A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to assess the economic implications of the dependence of the State of Hawaii on oil as the principal source of energy for the State.

Yes.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this is a proposal that has been offered before in the Senate. This is a proposal that was included in the comprehensive Energy bill we passed in the 107th Congress, again in the bill that was passed in the 108th Congress. It sets a standard referred to, generally, as a renewable portfolio standard. It is essentially a requirement that those producing electricity in the country produce 10 percent of that electricity that they sell by 2020 from renewable sources.

The Senate has approved this proposition again and again. As I indicated, in the 107th Congress, we included such a portfolio standard as part of an Energy bill. We had various votes in the Senate that affirmed the Senate's determination that the standard should not be weakened. In the 108th Congress, there was a letter signed by 53 Senators that went to the chairs of the conference on the Energy bill, H.R. 6. Senate conferees went on to approve the portfolio standard and pass it on to the House as part of the Senate action.

Now we have the opportunity to renew our support for this proposal to place it in this bill where we can, hopefully, get broad bipartisan support and get it to the President's desk.

There are good reasons for the strong support that we have seen in the Senate. A strong renewable portfolio standard is an essential component of any comprehensive national energy policy--not just an important part of such a strategy but an essential component.

The benefits are clear and they are many. Let me cite the major benefits: This provision would reduce our dependence on traditional, polluting sources of electricity. It would reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. It would reduce the growing pressure on natural gas as a fuel for the generation of electricity. It would reduce the price of natural gas. It would create new jobs. It would make a start on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It would increase our energy security and enhance the reliability of the electricity grid.

The renewable portfolio standard that we are offering--and I have various cosponsors--and I hope we have additional cosponsors before this amendment is dealt with--Senator Coleman, Senator Jeffords, Senator Collins, Senator Dorgan, Senator Cantwell, Senator Feinstein, Senator Reid, Senator Salazar. I believe many other Members in the Senate strongly support this effort.

The RPS we have offered is a flexible and market-driven approach to achieving the various goals I have mentioned at a negligible cost to consumers in this country. According to the Energy Information Administration, the amendment would result in over 350 billion kilowatt hours or 68,000 megawatts of renewable generation between 2008 and 2025. That is enough power generation to supply 56 million U.S. homes. The cost to consumers would be about .18 of a percent or less than one- fifth of 1 percent increase in overall energy prices.

This proposal would require retail sellers of electricity that sell more than 4 million megawatt hours per year to provide 10 percent of that electricity from renewable resources by the year 2020. The requirement would be ramped up in 3-year increments to allow for planning flexibility. The Secretary of Energy would be required to develop a system of credits for renewable generation that could be traded or sold; again, making the program easier to comply with. Utilities could use existing renewable generation to comply with the program or they could comply with the program by buying credits from someone else who is producing renewable energy. New renewable producers could receive the credits to trade or to sell.

The cost of the program to the utilities would be capped by allowing the

Secretary to sell credit at 1.5 cents per kilowatt, adjusted for inflation. As long as the difference between the cost of the renewable generation is less than 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour, the utility could buy or generate renewables. When it reaches or exceeds that price, obviously the cap would kick in, and it would become more cost effective for the utility to go ahead and buy the credits. We also would create a program for the sale of the credits to fund State programs for the development of renewables.

Congress has tried before to spur the development of renewables. In 1978, we passed the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, PURPA. That bill required utilities to buy renewables if the generators could meet the avoided cost of the utilities. Cogeneration--that is, the combined use of heat for industrial processes and for generation of electricity--was also eligible. That program resulted in a huge growth of cogeneration. Over half of the new generation that came online in the country during the 1980s and 1990s was from that resource.

It did not, however, do much for renewable generation. These technologies have remained at about 2 percent of total electricity supply for decades now. In other words, PURPA did not work to stimulate development of renewables as we had hoped it might.

Let me put up a chart to make the point of this 2 percent figure to give people an idea of what we are dealing with today.

This shows electricity generation by fuel for the period of 1970 through 2025. Of course, some of that is anticipated. This is from the Energy Information Agency which is part of the administration.

You can see that by far the largest percentage of the electricity we produce in this country is produced from coal. That is the case today, in 2005, as shown by this white line on the chart. That has been the case ever since 1970, and that will be the case in the future. That is true regardless of whether this amendment is adopted or is not adopted.

The next source of power, the next fuel for electricity generation is soon to be--right now it is nuclear but it is very soon to be natural gas. You can see a green line there. It is probably a little hard to see against that blue background on the chart, but there is a green line which goes up pretty dramatically in the future. That is a concern I know all of us who have looked at this issue share. We see the price of natural gas going up a significant degree, because we have more and more of our electricity being produced from natural gas. That puts pressure on the price of natural gas. People who are buying natural gas to heat their homes or their businesses see the cost of their utilities going up because of the increased pressure on that price of natural gas coming from the increased demand for natural gas to produce electricity.

You can see the renewables number down here. The renewables is next to the bottom line, and it is bumping along at less than 5 percent. It is down around 2 percent today. It will increase very modestly.

This chart is a chart of how the Energy Information Agency would expect production to occur absent a renewable portfolio standard. What this amendment will try to do is increase somewhat the amount of electricity we are producing from renewables and, by doing so, decrease the amount of electricity we have to produce from natural gas. This is a way to keep down the increasing cost of natural gas, and it is a way to keep down the increasing price of natural gas as well.

Let me talk about some of the criticism that has been made of this amendment and this approach. Critics of the proposal point to a number of concerns they have. The No. 1 criticism I have heard is it costs too much; also, that States are already requiring development of renewables; and, third, some areas do not have readily available renewable resources. Those are the three major criticisms we hear, so let me respond to each of those.

In response to the argument that it costs too much, I will point to a number of studies of this proposal that have been done over the last several years.

In 2003, I asked the Energy Information Agency at the Department of Energy to look at the effect the standard would have. They found our standard would result in 350 billion kilowatt hours of new renewable generation between 2008 and 2025. That would not happen absent the adoption of this provision. They found the cost would be minimal. The report indicated there would be an increase in the cost of electricity of only one-tenth of a cent in 2025 over projected costs. When combined with the reduction in natural gas prices that would be caused by the RPS, total aggregate cost to the consumer on that consumer's energy bill was projected to be less than one-twentieth of 1 percent.

I have asked the EIA to update this analysis with current conditions, and we have their update. They have sent me a letter which I can put in the Record. Let me cite the most important parts of it. It says:

Cumulative residential expenditures on electricity from

2005 through 2025 are $2.5 billion lower while cumulative

residential expenditures on natural gas are reduced by $2.9

billion, or 0.5 percent. Cumulative expenditures for natural

gas and electricity by all end-use sectors taken together

would decrease by $22.6 billion.

Now, that is their current estimate of what the effect of this provision would be.

The report also indicates the generation of electricity from natural gas would be 5 percent lower if we adopt this RPS than it would be otherwise. It also projects that total electricity-sector carbon dioxide emissions are reduced by 7.5 percent relative to the status quo. They are reduced by 249 million metric tons.

A number of other studies have found positive results, even to the point of reducing overall energy costs. Earlier this year we held a hearing in the Energy Committee on generation portfolios. Dr. Ryan Wiser of Lawrence-Berkeley National Laboratory presented a report that summarized the results of some 15 studies of renewable portfolio standards much like the one we are offering today. All of these studies found that a portfolio standard would reduce natural gas prices. Twelve of the 15 studies projected a net reduction in overall energy bills as a result of the RPS.

The Energy Information Agency report projected that the RPS would lead to a 32-percent lower allowance cost for sulfur dioxide emissions. The cost is not great. So the argument we have heard that this is too expensive a proposition I think does not hold water.

Many have argued that States are implementing renewable portfolio standards and there is no need for a Federal program. It is true that States have taken the lead in pushing for more renewable generation. Eighteen States currently have developed renewable requirements. Three more are soon to begin implementing renewable requirements.

Almost all of these standards are more aggressive than the Federal standard in the amendment I am proposing today. My home State of New Mexico requires 10 percent of electricity produced by utilities in that State to be from renewable sources by the year 2011--not 2020. Mr. President, 2020 is what our amendment calls for. But New Mexico says 2011. California says 20 percent by 2017. Maine requires 30 percent by 2000; Minnesota, 19 percent by 2015.

This will spur the growth of renewables in these regions. There is one thing, however, a State standard will not do. It will not drive a national market for these technologies. If some States have renewable standards and others do not, or if the technologies and requirements vary from State to State, it is impossible for a national market to develop for renewable credits.

This credit trading system is the piece of our proposal that gives the greatest flexibility for compliance. A credit trading system also helps to reduce the cost of compliance by allowing credits for lower cost renewables from one region to be bought by utilities in another region.

Some argue this is a cost shift from the regions without renewable resources to those with renewable resources. I would argue it is a way to spread the cost to all who are seeing the benefits. If States do not have or choose not to develop renewable resources, they still realize the benefits of lower natural gas prices, of lower SO2 allowances, of lower cost carbon

reductions. It is only fair they share the slight increase in cost for generation of electricity that has created these savings.

The argument that many regions do not have renewable generation resources has also been made. While it is true that the best wind, geothermal, and solar resources are concentrated in Western States, the entire country has extensive biomass potential. We have another chart I want to put up here for people to look at.

As Maine and other States have shown, paper production and agricultural processes are available everywhere. If Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland can implement aggressive standards, then other States can as well.

This chart makes the case very strongly about where these renewable energy resources are available. You can see that solar, of course, is available everywhere but more prominently in the Southwest. That is shown in the upper right-hand part of this chart. Wind resources are not available everywhere but clearly are in many States, and particularly in the West and the Midwest. That is shown on the lower right-hand part of the chart. Geothermal resources are primarily concentrated in the West, but biomass and biofuel resources are everywhere in the country, and are particularly concentrated in the eastern part of the country. So as these technologies develop, as the markets for these technologies develop, there is an ability to produce energy from renewable sources everywhere.

The environmental benefits are clear. The renewable portfolio standard would result, according to the Energy Information Agency, in a 3.6-percent reduction in carbon emissions in the year 2025. This is a reduction of 31 million tons in that year alone. That reduction is the equivalent to planting 27.5 million acres of trees, an area about the size of Pennsylvania. And this is in one single year.

The RPS also benefits the economy by driving job growth. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, wind turbine construction alone would result in 43,000 new jobs per year on average. An additional 11,200 cumulative long-term jobs would result from the subsequent operations and maintenance of these renewable facilities.

The Regional Economics Applications Laboratory for the Environmental Law and Policy Center found that 68,400 jobs and $6.7 billion in economic output are a result of renewable energy; wind power creates 22 direct and indirect construction and manufacturing jobs for each megawatt of installed capacity; wind power creates one operation and maintenance job for every 10 megawatts of installed capacity.

A study by the State of Wisconsin found that increased use of renewable energy sources would create three times as many jobs as increased use of traditional fuels for electricity production. U.S. PIRG reports that building 5,900 megawatts of renewable energy capacity in California would lead to 28,000 yearlong construction jobs and 3,000 operations and maintenance jobs. Over 30 years, these new plants would create 120,000 person hours of employment, four times as many person hours as building 5,900 megawatts of natural gas capacity.

According to the AFL-CIO, an estimated 8,092 jobs would be created over a 10-year period for installation and operations and maintenance of wind power in Nevada, and another 19,000 manufacturing jobs.

Support for this concept and this proposal is strong throughout the country. Recent polls have shown that support. A poll by Mellman Associates found that 70 percent of those surveyed nationwide supported a 20-percent portfolio standard. We are not proposing that aggressive a standard. We are proposing 10 percent by the year 2020, which I pointed out is substantially more modest than most of the States have embraced that have gone this route. These results held about the same in States as diverse as North Dakota, Georgia, Missouri, and Arizona.

Environmental groups from throughout the Nation, from the Sierra Club to the Natural Resources Defense Council, from industrial associations to the renewable trade groups and utilities, have all supported the

Mr. President, I will take a very few minutes to respond to some of the points that the Senator from Tennessee was making. We are back on the amendment that I have offered for purposes of debate.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Obama be added as a cosponsor to the Bingaman amendment.

The first point I would make, in response to the comments of the Senator and my colleague from Tennessee, who has contributed greatly to the development of this overall Energy bill and whose contribution has been very substantial and I very much respect his views, obviously we are in disagreement on this issue, and I will explain some of the reasons why.

First, much of what he said related to big windmills and the fact that this, in his view, is essentially a program that would cause the establishment of more big windmills. He pointed out the reasons why that was unwise.

This amendment is technology neutral. We have been very specific about this. We have said that qualifying renewables include wind, solar, ocean, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas, and incremental hydro power. We have tried to talk about all of the different renewables and make it clear we are not specifying which of these renewables are used by particular utilities to meet this requirement.

