Automobile Fuel Economy Act of 2005

Mr. President, I start by thanking Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman for all of their hard work on this bill. They said they were going to work to get a bipartisan bill and they accomplished their goal.

Overall, however, I believe that this Energy bill will help the country meet its energy needs in a number of important ways.

This bill provides strong consumer protections, aggressive energy efficiency standards, and a focus on new technologies to meet our energy needs in a more environmentally friendly manner.

Additionally, the bill takes a step in the right direction to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, especially natural gas. This is a major improvement over past Energy bills, which have done nothing to reduce our use of fossil fuels.

As we learned during the Western energy crisis, Federal energy regulators did not have enough authority to prevent widespread market manipulation.

Through the course of the crisis in California, the total cost of electricity soared from $7 billion in 1999 to $27 billion in 2000 and $26.7 billion in 2001. The abuse in our energy markets was pervasive and unlawful.

So I am pleased to report that this bill includes provisions that I have sought over the past 4 years to strengthen consumer protections and hopefully prevent another energy crisis like the one we experienced in the West.

These consumer protections include: a broad ban on manipulation in the energy markets; stronger criminal and civil penalties in the energy markets to provide stronger deterrents to violations of Federal energy laws; elimination of the unnecessary 60-day waiting period for refunds at FERC, which may cost Californians millions of dollars; new provisions to make the energy markets more transparent; and a ban on traders who manipulated the natural gas or the electricity markets from ever trading in energy markets again.

I am also very pleased that Senators Grassley and Baucus included in the Energy bill much of the energy efficiency tax incentives that Senator Snowe and I sponsored.

The simplest, most effective thing we could do today to reduce our electricity use would be to use more energy-efficient appliances, such as air conditioners, refrigerators, and clothes washers.

We know that energy efficiency works. In California, efficiency programs have kept electricity consumption flat for the past 30 years, in contrast to the rest of the United States, where consumption increased 50 percent.

During the Western energy crisis, California faced energy shortages and rolling blackouts, but it could have been much worse. Ultimately, the State was able to escape further blackouts because Californians made a major effort to conserve energy. This reduced demand for electricity and helped ease the crisis.

By creating incentives to reduce demand, the energy efficiency tax incentives will help us avoid power shortages and blackouts in the future.

In addition, encouraging more efficient technologies will also reduce pollution and save consumers billions of dollars in the long run.

America cannot solve its energy challenges by simply adding more supplies. We must find ways to reduce demand for energy and create more efficient technologies. Including the energy efficiency tax incentives is a big step in the right direction.

For all of those reasons, I am supporting this bill. However, I still have some major reservations about the legislation as it now stands. Among them are:

Ethanol. The bill includes an 8 billion gallon mandate for ethanol when my State does not need it to meet clean air standards. I think this mandate is bad and costly public policy.

LNG Siting. This bill gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exclusive authority over siting LNG terminals. I believe States should have a strong voice in this process.

Global Warming. Although we can already see the real effects of global warming, this bill takes no effective action to curb greenhouse gases.

Outer Continental Shelf. This bill provides for an inventory of the resources off our shores. This is not necessary unless we plan on drilling, to which I remain very much opposed.

Essentially, this bill takes no risks whatsoever to do the right thing. And though I will vote in favor of this bill, I would like to discuss these serious reservations that I have with it.

I am extremely concerned about the bill's 8 billion gallon ethanol mandate.

First, though, I would like to thank the committee for accepting an amendment I offered to protect California's air quality. It waives the requirement that California use ethanol in the summer months when it can end up polluting the air more than protecting it.

Despite this win for California's air quality, I still have concerns about the impacts of mandating that refiners use 8 billion gallons of ethanol by 2012.

President Bush has said over the past few months that this Energy bill will not do anything to reduce gas prices at the pump. I would like to add another note of caution: I hope this bill does not actually increase the price at the pump for consumers.

According to the Energy Information Administration, gas prices in California have been anywhere between 4 and 8 cents higher since ethanol replaced MTBE in California's gasoline, starting in 2003.

In May 2005, the Director of the Petroleum Division at the Energy Information Administration stated before

the House Government Reform Committee that:

. . . refiners lost production capability when replacing MTBE

with ethanol. This, along with continued demand growth, has

contributed to price pressures. From 2000 through 2002,

California retail gasoline prices averaged about 19 cents per

gallon more than the U.S. average gasoline price, but in 2003

as MTBE began to be removed, California prices averaged 27

cents per gallon higher than the U.S. average, and remained

at that level through 2004.

So far this year, California's gasoline prices are at least 23 cents higher than the national average. To be clear, adding ethanol to our gasoline has increased the cost at the pump.

In addition, when the 8 billion gallon mandate is fully implemented in 2012 it will only reduce U.S. oil consumption by one-half of 1 percent.

Since ethanol has a somewhat lower energy content than gasoline, more of it is required to travel the same distance. This results in a vehicle's fuel economy being approximately 3 percent lower with ethanol-blended gasoline.

Further, this provision is both a mandate and a subsidy. Ethanol receives a tax credit of 51 cents per gallon. An 8 billion gallon mandate means a $2 billion loss to the U.S. Treasury over today's receipts.

I do not believe that we should be imposing this huge mandate at a time when there is already such a huge subsidy to the ethanol industry, and when the Nation has such huge budget deficits.

We should have either the subsidy or the mandate, but not both.

I also remain concerned about the provision in the bill that provides exclusive authority over siting onshore liquefied natural gas terminals to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Increased demand for natural gas means we need new natural gas supplies, and liquefied natural gas is one of the options available to us.

States will be responsible for the safety of these facilities for a long time after they are sited. That is why it is so important to preserve the rights of the States to participate in the process to determine where these facilities should be located.

For LNG facilities that are sited more than 3 miles offshore, the Governor has the right to approve or veto a project.

Yet for facilities that are located onshore, in our busy ports and near our closely packed communities, States have less input.

That is why I offered an amendment to provide Governors the same authority for siting onshore facilities that they already have for offshore facilities.

To give a remote Federal agency control when States are concerned about the safety of residents near a proposed site is a mistake.

I firmly believe that States should have the right to veto a project that could endanger the public safety of its citizens.

I thank Senators Lieberman and McCain for their efforts to address the growing and imminent problem of global warming.

I strongly supported their amendment to cap greenhouse gas emissions at the year 2000 levels by 2010 and implement a market-based emissions cap and trade system.

The United States has only 4 percent of the world's population, and yet we produce 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. As the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, the United States has a duty to act.

We have already begun to see the very real effects of global warming. The polar ice caps are shrinking, glaciers are melting, snowpacks are dwindling, and coastlines are falling away.

If we do not act, these problems will only grow worse. California depends on the Sierra Nevada snowpack as its largest source of water. It is estimated that by the end of the century, the shrinking of this snowpack will eliminate the water source for 16 million people--equal to all of the people in the Los Angeles Basin.

Much of the world is already reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and they are counting on us to do the same.

It is time that the United States--the world's largest contributor to climate change--stepped up and took responsibility for our actions and their impact on the world. Global warming is too serious a problem for us to keep ignoring it.

Yet the Senate voted against the McCain-Lieberman amendment. We missed a big opportunity to do the right thing for our country and for the world.

I am also concerned because the bill includes a provision that would allow the Department of Interior to conduct an inventory of the resources in the Outer Continental Shelf.

I joined my colleagues from Florida and New Jersey to strip this provision from the bill. Unfortunately, the amendment was not agreed to.

Why would we need to inventory the resources on the Outer Continental Shelf unless we intend to drill there? I believe this provision is the proverbial ``nose under the camel's tent.''

I strongly oppose lifting the moratoria on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf and my State is unified in its opposition as well. Our coast is too important to California's economy and to our quality of life.

Despite soaring gas prices, this bill does not take any steps towards reducing our oil consumption, which could easily be done by holding SUVs and light trucks to the same fuel economy standards as passenger vehicles.

SUVs have gained popularity to the point that they now make up more than half of new car sales in the United States. That is why I believe SUVs and light trucks should be held to the same fuel efficiency and safety standards as the smaller passenger cars they are replacing on our roads.

This would both reduce our oil consumption and imports as well as curbing greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. In addition, increasing fuel economy in SUVs and light trucks would save owners hundreds of dollars each year at the gas pump.

