A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the credit period for electricity produced from renewable resources at certain facilities, to extend the credit for electricity produced from certain renewable resources, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Lieberman today in introducing an amended version of the Climate Stewardship Act, which we introduced in February.

The legislation we submit today incorporates the provisions of S. 342, the Climate Stewardship Act of 2005, in its entirety, along with a new comprehensive title regarding the development and deployment of climate change reduction technologies. This new title, when combined with the ``cap and trade'' provisions of the previously introduced bill, will promote the commercialization of technologies that can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and increase the Nation's energy independence. And, it will help to keep America at the cutting edge of innovation where the jobs and trade opportunities of the new economy are to be found.

In fact, the ``cap and trade'' provisions and the new technology title are complementary parts of a comprehensive program that will allow us to usher in an new energy era, an era of responsible and innovative energy production and use that will yield enormous environmental, economic, and diplomatic benefits. The ``cap and trade'' portion provides the economic driver for existing and new technologies capable of supplying reliable and clean energy and making the best use of America's available energy resources. Because of the multiple benefits promised by this comprehensive program, we expect that the new bill will attract additional support for the vital purposes of the Climate Stewardship Act. We simply need the political will to match the public's concern about climate change, the economic interests of business and consumers, and American technological ingenuity and expertise.

Our comprehensive bill sets forth a sound course toward a productive, secure, and clean energy future. Its provisions are based on the important efforts undertaken by academia, Government, and business over the past decade to determine the best ways and means towards This energy future. Most of these studies have shared two common findings. First, significant reductions in greenhouse gases--well beyond the modest goals of our bill--are feasible over the next 10 to 20 years using technologies available today. Second, the most important technological deployment opportunities to reduce emissions over the next two decades lie with energy efficient technologies and renewable energy sources, including solar, wind, and biofuels. For example, in the electric power sector, which accounts for one-third of U.S. emissions, major pollution reductions can be achieved by improving the efficiency of existing fossil fuel plants, adding new reactors designs for nuclear power, expanding use of renewable power sources, and significantly reducing electricity demand with the use of energy-saving technologies currently available to residential and commercial consumers. These clean technologies need to be promoted and that is what spurs our action today.

Before describing the details of this legislation, I think it is important to talk about what has occurred since the Senate vote on this issue in October 2003. For example, the scientific evidence of human- induced climate change has grown even more abundant. But just since February of this year, when I highlighted the results of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, even more startling evidence about the Arctic region has been revealed. In a recent Congressional briefing, Dr. Robert Corell, chair of Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, presented recent data indicating that climate change in the Arctic is occurring more rapidly than previously thought. Annual average arctic temperatures have increased at

twice the rate of global temperatures over the past several decades, with some regions increasing by five to ten times the global average.

The latest observations show Alaska's 2004 June-July-August mean temperature to be nearly 5 degrees Fahrenheit, 2.8 degrees Celsius, above the 1971-2000 historic mean, and permafrost temperature increasing enough to cause it to start melting. Dr. Corell said the Greenland ice sheet is melting more rapidly than thought even 5 years ago, and that the climate models indicate that warming over Greenland is likely to be up to three times the global average, with warming projected to be in the range of 5 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit, 3 to 6 degrees Celsius, which will most certainly lead to sea-level rise. These are remarkable new scientific findings.

It isn't surprising that just this past Tuesday, indigenous leaders from Arctic regions called on the European Union to do more to fight global warming and to consider giving aid to their peoples, saying their way of life is at risk. Global warming is said to be causing the arrival in the far north of mosquitoes bearing infectious diseases. And in Scandinavia, more frequent rains in the winter are causing sheets of ice to develop on top of snow, causing animals to die of hunger because they cannot reach the grass underneath.

We are not asking for sympathy, said Larisa Abrutina of the

Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North. We

are asking each country in the world to examine if it is

truly doing its part to slow climate change.

The efforts taking place globally to address climate change have gained even greater prominence. For example, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has made climate change one of his top two issues during his Presidency of the G8. Mr. Blair's commitment to addressing climate change should be commended. He has chosen to take action and not to hide behind the uncertainties that the science community will soon resolve. The Prime Minister made it clear in a January speech at World Economic Forum in Davos as to his intentions when he said:

. . . if America wants the rest of the world to be a part of

the agenda it has set, it must be a part of their agenda too.

The top two issues that Prime Minister Blair has chosen to deal with are climate change and poverty in Africa. It is interesting to note that a recent article in the New York Times highlighted the connection between the two issues. The article highlights that a 50-year-long drying trend is likely to continue and appears to be tightly linked to substantial warming of the Indian Ocean. According to Dr. James Hurrell, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research:

. . . the Indian Oceans shows very clear and dramatic warming

into the future, which means more and more drought for

southern Africa. It is consistent with what we would expect

from an increase in greenhouse gases.

It appears that Mr. Blair's two priorities are quickly becoming one enormous challenge.

In its September 2004 issue, The National Geographic devotes 74 pages laying out in great detail the necessity of tackling our planet's problem of global warming. In an introductory piece, Editor-in-Chief Bill Allen described just how important he thinks this particular series of articles is:

Why would I publish articles that make people angry enough

to stop subscribing? That's easy. These three stories cover

subjects that are too important to ignore. From Antarctica to

Alaska to Bangladesh, a global warming trend is altering

habitats, with devastating ecological and economic effects. .

. This isn't science fiction or a Hollywood movie. We're not

going to show you waves swamping the Statue of Liberty. But

we are going to take you all over the world to show you the

hard truth as scientists see it. I can live with some

canceled memberships. I'd have a harder time looking at

myself in the mirror if I didn't bring you the biggest story

in geography today.

The articles highlight many interesting facts. Dr. Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University collects ice cores from glaciers around the world, including the famed snows of Kilimanjaro, which could vanish in 15 years. According to Dr. Thompson, ``What glaciers are telling us, is that it is now warmer than it has been in the past 2,000 years over vast areas of the planet.'' Many of the ice cores he has in his freezer may soon contain the only remains of the glaciers from which they came from.

Highlighted quotes from the articles include: Things that normally happen in geologic time are happening during the span of a human lifetime. The future breakdown of the thermohaline circulation remains a disturbing possibility. More than a hundred million people worldwide live within 3 feet of mean sea level. At some point, as temperatures continue to rise, species will have no room to run. The natural cycles of interdependent creatures may fall out of sync. We will have a better idea of the actual changes in 30 years. But it is going to be a very different world.

Global warming demands urgent action on all fronts, and we have an obligation to promote the technologies that can help us meet the challenge. Our aim has never been simply to introduce climate stewardship legislation. Rather our purpose is to have legislation enacted to begin to address the urgent global warming crisis that is upon us. This effort cannot be about political expediency. It must be about practical realities and addressing the most pressing issue facing not only our nation, but the world. We believe that our legislation offers practical and effective solutions and we urge each members careful consideration and support.

I will include for the Record a more detailed description of the various components of the new technology title. However, I do want to describe some of the key provisions designed to enhance innovation and commercialization in key areas. These include zero and low greenhouse gas emitting power generation, such as nuclear, coal gasification, solar and other renewables, geological carbon sequestration, and biofuels:

The bill directs the Secretary of Commerce, through the former Technology Administration, which would be renamed the Innovation Administration, to develop and implement new policies that foster technological innovation to address global warming. These new directives include: developing and implementing strategic plans to promote technological innovation; identifying and removing barriers to the research, development, and commercialization of key technologies; prioritizing and maximizing key federal R&D programs to aid innovation; (establishing public/private partnerships to meet vital innovation goals; and promoting national infrastructure and educational initiatives that support innovation objectives.

It also authorizes the Secretary of Energy to establish public/ private partnerships to promote the commercialization of climate change technologies by working with industry to advance the design and demonstration of zero and low emission technologies in the transportation and electric generation sectors. Specifically, the Secretary would be authorized to partner with industry to share the cost, 50/50, of ``first-of-a-kind'' designs for advanced coal, nuclear energy, solar and biofuels. Moreover, each time that a utility builds a plant based on the ``first-of-a-kind engineering'' design authorized by this bill, a ``royalty'' type payment will be paid by the utility to reimburse the original amount provided by the Government.

After the detail design phase is complete, the Secretary would be able to provide loans or loan guarantees, Up to 80 percent, for the construction of these new designs including three nuclear plant designs certified by the NRC that would produce zero greenhouse gas emissions; three advanced coal gasification plants with carbon capture and storage that make use of our abundant coal resources while storing carbon emissions underground; three large scale solar energy plants to begin to tap the enormous potential of this completely clean energy source; and three large scale facilities to produce the clean, efficient, and plentiful biofuel of the future--cellulosic ethanol.

The loan program will be administered by a Climate Technology Financing Board, whose membership will include the Secretary of Energy, a representative from the Climate Change Credit Corporation, as would be created in the bill, and others with pertinent expertise. Once each plant is operational, the private partner will be obligated to pay back these loans from the government, as is the case with any construction loan.