It would be up to them, and it would be up to them based on how the various technologies develop. In fact, many utilities have chosen to pursue wind generation because they have found that that was the least costly way to produce energy from renewable sources. Clearly, advances are being made in solar power, advances are being made in biomass, and in various others of these technologies. The purpose of this legislation is to accelerate that.

There is a chart which my colleague from Tennessee put up indicating the other ways in which we are trying to deal with our energy needs in this overall legislation and the other ways in which we are trying to reduce emissions into our atmosphere in this legislation. I agree with all of that. We do have provisions in this legislation to encourage the development of this gas-combined cycle technology and the use of that in our coal-fired powerplants.

I will put up the chart that we had earlier that shows the different sources for our electricity generation as they exist today and as the Energy Information Agency would expect them to exist in the year 2025.

You can see that by far the most significant source of our energy, our electricity generation in this country, is

coal. It has been in the past; it is today; it is going to be in the future. The only question is to what extent does that number, that top line, go up. And, more importantly, to what extent do we see pressure put on natural gas as a source for electricity generation in the future.

But we have provisions in this bill that try to encourage the use of IGCC technology. That is very much in the public interest and I very strongly support that.

We also have provisions in here to encourage more use of nuclear power, more production of electricity from nuclear power. You can see the nuclear line is largely flat coming from today, 2005, out to 2025. It is my hope, just as it is the hope of Senator Domenici and I am sure of many on our committee, you will see that line go up somewhat, as companies are able to see the benefits that are provided in this legislation and look at the cost comparisons, that they will choose to put more resources into production of energy from nuclear sources as well. That is very much to be desired.

But to accomplish our goals, our overall goals for this country and our overall goals for our energy legislation, we need to pursue all available resources. That is why I believe it is important we adopt this amendment, to give that extra push for renewables. The chart from the Energy Information Agency projects very little increase in this line down here, this blue line for renewables, without this renewable portfolio standard in place.

I saw the map of the United States the Senator from Tennessee put up, showing the different States that are doing this. All of that is taken into account by the Energy Information Agency. All of those State renewable portfolio standards are taken into account in their determination that there will still be only very modest, if any, increases in the use of renewables over the next 20 years.

What we are trying to do through this renewable portfolio standard is to increase the contribution from renewables somewhat. I am the first to admit we are not going to solve our energy problems with the use of renewables alone. We have to depend on nuclear power. We have to depend on clean coal technologies. We have to depend on progress in all these areas. But the effect of this amendment I have offered is to give some additional impetus to use of renewables.

Let me make a couple of other points which I think bear mentioning at the same time. I think the Senator from Tennessee suggested that--maybe not the amendment that is currently before the Senate but an earlier version, I believe he indicated, would say you don't get credit for what you do to meet your State standard in order to meet this national standard. Let me be clear. That is not the case. I don't think that has ever been the case in any version I have seen of this amendment, but it is certainly not the case in what we are talking about here. In States where there is a renewable portfolio standard in place--and in almost more cases that is a much more aggressive and demanding requirement than anything we are contemplating here--clearly this standard would be met without any difficulty. This is not an incremental standard above what the State requires. This is an effort to require some effort to be made nationwide and hopefully get us to a nationwide market and demand for these technologies that we are promoting as part of this.

The other big point the Senator from Tennessee was making is this $18 billion cost. He is referring to this letter from the EIA. It does say the cumulative cost to the electric power sector is about $18 billion.

Three bullet points down in that same summary page, it says the cumulative expenditure for natural gas and electricity by end-use sectors, taken together, decreases by $22.6 billion.

What it is saying is the effect would be to decrease what they spend on natural gas and electricity by $22.6 billion at the same time there is the $18 billion to be shifted over in this area. So clearly the whole idea behind this legislation is that the people who are producing, the companies that are generating electricity in this country, will do less of that through use of natural gas, will invest less in natural gas production facilities, or generating facilities, and will invest more in these other areas. That is the purpose of it. We believe that is a good public purpose, a good purpose for us to be promoting in this legislation.

The final point the Senator was making is this is an unnecessary cost to consumers. That is not what I understand the EIA to be saying. The Energy Information Agency says, in a quote out of their letter to me dated the 15th of June:

Cumulative residential expenditures on electricity from

2005 to 2025 are $2.7 billion lower, while cumulative

residential expenditures on natural gas are reduced by $2.9

billion.

That is if this amendment is adopted. So the cumulative expenditures for natural gas and electricity by all end users, taken together, will decrease by $22.6 billion. It is saying, for this 20-year period we are talking about, if we adopt this amendment we will be saving consumers. They, the people who are producing the electricity the consumers are buying, will, in fact, be shifting resources to produce some additional increment of that electricity from these renewable sources rather than from natural gas plants as they otherwise would. But clearly there is a savings here for the consumer, according to the Energy Information Agency, and I think that is clearly to be desired and something we all are hoping will result from this legislation.

Before I yield the floor, let me ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton be added as a cosponsor. She is available to speak.

Let me ask Senator Domenici, did you want to go back to your side to speak now, or Senator Clinton would like to speak on our side.

We will yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Jeffords.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar.

Mr. President, I will defer to Senator Domenici if he wants to do something at this point.

Mr. President, we would like 2 minutes equally divided prior to the vote on the Bingaman amendment. I guess there is no need for 2 minutes before Cantwell because they have a period of time before theirs, but 2 minutes equally divided would be appreciated.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to Senator Dorgan from North Dakota.

I appreciate the concerns of my colleague from Florida. As you know, I continue to push for a renewable portfolio standard because the increased use of renewables can ease natural gas price volatility and

decrease our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign imports. Having said that, differences do exist from region to region and State to State with regard to renewable energy potential. I would like to extend an offer to Senator Nelson of Florida to work in conference to find a method that will enable a renewable standard to accomplish the goal of increasing renewables while recognizing the legitimate differences among States. I acknowledge that municipal solid waste plays a large role in Florida's renewable potential and I would be willing to recognize that potential as part of our discussions in the conference. I believe we can find a way to help each State include a renewable standard as part of their overall energy production, and I am committed to working with Senator Nelson to accomplish this.

Mr. President, I am informed that the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Washington want to interrupt the remainder of our debate on the Bingaman amendment in order to discuss and do a modification of the Cantwell amendment. I ask unanimous consent that they be yielded whatever time they need to accomplish that and it not count against the Bingaman amendment.

Mr. President, I ask how much time remains on the Bingaman amendment.

Mr. President, I will take part of the time remaining for me to respond to a few of the points made by my good friend from Tennessee and clarify the effect of this amendment as best we understand it. Contrary to what a person might believe by listening to a lot of the debate today, this is not an amendment just about windmills. This is an amendment about trying to stimulate the development of a range of technologies, solar technologies, biomass technologies, wind technologies, clearly, and get the cost of producing electricity from those different technologies down to a more reasonable level. That is the purpose of the legislation.

My good friend from Tennessee says that in his opinion, based on his understanding of the position the Energy Information Agency has taken, this would result in an increase in electricity rates, or electric rates. He reads their analysis and their recent report in a totally different way than I do. It is very clear this does not cause an increase in electricity rates. It causes a decrease. It is clear it does not cause an increase in gas prices. It causes a decrease. It is clear it does not cost the electric power sector more. It costs the electric power sector less than it otherwise would be spending.

Let me talk about this $18 billion he continues to refer to. It does say in

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

As far as rates are concerned, it is very clear in this language, and I will read this again. It says: ``Compared to the reference case.'' That means with the amendment. It says: ``The cumulative residential expenditures on electricity from 2005 to 2025 are $2.7 billion lower''--that is with the amendment--``while the cumulative residential expenditures on natural gas are $2.9 billion lower with the amendment.''

Residential expenditures it is talking about. These are the ratepayers that we all represent in our individual States. They are saying that, if this amendment is adopted, it is going to be cheaper for them to pay their gas bills, cheaper for them to pay their electricity bills in the future because, frankly, this will take some of the pressure off the price of natural gas. That is very much to be desired.

Let me read further from their report. They say: ``The increase in renewable generation''--which is contemplated by this amendment--``will lead to lower coal and natural gas generation. By 2025, coal generation is reduced by almost 9 percent, natural gas generation reduced by over 5 percent from their respective reference case levels.'' That is from the level that it would be if we didn't adopt this amendment.

So in my view, this is a very substantial improvement. This legislation, this amendment will be a substantial improvement to the underlying bill which I think is a very good bill. I do not disagree with anything the Senator from Tennessee said about the advisability and desirability of seeing more nuclear power generated in our country, the advisability and desirability of seeing cleaner technologies used in coal production. All of that is in the underlying bill. What this amendment says is let's give an extra impetus to renewable power so that we can get all of the benefit from renewable power that it is reasonable for us to achieve over the next couple of decades.

That is exactly the purpose of the amendment. I think that is what the effect of the amendment will be. We have had the good fortune of passing this amendment before in the Senate. I hope very much we can pass it again this time. It will strengthen the bill, it will persuade the American people that we are trying to move this country in a different direction, as far as its energy future is concerned.

We are not satisfied with just saying that current technologies are adequate. We are not satisfied with saying the current mix of energy sources is adequate. We are trying to get back to more use of American ingenuity and creativeness to produce energy that we do not have to import from somewhere else in the world.

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. We will have a chance to summarize very briefly the reasons for the amendment. I will have a chance, and my colleague from Tennessee will have a chance, to argue the other side of that argument before we have the vote. As I understand our agreement now, the Senator from Washington is going to have an opportunity to once again argue the merits of her amendment. That vote will occur, I believe, at 2:15. Then, after that, we will have the vote on this RPS.

With that, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Washington.

Amendment No. 784

Mr. President, this is an amendment which says utilities that produce electricity in this country by the year 2020 should ensure that up to 10 percent of their electricity comes from renewable sources. It doesn't specify which renewable sources. It gives them a variety of choices. According to the Energy Information Agency, the $18 billion is more than offset by the savings these utilities will get by not having to invest in additional traditional sources of generation. This will result in a reduction in electricity rates and a reduction in gas rates, according to our own Department of Energy. I believe this is good legislation. I hope my colleagues will support it. It will strengthen this bill and give us a much better energy bill to take to conference.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Snowe of Maine be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The time has come to move back to this bill. I want to say to Senators it happens frequently, when things are going well, that nobody is very interested in moving along. So we have to push you along by making sure Senators, or their staffs, understand this has to be a day where we get rid of three or four amendments, including a couple of very important ones that are here for the Senate to consider.

There is a pending amendment Senator Cantwell has before us. We are trying right now to work out a unanimous consent agreement whereby we will move off that amendment and have a time for a vote. Then we will move onto an amendment--we are thinking that will be an amendment by Senator Bingaman--with a time agreement, somewhere around 3 hours equally divided. We will share that with Senator Bingaman and others.

Then there is a third amendment from our side of the aisle which, for the sake of naming it, we will call the DeWine amendment. It is not necessarily the name, but he is one of the Senators. We know he has an amendment. We hope we can lock that in to follow after the Bingaman amendment. We will agree on the time. Then the DeWine amendment will have a certain amount of time after which it will be ready for a vote.

I am thinking with some degree of certainty we will have three votes. That will take us into the evening. We will have this pending amendment, the Bingaman amendment, that he considers very important on the mandate for renewables across the land, and then we will have a DeWine amendment that has to do with the oil cartel.

I am waiting for those who are putting these numbers together to come here because Senators have to be consulted.

If people wonder why this takes a little bit of time, let me explain. We are agreeing to something, but people in the Senate have to agree. So we are checking with them now. The only other way we could do it, you see, for those who wonder where they are, we could have all Senators down here and say, Do you agree with this or that? But we can't do that, so we have this little time interval where we ask the Senate be put into a quorum call and that is what I was going to ask right now.

I would ask the Senator, if he would, give me a little bit of time before he does that and let me see if we can have a unanimous consent agreement locked in so we have some idea how much time you will use, or others.

If you are so generous, I will listen and when I think I am tired of listening to you, I will put up my hand.

I have no objection.

We are grateful. We will have a unanimous consent to take care of today.

Let me just say briefly, if I were President of the United States-- which obviously is beyond the realm of possibility--I would be opposed to this amendment. It is not as if it does nothing to the President. It says, Mr. President, whoever you are--and it obviously will not be this one--tell us how, give us a plan, tell us how you will reduce America's consumption of crude oil by 40 percent by a year certain.

What President would like to do that? What President would think that is a worthwhile effort if he would have to send up some kind of plan at which the whole world would laugh? Our cars would have to be the size of golf carts or we would have to make a breakthrough in the next 10 years, which we have been working on for 40 or 50 years, and we have not made it yet.