Consumers are concerned about high gas prices, yet we do next to nothing in the bill to increase the fuel economy of our vehicles so that they use less gasoline.

Our dependence on oil is reaching critical levels. Crude oil is hitting record highs at nearly $60 per barrel this week and it is not going to fall any time soon.

Crude oil is a global commodity and global oil demand is rising, especially in China and India.

In the past 5 years, China's oil imports have doubled, and show no signs of slowing down. Chinese demand for oil is expected to double again by 2025, while its imports will quadruple to 60 percent of its total oil consumption.

China is now the world's second biggest oil consumer, behind only the United States. And today we heard the news that China wants to buy an American oil company.

In addition, India's oil needs are expected to grow rapidly in the coming years. Last year alone, India's oil consumption grew by 10 percent.

Their rapidly growing economies are fueling their growing dependence on oil--which makes continued higher prices inevitable.

The most effective step we can take to reduce gas prices is to reduce demand. We must use our limited fuel supplies more wisely.

That is why I am so disappointed that the Senate did not include any provisions to increase fuel economy in the bill.

I am pleased that the chairman and ranking member were able to work together on a bill that does not roll back environmental protections, as the House bill does.

I want to take a minute to point out the most egregious House provisions that I hope we will not see in a conference report. They include:

Retroactive liability protection for MTBE producers despite the fact that the courts have already found that they make a defective product. This provision protects oil companies from having to pay billions of dollars to clean up the water supplies across the country that MTBE has contaminated.

Even though I am supporting the Senate Energy bill, I will not hesitate to vote against the conference report if it includes MTBE liability protection.

Allowing communities to get out of requirements to clean up their air if they claim that part of its problem is a result of transported air pollution. This provision severely weakens the Clean Air Act.

Exempting the underground injection of chemicals during oil and gas development from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Weakening the ability of States to have a say in Federal activities that affect their coasts, including limiting appeals related to pipeline construction or offshore energy development under the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.

Further, the House $8 billion tax package is completely lopsided in favor of oil and gas production--only 5 percent of the $8 billion goes toward incentives for renewable energy production.

While I am pleased that the bill includes strong consumer protections that will hopefully prevent another energy crisis, incentives for energy efficiency, and promotes new energy technologies, I am disappointed that the bill does not do the right thing on global warming, ethanol, fuel economy, the Outer Continental Shelf, or LNG siting.

And so, it is with reluctance that I cast my vote in favor of this Energy bill.

Mr. President, energy policy is an important issue for America and one which my Wisconsin constituents take very seriously. Crafting an energy policy requires us to address important questions about, for example, the role of domestic production of energy resources versus foreign imports, the need to ensure adequate energy supplies while protecting the environment, the need for additional domestic efforts to support improvements in our energy efficiency, and the wisest use of our energy resources. Given the need for a sound national energy policy, a vote on an energy bill is a very serious matter and I do not take a decision to oppose such a bill lightly. In my view, however, this bill does not achieve the correct balance on several important issues, which is why I will oppose it.

The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that implementing the bill will cost $5.1 billion in 2006 and $35.9 billion over the 2006- 2010 period. I am concerned that this estimate does not include the at least $10.1 billion in unpaid-for tax breaks. The $10.1 billion includes $5.7 billion in production tax credits and $4.4 billion in various subsidies to the oil, gas, and nuclear industries. Although I support the extension of the wind energy production tax credit and incentives for alternative fuels such as biodiesel, I am concerned that these tax expenditures are not offset. This billion dollar figure does not include the potential costs of the billions of dollars in loan guarantees provided in the bill, which could prove extremely costly to taxpayers. According to the CBO, loan default risk is ``well above 50 percent'' leaving taxpayers to foot the bill. The oil, gas, coal, hydroelectric and nuclear industries are mature industries that do not need to be propped up by the taxpayers. I am also especially concerned about the tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry, which is already experiencing windfall profits as oil nears $60 a barrel.

Even before the Senate added the tax title to the bill or any other amendments, CBO estimated that implementing the bill would cost $5.1 billion in 2006 and $35.9 billion over the 2006-2010 period. None of this spending is offset, or paid for. Our nation's budget position has deteriorated significantly over the past few years, in large part because of the massive tax cuts that were enacted. We now face years of projected budget deficits. The only way we will climb out of this deficit hole is to return to the fiscally responsible policies that helped put our nation on a sound fiscal footing in the 1990s, and that means making sure the bills we pass are paid for. Otherwise we are digging our deficit hole even deeper and adding to the massive debt already facing our children and grandchildren.

In addition, this bill repeals the proconsumer Public Utility Holding Company Act, the Federal Government's most important mechanism to protect electricity consumers. The bill does include language from my colleague from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, banning Enron-like energy trading schemes. I also welcome the addition of new language that gives the Federal Government more oversight of utility mergers. This language, however, in my opinion, does not adequately prevent utilities from using affiliate companies to out compete small businesses.

That is why I joined with the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, in filing the consumer protection, fair competition, and financial integrity amendment. We believe that small businesses and consumers should be protected from abuses involving public utility companies' related businesses. We also share the belief that repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act in the underlying bill creates a serious regulatory void and market flaw that Congress should correct.

Our amendment would have improved the bill by making clear the actions that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--or FERC--must take to ensure that deregulated holding companies do not outcompete our small businesses, damage their financial standing, and then pass the costs of bad investments to consumers.

Our amendment was supported by a wide and impressive coalition of business, labor, financial, and consumer groups which include AARP, American Iron and Steel Institute, American Public Power Association, American Subcontractors Association, Associated Builders and Contractors, Association of Financial Guaranty Insurers, ACA Financial Guaranty Corporation, Ambac Assurance Corporation, Assured Guaranty Corporation, Blue Point Re Limited, CIFG, IXIS Financial Guaranty, Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, Financial Security Assurance, MBIA Insurance Corporation, Radian Asset Assurance Inc., RAM Reinsurance Company, XL Capital Assurance, ELCON, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Mechanical Contractors Association of America, National Electrical Contractors Association, Plumbing- Heating-Cooling Contractors--National Association, Public Citizen, Public Interest Research Group, Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association, Small Business Legislative Council, and Wisconsin Public Power, Incorporated.

My State of Wisconsin is acutely interested in and concerned about the repeal of PUHCA and about ongoing abuses involving the unregulated corporate affiliates of regulated utilities. I have also heard from contractors and other small businesses across the Nation who have been harmed by unfair competition by affiliates of public utilities.

I am pleased this consumer protection amendment was a bipartisan effort. I believe we have broad support in this body and beyond for this amendment, which is why I was disappointed that we were not able to offer this amendment because of the threat of another amendment being offered that would eliminate the oversight provisions currently in the bill.

I am pleased, however, that we were able to obtain assurances from the chair and ranking member that they would hold a hearing on abusive affiliate transactions. I also appreciate the ranking member's commitment to request a GAO investigation of the potential for abusive transactions involving affiliates of public utility companies.

During debate on this important measure, I supported several efforts to improve the underlying bill and the bill contains many provisions that I support. Specifically, I strongly supported the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, No. 779. I am pleased that the Senate overwhelmingly passed this important measure. I support the national ban of methyl tertiary butyl ether,

MTBE, and the measures in the bill that increase the supply of ethanol. I am also pleased that the amendment includes language I drafted to consolidate the number of Federal reformulated gasoline blends. I have worked closely with Congressman Paul Ryan in an effort to reduce the number of Federal reformulated gasoline blends and increase gasoline supplies for consumers.

In recent years, fuel supply shocks such as pipeline problems and refinery fires have contributed significantly to gasoline price spikes in southern Wisconsin. Chicago and southeast Wisconsin use a specialized blend of reformulated gasoline to meet Federal Clean Air Act requirements that is not used elsewhere in the country. When supplies of this type of gasoline run low, Wisconsin is unable to draw on supplies of gasoline from other areas. Consolidation of the number of boutique fuels will help Wisconsin and consumers across the country. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the boutique fuels issue is adequately addressed in the energy bill conference report.

I also supported Senator Bingaman's amendment to mandate a renewable portfolio standard requiring electric utilities to generate or purchase 10 percent of the electricity they sell from renewable sources by 2020. The Senate has previously considered renewable portfolio standards of 20 percent. We can do even better on renewable energy sources, but I am pleased that the Senate took a positive step forward on this important issue.

