend who opposed me on this--
consumes twice the amount of natural gas that the State of Virginia
consumes.
My State is simply trying to manifest the courage, and thus far two
successive Governors have broken ground on this, both of them
distinguished members of the Democratic Party. And the State
legislatures--coincidentally under the control of Republicans--have
indicated Virginia's willingness to look in the direction of drilling
offshore.
Our State, I believe, is on the verge of stepping up to accept the
responsibility to help this Nation meet its needs to begin to prepare
to ward off this energy crisis which is rapidly coming our way.
I thank Virginians. I would hope that given the right of States to
make choices for themselves, my colleagues would see fit to recognize
the problem of the shortage of energy and the need for States such as
ours to step up and help.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Who yields time?
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, do I have any time constraints?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the remaining time
is under the control of the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. DOMENICI. How do I speak if I don't have any time?
I ask unanimous consent to be granted permission to speak for up to
10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, if there would be equal
time, 10 minutes on each side, I would not object.
Mr. DOMENICI. I am speaking on my own. I am not the proponent. Do you
think it is fair that just for my speaking you must speak? If you do, I
will have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a unanimous consent request that
there be a vote held at 5:20.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that he then have that time. I
will take 5 minutes.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, am I to assume the unanimous consent
request is for 5 minutes additional for each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request, as modified?
Mr. DOMENICI. That is fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to my good friend, the Senator
from Virginia, I sense what is going on here today would indicate you
will have a hard time with this amendment and maybe you won't win. But
I guarantee you it will not be long before what you espouse here
happens. You will once again, as in so many other things, be ahead of
the politicians. You will be two steps ahead of those who do things for
political reasons around here instead of the many times you have come
forth and put your Senate privileges on the line by doing what is
right. Your State must be elated with the idea--if they aren't now,
they will be--that they will have the option of letting drilling occur
50 miles off the coast. They won't see the drilling unless they have
binoculars. So for those who say they are going to see one of these
beautiful wells with all of the equipment, they better have binoculars
to see it. For those who are worried about a spill, they will have to
be grandmas and grandpas and even older than that before they see one,
because even with the big earthquakes and the big things that happened
in Louisiana, they didn't even get a spill. How are you going to get a
spill if you can't get one out of that thing?
So here you come and you say, with natural gas at $7, feeding all the
industries in America--and it does; natural gas feeds the underlying
businesses that produce in America--they are all telling us the one
thing that is forcing us to do what, to leave America, can you imagine,
to be forced to go to another country? It used to be this or that, now
it is: We can't afford natural gas. It is so cheap somewhere else, and
we have it in abundance on our own property. Offshore is America's
property. Here you come with a very innocuous proposal to let the State
decide. Then if they say, OK, they, too, have said they are not afraid,
then they are going to share in the royalties just like Louisiana and
Mississippi. But guess what. The United States is going to share in not
only the royalties, they are going to get natural gas for users in
America who are desperate. The price used to be $1 and $2. You haven't
seen that, and you won't see it. It is $7 for the unit we use. How
could some company that uses that for its base industries survive?
If you are in the business of ethanol and running around here
bragging about ethanol, let me remind you, the second biggest cost item
for turning corn to ethanol, the second biggest cost product is natural
gas. Then comes corn. Corn is first and then it. Can you imagine? It
itself is making gasoline more expensive, not only natural gas, because
we are making gasoline out of corn. Then we are spending a huge amount
for the natural gas that goes into heating it, burning it and all the
other things, and we can't even get an amendment adopted here today. I
hope I am wrong. It used to be the States that didn't want us to. Now
we have somebody else objecting. What is it, other States? We are going
to have to go around with a cop and ask the States all around us.
I would hope we would pass the Warner amendment here today. This
bill, which has nothing in it to produce anything, would at least turn
a little bit toward production. You could put up a flag and say: We
have an energy bill, and John Warner's amendment is the first one that
produced any energy of any significance. We would all be glad to see
that happen. We hope we have some other amendments that produce before
we are finished.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I understand my colleague, the
distinguished Senator from Virginia, has submitted additional
correspondence from the Department of Defense and I would like the
opportunity to comment on this letter. The Department of Defense
routinely provides generic comments, as requested by the Minerals
Management Service, on the various steps leading to a Draft Proposed
Five-Year OCS Leasing Program, and my friend, Senator Warner, has
apparently quoted, in part, from such a generic comment letter from
Donald R. Schregardus, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environment, of the
Department of the Navy.
With all due respect to my colleague Senator Warner, this letter only
provides vague reassurances about the hopeful intent of the Department
of the Navy to be able to work out, sometime in the future, remaining
military space-use conflicts with proposed MMS OCS leasing activities
in various areas.
In Florida, working out such space-use conflicts with military
exercise and training areas took several years, and in the end required
congressional action, which we completed only last December in this
Chamber.
Further, the same letter from the Department of the Navy recently
quoted by my colleague Senator Warner goes on to say, and I quote
directly from the letter:

However, the special interest sale proposed for the Mid-
Atlantic Region in late 2011 is not acceptable to the
Department because of its incompatibility with the military
training and testing conducted in this area.