The very ones talking about it do not want to even get the oil from ANWR. That is a million of what they are asking for, and it surely would be here by the time their resolution talks about it. What if the President, whoever it is, says: Let's go to ANWR and get a million. Guess what they would say: Destroying the world, getting rid of the environment. But a nice little resolution, nice little bill saying we have a solution to this. We will just be a John F. Kennedy and say our goal is to some way, somehow, cut America's consumption of crude oil from overseas by 40 percent, when it has been going up every year with everything we are trying to do.

In this bill, we are trying what is real. We are challenging all of the technocrats, the technologists, the scientists. We are telling them: Here are resources, find solutions. What superentity would we create in this country and say: Here you are. You are on top

of all this. You prepare this plan. You give it to the President so he can give it to the people. To what end? What would it do? A 40-percent reduction reduces our consumption by 7.2 million barrels. We cannot even get anyone to vote to let America produce 1 million barrels now. If that 1 million would come off 7.2 million barrels, we would still be a huge way away.

Do not misunderstand, this issue is an American issue of high consequence. America is doing everything it can. We did not used to. That is why it is so hard now. We let it get away from us. It will not come back under control with a gaudy, impossible resolution that will sound like somebody has a plan.

I have attempted just to tell the Senate the truth. I have attempted to offer an amendment to this and just up the ante and say if we can do 7.2 million, why don't we do 8.2 or 9.2, and put it in there and say we will vote on a bigger one. Then I thought, maybe I ought to be what I have tried to be on this bill all along, honest and forthright, and as best I could explain to the Senate, we have to do everything we can, with imagination, with vigor, with certainty, with resources, but the kind of things we know we can do, that we know we put our shoulders to it and we work hard.

We are finally coming to the point where Americans do believe it is a big problem. I don't think they are blaming people anymore. It used to be we called the big oil companies up, swear them in under oath--I don't know if the Senator remembers the day we called them up here and had them swear. We said: You are the problem; you are why we are importing all this oil.

Remember those days? They told us everything they could. That hearing went away. What happened? The next year we imported more oil and more oil.

It isn't that the Senator doesn't think we should have an American plan. What we have in this bill is an American plan. Senator Bingaman and I and many others have worked hard to put it together. Some people say it does not do enough as it is. I heard some reporters yesterday commenting. I wondered what they were reading. They said: It doesn't do anything for nuclear. It is the most far-reaching pronuclear set of proposals we will have ever before us. The same commentators said it cost too much money. I don't know where they got the numbers. We have not even spent in this bill. We were given a $2-billion reserve fund. We have not spent all of that yet. I shouldn't have said that because everybody will be down here wanting to spend it, but they have to go through us before they can spend it.

The tax portion is about like the House portion. It is a pretty good bill. It is not a spending bill. When you authorize programs, incidentally, you are not saying we are going to buy them or pay for them. The distinguished occupant of the Chair knows in agriculture you authorize programs, but you do not expect the appropriations to do exactly what you say. You say: This is a program we would like you to think about. That is what this bill does in terms of authorization. Overall, it is a very good bill.

Is the proposed unanimous consent agreement satisfactory?

I ask unanimous consent the Cantwell amendment be temporarily set aside, Senator Bingaman be recognized in order to offer an amendment regarding RPS; provided further there be 3 hours of debate equally divided in the usual form and that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment and that no second-degree amendments be in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I remind the Senate that we have an hour and a half on our side. I am in control of the time. I am going to yield control of the time to the junior Senator from Tennessee. He will start and use as much time as he wants. Then I will return and use some. I have put the word out, if anybody else would like to speak in opposition to the Bingaman amendment.

With that understanding, I yield the floor and thank the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. President, I received notice that our Republican leader wishes to speak, he said, at 11:15.

I want to make an observation and see if the Senator from Tennessee will answer it.

The Senator from Tennessee went through all these other ways we could go about cleaning up our air and reducing the carbon emissions. What strikes me is, let's assume we are going to do all those things, because I think we are. I remind the Senator, however, that the $2 billion in there on nuclear--we should all understand, we can produce nuclear powerplants before that ever happens. That is fourth generation. That is getting ready for hydrogen. That is not charged to this, nor is it going to apply.

Nonetheless, take all the rest. Let's assume we are doing them. The interesting thing about this amendment is, if we were doing them and saving carbon emissions, we do not get any credit for that; am I right? We still are going to have this 10-percent mandate for renewables. So let's assume a State 4 or 5 years from now opens a nuclear powerplant. That is as clean as wind, is it not? It is terrific from the standpoint of emissions, but we still have to do the 10 percent, right, the way this approach is; is that correct?

And in every respect, a State will not get any credit for the fact they are doing all these things that move in the direction we want because here sits this mandate that says you do this anyway.

I think that is not right, as I look at it. That confounds me as to why that would be the case. We are urging they do the others, but in some cases, they are going to be mandated to spend this rather extraordinary amount. Once the credit is gone, incidentally, this kind of energy is going to be pretty expensive stuff.

The mandate does not go away. Somebody has to produce it and it has to be charged.

I yield the floor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

Let me ask, Senator Clinton, are you on some kind of time-sensitive schedule? If you are, I will let you go. How long does the Senator wish to speak?

Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

I want the Senate to know on our side we do not intend to use as much time as we have, unless other Senators want to speak. Senator Alexander certainly wants some additional time.

Senator Bingaman, I don't know if your side needs the whole amount. We are trying to get a unanimous consent agreement shortly.

As the Senator from New York leaves the floor, let me say right at the offset, the Bingaman amendment is not a goal. If it were a goal, that would be something different. It is a mandate. There is a very big difference between a goal and a mandate. This says exactly what each State is compelled to do with reference to the kinds of energies that are described. When you boil it all down, it means ``wind'' for the time being. It means each State has to have it. And if they do not, they have to pay money to the Secretary of Energy or they have to buy wind-generated electricity from some other State.

While I am on that subject, I would like to put up one little chart. I would like to show this to the Senate. If you look at this map, you can see the white area, in particular the white area down here in the Southeast. The interesting thing is that the white area does not have any source of wind to meet this standard.

It is nice if you are not one of those States. But if you are one of them, it is not very nice because you are sort of wind poor. The other States are wind rich. Under this bill, the States that do not have that have to pay money, either to the States that do produce it for their wind energy or they have to pay money to the Secretary of Energy who uses that for research and technology development in the area of renewables and the like.

We have been on the floor many times when we spoke about issues on coal. I remember when I was a very young Senator, we had a big debate in the Senate about mandating a certain kind of coal be used. The Senate got very excited and hot about it because we were sort of drawing a line between the States and creating a terrible kind of chasm between the States, saying these States are going to be the ``have'' States, these States are going to be the ``have not'' States.

I admit that was a very serious problem, for the clean coal was not going to be used, in spite of it being clean, and the dirty coal was going to be used because we were mandating it. So it was in some ways similar, but it would have been billions upon billions of dollars in the development of resources, so it truly would have divided the country.

This divides us in another way, in a way that I think is not necessary. Let me say from the outset, for those who do not think the Bingaman amendment is the right way to go, they are not coming to the floor in harmony, en masse, saying we do not like wind energy.

Some may, but there are many who think wind energy ought to be developed and we ought to push the frontiers of technology. But no one should think that if we do not adopt the Bingaman amendment, we have a bill that is not going to push the development of renewables. The bill is laden with incentives to produce renewable energy.

As a matter of fact, the tax-writing committee that will bring their bill here shortly, I understand almost all of their allocation of tax reductions, the loss of tax revenues by way of credits or the like, almost all of it will be renewable. As a matter of fact, the very major tax credit that, I might say, is the principal reason wind is being developed at all is extended for 2 years at a very large cost to the taxpayers--maybe $3 billion or thereabouts.

We are pursuing the development of renewable energy led by wind, which at this point is the principal one unless we consider hydro, and I don't think we are considering hydro in any of this debate. It exists, and it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

What I am suggesting, if the amendment does not pass, we have not abandoned an American approach to pursuing the technology called renewables led by wind in these United States. What we are trying to say is that one shoe should not fit every State. States that can't do this because of the unfortunate situation of nature--they do not have the wherewithal to produce it, or if they had to produce it, they would produce it in places they would not want to produce it because it would not be consistent with another use of that land that is paramount and has a priority to the development of windmills, such as right down the middle of a national park.

Having said that, another point was made by my distinguished friend from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, who has been a tremendous partner in this bill. He knows on this issue we do not agree, but he understands that on 99 percent of this bill, we will fight for it and win and have an energy bill for the first time that has a lot of good, solid things for the country. My good friend Senator Bingaman said that other States already have these goals. They set their own requirements--not goals, their own requirements. He used the word that they have done so ``aggressively.''

I remind the Senator, and I think I am correct, that those States do not use the same formula for what will make up their portfolio of renewables. I submit, if the Senator would like to amend his amendment and allow the myriad kinds of energy production used in other States to meet their current goals or current mandates, that would be a good bill.

For instance, the State of Pennsylvania has a very aggressive plan. If you think ``aggressive'' means they have a very aggressive wind program that would meet the mandates of this amendment, that is not true. They are using other technologies consistent with their resources, many of which are related to products related to coal. Whatever remains after they use coal is reused, and they produce a clean source of energy that counts toward their goal.

We think nuclear powerplants will be built in the future. It seems it would be appropriate that a State might be given credit for that. We believe there will be very formidable advances in converting coal not only into clean coal but into coal that has the carbon removed that will, indeed, qualify for being as good for cleaning up with reference to the gases we are worried about in global warming as solar. It may end up, and from what I understand, even though it is new technology, it might be cheaper than what we think wind energy will be. It seems to me that is a more sensible approach. Provide a variety, a mix that would make up this 10 percent.

But we should not be causing certain States to pay a very big tax because they cannot produce solar energy. No one calls it a tax, but when someone takes funds out of their consumers' pockets and gives them to some other State, to some other utility in another State, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. It seems to me that the easiest way to talk about this is that it is a tax. I don't think, when we look at all of that, this is the best way to do it.

I don't say this in any way to belittle those who have pursued this with vigor, who think it is a very good approach. Senator Bingaman makes valid arguments. The Senator from Tennessee, particularly in his way of getting to the bottom of things and articulating eloquently about what he has learned, has contributed immensely to learning just what this is all about. As a consequence, I am not at all sure as many people as thought this is a wonderful idea 6 months ago,

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

As I see it, there is good reason to say: Look, we are doing enough right now with this enormous credit. Frankly, I will add to the credit, I will say something that is beyond dispute. We have asked those who gauge and judge, How much wind energy can you produce? What is the maximum that the fabricators of these products, these things you describe, Senator, that someone is building, that we will pay for-- someone is making a lot of money on them right now because of the subsidy. How much could we produce per year for the next 2 or 3 years? The answer has come: You can't produce any more than the tax credit will cause you to produce.

Let me put it another way: This mandate has nothing to do with maximizing the production of wind so long as there is a credit. The credit is going to produce it. In a sense, why do you need both? One would say because of the long-term nature of a mandate versus we have 2 years, maybe 3 years of credits. But in America, the way we ought to look at this, you subsidize the technology so everyone involved can get with it and apply this ingenuity called America and do it better. This very large subsidy ought to surely get us in position where we can produce this wind--if that is what we want to do--that we can produce it cheaper, so the incentive is relevant to the next 8 or 10 years in that respect.

We ought to do better. To some extent, having the 10 percent out there and having the credit out there is a disincentive to maximizing innovation. What is the urgency? How are we sensitizing the marketplace to produce more efficient wind? When you give a tax credit and put a mandate on it, it seems to me whoever is doing it can sit around and say: We have a nice thing going, we do not need to change, just keep on.

I thought the idea was to move technology. It could be you are moving other technology besides wind. But there is a long way to go before you get some of that solar onboard. I don't think this will make that move in the next 10 years unless there is a big breakthrough that I don't believe will be caused by this mandate.

I have some other issues I was going to discuss. I will make a point about States that are already doing something. I call to mind Pennsylvania. One would not think of Pennsylvania as being a State with a lot of wind, producing wind energy, yet they are in red on my chart. That means they have to borrow from my friend, Senator Bingaman, an aggressive policy on renewables. But it is not predicated upon the same requirements of this bill. It is not a huge 10-percent wind component. It is made up of other things.

If we look at each of these States in red and ask which States are meeting this goal in an aggressive manner, and then come to the Senate floor and say how each State is doing it, and then say, Why don't we let any State that wants to do it in all of these ways and meet it--all we have said is if the State is doing it, they get credit. That is what the sponsor says. But we have not said if they do it differently than this in the future, they get credit, as I understand it.

