Vision Care for Kids Act of 2007

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk a bit about taxes. Millions of Americans are scrambling today to file their taxes, trying to pull together their 1040 forms and ``schedule this'' and ``form that'' and are plowing through shoe boxes and filing cabinets trying to find the receipts they accumulated all through this year.

Millions of our citizens have to calculate their taxes twice to find out the hard way that they have been ensnared in the alternative minimum tax and that they have to pay a much larger burden than they had expected. I believe there is a better way for our country to handle taxes, one where most Americans do not have to fear tax day, do not have to shell out billions of dollars in order to file their taxes, do not have to worry about getting crushed by the alternative minimum tax that years ago, when it was created, was not supposed to clobber middle-class folks in the Pacific Northwest and across the country.

Today I am introducing the Fair Flat Tax Act, along with my colleague in the other body, Congressman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois. What we are doing in our fair flat tax legislation is offering the country a proposal that offers the administrative simplicity of a flat tax with the sense of fairness and progressivity that our country has always wanted in our tax system.

The tax reform proposal we have developed is simpler because it is easier to understand and use. Our legislation will include a simplified 1040 form, one page, 30 lines for every individual taxpayer.

The folks at Money magazine, the financial publication, took this one-page 1040 form, and they were able to fill out their taxes in 15 minutes.

We also make the tax system flatter by collapsing the current system of six individual tax brackets down to three brackets of 15, 25 and 35 percent. We create a flat corporate rate of 35 percent.

The plan is fairer because we do more to make it possible for middle- class folks to get ahead. We are able to give a tax cut to millions of middle-class families because we eliminate scores and scores of special-interest tax breaks, close those loopholes, that, in effect, drain the country of revenue and never find their way to helping the middle class.

We make a radical statement about tax law in our legislation. We say something is out of whack when the cop who is walking the beat in this country pays a lot higher tax rate than the person who makes all their money in the stock market. I wish to make it clear: we want everybody to get ahead, we want everybody to do well, we never want to penalize success. But let's make it possible for all Americans to share the American dream and not just the fortunate few.

Under the current Federal Tax Code, all income is not treated fairly. My colleague in the other body, Congressman Emanuel, and I would change that. We are not interested in soaking investors. We believe in markets. We believe in creating wealth. But we want everybody to be able to share in that wealth, and under the Fair Flat Tax, they would be able to do it.

The Fair Flat Tax adopts the flat tax idea to provide real relief to the middle class through fewer exclusions, exemptions, deductions deferrals, credits and special rates for certain favored businesses, very often, breaks that have been added to the Tax Code because those powerful interests have lobbyists that the middle-class folks we represent do not.

We triple the standard deduction for single filers from $5,000 to $15,000 and from $10,000 to $30,000 for married couples. As a result, the vast majority of Americans would be better off claiming the standard deduction than having to itemize their deductions, so their filing will be simplified. We do keep the key deductions most used by middle-income folks across the country. We keep the deduction for mortgage interest and charity. We keep the credits for children, for education, and earned income.

Nobody would have to calculate their taxes twice under the Fair Flat Tax Act. Our proposal eliminates the individual alternative minimum tax which could ensnare as many as 100 million taxpayers by the end of the decade. We eliminate an estimated $20 billion each year in special breaks for special interests.

Eliminating those breaks would sustain current benefits for our men and women in uniform, our veterans, our elderly, and our disabled, as well as those tax incentives that promote savings and help our families pay for medical care and for education.

I think an especially important feature of the Fair Flat Tax Act is it corrects one of the most glaring inequities in the current tax system; and that is regressive State and local taxes. Under current law, low- and middle-income taxpayers get hit with a double whammy. Compared to wealthier folks, they pay more of their income in State and local taxes. Poor families pay more than 11 percent and middle-income families pay about 10 percent of their

income in State and local taxes, while the wealthier pay only about 5 percent.

Because many low- and middle-income taxpayers do not itemize, they get no credit on their Federal form for paying State and local taxes. In fact, two-thirds of the Federal tax deduction for State and local taxes goes to those with incomes above $100,000 a year. Under the Fair Flat Tax Act, for the first time, the Federal Code would look at the entire picture of one's taxes, at an individual's combined Federal, State, and local tax burden, and give a credit to low- and middle- income individuals to correct for regressive State and local taxes.