I think it is important to be very clear about this ambitious, but necessary, technology title. We intend that much, if not all, of the costs of the demonstration initiatives, along with the loan program, will be financed by the early sale of emission allowances through the Climate Change Credit Corporation under the cap and trade program, so that industry and the market will foot much of the bill, not the taxpayers. And, as I already mentioned, the bill requires that any Federal money used to build plants will be repaid by the utility when the plant becomes operational.

Finally, the bill contains a mechanism requiring utilities to pay reimbursement ``royalties'' as they build plants based on zero and low emission designs created with Federal assistance. These funding provisions are more fair and certain than requiring taxpayers to cover the entire costs of these programs and depending upon future appropriations. But there will be some costs involved. That is why it is important to weigh these expenditures against the staggering cost of inaction on global warming. I think we will find more than a justified cost-benefit outcome.

In addition to promoting new or underutilized technologies, the bill also includes a provision to aid in the deployment of available and efficient energy technologies. This would be accomplished through a ``reverse auction'' provision, which would establish a cost effective and proven mechanism for Federal procurement and incentives. Providers' ``bids'' would be evaluated by the Secretary on their ability to reduce, eliminate, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions.

The ``reverse auction'' program would be funded initially by the taxpayers but eventually would be funded by the proceeds from the annual auction of tradeable allowances conducted by the Climate Change Credit Corporation under the cap and trade program.

I want to clarify that this bill doesn't propose to dictate to industry what is economically prudent for their particular operations. Rather, it provides a basis for the selection and implementation of their own market-based solutions, using a flexible emissions trading system model that has successfully reduced acid rain pollution under the Clean Air Act at a fraction of anticipated costs--less than 10 percent of the costs that some had predicted when the legislation was enacted. That successful model can and must be used to address this urgent and growing global warming crisis.

The ``cap and trade'' approach to emission management is a method endorsed by Congress and free-market proponents for over 15 years after it was first applied to sulfur dioxide pollution. Applying the same model to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is a matter of good policy and simple, common sense. It is an approach endorsed by industry leaders such as Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric, one of the largest companies in the U.S.

Moreover, using the proven market principles that underlie cap and trade will harness American ingenuity and innovation and do more to spur the innovation and commercialization of advanced environmental technologies than any system of previous energy-bill style subsidies that Congress can devise.

Three decades of assorted energy bills prove that while subsidies to promote alternative energy technologies may sometimes help, alone they are not transformational. In the 1970s, Americans were waiting in line for limited supplies of high priced gasoline. We created a Department of Energy to help us find a better way. Yet today, 30 years later, we remain wedded to fossil fuels, economically beholden to the Middle East and we continue to alter the makeup of the upper atmosphere with the ever-increasing volume of greenhouse gas emissions. Our dividend is continued energy dependence and global warming that places our nation and the globe at enormous environmental and economic risk. Not a very good deal.

Cap and trade is the transformational mechanism for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, protecting the global environment, diversifying the Nation's energy mix, advancing our economy, and spurring the development and deployment of new and improved technologies that can do the job. It is indispensable to the task before us.

The Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act does not prescribe the exact formula by which allowances will be allocated under a cap and trade system. This should be determined administratively through a process developed with great care to achieve the principles and purposes of the Act. This includes assuring that high emitting utilities have ample incentives to clean up and can make emission reductions economically and that low emitting utilities are treated justly and recognized for their efficiency. Getting this balance right will not be easy, but it can and must be done.

The fact remains that, if enacted, the bill's emission cap will not go into effect for another 5 years. In the interim there is much that the country can and should do to promote the most environmentally and economically promising technologies. This includes removing unnecessary barriers to commercialization of new technologies so that new plants, products, and processes can move more efficiently from design and development, to demonstration and, ultimately, to the marketplace. Again, without cap and trade, these efforts will pale, but the new technology title we propose will work hand in glove with the emission cap and trade system to meet our objectives.

As I mentioned, the new title contains a host of measures to promote the commercialization of zero and low-emission electric generation technologies, including nuclear, clean coal, solar and other renewable energies, and biofuels.

I want to take some time to address the bill's nuclear provisions. Although these provisions are only part of the comprehensive technology package, I am sure they will be the focus of much attention.

I know that some of our friends in the environmental community maintain strong objections to nuclear energy, even though it supplies nearly 20 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. and much higher proportions in places such as France, Belgium, Sweden and Switzerland--countries that aren't exactly known for their environmental disregard. But the fact is, nuclear is clean, producing zero emissions, while the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity produces approximately 33 percent of the greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere, and is a major contributor to air pollution affecting our communities

The idea that nuclear power should play no role in our energy mix is an unsustainable position, particularly given the urgency and magnitude of the threat posed by global warming which most regard as the greatest environmental threat to the planet.

The International Energy Agency estimates that the world's energy consumption is expected to rise over 65 percent within the next 15 years. If the demand for electricity is met using traditional coal- fired power plants, not only will we fail to reduce carbon emissions as necessary, the level of carbon in the atmosphere will skyrocket, intensifying the greenhouse effect and the global warming it produces.

As nuclear plants are decommissioned, the percentage of U.S. electricity produced by this zero emission technology will actually decline. Therefore, at a minimum, we must make efforts to maintain nuclear energy's level of contribution, so that this capacity is not replaced with higher emitting alternatives. I, for one, believe it can and should play an even greater role, not because I have some inordinate love affair with splitting the atom, but for the very simple reason that we must support sustainable, zero-emission alternatives such as nuclear if we are serious about addressing the problem of global warming.

I would like to submit for the record a piece written by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times. Mr. Kristof made the following observation: ``It's increasingly clear that the biggest environmental threat we face is actually global warming and that leads to a corollary: nuclear energy is green.'' He goes on to quote James Lovelock, a British scientist who created the Gaia principle that holds the earth is a self-regulating organism. He quoted Mr. Lovelock as follows:

I am a Green, and I entreat my friends in the movement to

drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy. Every

year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our

descendents. Only one immediately available source does not

cause global warming, and that is nuclear energy.

I have always been and will remain a committed supporter of solar and renewable energy. Renewables hold great promise, and, indeed, the technology title contains equally strong incentives in their favor. But today solar and renewables account for only about 3 percent our energy mix. We have a long way to go, and that is one of the objectives of this legislation--to help promote these energy technologies.

I want to stress nothing in this title alters, in any way, the responsibilities and authorities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Safety and security will remain, as they should, paramount in the citing, design, construction and operation of nuclear power plants. And the winnowing effect of the free market, as it should, will still determine which technologies succeed or fail in the market place. But the idea that a zero-emission technology such as nuclear has little or no place in our energy mix is just as antiquated, out-of-step and counter-productive as our continued dependence on fossil fuels. Should it prevail, our climate stewardship and clean air goals will be virtually impossible to meet.

The environmental benefit of nuclear energy is exactly why during his tenure, my friend, Morris Udall, one of the greatest environmental champions the United States has ever known, sponsored legislation in the House, as I did in the Senate, to develop a standardized nuclear reactor that would maximize safety, security, and efficiency. The Department of Energy has done much of the work called for by that legislation. Now it is time for the logical next steps. The new title of this legislation promotes these steps by authorizing Federal partnership to develop first of a kind engineering for the latest reactor designs, and then to construct three demonstration plants. Once the demonstration has been made, free-market competition will take it from there. And the bill provides similar partnership mechanisms for the other clean technologies, so we are in no way favoring one technology over another.

No doubt, some people will object to the idea of the Federal Government playing any role in helping demonstrate and commercialize new and beneficial nuclear designs. I have spent 20 years in this body fighting for the responsible use of taxpayer dollars and against porkbarrel spending and corporate welfare. I will continue to do so.

The fact remains that fossil fuels have been subsidized for many decades at levels that can scarcely be calculated. The enormous economic costs of damage caused by air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions to the environment and human health are not factored into the price of power produced by fossil-fueled technologies. Yet it is a cost that we all bear, too often in terms of ill-health and diminished quality of life. That is simply a matter of fact.

It is also inescapable that the ability to ``externalize'' these costs places clean competitors at a great disadvantage. Based on that fact, and in light of the enormous environmental and economic risk posed by global warming, I believe that providing zero and low emission technologies such as nuclear a boost into the market place where they can compete, and either sink or swim, is responsible public policy, and a matter of simple public necessity, particularly, as we enact a cap on carbon emissions.

The Navy has operated nuclear powered submarine for more than 50 years and has an impressive safety and performance record. The Naval Reactors program has demonstrated that nuclear power can be done safely. One of the underpinning of its safety record is the approach used in its reactor designs, which is to learn and build upon previous designs. Unfortunately for the commercial nuclear industry, they have not had the opportunity to use such an approach since the industry has not been able to build a reactor in over the past 25 years. This lapse in construction has led us to where we are today with the industry's aging infrastructure. As we have learned from other industries, this in itself represents a great risk to public safety.

I want to close my comments on the nuclear provisions with two thoughts. A recent article in Technology Review seems particularly pertinent to those with reservations about nuclear power. It stated:

The best way for doubters to control a new technology is to

embrace it, lest it remain in the hands of the enthusiasts.