I am also pleased with the many energy efficiency incentives and the reauthorization of the Energy Performance Savings Contracts Program. I also support the inclusion of mandatory electricity reliability standards to prevent blackouts.

I supported the Cantwell energy security amendment, No. 784, because it would have helped to put America on the path towards independence from foreign oil. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil by 40 percent by 2025 will make our country stronger and safer. For years, the American economy has been subject to the whims of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, cartel. The amendment did not address which technology should be used to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and does not mandate changes in fuel economy standards. The language is simple--it sets our goal and we have to figure out how to get there. We are a country of innovators. Whether it is wind, solar, biodiesel, or a technology we still have not dreamed of yet, we can-- and we must--break our addiction to foreign oil. This bold, aggressive amendment would have ensured that we meet our goal of real energy independence. I was disappointed that the Senate did not adopt this amendment.

In sum, the American people deserve a more fiscally responsible energy policy than that is reflected in this bill, and I cannot vote in favor of it. This measure will need to be improved in conference to get my vote.

Mr. President, I voted in favor of the Bond-Levin amendment regarding CAFE standards, and I want to explain my views in detail. Fuel efficiency is a critically important issue for our country, for my home State of Wisconsin, and for our future. I remain committed to the goal that significant improvements in automobile and light truck fuel efficiency can be achieved over an appropriate time frame. My vote for the Levin-Bond is entirely consistent with that goal.

The Levin-Bond amendment seeks to renew the Department of Transportation's role in setting CAFE standards, acting through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA. If Congress does not act to try to restore normalcy to the NHTSA process, we will keep having these fights which Congress attempts to either block or set CAFE standards, every 20 years or so, when the political will is sufficient to do so. NHTSA will never be able to carry out the normal process of reviewing and incrementally improving fuel efficiency for automobiles and light trucks, as Congress

originally intended when it passed the CAFE law in the 1970s.

Both interest groups battling over the CAFE issue, the auto manufacturers and the environmental community, have switched their positions in this debate on this bill over the past several years. The auto industry, which once wanted CAFE perpetually frozen with a rider to an appropriations bill, now supports the Levin amendment. The environmental community, which once opposed the rider and wanted NHTSA to act, now wants Congress to set the standard rather than NHTSA. With my vote, I am maintaining my consistent position on this issue.

As I stated on the Senate floor in the debate on the CAFE rider on June 15, 2000, my vote was about ``Congress getting out of the way and letting a Federal agency meet the requirements of Federal law originally imposed by Congress.'' I supported removing the rider back in 2000 because I was concerned that Congress has for more than 5 years blocked NHTSA from meeting its legal duty to evaluate whether there is a need to modify fuel economy standards.

As I made clear in 2000, 2002, 2003 and many other previous debates on this issue, I have made no determination about what fuel economy standards should be, though I do think that an increase is possible. NHTSA has the authority to set new standards for a given model year, taking into account several factors; technological feasibility, economic practicability, other vehicle standards such as those for safety and environmental performance, the need to conserve energy, and the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences. I want NHTSA to fully and fairly evaluate all the criteria, and then make an objective recommendation on the basis of those facts. I expect NHTSA to consult with all interested parties--unions, environmental interests, auto manufacturers, and other interested citizens--in developing this rule. And, I expect NHTSA to act, and if it does not, this amendment requires Congress to act on a standard.

In opposing the Levin-Bond amendment, some subscribe to the view that NHTSA has a particular agenda and will recommend weak standards. I do not support that view.

NHTSA should be allowed to set this standard. Congress is not the best forum for understanding whether or not improvements in fuel economy can and should be made using existing technologies or whether emerging technologies may have the potential to improve fuel economy. Changes in fuel economy standards could have a variety of consequences. I seek to understand those consequences and to balance the concerns of those interested in seeing improvements to fuel economy as a means of reducing gasoline consumption and associated pollution.

In the end, I would like to see that Wisconsin consumers, indeed all consumers, have a wide range of new, more fuel efficient automobiles, SUVs, and trucks available to them, taking into account all appropriate energy, technological and economic factors. That balancing is required by the law. I expect NHTSA to proceed in a manner consistent with the law by fully considering all those factors, and this amendment ensures they do so.

In supporting this amendment, I maintain the position that it is my job to ensure that the agency responsible for setting fuel economy be allowed to do its job. I expect it to be fair and neutral in that process, and I will work with interested Wisconsinites to ensure that their views are represented and that the regulatory process proceeds in a fair and reasonable manner toward whatever conclusions the merits will support.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about the Energy Policy Act of 2005, H.R. 6. While I did not support the bill for several reasons, I do acknowledge that the bill is, in many respects, better than the bill the Senate rejected in 2003. I am pleased, for example, that the bill we are sending to conference does more to address the reliability of our electricity grid, contains a 10 percent renewable portfolio standard for electricity production, and does not include an unnecessary liability waiver for the MTBE industry.

We all agree that reliable, affordable energy is critical to the economic well being of our Nation. And increasingly, our Nation's energy policy is central to our national security. As I considered how to vote on the energy bill, I asked myself three questions. First, would this bill take meaningful action to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Second, would the bill enhance homeland security? And third, is this $48 billion bill fiscally responsible and does it set the right priorities for our Nation?

As for the first question, unfortunately, I find that this bill does not do nearly enough to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Oil prices have recently soared to around $60 a barrel, a level that, even when adjusted for inflation, has not been seen in over 15 years. Imports of foreign oil are draining valuable economic resources out of our communities and Nation. The U.S. imports 4.5 billion barrels of oil per year. With prices up $20 a barrel over the past year, an increase that appears to be with us for the foreseeable future, we are experiencing an effective annual reduction in domestic income of $90 billion. That is $90 billion that we could better invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy, as well as police, firefighters, workforce training, and education for our children.

Over the next 10 years the world's daily energy demand will grow to nearly 100 million barrels. We will have to find an extra 50 million barrels of oil per day to meet that demand. The industry is already spending $200 billion a year to find oil, but even at that extraordinary level of investment, there are enormous difficulties in finding recoverable reserves to fill the gap between supply and demand. The United States has about 2 percent of the

world's oil reserves. We simply cannot drill our way out of this crisis.

Reducing our dependence on oil must be both a national energy and a national security priority. But that is not a high priority of this Energy bill. This bill fails to promote meaningful reductions in our oil dependence by casting aside a much-needed increase in CAFE standards for cars and by omitting Senator Cantwell's 40 percent oil savings amendment.

According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, since 1975 the U.S. has doubled the economic activity wrung from each barrel of oil. Overall energy savings, worth about $365 billion in 2000 alone, are effectively the Nation's biggest and fastest-growing major energy source-- equivalent to three times our total oil imports. CAFE standards were a primary reason for these savings. We must make even greater strides in fuel efficiency if we want to move our country towards true energy independence.

Gasoline consumption in the transportation sector represents about 44 percent of total oil consumption in the United States each year. If one includes diesel fuel, that number jumps to 57 percent. To bring about any serious reduction in our dependence on foreign oil we must increase the fuel efficiency of our cars and light trucks through an increase in CAFE standards, as well as by promoting the use of hybrids and vehicles that use alternative fuels. In model year 2002, the average fuel economy for cars and light trucks was 20.4 miles per gallon--a 22-year low. Yet, if performance and weight had stayed constant since 1981, the average fuel economy would have improved 33 percent--enough to displace the amount of oil we import from the Persian Gulf 2.5 times over. Not only will raising CAFE standards improve our energy security, it will also ensure our economic security. China is putting in place fuel efficiency rules that will be significantly more stringent than those in the United States. The Chinese standards call for new cars, vans, and sport utility vehicles to get as much as two miles a gallon of fuel more in 2005 than the average required in the U.S. and about five miles more in 2008. And they plan to export these cars to the United States. We need to improve efficiency to remain competitive.