Repealing some individual tax credits, deductions, and exclusions from income--along with eliminating some of those special interest favors in the corporate Tax Code--enables larger standard deductions and broader middle-class tax relief.

What this means is that, according to the Congressional Research Service, under our legislation, the vast majority of taxpayers would see their taxes go down. The Congressional Research Service has advised us that on average, middle-class families and individuals with wage and salary incomes up to $150,000 would see tax relief. Let me repeat that. We are talking about on average, tax relief for middle-class families and families with wage and salary incomes up to approximately $150,000. Middle-class folks in our country would get a tax break.

The legislation also makes concrete progress toward deficit reduction. Certainly, there is a long way to go to stop the hemorrhaging in the Federal budget, but this legislation makes a decent start by allowing us to start lowering the Federal deficit in 2011. It is essentially a revenue-neutral kind of system. But certainly, as we look to the future, this is going to allow us to start lowering the Federal deficit.

I also point out, by simplifying the Code, there are going to be other benefits. For example, we have heard a great deal about the tax gap in the Finance and Budget Committees. It is one of the most serious problems our country faces as it relates to finance in America. Upwards of $300 billion of money that is owed to our government is not collected. Given the fact we have a system today where people are able to flout the rules, change the system, why not go to a simpler system that makes it harder for individuals to cheat and easier for the IRS to catch those who do?

If you look at what I have proposed, the Fair Flat Tax Act--a 1040 form that is only 30 lines long--it is going to be a lot harder to cheat the system under a proposal such as this, and it is going to be a lot easier for the IRS to catch those who try to take advantage of something such as this.

I believe the Fair Flat Tax Act can make a significant contribution in helping this country collect those taxes that are owed and raise a significant amount of revenue from a source that does not increase taxes. What we are proposing with our fair flat tax legislation is a win for everybody except those who would try to rip off the system.

I am introducing the Fair Flat Tax Act of 2007 today to provide Americans a plan based on common sense principles that can make the Tax Code work better. We are going to have a system that is simpler and we are going to have a system that is fairer because it closes scores of those special interest loopholes. It gets rid of the despised alternative minimum tax, and it gives everybody a chance to get ahead in America.

It is not about class warfare. It is not about pitting one group against another. It is about giving everybody the opportunity to be a winner and to get ahead to provide for their family and ensure that when they are successful, their success can allow them to do well financially.

I do think it is important to make sure those who work for a wage get fair treatment. That has not been the case today. I want investors to do well. We all look to the stock market as a major barometer of economic prosperity in our country. But let's make sure everybody has an opportunity to get ahead. Something is seriously wrong when somebody who works for a wage gets hit with a lot higher tax rate than somebody who makes their money as an investor.

I hope we can go forward in a bipartisan way on the issue of tax reform. I am extremely disappointed the Bush administration has not chosen to follow up on tax reform. I think it is especially unfortunate, given the fact the President had a commission that had a number of good ideas as it relates to tax reform. I certainly did not agree with all of them, but let me talk about one example of how the Congress could work with the Bush administration in a bipartisan way.

I have shown this fair flat tax form I am proposing for a reason; and that is, because I think it is an ideal way for the administration and Democrats and Republicans to work together. My form is 30 lines long-- 30 lines long--and you can fill it out in under an hour. The President's commission had a form that is maybe six, seven lines longer--just a handful of additional lines. For purposes of Government work, there is virtually no difference between the simplified form I am proposing and what the President's commission has called for. We could get Democrats and Republicans together to work on tax reform and come up with a simplified form in a matter of days.

There is very little difference between what I am proposing and what came out of the President's commission.

But what is going to be important is that the President reach out to Democrats and Republicans in the Congress and say: Look, I want to work with you on simplifying the Tax Code. I want to work with you to hold down rates for everybody by closing out some of those special interest breaks. I want to see everybody have an opportunity to get ahead.

That certainly is what President Reagan did in 1986, when he worked with another tall fellow who served on the Senate Finance Committee, our former colleague Senator Bill Bradley. I went to school on a basketball scholarship. My jump shot is not quite as good as Bill Bradley's, but I sure know the value of bipartisan teamwork.

So today, the day before taxes are owed, I want to renew my offer to the Bush administration to work with them on the issue of tax reform. It is a natural for bipartisan leadership. We have a model; and that is, the reform of 1986, where, again, they simplified the system. They cleaned out the clutter. They got rid of some of those special interest loopholes. They held down rates for everybody. It was good for our country. We can do that again.