This is particularly sage advice because, frankly, the facts make it inescapably clear--those who are serious about the problem of global warming are serious about finding a solution. And the rule of nuclear energy which has no emissions has to be given due consideration.

Mr. President, don't simply take my word regarding the magnitude of the global warming problem. Consider the National Academy of Sciences which reported in 2001 that:

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere

as a result of human activities, causing surface air

temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over

the last several decades are likely mostly due to human

activities. . . .

Also consider the warning on NASA's website which states:

With the possible exception of another world war, a giant

asteroid, or an incurable plague, global warming may be the

single largest threat to our planet.

Consider the words of the EPA that

Rising global temperatures are expected to raise sea level,

and change precipitation and other local climate conditions.

Changing regional climate could alter forest, crop yields and

water supplies. . . .

And, let's consider the views of President Bush's Science Advisor, Dr. John Marburger who says that,

Global warming exists, an we have to do something about it,

and what we have to do about it is reduce carbon dioxide.

Again, the chief science advisor to the President of the United States says that global warming exists, and what we have to do about it is to reduce carbon dioxide.

The road ahead on climate change is a difficult and challenging one. However, with the appropriate investments in technology and the innovation process, we can and will prevail. Innovation and technology have helped us face many of our national challenges in the past, and can be equally important in this latest global challenge.

Advocates of the status quo seem to suggest that we do nothing, or next to nothing, about global warming because we don't know how bad the problem might become, and many of the worst effects of climate change are expected to occur in the future. This attitude reflects a selfish, live-for-today attitude unworthy of a great nation, and thankfully, not one practiced by preceding generations of Americans who devoted themselves to securing a bright and prosperous tomorrow for future generations, not just their own.

When looking back at Earth from space, the astronauts of Apollo 11 could see features such as the Great Wall of China and forest fires dotting the globe. They were moved by how small, solitary and fragile the earth looked from space. Our small, solitary and fragile planet is the only one we have and the United States of America is privileged to lead in all areas bearing on the advance of mankind. And lead again, we must, Mr. President. It is our privilege and sacred obligation as Americans.

I ask unanimous consent an editorial from the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their hard work on this important legislation. We are here to talk about passing an Energy bill that is not a complete answer to all our energy needs. This is not the end of discussion about energy independence and getting off our overdependence on foreign oil, but it is an important first step. My colleagues need to understand that the provisions in this bill are nuts-and-bolts important for our energy economy, moving forward. As a Senator who supports this legislation, there are certain technologies, certain investments in this legislation that I hope will win the day and will help us build a different kind of energy economy, based on newer technologies and energy supplies than the ones we have today. But this bill represents a compromise that was forged in the Senate and was fought hard for by my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, when they went to conference.

I am proud that it has an extension of renewable production tax credits so that our utilities can continue to invest in even more renewable energy; that for the first time it has a renewable clean energy bond section, so that local governments and public power can make greater investments in renewable energy; that it has an extension of the renewable energy production incentive program for public power; that there are efficiency provisions in the bill for appliances and other types of standards that will save 3.5 quads of energy.

That is the same as building 85 powerplants. It has a hybrid vehicle incentive provision. It has a biodiesel incentive program. It reinstates the oil spill liability trust fund, which was going broke and which helps us clean up oil pollution, and taxes those who are the polluters. It has research on the smart grid technology that is going to get us more efficiency in our transmission system, and it has incremental steps to push the States toward better standards on net metering. For the Northwest, the electricity title in this legislation is clearly a victory, and I would say the efficiency title in this bill is also a victory.

We are moving closer to the key tools we need to upgrade our transmission system. We will have many more debates about what this body can do, though, to continue to diversify off of foreign oil. But we should take the step today to secure that transmission system and get reliability standards in place, something this body has debated now for more than 5 years. After a Western blackout, after a New York blackout, after people in Ohio and Michigan have been affected, the least we can do is push this legislation to improve the security and reliability of our electricity grid.

I ask my colleagues to support this legislation as a first step, a short stroke of success, and get about going back to the broader decisions we need to make truly start moving in the direction toward energy independence.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the conference report on H.R. 6, the Comprehensive Energy Policy Act of 2005. I stand before my colleagues today with very mixed feelings about this legislation. This conference report has many meaningful achievements and measures that can help provide this Nation, our researchers, and innovators, with the basic tools to start moving America forward toward a new energy strategy for the 21st century. Yet it is far from perfect. It sidesteps many of the most fundamental energy security challenges we face--challenges like our dependence on foreign oil and global climate change, which grow more intractable the longer we wait to address them. It contains provisions that I simply do not support. It is certainly not the Energy bill that this Senator would write if I alone held the drafting pen--the kind of legislation that would put this Nation on a far more ambitious path toward greater energy security in the global economy. I know many of my colleagues feel exactly the same way.

And yet I believe all Senators must clearly acknowledge that this legislation is in many ways superior to the Energy bill conference report we considered during the 108th Congress. And that is true in some very meaningful ways for my region, the Pacific Northwest.

When the Senate, last month, approved its version of this legislation, I noted that I appreciated the skill and thoughtfulness with which the chairman and ranking member of the Energy Committee, Senators Domenici and Bingaman, had navigated a path forward for this bill. I suggested at the time that they would need every bit of that skill in coming to resolution with the House of Representatives, on a piece of legislation worthy of this Senate's support. Frankly, I doubted very much that it could be done.

But I stand here today ready to vote for this conference report--with reservations, of course--but in recognition of the fact that this legislation is probably better than many of us had reason to expect; and as good as the current political will of Congress would allow. For that, I give enormous credit to the chairman and ranking member. As a member of the Senate Energy Committee, I want to say that I have appreciated the bipartisan nature in which they have handled this bill from the outset. At every turn, they have treated this Senator--and her constituents' interests--with complete fairness. The process by which this legislation was assembled should serve as a model for this body.

I want to talk briefly about what I view as some of the most important achievements of this legislation--particularly for my region and the great State of Washington. These are some of the basic tools that can help serve as building blocks to a more ambitious energy strategy for America.

First and foremost, it is important to understand that the Pacific Northwest is a region completely unique when it comes to our energy system. More than 70 percent of the electricity production in Washington State is derived from hydroelectric sources--designed around our great river, the mighty Columbia. This was a system built as part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's efforts to electrify the West. As a result, we are a region with a rich and diverse energy history, an uncommon collection of public and private institutions, a large Federal presence that starts with the Bonneville Power Administration, BPA, and a diverse array of stakeholders rightly concerned about the river's multiple uses. I know all of my colleagues from the Northwest who sit on the Energy Committee--there are five of us, in fact--appreciate this tremendous heritage, our region's history of cost-based power, and the valuable asset that we inherited from our predecessors, great leaders like Senators Jackson, Hatfield, and Magnuson.

That is why we worked hard, in a bipartisan manner at every turn, to safeguard the Northwest's system of cost-based power--the engine of our regional economy. That is why the electricity title of this legislation is so important to my region, and to the ratepayers of Washington State.

I am proud this legislation specifically protects the Northwest's transmission system, by prohibiting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, from converting the Bonneville Power Administration's existing system of cost-based, firm transmission contracts to a market- based auction of financial transmission rights.

Now, this auction of financial transmission rights was a central tenet of FERC's controversial and ill-fated standard market design, SMD, proposal. All of us from the Northwest were united in our opposition to SMD because we recognized right away that it was a scheme with the potential to result in tremendous amounts of cost-

shifting onto our ratepayers, and to substantially undermine our cost- based system. The provision that protects the Northwest's existing system is thus an important achievement because it slams the door on any sort of future FERC-imposed proposal like standard market design. I would also note that the Senate-passed Energy bill would have slammed the door on SMD once and for all. This became unnecessary, however, when FERC's new chairman officially terminated the commission's SMD proceeding earlier this month. I think that was a very wise choice and think it speaks quite well of the commission's new leadership.

Also important to my region are provisions that this bill does not contain. Specifically, this conference report omits the administration's legislative proposals--unveiled earlier this year--to hamstring BPA's ability to invest in regional infrastructure and upend Bonneville's system of cost-based power sales. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council has estimated the administration's proposal would raise regional power rates by $1.7 billion. That would translate to a $480-a-year rate hike for families in some of Washington's most rural communities. Again thanks to the bipartisan efforts of Northwest Senators, those legislative proposals were dead on arrival.

When it comes to protecting Washington State consumers, I must also mention a number of other provisions. At long last, the bill establishes mandatory, enforceable reliability rules for operation of the Nation's transmission grid. This effort also began in the Pacific Northwest--after an August 1996 blackout resulting from two overloaded transmission lines near Portland, OR which caused a sweeping outage that knocked out power for up to 16 hours in 10 States, including Washington. As a result, both a DOE task force and the industry itself in 1997 recommended mandatory reliability rules for operating the transmission grid. The Senate first passed this legislation just over 5 years ago, in an effort begun by my predecessor, Senator Slade Gorton. It is legislation that I have championed since I have arrived in the Senate, an effort that gained more urgency with the Northeast blackouts of two summers ago; and I will be very pleased to see this measure through to the end.