If we have another red State added up here--and I don't think the red and the blue of the last election has anything to do with this map; we don't have blue up there; we have red and white--but if we added more reds before we had this bill, it would not be all wind or renewables as prescribed by this bill. It would be whatever they find meets their test of renewable energy. It seems to me that kind of flexibility would be much better.

What we have is an attempt to saddle the industry and consumers with a hefty price tag to support a limited set of renewable resources.

According to the Department of Energy, only 2.2 percent of total U.S. electricity generation in 2003 was comprised of non-hydro renewable energy sources such as geothermal, photovoltaic, solar thermal, biomass, municipal solid waste and wind plants. This is so despite years of government subsidies and programs to encourage renewable energy.

Of this 2.2 percent total, 44 percent came from biomass generation (mostly at industrial facilities), 26 percent came from municipal solid waste, 16 percent from geothermal waste, 13 percent from wind, and 1 percent from solar technologies.

The RPS focuses on that 2.2 percent of our generation, mandates an increase to 10 percent and essentially imposes a 1.5 cent per kilowatt hour tax on an increasing percentage of each year's retail sales of electricity.

If electric utilities do not build new renewable facilities and have to purchase all their credits from the federal government to meet the RPS mandate, the total cost of the inflation-adjusted RPS proposal is an estimated $190.8 billion in nominal dollars.

That is a worst case scenario estimation, but we must consider that risk when we are deciding whether this gamble on renewable resource mandate is the right thing to do. This proposal is a gamble not worth taking.

Mandating a Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard is an ill advised means of achieving increased renewable resource use.

Any effort to legislate on renewable generation requires realistic targets and due deference to States' rights to make decisions suited to best serve their citizens' needs.

The proposed Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard fails to recognize these principles.

States should definitely encourage their electric utilities to offer retail customers electricity from green energy to the extent it is available and encourage investment in renewable development. Most importantly, States should be afforded the right to develop their own RPS approaches without Federal interference.

States are best able to determine appropriate fuel types, societal costs, consumer protections, and requirements to meet Federal and State environmental regulations.

Today, 19 States and the District of Columbia have their own RPS programs. Others should be afforded the same right to develop an RPS without Federal interference.

The proposed RPS amendment penalizes those States that have already acted to establish a renewable program by requiring them to replace their State program with a new Federal program.

This amendment rewards certain regions at the expense of others. Solar has limited application east of the Mississippi, wind almost no application in the southeast, and virtually all geothermal is located in the West.

We cannot ignore the reality that utilities in some regions cannot meet a renewable mandate because they are not blessed with ample renewable resources.

To ignore this would be to require these to buy credits, forcing many consumers to pay for power they never receive, and would result in massive interregional cash transfers.

Utilities that do not have access to new renewable assets will wind up paying 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour and receive no power--their customers will pay a tax with no benefit and this could have significant costs to establishing competitive markets and to low income consumers where such markets do not exist.

Each State should decide for itself and its own residents the optimal mix of renewable and alternative energy sources.

I certainly advocate state policy makers coordinating choices to maximize regional efficiencies, but I do not support instituting a one- size-fits-all national plan.

States have historically had control over the fuel choices and resource development decisions. Past federal endeavors to meddle in fuel choice mandates have resulted in disasters.

Any effort to legislate on Renewable Portfolio Standards requires due deference to States' rights to make decisions suited to best serve their citizens' needs. This amendment fails to provide that deference.

Another problem with this RPS amendment is that it mandates an arbitrary quota for some renewable energy resources without any justification as to why only a limited set of renewable resources are included as eligible.

At a hearing held by the Energy Committee in March 2005, Dr. Nogee with the Union of Concerne Scientists was asked a Question about the effect an RPM on production from wind power. He explained that \2/3\ of the RPS requirements would likely be met by new wind generation. Mandating mostly wind power when wind power is not mostly available around the country is poor public policy.

Some claim that an RPS would help address emission problems. I don't think that the goal of this RPS amendment is to help lower emissions at all.

If the RPS was truly a device to help lower emissions, why shouldn't companies receive credits for environmental improvement expenditures, like pollution control equipment. The proposed amendment does not include such credit.

If cleaner energy was truly the goal of the RPS amendment, why isn't coal gasification technology or nuclear power credited?

The Energy Information Administration has noted that an RPS will ``have little impact on sulfur dioxide, SO2 or nitrogen oxide, NO2, emission levels.''

If the goal of the RPS was to lower emissions, then a broader array of our renewable technologies--particularly clean coal and nuclear-- should have been included in the category of resources.

For similar reasons, I don't think that the RPS can be legitimately justified as a means to help diversify our fuel needs or reduce dependence on foreign resources. If that were the case, a greater diversity of renewable resources should been included in the category of resources.

More effective and efficient solutions to this problem are available. In response to concerns with over dependence on foreign resources, we should focus our efforts on:

Nuclear power--which is one of our cleanest fuel resources;

Oil and natural gas from Alaska and other regions of the United States;

Coal of which we have abundant reserves; and

New hydroelectric generation--which have zero emissions.

If renewable resources are to become a greater contributor to our power sector, then competitive market forces should be allowed to operate. In order to facilitate the necessary competition, transmission must be available.

One of the barriers to entry for renewable development is the lack of transmission capacity to transmit electricity generated from remote areas long distances.

Before mandating fuel choice, we need to address the real need for improved transmission capacity. A number of the electricity title's provisions are directed at accomplishing this goal.

Renewable energy should be encouraged in a reasonable, effective manner. To that end, there are already extensive Federal and State subsidies in place as well as tax credits that I support.

We all support renewables--what we should not support is Federal command and control of the market in the disguise of help for renewables. Would Senator Craig desire to speak on this issue before we vote?

I yield to Senator Craig to manage time, and then when he leaves, he will give that to the Senator from Tennessee.

Yes. This has been cleared with both sides.

I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Cantwell amendment, which will be modified with the changes that are at the desk, which we have seen. I further ask that following that vote, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Bingaman amendment; provided further, that no second-degree amendments be in order to either amendment prior to the votes; and finally, prior to the vote on the Cantwell amendment, there be 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form.

Before the Chair rules, I note that there is no provision for wrap-up debate on the Bingaman amendment.

I ask that that be added to the unanimous consent agreement.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Parliamentary inquiry: What is the regular order?

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Are we, under regular order, scheduled to move on to another amendment?

Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator from Georgia would like to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from New Mexico. For that purpose, I yield to the distinguished Senator.

Mr. President, might I respond by saying to the distinguished Senator from Georgia and the distinguished Senator from Oregon that I would be delighted to work with them and, obviously, with other members of the conference in an effort to do what I can to ensure that each State is treated fairly and that none are penalized by an overly rigid mandate.

I am fully aware of the disparity between States, and I say to the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Oregon that their States were on the map showing they are the have-not States in terms of wind. They have a lot of other items with which they can meet a standard. Renewable is going to be the test here, and it is going to be difficult.

The Senate has spoken--close vote. We will do what we can in conference. The Senator understands there is no such provision in the House bill. We will do our best to see what we can do to recognize the Senator's position and yet recognize the closeness of the vote and the very severe repercussions on some States.

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

has been agreed to by anyone who has any interest.

Mr. President, I would like to speak to the pending amendment, the Cantwell amendment, if it is appropriate, unless the chairman has some other business he wants to raise at this point?

Maybe I could make an alternative suggestion to the chairman. I will speak until I receive a signal from him that he wants to speak for any reason.

It will then be a very short speech, I am sure.

I hate to live under that standard, but I will proceed nevertheless, at my peril, to discuss this bill.

This 800-page bill is our energy bill. We have been working on it for years. No one has worked harder than the Senator from New Mexico. This Republican Senator has joined with the Democratic Senator from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, and they have produced a bill which in many respects is a good bill. If this bill were presented to me today to vote on, I would vote for it because I think there are so many positives here. It not only is good in itself, it is certainly good in comparison to what the House has produced. The House of Representatives has produced a grab bag of incentives and benefits to energy producers that doesn't get to the heart of the question: What is the best energy policy for America, for our children and grandchildren? What is the long-term view of America, when it comes to energy?

Senator Dorgan of North Dakota asked a question of the administration when they came to testify on this bill. He said, You look forward 30 or 40 years on Social Security and say we have to be prepared. What are you prepared to say will be our energy policy in 30 or 40 years? What should we be aiming for?

The simple answer was they couldn't answer it. They had no long-term energy policy. There is one thing we know will happen, unless we change course from where we are today. Each and every day of every month of every year for at least the next 20 years, we will become more dependent on foreign oil. Today, 58 percent of the oil consumed in the United States comes from overseas. That number has grown dramatically. In 1973, that number was 28 percent. So in 32 years we have more than doubled our dependence on foreign oil. We all need it: to fuel our cars, trucks, businesses--the economy of America. So the obvious question is, Is this something that should concern us? I think it is clear on its face it should.

As we become increasingly dependent on Saudi Arabia, the OPEC cartel, Iraq, Iran, Libya, and so many other countries for our oil sources, frankly, we are surrendering some of our freedom and control of our own future. If we lessen our dependence on their foreign oil, it strengthens our economy. Less money is going overseas to buy oil. More money goes into the United States. There is less dependence on what happens.

Saudi Arabia is a country we ought to take a close look at because we depend on it so much. Saudi Arabia is a royalty. It is a kingdom. It is a government which, on any given day, we are either embracing because they provide us with oil or admonishing because they are doing things as a matter of policy that are inconsistent with American values. How much longer do we want to be joined at the hip with Saudi Arabia? How much longer do we want to wait for these sheiks and princes to decide how much oil they will release from their country and directly impact the cost of gasoline in America?

I think the answer is very clear. The sooner we move toward independence, the more secure America is, the less dependent we are on Saudi Arabia and other countries. The pending amendment by Senator Cantwell of Washington sets a goal for America. I think it is a goal that can be reached by people of good faith on both sides of the aisle who are prepared to accept the challenge.

Here is the challenge: Can we, over the next 20 years, reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 40 percent? It is a challenge. It is not as great a challenge as putting a man on the Moon, but America did that. It may not be as great a challenge as the Manhattan Project, when President Franklin Roosevelt said develop an atomic bomb that will end World War II, but we did that. I am confident, with the creativity and ingenuity of America, we can meet this challenge--40-percent reduction in dependence on foreign oil over the next 20 years. That is the pending amendment.

You would think most Senators would say: Fine, let's accept the challenge. Let America rise to this challenge and meet it. But sadly, if you listen to the debate, primarily from the other side of the aisle, that is not what we hear. We hear, instead: Oh, this is too big a challenge for America. We can't do that. The technology isn't there. We would have to change the cars we are driving. We would have to challenge Detroit and automobile manufacturers to build more fuel- efficient vehicles. They say that is impossible, America cannot meet that challenge, and they oppose the pending amendment.

I would say from my point of view this should be a bipartisan challenge we all accept. There are people who love their SUVs. I understand that. But I think we can say to Detroit, you can, and we know you can, produce a fuel-efficient vehicle that is safe and meets the needs of America, our families and our businesses. But to continue to build cars larger and heavier, that get fewer and fewer miles per gallon, is to increase our dependence on oil, particularly foreign oil, and our addiction to this source of energy. I think we can do better. I think the amendment offered by Senator Cantwell of Washington does establish that challenge for us.

I personally believe we should do something about the fuel efficiency of the vehicles we drive. Do you know it has been 20 years since we held Detroit responsible for reducing the amount of fuel that you consume to travel a mile in America? For 20 years we have stepped out of the picture, and what has happened in the meantime? The fuel efficiency of vehicles in America has gone down, down, down. People drive these Hummers. Have you ever seen them? I personally think if you want to drive a Hummer, you ought to join the Army. People want them and get 5 or 6 miles a gallon and Detroit keeps churning out these big, heavy cars.

From my point of view, we ought to step back as a nation and say, isn't it worth something for us to have more fuel-efficient vehicles so we don't get drawn into foreign conflicts over oil? It is more important to me to drive a sensible car and to spare someone's son or daughter from serving in the military in the Middle East in a war. That is not a great sacrifice on my part. And it is certainly a great reward, when we have fewer and fewer times when we are entangled in this Middle East problem that continues today over our sources of oil.

I happen to believe this is a good bill. It can be improved and the Cantwell amendment improves it. There is one provision, only one in 800 pages, which talks about better fuel efficiency in America--or at least reduces our dependence. Let me be more specific: reducing our dependence on foreign oil. There was a provision that was passed by the Senate the last time we debated this bill, 99 to 1. It was overwhelmingly supported. It said, over the next 10 years we will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 1 million barrels a day. That is a good step in the right direction. The Cantwell amendment takes us a little further and I think is better overall, but I support what is in the bill. Do you know, 2 days ago President Bush and his White House sent us their evaluation of this bill and said if that provision is included in the bill, the President will veto it.