For these reasons, I am an original cosponsor of S. 889, Senator Feinstein's bill to close the SUV loophole by gradually increasing fuel efficiency standards for SUVs to 27.5 miles per gallon--the same standard that now applies to passenger cars--by 2011. The legislation would also require that the average fuel economy of new vehicles purchased by the Federal Government be increased by three miles per gallon by 2008 and six miles per gallon by 2011. In addition, the bill would increase the weight range within which vehicles are bound by CAFE standards, making it harder for automotive manufacturers to build SUVs too big to be regulated by CAFE standards. The legislation would save the United States 1 million barrels of oil a day; reduce our dependence on foreign oil imports by 10 percent; prevent about 240 million tons of carbon dioxide--the top greenhouse gas and the biggest single cause of global warming--from entering the atmosphere each year; and save SUV and light duty truck owners hundreds of dollars each year in gasoline costs. It is unfortunate that the Senate energy bill includes no provision to require increased CAFE standards so that we can make real progress in reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Moving to my second question: would this bill enhance our homeland security? Unfortunately, it would not.

Consumption of natural gas is growing at a faster rate than for any other primary energy source and is growing in all sectors of the economy--families heat their homes with natural gas, businesses use natural gas to produce products, natural gas vehicles are becoming more common, and power producers generate cleaner energy with it. According to the Consumer Federation of America, since 2000, the toll of higher natural gas prices on consumers is an estimated $80 billion. Similar to oil, demand is growing faster than available supplies can be delivered and the tightening in supply is resulting in dramatic price volatility. One way to increase natural gas supply in the United States is through liquefied natural gas, known as LNG. Again, however, we would do well to learn from our lessons with oil. One-third of the world's proven reserves of natural gas are in the Middle East, nearly two-fifths are in Russia and its former satellites, and significant reserves exist in Nigeria and Algeria. Political stability and terrorism are very real threats to the reliability of natural gas from these countries.

On the domestic front, the siting of liquefied natural gas, LNG, import terminals is an issue that has taken on critical importance for me and for the people of Rhode Island in recent months, as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, is now considering proposals by KeySpan Energy and Weaver's Cove Energy to establish LNG import terminals in Providence, RI and Fall River, MA, respectively.

I recognize that natural gas is an important and growing component of New England and the Nation's energy supply, and that imported LNG offers a promising new supply source to complement our domestic natural gas supplies. In a post-September 11 world, however, we must consider the substantial safety and security risks associated with siting LNG marine terminals in urban communities and requiring LNG tankers to pass within close proximity to miles of densely populated coastline.

That is the major problem with the current siting process and with the underlying bill before us. While States do have certain environmental permitting authorities delegated to them under Federal laws like the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act, States have no clear authority over the siting of LNG terminals in the one area that everyone is most concerned about: public safety and security.

Senator Feinstein and I offered an amendment that would have ensured that States have an authentic voice in the siting of LNG terminals by giving Governors the same authority to approve or disapprove onshore terminals that they now have over offshore terminals under the Deepwater Port Act. If a Governor has the right to say yes or no to an offshore LNG terminal, it only makes sense that he or she should have the same rights with respect to an LNG terminal located onshore or in State waters. The National Governors Association agreed and wrote in strong support of our amendment.

I know that some of the opponents of this amendment say this is all about NIMBY, or ``Not in My Backyard,'' as if the issue is that our constituents would just rather not have to see these storage tanks and large vessels. But it is a much more serious and complicated matter than that.

The Sandia National Laboratory released a report last December that said a terror attack on a tanker delivering LNG to a U.S. terminal could set off a fire so hot it would burn skin and damage buildings nearly a mile away. For the terminals proposed in New England, that means schools, libraries, and thousands of homes, all within the damage zone. We can argue about the odds of such an attack, but when new LNG terminals are already being developed nearby in the Canadian maritime provinces--an area with reliable pipeline access to New England--and the first U.S. offshore LNG facility recently began receiving deliveries, there is no justification for placing these terminals in the heart of our communities.

I again want to emphasize that I recognize LNG's important role in the energy infrastructure of Rhode Island and the Nation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure reliable supplies of natural gas to our homes and businesses. I am disappointed that the Feinstein-Reed amendment was defeated, but our efforts have just begun. For now, I hope the 45 votes the amendment received will send a strong message to FERC that the agency should work more closely with Governors and the State environmental and first responder agencies that have firsthand knowledge of the geography and population of our States, so that we can bring more natural gas to our communities while minimizing the risk to our citizens.

Finally, we must ask ourselves, is the $48 billion cost of this bill fiscally responsible given our growing national debt and cuts in funding for other priorities such as education, water infrastructure, and transit? For me, the answer is no.

Over 11 years, this bill would provide $18.2 billion in energy tax incentives for electricity infrastructure, fossil fuels supply, energy efficiency, renewables, and vehicle and fuel incentives. I want to commend the Finance Committee for its work on the energy efficiency and renewable energy incentives in the bill. However, I am disappointed that the bill provides nearly $6 billion in tax breaks for oil, gas, and coal, and in addition, provides tax credits for nuclear energy. These tax breaks are provided despite the fact that President Bush has repeatedly stated that we do not need tax breaks for the oil and gas industry given the high prices Americans are experiencing.

Regrettably, this Energy bill also contains the Archer Daniels Midland ethanol mandate. In 2003, the United States consumed only 2.8 billion gallons of ethanol. But starting in 2006, the Energy bill will require Americans to purchase 4 billion gallons of ethanol, then 8 billion gallons by 2012, and then increasing amounts every year after 2012 in perpetuity by a percentage equivalent to the proportion of ethanol in the entire U.S. gas supply. So in addition to the already high gas prices Americans are paying at the pump, they will now be charged a tax to unnecessarily subsidize the ethanol industry, which already benefits from an income tax credit of 51 cents per gallon of pure ethanol, as well as a 54 cents per gallon tariff on imported ethanol.

The bill also provides loan guarantees for so-called innovative technologies, including nuclear power, a provision that would cost taxpayers $600 million. The legislation sets no limits on the number of projects, or the total principal that could be guaranteed for these speculative investments. As the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, points out, if a borrower defaults on a loan, the Department of Energy could take over a facility to recoup losses, or the Department could take over a loan and make payments on the loan for the borrower. To quote the CBO, ``Such payments could result in DOE effectively providing a direct loan with as much as a 100 percent subsidy rate-- essentially a grant--that could be used by the borrower to pay off its debt.'' Is this a responsible use of taxpayer dollars when we are dramatically cutting funding for education, clean water, and energy efficiency programs? In my opinion, the answer is no.

I believe the American people deserve a better Energy bill from the Senate. They deserve a bill that takes seriously the need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. They deserve a bill that provides for both our national security and energy security. They deserve a bill that requires real reductions in the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. They deserve a bill that reduces energy prices for consumers, not one that hands out unnecessary subsidies to industries. Unfortunately, if history is any indicator, this bill is going to get worse, not better, in conference with the House. I look forward to working with my colleagues to oppose the addition of MTBE liability waivers and any other onerous House provisions to the Energy bill. It is high time we gave the American people an Energy bill that deserves their full support.

Mr. President, today I am offering a measure which could serve as a first step towards eliminating the inequities borne by the dairy farmers of Wisconsin and the upper Midwest under the Federal Milk Marketing Order system.

The Federal Milk Marketing Order system, created nearly 60 years ago, establishes minimum prices for milk paid to producers throughout various marketing areas in the U.S. For sixty years, this system has discriminated against producers in the Upper Midwest by awarding a higher price to dairy farmers in proportion to the distance of their farms from areas of high milk production, which historically have been the region around Eau Claire, WI.

My legislation is very simple. It identifies the single most harmful and unjust feature of the current system, and corrects it. Under the current archaic law, the price farmers receive for fluid milk is higher the further they are from the Eau Claire region of the Upper Midwest. This provision originally was intended to guarantee the supply of fresh milk from the high production areas to distant markets in an age of difficult transportation and limited refrigeration. But the situation has long since changed and the provision persists at the detriment of the Wisconsin farmers even though most local milk markets do not receive any milk from Wisconsin.

The bill I introduce today would prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from using distance or transportation costs from any location as the basis for pricing milk, unless significant quantities of milk are actually transported from that location into the recipient market. The Secretary will have to comply with the statutory requirement that supply and demand factors be considered as specified in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act when setting milk prices in marketing orders. The fact remains that single-basing-point pricing simply cannot be justified based on supply and demand for milk both in local and national markets and the changing pattern of U.S. milk production.

This bill also requires the Secretary to report to Congress on specifically which criteria are used to set milk prices. Finally, the Secretary will have to certify to Congress that the criteria used by the Department do not in any way attempt to circumvent the prohibition on using distance or transportation cost as basis for pricing milk.