This bill also takes steps to respond to the disastrous western energy crisis, which extracted billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs from our regional economy. As I have recounted many times on this floor, the illegal and unethical practices of Enron and others sent Washington power rates through the roof. This Energy bill puts in place the first ever broad prohibition on manipulation of electricity and natural gas markets. These provisions are modeled on a measure that I have authored that has now passed the Senate twice, and I am pleased that they are included in this conference report-- particularly given the far inferior provisions contained in the House legislation, which would have in many ways gone in the entirely opposite direction.

In light of the now-infamous audiotapes of Enron traders and others conspiring to gouge consumers, the legislation also gives Federal regulators new authority to ban unscrupulous energy traders and executives from employment in the utility industry. In addition, it substantially increases fines for energy companies that break the rules. And importantly for my constituents, this legislation prohibits a Federal bankruptcy court from enforcing fraudulent Enron power contracts, including $122 million the now-bankrupt energy giant is attempting to collect from Snohomish PUD. That would translate to more than $400 from the pockets of every family in Snohomish County, WA, who have already seen their utility bills rise precipitously as a result of the western energy debacle.

For all these provisions, I am tremendously grateful to the chairman and ranking member. I know they faced a steep uphill battle with the House in retaining these measures, and I applaud and thank them for their efforts in ensuring that the Senate positions prevailed.

I should also mention the renewable fuels provisions of this bill, which I believe will help put Washington State farmers and entrepreneurs in the biofuels business. Today, production of biofuels is dominated by the midwestern region of the country, as traditional policies have supported corn- and soy-based fuel production and helped that technology gain maturity. However, the key to lowering costs and establishing a truly national strategy is to make an investment in new technologies that will diversify biofuels production in the United States.

Researchers at Washington State University estimate that our State has the capacity to produce 200 million gallons of ethanol from wheat straw, and up to 1.2 billion gallons with technology improvements. Meanwhile, biodiesel is another emerging opportunity for Washington State farmers, using canola or yellow mustard. These crops are particularly well-suited to Washington State, providing high yields without irrigation.

Around Spokane, it is estimated that 500,000 acres a year could be put into oil seed production, enough oil to produce 25 million gallons of biodiesel. Statewide, at least 2 million acres could be put into oilseed production for biodiesel.

There are a number of very important provisions in this bill that will help my State capitalize on the promise of biofuels, including an Advanced Biofuel Technology Program I authored, to help demonstrate these new technologies; important market-based incentives for refiners to diversify the types of biofuels they use; and financial support in many forms for cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel production.

These are very important achievements that will help transform biofuels from a boutique regional industry to something that can become part of a truly national strategy to help supplant our Nation's petroleum imports--lowering costs and helping provide greater economic security to our farmers at the same time.

But in addition to renewable fuels, we should acknowledge the provisions of this legislation promoting renewable electricity generation. Obviously, this legislation does not go as far as I would like. I vigorously support a renewable portfolio standard--even a more aggressive standard than what passed the Senate. It is unfortunate, indeed, that the House would not accept this provision, and those of us who strongly advocate it will continue to attempt to move the RPS forward.

But this legislation does extend through the end of 2007 the existing production tax credit for renewable energy, such as wind resources. It is estimated that this credit can help save Washington State ratepayers $260 million over the next 10 years. As Northwest utilities add wind resources to help bolster regional power supplies, these investments are also helping fill the coffers of local communities. For example, a new wind project near Ellensburg, WA, has generated an additional $2 million in revenue for Kittitas County. Similarly, wind energy is helping provide another source of income for Northwest farmers. Growers in Columbia County, WA, home to the new 150 Megawatt Hopkins Ridge wind project, receive about $5,000 per turbine located on their land. One farmer estimates the revenue generated by the project will equal the income generated by 250 acres of harvest.

For the first time, the Energy bill creates clean renewable energy bonds, to support investment in renewable energy resources by governmental entities, including tribes, agencies such as BPA and other public power entities. I am also pleased that for 20 years the Renewable Energy Production Incentive, REPI, Program, which provides a direct payment to public power entities, which do not qualify for tax credits, for renewable electricity production. Eligible resources are expanded to include ocean energy. The REPI Program has already been used by multiple Washington State public utilities to make renewable energy investments.

Washington State is also home to the Pacific Northwest National Lab, and for that reason, the research and development title of this legislation bears mentioning. The Energy bill conference report authorizes hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in research ongoing at the Pacific Northwest National Lab and Washington State universities, including systems biology research, distributed and smart energy technology research and development; bio- and nanotechnology related to the production of bioproducts; and advanced scientific computing.

The Energy bill's ``personnel and training'' title is also worth noting, since it will help provide a skilled energy workforce for the 21st century, as the energy industry braces for a critical shortage. Washington State is poised to help train the next generation of engineers and innovators in this area. The legislation requires the Secretaries of Energy and Labor to monitor workforce trends in the area of electric power and transmission engineers and identify critical national shortages of personnel. It also authorizes the Secretaries to establish a grants program of up to $20 million a year to enhance training--including distance-learning, such as the program now being pioneered at Gonzaga University--in electric power and transmission engineering fields. While fewer than 15 universities nationwide offer world-class, Ph.D.-level programs in power engineering, both Washington State University and the University of Washington offer strong programs in this area. In addition, Gonzaga University this year established a specialized masters of science degree and certification program in transmission and distribution engineering.

This conference report also streamlines technology transfer rules for national labs such as PNNL, and extends the 20 percent R&D tax credit to energy research done by nonprofit consortiums involving small businesses, National Labs, and universities to promote interaction and collaboration between public and private researchers. The research and development and workforce provisions of this bill hold some of the most promise in putting in place the building blocks for a real, innovative energy strategy for the 21st century.

Years in the making, the Energy bill also includes bipartisan reform of the hydroelectric relicensing process. The hydro provisions included in this legislation are designed to improve the accountability and quality of Federal agencies' decisions. At the same time, the compromise restores the rights of the public to participate in the process on equal footing with license applicants--provisions that have been missing in previous versions of the bill. Over the next 15 years, 70 percent of Washington State's non-Federal hydro must go through the hydro relicensing process.

Another provision of importance to my State is this legislation's reinstatement of the oil spill liability trust fund, OSLTF. Earlier this year, a Coast Guard report found that the OSLTF--which has been used to clean up spills in the Puget Sound--would run out of money by 2009. The OSLTF was established in the 1990 Oil Pollution Control Act, and has been funded through a per-barrel fee on oil companies until it reached its statutory cap of $1 billion. The fund was designed to be maintained from interest on that original $1 billion, but increasing cleanup costs and low liability caps have eroded the principal amount. The Energy bill would reinstate the fee in April 2006 or thereafter, once the Secretary finds that the balance in the account falls below $2 billion. The bill authorizes application of the fee through 2014.

Lastly, I want to mention this legislation's provisions to provide energy assistance to some of our Nation's neediest families. The Energy bill would boost authorization for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, from its traditional level of $2 billion to $5.1 billion, for 2005-2007. LIHEAP funding is critical for some of Washington State's most vulnerable citizens. As a result of the western energy crisis, electricity rates have gone up more than 20 percent statewide while 72 percent of low-income families in Washington use electricity to heat their homes. And already, the 105,000 Washingtonians with incomes below 50 percent of the Federal poverty level spend 34 percent of their entire annual pay on home energy bills. In recent years, less than 30 percent of Washington's eligible families have been able to receive energy assistance--as demand has for LIHEAP dollars has far outpaced their availability. More than doubling available LIHEAP funding would provide a much-needed boost to local organizations in Washington struggling to meet the needs of their communities.

As my colleagues can see, this legislation is tremendously complex. I have listed many of the provisions important to my constituents. Of course, there are a number of other measures with which I simply disagree. Perhaps that is to be expected of a 1,700-page piece of legislation that touches every sector of the American economy. For example, the inventory of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas resources is wrong-headed, and I oppose it. I would note, however, that in order for the inventory to move forward, it must be funded. I know this Senator believes any such inventory would constitute a tremendous waste of taxpayer funds, and the fight is far from over on this issue.

Similarly, I oppose the liquefied natural gas provisions of this bill because I believe States and local communities need a bigger role in these decisions. Some of the nuclear provisions of this bill are particularly offensive, in that they create an inherent conflict of interest at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which should not be subject to the cross pressures of protecting public safety and the public interest, at the same time the commission is under fiscal pressure to unwisely accelerate its proceedings under the guise of some new form of ``risk insurance.''

I oppose the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act rollbacks in this bill. The National Energy Policy Act provisions are similarly unnecessary. But I recognize that they are far less sweeping than those originally proposed by the House. If this Senator had her way, we would not be repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act. Yet I am at least comforted by the fact this legislation hews closely to the compromise on utility mergers reached by the Senate.