While the Navy's letter goes on to conclude on a conciliatory note,
hoping that things can be worked out in the future, such negotiations,
as we have experienced in Florida for years, take time, effort, and
often, a very long period of time.
We do not think that going forward with my friend Mr. Warner's
amendment at this time, in spite of the continuing clear concerns
expressed by the Department of the Navy, is a wise idea at this time.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I thank my colleague for his very
thoughtful remarks.

[[Page S7714]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask if I may use 1 minute of the time of the Senator
from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from
New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me speak very briefly to oppose the amendment by my
friend and colleague from Virginia. In my view there are two reasons
why we do not have drilling off the coast of Virginia. No. 1 is that
the President, by executive order, has put a moratorium on any drilling
off the coast of Virginia or the mid-Atlantic. Second, every year when
we pass the Interior appropriations bill, we include in it boilerplate
language. We have done it for a couple decades now. It says: No funds
provided in this title may be expended by the Department of Interior to
conduct oil and natural gas preleasing, leasing, or related activities
in the middle Atlantic and south Atlantic planning areas.
If the Senator from Virginia wants to see drilling off the coast of
Virginia, he should change this provision when we get to the Interior
appropriations bill in 3 or 4 weeks. That is the place to get that
changed. If that is not changed, I would say even if the Senator's
amendment today were enacted, it would have no force and effect,
because no funds could be spent to carry it out. In my view, it should
be changed in that respect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for
6 minutes 40 seconds.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the senior Senator from New Jersey 5 minutes
and reserve the remainder of the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from New Jersey is
recognized.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from
New Jersey.
I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from
Virginia. It is not often I disagree with the Senator from Virginia. I
think this is the wrong course. To allow exploration and potential
drilling off the coast of Virginia? We are from a State with a
coastline that we cherish and must protect with all of our energy.
Imagine the devastation an oil or a natural gas spill off the coast of
Virginia would cause. New Jersey is only 75 miles from the proposed
drilling sites off the coast of Virginia. An oil spill can travel
hundreds of miles. For instance, when the Exxon Valdez dumped 11
million gallons of oil in Alaska, the oil traveled 470 miles. I was
there within 3 days. It had already traveled hundreds of miles in
Alaska. An oil spill from any offshore site off Virginia's coast could
easily devastate the shoreline of our State and States up and down the
Eastern Seaboard. It could poison the Atlantic and marine life that has
made the ocean their home. It would damage our economy enormously. Our
coastline accounts for approximately $50 billion a year in tourism
every year and supports almost 500,000 jobs.
The Warner amendment calls for offshore exploration and drilling for
natural gas. According to the Department of Interior, natural gas is
seldom found as a solitary product. Oil is almost always found in those
locations. So not only can natural gas have environmental problems, but
drilling for natural gas can easily result in puncturing oil deposits
and causing major spills.
According to the Department of Interior, approximately 3 million
gallons of oil were spilled as a result of offshore drilling between
1980 and 1999. Each of these spills averaged more than 40,000 gallons.
The Warner amendment will increase the likelihood of a spill ravaging
our beaches. We won't allow New Jersey's coastline and our marine life
to be placed at such a risk.
It is not just me who is urging my colleagues to vote against this.
The Governors from New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, and Maine have
written letters to Congress urging this body to act responsibly and not
allow drilling off our coasts. The energy we might be able to get there
pales in comparison to the damage we could do to our coastlines in a
very short time.
Reluctantly, I say to my friend from Virginia, I oppose the
amendment. I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I hope all States within the Outer
Continental Shelf understand the passage of the Warner amendment begins
the undoing of the moratorium. For if one State is able to do this, the
domino effect that could undo the whole basis of the moratorium that
has existed for a quarter of a century will begin to be undone.
Secondly, this is not simply about Virginia's waters. These are
Federal waters. This is the Federal Outer Continental Shelf. It is a
national context in which we look at it. That is why we have a national
moratorium.
Thirdly, even the Senator from Virginia recognizes that damage to
other States can take place, because he creates a fund in his amendment
to mitigate damages that may take place as a result of such drilling. I
don't want my State or any other coastal State to have to deal with
damages and to mitigate damages. I want to prevent those damages.
Fourthly, anyone who believes we are going to drill for gas and then
maybe find oil and plug it up and not pursue the oil is living under a
different set of illusions. That is the reality.
Lastly, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the
April 10, 2006 letter from the Department of Defense to the Department
of the Interior opposing such efforts for drilling off of Virginia.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Department of the Navy, The Assistant Secretary of the
Navy
Washington, DC, April 10, 2006.
Ms. R. M. ``Johnnie'' Burton,
Director, Minerals Management Service, Department of the
Interior, Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Burton: This is in reply to your letter to
Secretary Rumsfeld requesting comments on the Department of
the Interior's Draft Proposed 5-Year Outer Continental Shelf,
OCS, Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2007-2012. I am
responding as the Defense Department's Executive Agent for
OCS matters.
The Department of Defense has reviewed the draft proposed
program and the seven OCS planning areas proposed for
leasing. Based on our review, we foresee no OCS-use conflicts
within the lease sale areas proposed for the Alaska Planning
Areas, and only minimal conflicts with the proposed lease
sale areas within the Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas. We have
considerable concern, however, with the proposed lease sale
areas within the Mid-Atlantic Planning Area off the coast of
Virginia,
Notwithstanding the above, the eastern Gulf of Mexico
remains an area of importance to the Department of Defense
because of the critical military test and training activities
the Department conducts there. These activities, which are
intensifying, require large, cleared safety footprints free
of any structures on or near the water surface. Because the
majority of the new Gulf of Mexico proposed sale area is west
of the Military Mission Line, MML, 86 41'W longitude, the
new proposed program should not present unmanageable effects
on military test and training. A small area in the
southeasternmost portion of the Central Gulf Planning Area
crosses the MML, an area that the Secretary of Defense has
stated is incompatible with drilling structures and
associated development because of the diversity of military
testing and training activities conducted there now, and
those planned for the future. We therefore request this area
be removed from the program. Also, stipulations mirroring
those contained in current leases held by the oil/gas lessees
will need to be included for new program areas that overlap
our Gulf Range Water Test Areas. An example copy of the
current stipulations is enclosed.
The draft program option of greatest concern to the
Department of Defense involves the special interest sale
proposed for the Mid-Atlantic off the coast of Virginia. The
proposed area lies within the Virginia Capes, VACAPES,
Operations Areas where the Navy's training and test and
evaluation community conducts significant activity.
This is the Navy's primary area for weapons separation
testing, conducting supersonic flight profiles, and
performing target launches in support of acquisition programs
and ship qualification testing. It is the designated area,
both for test and evaluation and for training missile
launches, that requires cleared sea space as an impact area.
It is also the Navy's primary area for conducting autonomous
underwater vehicle testing from submarines. The VACAPES
undersea, surface, and air space areas are critical to the
development, fielding and certification of naval weapon
systems; as a consequence, the Navy requires unencumbered
access to the full expanse of this operations area. The Navy,
Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps all use the VACAPES
Operations Areas. Training operations that occur in the
proposed oil and gas use area include aircraft carrier
operations, amphibious vehicles operations, gunnery training,
and F/A-18, F-15, F-16 and F-22 guns firings. Any structures
built in the water where these types of activities are
conducted, particularly low-level gunnery practice and
missile separation testing, would restrict where military air
wings