This one change is vitally important to Upper Midwest producers, because the current system has penalized them for many years. The current system is a double whammy to Upper Midwest dairy farmers--it both provides disparate profits for producers in other parts of the country and creates artificial economic incentives for milk production. As a result, Wisconsin producers have seen national surpluses rise, and milk prices fall. Rather than providing adequate supplies of fluid milk, the prices often lead to excess production.

The prices have provided production incentives beyond those needed to ensure a local supply of fluid milk in some regions, leading to an increase in manufactured products in those marketing orders. Those manufactured products directly compete with Wisconsin's processed products, eroding our markets and driving national prices down.

The perverse nature of this system is further illustrated by the fact that since 1995, some regions of the U.S., notably the central states and the Southwest, are producing so much milk that they are actually shipping fluid milk north to the Upper Midwest. The high fluid milk prices have generated so much excess production, that these markets distant from Eau Claire are now encroaching upon not only our manufactured markets, but also our markets for fluid milk, further eroding prices in Wisconsin.

The market-distorting effects of the fluid price differentials in federal orders are shown by a previous Congressional Budget Office analysis that estimated that the elimination of orders would save $669 million over five years. Government outlays would fall, CBO concluded, because production would fall in response to lower milk prices and there would be fewer government purchases of surplus milk. The regions that would gain and lose in this scenario illustrate the discrimination inherent to the current system. Economic analyses showed that farm revenues in a market undisturbed by Federal orders would actually increase in the Upper Midwest and fall in most other milk-producing regions.

While this system has been around since 1937, the practice of basing fluid milk price differentials on the distance from Eau Claire was formalized in the 1960s, when the Upper Midwest arguably was the primary reserve for additional supplies of milk. The idea was to encourage local supplies of fluid milk in areas of the country that did not traditionally produce enough fluid milk to meet their own needs.

That is no longer the case. The Upper Midwest is no longer the primary source of reserve supplies of milk. Unfortunately, the prices didn't adjust with changing economic conditions, most notably the shift of the dairy industry away from the Upper Midwest and towards the Southwest, and specifically California, which now leads the nation in milk production.

The result of this antiquated system has been a decline in the Upper Midwest dairy industry, not because it can't produce a product that can compete in the marketplace, but because the system discriminates against it. Over the past few years Wisconsin has lost dairy farmers at a rate of more than 5 per day. The Upper Midwest, with the lowest fluid milk prices, is shrinking as a dairy region despite the dairy-friendly climate of the region. Some other regions with higher fluid milk prices are growing rapidly.

In a free market with a level playing field, these shifts in production might be fair. But in a market where the government is setting the prices and providing that artificial advantage to regions outside the Upper Midwest, the current system is unconscionable.

I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and bring reform to this outdated system and work to eliminate the inequities in the current milk marketing order pricing system.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join the senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original co-sponsor of legislation to designate more than one million acres of Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands in Utah as wilderness.

I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah. I viewed firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes outside the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed the lands proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down the Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the Emery County government.

I support this legislation for a number of reasons, but most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the BLM lands of Southern Utah.

Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the broadest and boldest mark for the lands that should be protected in Southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah. Unfortunately, the Senate has not always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in Southern Utah. During the 104th Congress, I joined with the former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in opposing that Congress's Omnibus Parks legislation. It contained provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home state of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964.

The lands of Southern Utah are very special to the people of Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents have described these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of Madison, Wisconsin's Capital Times wrote:

Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first

daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all

Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado

Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include

some of the last of our country's wilderness, which is not

fully protected.

We must ask our elected officials to redress this

circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect

those national lands within the boundaries of Utah. This

wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a legacy we

can be forever proud to bestow to our children.

I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish that goal. The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by any description in words. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hikers and sightseers to hunters.

Phil Haslanger of the Capital Times, answered an important question I am often asked when people want to know why a Senator from Wisconsin would co-sponsor legislation to protect lands in Utah. He wrote on September 13, 1995 simply that:

``These are not scenes that you could see in Wisconsin.

That's part of what makes them special.''

He continues, and adds what I think is an even more important reason to act to protect these lands than the landscape's uniqueness:

``the fight over wilderness lands in Utah is a test case of

sorts. The anti-environmental factions in Congress are trying

hard to remove restrictions on development in some of the

nation's most splendid areas.''

Ten years later, Wisconsinites are still watching this test case. I believe that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a sign of where the Nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of natural resources. What Haslanger's comments make clear is that while some in Congress may express concern about creating new wilderness in Utah, wilderness, as Wisconsinites know, is not created by legislation. Legislation to protect existing wilderness simply ensures that future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly codify that expectation and promise.

Finally, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the Federal Government for the people of the United States. Thus, while they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to the citizens of Wisconsin, as it is for other Americans.

I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.

Mr. President, this morning, following the opening statement of the two leaders, we will proceed to passage of the Energy bill. A lot of work has gone into this bill at this point, and this upcoming final passage vote is one further step toward a national energy policy. We look forward to a good conference with the House to produce a final Energy bill for the President to sign.

Following that vote, we will resume consideration of the Interior appropriations bill. Pending to that bill are approximately 40 first- degree amendments. The committee, over the course of the weekend and yesterday, had been reviewing those amendments and, hopefully, we can dispose of most of those amendments without rollcall votes. We will need to debate and vote on some of the pending amendments, and therefore we will have votes throughout the day. We would like to finish the Interior appropriations bill today, and I will be speaking shortly to the two managers with regard to progress that is being made.

We will be recessing from 12:30 to 2:15 today. When we conclude the Interior bill, the Senate will begin the Homeland Security appropriations bill, and we will finish that bill prior to the start of the July 4 recess. In addition to funding the work of the Department of Homeland Security, that legislation begins the hard work of enhancing the security of our borders. We will complete action on this piece of border security legislation this week.

It is also possible that the Senate could complete work on other appropriations bills beyond the two to which the minority leader and I have agreed. We will be working together with the chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee to see what we can accomplish in addition to the Interior and Homeland Security appropriations bills.

In addition, this morning, the Finance Committee is working on our free-trade agreement with several Central American countries. If the committee completes action on that, we would also take that up this week. Under the law, debate on the free-trade agreement would total no more than 20 hours equally divided, and we will do that later this week.

As I mentioned last week, we will also consider any other available conference reports or legislative or executive items that are ready for action throughout the week--the highway conference report extension, a welfare extension, as well as a series of important nominations that could be resolved this week as well: Lester Crawford to run our Food and Drug Administration, Tom Dorr to serve in the Department of Agriculture, Gordon English to serve in the Department of Homeland Defense. All of these are possible for action before the recess.

We are going to have a very busy final week and, I know, a productive week. We will be working through Friday. I want to announce to our colleagues once again, as I have before, that in all likelihood we will be voting on Friday, and intend to vote on Friday.

In addition, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized at 3:45 today, to be followed by Senator Bunning, to be followed by Senator McConnell.

I will be happy to respond.

Mr. President, as I mentioned, the Central American Free- Trade Agreement is currently being addressed by the committee. That will be done today and possibly into tomorrow. Before we make any definitive scheduling beyond that, we will let it get through the committee. I will be talking to the Democratic leader. It is an issue that we could, through a fast-track mechanism, address before we leave for our July recess. No final decision has been made. I will be in discussion with the Democratic leader.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on final passage of the Energy bill. I want to applaud my fellow Senators for their hard work and cooperation. Senator Pete Domenici deserves special recognition. Senator Domenici's expertise on energy issues is unparalleled in the United States Senate, as he has demonstrated for a number of years on both the Energy Committee and the Energy and Water Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. His determination to produce a comprehensive national energy policy, and his hard work with his ranking member, Senator Bingaman, as well as the other members of his committee, is the reason why we stand here, today, on the cusp of final passage of a balanced, bipartisan energy bill. I congratulate Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman. I am confident that they will continue to work together in conference to deliver a strong Energy bill that will provide the clean, affordable energy we need to keep America moving forward.

Anyone who has filled a tank of gas recently, or paid an electric bill, knows that we've reached a crisis point. Energy prices are skyrocketing. Suddenly, instead of the lowest natural gas prices in the industrialized world, we have the highest. Because of high natural gas prices, manufacturing and chemical jobs are moving overseas. Farmers are taking a pay cut. Consumers are paying too much to heat and cool their homes. Communities across the country are suffering. And as many as 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost because of soaring prices. All the while, we have grown dangerously reliant on foreign sources of energy. And some of those foreign sources do not have America's best interests at heart.