The President will veto it if we embark on a policy of reducing our dependence on oil by 1 million barrels a day over the next 10 years? What are they thinking? How can we be any safer as a nation more dependent on foreign oil? Should not we be accepting this challenge? Why is the Bush White House walking away from it?

Senator Domenici, myself, virtually every other Senator, agreed to put this provision in the bill last time. I think it is a good provision this time. Yet the Bush White House is opposed to it.

There is only a certain amount of oil we can drill for around America and around the areas we control to meet our needs. The total world oil supply in the control of the United States is about 3 percent. Yet we use 25 percent of the oil that is consumed each day. If we are going to be realistic, we have to understand we need more efficient vehicles, more use of alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel, and we need to be looking for ways to reduce the waste of fuel, such as the one included in this bill, and I commend the Senator from New Mexico on this. The provision in your bill which relates to the idling of diesel trucks is a great provision. All of these are sensible moves in the right direction. If they are, why isn't this administration supporting it? Why don't we have a good, strong bipartisan vote not only for that provision but for the Cantwell provision, as well?

Let us accept the challenge. Let us not view that as a negative alternative that America just cannot do it. We can. We have proven it in the past. We can come together and pass this bill on a bipartisan basis.

I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I am greatly rewarded by his patience in allowing me to speak a full 10 or 15 minutes without boiling his bile or whatever might have occurred.

I yield the floor and hope we are moving toward a vote.

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

Mr. President, I am sure many people have been following closely the debate on the Energy bill, an 800-page bill that is trying to set the energy policy for America. It is an important piece of legislation we have debated for several years. It has so many different sections involved in all the aspects of energy. It has as its goal making certain that America has enough energy to fuel its economy, making certain that we use that energy in a responsible fashion so it does not create pollution that would cause environmental harm. These are some of the basic elements of what we are trying to achieve here.

But the pending amendment we have before us comes to a basic conclusion that I think most Americans agree with. America cannot be a safer and more secure nation in the future if we are more dependent on foreign oil. The more we have to depend on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and other countries to send their oil to us, the less secure we are. The more independent we are in terms of our own energy needs and production, the stronger we are as a nation.

In 1973, we imported 28 percent of the oil we consumed. Today, 32 years later, we are importing 58 percent, more than double. We are that much more dependent on foreign countries to provide us with oil, which means two obvious things. If the OPEC cartel should decide they want to restrict the oil they will produce, prices will go up in the United States. Reduce the supply, and if demand stays the same, the price goes up. It is a basic law of economics. And they have done it. You have seen it at the gas pump.

When the OPEC cartel sits down and tries to figure out ``How can we make the maximum profit?'' they do not shed tears for American families and consumers and businesses. They try to figure out how they can make the maximum profit on the oil they have in the ground. They have the vast majority of the oil resources in the world today.

The second thing we know is that if you want to strike a crushing blow at the American economy, you may consider attacking the United States, but it may be a lot simpler to attack our oil supplies coming into the United States. If, God forbid, they could interrupt those oil supplies coming into the United States, it would really create a dangerous situation.

So the more dependent we are on that foreign oil, the less secure we are when it comes to the price of energy and the availability of energy. You would think that one of the things we would try to do as part of a national energy policy is to think ahead 10 years, 20 years, ``How can we reduce our dependence on foreign oil?'' since most people agree that would be a good thing.

Well, there is one provision in the bill which suggests that over the next 10 years we would reduce our demand for foreign oil by 1 million barrels a day.

That is about 6 or 7 percent of the total amount that is being consumed each day in the United States, but it is a step forward over the next 10 years. It is something the Senate agreed on 99 to 1. So over 10 years we will think of strategies which will reduce our dependence on foreign oil at least a million barrels a day. That is in the bill. It is a good provision.

Two days ago, President Bush sent a letter to us and said: You keep that provision in the bill, and I will veto the bill. Stop and think: Why? Why wouldn't the President want us to move as a national goal to reducing our dependence on foreign oil? It makes no sense. It is a tax on our economy. It is a question of national security. But, in fact, that is what the White House said. If you put a provision in here to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 1 million barrels a day over the next 10 years, I will veto the bill.

I don't understand. In fact, I think the President has it exactly wrong. We should be even more ambitious and more innovative in our view toward this challenge.

Senator Cantwell has an amendment now pending that will be voted on soon. Her amendment says: Keep to that goal over the next 10 years, but over 20 years, let us reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 40 percent of what we anticipate. So what does it mean? Fifty-eight percent of the oil we use is imported. If we do nothing, in 20 years, it will be 68 percent. More than two-thirds of the oil we use will come from overseas. If we adopt the Cantwell amendment, it will go down to 56 percent of the oil we use in 20 years being imported. It is still a lot. But keep in mind, the economy is going to grow. Energy needs are going to grow. We are going to find ways to work together to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

I would think most families and people who think about our environment and think about our economy would applaud the idea of setting this as a national goal, a challenge to the President, to Congress, and to the American people: Find ways to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It will make us stronger as a nation. It will make our economy stronger. Instead of sending billions of dollars overseas to the Saudi oil princes, the money comes into the United States for investment in our own economy, building businesses, helping people prosper and create jobs.

Sadly, there is resistance to this amendment, the idea of setting this goal. There are those who say: Don't set any goals. Leave it alone. Don't touch it.

How could you possibly draw that conclusion from the current situation?

Left untouched, we will continue to be dependent on foreign oil and our economy will suffer.

How do you reach a goal of reducing dependence on foreign oil by 40 percent over the next 20 years? There is a variety of ways. There are ways within this bill to do it--some large, some small. Some have to do with the most basic thing, the tires on our automobiles. Replacement tires give more fuel efficiency and reduce the oil consumption and the gasoline consumption. Idling trucks--have you ever gone by a truckstop? They are all over my State of Illinois. There are lines and lines of these tractors with trailers behind them with the engines running constantly, around the clock, idling engines burning up oil just to keep that engine alive and ready to perform when the driver comes out and is ready to go. There is a provision in this bill that talks about smarter ways to do that. Is there a way to use an electric engine to keep that tractor in a position where it can go into service and not be burning all this fuel while the driver is in eating dinner, for example?

These are simple things which, when added up over the course of our economy, lead to dramatic improvements. There are many ways to address this. They come down to three basic things we can do. First is conservation. I just gave you two examples of conservation, the ways to reduce the use of energy and still get as much performance as we want from the vehicles we use and the vehicles we drive. The second is alternative fuels. What can we use instead of the oil that now is being imported, 58 percent of it from overseas? This bill talks about it. It talks about ethanol. What is ethanol? An alcohol fuel is made from things such as corn and cellulose that can, in fact, create more independence in our economy.

Senator Cantwell tells the story that the nation of Brazil, 10 or 20 years ago, imported 80 percent of its oil and said as a nation: We can't continue to prosper if we are so dependent on imported oil. They set out on a national goal of reducing dependence on foreign oil. They are now down to 11 percent. They have done it. They are choosing alcohol fuels. That is included in this bill, the concept of alcohol fuels. It can be done. So alternative fuels--ethanol, biodiesel--are practical alternatives to importing more oil.

The third, of course, is to find environmentally responsible ways for more exploration. There is a limit to where that will take us. The United States owns about 3 percent of the known oil resources in the world. We consume 25 percent of the oil that is consumed each day. So even if we were able in an environmentally responsible way to take every drop of oil out of the ground, you could see it is not going to sustain our economy. We are going to be dependent on foreign sources.

Despite this challenge and despite the obvious ways to meet it in this bill, there are some who have come to the floor--on the other side of the aisle, particularly--and have argued against setting this goal of lessening our overdependence on foreign oil. One of the arguments they make is: If you do this, you are going to have to have more fuel- efficient cars and trucks, as if that is something that should be avoided in America. Why would we avoid that?

Take a look at Ford Motor Company. They had a huge advertising drive to tell us about their new Ford Escape hybrid. They had so many requests to buy that car, they couldn't make it fast enough. I think Ford produced about 20,000. There were some 50,000 people who wanted to buy it. They liked the idea, a small SUV that has an electric engine as part of it that is going to get better gas mileage. Ford was moving in the right direction. I know about this because my wife and I decided to buy one. We like it. I wish it got better mileage than it does, but we didn't make any great sacrifice in our way of life. We maybe spent a couple extra thousand dollars to buy it. Yet we have a more environmentally responsible, energy-responsible vehicle.

The other side of the aisle argues we shouldn't even suggest to American consumers to change their buying habits. I will bet if Detroit or any other company started producing more and more energy-efficient vehicles, more and more Americans would be interested, not only because it reduces the cost at the gas station, but because it is good for the environment. Why wouldn't you want to do that? Why would you want to knowingly drive something that is more polluting and uses more energy or more gasoline?

The American consumers would, in fact, gravitate toward those automobiles as they did toward the Ford Escape hybrid. They like the idea. It is a good concept. The other side says: You don't want to tell people they can't buy whatever they want to buy. If they want to buy the heaviest, least fuel-efficient SUVs, you can't stand in their way. I suppose that is true, but we will pay a price for it. By buying and driving inefficient vehicles over and over, it not only costs more at the pump and makes our country more dependent, it draws us into the Middle Eastern problems. Witness 150,000 American soldiers now risking their lives today in that part of the world.

Moving toward more efficient vehicles is a good thing economically. It is certainly a good thing from a security viewpoint. It is a good thing in terms of our future as a nation.

I believe we are up to the challenge. Most of the critics of the Cantwell amendment say it just can't be done. Don't challenge America. America can't rise to the challenge. We can't possibly in 20 years figure out a way to do this. Those naysayers have no place in the American tradition. We have risen to the challenge time and again. When President Franklin Roosevelt needed an atomic bomb to end World War II, he created the Manhattan project and got the job done. When John Kennedy came to the Presidency in 1960, he said: We will put a man on the Moon. And in 9 years, it happened. He challenged America, and we rose to the challenge. We can rise to the challenge, and we must. Otherwise, we will continue to be dependent on foreign sources of oil.

When I consider some of the challenges we face, I look at the loss of jobs. It troubles me. In the State of Illinois, 400,000 or 500,000 manufacturing jobs in the last several years have been lost. I don't know if these jobs are ever coming back. I have been to Galesburg and places around our State where good-paying jobs have disappeared. A lot of them have gone to China. China has one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

We just had a little presentation in the other room. The CEO of General Electric Energy was there. He said China is in a position to dominate the world energy scene over the next 10 years, that in 10 years China will have 30 percent of the electric generating capacity in the world. China's economy is no longer a closed, backward, Communist economy. It is an exploding, expanding economy that is taking jobs away from the United States.

There are two things we ought to think about: The Chinese have fuel efficiency standards for their vehicles higher than the United States.

They know they don't have the energy in their own country. They are trying to find the most fuel-efficient vehicles to move their economy forward and they are thinking about the future. Are we? Is the United States thinking about the future and the cost of fuel inefficiency, or the cost of dependence upon foreign oil?

The second point is this. If we are in a position of competing with China for foreign oil, since they have to import it, too, what happens when there is more competition for a limited supply? The price goes up. So $50 a barrel oil today may be $100 a barrel 5 or 10 years from now. Look at what $50 a barrel oil has meant to you and your family and our economy. Filled up lately? Taken a look at what it costs? It has gone up dramatically in a short period of time to fill your car or truck. Talk about the airlines and their future lately? The cost of aviation fuel has gone up so dramatically that a lot of airlines are in bankruptcy, or facing it. That is at $50 a barrel. What happens when we reach $100 a barrel? What will it mean to the future of these same companies?

If we don't take a serious look at our energy future, sadly, we are going to leave ourselves vulnerable to competition from China, with higher costs for the basics to keep moving. Senator Cantwell's amendment is a challenge, but one we should accept. As this President ends his term in office, another President of his party or another party will come in and see the same national goal: Reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It will call for work and

dedication. We have risen to that challenge time and time again. There is no reason we cannot rise to it today.

I impress upon my colleagues the absolute necessity to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. This is not an issue of whether we can, this is something we must do. It is imperative we impress upon America that setting a national goal of reducing our dependence upon foreign oil is a national priority and in the best interests of the American people. I believe when we send a signal we are serious about changing the future and the track we are on, people will join us in that effort. The best and brightest minds in our country will rise to the challenge.