Moreover, the tax package does not resemble the tax package I would have written. On this point, I agree with the President: The oil and gas industry does not need these incentives, given where prices are at today.

I am not the first Senator to say it, and I won't be the last. This bill is not as I would have written it. It has the flaws that I have listed. It is also incomplete. It is a status quo bill when it comes to one of the most difficult challenges to our economic and national security faced by this generation: America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil. This bill does not address this festering problem. It will not provide relief to consumers at the gas pump. Any suggestion to the contrary would be simply false.

It is clear to this Senator that if this body is truly serious about putting in place a framework that will allow the United States to compete in the global marketplace; a framework that will allow America to control its own destiny in the coming decades as it relates to our energy security, our work is not done. Tomorrow isn't soon enough to go back to the drawing board and get serious about our dependence on foreign oil. And this Senator will keep fighting to do just that. Our work on energy security has hardly begun--it is far from finished if we want to live up to our responsibilities to future generations of Americans. We must not leave to them a Nation crippled by its addiction to foreign sources of oil--an over-dependence that jeopardizes our economic future and national security.

On the contrary, it is our responsibility to face up to a simple fact: The accidents of geology make it impossible for this Nation to drill its way to energy independence, since we are situated on just 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. We must recognize that fact and read the economic indicators. We must consider emerging competitors such as China and India, and recognize the seismic shifts that are likely to occur in the dynamics of world energy markets.

I firmly believe that future generations of Americans will measure us on how we choose to address the challenges of energy security and climate change. They are that vital to this Nation's security and our economic future.

But this Senator also recognizes that the leadership of this Congress is not yet prepared to take that step; that my colleagues and I who believe so fundamentally in the importance of enhancing our oil security have more work to do to change the hearts and minds of our colleagues. The American people must also demand better leadership from their elected officials when it comes to energy security. And this Senator stands ready to work across

the aisle to do what is necessary to make meaningful progress on these issues.

This bill is not perfect. We have much more work to do to bolster our energy security, and this Senator is ready to roll up her sleeves and do it. But on the whole, this bill provides some basic building blocks toward a better energy future. For that reason, I will support the Energy bill conference report and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, as the Senate is poised to pass the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and send it to the President, Utahns should sit up and take notice, because our State is at the heart of this legislation. So many of the problems in our energy structure have solutions that can be found in Utah, whether it is the need for more clean coal, more clean geothermal energy, more natural gas, better hydroelectric, more refining capacity, or more major sources of domestic oil, Utah will play a major part in the solution.

I want to talk more about some of these solutions, but first, let me take a moment to thank Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for leading us to this point. The Senate Finance Committee, on which I sit, has made a major contribution to the bill with its tax incentives title. Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus deserve just as much praise for their outstanding coordination and hard work on that important part of this bill.

As the ranking member of the Finance Committee and as a Conferee on this legislation, I was able to watch all 4 of these men work together under pressure, and I could not be more impressed with their leadership and the work their excellent staffs have provided to our nation at this critical time. Working together, they have given us what I consider to be one of the most important bills to be enacted in a long time.

I have, at times, been criticized for reaching across the aisle to accomplish important policy goals. Some believe that compromise signals weakness. Well I just plain disagree, and after 4 years of failing to pass a major Energy bill with a simple majority, I think the Senate has proven that we stand the strongest when we stand together. And our energy situation calls for this type of leadership and strength.

Over the last decade, American consumers have increased their demand for oil by 12 percent, but domestic oil production has grown by less than \1/2\ of 1 percent. Is it any wonder that we rely on foreign countries for more than half our oil needs? We import 56 percent of our oil today, and it is projected to be 68 percent within 20 years.

On the larger scale, global demand for oil is growing at an unprecedented pace--about 2\1/2\ million barrels per day in 2004 alone. While global oil production is increasing, the discovery of new oil reserves is dropping off at an alarming rate. Moreover, trends indicate that the global thirst for petroleum will continue to grow, especially in Asia.

If our Nation must rely on oil imports to meet our future energy needs, we are headed for trouble, because, unless something changes, a sufficient oil supply will not be there. We should keep in mind that the transportation sector in the U.S. accounts for nearly \2/3\ of all of our oil consumption, and that sector is 97 percent dependent on oil. It could not be more clear: if we want to improve our energy security, we must focus on our transportation sector, and we must focus on diversifying our transportation fuels.

Recently, we heard President Bush call on our Nation to ``develop new ways to power our automobiles,'' and he spoke of his proposal to provide $2.5 billion over 10 years in tax incentives for the purchase of hybrid technologies. The President also called for a better alternative fuel infrastructure and the need to develop hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

As for these policies the President addressed, my legislation, S. 971, the Clean Efficient Automobiles Resulting from Advanced Car Technologies Act, or CLEAR ACT, is exactly where the rubber meets the road. The CLEAR ACT, now a part of this Energy bill, is the most comprehensive and effective plan put forward by Congress to accelerate the transformation of the automotive marketplace toward the widespread use of fuel cell vehicles. And it does so without any new Federal mandates. Rather, it offers powerful market incentives to promote the advances in technology, in our infrastructure, and in the alternative fuels that are necessary if fuel cells are to ever reach the mass market. With the CLEAR ACT we accomplish this goal, but in the meantime, we also get cleaner air, we reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and we help lead our Nation into the future.

Historically, consumers have faced three basic obstacles to accepting the use of alternative fuels and advanced technologies. These are the higher cost of the vehicles, the lack of an infrastructure of alternative fueling stations, and the higher cost of alternative fuels. The CLEAR ACT will lower all three of these market barriers through the use of tax incentives.

First, we provide a tax credit for the purchase of alternative fuels. Next we promote a new infrastructure of alternative fuel filling stations by extending an existing tax deduction for the purchase of the necessary equipment and providing a new tax credit for the cost of installing it.

Finally we provide a Clear Act Credit to consumers who purchase alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles. This includes fuel cell, hybrid electric, alternative fuel, and battery electric vehicles.

All of the technologies promoted in the CLEAR ACT--whether they be battery or electric motor technologies or advances in fuel storage and alternative fuel infrastructure--lead us closer to the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. I believe fuel cells are in our future. However, even if the widespread use of fuel cell vehicles never becomes a reality, advances in these other technologies provide a dramatic social benefit on their own.

I have heard from some who question the need for incentives for hybrid vehicles when they are popular in some areas. It may be true that demand for these vehicles is high in a few regions. However, these high-demand areas tend to have local or state incentives in place for the purchase of these vehicles. Where incentives are not in place, hybrid sales are minimal. This demonstrates that incentives can indeed provide a market breakthrough to consumer acceptance of alternative vehicles.

With the CLEAR ACT, we are trying to provide that breakthrough on a national scale. And the numbers show that a breakthrough is desperately needed. It may be true that hybrid sales have doubled in the last couple of years, but they still represent a minuscule 0.48 percent of cars that were sold in 2004. So I am very pleased, Mr. President, that the energy bill will lead us into the future in this regard.

We should also be using more clean alternatives when we generate another form of energy--electricity. I am very pleased that the Energy bill includes S. 1156, my legislation that extends and expands the production tax credit for electricity from renewable sources, including geothermal. This is particularly important to my home State of Utah, which has vast potential for the creation of electricity from geothermal sources, along with other renewable energy sources, such as wind and biomass.

While this production tax credit has been in the tax code for some time, it had an unfair feature that provided the tax credit for 10 years for electricity produced from wind, but only for 5 years for electricity produced from most of the other renewable resources. This inequity has skewed investment in these resources unfairly and in a way that has not led to the best use of these national assets.

I am happy to see that this provision has survived in conference. This should result in a better-balanced and higher output of electricity from all our renewable resources.

And, I have highlighted just two among many important provisions in this bill that will promote the greater use of alternative and renewable sources of energy.

We cannot escape the fact that our nation remains reliant on oil and gas, and we absolutely must increase our supply of these resources in a big way.

It is a little known fact that the largest hydrocarbon resource in the world rests within the borders of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. I know it may be hard to believe, but energy experts agree that there is more recoverable oil in these 3 states than there is in all the Middle East. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that recoverable oil shale in the western United States exceeds 1 trillion barrels, but it is not counted among world reserves, because it is not yet commercially developed. If anyone is wondering what the significance is of that number, he or she should know that the world's oil reserves stand at just about 1.6 trillion barrels. That means we have almost as much unconventional oil in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming as the rest of the world's conventional oil combined.

Companies have been waiting for the Federal government to recognize the potential of this resource and allow access to it. My legislation, S. 1111, the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Development Act, will do just that, and more.

Some have been understandably hesitant to develop this resource. During the 1970s, there was a very large and expensive effort in western Colorado to develop oil shale there. When the price of oil dropped dramatically, though, the market for oil shale went bust and the region suffered an economic disaster.

We need to remember that our past failure in this area was not necessarily a failure of technology, but was due to a dramatic slump in gas prices. We now have a different scenario. Today, the world is reaching peak oil production of conventional oil, and cheap oil prices are nowhere in sight.