The fair flat tax legislation I am introducing today provides an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together to fix the Tax Code in 2007, the way Democrats and Republicans did back in 1986, when the late President Reagan and Bill Bradley came together and led a bipartisan effort.

I think it is time to do that again. Most people clean out their attic every 20 years or so. We ought to clean the Tax Code every 20 years as well. I think we know how to proceed. The question is whether there is political will. I urge the Bush administration to work with Democrats and Republicans in the Congress because the current tax system, which has subjected our citizens to so much hassle and bureaucracy over the last few months, does not have to be that way. There is an alternative. I have presented one. The President's commission has presented one. Democrats and Republicans working together can do better.

I urge the President to look to the Congress, leaders of both political parties, to move forward on tax reform in the days ahead.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Redwood

Valley County Water District Loan Renegotiation Act of 2007. I am pleased that Senator Boxer is a cosponsor of this bill.

This bill seeks to remove roadblocks to the implementation of 1988 legislation that requires the Secretary of the Interior to renegotiate debts owed by the Redwood Valley County Water District to the United States. Enactment of this bill is necessary so that Redwood Valley can obtain a reliable water supply.

In 1983, the Redwood Valley County Water District completed a project which supplied water to a rural agricultural community near Ukiah, CA. Two Bureau of Reclamation loans totaling $7.3 million contributed to the financing of this project.

Unfortunately, the District was unable to repay these loans. This occurred for several reasons: The projected water use in the original feasibility study, developed by the District and reviewed by the Bureau, was seriously flawed; the District's ability to raise necessary revenues was compromised by a judicially imposed moratorium on new hook-ups; and concerns for endangered species reduced the District's potential water supply allotment by 33 percent.

As a result, in 1988 Congress passed Section 15 of Public Law 100-516 which indefinitely suspended the District's obligations to repay these Bureau loans and ordered the Secretary of Interior to renegotiate the loans. This loan renegotiation has yet to take place and now the District finds that its water supply is highly uncertain.

In 2000 in a report on Redwood Valley, the Bureau of Reclamation recognized these changed conditions, and concluded that the District needs a reliable water supply before it can solve its current financial dilemma.

The District recently identified two potential new projects, either of which could prove a reliable water source. No government funds will be sought for these projects. The District intends to rely on private financing, a strategy that the Bureau of Reclamation is encouraging. However, before the District can secure private financing for new projects, it must renegotiate the existing loans to provide for their repayment subsequent to the repayment of the new loans.

The existing loans are an impediment to the District's attempts to upgrade elements of its existing plant. As an example, the District unsuccessfully sought private financing to build a 100 kW solar panel project. This project would have enabled the District to cut its energy costs and to qualify for energy rebates.

Significantly, this legislation requires the District to repay to the United States the currently suspended loans once the District's new loans have been paid.

The only difference between this bill and S. 3189, which I introduced last year, is to clarify that no renegotiations are required to trigger the District's obligations to repay the loans and the Secretary of Interior ``shall reschedule the payments due'' once the District has satisfied its additional financial obligations.

The proposed water projects will enable the District to generate adequate revenues to allow the District to repay both its new private loans and its original loans from the United States. By providing a workable and reasonable solution to a longstanding problem, this legislation creates a win-win solution for taxpayers of the United States and the rate payers of the Redwood Valley County Water District.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation from the last Congress that would bring all electronic surveillance of terrorists under the color of law and would modernize the rules for conducting such surveillance. I am pleased that Senator Specter, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, has co- sponsored this legislation.

We all agree that the President and the Intelligence Community should have all the tools they need to find the terrorists before they have a chance to strike us again. This cannot be said too many times in too many ways.

We also agree, though, that these intelligence tools can and should be used in a way that protects the constitutional and privacy rights of all Americans. That is the balance that this legislation attempts to strike.

Nowhere is this more at issue than in electronic surveillance, where government officials record the content of Americans' phone and electronic communications. This important means of obtaining critical counterterrorism information is at the same time a significant, constitutionally recognized intrusion into Americans' privacy rights.

It is worth reminding ourselves of this. We have recently focused on the use of National Security Letters, through which the FBI inappropriately obtained telephone records of at least hundreds of Americans. Electronic surveillance goes far beyond records and collects the actual content--the words spoken over the phone or typed in email.