When we go back to our States and constituents and they ask what we have done in Washington to address the growing threat to our oil supply posed by the emerging markets in China and India, and the high gasoline prices, we can take pride in the fact that the Cantwell amendment says we are charting a new course for our Nation's future. Opponents have argued we cannot do it, we don't have the smarts or the technology; they wring their hands and curse the darkness and say, ``This is the way it is always going to be. We will be just more dependent upon foreign oil, so be prepared for it.''

I disagree. There is technology available today, let alone advancements that may come over the next 20 years, that can move us forward on this goal. We, as leaders in this country, must signal that we won't let the future of America fall into the hands of foreign governments that own the oil supply of this world. Many of these governments are politically unstable and they don't promote the same values we do in the United States. The uncertainty of that alliance for our future oil should be enough to give us pause.

Security experts, economists, foreign policy experts, and scientists recognize that the terrorist organizations want to target the United States, that they can target the supply of our energy and threaten our economy. This is an amendment about national security, economic security, and the belief that America, with the right leadership and vision, will rise to the challenge, as we have so often done in the past.

We can use American ingenuity, innovation, and genius to reduce the growing stranglehold the foreign governments that are supplying oil to the United States have on America's future. I encourage colleagues on both sides to embrace this challenge. Don't run from it, don't be afraid of it. It is about the future of our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico. While both Senators from New Mexico are in the Chamber, all of us appreciate the way they have brought this extremely important bill together. We know there are a handful of tough issues about which we disagree. Through their leadership, we have a consensus on what is well on its way to being an American Clean Energy Act for 2005, something that will dramatically transform the way we conserve energy, produce energy, and will help us keep our jobs and be more competitive in the world marketplace. That is our goal.

I also believe it will lower natural gas prices. And I thank the chairman and ranking member for their contributions.

At the end of our committee markup, during which the vote was 21 to 1, there were compliments thrown all around. Senator Bingaman said he couldn't remember a party-line vote in all the votes that we had, that we were voting based upon our own individual views and our regional differences. Senator Cantwell said it was not only a clean energy bill, but it was a clean process. But that doesn't mean that when we disagree, we shouldn't disagree. And we have differences of opinion. That is what the Senate is for.

While I respect the other side for what is a high-sounding idea, the idea of a renewable portfolio standard, I believe there is a better way to spend these billions of dollars than the way

suggested by Senator Bingaman, if our real goal is to create an adequate supply of low-cost, reliable American-produced energy.

It is always important to start from the proposition that this is a big country and a massive economy. We use 25 percent of all the energy in the world, and we spend about $2,500 a year per person to produce that. So when we put up a windmill that only blows 20 or 30 or 40 percent of the time, it doesn't matter much in terms of what we do. When we build a new nuclear power plant, which we haven't done since the 1970s, it matters a lot. A windmill would be one of 6,700, but that power plant would be only 1 of 1,300 or 1,400 power plants we have in the country. So it takes quite a bit to affect our energy policy.

There are three reasons I hope my colleagues will vote against the renewable portfolio standard. The first reason is that it is an $18 billion tax. It is a new $18 billion rate increase on the electric ratepayers of America. The second reason is it is an increase in subsidy for a number of people, especially wind developers who already include a huge subsidy of a couple billion dollars over the next 5 years, which the Finance Committee has recommended we increase to $3.3 billion over the next 5 years just for giant windmills. Three, if not technically, it is at least in the spirit of an unfunded Federal mandate, the kind of thing that a lot of us were elected to stop, the idea of coming up with a big idea here in Washington and imposing it on the rest of the country and then sending them the bill.

I was thinking about this: We are all going to be going home in a couple of weeks, having debated the Energy bill and hopefully having passed it, feeling good about it. Our constituents are going to ask: What did you do about high gasoline prices? What did you do about high natural gas prices? What did you do about the possibility of blackouts so my computer wouldn't work and so I wouldn't be safe in my home? What did you do about the fact that China and India and other parts of the world are buying up oil reserves and growing their economies and creating constant pressure on the price of oil? What did you do about that, Senator, while you were in Washington over the last couple of weeks?

I wonder if what we really want to say to our friends who elected us when we go back to Tennessee or Nevada or New Mexico is:

I raised your taxes $18 billion. I put a new $18 billion charge on your electric bill. That is the first thing I did. The second thing I did was I gave an increased subsidy to people who were already getting a lot of money. Windmill developers are making $2 billion over the next 5 years just to put up these giant windmills. We gave them another subsidy on top of that. And then the third thing I did was, since we all get smarter when we go to Washington on the airplanes, we decided that despite the fact that 17 or 18 States are already defining renewable energy sources in their own ways and already trying to meet them and already giving them incentives, we decided we would decide that better. We would decide that from Washington, DC.

While I am not sure about this, at least in earlier versions of the proposal, in a number of cases the credit you got for what you were doing according to your State renewable portfolio standard doesn't count towards your national renewable portfolio standard.

I don't think I want to go home and say to the people of Tennessee that what I did about the growth of China and India and the threat to their jobs and what I did about high gasoline prices and natural gas prices, what I did about blackouts was to add $18 billion to their electric rates, to give a big subsidy to windmill developers, and to put an unfunded mandate on top of what States ought to be doing for themselves.

There are better ways, if our goal is to produce low-carbon or carbon-free electricity, which is what this debate is really all about. This debate is motivated by those who feel most strongly about global warming and about low-carbon and carbon-free electricity. There is a better way to do that, particularly if we have $18 billion. I want to talk about that a little more as we go along.

The Senator from New Mexico, as he always does, gave a very careful and well-reasoned explanation of his points of view. His proposal is a little different from his proposal made in 2003. I want to go through why I said what I said and make sure my point of view is understood.

Let me begin with the idea of the $18 billion. I didn't just pull that out of the air. This is a letter from the Department of Energy in Washington dated June 15, 2005, to Senator Bingaman. He quoted some of it. It talks about a number of things. It does talk about some places where in the whole economy there might be some reductions in expenditures as a result of the RPS based on their monitoring. But it also says the following:

From 2005 to 2025, the RPS has a cumulative total cost to

the electric power sector of about $18 billion. . . . This

cost includes $700 million in payments to the Government for

compliance credits once the price cap is reached and $10.7

billion in payments to owners of customer-sited photovoltaics

that are eligible for triple credits.

In other words, we are going to spend $11 billion in payments for solar power.

Let me start by talking about what we mean when we say renewable energy. Some people get confused about ethanol, renewable fuel, and renewable energy. We are not talking about ethanol. We are only talking about renewable energy, making electricity. There are only a handful of ways to do that that make much difference. Senator Bingaman has defined those very narrowly. Wind is one, giant windmills. Geothermal is another. That is hot water coming out of the ground to heat your home. Hydropower is one, but we exclude hydropower except for very limited new hydropower in this bill. Solar is another, using the sun. And biomass, putting grass and/or other things into coal plants and burning them is yet another.

Today, all of those renewable fuels produce a little over 2 percent of the electricity. Since the 1970s and 1980s, we tried very hard to encourage more. I can remember President Carter 20 years ago setting a goal of 20 percent of solar energy. In 1992, the wind developers said: We can make wind electricity out of wind, just give us a little bit of money to help get started, and then we will be off on our own. That was 1992.

Billions and billions of dollars later, wind is still not very much because that is not the best way to produce carbon-free electricity for an economy of this size, to compound the problem by putting new taxes and new subsidies on the American people at a time when we are supposed to be talking about lower prices. I haven't heard anybody say: I want higher natural gas prices. I want to pay a higher electric bill.

We are talking about higher prices, 18 billion new dollars on your electric rates. And for what? To build tens of thousands of windmills and to spend nearly $11 billion producing what will end up being one- fifth of 1 percent of all of the electricity that we will produce. That would be the solar electricity.

I am all for solar power. I have an amendment for solar power with Senator Johnson that we introduced as part of the Natural Gas Price Reduction Act. It would spend $380 million over the next 5 years for businesses and homeowners who want to use solar power. It would help that industry get started and see if it could go on its own without huge higher costs. But this is nearly $11 billion for solar power to produce one-fifth of 1 percent of all the electricity in the United States.

After solar, tens of thousands of these windmills is the other major expenditure along with biomass. So what we are talking about to begin with is wind and biomass and solar and landfill gas and geothermal, and trying to take that from 2 percent up to 10 percent. To do that, we are going to put an $18 billion tax increase on.

Now, let's go to the second objection I have. That is the size of the subsidy and the people to whom the subsidy is going. I have been doing a little investigating. It is hard to get these numbers down, to try to see how much money we are spending for this kind of fuel, so I could see if we could better spend it some other way. I have noticed that we are spending about 1 percent of our--we have something called the renewable electricity production tax credit. So far, it has been really a tax credit for windmills because solar

hasn't had the chance to take advantage of it. It pays you 1.8 cents for every kilowatt hour of wind power that you produce.

Now, wind has become--according to many of the utilities who buy and sell wind power--a fairly competitive product where the wind blows. Of course, where it doesn't blow, no amount of subsidy will help it. So we have already committed $2 billion in our Tax Code over the next 5 years to subsidize wind producers. And the Finance Committee, yesterday, said they want to add a billion to that. The Finance Committee also said they not only want to subsidize the production of the kilowatt hours of power, they want to loan money so developers can build these giant windmills.

Some people may think I am talking about your grandmother's windmill out by the well somewhere pumping the water.

I will have to make one correction in trying to describe these. I have said only one will fit into the second largest football stadium in America in Tennessee. The Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, reminded me that Penn State is larger than the University of Tennessee, and I stand corrected on that. But even at Penn State, and even at the University of Michigan, which is the largest, or the University of Tennessee, which is third largest, just one of these windmills will fit in the stadium. The rotor blades extend from the 10-yard line to the 10-yard line, and it rises twice as high as the skyboxes, and you can see the red lights from 20 miles away on a clear night. These usually come in groups of 10, 20, or 30 windmills.

This proposal would have the effect of increasing the number of these gigantic windmills from about 6,700, which we have in America today, to 45,000. That is the estimate of the Energy Information Administration. Each of these produces about 1 megawatt of power--or to be accurate, is rated to produce about 1 megawatt of power. The wind only blows 20 to 40 percent of the time, so it only produces about a third of a megawatt of power. Also, you have to take into account the fact that since these often are built in remote places or on top of scenic ridges, then you would build large transmission lines through backyards to carry the electricity to places. And you have to take into account the fact that you cannot close down your coal plant and nuclear plant and your natural gas plant when you put up windmills because people don't want to shut off their computers, stop working, or turn off their lights. They have to have their electricity all of the time, and you don't store power from wind in these amounts to use later.

So the idea that the United States of America would look to the future to keep its jobs and competition with Japan, with China, and with India--our country that uses 25 percent of all the energy in the world--by taxing its ratepayers $18 billion to build tens of thousands of windmills and, as good as solar power is, to spend $11 billion on solar power, which will produce one-fifth of 1 percent of all of the electricity we need in this country--I don't believe, respectfully, it is the best way to spend our money.

The third point is this about the States, and the Senator from New Mexico mentioned about what the States are doing. Someone said, ``Senator Alexander hasn't gotten over being Governor.'' Maybe, in a way, I hope I never do because I don't think you automatically get smarter when you fly to Washington, DC. I know the Presiding Officer goes home almost every weekend. You gain a lot of wisdom while you are at home, and not here. To the extent that it is a good idea for electric utilities to begin to use a variety of different renewable sources, I submit that they are already doing it. They are working hard on it. The Governor of California made a major address the other day about the use of solar power in California.

There are 19 States, plus the District of Columbia, that have some form of RPS today. They have all sorts of different approaches to this. Iowa met its standard in 1999. Connecticut increased its standard in 2003. Texas has a well-regarded standard.

They use different definitions of renewable sources of energy. Maine defines renewable to include pulp and paper waste and black liquor. Pennsylvania has a clean energy portfolio standard that includes waste coal. Connecticut includes fuel cells. The Western Governors Association includes clean coal.

I have a number of examples of how, under Senator Bingaman's 2003 proposal, which I have studied since his new proposal came just today, which I have not studied as closely, but there were a number of cases where the credits at the local utilities would be received under their State plans, but they would not be allowed under the Federal plan. So we would be saying in Washington, DC, we see that in 19 States you have this idea of more renewable energy, but we are going to do that ourselves. We are going to preempt the field, we are going to set the rules, we are going to define it, and we are going to spend $18 billion our way instead of your way. I think that is unwise, Mr. President.

So the three arguments that I make against the Senator's amendment are these:

One, it is an $18 billion new tax on ratepayers to build tens of thousands of windmills and to spend $11 billion on solar power, which would produce one-fifth of 1 percent of all of the electricity we need by 2025. That is not the wisest use of money, and I don't think that is what we want to say to our constituents when we go home.