We have already seen that a shift in focus to unconventional fuels such as tar sands produce mind-boggling results. Only a few years ago, Alberta, Canada recognized the potential of its own tar sands deposits and set forth a policy to promote their development. As a result, Canada has increased its oil reserves by more than a factor of 10, going from a reserve of about 14 billion barrels to its current reserve of more than 176 billion barrels in a very short period. And just think--we are sitting on a similar resource of oil shale and tar sands in the United States.

It is frustrating to learn that Utah imports about one-fourth of its oil from Canadian tar sands, even though we have our own very large resource of tar sands in our own state sitting undeveloped. I look forward to the day in the not-too-distant future, when Utah's oil shale and tar sands are developed to their potential. If it happens, and I believe that it will, Utah will become a world leader in oil production.

But even if we do solve the oil importation issue, we still have another problem. Our Nation is so lacking in refining capacity for crude, that we are forced to import 10 percent of our refined fuel. We could produce all the domestic oil in the world, but until we can refine it, we cannot use it.

It is clear that one of the reasons we currently have sharply higher gasoline prices is that we simply do not have enough refining capacity in this country. This is both a short-term and a longer-term concern for our economy and national security.

Regrettably, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and home heating oil supplies are simply too tight in America today. There is not a lot that can be done in the very near term to address the higher cost of fuel that is attributable to refining bottlenecks. However, ensuring the long-term viability of the U.S. refining industry should be at the very heart of a smart national energy policy.

One of the major problems with our refining capacity is that industry profitability has been poor over the past several decades. This has contributed to the steady decline in the number of operating refineries in America from more than 300 in 1980 to less than 150 today. I am told the last major refinery to be built in America came on line in the 1970s.

Earlier this year, the National Petroleum Council reported that U.S. refining capacity growth was not keeping pace with demand growth, that poor historic returns in the refining sector was impeding further investment, and that major expenditures in new regulations were limiting the funds available for capacity expansions. This was bad news crying out for a solution.

Another problem mentioned in the report is that the 10-year depreciation schedule prescribed by the current tax law for refining assets is much longer than the write-off periods for similar process equipment in other manufacturing industries. Also, the tax code does not contain any incentives to encourage new investment in refining capacity, which is an endeavor that carries high costs and risks.

With these facts in mind, I introduced S. 1039, the Gas Price Reduction Through Increased Refinery Capacity Act of 2005. S. 1039 would adjust the depreciation period for assets used in refining from 10 years to 5 and would allow an immediate write-off of these assets if companies made an early and firm commitment to invest in new capacity within a relatively short time.

I thank Senator Grassley for including the temporary refinery expensing provisions of S. 1039 in the Chairman's mark of the tax title to the Energy bill. This provision passed the Senate as part of the energy tax package. I am pleased the Conference Committee accepted this provision even though cost constraints forced us to limit the incentive to 50 percent expensing.

This is the first provision passed by Congress in the past half century that gives the U.S. refining industry a specific tax incentive designed to spur investment in increased refining capacity. The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, which represents virtually all U.S. refineries, has indicated this measure will help stimulate facility expansions and output. It is the only provision in the entire Energy bill that encourages refining capacity growth and increased gasoline, diesel and jet fuel supply for consumers. This provision alone should make a significant difference in fuel supplies.

Utah is a major gas producer. But most of Utah's natural gas lies under our vast public lands. Utah has a large supply, but as you might guess, Federal red tape is the number one obstacle to supplying the country with the natural gas it demands.

One example is the natural gas found within Utah's tar sands. Historically, extracting natural gas from tar sands has required a dual application requiring both a permit for gas extraction and mineral extraction. I introduced a bill that amends the Mineral Leasing Act to allow a company only going after the gas to forgo the permitting for mineral extraction, while fully leaving in place every relevant environmental law and regulation. This legislation, S. 53, was included in the energy bill.

In another effort to create a lose-lose situation, the Department of the Interior recently published a rule that would tack on a new and expensive fee on new Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) for natural gas development. As members of the Conference Committee, Senator Craig Thomas and I joined forces to put an end to this fee for at least 10 years.

We do not need another hurdle to obtaining gas from our public lands. The Federal government receives about $1.6 billion every year in royalties from gas production on public lands. With every new well in Utah, gas companies pay a generous royalty to Federal and State governments. It is simple math--in the long run, Utah and the Nation loses money when wells are stopped because of fees. We also suffer from the resulting slow down in the supply of natural gas.

Finally, I was a proponent of an item in the Energy bill that reduces the depreciable lives of natural gas gathering and distribution lines. By being able to depreciate their equipment more quickly, companies are better able to invest in future production activity. This provision should help spur investment in more exploration and production of this clean and important fuel.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the Energy Policy Act will have a very large impact on Utah,

not only in positive economic growth and jobs, but also in the benefits of cheaper and cleaner energy costs for families and businesses. Again, I thank the leaders in the Senate who have brought us to this point, along with their counterparts in the House of Representatives. I think we have proven today, that Congress can respond to the needs of the nation and our citizens when we work together with that goal in mind.

Mr. President, I am afraid that the heralded passage of this energy bill against years of failure by the Congress to legislate a comprehensive energy policy has created a false sense of accomplishment in Washington today. As my colleagues are well aware, oil prices are hovering near the infamous $60 per barrel mark; the greenhouse effect is beginning to have a substantial measurable impact on the global climate; and American families are being gouged at the pump while their tax dollars are carelessly spent on Federal subsides for big oil and gas companies. As leaders, we cannot claim that we have successfully addressed these real-life challenges by enacting this latest incarnation of special interest influence in policymaking.

I do want to acknowledge the work of the Senate conferees for keeping out a few of the most objectionable provisions that prevented passage of the bill during the last Congress, particularly the MTBE liability waiver and the proposed drilling in ANWR. They took the right action in preventing the inclusion of those provisions. Unfortunately, after all the time and effort spent on this issue during the past several years, when it comes to solving America's pressing energy problems, this bill simply does not go far enough. It will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it won't assure the growing threat of global warming is addressed in a meaningful way, and it wont effectively reduce the price of gasoline at the pump.

The estimated cost of this energy bill has ballooned far beyond the original $6.7 billion in the President's proposal. The conference agreement provides an estimated $14.5 billion in corporate subsidies and tax credits. And the tax package provides more than twice as many incentives to the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries as it does to energy efficiency and renewable energy--a significant change from the Senate-passed bill.

Indeed, big oil, coal and gas companies seem to be disproportionally favored under this bill as most of the tax breaks going to traditional industries. Only about 36 percent of the estimated tax package would go to renewable energy and cleaner burning vehicles. Even then, some of the programs to promote renewable energy and alternative fuels are questionable. A loan guarantee program that would cover up to 80 percent of the cost of developing new energy technologies was scored at $3.75 billion for the first 5 years. These

loans carry a 20- to 60-percent risk of default according to the CBO, and after the 5 years there are no limits on the amount of loans that can be guaranteed, thus leaving the taxpayer to cover the losses when such endeavors fail. Perhaps more alarming, the estimated costs of the bill are estimates at best, and don't take into account some of the hidden costs associated with program authorizations and future tax credit extensions.

And then there is the ambiguous realm of alternative fuels for vehicles. Rather than addressing the gas mileage interests of consumers, this energy conference report would boost ethanol production by requiring 7.5 billion gallons of the corn-derived fuel be added to the domestic gasoline supply by 2012. This is double the current ethanol mandate and while it will be a boon for the ethanol producers, it will have a negligible effect on oil imports. While I fully recognize and support efforts to promote clean energy sources, the costs also need to be weighed against any presumed benefits. And at this juncture, the beneficiaries are still the producers, not the consumers and not the environment.

Let me mention some of the more ``interesting'' provisions in the conference report:

Section 134. Energy Efficiency Public Information Initiative. Authorizes a total of $400 million, $90 million for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2010, for the Secretary of Energy to carry out a national consumer information program to encourage energy efficiency through disseminating information to the American public addressing, among other things, the importance of proper tire maintenance. I am fully aware that it is important to rotate your tires, and to take other actions to preserve energy, but do we really need to spend almost half a billion on such a campaign?

Section 138. Intermittent Escalator Study. Requires the GSA to study the advantages and disadvantages of employing intermittent escalators in the United States. I can't imagine many of my colleagues would support removing ``Senators Only'' features in the Capitol Complex and be content to wait for an elevator to intermittently show up, but maybe the rest of the American public is more patient.

Section 207. Installation of Photovoltaic System. Authorizes $20 million for the GSA to install a photovoltaic system, as set forth in the Sun Wall Design Project, for the Department of Energy headquarters building. Of all the sunny places in this country where solar power is viable, the Energy Department Building in DC would not be the first place that comes to mind.

Section 208. Sugar Cane Ethanol Program. Establishes a new $36 million program under EPA that is limited to sugar producers in the States of Florida, Louisiana, Texans and Hawaii for 3 years.