[[Page S7715]]

can fire their weapons, drive aircraft further away from the
coast, increase fuel costs and wear and tear on the
airframes, increase flight times enroute to training areas,
and increase the risk to aircrews due to the increased
distance from emergency recovery bases. Because hazards in
this area to operating crews and oil company equipment and
structures would be so great, the Department opposes oil and
gas development activity in this OCS planning location.
The Navy has compiled an exhaustive and detailed assessment
of the type, frequency, and sponsor of activities conducted
in the VACAPES Operations Areas. This includes both current
and future test activity and training. We are prepared to
share this data, should it be necessary, with members of your
staff that have appropriate clearances. We have attached for
your immediate reference a map of the VACAPES test,
evaluation, and training complex and a brief synopsis of the
important military activities conducted there.
We support the promotion and production of offshore oil and
gas exploration that is critical to our country's energy and
national security and look forward to working with you and
your staff in the period ahead to ensure success in this
area.
Donald R. Schregardus,
By direction.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I believe on all of these scores, this is not pursuing
the renewable energy sources the underlying bill is all about. This
undermines the moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf. This puts at
risk other States. This is not about Virginia alone. This is about the
entire Federal Outer Continental Shelf. Other States have interests
when one shore can ultimately create consequences on the rest of that
coastline. Also the Department of Defense takes the position that it is
in opposition. For all of those reasons, it is fitting and appropriate
that we oppose the Warner amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter
which superceded the letter to which the Senator from New Jersey
referred to be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Department of the Navy, Office of the Assistant Secretary
(Installations and Environment),
Washington, DC, November 27, 2006.
Ms. R.M. ``Johnnie'' Burton,
Director, Minerals Management Service, Department of the
Interior, Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Burton: This responds to your letter to Secretary
Rumsfeld requesting comments on the Department of the
Interior's Proposed Program for Outer Continental Shelf Oil
and Gas Leasing for 2007-2012 and accompanying Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. I am responding for the
Secretary in my capacity as the Defense Department's
Executive Agent for Outer Continental Shelf matters.
The proposed program is very similar to the draft proposed
program that we commented on in our letter to you of April
10, 2006. For the Gulf of Mexico Planning Region, we concur
with the proposed program change that excludes from leasing
the area east of the military mission line at 86 41' W
longitude. As for the Alaska Planning Region, the Department
is neither affected by nor objects to the proposed area
reductions in the North Aleutian Basin and Chukchi Sea.
Lastly, the Department supports the Mid-Atlantic Region
proposed program changes that exclude the area within 25
miles of the coastline of Virginia and provide a no-
obstruction zone from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay as
depicted in Map 9 of the published proposed program. However,
the special interest sale proposed for the Mid-Atlantic
Region in late 2011 is not acceptable to the Department
because of its incompatibility with the military training and
testing conducted in this area. Notwithstanding the above,
the Department is willing to discuss with you possible
alternatives that may provide opportunities for exploration
and potential joint use of the Mid-Atlantic area consistent
with the critical military test and training activities in
this area.
Our departments have worked closely together over the years
to ensure a continuing successful leasing program with a
manageable impact on defense operations. We agree that oil
and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf must
strike a balance between our nation's energy and national
security goals. As the Administration moves forward on a plan
to best meet the Nation's oil and gas energy needs for 2007
to 2012, we look forward to working with you to ensure its
success.
Donald R. Schregardus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Environment).