Second, it adds an unneeded subsidy, especially to wind developers, who we are giving $2 billion already over the next 5 years to build these gigantic windmills, which mars the landscape and only work 20 or 40 percent of the time. The only reason they are being built is because of these huge subsidized incentives.

I predict that if legislation like this passes and we go from 6,700 to 45,000 of these big windmills, you are going to have an uprising in every State of people who don't want to see them and wonder why we are taking $18 billion away from their electric bills and subsidizing things like this.

Third, I trust the States. Nineteen of the States have an RPS, plus the District of Columbia. These are the green ones on the chart, where you see more capacity for renewable fuel. If you put a 10-percent standard on Louisiana or Arkansas or Florida or Tennessee or Virginia, and we cannot meet that standard, what do we do? Our utility just writes a check to the Government under the RPS. It is a new tax, it is a new rate increase, and that is not the kind of thing we ought to be doing.

What should we be doing? Let me go back to my first chart, and then I will conclude my remarks. I like the direction of our bill as it is. You see, I think what our bill, as written, does--and it hasn't been widely noted, and the Senator mentioned this a while ago--it would transform the way we produce electricity in the United States. If we really want carbon-free air, if we want to meet the Kyoto standards, stop the global warming that people are concerned about, you are not going to do it by building tens of thousands of windmills and spending $11 billion on solar panels.

Here is how you will do it: conservation and efficiency. The Domenici-Bingaman bill that is here already would save us from building 45 500-megawatt gas plants just because of appliance standards. The hybrid car incentives coming from the Finance Committee will encourage the buying of 300,000 hybrid cars, resulting in more efficiency, less carbon in the air, and encouraging our auto industry to transform, as many of us hope they will do. If we do that, we should spend another $750 million, not on windmills, but on giving tax incentives to auto plants in the United States that retool to be able to produce hybrid cars. If we give incentives to buy those cars, we want them to be built in Tennessee, Michigan, or elsewhere in this country, not in Yokohama. If we spend a new $750 million for that purpose, which is a recommendation of the National Commission on Energy Policy, it will help to create 39,000 new automobile jobs in the United States.

Senator Feinstein and Senator Snowe have a proposal for energy- efficient appliances and buildings. The cost, over 5 years, is $2 billion. Some of that is in the legislation. But more could be spent on it to great effect. Coal gasification powerplants. We have talked about nuclear, so I will go to nuclear; $2 billion for deployment of

advanced nuclear power plants. Mr. President, if we want carbon-free air, we know how to get it. We get it from nuclear power. Twenty percent of all of our electricity in this massive economy of ours that uses 25 percent of the energy in the world is from nuclear power today.

So why would we subsidize windmills and solar panels instead of spending $2 billion on advanced nuclear power plants? France does it. They are 80 percent nuclear. Japan has one new nuclear plant a year. We have not started one since the 1970s, although we have dozens of Navy ships docking at our ports around the country with nuclear reactors that have never had a problem. So $2 billion for advanced deployment of nuclear power.

Right behind that, waiting in line--and I know both Senators from New Mexico agree with this--is coal gasification in powerplants, along with carbon recapture and sequestration technologies. If this could work, this would back up nuclear power and produce the large amounts of low- carbon or carbon-free energy that not only we need in the United States but that the world needs. If we do it here, they will do it there. If we don't do it, they will not, and they will produce so much pollution and junk in the air that it won't matter what we do because the air will blow around on top of us.

I mentioned solar energy development. I think there should be a substantial increase for solar energy development. The production tax credit, since 1992, has done nothing for solar power. It virtually all goes to wind. But an appropriate amount of money would be, over 5 years, $380 million. That is even more than the Finance Committee recommended. Under the RPS, we are talking about $11 billion collected from increased rates and spent to produce one-fifth of 1 percent of the electricity we need in 2025.

Mr. President, I want low-carbon air. I want to transform the way we produce electricity. But I also want lower electric rates. The Tennessee Valley Authority just raised our rates 7 percent. That is a high rate increase. That means there are some manufacturing plants in Tennessee that are going to think twice about whether the jobs stay here or the jobs go somewhere else. If we start putting new taxes and new rate increases on homeowners and manufacturing plants in Tennessee and around this country in order to build tens of thousands of windmills and this extent of solar power, we will not be taking the wisest course.

I suggest we support the bill as it is written, and to the extent we have dollars, let's spend it on hybrid vehicles, auto jobs, energy efficiency, coal gasification, modest, reasonable solar energy, carbon recapture research, advanced nuclear, and cogeneration projects.

I yield the floor.

Yes, that is correct.

That is my understanding.

That is true. In the case of wind power, it was suggested to the Senators in the early nineties, give us a wind power production credit for a few years and then it goes away. If it goes away and it costs more, the ratepayers will end up paying for that higher cost power.

Mr. President, I am tempted to ask why we should have to raise electric rates in Tennessee to build windmills in North Dakota, even as much as they like them. I would prefer to send every single one of these gigantic public nuisances to North Dakota if they want them. What I object to is raising our electric rates to build them. That is what we are doing. I want to go back over carefully what Senator Bingaman said earlier about the letter, describing his proposal.

The one thing we can be sure about, regarding the Bingaman proposal, is it is a multibillion dollar increase in electric rates on the bills of most Americans. Surely in Tennessee it will be, because here we are, referring to this map. Senator Domenici pointed out the white area on the map. The prior Presiding Officer is from South Carolina and the present Presiding Officer is from Florida. They find themselves here in the white area. There is no wind down there. Now, it is true that under the Bingaman amendment, they might try to make enough electricity from solar or from geothermal or from biomass. But what the letter says is two things. The letter from the Energy Department describing the proposal of the Senator from New Mexico says it will cost an $18 billion increase in electric rates between now and 2025 in order to start making our electricity out of this limited number of ways that we call renewable energy, instead of the way we normally would do it. And if we are not able to do it--if in Tennessee, Florida, or South Carolina we cannot meet the 10 percent with big windmills or solar or biomass or landfill gas or geothermal, then we write a check to the Government. So we pay a tax or we raise our rates or we do both.

Now, the Senator from New Mexico did correctly go back to the letter of June 15 and point out I had said that the letter from the Department of Energy says that, over 20 years, the cumulative total cost of the electric power sector is about $18 billion for this amendment.

We have been having a big argument down here about the Clean Air Act, whether to take the President's version or, say, the Carper version, which I cosponsored. According to the Environmental Protection Agency analysis, the difference is a $5 billion effect on the economy, and everybody was shooting off rockets about that. This is $18 billion.

But the Senator from New Mexico said keep reading the letter. It says:

. . . cumulative expenditures for natural gas and

electricity by all end-use sectors taken together decrease by

$22 billion.

That would look like the net increase was almost nothing.

The problem with that is that assumes the price of natural gas is $5. That also looks at the year 2020. If you go out to 2025 with no RPS, according to the Energy Information Administration, the cost of natural gas is $4.79 and the cost with RPS is $4.79.

What I am saying is, I do not believe we can count on a reduction in the price of natural gas to $5 to offset this $18 billion increase in our electric rates that this amendment will produce.

The Senator from New Mexico is perfectly entitled to say: If you do not believe their estimates about natural gas, why do you believe their estimates about the increase in the cost of electricity? And he would have a point. But I think the one thing we can be sure of about the new mandate of the Senator from New Mexico is that it is a multibillion- dollar rate increase of some number.

We do know in the area where the Senator from Florida lives and where

Mr. President, when I go home on the Fourth of July and my constituents ask what I did about high natural gas prices, high gasoline prices, about our competition with China and Japan and India to keep our jobs, I am going to tell them I voted no on the Bingaman amendment to order utilities to make 10 percent of their energy from a limited number of renewable fuels, because it is an $18 billion electric rate increase over 20 years. At a time of high natural gas prices, high gasoline prices, the last thing we should do is an $18 billion electric rate increase over 20 years.

The distinguished Senator from New Mexico will tell us that it will be offset by natural gas reductions, but that is only if there is a $5 natural gas rate in 2025. One thing we know is, it is a big electric rate increase when we should be reducing prices.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and I call up amendment No. 784 and send a modification to the desk.

Mr. President, I know the Senator from Michigan has

given a great deal of thought to this issue and to the modified amendment, and I yield the floor to him.

This amendment is technology-neutral. It simply lays out a vision that the United States should attempt to achieve over the course of the next 20 years. The only assumption underlying this amendment is that the United States has the ingenuity and innovative spirit to reverse the rising trend of American dependence on foreign oil imports. Today, foreign oil constitutes approximately 58 percent of our domestic supply, a figure that is projected to reach 68 percent by 2025. Because of the nature of world oil markets and the geologic fact that two-thirds of global reserves are located in the Middle East, the United States is on track to become increasingly dependent on OPEC to fuel our economy; and will be competing with developing nations such as China for access to these oil supplies. Because of the economic and national security implications of foreign oil dependence, this amendment simply states that it is in the national interest of the United States to attempt to curb our appetite for imported oil. The underlying bill provides a number of tools to help this country achieve the goal established by my amendment, and there are many potential pathways to its attainment. However, none of them are specifically assumed by the Cantwell amendment.

This amendment neither assumes nor proposes an increase in CAFE standards. In fact, some have erroneously concluded that increasing CAFE standards is the only means of achieving the goal established by the Cantwell amendment. Multiple analyses by national security-related organizations and others have concluded that increasing CAFE standards is not necessary to attain savings of 7.6 million barrels of oil a day by 2025. In addition, it is important to note that some have circulated erroneous estimates of CAFE standard increases necessary to achieve the goal in the Cantwell amendment, attributed to the Energy Information Administration, EIA. The staff of the EIA has said that these flawed estimates have no grounds in analyses performed by the EIA.

Because the amendment is technology-neutral and simply lays out a vision, accelerated ethanol production and use is not specifically assumed. However, there is no question that biofuels can play an important role in achieving the goal established by the Cantwell amendment, by displacing imported petroleum-based products with domestic fuel derived from plant matter. In fact, it has been estimated that increased domestic biofuels production can contribute more than half of the oil savings goal established by the Cantwell amendment. It is also worth noting that the underlying bill contains important provisions that will help accelerate the production of ethanol and other alternative fuels, including provisions I authored that would provide incentives, research, development and demonstration of processes to produce ethanol from cellulosic sources. While not specifically prescribed by the Cantwell energy security amendment, these measures would assist substantially in achieving the amendment's goal.

Again, increased use of biodiesel fuels and technology is not specifically assumed by the Cantwell amendment. However, these fuels can also help achieve the amendment's goal. It is worth noting that one of the barriers to achieving cost-effective biodiesel production is increasing the diversity of feedstocks from which biodiesel can be economically produced. The key to unlocking the potential of biodiesel is performing the research, development and demonstration of new technologies that will allow the co-production of biodiesel fuel and value-added bioproducts that lower overall costs. I was proud to add specific provisions to this underlying legislation that authorize an Advanced Biofuels Technology program, designed to accelerate the development of these processes. Again, while one of the potential

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

While advances in diesel engine technology are another potential tool for accelerating oil savings, they are not specifically assumed nor mandated by the Cantwell amendment.

Because the amendment lays out a vision rather than mandating specific measures, increased hybrid use is not specifically assumed. However, some have estimated that growth in the hybrid vehicle market can achieve oil savings of up to 2 million barrels a day by 2015, 10 years before the Cantwell amendment's ultimate goal. Taken together, biofuels production and growth in the market for hybrid vehicles could provide more than two-thirds of the energy security goal established by the Cantwell amendment.

There is no question that hydrogen provides another potential pathway to achieving substantial oil savings in the United States. However, because the technology remains at a relatively early stage in its development, no specific estimates exist for the economic and energy efficiencies this technology may provide. It is not specifically assumed by the Cantwell amendment.

Certainly, tax incentives can help spur the development of markets for advanced technologies, and help expand the choices available to American consumers. But these are not specified or assumed within the Cantwell amendment.

The amendment neither assumes nor proposes regulatory changes to the CAFE system. I view the debate regarding the efficacy of the existing CAFE program as beyond the scope of this amendment, which lays out a national vision for reducing American dependence on foreign oil imports. Certainly any changes to the CAFE system's regulatory regime would require additional legislative action, action that is not assumed in the Cantwell amendment.

Certainly other nations have begun the transition to more wide-spread use of diesel technology, and initiatives or programs in this regard may ultimately be consistent with the Cantwell amendment. But they are neither specifically assumed nor required.

The Cantwell amendment establishes a national goal. As such, it directs the President to design and implement measures designed to help achieve the goal, and assumes that, if the President deems his existing authorities insufficient, he will propose to Congress legislation or recommendations that would help achieve the amendment's energy security target. At that time, it would be up to Congress to consider the merits of the President's proposals, via the typical legislative process.