It is also worth reminding ourselves of why this legislation is necessary, as it has been several months before this was the top legislative issue before the Senate.

For more than five years since September 11, 2001, the National Security Agency collected the content of calls from or to United States persons--citizens and permanent residents--without a court order as is required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).

This surveillance was done without notifying and seeking authorization from the congressional intelligence committees. The President and Vice President have very closely restricted disclosure of information about what they call the ``Terrorist Surveillance Program.''

Until this surveillance came to light through an article in The New York Times in December 2005, only eight members of Congress were briefed on it. Even after the article came out, the White House refused to brief the members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees for several months.

Even now, the Intelligence Committee does not have all the information it needs to carry out its Constitutional oversight duties.

Throughout 2006, the Judiciary Committee debated various bills to authorize or prohibit electronic surveillance outside of FISA. The bill that Senator Specter and I authored last year, which is being re- introduced today, was reported out of Judiciary on a bipartisan vote on September 13, 2006. The Senate, however, took no legislative action prior to adjournment.

Then, on January 17, 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales notified the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that the FISA Court had authorized the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Since January, the program has proceeded

under Court supervision, as is required by FISA.

I was pleased that the Administration submitted the TSP to the FISA Court, and that the Court had found a way to issue an order approving this surveillance. I was pleased, but not surprised.

I had maintained throughout the legislative debate last year that it would not take many changes for the TSP to fit under the confines of FISA. All it took was the willingness of the Administration to follow legal process.

Members may ask, given the recent developments, why legislation is now necessary. There are two reasons.

The first is that the Senate should enact this bill is because this Administration has never conceded the point that it cannot conduct electronic surveillance outside of the law. It has put the TSP under FISA Court review, but it asserts that it has the right not to do so. Future Administrations, if not enjoined, may take the same view.

I disagree with this legal analysis.

Secondly, the Director of the National Security Agency, the Director of the FBI, and the Attorney General have said on many occasions that FISA is outdated and in need of modernization. The current FISA process is too bureaucratic, too slow to initiate electronic surveillance from the time a suspected terrorist's phone or email account is identified.

This bill addresses those concerns by providing new flexibility and additional resources to speed the FISA process and allow for the more timely collection of valuable intelligence.

Allow me to summarize the legislation. The bill: re-iterates that FISA is the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes.

Specifies that FISA's requirements cannot be written off through contorted interpretations of other statutes. The Administration's tortured argument with respect to the Authorization for the 2001 Use of Military Force (AUMF) notwithstanding, this legislation would specify that FISA's language can only be undone by a specific and direct Act of Congress.

Requires that Congress, through the Intelligence Committees, be fully briefed on the Terrorist Surveillance Program and any related surveillance programs.

Requires the Supreme Court to review, on an expedited basis, the constitutionality of the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

Streamlines the current ``emergency procedures'' in FISA. Currently, the Attorney General can authorize surveillance prior to a Court order for 72 hours in an emergency. This legislation would extend the time to one week, which should remove any doubt as to whether Court approval can be sought and obtained in time. The bill also allows the Attorney General to delegate his authority to initiate electronic surveillance in an emergency to specific supervisory officials at the NSA and FBI.

Authorizes additional personnel to expedite the writing, submission, and review of FISA applications. Specifically, additional FISA Court judges and staff are authorized, as are additional positions at the Department of Justice, FBI, and NSA.

Extends the existing FISA authority--for 15 days of warrantless surveillance following a declaration of war--to any 30-day period following an authorization for the use of military force or a national emergency following a terrorist attack.

Allows the National Security Agency to take full advantage of its capabilities to collect intelligence on foreign communications.

While foreign-to-foreign communications are not covered now by FISA's requirements, the NSA can only conduct surveillance on these calls if it can be sure, in advance, that a telephone call of email won't transit the United States or unexpectedly end here. In the age of cell phones and the global telecommunications system, this a priori certification is very difficult to make. This legislation therefore specifies that in such inadvertent collection cases, the NSA must minimize the data, but that it has not violated the law.

Finally, the legislation clarifies that FISA court orders for electronic surveillance must be individualized to a particular target that the government has probable cause to believe is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

From the briefings I have received as a member of the Intelligence Committee and the hearings held in Judiciary, I am convinced that the Terrorist Surveillance Program is an important anti-terrorism tool that should be continued.