In the 1960s and early 1970s, the U.S. produced almost as much oil as we consumed. Imports were relatively small. But since then, U.S. oil production has been on the decline, while consumption has steadily increased. As a result, we've become more and more dependent on imported oil.

As we remember all too well, in the early 1970's, large oil exporters in the Middle East adopted an oil embargo against many Western countries. This marked the first time that oil was used as a political weapon. At the time, the U.S. imported 35 percent of our oil needs. Since then, we have become much more dependent on foreign sources of oil and natural gas. We are more vulnerable than ever to the use of energy as a political weapon.

In addition, many non-democratic countries and others maintain their hold on power through the redistribution of oil revenues. We see this happening in Venezuela. We currently import over one million barrels of oil a day from Venezuela. Meanwhile, its president, Hugo Chavez, actively opposes the United States, supports rogue states such as Cuba, and is working to destabilize Latin America. President Chavez maintains his political support with the aid of Venezuela's oil revenues. These revenues have also given him the ability to purchase arms and play a major role on the international stage.

These dynamics are equally evident for energy suppliers in the Middle East. President Bush and many of my colleagues here in the Senate have correctly argued that the spread of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law is essential for peace and stability, and for victory in the War on Terrorism. But regimes in the Middle East have been able to use their oil revenues to hang on to power and maintain non-democratic political systems. As a result, the conditions that breed hatred, violence, and terrorism often go unaddressed, and the problems of terrorism persist.

Passing the energy bill today will be a major step forward in addressing these serious national security challenges. It will also be a major step forward for our economic productivity and prosperity. The Energy bill promises to deliver exciting new technologies. Hydrogen fuel cells are one example. If just 20 percent of cars used fuel cell technology, we could cut oil imports by 1.5 million barrels every day.

The Senate Energy bill authorizes $3.7 billion over 5 years to support hydrogen and fuel-cell research, as well as the infrastructure we need to move toward this goal.

Last week, Senator Hatch and I had the opportunity to attend a hydrogen car demonstration here at the Capitol. The cars were stylish. They drove well. The technology is very promising. Hybrid cars are already gaining in popularity. Just this past week, Nissan announced that its first hybrid vehicle will be built at the Smyrna plant in Tennessee. This is one example of how technology can simultaneously promote conservation and efficiency, and boost the manufacturing sector.

In addition, the Energy bill's conservation and energy efficiency provisions far exceed those of other energy bills considered by the Congress in recent years.

According to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, the Senate Energy bill will save 1.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas by 2020, equivalent to the current annual consumption of the whole state of New York. It will reduce peak electric demand by 50,000 megawatts by 2020, the equivalent of 170 new power plants. And it will reduce U.S. oil consumption by 1 million barrels a day by the year 2015.

It encourages the use of home-grown renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel, as well as wind and solar and geothermal energy. It provides incentives to facilitate the development of cutting edge technologies like coal gasification and advanced nuclear plants, which will produce clean, low-carbon energy to help address the issue of global climate change. And it will modernize and expand our Nation's electricity grid to enhance reliability and help prevent future blackouts.

The Senate energy bill will help us both conserve more energy, and produce more energy. It will also help produce more jobs. It is estimated that the energy bill will save over two million jobs and create hundreds of thousands more. The ethanol provision, for

example, is expected to generate 230,000 new jobs over the next 7 years. Incentives for wind generated energy are expected to create another 100,000 jobs in the next 2. The investment in clean coal technology will create 62,1000 jobs, and 40,000 new jobs in the solar industry will come on line. These are good jobs, well paying, and right here at home.

The energy bill is good for America, It will move our country toward a more reliable supply of clean, affordable energy. I urge my colleagues to vote for this comprehensive, forward leaning plan. Casting a vote for the Energy bill is a vote for a safer and more secure America.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the Senate Energy bill. I first want to commend and thank my colleagues, the Senators from New Mexico, for their hard work in getting this bill to the floor and ensuring fair debate on these important issues. They have worked tirelessly and in a bipartisan fashion to craft this bill and deserve our gratitude.

This Nation needs an energy policy that steers us toward energy independence, innovation and conservation. Unfortunately, however, I believe the bill in the Senate does not embody a sound overall energy policy, and requires a no vote.

The American people deserve an energy policy that truly reflects our national priorities and promotes energy independence. An effective energy policy must: reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil; address climate change in a meaningful way; promote energy efficiency through fuel efficiency; expand our use of renewable energy sources; and protect the United States Outer Continental Shelf from offshore drilling.

Unfortunately, the bill we voted on today inadequately addresses these priorities.

We need an aggressive strategy to wean this country off of its reliance on foreign sources of energy. But this bill does nothing to reduce this Nation's dependence on foreign oil, or provide any relief for the soaring prices at the gas pump. The bill includes an oil savings goal of only one million barrels per day by 2015, and does not even provide a mechanism for enforcement. This is unacceptable. It would take savings of three to five million barrels per day to truly reduce our energy dependence. I supported the amendment offered by Senator Cantwell to reduce imports of foreign oil by 40 percent over the next 20 years. Sadly, the majority of the Senate did not, and that amendment was not included in this bill.

In addition, the bill includes an 8-billion gallon ethanol mandate that will actually increase gas prices for many Americans. The cost of living in New Jersey is already one of the highest in the Nation, and the ethanol mandate will essentially add a new gas tax for New Jersey's residents. Furthermore, although the bill includes a higher renewable fuel standard level, this will not necessarily lead to more energy security, as its proponents claim. Increasing these levels would not significantly reduce U.S. oil imports because each gallon of gasoline blended with ethanol to make gasohol has less energy in it than regular gasoline, requiring increased petroleum product imports to make up that energy loss. Producing ethanol also requires a significant amount of fossil fuel. Finally, a larger renewable fuel standard could force the expanded use of ethanol in areas, such as New Jersey, and hinder-- rather than help--state efforts to attain federal air quality standards.

Instead of establishing a national ethanol mandate, we should reduce the Nation's consumption of oil. A simple and cost effective way of doing this, would be to raise CAFE standards. In fact, improving the fuel economy of passenger vehicles not only reduces our dependence on foreign oil, but cuts global warming emissions and saves consumers thousands of dollars annually at the gas pump. Americans currently consume a little over 20 million barrels of oil per day. Senator Durbin offered an amendment that would raise fuel economy standards from 27.5 to 40 miles per gallon by 2017 for all passenger vehicles and include SUVs in

the passenger vehicle category. The amendment would also increase the standards for pickup trucks and other nonpassenger vehicles from 21 miles per gallon to 27.5 miles per gallon. Raising these standards would save over 95 billion gallons of oil by 2016.

The Energy Information Administration projects that if we do nothing to raise CAFE standards, by 2020 Americans will be consuming 12 million barrels of oil per day for fuel use alone. If the Durbin amendment were passed, however, we would be saving 3 million barrels of oil per day or a reduction of 25 percent in gasoline consumption by the year 2020. Furthermore, if we had implemented the Durbin amendment in 2001, Americans would be saving $5 billion per year at the pump. This is an aggressive strategy that I feel is not only necessary, but long overdue.

The Senate had an opportunity to make important choices with this bill, and if you do a cost-benefit analysis, it is clear the Senate has made many wrong choices. I supported stricter CAFE standards and more aggressive oil savings, yet these amendments were not included in the bill we voted on today.

Instead, this bill does include a provision that I strongly opposed, the seismic inventory of the Outer Continental Shelf. I have been very clear about my opposition to any provision in this bill that will weaken the moratoria on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. As my colleagues know, I spent many hours on the Senate floor last week to ensure that no amendments were offered to weaken the moratoria. This step onto a slippery slope is only reemphasizing our dependency on oil and gas.

It is important to note that New Jersey is a State that already does its part in supporting energy production and refining for the Nation. Along with traditional power plants, we have three nuclear power plants, support siting of an LNG terminal and are looking into alternative energy sources. And New Jersey is the East Coast hub for oil refining. New Jersey is doing its part. New Jersey recognizes the variety of ways to generate energy. It can be done without offshore drilling.