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to amendment
No. 1566, as modified, offered by the senior Senator from Virginia, Mr.
Warner.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator New York (Mrs. Clinton), the
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from California (Mrs.
Feinstein), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator
from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama)
are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman),
the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), and the Senator from
Alabama (Mr. Sessions).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr.
Coleman) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) would have voted
``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 44, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 212 Leg.]

YEAS--43

Alexander
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Carper
Chambliss
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Domenici
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Shelby
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb

NAYS--44

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Dole
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lieberman
Martinez
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--12

Clinton
Coburn
Coleman
Dodd
Ensign
Feinstein
Johnson
Levin
McCain
Obama
Roberts
Sessions
The amendment (No. 1566), as modified, was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment (No. 1566), as
modified, is withdrawn.
Under the previous order, amendment (No. 1578), as modified, is
withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from New Mexico is
recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, my colleague from New Mexico wishes to
make a statement for some of his colleagues before they leave.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from New Mexico is
recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, a number of Republican Senators have
indicated they are preparing amendments they want to get into this
bill. I just want to remind my colleagues that it doesn't seem like it,
but time has really been flying. We will be lucky if we are on this
bill until Wednesday of next week, and when we come back on Monday,
there are no votes. So if you have amendments, you had better get them
ready and get them in, or we probably will not have them considered.
You tell me about great things when we stand around here and talk, but
I don't have your amendments, so it would be good if you have them. I
assume Senator Bingaman has a similar request, maybe not.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from New Mexico is
recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I underscore the point that my colleague
has made. If Senators do have amendments they want to have seriously
considered, they need to get them to us. We will be trying to consider
or at least organize amendments tomorrow. We are not having rollcall
votes, I have

[[Page S7716]]

been informed by the majority leader, either tomorrow or Monday, but we
are going to try to process any amendments we can get agreements to
move ahead with. We urge Senators to get those amendments to us and get
those amendments filed.
I yield the floor and 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Without objection, it
is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Byrd are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. BYRD. 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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1572, as Modified

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, one amendment that was offered today by
Senator Salazar on behalf of himself, Senator Bayh, Senator Cantwell,
Senator Lincoln, Senator Clinton, Senator Brownback, Senator Lieberman,
Senator Coleman, Senator Biden is an amendment related to plug-in
hybrids. It is amendment No. 1572, as modified. We have now cleared
this with all interested parties on both sides of the aisle. It is my
information that it is ready for a vote. I will send the modification
to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