It is also clear from the January FISA Court ruling that the Terrorist Surveillance Program can be conducted within the confines of FISA. It is appropriate now for Congress to re-iterate that this is the appropriate arrangement.

This is by no means an issue that has been overtaken by events. The Administration continues to support a view of plenary authority in which it can conduct electronic surveillance in violation of FISA. The NSA and the FBI continue to labor under a process that was formed 29 years ago, prior to fundamental changes in the telecommunications system.

I urge the Senate to act to ensure that the law is followed and privacy rights upheld, and to provide the Intelligence Community the tools it needs to continue to make us safe.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, Mr. Cardoza, the gentleman from California, for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, on the opening day of this Congress, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, came to the floor and said that the new majority would, `` . . . begin to return this Chamber to its rightful place as the home of democracy and deliberation in our great Nation.'' That pledge echoed a document by Speaker Pelosi titled A New Direction For America. That document said, ``bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate.''

Now as we approach the closing hours of the 110th Congress, I think it is appropriate for us to take a look at whether the majority has actually lived up to those promises.

Let us begin with closed rules. There really can be few, if any, parliamentary procedures that are more offensive to the essential spirit of democracy, the spirit of democracy, than a closed rule. A closed rule shuts off, blocks Members from both sides of the aisle from offering any amendments to legislation that is considered on the floor. As I said, no matter what their party affiliation, if and when Congress operates under a closed rule, all Members are shut out from the legislative process on the floor.

Even though the majority promised a more open Congress, as I referred to in the beginning of my remarks, they silenced the vote of every Member and thus all of every Member's constituents a record 63 times this Congress. Sixty-three times. No other Congress in the history of the Republic has ever brought forth so many closed rules. No other Congress in the history of the Republic has brought so many pieces of legislation to the floor under that legislative framework that prohibits every Member of this House from offering amendments to the legislation.

The consistent use of closed rules by the majority constitutes an affront to the democratic spirit as well as to their own promises. But that is not the only way that they have failed to live up to their promises. They have also systematically bypassed what is known as the conference process, effectively shutting out the minority from having a say on legislation that makes its way to the President's desk.

Madam Speaker, as you know, the conference process is the process by which the House and Senate work out differences, resolve their differences and achieve a final legislative product that is exact to be passed by the House and the Senate and sent to the President.

Now the majority has also used a technique known as ``ping-pong'' to avoid that conference process. They have used that technique in order to subvert the rights of the minority to offer motions to recommit and amendments. For comparison, in the 108th Congress and 109th Congress-- those Congresses combined--that technique known as ping-ponging was used three times during the 108th Congress and 109th Congress.

But that is not all. The majority has also considered 45 bills outside the regular order. They also blocked minority substitute amendments, allowing only 10 minority substitute amendments even though they promised a procedure that, and again I remind the majority of its own words, they promised that they would ``grant the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

So here we are today with a rule that a distinguished senior member of the majority on the Rules Committee said, and I quote, is `` . . . outside the normal parameters of the way that the House should conduct its business . . . it effectively curtails our rights and responsibilities as serious legislators.''

Prior to becoming Speaker, Ms. Pelosi pledged, and I quote, ``to conduct our work with civility and bipartisanship and to act in partnership, not partisanship, with the President and the Republicans in Congress.''

Obviously, the record has been another story.

Now with regard to what the majority is doing today, the majority is bringing forth 44 bills for consideration under what is known as suspension of the rules. It's a process by which usually noncontroversial bills, as my friend described them, bills that generally have bipartisan support because they require two-thirds of the House in order to pass, under the rule being brought forth today, we will be authorizing under this rule 44 bills for consideration under suspension of the rules. At least they're telling us what the 44 bills are. That's why it took some time for the Clerk to read them, because there are 44 bills to read the titles. So at least I think the majority should be commended for telling us what the 44 bills are.

Now, unfortunately, we're informed that the Rules Committee is meeting at this time, as we speak, to pass a rule to authorize more suspensions, but not telling us what they are; in other words, a blanket authority. So, obviously everything has to be put in perspective.

Compared to what the Rules Committee is doing now for the rest of the session, this is a commendable rule because at least it is informing us and the American people what we will be considering. At least the titles have been brought forth. So that is something that, when we consider how the majority has acted procedurally in this Congress, we have to be grateful that we're being informed at least what bills are being authorized for consideration under the rule today.