Yet this bill includes a provision that would allow an inventory of all potential oil and natural gas resources in the entire Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off of the New Jersey coast. It is a slippery slope toward drilling, which would devastate New Jersey's beautiful beaches as well as its coastal tourism industry, an industry that supports over 800,000 jobs and generates $5.5 billion in revenue. And the seismic explosions are themselves dangerous to the environment and our offshore fisheries.

That is why I voted with my Florida colleagues and others to strike the inventory provision from the bill. But that amendment failed. That was the wrong choice. It makes no sense to sacrifice the economies and environmental sanctity of coastal States for what many energy analysts have said would not end the long-term trend of growing dependency on foreign oil. It is the wrong analysis, and the wrong decision and just one more example of how this Energy bill includes wrong choices.

Another problem with the bill before us is that it fails to effectively address a crucial issue that is paramount to our health, our environment, our economy and our way of life--climate change. The science is increasingly clear that greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity are changing the earth's climate. The rest of the industrialized world understands the danger of this problem. Unless Congress acts in a meaningful way, the effects of global warming may be devastating to the worldwide economy and environment. Recognition by the Senate that global warming is indeed a problem is a first step. However, we cannot stop here. I supported an amendment to ensure real, immediate action on global warming. This amendment would require a reduction in carbon dioxide emission levels to 2000 levels by the year 2010. But, this important program is not included in this bill. This is a significant failure and misses the opportunity to address a problem that, without quick action, we will pass on to our children and grandchildren.

Finally, the underlying bill gives the Federal Government too much authority over the siting of liquefied natural gas terminals in their communities. I am very supportive of the proposed terminal in South Jersey, which is projected to provide energy to 4 to 5 million residences. Unfortunately, the State of Delaware has hampered the siting of this facility. These complications, however, do not justify ceding authority over New Jersey's choices about its energy supply to Washington. I am disappointed that the Senate failed to pass an amendment that would ensure States have authority over LNG terminal siting.

As you can see, I have many concerns about this bill. But there are some provisions that are steps in the right direction. The Senate included an amendment, which I supported, that requires a 10 percent renewable portfolio standard. I am proud that New Jersey is one of the first States to adopt its own 20 percent portfolio standard, and I am pleased that the rest of the Nation will take a step to follow with this important effort to expand renewable energy sources. In addition, this bill includes important tax incentives that promote energy efficiency. I am especially pleased that I was able to secure provisions in the energy efficiency title that encourage the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the public housing authorities it oversees to increase energy efficiency in public housing projects.

But these provisions are not enough to plug the weaknesses left in this bill. I voted this bill out of committee with the hopes that by bringing it to the Senate floor, my colleagues and I could greatly improve the bill. The committee markup was a fair and bipartisan process, and I was pleased to be a part of it. But if the goal is to create a comprehensive energy policy that will move this Nation in a direction of energy security and independence, then the bill we voted on today in the Senate will not achieve that goal. It is my hope that this bill will be improved in the conference committee, and I urge my colleagues to take these important issues into account as we move forward.

Mr. President, during the 2 weeks or so that we have been debating this Energy bill in the Senate, the price of crude oil has climbed to a record high of $60 a barrel. Gas is now up to $2.24 per gallon. The Saudis are pumping at near-full capacity, and their own oil minister says that the price of crude will probably stay at this level for the rest of the year.

At this price, the United States is sending $650 million overseas every single day. That is $237 billion a year--much of it to the Middle East, a region we have seen torn by war and terror. It doesn't matter if these countries are budding democracies, despotic regimes with nuclear intentions, or havens for the madrasas that plant the seeds of terror in young minds, they get our money because we need their oil.

As demand continues to skyrocket around the world, other countries have started to realize that guzzling oil is not a sustainable future. What's more, these countries have realized that by investing early in the energy-efficient technology that exists today, they can create millions of tomorrow's jobs and build their economies to rival ours.

China now has a higher fuel economy standard than we do, and it has got 200,000 hybrids on its roads. Japan's Toyota is doubling production of the popular Prius in order to sell 100,000 in the U.S. next year, and it is getting ready to open a brand new plant in China. Meanwhile, we are importing hydrogen fuel cells from Canada.

These companies are running circles around their American counterparts. Ford is only making 20,000 Escape Hybrids this year, and GM's brand won't be on the market until 2007. As falling demand for gas-hungry SUVs has contributed to Standard and Poor reducing the bond rating of these companies to junk status, these giants of the car industry now find themselves in the shadow of companies and countries that realize the time has come to move away from an oil economy.

So here we are. We have people paying record prices at the pump and America sending billions overseas to the world's most volatile region. We have countries such as China and India using energy technology to create jobs and wealth while our own businesses and workers fall further and further behind.

And we have the Energy bill that is before us today.

Now, this bill takes some small steps in the right direction. It will require utilities to generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. It will help us realize the promise of ethanol as a fuel alternative by requiring 8 billion gallons to be mixed with gasoline over the next few years, and by providing a tax credit for the construction of E85 stations all over America. It will provide funding for the clean coal technologies that will move America to use its most abundant fossil fuel in a cleaner, healthier way, including for low- emission transportation fuels. It will support the development of 500 mile-per-gallon automobile technology. And it will provide a good mix of tax incentives to move America towards more energy efficiency instead of simply rewarding the oil and gas industries, as the House bill does. The good that these proposals will do is reason enough to vote for this bill, and I will do so.

But we shouldn't kid ourselves today. This isn't time to pat ourselves on the back and think we have put America on the path to energy independence. Experts say that this bill will reduce our foreign oil consumption by 3 percent. Three percent. Our own Department of Energy predicts that American demand will jump by 50 percent over the next 15 years. So 3 percent doesn't amount to much--and it certainly won't make a difference at the pump. Even President Bush admits this. We tried to pass an amendment that would have reduced our foreign oil dependence by 40 percent in 2025, but too many Senators said no.

And so when you look at this energy crisis and realize that it is about so much more than energy, when you realize that our national security is at stake and that the global standing of our economy hangs in the balance, when you see prices continue to rise and other countries continue to innovate, you can't help but ask yourself, ``Is this the best America can do?'' The country that went to the Moon and conquered polio? The country that led the technological revolution of the 1990s?

It would be one thing if the solutions to our dependence on foreign oil were pie-in-the-sky ideas that are years

away. But the technology is right at our fingertips. Today, we could have told American car companies, we will help you produce more hybrid cars. We could have made sure there were more flexible fuel tanks in our cars. We could have addressed the big reason why car companies are hurting in this country--legacy health care costs. Had we taken all of these actions, we could have put America on the path to energy independence once and for all.

We also could have addressed the fact that global warming is threatening us with higher temperatures, more drought, more wildfire, more flooding, and more erosion of our coastal communities. People who don't believe this can yell about it as loudly as they want, but it doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming scientific evidence proves this over and over again. We could have taken care of this problem now and left a better world to our children.

With each passing day, the world is moving towards new technology and new sources of energy that will one day replace our current dependence on fossil fuels.

And so America has a choice.

We can continue to hang on to oil as our solution. We can keep passing Energy bills that nibble around the edges of the problem. We can hope that the Saudis will pump faster and that our drills will find more. And we can just sit on our hands and say that it is too hard to change the way things are and so we might as well not even try.

Or we could realize that this issue of energy--this issue that at first glance seems like it is just about drilling or caribou or weird- looking cars--actually affects so many aspects of our lives that finding a solution could be the great project of our time.

It won't be easy and it won't be without sacrifice. Government can't make it happen on its own, but it does have a role in supporting the initiative that is already out there. Together, we can help make real the ideas and initiatives that are coming from scientists and students and farmers all across America.

Abraham Lincoln, who first opened our National Academy of Sciences, once said that part of Government's mission is to add ``the fuel of interest to the fire of genius in the discovery of new and useful things.''

Today, when it comes to discovering new and useful solutions to our energy crisis, the fire of genius burns strong in so many American innovators and optimists. But they're looking for leadership to provide the fuel that will light their way. This bill is a reasonable first step, but I know that we can do much, much better.

Mr. President, I would like to express my gratitude to the managers of the energy bill, Senators Domenici and Bingaman, for their support of two amendments that I offered. I am proud that these amendments have been included in the legislation that the Senate will vote on today, and I believe that their enactment will help America increase its energy independence and transition our energy industry to full usage of 21st century technologies.