Section 224. Royalties and Near-Term Production Incentives. Under this section, all monies received by the U.S. on all lands except for the State of Alaska, from sales, bonuses, rentals and royalties on leased Federal lands or geothermal resources shall be paid into the Treasury of the U.S. and a percentage of such funding is then partially redistributed to the State within the boundaries of which the revenues were generated. But in the case of Alaska, seems that they will get to keep all of the monies generated.

Section 237. Intermountain West Geothermal Consortium. Establishes an Intermountain West Geothermal Consortium that focuses on building collaborative efforts among universities in the State of Idaho, other regional universities, State agencies and the Idaho National Laboratory, must be hosted and managed by Boise State University, and have a directed appointed by the Boise State University. Why do we need a federal law to promote collaboration at Boise State?

Section 244. Alaska State Jurisdiction Over Small Hydroelectric Projects. Amends the Federal Power Act with respect to certain authorities for the State of Alaska, allowing the State to completely ignore any recommendations received from the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and State fish and wildlife agencies concerning conditions for the protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife in constructing small hydroelectric projects.

Section 245. Flint Creek Hydroelectric Project, located in Granite and Deer Lodge Counties, Montana. The bill basically extends the project's permit for an additional 3 years. And, notwithstanding other laws and regulations regarding payment to the U.S. for the use of Federal lands, such payments surrounding this project would be specified in the bill. I can only assume this payment is less than what would otherwise be required.

Section 354. Enhanced Oil and Natural Gas Production Through Carbon Dioxide Injection. Establishes a $3 million demonstration program solely for 10 projects in the Willistin Basin in North Dakota and Montana and 1 project in the Cook Inlet Basin in Alaska.

Section 356. Denali Commission. Authorizes $55 million annually for fiscal years 2006-2015 for a seven-member commission created in 1998 comprised entirely of Alaska interests to support Alaska interests. This funding would be used to carry out energy programs.

Section 365. Pilot Project to Improve Federal Permit Coordination. Establishes a pilot that only the States of Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico can participate in.

Section 412. Loan to Place Alaska Clean Coal Technology Facility in Service. This section authorizes a direct Federal loan for up to $80 million for a plant near Healy, Alaska. One of the few protections under this section for the American taxpayer is extremely lax. It states that prior to providing the loan, the Secretary determine that ``there is a reasonable prospect that the borrower will repay the principal and interest on the loan.'' That sure doesn't sound like the type of stringent criteria and risk assessment that would be weighed by many lending institutions that I am aware of. And why does this particular facility merit a Federal loan over other clean energy technologies?

Section 416. Electron Scrubbing Demonstration. Directs the Secretary to use $5 million to initiate, through the Chicago operations office, a project to demonstrate the viability of high-energy electron scrubbing technology on commercial-scale electrical generation using high-sulfur coal.

Section 628. Decommissioning Pilot Program. This section authorizes $16 million for a pilot program to commission and decontaminate the sodium cooled fast breeder experimental test site reactor located in northwest Arkansas.

Section 755. Conserve by Bicycling Program. Provides $6.2 million to establish a pilot program to be known as the ``Conserve by Bicycling Program'' and study the feasibility of converting motor vehicle trips to bicycle trips, including whether such factors make bicycle riding feasible: weather, land use and traffic patterns, the carrying capacity of bicycles and bicycle infrastructure. I find it difficult to support spending $6.2 million to encourage Americans to ride bicycles when we are running a deficit of $368 billion this year and a 10-year projected deficit of $1.35 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Section 756. Reduction of Engine Idling. Authorizes $139.5 million to study the environmental impact of engine idling from heavy-duty vehicles and locomotives at truck stops, ports of entry, rest areas and private terminals. Is there any doubt that engine idling may be contributing to air quality problems? Do we need to expend almost $140 million on such a study? It might be cheaper to pay the truckers and engineers to shut off their engines.

Section 955. Department of Energy Civilian Nuclear Infrastructure and Facilities. Requires the Secretary to develop a comprehensive plan for facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory to avoid duplicative efforts at other national laboratories and establish or consider plans to establish or convert various areas into user facilities.

Section 980. Spallation Neutron Source. Requires the Secretary develop an operational plan for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, TN, to ensure the facility is employed to its full capability. It further authorizes the Spallation Neutron Source Project at Oak Ridge at $1,411,700,000 for total project costs.

Section 997. Arctic Engineering Research Center. It directs the Secretary of Transportation to provide annual grants, worth $18 million total, to ``a

university research center to be headquartered in Fairbanks''--that must be the University of Alaska-Fairbanks according to its Web site-- to establish and operate a university research center to research improved performance of roads, bridges, residential, commercial, and industrial structures in the Arctic region.

Section 1511. Renewable Fuel. The section authorizes a total of $12 milliom--$4 million for 3 years--for a resource center to further develop bioconversion technology at the Center for Biomass-Based Energy at the Mississippi State University and the Oklahoma State University.

Section 1811. Coal Bed Methane Study. Directs the DOE and EPA to collaborate with the NAS on a study on the effect of coalbed natural gas production on surface and ground water aquifers in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Utah.

Now that we know a little about some of the provisions contained in the conference agreement, let's talk about one very important issue that is not addressed--an issue of worldwide significance: global warming.

Earlier this month, the leaders of the G8 nations met and issued an agreement with respect to climate change. The agreement among the G8 nation states that: ``We will act with resolve and urgency now to meet our shared and multiple objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions [.]''

This agreement followed the joint statement that was issued in June in which the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and national academies from other G8 countries, along with those of Brazil, China, and India, which concluded that: ``The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.''

It is very disappointing that the climate change provisions in the conference report fail to address the necessary commitment for taking urgent actions and making substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

The conference report requires the Department of Energy to develop greenhouse gas intensity technologies and strategies. Such requirements are a waste of time and effort as we already know that using the greenhouse gas intensity does not work. How do we know it doesn't work? We know because the Department of Energy has shown us and because climate change science tells us that the climate system does not respond to greenhouse gas intensity, but rather to greenhouse gas concentration levels in the atmosphere.

Recently, the Energy Information Administration at the Department of Energy released a statement indicating that preliminary data for the year 2004 revealed that energy-related carbon emission intensity fell by 2.6 percent, while energy-related carbon dioxide emissions grew by 1.7 percent. This is an early reality check for those who argue that we can control greenhouse gas emissions by only controlling carbon emission intensity.

Again this clearly shows how our efforts to address climate change are misfocused and without substance. If we continue down this path, the $5 billion per year that we are currently investing in the climate change science and technology programs will not provide the return on investments that the American people deserve.

Furthermore, if you look at any credible scientific report on climate change, it speaks of the impact of greenhouse gases on the climate system, not the impact of greenhouse gas intensity. In all the hearings that we have held in the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee over the past few years, I don't recall a single scientist indicating that if we control our greenhouse gas intensity, then we can mitigate the impacts of climate change.

If we are to address climate change consistent with the sense-of-the- Senate resolution passed by this body just over a month ago, then we must pursue solutions that will truly have an impact on the climate system, not those that are no more than ``smoke and mirrors.'' Of course, the conferees failed to agree to even include the modest resolution in the final conference agreement.

If it weren't for the pressing need to show the American public that we are acting in at least some way to address our Nation's energy problems--action that every person is reminded of every time they pay yet a higher price at the pump--I doubt many of my colleagues would be so rushed to pass this bill. Quite frankly, it seems as though the Congress is grasping at straws to address our energy quandary, unwilling or unable to use the foresight necessary to plan for a future America that is less reliant on foreign oil, cleaner under renewable energy generation, or leading in cutting-edge energy efficiency technology. And in our failure, the American people will be disappointed.

Mr. President, hate crimes are a violation of everything our country stands for. They send the poisonous message that some Americans deserve to be victimized solely because of who they are. They're basically acts of domestic terrorism. Hate crimes have an impact far greater than the impact on their individual victim. They're crimes against entire communities, against the whole Nation, and against the fundamental ideals on which America was founded.

The vast majority of Congress agrees. Last year, Senator Smith and I offered the same measure. The Senate passed it as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill by a nearly 2-1 bi-partisan vote of 65-33. By a vote of 213-186, the House instructed its conferees to support it in the conference report on the bill. Unfortunately, House leaders insisted that the provision be dropped in conference. This week, Senator Smith and I are introducing the identical bill.

The provision is supported by a broad coalition of law enforcement and civil rights groups, including the National Sheriff's Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Anti-Defamation League, and the National Center for Victims of Crime, and I'm optimistic the bill would have the same broad support it did before. Those who commit hate crimes prey on the vulnerable and terrorize them, because they can't protect themselves. If our Nation stands for anything, it's to protect the vulnerable.

We know that hate crimes are a serious problem that continues to plague us. According to FBI statistics, over 9,000 people were victims of hate crimes reported in the United States in 2003. That's almost 25 people victimized a day, every day, based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or disability. Sadly, these F.B.I. statistics show only part of the problem, because many hate crimes go unreported. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit organization that monitors hate groups and extremist activity, estimates that the actual number of hate crimes committed in the United States each year is closer to 50,000.