On page 119, line 1, strike ``transportation technology''
and insert ``vehicles''.
On page 121, line 4, after ``equipment'' insert ``and
developing new manufacturing processes and material
suppliers''.
On page 126, strike lines 9 and 10 and insert the
following:
(iii) electrode-active materials, including electrolytes
and bioelectrolytes;
On page 126, strike lines 12 and 13 and insert the
following:
(v) modeling and simulation; and
(vi) thermal behavior and life degradation mechanisms.
On page 130, strike lines 5 through line 13 and insert the
following:
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Battery.--The term ``battery'' means an electrochemical
energy storage device powered directly by electrical current.
(B) Plug-in electric drive vehicle.--The term ``plug-in
electric drive vehicle'' means a precommercial vehicle that
(i) draws motive power from a battery with a capacity of at
least 4 kilo-watt hours;
(ii) can be recharged from an external source of
electricity for motive power; and
(iii) is a light-, medium, or heavy duty onroad or nonroad
vehicle.
On page 130, line 16, insert ``plug-in'' before
``electric''.
On page 130, strike lines 17 through 21 and insert the
following:
(3) Eligibility.--
(A) In general.--A State government, local government,
metropolitan transportation authority, air pollution control
district, private entity, and nonprofit entity shall be
eligible to receive a grant under this subsection.
(B) Certain applicants.--A battery manufacturer that
proposes to supply to an applicant for a grant under this
section a battery with a capacity of greater than 1 kilowatt-
hour for use in a plug-in electric drive vehicle shall--
(i) ensure that the applicant includes in the application a
description of the price of the battery per kilowatt hour;
(ii) on approval by the Secretary of the application,
publish, or permit the Secretary to publish, the price
described in clause (i); and
(iii) for any order received by the battery manufacturer
for at least 1,000 batteries, offer the batteries at that
price.
On page 131, line 2, insert ``plug-in'' before
``electric''.
Beginning on page 132, strike line 1 and all that follows
through page 133, line 9, and insert the following:
(b) Near-Term Electric Drive Transportation Deployment
Program.--
(1) Definition of qualified electric transportation
project.--
(A) In general.--In this subsection, the term ``qualified
electric transportation project'' means a project that would
simultaneously reduce emissions of criteria pollutants,
greenhouse gas emissions, and petroleum usage by at least 40
percent as compared to commercially available, petroleum-
based technologies.
(B) Inclusions.--In this subsection, the term ``qualified
electric transportation project'' includes a project relating
to--
(i) shipside or shoreside electrification for vessels;
(ii) truck-stop electrification;
(iii) electric truck refrigeration units;
(iv) battery powered auxiliary power units for trucks;
(v) electric airport ground support equipment;
(vi) electric material and cargo handling equipment;
(vii) electric or dual-mode electric freight rail;
(viii) any distribution upgrades needed to supply
electricity to the project; and
(ix) any ancillary infrastructure, including panel
upgrades, battery chargers, in-situ transformers, and
trenching.
(2) Establishment.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, shall establish a program to
provide grants and loans to eligible entities for the conduct
of qualified electric transportation projects.
(3) Grants.--
(A) In general.--Of the amounts made available for grants
under paragraph (2)--
(i) \2/3\ shall be made available by the Secretary on a
competitive basis for qualified electric transportation
projects based on the overall cost-effectiveness of a
qualified electric transportation project in reducing
emissions of criteria pollutants, emissions of greenhouse
gases, and petroleum usage; and
(ii) \1/3\ shall be made available by the Secretary for
qualified electric transportation projects in the order that
the grant applications are received, if the qualified
electric transportation projects meet the minimum standard
for the reduction of emissions of criteria pollutants,
emissions of greenhouse gases, and petroleum usage described
in paragraph (1)(A).
(B) Priority.--In providing grants under this paragraph,
the Secretary shall give priority to large-scale projects and
large-scale aggregators of projects.
(C) Cost sharing.--Section 988 of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (42 U.S.C. 16352) shall apply to a grant made under this
paragraph.
(4) Revolving loan program.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a revolving
loan program to provide loans to eligible entities for the
conduct of qualified electric transportation projects under
paragraph (2).
(B) Criteria.--The Secretary shall establish criteria for
the provision of loans under this paragraph.
(C) Funding.--Of amounts made available to carry out this
subsection, the Secretary shall use any amounts not used to
provide grants under paragraph (3) to carry out the revolving
loan program under this paragraph.
(c) Market Assessment Program.--The Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the
Secretary and private industry, shall carry out a program--
(1) to inventory and analyze existing electric drive
transportation technologies and hybrid technologies and
markets; and
(2) to identify and implement methods of removing barriers
for existing and emerging applications of electric drive
transportation technologies and hybrid transportation
technologies.
(d) Electricity Usage Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and
private industry, shall carry out a program--
(A) to work with utilities to develop low-cost, simple
methods of--
(i) using off-peak electricity; or
(ii) managing on-peak electricity use;
(B) to develop systems and processes--
(i) to enable plug-in electric vehicles to enhance the
availability of emergency back-up power for consumers;
(ii) to study and demonstrate the potential value to the
electric grid to use the energy stored in the on-board
storage systems to improve the efficiency and reliability of
the grid generation system; and
(iii) to work with utilities and other interested
stakeholders to study and demonstrate the implications of the
introduction of plug-in electric vehicles and other types of
electric transportation on the production of electricity from
renewable resources.
(2) Off-peak electricity usage grants.--In carrying out the
program under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall provide
grants to assist eligible public and private electric
utilities for the conduct of programs or activities to
encourage owners of electric drive transportation
technologies--
(A) to use off-peak electricity; or
(B) to have the load managed by the utility.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out subsections (b), (c), and (d)
$125,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013.
On page 133, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
(f) Electric Drive Transportation Technologies.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Battery.--The term ``battery'' means an electrochemical
energy storage device powered directly by electrical current.
(B) Electric drive transportation technology.--The term
``electric drive transportation technology'' means--

[[Page S7717]]

(i) technology used in vehicles that use an electric motor
for all or part of the motive power of the vehicles,
including battery electric, hybrid electric, plug-in hybrid
electric, fuel cell, and plug-in fuel cell vehicles, or rail
transportation; or
(ii) equipment relating to transportation or mobile sources
of air pollution that use an electric motor to replace an
internal combustion engine for all or part of the work of the
equipment, including--

(I) corded electric equipment linked to transportation or
mobile sources of air pollution; and
(II) electrification technologies at airports, ports, truck
stops, and material-handling facilities.

(C) Energy storage device.--
(i) In general.--The term ``energy storage device'' means
the onboard device used in an on-road or nonroad vehicle to
store energy, or a battery, ultracapacitor, compressed air
energy storage system, or flywheel used to store energy in a
stationary application.
(ii) Inclusions.--The term ``energy storage device''
includes--

(I) in the case of an electric or hybrid electric or fuel
cell vehicle, a battery, ultracapacitor, or similar device;
and
(II) in the case of a hybrid hydraulic vehicle, an
accumulator or similar device.