Madam Speaker, as we look back at this 110th Congress that is nearing its end, I think it would be fair to say that when one considers the promises for openness and fairness and transparency made by the majority at the beginning of this Congress and in their campaign before this Congress began, when one compares that with their record of having broken all precedent in terms of the number, the number, having broken the record in terms of the number of pieces of legislation brought to this floor authorizing no amendments, in other words, closed rules, there is an extraordinary difference between the promise and the reality by our friends on the other side of the aisle.

I reserve the balance of my time.

No, I would inform my friend that we have no other speakers. So at this time I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a comprehensive Energy efficiency bill. I am pleased to have the Ranking Member of the Energy Committee, the senior Senator from New Mexico, as my co-sponsor, along with Senator Dorgan, Senator Lugar, Senator Akaka, Senator Murkowski and Senator Craig.

Energy efficiency can be viewed as the Nation's largest energy resource. Due to actions taken to increase efficiency since the 1973 oil crisis, we now save more energy each year than we get from any single energy supply resource, including oil.

When the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was signed into law in August of 2005, it included a strong package of energy efficiency initiatives. However, just a month later, when hurricanes devastated our Nation's primary oil and gas supply region and many of us recognized that we needed to enact additional and more aggressive efficiency measures.

During the last 2 years, gasoline, natural gas, and electricity prices have reached all-time high levels. These price increases cost American families and businesses over $300 billion dollars each year. In the 2006 elections, voters sent us a clear message that they wanted Congress to address high energy prices and also to provide solutions to climate change. Energy efficiency policies can alleviate both of these problems.

Our bill includes provisions that will improve efficiency in vehicles, buildings, appliances and industrial equipment. The legislation is also intended to motivate States and utilities to recognize energy efficiency as a resource and to remove current disincentives to programs that will benefit utility customers while reducing demand for electricity and natural gas.

Improving our energy productivity through efficiency has multiple benefits--it lowers the costs of consumers' energy bills; decreases the vulnerability of the economy to energy price shocks from natural disasters or problems with foreign sources of supply; provides environmental benefits such as lower air pollution and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, energy efficiency investments help build local jobs and improve state economies.

The bill we are introducing today includes initiatives in six key areas: Promoting the development and use of advanced lighting technologies; Expediting new efficiency standards for appliances and industrial equipment; Promoting high efficiency vehicles, advanced batteries and energy storage; Setting aggressive goals for reducing gasoline consumption and improving overall energy productivity in the U.S.; Promoting Federal leadership in energy efficiency and renewable energy; and Assisting States, local governments and utilities in energy efficiency efforts.

In addition to the Energy Efficiency Promotion Act, I want to emphasize that other Senate committees are working on complementary efficiency initiatives, including the energy efficiency tax provisions we are developing in the Finance Committee and CAFE standards legislation in the Commerce Committee.

Finally, for the information on my colleagues, this bill is the 4th in a quartet of Energy bills that will be taken up by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the next few weeks. These bills are: S. 987, the Biofuels for Energy Security and Transportation Act; S. 731, the National Carbon Dioxide Storage Capacity Assessment Act; and S. 962 the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage R D&D Act. We are working diligently to meet the Majority Leader's timetable for floor action on Energy legislation. I encourage Senators with questions or concerns about any of these bills to let me know so that we can try to address issues in a timely manner.

I have included at the end of my statement a preliminary estimate of the energy savings that would result from the implementation of the programs in this bill. I request that this estimate be printed in the Record.

There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed as follows.

Energy Saving Estimate for the Energy Efficiency Promotion Act

Potential savings from the appliance efficiency standards

included in Titles I and II: Electricity--At least 50 billion

kilowatt hours per year, or enough to power roughly 4.8

million typical U.S. households; Natural gas--170 million

therms per year or enough to heat about a quarter million

typical U.S. homes; Water--At least 560 million gallons per

day, or about 1.3 percent of total daily potable water usage;

and Dollars--More than $12 billion in net present benefits

for consumers.

Potential Savings From Federal Government Leadership in Efficiency--

Title V

The Federal Government consumed 1.1 quadrillion Btus or

``quads'' of energy during Fiscal Year 2005. The Federal

energy bill for Fiscal Year 2005 increased by 24 percent

compared to Fiscal Year 2004.