Congress can't ignore the problem. Our bill will strengthen the ability of Federal, State, and local governments to investigate and prosecute these vicious and senseless crimes. Current Federal law, obviously isn't adequate to protect our citizens.

It contains excessive restrictions requiring proof that victims were attacked because they were engaged in certain ``federally protected activities.'' It doesn't include violence committed because of person's sexual orientation, gender, or disability. It covers only hate crimes based on race, religion, or ethnic background.

The federally protected activity requirement is outdated, unwise, and unnecessary. In June 2003, three men saw 6 Latino teenagers in a family restaurant on Long Island. The teenagers, 3 boys and 3 girls, between 13-15 years old, knew each other from church and baseball teams. They were there together to celebrate the birthday of one of the girls, whose parents made her take her 13 year old sister along as ``chaperone.'' A parent dropped them all off in his mini-van and promised to pick them up after dinner and a movie. But, moments after leaving, he received a panicked phone call from one of the children, telling him they'd been attacked.

As the group entered the restaurant, three men were leaving the bar, after drinking there for hours. For no apparent reason, they assaulted the teenagers, pummeling one boy and severing a tendon in his hand with a sharp weapon. During the attack, the men screamed racial slurs and one identified himself as a skinhead. The children, who had never experienced anything like this, have been traumatized ever since.

Two of the defendants were tried under current Federal law for committing a hate crime and were acquitted. The Jurors said they acquitted them because the government had not proved the attack took place because the victims were engaged in a federally protected activity--using the restaurant.

The bill we introduce today eliminates the federally protected activity requirement. Under this bill, these defendants who walked out of the front door of the courthouse free that day would almost certainly have left in handcuffs through a different door.

The bill also recognizes that hate crimes are committed against people because of their sexual orientation, their gender, and their disability. Current Federal law didn't protect gay campers in Honolulu from attempted murder when their tents were doused

with a flammable liquid and set on fire because they were gay.

It didn't protect Brandon Teena, in Humboldt, NE who was raped and beaten by two male friends when they discovered that he was living as a male but was anatomically female. The local sheriff refused to arrest the offenders, and they later shot and stabbed Brandon to death.

Current law did not protect a 23-year-old mentally disabled man in Port Monmouth, New Jersey who was kidnapped by 9 men and women and tortured for three hours before being dumped in the woods because he was disabled.

Our bill will close all these flagrant loopholes. In addition to removing the federally protected activity requirement and expanding the class of protected people:

The bill protects State interests with a strict certification procedure that requires the Federal Government to consult with local officials before bringing a Federal case.

It offers Federal assistance to help State and local law enforcement investigate and prosecute hate crimes in any of the categories.

It offers training grants for local law enforcement.

It amends the Federal Hate Crime Statistics Act to add gender to the existing categories of race, religion, ethnic background, sexual orientation, and disability.

A strong Federal role in prosecuting hate crimes is essential for practical and symbolic reasons. In practical terms, the bill will have a real world impact on actual criminal investigations and prosecutions by State and Federal officials.

The presence or absence of the ``federally protected activity'' requirement frequently determines whether state and local resources must be used to prosecute these crimes or whether the Federal Government can bring its full weight to bear on the case.

Hate crime investigations tend to be expensive, requiring considerable law enforcement legwork and extensive use of investigative grand juries. State officials regularly seek federal assistance in bringing hate crime offenders to justice under current law. This bill expands the opportunity for the Justice Department to provide that support.

Our bill fully respects the primary role of State and local law enforcement in responding to violent crime. The vast majority of hate crimes will continue to be prosecuted at the state and local level. The bill authorizes the Justice Department to assist state and local authorities in hate crimes cases, it authorizes Federal prosecutions only when a State does not have jurisdiction, or when it asks the Federal Government to take jurisdiction, or when it fails to act against hate-motivated violence.

In other words, the bill establishes an appropriate back-up for State and local law enforcement to deal with hate crimes in cases where states request assistance, or cases that would not otherwise be effectively investigated and prosecuted.

The symbolic value of the bill is equally important. Hate crimes target whole communities, not just individuals. They are intended to send messages of fear that extend beyond the moment and beyond the individual victim of the attack. Attacking people because they are gay, or African-American, or Jewish, or any other criteria in the bill is bigotry at its worst. Hate crimes are designed to de-humanize and diminish, and we must say loud and clear to those inclined to commit them that they'll go to prison if they do.

The vast majority of us in Congress recognized the importance of making that statement last year. This year, we can make the statement even louder, by turning this bill into law.

Mr. President, today, with my distinguished colleague Senator Isakson, I am pleased to introduce the Improving Access to Workers' Compensation for Injured Federal Workers Act.

Our federal employees serve the American public. Day in and day out, they keep our homeland secure, protect our environment, and oversee and care for those in need. They ensure the safety of our food and our medicines, deliver our daily mail, and undertake countless other duties that, while they sometimes go unnoticed, should never be taken for granted.

More than two-and-a-half million of these workers are covered by the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA). In addition to compensating workers for lost wages, FECA provides medical treatment to Federal workers injured on the job, to help them return to health and to work quickly.

FECA is an effective and fair compensation system. This bill will make it even better by expanding it to cover services provided by nurse practitioners and physician assistants. This will protect many workers who are now without access to needed care when a job-related injury strikes.

Nurse practitioners and physicians' assistants play growing role in medical care, with more than 100,000 nurse practitioners and 46,000 physicians' assistants across the country. They provide crucial services--diagnosing and treating illnesses, ordering and interpreting diagnostic and laboratory tests and educating and counseling patients and families. In many States they can also prescribe medications.

Nurse practitioners and physicians' assistants provide these top quality services in a cost-effective way. The Department of Health and Human Services reports that an office visit to see a nurse practitioner costs 10 percent to 40 percent less than comparable services from a physician, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls physicians' assistants ``cost-effective and

productive members of the healthcare team.''

While their impact is felt throughout our nation, these care providers play a particularly important role in rural and low-income urban areas, which are often underserved by doctors. In fact, in some rural areas, an injured Federal worker may be required to travel more than one-hundred miles to see a physician and receive care that is covered under FECA. This bill would expand Federal workers' service options to include physicians' assistants or nurse practitioners who are more likely to be located nearby.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and recognizing the invaluable work done by our Federal employees and the high-quality cost-effective care provided by nurse practitioners and physicians' assistants.

Mr. President, the bill we are introducing today is urgently needed to protect the pension benefits of workers across America.

A decent retirement in today's world depends on Social Security, private pensions, and private savings. But today's working families find their retirement severely threatened. President Bush wants to privatize Social Security. Private savings are at an all-time low, and now private pensions are in great jeopardy, too.

This challenge has been brought home all too clearly by United Airlines' recent announcement that it intends to end its pension plans and turn them over to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The pensions of over 120,000 workers are at stake. Over $3 billion in their benefits are not guaranteed by the corporation, and the future pensions they have been promised will be lost as well.

These hard-working Americans include thousands of flight attendants like Patrice Anderson, who have made only a modest wage throughout their working lives and for whom ``the possible loss of hundreds of dollars a month in old age changes a dignified retirement into a subsistence-level retirement.''

The loss is particularly painful because so many of the employees have accepted lower pay or given back wages and other benefits in order to keep their pension plans. Marilyn King of California worked for United for 25 years. She says: ``I used to be proud of working for United. Now, I am embarrassed and angry. I am angry that we

took 25 percent in pay cuts, that we gave other concessions; and then our COO and CEO get their bonuses and perks.''

We have heard from families and workers across the country. In Massachusetts, Kevin Creighan and his wife Cathy Hampton in Lynn have spent a lifetime with United, ``working hard, earning a living, and all along expecting a pension.'' They hoped to retire in 7 years, with a combined 70 years of loyal service between them. Now, if they want the retirement they were promised by the United Airlines pension plan, they will have to work for an additional 15 years.

George Raymond of Arizona retired at the age of 60 after 38 years. He writes that because of this pension termination, he will not be able to afford his medical bills. Richard Myer of California retired after 32 years as a United pilot, and now he has to go back to work and sell his home to support his children and his elderly father-in-law.

Americans who work hard and play by the rules should not be victimized by these broken promises. No wonder they feel betrayed. They share the view of Robert Lamica of Virginia, who says, ``I kept my promise to United for 36 years by working in rain, snow, heat, and whatever else nature would throw our way . . . My back and knees have been destroyed along with my ability to get another job . . . We need not be left on the curb just because United can.''

These loyal men and women cannot turn back the clock and make different decisions. But Congress can stop that clock and reach a fair solution.

This legislation we are introducing will prevent bankrupt companies from abandoning their pension plans for the next 6 months.

Our action will also ease the growing threat to all defined benefit pension plans. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation estimates that if it takes over the remaining airline defined benefit pension plans, 90 percent of the claims it must cover will come from airline companies or steel companies, even though such plans include only 5 percent of the employees covered by the corporation. The legislation will buy time for us to develop real solutions for the serious problems of these ailing industries.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill. We owe it to all these hard working Americans whose retirement has been put at risk.