(D) Engine dominant hybrid vehicle.--The term ``engine
dominant hybrid vehicle'' means an on-road or nonroad vehicle
that--
(i) is propelled by an internal combustion engine or heat
engine using--

(I) any combustible fuel; and
(II) an on-board, rechargeable energy storage device; and

(ii) has no means of using an off-board source of energy.
(E) Nonroad vehicle.--The term ``nonroad vehicle'' means a
vehicle--
(i) powered by--

(I) a nonroad engine, as that term is defined in section
216 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7550); or
(II) fully or partially by an electric motor powered by a
fuel cell, a battery, or an off-board source of electricity;
and

(ii) that is not a motor vehicle or a vehicle used solely
for competition.
(F) Plug-in electric drive vehicle.--In this section, the
term ``plug-in electric drive vehicle'' means a precommercial
vehicle that--
(i) draws motive power from a battery with a capacity of at
least 4 kilowatt-hours;
(ii) can be recharged from an external source of
electricity for motive power; and
(iii) is a light-, medium-, or heavy-duty onroad or nonroad
vehicle.
(2) Evaluation of plug-in electric drive transportation
technology benefits.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the
heads of other appropriate Federal agencies, and appropriate
interested stakeholders, shall evaluate and, as appropriate,
modify existing test protocols for fuel economy and emissions
to ensure that any protocols for electric drive
transportation technologies, including plug-in electric drive
vehicles, accurately measure the fuel economy and emissions
performance of the electric drive transportation
technologies.
(B) Requirements.--Test protocols (including any
modifications to test protocols) for electric drive
transportation technologies under subparagraph (A) shall--
(i) be designed to assess the full potential of benefits in
terms of reduction of emissions of criteria pollutants,
reduction of energy use, and petroleum reduction; and
(ii) consider--

(I) the vehicle and fuel as a system, not just an engine;
(II) nightly off-board charging, as applicable; and
(III) different engine-turn on speed control strategies.

(3) Plug-In electric drive vehicle research and
development.--The Secretary shall conduct an applied research
program for plug-in electric drive vehicle technology and
engine dominant hybrid vehicle technology, including--
(A) high-capacity, high-efficiency energy storage devices
that, as compared to existing technologies that are in
commercial service, have improved life, energy storage
capacity, and power delivery capacity;
(B) high-efficiency on-board and off-board charging
components;
(C) high-power and energy-efficient drivetrain systems for
passenger and commercial vehicles and for nonroad vehicles;
(D) development and integration of control systems and
power trains for plug-in electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid
fuel cell vehicles, and engine dominant hybrid vehicles,
including--
(i) development of efficient cooling systems;
(ii) analysis and development of control systems that
minimize the emissions profile in cases in which clean diesel
engines are part of a plug-in hybrid drive system; and
(iii) development of different control systems that
optimize for different goals, including--

(I) prolonging energy storage device life;
(II) reduction of petroleum consumption; and
(III) reduction of greenhouse gas emissions;

(E) application of nanomaterial technology to energy
storage devices and fuel cell systems; and
(F) use of smart vehicle and grid interconnection devices
and software that enable communications between the grid of
the future and electric drive transportation technology
vehicles.
(4) Education program.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a nationwide
electric drive transportation technology education program
under which the Secretary shall provide--
(i) teaching materials to secondary schools and high
schools; and
(ii) assistance for programs relating to electric drive
system and component engineering to institutions of higher
education.
(B) Electric vehicle competition.--The program established
under subparagraph (A) shall include a plug-in hybrid
electric vehicle competition for institutions of higher
education, which shall be known as the ``Dr. Andrew Frank
Plug-In Electric Vehicle Competition''.
(C) Engineers.--In carrying out the program established
under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall provide financial
assistance to institutions of higher education to create new,
or support existing, degree programs to ensure the
availability of trained electrical and mechanical engineers
with the skills necessary for the advancement of--
(i) plug-in electric drive vehicles; and
(ii) other forms of electric drive transportation
technology vehicles.
(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for each of fiscal years 2008 through
2013--
(A) to carry out paragraph (3) $200,000,000; and
(B) to carry out paragraph (4) $5,000,000.
(g) Collaboration and Merit Review.--
(1) Collaboration with national laboratories.--To the
maximum extent practicable, National Laboratories shall
collaborate with the public, private, and academic sectors
and with other National Laboratories in the design, conduct,
and dissemination of the results of programs and activities
authorized under this section.
(2) Collaboration with mobile energy storage program.--To
the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall seek to
coordinate the stationary and mobile energy storage programs
of the Department of the Energy with the programs and
activities authorized under this section
(3) Merit review.--Notwithstanding section 989 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16353), of the amounts
made available to carry out this section, not more than 30
percent shall be provided to National Laboratories.

SEC. 246. INCLUSION OF ELECTRIC DRIVE IN ENERGY POLICY ACT OF
1992.

Section 508 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13258) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (a) through (d) as
subsections (b) through (e), respectively;
(2) by inserting before subsection (b) the following:
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Fuel cell electric vehicle.--The term `fuel cell
electric vehicle' means an on-road or nonroad vehicle that
uses a fuel cell (as defined in section 803 of the Spark M.
Matsunaga Hydrogen Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16152)).
``(2) Hybrid electric vehicle.--The term `hybrid electric
vehicle' means a new qualified hybrid motor vehicle (as
defined in section 30B(d)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986).
``(3) Medium- or heavy-duty electric vehicle.--The term
`medium- or heavy-duty electric vehicle' means an electric,
hybrid electric, or plug-in hybrid electric vehicle with a
gross vehicle weight of more than 8,501 pounds.
``(4) Neighborhood electric vehicle.--The term
`neighborhood electric vehicle' means a 4-wheeled on-road or
nonroad vehicle that--
``(A) has a top attainable speed in 1 mile of more than 20
mph and not more than 25 mph on a paved level surface; and
``(B) is propelled by an electric motor and on-board,
rechargeable energy storage system that is rechargeable using
an off-board source of electricity.
``(5) Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle.--The term `plug-in
hybrid electric vehicle' means a light-duty, medium-duty, or
heavy-duty on-road or nonroad vehicle that is propelled by
any combination of--
``(A) an electric motor and on-board, rechargeable energy
storage system capable of operating the vehicle in
intermittent or continuous all-electric mode and which is
rechargeable using an off-board source of electricity; and
``(B) an internal combustion engine or heat engine using
any combustible fuel.'';
(3) in subsection (b) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--
(A) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) Allocation.--The Secretary''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Electric vehicles.--Not later than January 31, 2009,
the Secretary shall--
``(A) allocate credit in an amount to be determined by the
Secretary for--
``(i) acquisition of--