About 30 percent of the Federal energy use is in standard

buildings and about 60 percent is energy used by vehicles and

equipment. Although savings can not be estimated at this

time--the legislation requires the Federal Government to

achieve a 30 percent reduction in energy usage per square

foot by 2015 and to reduce its use of gasoline in fleet

vehicles by 30 percent in Fiscal Year 2016.

Potential Savings From Electric and Gas Utility Efficiency Programs--

Title VI

Assuming all State utility regulatory commissions and

nonregulated utilities adopt the energy efficiency policies

and cost-effective energy efficiency programs recommended in

this bill, the estimate cumulative potential energy savings

by 2020 would be 7.8 quads and the energy cost savings would

be $12 billion.

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

Mr. President, over 18 months ago, the President signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The enactment of that comprehensive legislation was a watershed event in structuring sound Energy policy for this Nation's future. We did a great deal in that energy bill on energy conservation and improved energy efficiency.

EPAct implemented new efficiency standards for 15 large commercial and residential appliances that have, in the past, consumed a great deal of energy, such as commercial washers, refrigerators, freezers, air-conditioners, and icemakers. In response to that mandate, the Department of Energy codified 15 new efficiency standards. Because of these new standards alone, we will save 50,000 megawatts of off-peak electricity use by 2020--which is an energy savings equal to more than eighty 600-megawatt power plants.

EPAct also encourages consumers to make their homes more energy efficient by giving them a 10-percent personal tax credit for energy efficient improvements. Additionally, homebuilders get a business tax credit for the construction of new homes that meet a 30-percent energy reduction standard. The law aids businesses in saving energy by providing a deduction for energy-efficient commercial buildings meeting a 50-percent energy reduction standard. Manufacturers are also assisted in building more energy-efficient home products via a manufacturers' tax credit for energy-efficient dishwashers, clothes washers, and refrigerators.

Still, there is no doubt that much can be done to improve the ways in which we use energy. That is why I am pleased today to introduce the Energy Efficiency Promotion Act of 2007 with Senator Bingaman. The bill we are introducing is a good starting point--but it is still a work in progress. I expect this bill to evolve over the course of the next several weeks with important input from those who will be tasked with implementing this policy and those who will be impacted by it. In particular, I am very interested in the Energy Department's views on this bill, and the committee will conduct a hearing next week at which the Department will testify.

The Energy Efficiency Promotion Act of 2007 represents over $12 billion in net present benefits for consumers. Potential electricity savings of 50 billion kilowatt hours per year equal enough energy savings to power almost 5 million households. Potential natural gas savings of 170 million therms per year equal enough energy savings to heat 250,000 households. And water savings from the legislation amount to about 560 million gallons per day.

This bill presses for better energy efficiency in the Federal Government--the appropriate place to start. Title I focuses on the promotion of energy-efficient lighting technologies within Federal Government and requires all general purpose lighting in Federal buildings to be Energy Star rated or designated as efficient by the Federal Energy Management Program. Title I also contains a sense of the Senate that Federal policies be adopted on efficient lightbulb standards.

Title II, which deals with energy efficiency standards, sets forth a number of consensus standards on such products as residential boilers, clothes washers, dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and electric motors. Such efficiency standards have the potential to save significant amounts of energy. This title also provides DOE with the authority to expedite rulemakings for energy-efficient consensus standards.

Title III promotes high efficiency vehicles, advanced batteries, and energy storage. It provides for lightweight materials research and development and loan guarantee the manufacture of fuel-efficient vehicle parts, including hybrid and advanced diesel vehicles.

Title IV sets forth national energy savings goals in the areas of transportation and the Nation's energy productivity. This title extends the President's goal for gasoline savings and further seeks to improve the Nation's overall energy productivity.

Title V calls for increased federal leadership in energy efficiency and renewable energy. It directs DOE to reduce petroleum consumption and increases the Federal requirement to purchase electricity generated by renewable energy. This title also permanently authorizes the Energy Savings Performance Contracts Program.

Title VI seeks to assist State and local governments with their ongoing efforts to improve their energy efficiency. It extends the authorization for both the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Conservation Program. This title also establishes energy efficiency grant programs for local governments and institutions of higher learning.

Again, I think the Energy Efficiency Promotion Act of 2007 we are introducing today is a good starting point for our continued work in the energy efficiency area. I look forward to working with Senator Bingaman, the administration, and all affected stakeholders as we move forward on this bill.