The amendment assumes that the President has at his disposal adequate authority to develop and implement measures that will help achieve the goal of reducing imports on foreign oil. However, the amendment is technology-neutral and establishes a 20-year vision. As such, it is difficult to predict with any specificity what direction new technologies may take, and whether issues may arise that require additional legislation or Congressional action. For example, if biofuels begin to displace a significantly larger portion of petroleum- based fuels in the United States, certain infrastructure-related barriers may arise that require additional authority or Congressional action. Similarly, there are certain to be issues associated with infrastructure, interoperability and international technology standards associated with the development of hydrogen fuel cells. Because the Cantwell amendment is a call to accelerate the development of alternatives to petroleum-based fuel, yet does not purport to choose technology winners and losers, it is premature to speculate on whether additional authorities or Congressional action may be required. However, it does assume that proposals to expand the range of tools available to the President to achieve the Cantwell amendment's goal would be considered through the normal channels of Congressional debate and approval.

The goal of this amendment is to reduce our foreign oil imports and exposure to the uncertainties of world oil markets. Because of the geologic realities of the way in which oil reserves are distributed across the globe, continued increased demand for oil will result in a growing dependence on imports. While the U.S. is situated on just 3 percent of the world's reserves, the Middle East is home to two-thirds, with a full quarter located in just one country, Saudi Arabia. In order to curb our growing reliance on imports, it is thus necessary to reduce demand for petroleum itself, across all sectors of the economy.

There is nothing in this amendment that precludes the President from requesting additional legal authority to achieve the target for 2015. Certainly, any legislative proposal or recommendations from the President would be considered by Congress, through the typical legislative process. Rather, the provision in (c)(2)(B) is intended to make clear that this amendment, on its face, does not grant the President any broad, new additional authorities not previously contemplated.

Yes.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his fine amendment. I would like to take a minute to state that I am a cosponsor of the Bingaman amendment and very much believe in the renewable portfolio standard for our electricity grid. I guess if you looked at the Northwest, particularly Washington State, you would say we are already using 80 percent renewable energy because 80 percent of our electricity grid is provided by our hydro system. So we, in the Northwest, are very big believers in renewable power.

But we also believe in the other technology that is in the underlying amendment and in the underlying bill that will help us support renewable technologies. We have a lot of wind farms. We have had a lot of discussion out here on the floor this morning about wind energy. We, in Washington State, are already employing wind energy in a variety of locations in our State and getting great response. In some areas, it is some of the best job growth we have had in rural communities. Farmers love it because, aside from providing an agricultural product, they get a second source of revenue from their land by having agriculture and wind technology on their farms. It works very well for our farmers, and the combination of hydro and wind technology works very well for Washington state and the Northwest.

But we also have solar power. We are about to have one of the first demonstrations of wave power. We, in the Northwest, are using all sorts of renewable technology to meet these goals. Certainly, I want to endorse this particular amendment as a great step forward, saying we can do more with renewable technology.

I would like to turn to the Cantwell amendment, on which we are going to have a vote I believe at 2:15, and summarize, for my colleagues who might have missed yesterday's discussion, a few points I think are important as we talk about our reliance on imported oil and the fact we want to diversify.

In the New York Times, there was an article about OPEC and their increases in quotas for various OPEC countries. It is interesting, and every day Americans want to know what is going to happen with oil futures and gas prices. You look to find out what OPEC is doing. This article, I think, brings up the very point we were trying to make yesterday; that is, that China's demand for oil continues to grow. In fact, this article says that global oil consumption climbed 2.4 or 2.5 million barrels a day in 2004, the fastest growth rate since 1978. That is world demand for energy increasing. Basically, that was a result of China's increasing energy consumption. We know what the trends are, and we know what the challenges are that are facing us.

I found it interesting, too, that the New York Times article talked about how OPEC was actually concerned that alternative fuels might affect their future price of product. They are almost telling us, yes, they are a little concerned about competition from alternative fuels.

I welcome that. I think it is about time that America make an investment in alternative fuels and about time we give consumers a choice when it comes to the demand and supply of oil in the future and not continue to be held hostage by foreign governments.

I would like to review for my colleagues what exactly the Cantwell amendment does because it is so important that we understand what the underlying bill does and what our challenges are as a country going forward.

In 1973, we were importing only 28 percent of our demand--our U.S. demand--for oil. We were importing 28 percent of what we used as a country.

Today, 2004, we are at 58 percent, a huge jump, a huge dependency by the United States on a foreign source to provide us an oil supply.

When I look at the countries involved and I look at the instability in the Middle East, I don't want to be 58 percent reliant on foreign sources of oil. I want American ingenuity to be a driver in what we can provide to the American people in driving down the cost of energy.

If we do nothing, in 2025, the United States will be importing 68 percent; nearly 70 percent of our oil supply will come from abroad. Who in their right mind thinks that 70-percent dependence on foreign oil is wise economically, to our national security, or internationally as we have to deal with international competition? Why would

we want to be almost 70-percent reliant on foreign entities for something that is the backbone of our economy--energy?

I am offering a simple amendment. My amendment simply says by 2025, instead of being reliant on foreign sources for 68 percent of our supply, we bring that down to 56 percent. That is not much of a change. We are at 58 percent today, and we want to go down to 56 percent. That is a modest goal.

It is hard to achieve because our amendment assumes the growth and demand that will happen as our Nation grows. That is why we have to assume in 2025 we will be at 68 percent, and we want to see a serious reduction. That is the way my amendment is crafted.

The underlying bill says we are currently at 58 percent and let's reduce our consumption of foreign oil by 1 million barrels a day. One million barrels a day by 2015 still has us importing 60 percent of our supply from foreign sources. In 2015, instead of consuming 58 percent of our oil supply from foreign sources, we would be at 60 percent. The underlying goal in the bill does nothing to get us off our overreliance on foreign oil. It is the status quo and a bump in an increase. It is too timid in responding to what has been a gouging of the American consumer on gas prices.

This debate we have just had for the last couple of hours is interesting because a lot of my colleagues have said they refuse to support a mandate. They do not want to have a mandate in this bill. I am not proposing a mandate. It is interesting: Some Members do not support mandates. They do not even support goals. The American people deserve, on something as important as our national security and economic livelihood, to have this Senate, in transportation and energy policy, set a goal to get off our overdependence on foreign oil. Are my colleagues just giving lip service to this idea of a goal of getting off overdependence on foreign oil? Or are we willing to set a goal and do something about it?

I have pointed out that the goals we have are doable. My amendment does not say specifically how or what the mandate is. We have simply said, that from various studies, we know we can get the savings my amendment calls for in a goal. Here are a variety of sources: Fuel efficiency for tires and motor oil. The encouragement of a biofuels industry. A big chunk of this comes from alternative fuels. That is why OPEC, in today's paper, says they are very concerned about this because they know it is competition. They realize it is competition. Why don't we realize it is competition and ensure we get about making an alternative product?

Other countries certainly have this idea. One is Brazil and based on their overdependence on foreign oil they came to the same conclusions. They did not want to be in the same boat we are in today. In 1975, they were importing 80 percent of their fuel supply from foreign sources. They made a decision that was too much for them, both economically--I don't know if there are security issues--but economically they thought that was not wise so they started a process of taking steps. In 1990, they almost cut that in half. By 2003, they were down to importing only 11 percent of their fuel supply. Next year, they might achieve the great milestone of not only becoming self-sufficient but actually becoming an exporter of fuel to other countries.

They have done this because they made an investment in ethanol. They made decisions about their transportation sector so they could run on biofuel products. They have changed the economic picture of their country.

Is there something Brazil possesses that the United States cannot achieve? Are they smarter than we are? Do they have greater political will than we do? Do they have more consumers holding their politicians accountable than we do? What Brazil showed is they have a resolve because of their own national interests to get off the foreign addiction to oil. I applaud them for that.

They are only one-eighth the size of our economy, but they are proven to be smart enough to figure out how to make sugar-based ethanol in a cost-productive way, so efficient they can send it to the United States cheaper than we can produce it to the degree that some of my colleagues want to put a tax on it so that it is on a more level playing field with what sugar-based ethanol in the United States costs. To me, the Brazilians have come up with something.

I ask my colleagues, if you do not want mandates and you do not want goals and you do not want to get off our overdependence on foreign oil by setting a milestone or coming up with a goal or statement, what is it that you do want to do? The underlying bill increases our dependence by 2015 on foreign oil to 60 percent. We are at 58 percent today. It increases it to 60 percent. So we have accomplished nothing in the goal in the underlying bill.

I would like to set, primarily for international reasons, a goal to get off our dependence on foreign oil because these are our suppliers. These are the countries where the majority of U.S. oil supply comes from: Saudi Arabia sits on the largest percentage of oil reserves in the world today. I wish geography and geology had been kinder to the United States and that we sat on more than 3 percent of oil reserves. But we don't. We do not have that product. We have a very small percentage of the world reserve for oil. That is a fact of life. These are the countries and this is the State ownership of companies that are part of OPEC and have the oil supply of the future.

I didn't expect I would be in the Senate agreeing with George Shultz and James Woolsey and a bunch of neoconservatives who were espousing ideas about our national security, but I actually do agree with them that reducing our dependence on foreign oil should be a national priority and a national goal. That is why we have crafted this amendment this way.

We simply want to say to our colleagues and to the President of the United States that we believe increasing our consumption of foreign products as a way to support our economy is not a wise decision, given what growth and demand and oil prices are going to be. Yesterday, the market closed at $56.20 for oil. Economists at various Wall Street firms are saying we could easily see an oil spike of $100 a barrel. They say that oil futures have a fear premium on them; that is, there has been lots of discussion about how the price of oil futures is basically impacting the price of oil on a day-to-day basis. That is right, the speculative market about energy futures in oil basically causes the price at the pump today to increase. I find that unfortunate because the speculative price of oil futures takes into consideration those nine countries I mentioned, the fact that you could have a terrorist attack, the fact that you could have unrest in a region and that somehow supply would be diminished, thus affecting the price of oil futures.

Economists and people on Wall Street--Goldman Sachs and others-- basically say there is a fear premium on the price of oil futures; that is, we are paying more for oil because we are paying for the uncertainty and the instability in the political and geographic region where oil exists. That is what I am supposed to tell Washington State residents as to why they pay some of the highest gas prices in the country? That is why they should pay almost $2.30 a gallon for gasoline? That is why I should tell people they have lost their pensions in the airline industry because the airline industry has not passed on the high fuel costs? That is what I am supposed to tell the farmers who cannot keep their farms running because of high fuel costs, or somebody who has lost their job in a transportation-sensitive industry. I am supposed to tell them that I am going to continue to put an energy goal in legislation that makes us more dependent on foreign oil than we are today?

No. We want to reverse the trend. That is what the Cantwell amendment does. It is not a mandate. It is a goal. It says that instead of being more dependent on foreign oil in 2015, as the underlying bill directs us, let's become less dependent. Let's go from 58 percent, where we are today, down to 56.5 percent. It is a goal we can achieve. It is a goal I am willing to set as a legislator for our country because I believe in the ingenuity of Americans to achieve this goal.

There is nothing the country of Brazil can do that the United States cannot do. I guarantee you that if we set our resolve to do it as a nation, we will achieve this goal as well. The reason why we, as a government entity,

need to set this goal is because the private sector is going to diversify at its own darn pace; that is, the oil companies will decide what their investment in new technology and alternative fuels is at their own pace, their own wishes, their own response to their corporate shareholders, not at the interest of individual consumers who are getting strangled by the high cost of gasoline.

It is our job to set this goal and that is why we are on the Senate floor today. We are here to say we agree with the American farmers that they can produce a biofuel product in the future that can be competitive, that we agree with neoconservatives that the security risk of being 70 percent dependent on foreign oil is too great a security risk for our Nation, that we agree with technology and research experts that American ingenuity can get us to this 56.5-percent goal.

I ask my colleagues, what is wrong with setting this goal? Let's not continue to give lip service to a goal of getting off our foreign dependence and then do nothing about it in a legislative proposal. Let's show the American people we are concerned about the economic hardship they are facing and that we believe in American ingenuity. We believe in our farmers. We believe in our technology leaders. We believe that we, as a country, can achieve this great goal. If the last generation of Americans were smart enough to put a man on the Moon in a decade, this generation of Americans ought to be smart enough to reach this goal. I ask my colleagues to have the courage to set it in a piece of legislation as a mark for us to achieve.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am not objecting, but I am just asking for the yeas and nays on my amendment. I think moving to 2:30 is fine, given the markup.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.