``(I) a hybrid electric vehicle;
``(II) a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle;
``(III) a fuel cell electric vehicle;
``(IV) a neighborhood electric vehicle; or
``(V) a medium- or heavy-duty electric vehicle; and

``(ii) investment in qualified alternative fuel
infrastructure or nonroad equipment, as determined by the
Secretary; and
``(B) allocate more than 1, but not to exceed 5, credits
for investment in an emerging

[[Page S7718]]

technology relating to any vehicle described in subparagraph
(A) to encourage--
``(i) a reduction in petroleum demand;
``(ii) technological advancement; and
``(iii) a reduction in vehicle emissions.'';
(4) in subsection (c) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)),
by striking ``subsection (a)'' and inserting ``subsection
(b)''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2008 through
2013.''.
On page 144, line 8, insert ``and the use of 2-wheeled
electric drive devices'' after ``bicycling''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
The amendment (No. 1572), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my colleague from Alaska for her courtesy in
yielding me time to do this.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak in support
of a bipartisan amendment to provide assistance to geothermal power
development. This is the National Geothermal Initiative Act of 2007.
I can really get excited about geothermal. In the State of Alaska,
where about 70 percent of our State's communities could theoretically
tap into hot water from inside the Earth to produce electricity, the
possibilities for us as a State are truly enormous. Alaska has nearly a
dozen proposed geothermal projects right now that could proceed if
there were additional Federal assistance to help in the identification
of specific geothermal well sites or aid in the drilling or perhaps
provide assistance to develop the geothermal turbines that operate more
efficiently.
We have had great discussion on the Senate floor about the price of
fuel, the price of energy. It is truly near record highs. Hot water
heated naturally by the Earth supports zero fuel cost. Geothermal power
only provides the Nation with three-tenths of 1 percent of its
electricity at present. This is because of currently high capital costs
of siting and building geothermal plants. Geothermal is not yet a
mature technology.
Even though we have been trying to promote geothermal technology for
over two decades now, there is still a great deal of work to be done.
We have not finished a national geothermal mapping assessment. This was
started back in 1978. It was never actually conducted in Alaska. But to
be able to identify those areas in this country that hold geothermal
potential is extremely important.
MIT recently published a report that suggested that geothermal power
holds the promise of providing low-cost electricity for most of the
Nation. Unlike the discussion earlier today where there was debate
about wind generation, and some States are blessed with more wind than
others, this MIT report suggests that with geothermal there is greater
potential in so many parts of the Nation. But the Federal Government--
and this is according to the MIT report--the Federal Government would
need to increase its research and financial assistance to help prove
the new technology. This is the technology to mine the hot rocks or to
inject water deeper into the Earth to heat up, rather than simply
tapping the natural hot water springs or only heated subsurface water
pools closer to the surface where they are known.
What this amendment, the National Geothermal Initiative Act, would do
would be to create a geothermal initiative that will lead to the
completion of a geothermal resource base assessment by the year 2010.
It will encourage demonstration plants to show the full range of
geothermal production and push new technology in the engineering of
geothermal plants.
Besides restating a Federal commitment to geothermal, this amendment
would fund a national exploration and research effort on the
development of geothermal information centers.
We had real reason to celebrate in the State of Alaska last year. A
local geothermal developer by the name of Bernie Karl--he owns a small
geothermal spring resort called Chena Hot Springs. This is about 35 or
40 miles outside of the community of Fairbanks. This natural hot
springs has been there for years. There is a nice natural hot springs
where you can come and bathe, and in the wintertime it is a wonderful
spot for viewing the northern lights, since you are in these beautiful
natural hot springs.
But Mr. Karl had a vision that he could take this small resort--they
have about 65 beds there--that he could take this resort and power
everything by geothermal. He could have the kitchen operating, he could
have the lights on in the lodge, and he could go beyond that. He was
going to be a self-sustaining resort. He was going to grow his own
vegetables. So he built a beautiful greenhouse where they grow,
hydroponically, tomatoes and lettuce. Mr. Karl visited me in January
and he brought with him some of the produce that he had just picked the
day before, in Fairbanks. In January, in Fairbanks and in Chena Hot
Springs, he was coming from temperatures of about 40 degrees below
zero. He is able to grow this incredible produce in these temperatures
with a greenhouse that is completely heated and lighted by geothermal.
Right next door to his greenhouse he has an ice museum.
It is a large museum structure that has everything from knights in
shining armor on horses that are larger than life-size, to a bar, a
wedding chapel, bedrooms. The whole thing is an ice palace. He is able
to keep it chilled, and you say, well, of course he can keep it chilled
in Fairbanks in the winter: it is 40 below zero, but he is able to keep
it chilled all throughout the summer using the geothermal energy he has
tapped into. This is a remarkable demonstration of what can be done.
You need to understand that the technology he has utilized is not
some incredibly difficult and complex technology. He utilized a
technology that is designed by United Technologies to produce
electricity from relatively cool water. The water that comes from these
hot springs is about 160 degrees in temperature. They told Mr. Karl:
That is not hot enough to generate the power you need; it needs to be
hotter. He did not believe them. He said: I know I can make it work.
For just a $1.5 million Federal grant, work at Chena Hot Springs has
confirmed that economic electricity can be generated from relatively
low-temperature geothermal resources.
Mr. Karl has taken his initiative even further than what is happening
at that small resort. He is saying: I can create more geothermal energy
that we can sell down the road, sell into the system down in Fairbanks.
But again demonstrating we do have enormous potential, we just need a
little bit of assistance in demonstrating this technology. It truly
opens the door to so many more communities in Alaska that could
potentially benefit from geothermal power.
Right now, besides Chena Hot Springs, there are geothermal projects
they are looking at in Akutan; this is down in the Aleutian chain. If
you ever look at the Aleutian chain, that long strip of islands off the
State of Alaska, it is nothing but a string of volcanos, enormous
potential. There are also opportunities at Mount Spurr near Anchorage.
We are looking at a situation within the south central part of the
State where our natural gas resource in that area is waning. What
better source to go to than Mount Spurr, just across the inlet, for
that geothermal power. Near Naknek, there is great potential. At
Tenakee Springs in the southeast, Pilgrim's Hot Springs in western
Alaska--these are all ready to potentially produce power if there is
some Federal assistance to help lower the cost of their development.
This bill will also provide help to university-led geothermal research
programs and set up a similar program in Alaska to help expand
geothermal power.
Now, there are some who will argue that we do not need Federal aid
for this, that geothermal is this mature technology, it has been around
for a long while. But the new technology development, according to the
MIT report, could result in geothermal power providing America with 100
gigawatts of electricity within 50 years, which is a significant
portion of its future power needs, without the risk of supply
disruption or fuel price fluctuation.