The first adopted amendment, which was cosponsored by Senator Lugar, provides $85 million to three universities for research and testing on developing Illinois basin coal into transportation fuels, including Fischer-Tropsch jet fuel, a type of low-emissions diesel that can be used in jets and diesel. The funds provided in this amendment will assist Southern Illinois University, Purdue University, and the University of Kentucky in upgrading existing facilities and constructing new facilities to conduct research and testing on this technology. It is critical that our Government invests in domestic fossil fuel supplies in an innovative manner, and this is a commonsense way to expand our coal industry in an environmentally friendly manner.

The second adopted amendment, which was cosponsored by Senator Bayh, provides $40 million for research on combined plug-in hybrid and flexible fuel vehicles. Today, we have the technology to produce both plug-in hybrid vehicles, which run partly on electricity rather than fuel, and flexible fuel vehicles, which run on a blend of 85 percent renewable fuel and 15 percent petroleum. But we don't yet have the technology to combine both technologies into the same car. If we could do this, there is the potential for developing a car that could get 500 miles per gallon of gasoline. At a time when our country spends billions of dollars a year on importing foreign oil, it is imperative that we take meaningful, proactive steps that not only stem our future oil dependence but also reduce our reliance on overseas sources. My amendment would do just that by stimulating the commercialization of this technology at a cost of only 6 percent of our Nation's daily spending on foreign oil.

Again, I thank the bill managers for their assistance with these amendments.

I ask unanimous consent to have the following two articles on the potential of combined plug-in hybrid/flexible fuel vehicles printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Santorum, Schumer, and DeMint in introducing the ASPIRE Act of 2005, which would expand opportunities for young adults, encourage savings, and promote financial literacy, by establishing investment accounts, known as KIDS Accounts, for every child in America.

ASPIRE is based largely on a similar initiative in the United Kingdom developed by Prime Minister Tony Blair. Yet despite its British roots, the proposal is based on the most basic of American values. By giving every young person resources with which to get a start in life, ASPIRE will help realize the American ideal of equal opportunity. And by making every young person an investor, the proposal would encourage self reliance, promote savings, and give every family a personal stake in America's economy.

Under ASPIRE, an investment account would be established for every American child upon receiving a Social Security number. Each account would be funded initially with $500. Those with incomes less than the national median would receive an additional contribution of up to $500, and would receive a one-for-one government match for their first $500 of private contributions each year. Up to $1000 of after-tax private contributions would be allowed annually from any source.

Funds would accumulate tax-free and could not be withdrawn for purposes other than higher education until the child reaches the age of 18. At that point, funds could be withdrawn, according to Roth IRA guidelines, either for higher education or for the purchase of a home. Funds left unspent would be saved for retirement under rules similar to those that apply to Roth IRAs or rolled over to a 529 plan for educational expenses. Once the account holder reaches the age of 30, the initial $500 government contribution would have to be repaid, though exceptions could be made to avoid undue hardship.

Accounts initially would be held by a government entity that would be based on the successful Thrift Savings Plan, or TSP, which now manages retirement accounts for Federal employees with relatively low administrative costs. As with the TSP, investors would have a range of investment options, such as a Government securities fund, a fixed income investment fund, and a common stock fund. However, once an account holder reaches the age of 18, funds could be rolled over to a KIDS Account held at a private institution.

It is difficult to understate the potential impact of giving every American child a funded investment account of their own. For the first time, every child will have a meaningful incentive to learn the basics of investing, because they will have real resources to invest. For the first time, even families with modest incomes will have a significant incentive to save, to earn the government match. And, perhaps most fundamentally, for the first time, every American child will grow up knowing that when they reach adulthood, they will have the ability to invest in themselves and in their own education. In short, every child will have hope for a real future.

Considering its potentially significant social and individual benefits, the ASPIRE Act requires an investment that is relatively modest. It has been

estimated that, when it becomes effective, the bill's cost would represent only about one tenth of one percent of the Federal budget. Yet the proposal differs from other proposals for new spending or tax cuts because, for the first 18 years, it would not reduce overall national savings at all. In that period, virtually every dollar of outlays would be saved, and would be available to expand long-term economic growth. In fact, the proposal would lead to an increase in national savings because of its incentives for families to save more. This would help create the economic growth we need to handle the added burdens associated with the impending retirement of the baby boomers.

Senator Santorum and I are excited to be joined this year by Senators Schumer and DeMint as sponsors of ASPIRE, along with sponsors of identical legislation in the House, Congressmen Harold Ford, Patrick Kennedy, Thomas Petri and Phil English. In that process, we have been assisted by a broad range of experts and other interested parties, for which I am very grateful. However, I want to especially thank Ray Boshara and Reid Cramer of the New America Foundation, who have been extraordinarily helpful in the development of the legislation, and who have taken the lead in efforts to promote this and other asset building initiatives.

Mr. President, the ASPIRE Act is a big new idea based on simple, old time American values. It already enjoys strong bipartisan support from conservatives and progressives, alike, in both houses of Congress. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to secure its prompt enactment.

Mr. President, today, along with Senator Lautenberg, I am introducing legislation, the Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism Anti- Drilling Act, or COAST Anti-Drilling Act, to ban oil and gas drilling off the Mid-Atlantic and Northern Atlantic coast.

The people of New Jersey, and other residents of States along the Atlantic Coast, do not want oil or gas rigs anywhere near their treasured beaches and fishing grounds. Such drilling poses serious threats not only to our environment, but to our economy, which depends heavily on tourism along our shore. Coastal tourism is New Jersey's second-largest industry, and the New Jersey Shore is one of the fastest growing regions in the country. According to the New Jersey Department of Commerce, tourism in the Garden State generates more than $31 billion in spending, directly and indirectly supports more than 836,000 jobs, more than 20 percent of total State employment, generates more than $16.6 billion in wages, and brings in more than $5.5 billion in tax revenues to the State.

Until the Bush administration came into office, there was no reason to suspect that drilling was even a remote possibility. Since 1982, a statutory moratorium on leasing activities in most Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, areas has been included annually in Interior appropriations acts. In addition, President George H.W. Bush declared a leasing moratorium on many OCS areas on June 26, 1990, under section 12 of the OCS Lands Act. On June 12, 1998, President Clinton used the same authority to issue a memorandum to the Secretary of the Interior that extended the moratorium through 2012 and included additional OCS areas.

Given the longstanding consensus against drilling in these areas, I was deeply disturbed to discover that on May 31, 2001, the Minerals Management Service released a request for proposals, RFP, to conduct a study of the environmental impacts of drilling in the Mid- and North- Atlantic. The RFP noted that ``there are areas with some reservoir potential, for example off the coast of New Jersey.'' In addition, the RFP explained that the study would be conducted ``in anticipation of managing the exploitation of potential and proven reserves.'' I believed that the RFP was inappropriate and misguided, and I was pleased when at my urging and the urging of other coastal Senators, the administration rescinded it.

After our strong bipartisan coalition fought off the Department of the Interior RFP, our coastal coalition came together again to fight off the Outer Continental Shelf inventory provisions of last year's energy bill. The bill directed the Department of the Interior to inventory all potential oil and natural gas resources in the entire Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off of the New Jersey coast. The bill would have allowed the use of seismic surveys, dart core sampling, and other exploration technologies, all of which would leave these areas vulnerable to oil spills, drilling discharges and damage to coastal wetlands.

These provisions run directly counter to language that Congress has included annually in appropriations bills to prevent leasing, preleasing, and related activities in most areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off the New Jersey coast. Fortunately, this provision was dropped last year, but it is likely that it will resurface during debate on the Energy bill this year, and it is clear that we need to once and for all ban drilling off the coast of New Jersey and the rest of the Mid- and North-Atlantic.

So considering the minimal benefit and significant downside of drilling off the coast of New Jersey, it is not worth threatening over 800,000 New Jersey jobs to recover what the MMS estimated in 2000 to be 196 million barrels

of oil, only enough to last the country barely 10 days.

I certainly don't think it is worth the risk, and it is time for Congress to act to resolve this question once and for all. That is why I am introducing the COAST Anti-Drilling Act. The Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism Anti-Drilling Act would permanently ban drilling for oil, gas and other minerals in the Mid- and North-Atlantic.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation. Doing so would ensure the people of New Jersey and neighboring States that they need not fear the specter of oil rigs off their beaches.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.