[[Page S7719]]

Then, of course, the other issue we are always very cognizant of on
this floor is how we care for our environment, how we deal with
emissions from our fuel and energy sources. With geothermal power, we
do not produce greenhouse gas emissions, we do not release carbon into
the environment. There is a significant, a hugely significant advantage
given the current concerns over global warming and climate change.
I had an opportunity, not too many weeks back, to meet with the
President of Iceland when he was visiting. I know he met with many
Members of this body. I talked to the President of Iceland before.
Coming from an Arctic environment, we share a lot in common; we like to
exchange notes. We have always talked about the geothermal energy in
Iceland and how that country has truly turned to that as their primary
source of energy generation.
He indicated to me that just in this past year, he has had major
corporations, international and national corporations from this
country, looking to Iceland to locate their businesses. There used to
be a time when countries would look elsewhere to find cheap sources of
labor. Well, what companies are looking for now is affordable,
reliable, clean energy.
Think about the potential again with geothermal. It is about as
reliable as you are going to come across, just this constant bubbling
source from underneath. It is absolutely clean. If we can develop the
technology, it can be that affordable source.
Right now, we have researchers in the Alaska Aleutians hoping for a
Federal grant to test whether new types of unmanned aerial vehicles can
be used to pinpoint these geothermal hotspots, the exact spots where
wells should be sunk to tap into the hot water resources. For a nominal
Federal grant, this technology could be proven up and would save all
geothermal projects many millions of dollars in drilling costs. This
one project is an example of why and how Federal aid could be very
useful.
This amendment would authorize a couple hundred million dollars in
Federal funding for all forms of geothermal work over the next 5 years.
That is less than what we have authorized for other forms of renewable
energy in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 or have proposed for biomass,
wind, solar, or hydrogen fuel development in EPAct and in this bill.
You don't hear people talk a lot about geothermal. You hear a great
deal right now about wind, you hear a great deal right now about
biomass. But we need to recognize the potential, the enormous potential
geothermal holds for this country. As you hold it up against all of the
other renewable sources, geothermal kind of sits out there all alone,
by itself, along with ocean energy, which you are going to have another
opportunity to hear me speak on that and the enormous potential we have
with ocean energy. Geothermal and ocean received relatively little
Federal assistance in the EPAct 2 years ago, but I believe geothermal
is really on the verge of making great things happen in this country.
If we encourage geothermal development, I believe it will pay
enormous dividends to the Nation. If we spend the money now to advance
that technology, it will help the entire Nation, not just in the West
but all across the country.
I urge my colleagues to take a look at the potential for geothermal
and recognize that what we would do in this legislation is provide for
that very necessary assessment to find out where this exists in terms
of the ability to meet our growing energy needs and our desire to find
those reliable, affordable, clean sources of energy. I hope my
colleagues will endorse assistance to geothermal when this amendment
finally comes to a vote.
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. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________